I. To the Question

A. Opinion of Others and Rejection of It

45. A negative answer is given to this question, because a child in his mother’s womb is conjoined with the cause of his own corruption; but such a one so conjoined cannot be cleansed while he is conjoined.

46. To the contrary:

The flesh of the mother in the child is not the cause of corruption save mediately; but the flesh here of the child is the immediate cause, speaking of the corruption of original sin. For as soon as the soul of the child informs his flesh, it is infected with that corruption; the flesh then causes the corruptions in the child more immediately, because it is his flesh, than the mother’s flesh does. If then, while conjunction with the cause of corruption remains, he cannot be purged from it (according to you, n.45), it follows that a child possessed of his own flesh can never be purged from original sin, which is against the faith.

47. Again, although the child in his mother’s womb is conjoined to her as to place, yet he is distinct from her as to person, because he has another body and another soul. But personal distinction suffices for distinction as to sin and not-sin, because sin or justice are present in the person insofar as the person is ‘this’ person, not because he is in such and such a place. Therefore, notwithstanding this conjunction as to place, the child can be just because of this distinction in person, though his mother be disposed to justice whichever way.

48. Again, if grace in the child could not stand along with this conjunction to the cause of corruption, then the child in the mother’s womb could not have the baptism of desire or blood, each of which is false.

As to desire the fact is plain [about Jeremiah] in Jeremiah 1.5, “Before you came forth from the womb I sanctified you,” and about John the Baptist in Luke 1.41-44, and the Church firmly holds this about the Mother of Christ.

As to the second [blood], the fact is plain from this that, if someone is pursuing a pregnant mother, he is pursuing the child in her womb for the same reason as that by which he is pursuing the mother; therefore, the child is killed for justice if the mother be killed for justice. Also, if the child were killed outside the womb, he would have the baptism of blood if he were killed for justice or for the faith (even when not baptized). Therefore, it is reasonable in the same way that God not contemn him who suffered for a like cause in his mother’s womb.

49. And from this an argument against the opinion can be made, that if a child can have the baptism of desire then he can have purgation from original sin; but when conjoined to his mother, who is cause of corruption for you, he can have the baptism of desire;Peter of Tarentaise, later Innocent V, in Sent. IV d.4 q.2 a.1 q.2, “Regeneration is double; one according to common law, which is done by the ministry of Mother Church, one according to a privilege of grace, which is done by divine power alone. In the first way a child in the womb cannot be reborn, in the second way he can. The first regeneration is done by baptism, the second by privilege of sanctification in the womb.” ²³ therefore, he can have purgation from original sin [sc. he can be baptized].

B. Scotus’ own Opinion

50. To the question I say that either a boy is in his mother’s womb as to all his parts or he appears outside the womb as to some part.

51. If in the first way, I say that a child cannot be baptized - not for the earlier reason, that ‘he is conjoined with the cause of corruption’ [n.45], but for this reason ‘that baptism is a washing or cleansing in water’ [d.3 nn.101-103]; a child in the womb cannot in this way be washed because neither can he in this way be touched immediately by water. From this a corollary follows, that if a child were wrapped in animal hide, and were placed in water so that the water did not touch his body, he would not be baptized, but if he were touched by water, it is well; similarly if he were thrown from a bridge, he would not be baptized, because this throwing is not ordered to life or to washing but to death.

52. If in the second way [n.50], as follows: either a principal part appears (as the head), and then the child can be baptized on that part, and in this way be also simply baptized; for it is not likely that on the day of Pentecost, when three thousand men were baptized, Acts 2.41, each of them was washed with water as to their whole body, but precisely as to the face by sprinkling, or as to the head by pouring; and in the case at hand, if afterwards [sc. after the appearing of the head] the boy was born, there would be no need to baptize him again. But if a less principal part appears (namely hand or foot), this part is to be baptized, because the whole soul is in it, though not every sense is, as in the head. And should this lesser [sc. washing] suffice for the fact that the child was simply baptized, if he were born alive afterwards, he should be baptized conditionally, as Decretals II tit.42 ch.2 of Gregory IX, ‘On baptism and its effect’ teaches. For one must believe that God would supply what powerlessness impeded; for such a child, even if he is born dead, is yet to be buried in consecrated ground, for the reason stated [sc. that the whole soul is present in less principal parts of the body].