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

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 4

Textus Latinus

p. 100

ARTICULUS II.

De ficte suscipientibus baptismum.

Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur de ficte accedentibus. Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria. Primo quaeritur, utrum aliquis invitus sive coactus suscipiat Sacramentum baptismi. Secundo, utrum fictus recipiat Sacramentum et non rem. Tertio, utrum, recedente fictione, baptismus habeat in eo plenam efficaciam.

QUAESTIO I.

Utrum aliquis invitus sive coactus recipiat Sacramentum baptismi.

Et quod aliquis invitus non recipiat baptismum, videtur:

1. Quia dicitur in decretali Innocentii¹, quod « si aliquis omnino recusans immergatur, non est baptizatus ».

2. Item, in Sacramento baptismi contrahitur matrimonium spirituale, et desponsatur anima Deo; sed matrimonium spirituale aut tantum, aut plus exigit de consensu, quam matrimonium carnale: ergo si coactio impedit matrimonium carnale², similiter videtur, quod impediat, ne quis suscipiat baptismatis Sacramentum.

3. Item, Sacramentum est donum Dei non solum ratione gratiae gratum facientis, sed etiam characteris impressi; sed Dei gratia non tantum non datur repugnantibus, immo etiam subtrahitur: ergo videtur, quod tali nullo modo conferatur Sacramentum.

4. Item, lex evangelica est lex libertatis³: ergo et Sacramenta evangelica sunt libertatis; sed quod libertatis est libere suscipitur a voluntate: ergo videtur, quod nec de iure nec de facto aliquis Sacramentum baptismi recipiat invitus.

Contra: 1. Parvulus et furiosus recipiunt Sacramentum, quantumcumque renitantur, sicut patebit infra⁴: si ergo hoc verum est, ad receptionem eius non concurrit actus voluntatis: ergo ita recipit invitus, ut voluntarius.

2. Item, baptismus est remedium contra originale⁵; sed originale contrahit necessario puer, cum nascitur: ergo videtur similiter, quod ad baptismum possit inferri alicui necessitas violentiae.

3. Item, non potest magis cogi voluntas quam comminando vel intentando mortem; sed si aliquis compulsus timore mortis sacrificet⁶, erit idololatra: ergo similiter, si Sacramentum baptismi recipiat timore mortis, Sacramentum verum est.

4. Item, si aliquis baptizatur ex amore male inflammante, baptizatus est de facto: ergo si non minus repugnat baptismo amor male inflammans, quam timor male humilians⁷, si hic baptizatus ex malo amore baptizatus est, similiter videtur, quod baptizatus ex timore sit baptizatus.

CONCLUSIO. Deficiente in adultis penitus intentione, non recipitur Sacramentum, ut in invito ob coactionem sufficientem et in illudente.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod coactio duplex est, scilicet sufficiens et inducens⁸. Si aliquis mergatur coactione sufficiente — utpote quia violenter acceptus est et, ipso renitente manibus et pedibus, mersus est — talis nullo modo baptizatus est, quia nullo modo fuit in eo consensus nec voluntas, immo

p. 101

fuit omnino repugnans. — Si autem aliquis immergatur coactione inducente, utpote minis vel flagellis, ita quod magis vult se subiicere Sacramento Ecclesiae quam morte perire; dico, quod aut intendit alios illudere et mortem evadere, et tunc, quia non est intentio, non est Sacramentum, cum nullus dicatur baptizatus esse, qui consentit, se immergi ad iocum; aut ipse vult, illud quod facit Ecclesia circa se fieri⁹ magis, quam velit perire; et tunc, sive credat sive non, sive velit habere gratiam sive non, dicendum, quod recipit Sacramentum, eo quod, quamvis non sit ibi voluntas meritoria, est tamen ibi consensus et voluntas, nec est simpliciter involuntarium. Unde quia talis vult exterius Sacramentum recipere, etsi nolit interius aliquid in se fieri¹⁰, fit tamen, propter hoc quod qui subiicit se causae subiicit se necessario annexo: et ideo secundum canones et doctores theologiae talis indicandus est baptizatus.

1. Ex hoc patet illud quod primo obiicitur; nam ista est intentio Innocentii.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de matrimonio carnali, dicendum, quod non est simile: quia enim coacta connubia consueverunt habere malos exitus, ideo sacri canones non indulserunt ipsa. — Alia tamen potest esse ratio huius, ut dicetur infra¹¹. Nihilominus tamen illud verum est, quod non tanta voluntas requiritur in aliquo ad susceptionem baptismi, sicut ad contractionem matrimonii. Si enim pater exponat parvulum ad baptizandum, non potest parvulus, cum ad adultam aetatem venerit, revocare¹²; non sic est de matrimonio, quia, quantumcumque pater obliget parvulum, nunquam obligatur, nisi consentiat, cum pervenerit ad annos discretionis.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Sacramentum est donum Dei; dicendum, quod est donum gratiae gratis datae et gratum facientis; quamvis autem donum gratiae gratum facientis non detur habenti duplex cor et duplicem voluntatem¹³, datur tamen donum gratiae gratis datae, quod non exigit tantam dispositionem in suscipiente.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod lex evangelica est lex libertatis; dicendum, quod verum est, quod de iure non datur nec dari debet ei qui libera voluntate non accedit; et ius divinum hoc dictat, et Constantinus¹⁴ de hoc legem condidit. De facto tamen, si fiat, factum est; hoc tamen habet veritatem in re¹⁵ Sacramenti, quod facit esse in lege libertatis.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod quantumcumque renitenti Sacramentum dari potest, propter parvulum et furiosum; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia illi non habent usum voluntatis, unde non statur appetitui suo, sed voluntati offerentium¹⁶. — Tamen de furioso distinguitur: quia aut habuit aliquando usum liberi arbitrii, aut non habuit. Si non habuit, indicandum est sicut de parvulo. Si habuit et in illo baptizari voluit, indicandum est, eum baptismum recipere; sed si nullo modo voluit, non est credendum, ipsum recipere Sacramentum.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod originale contrahit quis invitus; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia originalis contractio est quasi naturalis, et ideo inevitabilis; sed remedium baptismi non respicit naturam, sed potius voluntatem personae; et ideo non est simile¹⁷.

3, 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur ultimo de comminatione mortis; dicendum, quod maior potest esse coactio quam haec; nam haec est solum inducens, non sufficiens. Sed cum accipitur, velit nolit, et immergitur, ibi est sufficiens coactio. Quamvis enim voluntas non possit cogi in volendo, potest tamen simpliciter homini fieri coactio in actu exteriori. Unde voluntas inducta voluntas est¹⁸; et ideo hic imprimitur character, et ibi non. — Et est exemplum in eo qui ponit thura timore mortis, et de eo cuius manus trahitur violenter; primus consentit et peccat et dicitur sacrificare, secundus non. Sic qui Sacramentum inductus suscipit, dicitur consentire; sive indicatur amore bono vel malo, sive timore bono vel malo, suscipit Sacramentum, quia Sacramenti susceptio est bonis malisve communis¹⁹. Et ideo talis voluntas sufficit ad Sacramentum, ut seniores dicunt. — Et sic patet, quibus character baptismalis imprimitur.

p. 102

SCHOLION

I. Fictus a Scholasticis communiter definitur esse is qui aliud exterius praetendit, aliud intendit interius. Hoc potest quoad baptismum esse dupliciter: vel quoad susceptionem (sive etiam collationem ex parte baptizantis) ipsius baptismi, dum voluntas contradicit ipsi veritati Sacramenti, unde collatio est prorsus inanis (cfr. infra d. 6. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. ad 3.); vel quoad dispositionem requisitam, dum gratia Sacramenti percipiatur, dum scilicet voluntas contradicit effectui Sacramenti. Secunda haec fictio iterum tripliciter esse potest: vel quia fictus accedit non contritus, vel non credens, vel quia contemnit (Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 7. a. 2. § 2; cfr. S. Bonav. infra q. 2.). — De baptismo parvulorum vide hic dub. 2, et infra p. II. a. 2. et dub. 4.

II. Quaestio 1. communissime solvitur secundam distinctionem ab Innocentio IV. (cfr. arg. 1.) factam, scilicet inter modum, quo quis est invitus et non invitus, coactus et non coactus. Caietanus (in S. III. q. 68. a. 7.) tamen opinatur, etiam in adultis sufficere indifferentiam voluntatis sive non ponere obicem contrariae voluntatis; quod communiter non approbatur. Quaestio autem de necessitate intentionis in baptizante tractatur infra d. 6. p. II. a. 2. — S. Bonav. hic fere repetit dicta Alexandri Hal. — Ut autem praeter characterem etiam gratia conferatur (de quo agitur in 2. quaest.), in adultis, qui peccata actualia gravia habent, requiritur attritio, ut communissime docetur, minime refragante Scoto (cfr. hic q. 3. n. 2. 3.), quidquid nonnulli de eo in contrarium dixerint. Pauci auctores parum probabilius putant, sufficere attritionem naturalem. — Plurimi auctores 1. et 2. quaestionem simul tractant. De utraque: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 1. 2. — Scot., in utroque Scripto hic q. 3. — S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 2. quaestiune. 1. 2; S. III. q. 68. a 7. 12, q. 69. a. 9. — B. Albert., hic a. 2. 3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. quaestiune. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 1. q. 2. — Durand., hic q. 4. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3.

III. Quoad 3. quaestionem communius cum S. Augustino tenetur, quod recedente fictione, baptismus valeat ad remissionem peccatorum ante baptismum commissorum. Scot. tamen putat, esse probabilius, quod ipsum peccatum fictionis non vi baptismi, sed poenitentiae remittatur. Idem affert ibidem etiam duas alias opiniones, sed ut minus probabiles. — Alii cum Vasquez generatim negaverunt, peccata vi baptismi, recedente fictione, remitti, sed hoc tribuerunt subsequenti poenitentiae, quae peccatum fictionis remittat per se, peccata vero baptismum praecedentia per accidens. — De expulsione peccati per poenitentiam cfr. hic dub. 3. — De hac 3. quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 2. in fine. — Scot., hic q. 3. n. 4. seqq. — S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 2. quaestiune. 3; S. III. q. 69. a. 10. — B. Albert., hic a. 4. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. quaestiune. 2. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. — Durand., loc. cit. — Dionys. Carth., hic loc. cit.

English Translation

p. 100

ARTICLE II.

On those who receive baptism feignedly.

Next, as to the second article, there is a question about those who approach feignedly. And concerning this three things are asked. First it is asked whether anyone unwilling or coerced receives the Sacrament of baptism. Second, whether the feigned person receives the Sacrament and not the reality. Third, whether, when the feigning has departed, baptism has its full efficacy in him.

QUESTION I.

Whether anyone unwilling or coerced receives the Sacrament of baptism.

And that anyone unwilling does not receive baptism, it seems:

1. Because it is said in a decretal of Innocent¹ that « if anyone, refusing altogether, is immersed, he is not baptized ».

2. Likewise, in the Sacrament of baptism a spiritual matrimony is contracted, and the soul is betrothed to God; but spiritual matrimony requires either as much, or more, of consent than carnal matrimony: therefore if coercion impedes carnal matrimony², it seems likewise that it impedes anyone from receiving the Sacrament of baptism.

3. Likewise, the Sacrament is a gift of God not only by reason of grace making pleasing, but also of the character imprinted; but the grace of God is not only not given to those resisting, but is even withdrawn: therefore it seems that to such a one the Sacrament is in no way conferred.

4. Likewise, the evangelical law is a law of liberty³: therefore the evangelical Sacraments are also of liberty; but what is of liberty is freely received by the will: therefore it seems that neither by right nor in fact does anyone receive the Sacrament of baptism unwilling.

On the contrary: 1. An infant and a madman receive the Sacrament, however much they resist, as will be evident below⁴: if therefore this is true, the act of the will does not concur in its reception: therefore one receives it unwilling, just as a willing person does.

2. Likewise, baptism is a remedy against original sin⁵; but a child necessarily contracts original sin when he is born: therefore it seems likewise that a necessity of violence can be applied to someone for baptism.

3. Likewise, the will cannot be coerced more than by threatening or intending death; but if anyone, compelled by fear of death, sacrifices⁶, he will be an idolater: therefore likewise, if he receives the Sacrament of baptism through fear of death, the Sacrament is true.

4. Likewise, if anyone is baptized out of an evilly inflaming love, he is in fact baptized: therefore since love evilly inflaming resists baptism no less than fear evilly humbling⁷, if this one baptized out of evil love is baptized, it seems likewise that the one baptized out of fear is baptized.

CONCLUSION. When intention is entirely lacking in adults, the Sacrament is not received, as in one unwilling on account of sufficient coercion and in one mocking.

I respond: It must be said that coercion is twofold, namely sufficient and inducing⁸. If anyone is immersed by sufficient coercion — namely because he was violently seized and, while he himself resists with hands and feet, he is immersed — such a one is in no way baptized, because in no way was there in him consent or will, but rather

p. 101

he was altogether resisting. — But if anyone is immersed by inducing coercion, namely by threats or scourges, such that he wills rather to subject himself to the Sacrament of the Church than to perish by death; I say that either he intends to mock others and to escape death, and then, because there is no intention, it is not a Sacrament, since no one is said to be baptized who consents to be immersed in jest; or he himself wills that what the Church does about him be done⁹ rather than that he should perish; and then, whether he believes or not, whether he wills to have grace or not, it must be said that he receives the Sacrament, because, although there is no meritorious will there, there is nevertheless there consent and will, nor is it simply involuntary. Hence, because such a one wills outwardly to receive the Sacrament, even if he is unwilling that anything be done inwardly in him¹⁰, it is nevertheless done, because he who subjects himself to the cause subjects himself to what is necessarily annexed: and therefore according to the canons and the doctors of theology such a one must be judged baptized.

1. From this is evident that which is objected first; for this is the intention of Innocent.

2. To that which is objected about carnal matrimony, it must be said that it is not a similar case: for because coerced marriages were wont to have bad outcomes, therefore the sacred canons did not allow them. — There can nevertheless be another reason for this, as will be said below¹¹. Nevertheless this is true, that not so great a will is required in someone for the reception of baptism, as for the contracting of matrimony. For if a father presents an infant for baptizing, the infant cannot, when he has come to adult age, revoke it¹²; it is not so with matrimony, because, however much a father obliges an infant, he is never obliged unless he consents, when he has come to the years of discretion.

3. To that which is objected, that the Sacrament is a gift of God; it must be said that it is a gift of grace freely given and making pleasing; and although the gift of grace making pleasing is not given to one having a double heart and a double will¹³, the gift of grace freely given is nevertheless given, which does not require so great a disposition in the recipient.

4. To that which is objected, that the evangelical law is a law of liberty; it must be said that it is true that by right it is not given nor ought to be given to him who does not approach with a free will; and the divine law dictates this, and Constantine¹⁴ established a law about this. In fact, however, if it is done, it is done; this nevertheless has the truth in the reality¹⁵ of the Sacrament, which makes [it] to be in the law of liberty.

1. To that which is objected on the contrary, that the Sacrament can be given to one however much resisting, on account of the infant and the madman; it must be said that it is not a similar case: because those do not have the use of will, hence one does not abide by their appetite, but by the will of those offering them¹⁶. — Nevertheless concerning the madman a distinction is made: for either he once had the use of free choice, or he did not have it. If he did not have it, judgment must be made as about an infant. If he had it and in it willed to be baptized, it must be judged that he receives baptism; but if he in no way willed it, it must not be believed that he receives the Sacrament.

2. To that which is objected, that one contracts original sin unwilling; it must be said that it is not a similar case: because the contraction of original sin is as it were natural, and therefore inevitable; but the remedy of baptism does not regard nature, but rather the will of the person; and therefore it is not a similar case¹⁷.

3, 4. To that which is objected last about the threatening of death; it must be said that there can be a greater coercion than this; for this is only inducing, not sufficient. But when one is taken, willing or unwilling, and is immersed, there is sufficient coercion there. For although the will cannot be coerced in willing, coercion can nevertheless simply be applied to a man in the exterior act. Hence the induced will is a will¹⁸; and therefore here the character is imprinted, and there it is not. — And there is an example in one who places incense out of fear of death, and in one whose hand is drawn by force; the first consents and sins and is said to sacrifice, the second does not. Thus one who induced receives the Sacrament is said to consent; whether he is induced by good or evil love, or by good or evil fear, he receives the Sacrament, because the reception of the Sacrament is common to good and evil alike¹⁹. And therefore such a will suffices for the Sacrament, as the elders say. — And thus it is evident to whom the baptismal character is imprinted.

p. 102

SCHOLION

I. A feigned person is commonly defined by the Scholastics as one who pretends one thing outwardly, intends another inwardly. This can be twofold with respect to baptism: either with respect to the reception (or also the conferral, on the part of the one baptizing) of baptism itself, when the will contradicts the very truth of the Sacrament, whence the conferral is altogether void (cf. below d. 6. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. ad 3.); or with respect to the disposition required for the grace of the Sacrament to be received, that is, when the will contradicts the effect of the Sacrament. This second feigning can again be threefold: either because the feigned person approaches not contrite, or not believing, or because he despises (Alexander of Hales, Summa p. IV. q. 8. m. 7. a. 2. § 2; cf. St. Bonaventure below q. 2.). — On the baptism of infants see here dub. 2, and below p. II. a. 2. and dub. 4.

II. Question 1 is most commonly solved by the distinction made by Innocent IV (cf. arg. 1.), namely between the manner in which one is unwilling and not unwilling, coerced and not coerced. Cajetan (in Summa III. q. 68. a. 7.), however, is of the opinion that even in adults the indifference of the will suffices, or the not-placing of an obstacle of a contrary will; which is commonly not approved. But the question concerning the necessity of intention in the one baptizing is treated below d. 6. p. II. a. 2. — St. Bonaventure here almost repeats the sayings of Alexander of Hales. — But that, besides the character, grace also be conferred (which is treated in the 2nd question), in adults who have grave actual sins, attrition is required, as is most commonly taught, with Scotus by no means opposing (cf. here q. 3. n. 2. 3.), whatever some have said about him to the contrary. A few authors, less probably, think that natural attrition suffices. — Most authors treat questions 1 and 2 together. On both: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. § 1. 2. — Scotus, in both Scripta here q. 3. — St. Thomas, here q. 3. a. 2. subquestions 1. 2; Summa III. q. 68. a. 7. 12, q. 69. a. 9. — Blessed Albert, here a. 2. 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1. a. 2. subquestion 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here q. 1. q. 2. — Durandus, here q. 4. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 3.

III. As to the 3rd question, it is more commonly held with St. Augustine that, when the feigning has departed, baptism is valid for the remission of sins committed before baptism. Scotus, however, thinks it more probable that the sin of feigning itself is remitted not by the power of baptism, but of penance. He brings forward in the same place two other opinions as well, but as less probable. — Others with Vásquez generally denied that sins are remitted by the power of baptism when the feigning departs, but attributed this to a subsequent penance, which remits the sin of feigning per se, and the sins preceding baptism per accidens. — On the expulsion of sin through penance cf. here dub. 3. — On this 3rd question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. § 2. at the end. — Scotus, here q. 3. n. 4. ff. — St. Thomas, here q. 3. a. 2. subquestion 3; Summa III. q. 69. a. 10. — Blessed Albert, here a. 4. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1. a. 2. subquestion 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, loc. cit. — Durandus, loc. cit. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here loc. cit.

Apparatus Criticus

1
Innocentius IV, C. Maiores (3.) X. (lib. III. tit. 42.) de Baptismo et eius effectu, ubi haec sententia sustinetur respectu illorum qui penitus susceptioni baptismi contradicunt, et respectu dormientium ac amentium, qui, priusquam amentiam incurrerent aut dormirent, in contradictione consistunt: « Et si sic fuerint immersi, characterem non suscipiunt Sacramenti ». Ipse Innocentius allegat hac de re C. De Iudaeis (5.), d. 45. (ex Concilio Tolet. IV. c. 56.). — Pro recusans cod. Y renitens.
Innocent IV, ch. Maiores (3.) in the Decretals X. (bk. III. tit. 42.) On Baptism and its effect, where this opinion is maintained with respect to those who utterly contradict the reception of baptism, and with respect to the sleeping and the insane, who, before they fell into insanity or sleep, persist in contradiction: « And if they have been so immersed, they do not receive the character of the Sacrament ». Innocent himself cites on this matter ch. De Iudaeis (5.), d. 45. (from the Fourth Council of Toledo, c. 56.). — For recusans (refusing) codex Y reads renitens (resisting).
2
Ut ostenditur infra d. 29. q. 1. — Paulo ante pro quam plures codd. quantum.
As is shown below d. 29. q. 1. — A little before, for quam (than) many codices read quantum (as much as).
3
Cfr. Gal. 4, 22. seqq.
Cf. Galatians 4:22 ff.
4
In p. II. huius dist. a. 2. q. 1. seq.
In p. II of this distinction, a. 2. q. 1. and following.
5
Ut ostensum est supra a. 1. q. 1.
As was shown above, a. 1. q. 1.
6
Supple cum codd. G I (E bb a secunda manu) idolis. Subinde permulti codd. omittunt baptismi.
Supply with codices G I (E bb from a second hand) idolis (to idols). Thereupon very many codices omit baptismi (of baptism).
7
De amore malo inflammante et timore male humiliante vide II. Sent. d. 5. a. 1. q. 1. ad 1, et in d. XLII. lit. Magistri, c. 4. verba Augustini. — Mox substituimus ex codd. B D H K L Q bb si hic pro si sic; Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 7. a. 2. § 1. ponit si, codd. A T U Z si hic sit (sic?).
On evilly inflaming love and evilly humbling fear see II. Sent. d. 5. a. 1. q. 1. ad 1, and in d. XLII. of the Master's text, c. 4. the words of Augustine. — Presently we have substituted from codices B D H K L Q bb si hic for si sic; Alexander of Hales, Summa p. IV. q. 8. m. 7. a. 2. § 1. puts si, codices A T U Z si hic sit (sic?).
8
Cfr. II. Sent. d. 25. p. II. q. 4. — Inferius pro utpote quia codd. M O U utpote qui, edd. utpote quia, cum, Alex. Hal. loc. cit. legit: Sufficiens, si aliquis immergatur coactione sufficiente, utpote quando.
Cf. II. Sent. d. 25. p. II. q. 4. — Below, for utpote quia (namely because) codices M O U read utpote qui (namely who), the editions utpote quia, cum (namely because, since), Alexander of Hales loc. cit. reads: Sufficient, if anyone is immersed by sufficient coercion, namely when.
9
Multi codd. et ed. I incongrue adiiciunt velle. Pro vult cod. bb intendit.
Many codices and the first edition incongruously add velle (to will). For vult (wills) codex bb reads intendit (intends).
10
Ita ex parte codd. A G I K O U aa, sed verba fit tamen adiecimus ex codd. O U, pro quibus in codd. A aa tantum fit, in pluribus aliis vero tamen. Cum cod. aa ante subiicit addidimus qui. Codd. F H legunt: Sacramentum recipere et aliquid in se fieri, et propter hoc etc.; alii codd. corrupte Sacramentum recipere, aliquid in se fieri, fit propter hoc etc.; edd. Sacramentum recipere, vult aliquid in se fieri, quod fit; et sic propter hoc etc. Locum ubique corruptum probabiliter sic corrigendum esse putavimus.
Thus in part from codices A G I K O U aa, but we have added the words fit tamen (it is nevertheless done) from codices O U, for which in codices A aa only fit (it is done), but in many others tamen (nevertheless). With codex aa we have added qui (who) before subiicit. Codices F H read: Sacramentum recipere et aliquid in se fieri, et propter hoc etc.; other codices corruptly Sacramentum recipere, aliquid in se fieri, fit propter hoc etc.; the editions Sacramentum recipere, vult aliquid in se fieri, quod fit; et sic propter hoc etc. We have thought the place, corrupt throughout, probably to be corrected thus.
11
Dist. 29. q. 1. — Permulti codd. ante indulserunt omittunt non, edd. substituunt interdixerunt.
Dist. 29. q. 1. — Very many codices before indulserunt (allowed) omit non, the editions substitute interdixerunt (forbade).
12
Vide infra d. 6. p. II. a. 3. q. 1.
See below d. 6. p. II. a. 3. q. 1.
13
Cfr. II. Sent. d. 38. a. 1. q. 3.
Cf. II. Sent. d. 38. a. 1. q. 3.
14
Vide ipsius Edictum ad provinciales de falso cultu multorum deorum, n. 9. (In Eusebii Pamphili historia de vita Constantini, lib. II. c. 56.). — Codd. F I Constantius, plures codd. ob abbreviationem sunt dubiae lectionis.
See his own Edict to the provincials on the false worship of many gods, n. 9. (In the History of the Life of Constantine of Eusebius Pamphilus, bk. II. c. 56.). — Codices F I read Constantius; several codices, on account of the abbreviation, are of doubtful reading.
15
Scilicet gratia sanctificante; de quo vide supra d. 1. p. I. a. 5. scholion, et passim.
Namely by sanctifying grace; on which see above d. 1. p. I. a. 5. scholion, and passim.
16
Cfr. infra dub. 2. — Quae dicuntur de furioso sunt secundum Innocentium, loc. superius cit.
Cf. below dub. 2. — What is said about the madman is according to Innocent, in the place cited above.
17
Vide supra a. 1. q. 2, et Innocent., loc. cit.
See above a. 1. q. 2, and Innocent, in the place cited.
18
Ut docet August., de Spiritu et lit. c. 31. n. 53. Cfr. tom. III. pag. 877, nota 2. Vide etiam II. Sent. d. 25. p. II. q. 4. — Pro inducta cod. M coacta.
As Augustine teaches, On the Spirit and the Letter c. 31. n. 53. Cf. vol. III. p. 877, note 2. See also II. Sent. d. 25. p. II. q. 4. — For inducta (induced) codex M reads coacta (coerced).
19
Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 3.
Cf. here the Master's text, c. 3.