Dist. 2, Art. 2, Q. 1
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/4/d/2/q/bon-sent-IV-d2-a2-q1
----------------------------------------
### Article II. *On the baptism of John.*

Next, with respect to the second part of the distinction, inquiry is made concerning the baptism of John. And concerning this three things are asked.

First it is asked, by whom John's baptism was instituted.

Second it is asked, for what it was instituted.

Third inquiry is made concerning its use or efficacy.

### Question I. *Whether John's baptism was instituted by God.*

That it was instituted by God seems [to be the case]:

1. Because he is the institutor of a thing who commands the thing to be done, and by whose authority it is done; but John baptized by the authority and mandate of the Lord; whence John 1: *He who sent me to baptize, he said to me*: therefore John had been sent by the Lord to baptize; and thus, etc.

2. Likewise, "baptizer" or "baptist" is the name of an office, and of an honorable office; but no one takes the honor to himself, as is said to the Hebrews 5, otherwise it is not an assuming [of the office] but a usurpation: therefore John was made a baptist by the Lord; and if this, then also his baptism is instituted by the Lord.

3. Likewise, let the Lord Jesus' inference be made: Was the baptism of John from heaven, or from men? If from men: then it was not to be believed in. If from heaven: then it was instituted by God himself.

**Contra:**
1. If John's baptism was instituted by the Lord; since, then, it ought to be named from him by whom it is instituted, it ought not to be called the baptism of John, but of God. The *middle [term]* is clear, because the baptism of Christ was given by Peter and by Paul, and was not named from them, but only from Christ, who was the institutor. — Bound up with this it is asked: since the Gospel is named not only from the principal author, but also from the writer, as the Gospel of John, why not similarly the baptism?

2. Likewise, that it was instituted by John seems [to be the case]: because, if [it were] from God, it would surely stand even after John ceased; but John's baptism ceased at once, when John was sent into prison, as Chrysostom says on John: therefore his baptism was instituted by him alone, not by God.

> **Conclusion.** The principal institutor of the baptism named from John was God, but John was its full and chief administrator.

**I respond:** It must be said that God was the principal institutor of John's baptism, as the first arguments prove; but John was its full and chief administrator: full, because God did nothing there that was not done through him — for he administered the whole, since he only washed outwardly — but chief, because God instituted it through him and committed to him the office of baptizing, so that no one should baptize with that baptism except himself, or someone by his authority. And hence it is that it was named from John and ceased when John ceased. But in the baptism of Christ there was no full administrator, because there is the interior regeneration which is brought about by God alone, not by human ministry; nor was there any chief administrator, because Christ instituted his baptism not through any man, but through himself; nor did he so commit his office to anyone that others should baptize by his authority. Therefore Christ's baptism is not named from them, nor does it cease when they cease.

**To the arguments:**
*To 1.* As for what is objected concerning the Gospel, it must be said that the Evangelist was a full administrator, because [he was so] as to the words and the meaning: for the words they spoke of themselves were not altogether the same as those Christ had spoken in preaching; again, they preserved the meaning; but they were first illumined and afterwards expressed [it] to others. In the Sacraments it is not so, because the Apostles did not have the signs of themselves, but [these were] instituted by the Lord; again, by the grace by which they had been purged, they did not purge others. Therefore baptism is not called "of Matthew" the way the Gospel is called "of Matthew."

*To 2.* The reply is clear to the other [objection], that John's baptism did not cease because he was the principal institutor, but because he was the chief administrator.