Dist. 4, Part 2, 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/4/q/bon-sent-IV-d4-p2-dubia
----------------------------------------
### Dub. I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is asked about this which he says: *Neither was that thief crucified for the name of Christ.* According to this it seems that he was not a Martyr, because « it is not the punishment that makes a martyr, but the cause ». **On the contrary:** Jerome: « Christ from the cross invited the thief to paradise, and lest anyone should think conversion can ever be too late, he made the punishment of homicide to be martyrdom ». — Likewise, the act of martyrdom is to endure punishment out of charity; but the thief so endured: therefore etc.

I respond: It must be said that for complete martyrdom two things concur, namely a just will and a just cause. The first was lacking in the Innocents, but the second in the thief; and so of itself neither was complete martyrdom. But the Lord, in the Innocents, because they were born together with him, and on account of this that he was their contemporary, supplied what was lacking on the side of the will; thus in the thief, what was lacking on the side of the cause. Whence Jerome says most excellently that « he made it to be martyrdom », as though the Lord supplied from his own. And thus the controversy is clear, because of itself it was not complete martyrdom, but the Lord made it so.

### Dub. II.

Likewise it is asked about this which Ambrose says, that *I have lost him whom I was about to regenerate;* because, if he lost him, then he seems to have sinned. — Likewise, he grieved either on account of *that man's* sin, or on account of *his own* sin. Not on account of *that man's* sin, because he himself says, that « he did not lose the grace which he sought »: therefore on account of *his own* sin.

I respond: It must be said that the custom of the Church was to defer baptism until determined times, unless the danger of death was imminent, and until full instruction; and therefore, because there Ambrose saw that the danger was not imminent, he deferred it, and therefore did not sin; nor was that man damned, because he sought it; and so, since the will had been in him, he was not in contempt, and therefore he was saved. Nor did Ambrose grieve over his own fault nor over that man's damnation, but he grieved with the grief of compassion. For because he had not been baptized, therefore for his sins he endured some purgatorial punishment; and therefore Ambrose had compassion after the manner of Isaiah, who said: *My belly shall sound for Moab like a harp.*

### Dub. III.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: *Except in martyrdom, in which all the Sacraments of baptism are fulfilled.* For he seems to speak falsely, because in the baptism of water (*fluminis*) a character is imprinted, in the baptism of blood not: therefore not all the Sacraments are fulfilled; or if all are fulfilled, then therefore the character is imprinted, where the formal character of the Sacrament chiefly consists. **On the contrary:** he who has the character cannot receive a character of the same kind: therefore he who has been baptized with water could not be martyred. — Likewise, if all the Sacraments [are there]; it seems that either there is an implication of something false, or baptism contains several Sacraments.

I respond: It must be said that baptism is called *Sacraments* in the plural, not by reason of the principal sign or effect, but by reason of the consequent effects, which is to purge from *guilt* and *satisfactory punishment* and *consequence;* all of which, because they are in martyrdom, therefore he says that it receives all the *Sacraments,* that is, the fullness of efficacy as to the ultimate reality; and therefore it is clear that the objection about the character does not hold. For

ipse vocat *Sacramenta* hic — he calls these effects of the Sacrament of baptism *Sacraments* here, which are realities only (*res tantum*).

### Dub. IV.

Likewise it is asked about this which Augustine says, that *little children, if they have died before baptism, even when they are brought to baptism, are damned.* For he seems to speak ill, because an adult, when he cannot, is excused from the precept: therefore much more strongly a little child. — Likewise, the Lord reckons the faith of the parents as though it were the child's: therefore if a woman out of faith and charity offers a child, it seems that the Lord reckons that faith to be the child's: therefore he is not damned without baptism. — Likewise, suppose that someone should kill a boy, when he was being brought to baptism, that he might not be baptized; shall we say that the little child is damned, who died on account of the receiving of the Sacrament? For this seems to be great cruelty. But if we should say that he is saved, then Augustine does not speak truly in the text, that they are not saved, even if they are brought to baptism. — Likewise, if they are damned: therefore the condition of little children is made worse in respect of the state of the law of nature, in which they were saved by the faith of the parents alone.

I respond: It must be said that no little child is saved except by the power of the Sacrament, as far as the common law is concerned: not because a little child is bound by precept, but because without the Sacrament, or what is equivalent to the Sacrament, God has not disposed to give grace. I say this, because he who has been killed by a persecutor for this alone, when he was being carried to baptism, lest he be baptized, dies for baptism; therefore in his own blood he is piously believed to be baptized. But if he is killed for another cause, however much he be brought forward and prayer be made for him, he is damned. — But the reason for this is: because after the Passion of Christ the Church was formed, and the ecclesiastical Sacraments; and every little child who is saved, is saved in the faith of the Church, however wicked the parents may be. And therefore unless an ecclesiastical work, namely sacramental, is done concerning him, he is without the faith of the Church, and through this also without salvation. — There is also another reason: because, since all after the Passion are saved through faith in the Passion now revealed; therefore it was fitting for this time that no one should be saved unless either he had faith in himself, or concerning him an express profession of faith as to the death of Christ should be made. — From these things it is clear why in the Law faith alone sufficed, but now not; for the certitude of the divine dispensation brings this about.

To what is objected, therefore, concerning the adult, it must be said that each is excused from the precept, but the adult has the grace of penitence, to which he disposed himself through contrition, which disposes to that grace, and that takes the place of baptism; a little child cannot be disposed to the grace of another Sacrament before the grace of baptism, and to that he cannot be disposed except through the Sacrament; therefore he dies without grace and dies in guilt, and therefore is damned.

To what is objected, that he reckons the faith of the parents as his own; it must be said that he does this only by the power of the Sacrament. — To the case which he puts, the response is clear: for it must be distinguished, as was said before.

To the last point, why anciently they were saved in the faith of the parents, and not now; the response is already clear. Nor does it follow that he would then be of a better condition, because no state is better on account of the generality of the remedy; but the condition of a particular person can be made worse. But God in the institution of the Sacraments has regard to the state of the general Church, not of the particular person; and since the certitude of the remedy is greater and more common in the Sacrament than in the merit of faith: therefore that is clear.

### Dub. V.

Likewise it is asked about this which Augustine says, that *little children... not yet baptized are to be tormented with eternal punishment.* For he seems to speak falsely, because little children have committed nothing nor have they actually been converted to anything; but the punishment of fire is owed to delight and to conversion: therefore it is not owed to them. — Likewise, little children could not avoid [it]: therefore they are by no means to be blamed: therefore « their punishment ought to be the mildest ».

I respond: It must be said that, as the masters say, little children do not have the punishment of *sense* either as to fire or as to the worm, but only the punishment of *loss;* and therefore the punishment will be the mildest. But Augustine calls this *punishment,* though improperly,

not because they are burned by fire, or because they are gnawed by the worm, but because in them this very privation is a great punishment. But on account of remorse the little children will not grieve, because, by the divine judgment and mercy effecting it, they will be content with the state which they will have. But this is treated more fully elsewhere.

### Dub. VI.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: *They are not separated from the fellowship of the faithful.* For he seems to speak ill, because prayer is made only for sinners: therefore if the Church prays for little children, it reckons them sinners: therefore it does an injury to the Sacrament of baptism, as though it did not purify.

I respond: It must be said that it does not pray for them because they themselves are in need, but in order to show that they are of its bosom and its children. Nor does it pray in vain, because those prayers for little children are *thanksgivings;* but for the needy they are reckoned *suffrages,* because they profit others.

### Dub. VII.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: *Because, if men were now freed from punishment, they would suppose this to be the reward of baptism.* For it seems that this is no unfitting thing, because, if baptism should restore the body to complete purity, thence man would have immortality, and this is the reward of baptism and a part of beatitude.

I respond: It must be said that immortality or health of the flesh baptism could restore in two ways: either so that consummated grace should there be given; and this would be nothing else than to give glory, which the Lord did not decree to do, because he wills that the will should so arrive freely, as it was instituted from the beginning. But if immortality were made in the flesh, perfect grace not existing in the soul; then there could be error and a ground of going astray, because man would desire spiritual medicine for the sake of bodily remedy; and so in the health of the body he would be disordered, and the spirit would be weakened; which is not fitting.