Dist. 3, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 2
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-p2-a2-q2
----------------------------------------
### Question II. *How much the one to be baptized ought to be immersed.*

Second it is asked, how much the infant ought to be immersed in order that there be a baptism. And that the whole body [ought to be immersed], it seems:

1. Because it is a sign of the passion and death: therefore if Christ suffered wholly and died, the whole man is necessarily immersed.

2. Likewise, baptism is a remedy against concupiscence; but concupiscence is in the whole body, because the whole flesh is infected: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, if it sufficed that some part be immersed, since the part through which original [sin] is transmitted, and in which concupiscence is vigorous, are the genital members; it would rather suffice to immerse that part than another; but no one says that it suffices: therefore the whole ought to be immersed.

**On the contrary:**

1. The Apostles baptized three thousand men in one day; and it is established that [this was] not by immersing — because they would not have [enough] water — therefore by aspersion; but a whole man cannot be sprinkled: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, it is written in the passion of blessed Lawrence that Romanus brought a pitcher with water; and then he was not immersed — this is plain: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, suppose a child were half-alive and in danger of death, he is still of our jurisdiction: therefore he ought to be baptized; but not wholly, on account of the danger: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, suppose there were so little water that only one part could be immersed; it is asked whether he can be baptized. That [he can], it seems, because there is there the word and the element, and the element has a regenerative power as [it has] likeness; therefore also efficacy; therefore it is not necessary that the whole be immersed.

### Conclusion.

> Baptism can be administered by aspersion, but it is more fittingly done by immersion.

**I respond:** It must be said that it is presumed that the Apostles baptized by aspersion, and that custom is still observed in many Churches, and especially in the Gallican Church. And it can be observed on this account, that the entire essence of the Sacrament is there; and it ought to be observed when necessity is pressing, whether on account of the weakness of the one baptizing — because his hands are feeble, or because he is unskilled, and it is feared lest he injure the child; or on account of the infirmity or incapacity of the one baptized — as if he were not wholly born; or on account of a scarcity of the element, as if there be little water. — Yet the common custom of the Church is to baptize by immersion, as the Master touches upon in the text, and the Saints say. — And the manner is this: for the priest ought to hold the child by the sides, and with the face turned toward the water he ought to immerse it, so that it have the head first toward the east, second toward the north, third toward the south. These things, however, pertain to solemnity. — One can therefore be baptized in either manner, yet it is more fitting and more apt and more secure to baptize by immersion. And if there is enough water, the whole body ought to be immersed; if little, it suffices, if there is [only] so much, that the principal part can be immersed — such as the head and the breast, or the head alone or the face alone — because there are all the senses, and there especially the operation of the soul is vigorous, and according to it especially is regarded the formal character of the image with respect to the body, of whatever sort it be; and by reason of the totality of the senses it signifies the totality of death and of healing; but it is not so with the genital members. And thus the whole [matter] is plain.