Dist. 3, Part 1, Dubia
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/3/q/bon-sent-IV-d3-p1-dubia
----------------------------------------
## DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first about what the Master says: *Baptism is a dipping, that is, an ablution of the body performed under a prescribed form of words.* For this description seems to be a poor one: because a description ought to fit the thing described precisely; but this one is not such, because, when a cloth is washed, it is an ablution of a body, and it can be done under a prescribed form of words, and so it would be baptism; which is false.

**I respond:** It must be said that *ablution,* by antonomasia, is determined to stand for the ablution of water; likewise *body* to stand for a human body, so that the sense is that baptism is an ablution of a human body performed in water, etc.

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about what he says, that *the ablution performed in the element becomes the Sacrament.* For from this it seems that an ablution taken *passively* is the Sacrament; *on the contrary:* the Sacrament is a sign of grace, because «it is the visible form of an invisible grace»; but grace is not the thing washed, but the thing washing: therefore the sign is not the *passive* washing, but the *active.*

**I respond:** It must be said that in baptism a washing comes together, spoken of in three ways. For he who immerses is said to *wash* and therefore to baptize; likewise the water too is said to *wash,* and the body *to be washed:* and so there is the washing of the man washing, of the water washing, and of the body washed. — Since therefore this threefold washing necessarily comes together for baptism, it is described chiefly by that one which includes and presupposes the others; and this is the *passive washing of the body,* which more immediately regards the one baptized and presupposes the twofold washing aforesaid, since it is performed both by the man and by the water. — As to what is objected, that it is not a sign of grace; it must be said that this passive washing is a sign of the effect of grace; nor does it have its full signification except insofar as it is joined to the washing of the water and of the minister; for then it is a sign that the soul is purified by God through grace.

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: *The Sacrament of baptism consists in two things.* For it seems false to say so, because, as Ambrose says, «every Sacrament is simple»: therefore it does not consist in two things, since then it would be composite.

**I respond:** Some put the force in this, that it is called a *Sacrament,* because he does not call the Sacrament the exterior sign, but the interior effect of grace, which is simple grace. Some put the force in *simplicity,* because it is called simple not because it has no parts, but because it is not divided into several Sacraments. — But neither of these is anything great to say; therefore I believe that he calls the Sacrament *simple* because its denomination comes about in an instant. For if the Sacrament remains incomplete, nothing has been done, nor even ought it to be called begun, but the whole is to be begun again. And this is clear from his words below: «Where there is not the full Sacrament of baptism, neither a beginning nor any kind of baptism is reckoned»; and therefore he says it to be simple.

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: *In the name of the holy Trinity and in the name of Christ... it is one and the same.*

It must be noted that he does not mean to say that the words have the same power, nor that they sound altogether the same, but that the manner of baptizing in the primitive Church was conformable to the manner which the Church now holds. For in *Christ* the understanding of the Trinity is enclosed, yet implicitly and remotely. — Or, *it is the same,* because of the same power and efficacy; but this must be understood for that time in which the name of Christ had not yet been promulgated.

### Doubt V.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: *Where there is not the full Sacrament of baptism, neither a beginning* etc.

It must be noted that this is said on account of the impression of the character; for until the character is impressed, nothing of the Sacrament has been made stable. And since the character is impressed in an instant, when *something* has been made, *the whole* is complete. If therefore it is not complete, nothing at all has been done, not as regards the *exterior* operation, where there is succession, but the *interior,* where there is a sudden impression.

### Doubt VI.

Likewise it is asked about what Ambrose says, that it suffices to express one of the persons.

Note that this is to be understood not as though there were a full form there — for if one believed and were negligent of what he believes himself to express, it would not suffice — and therefore it is only in such a case to be believed that he has spoken, namely if there is full faith in the heart, and nothing is lacking in the speech from negligence, but only from incapacity; then the divine mercy and wisdom supplies.