Dist. 6, Part 2, Art. 1, 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/6/q/bon-sent-IV-d6-p2-a1-q2
----------------------------------------
### Question II. *Whether one sanctified in the womb ought to be baptized.*

Secondly it is asked concerning this, whether one sanctified in the womb ought to be baptized once he has been born. And that he ought, it seems:

1. Because such a one does not, through sanctification, have the character; but he ought to be marked with the sign of Christ, which is done in baptism: therefore he ought to be baptized.

2. Likewise, those baptized by the baptism of the Spirit are baptized with water and are bound to be baptized, as is plain in the case of Cornelius, in the tenth chapter of Acts; but to be sanctified is nothing other than to receive the grace of the Holy Spirit: therefore the sanctified are bound to be baptized.

3. Likewise, no one however great is released from the divine commandment; but the Lord gave the commandment about receiving baptism: therefore one who has been sanctified is bound to this just as another is.

**On the contrary:**

1. The force of a singular privilege always transcends a common benefit: therefore in sanctification a healing grace is given, just as in baptism, and greater and more efficacious; but order does not proceed from greater perfection to lesser, but the reverse: therefore one sanctified is not bound to be baptized.

2. Likewise, if one sanctified is baptized, it seems that it is *in vain,* because what can be done sufficiently by one is done in vain by two in nature: therefore if "nature does nothing in vain," much less does grace; but sanctifying grace suffices for healing, otherwise God acts imperfectly: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, it seems that there is contempt there: because one who has been baptized, if he is baptized again, does an outrage to the Sacrament, since he reckons the first remedy insufficient: therefore by parity of reasoning one who is baptized after sanctification does an injury to the sanctification.

### Conclusion

> *One sanctified in the womb ought to be baptized.*

**I respond:** It must be said that one sanctified ought to be baptized with the baptism of water, just as one baptized with the baptism of the Spirit — And there is a threefold reason: the first on account of the good of obedience, because God commands that all who are born be reborn by water; the second on account of humility, because he ought to reckon himself a sinner and in need of the redemption of Christ; the third on account of unity, that he not be at variance with the other members of Christ. Therefore he is not baptized on this account, that the sanctification does not suffice, but on account of the reasons aforesaid. For the sake of giving an example of these things Christ was circumcised: namely that he might obey the Law, he subjected himself to the sign of the sinner, by which he taught not that he himself, but that others profess themselves to be sinners; lastly, that he might not be unlike to the Fathers.

Therefore the response is plain, that one sanctified does not receive baptism as a *remedy* — for if he did,

it would be disorder, vanity, and contempt — but as a seal, which has three goods joined together, namely obedience, humility, and unity, with respect to the unity of the character.

**To the opposed arguments:**

1. To that, then, which is objected, that the sanctification transcends; it must be said that although this is true with respect to the grace, which blots out fault and disposes toward the good; nevertheless it does not transcend with respect to the character, because it does not imprint it; and therefore by reason of that the baptism ought still to be received.

2. To that which is objected, that it is superfluous; the response is plain: because he does not receive for the same end for which the sanctification went before.

3. To that which is objected, that one rebaptized does an injury to baptism; it must be said that this is true, because he repeats the same remedy and for the same end; it is not so in the present case. And thus the whole is plain.