Dist. 5, 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/5/q/bon-sent-IV-d5-dubia
----------------------------------------
### Dub. I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first about this which Augustine says: *Those through whom one is baptized ought to be just;* because according to this it seems that if some priest is in mortal sin and baptizes, he sins mortally. **On the contrary:** he does that to which he is bound: therefore in baptizing he does not sin.

I respond: It must be said that this man who baptizes is either in notorious sin or in hidden sin; whether the one way or the other, a distinction must be made: for either there is necessity, and scandal is feared; and then he does not sin in baptizing, but in this, that he neglects to prepare himself and to approach the Sacrament with fear and reverence. — But if there is no necessity, nor is scandal feared if he does not baptize, he ought not to baptize unless he first prepares himself for justification; and if he does not do this, he not only sins by neglect, but, as far as it is of himself, by doing dishonor to the Sacrament and usurping that for which he is not fit. — But if he is notorious, he sins by giving scandal. And therefore Augustine says that « the ministers ought to be clean ». — Therefore the response to the objection is clear. For he does not sin because he does *what* he ought not absolutely, but *as* he ought not.

### Dub. II.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: *If a drunkard has baptized any* etc. For he seems to speak ill, because drunkenness takes away the power of reason and intention; but intention is necessary for baptism: therefore if a drunkard lacks intention, he does not baptize. — Likewise, it is asked, if someone is so drunk that reason is not entirely bound in him, so that he can say something, but yet says it stammering, whether the one whom such a man baptizes is baptized. That he is *not,* seems [the case]: because the binding of the tongue is a sign of the binding of reason; and it is necessary that reason be free for those things which pertain to the ministry of the Sacrament: therefore etc.

I respond: It must be said that there is a difference between *ebrius* (a drunken man) and *ebriosus* (a drunkard). For *ebrius* is said in act, but *ebriosus* in habit; and someone accustomed to get drunk can well at some time be sober in act, so that he has not drunk much; and then, if he baptizes, [the one] is baptized.

As to what is asked about the drunken man, it must be said that if he has his reason so bound that the intention of baptizing is taken away, because he does not know what he does: then he does not baptize. But if reason is loosed only so far that he knows what he does, yet he is not altogether well in command of his disposition. And if he has not corrected himself, it will remain to the punishment of a usurper that what has been given... yet it will not be held as not given.

his own; then it must be judged that he is baptized, even if the tongue stammers in some way, because that is not always an efficacious sign of the binding of reason. For there are many who stammer from a little wine, and have the use of reason. — Yet a distinction must be made in the binding of the tongue: for if he forms the words intelligibly, although not entirely perfectly, the little child is baptized; but if so corruptly that it cannot be understood, and he so utters and breaks the form that it cannot suitably be understood, he is to be rebaptized.

### Dub. III.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: *What did John the Baptist know? The Lord* etc. For he seems to speak against Jerome and Chrysostom, who say that he did not know that he was Christ, and so a contradiction seems [to arise]. It is asked therefore who among them judged better. And it seems [to be] Augustine: because, when Jesus came to John, then John said: *I ought to be baptized by thee,* as is said in the third [chapter] of Matthew: therefore he knew him to be Christ. — But that Chrysostom speaks better, seems [the case]: because it was said to John, when he was sent: *Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, this is he who baptizes:* therefore before he came to him, he knew that he alone was the one who would baptize interiorly, but yet did not know him exteriorly.

I respond: It must be said that both were true, as Chrysostom teaches us to understand. For first John knew Christ in infancy by a bodily knowledge; afterward he withdrew into the desert; and then after a long time, when he was sent to baptize, it was said to him that Christ retained for himself the power of baptizing; but he had now forgotten, on account of the great delay, who or what manner of person Christ was; and by the sign of the dove he learned both, because by this he knew that he himself was Christ, and that he was the one who would forgive sins and give the Holy Spirit. Both therefore he knew before in general, but afterward learned in particular; yet he first knew who he was, before [knowing] of what power he was. For the first he knew through the converse of infancy, the second through the revelation of prophecy. And thus both are clear.

### Dub. IV.

Likewise it is asked about this reason which the Master assigns: *Lest the servant should place hope in man;* because that seems no unfitting thing, because we can trust in the prayers of the Saints; whence we cry concerning the blessed Virgin: « [Our] life, sweetness and our hope, hail ».

I respond: It must be said that there is a hope of *help,* and there is a hope of *reward.* It must be said therefore that if the power of forgiving sins were given to man, then man could hope from man for grace and pardon, and so consequently for glory, to which grace is, as it were, a necessary disposition; but this cannot and ought not to be hoped from man. — But since man can by his prayers help by a certain fittingness, man can hope in some Saint as in *one who helps,* not as in *one who relieves,* because this is the special grace of Christ alone. And thus that is clear.

### Dub. V.

Likewise it is asked about another reason which he assigns, when he says: *Lest there should be as many baptisms as baptizers.* For the reason seems not to be good: because either he understands as many in number, or as many in kind. Not as many in kind; it is agreed, because a like form and a like effect is in all: if as many in number, it would be no unfitting thing.

I respond: It must be said that it is understood that there would be as many by denomination; and so there would be a rending in the Church, because one could say: *I am of Paul,* and another: *I am of Apollo;* and thus the unity in the Church would not be perfect, the perfection of which unity has its foundation in one baptism.