Dist. 6, 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/6/q/bon-sent-IV-d6-p1-dubia
----------------------------------------
## Doubts concerning the text of the Master.

### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first concerning what Bede says: *Lest the confession of the holy Trinity and the invocation seem to be annulled.* For his reasoning seems not to hold, since, when one invokes and confesses the Trinity more and more often, he does not annul it, but rather honors it. — Likewise, if this reasoning is sound, then no work in which the invocation of the Trinity takes place ought to be repeated; which is manifestly false.

**I respond:** It must be said that this is not Bede's reasoning—that the Trinity is invoked—but rather that it is invoked for such an *effect* as cannot be repeated, just as for the impressing of a character; and therefore, if one invokes a second time, since it cannot have the effect, he either annuls the preceding invocation or the subsequent one; but this is not always so in other kinds of works or sacraments, except in those which impress a character. Hence it is clear that the case is not the same.

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked concerning what Augustine says: *To rebaptize a heretic who has received these signs of holiness,* etc.; since a heretic gives true baptism just as a Catholic does, and one likewise receives it; why is it a greater sin, and a more monstrous crime, to rebaptize a Catholic?

**I respond:** It must be said that when a heretic is baptized and is baptized again, it is not as great a sin as in the case of a Catholic. And the ground of this is both on the part of the reality of the Sacrament and on the part of the Sacrament itself. On the part of the reality of the Sacrament: because the heretic does not receive it; and therefore, if he is baptized again, the efficacy is not doubled on that account. On the part of the Sacrament: because there was doubt, and they were probably moved [to think] that heretics lacking faith do not baptize; and where there is doubt, in a given case one may be rebaptized. And therefore he does no injury, neither entirely to the reality nor entirely to the Sacrament according to certain knowledge. But now it has been determined that the Sacrament receives both the character and the reality, unless there is an obstacle of feigning; and therefore it is a sin, because ignorance of the law does not excuse from the whole; and this is ignorance of the law. — But when a Catholic is rebaptized, concerning whom it is established that he received the Sacrament, and it is probably believed that he then received the reality of the Sacrament out of certain knowledge, an injury is done to the Sacrament and to Christ: because he wishes to repeat the effect of the one Passion, namely the remission of all sins; and, so far as in him lies, to crucify Christ again; and he renders the Sacrament void: therefore he sins most gravely.

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked concerning what Cyprian says: *How can he sanctify water, since he himself is unclean?* because according to this it seems that baptism is not performed except in sanctified water: therefore if someone is baptized in river water, he is to be rebaptized. — Likewise, how is the reply made to his arguments, to which the Master does not respond? For if there is no sanctification except through the Holy Spirit, and the heretic does not have him: therefore he sanctifies nothing.

**I respond:** It must be said that sanctification is twofold: one which pertains to solemnity, another to necessity. That which is for solemnity is performed by a prelate of the Church through prayer: but this adds nothing to baptism nor takes anything away from it. The other is by the word coming to the element, by the word, I say, which belongs to the integrity of the form of the Sacrament: and since this does not have its efficacy from the one speaking, but rather from the one instituting it: therefore it sanctifies and is efficacious not by the power of the minister, but of Christ. Just as a hateful and wicked notary writes letters which the king's son commissions; and although the notary is not pleasing, nor anything that is in him, to the king himself; nevertheless the son's letter is pleasing, and therefore it is efficacious before the king; so it must be understood in the matter at hand.

And thus it is clear that his objection does not hold, because it is not the spirit of the one baptizing that sanctifies the Sacrament, but the Spirit of Christ. And this is what deceived Cyprian: because he did not rightly consider the power of baptism handed over to the minister and judged of the Sacrament according to what pertains to its *efficacy*; and if anyone were to say this, he would, should he wish to defend it, fall into manifest error, [namely] that no one but a holy man could dispense the ecclesiastical Sacraments; which the sects of certain heretics now hold.

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked concerning what Augustine says: *If there was anything to be purged, it would be cut away by the sickle of the Passion.* For he seems to speak ill: because it is heresy that one baptized should be rebaptized, and it is a grave sin to rebaptize: therefore if Cyprian did this, he was a heretic; but if a heretic suffers, he is not saved on that account: therefore etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that Cyprian did not say this by asserting or defending it, but by opining; and therefore he was not a heretic, because it had not been determined in the Church. Moreover, zeal for the faith and detestation of heretics, which flourished greatly in him, made him exceed through human weakness; and therefore he is to be believed to have sinned venially, if he sinned. Likewise Peter was moved by a certain special love toward the flock; and therefore, if from this he gave a bad example to the Gentiles, he is to be believed to have sinned not gravely, but venially. And Augustine intimates this when he says that «we are not better than they»; because on account of a venial sin one is not to be less preferred to another. For all venial sins are cut away by the sickle of martyrdom.

---