Dist. 2, Art. 2, Q. 3
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-q3
----------------------------------------
### Question III. *On the use or efficacy of the baptism of John.*

Third, the question is asked concerning the use of John's baptism, or its efficacy: namely, whether the baptism of John, together with the laying-on of hands, was equivalent to the baptism of Christ. And that it was so seems [to be the case]:

1. *By reason:* because these two things make baptism complete, namely to be baptized in water and the Spirit; but by John they were baptized with water, [and] by the laying-on of hands with the Spirit: therefore these two are equivalent to the baptism of Christ.

2. Likewise, this seems [so] by another reason: because for baptism to be a complete Sacrament it is not necessary that someone be washed inwardly and outwardly at the same time, but [it may be done] successively, as is evident in one who approaches feignedly: therefore it seems that where the laying-on of hands washed inwardly through the Spirit, together with the preceding outward washing, there was an entire Sacrament.

3. Likewise, this seems [so] by the authority of Jerome and of the Master. For Jerome says, on Joel: « Those baptized by John in the name of the one to come, because they said: *Neither have we so much as heard whether there be a Holy Spirit,* were baptized again »: therefore this is the reason, that they did not know the Holy Spirit: therefore if this is the right cause, the opposite is the cause of the opposite: therefore if they were baptized and had faith in the Trinity, they were not to be rebaptized.

4. Likewise, this seems [so] by the authority of Scripture. In Acts the eighth it is said of the Samaritans that *they had been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, and then they laid hands upon them;* and the Apostles did nothing else but lay hands [on them] in the name of the Lord Jesus; but then I ask: was that baptism *Christ's,* or *John's,* by which they had been baptized? Not Christ's, as is evident from the text: *For as yet he had come upon none of them,* etc.; but the baptism of Christ gave the Holy Spirit, and the Gloss says there: « Baptized, only dipped in water, not in the Spirit »: therefore it was the baptism of John: therefore nothing was required except that hands be laid [on them].

**On the contrary:** 1. It is read in Acts the nineteenth that Paul rebaptized those baptized with the baptism of John: therefore they are to be rebaptized. If you say that he rebaptized for this reason, that they did not have faith in the Trinity; then therefore, once faith in the Trinity was supplied, it was not necessary to be rebaptized; but it is established that he first instructed [them] in faith before he baptized: therefore in no way ought he to have baptized.

2. Likewise, Augustine assigns a general difference between the baptism of John and the baptism of Christ, saying: « Judas baptized, and it was not rebaptized; John baptized, and it was rebaptized »: therefore generally all were to be rebaptized.

3. Likewise, it seems [so] by reason: because, as has been said, the baptism of John accustomed [people] to and directed [them] toward the baptism of Christ; whence John himself said: *I baptize you with water, he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit:* therefore if someone is accustomed in vain to doing something which he does not do; [then] they were baptized in vain with the baptism of John, unless they were also baptized with the baptism of Christ.

4. Likewise, the laying-on of hands held the place of the Sacrament of confirmation; but the Sacrament of confirmation presupposes the Sacrament of baptism and otherwise is not valid: therefore if they did not yet have the full Sacrament of baptism, confirmation, or the laying-on of hands, did nothing for them.

5. Likewise, in baptism a character is imprinted, which is the foundation of order and of the other Sacraments; but a character was not imprinted in the baptism of John nor in the laying-on of hands, because they had no likeness with [the baptism of Christ]: therefore such persons would always lack the character: therefore the other Sacraments would never avail them.

> **Conclusion.** The common opinion, against the Master, teaches that all those baptized with the baptism of John had to be rebaptized.

**I respond:** It must be said that there was a twofold opinion on this matter: one, namely, that those baptized with the baptism of John, if they did not have faith in the Trinity, were to be rebaptized; but if they had faith in the Trinity, it was not necessary that they be rebaptized, but it sufficed that hands be laid [on them]. — And the *reason* of this position was that, because such persons had the outward washing and had faith in the Trinity, by which they were inwardly marked as if with a character, and had the Holy Spirit through the laying-on of hands; and therefore such persons were not to be rebaptized. — But this opinion is strengthened by *authority:* because, in Acts the eighth, they are not rebaptized, and in the nineteenth, they are rebaptized; and therefore [its holders] neither assert nor deny generally, but distinguish in order to maintain this opinion. And they say that for that time the laying-on of hands availed more than confirmation does now; for it gave the baptism of the spirit. — Of this opinion was the Master and others who uphold him.

The other opinion is that all are to be rebaptized, and because that baptism of John only accustomed, [but] did not regenerate; *the laying-on of hands* did not stamp a character on the soul. And this is the common opinion of the modern masters.

As to what is therefore objected, [objections] 1 and 2, that there was a washing outward and inward; it must be said that not just any outward washing is a Sacrament, but [only] one in which a character is imprinted; and such was not [present] in the baptism of John. Therefore that [objection] is clear.

3. To that [argument] of Jerome it must be said that he does not there intend to touch upon the cause of rebaptization, but [upon] the insufficiency of faith in one of the Persons; and this is evident if the antecedents and consequents are examined.

4. To the other it must be said that the Samaritans had been baptized by Philip with the baptism of Christ, as the Gloss intimates. And as to what is said, that they had not received the Holy Spirit, it is understood visibly, because that Philip was not the Apostle, but the disciple; and therefore he could baptize and preach, but not lay on hands to give the Holy Spirit visibly. Whence the Gloss, in Acts the eighth, on the text *They sent unto them Peter and John:* « Philip, who was evangelizing in Samaria, was one of the seven. For if he had been an Apostle, he could have laid on hands, which belongs to bishops alone ».

And thus it is evident that this opinion, which says that *not all* were to be rebaptized, has no support from Scripture nor from evident authority, nor does it even have a compelling reason. — But the other opinion has *authority,* namely that *all* are to be rebaptized, as is evident in Acts the nineteenth. And the reason is not that they would have had a defect of faith; for however much someone is an unbeliever, he is not to be rebaptized, but to be instructed: therefore this was the reason, namely that that baptism was not reckoned as a Sacrament. And it has authority from the Saints. For Augustine, on John, in the fifth homily, says: « To those who were baptized with the baptism of John, it did not suffice; for they were baptized with the baptism of Christ ». Likewise Bede: « To this end John baptized, that he might direct [them] to the baptism of Christ ». To this purpose serves the Gloss on the text of John the third: « As [it avails] for catechumens », and this has been treated above. — It also has a reason on account of the character which is imprinted; and because the baptism of Christ was the gate of the Sacraments; finally, because it was [merely] preparatory, it was in vain, since the accustoming is empty where that for which it exists is not obtained. To this opinion, therefore, as the safer and more correct, I believe one should assent.

---