Dist. 6, 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/6/q/bon-sent-IV-d6-p2-dubia
----------------------------------------
### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first concerning this which Augustine says: *In that child the use of reason was hastened*, whether blessed John in the womb had the use of free will. And that he did, it seems: because he leaped at the voice of blessed Mary, as is said in the text; but such exultation was only through the apprehension of a thing loved; but a thing is not apprehended except by reason, nor is it lovable except by a reasoned will, namely the presence of Christ or of his Mother: therefore it seems, since the use of free will is according to an act of reason and of will, that he simply had the use. But on the contrary: Augustine to Dardanus: « It is not said, that *the infant believed* »; therefore if the first motion of faith is among the motions of the virtues, it seems that he did not have the act of any virtue: therefore since this was not because of a defect of grace, it was therefore because of a defect of free will.

**I respond:** It must be said that concerning this there was a twofold opinion; and Augustine speaks doubtfully. For there were those who said that John did not have a motion of free will, nor was that exultation *from him*, but rather *in him*, not through nature, but above nature; just as Balaam's ass spoke, and yet did not understand; so they say that John was moved by the Holy Spirit at the coming of the Lord, and that that motion was after the manner of one exulting, not because he himself perceived, but because the Lord willed that the mother should perceive the Lord and his Mother by the motion of the child, and that this should be a presage of things to come. And to this opinion the words of Augustine accord.

There were others who said that to John was straightway given a motion of free will and an illumination of cognition, by which he knew the Lord present and rejoiced above nature. And if you object that the Lord does not withdraw his gifts, and so afterwards he always had the use of free will, which is neither believed nor probable; therefore it is briefly answered that just as the Lord gives the grace of rapture to someone for one hour; so also God did this above nature for a special cause. — Either position is probable, nor can it easily be disproved.

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked concerning this which Zacharias says: *If he who baptized, not introducing an error* etc. For he seems to say that if he wished to introduce an error, that it would not be a baptism. But on the contrary: the faith, or heresy, of the one baptizing does nothing toward this, that it not be a baptism: therefore it seems that the judgment is the same, whether he intend to introduce an error, or not.

**I respond:** To this some have said that although infidelity concerning the other articles does nothing toward the integrity of baptism, nevertheless infidelity concerning baptism does much. — But if we attend: since fidelity comprehends every article; and fidelity concerning one article together with infidelity concerning another is not faith nor a part of faith: it does nothing toward this, as it seems, by reason of that whereby it is fidelity, or infidelity. Therefore it must be said that no infidelity takes away baptism, provided the intention be sound, namely of doing what the Church does; and since he who intends to introduce a heresy intends to coin a new form and to weaken what the Church does: therefore the intention is not sound, and through this neither is the baptism.

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked concerning this which Pope Leo says: *Concerning those, about whom no indications exist among their kin, it must be acted, that they be reborn.* For he seems to speak ill, because it is as great a sin to rebaptize one baptized, as to omit baptism: therefore he who baptizes that one, about whom no indications exist, commits himself to peril and danger, because he knows not whether he rebaptizes one baptized; but every such person sins: therefore etc.

In connection with this it is asked whether anyone can be baptized while sleeping; and it seems that he can, because concerning a lethargic person, who cannot awaken, it seems that he ought to be baptized.

**I respond:** It must be said that ignorance of fact, due diligence having been applied, excuses entirely; and since, if someone baptizes someone, about whom it cannot be known through anyone whether he was baptized, he is ignorant that he is baptized, and he applies diligence if he inquires of those who know: therefore he does not sin. Again, because that is a probable sign that he is not baptized; he is bound and ought to be baptized: and so it is plain that in baptizing he does not commit himself to danger.

As for what is asked concerning the sleeper, it must be said that if he is an adult, either he previously consented and willed, or he refused and rejected. If he consented and willed; if he is baptized, he is baptized. Or if he previously denied and rejected, he is not baptized. But if he behaved indifferently as to that which is external; it cannot be known except through himself; and if he previously willed, he is baptized; if he did not will, not; because it is necessary that there be some consent in an adult, either coerced or spontaneous.

If it is asked what ought to be done; it must be said that no one ought to baptize someone while sleeping, unless it be presumed that he will not awaken before death, and unless it be presumed concerning his present will through signs

or words, at least because he is born of Christians. In this case, with these things concurring, he ought to be baptized; and unless there has been a feigning in his soul before sleep; then he receives the Sacrament and the reality, as Innocent says. But if there has been a feigning, yet the will to baptism remains; he receives the Sacrament and not the reality. In exactly the same way must it be said of the madman.

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked concerning this which Augustine says: *If the whole thing were done mimically and in jest, counsel must be implored* etc. For he seems to speak ill, because the intention is of the necessity of baptism: therefore if the whole thing was done in jest, it is not a baptism: therefore divine counsel is not to be implored, but he is to be baptized; because in those things in which we are certain and have human counsel, it is not necessary to flee to God.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as Hugh says, play does not always exclude intention, but is compatible with it, as is plain. And Hugh gives an example: that *to wish to give in play* is in two ways: in one way, to wish to play in such a way that one in no way gives; *in another way* in such a way that one wishes to play, and nonetheless wishes to give. And in the first way it excludes intention, and he who thus gives in playing does not give; in the second way it posits the intention of giving and truly gives. So in the matter at hand it must be understood. Hence there can be an intention together with play. And therefore Augustine says, « divine counsel must be implored ». And if the Lord does not reveal, he is to be rebaptized, yet under condition. And this is what is said, in the first question, concerning the case which is there proposed, that the boy Athanasius, pretending to be a bishop, baptized certain boys in play, who afterwards by the counsel of Bishop Alexander were not rebaptized: because below it is added that the same bishop came upon the scene and inquired concerning the intention and learned through the words of the youth that he had the intention; and therefore they ought not to have been rebaptized. And that he had the intention is gathered, because he baptized none but catechumens. And so the meaning of Augustine's word is plain.

### Doubt V.

Likewise it is asked concerning this which is said: *It must be known that two times are to be observed in baptizing the elect.* For it seems that the day of Epiphany would be more fitting, because the Lord was baptized on that day.

**I respond:** It must be said that on the day of Epiphany it is not done so solemnly, on account of rooting out the heresy which said that on that day alone the waters could regenerate. But it is done on the other two days, because at Easter *he washed us from our sins in his own blood*, at Pentecost he baptized with the Holy Spirit; and because baptism has this twofold effect; therefore then it is given generally to all, but specially it is given to anyone, when death is feared.

### Doubt VI.

Likewise it is asked concerning this which the Master says, that infants are baptized while another professes; whether he who professes ought to be called a sponsor (*patrinus*). And that he should, common usage holds. But on the contrary it seems, because a father is called only one who begets in some way, either spiritually or carnally; but such a one does neither. — Likewise, it is asked whether there can be several.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as Hugh of Saint Victor says, « they are called sponsors who offer infants to baptism, because they offer them to be regenerated to a new life, and in the offering and in the response they in some way contribute to their regeneration »; and therefore they are rightly called sponsors. — And afterwards he adds: « It pleased the Fathers that for each one to be baptized individual sponsors should be admitted, that is, one only, either man or woman, perhaps for this reason, lest the spiritual kinship, to which reverence is owed, being spread about indiscriminately, might have stood in the way of the union of marriage. But certain Churches do not keep this custom, admitting several to the reception of infants ».

### Doubt VII.

Likewise it is asked concerning this which is said: *Exorcism takes place after catechism.* For it seems that he orders ill: because exorcism is for the expulsion of evil, but catechism for the instruction in good; but it is prior to expel evil than to implant good: therefore it was prior to deal with exorcism.

**I respond:** It must be said that these two can be ordered in three ways: either by reason of that *for which* they are; or by reason of that *by whom* they are dispensed; or by reason of him *in whom* they take place. If by reason of that *for which*; thus, because catechism is for the perfection of the intellect, and

exorcism for that which regards the affection, because it is for expelling the suggestion of the devil; catechism precedes, and so before exorcism is catechism. — If by reason of that *by whom*; because instruction is from the order of lectors, and exorcizing from exorcists, and the order of lectors precedes; thus before exorcism is catechism. If by reason of him *in whom*; thus it must be said that if he is an adult, he is prior capable of doctrine than of grace, an infant the contrary; and therefore in adults catechism precedes, in infants the contrary, exorcism. And therefore the order has been changed according to some Churches, nor is that kept which was wont to be in the primitive Church, because then adults were baptized, but now infants.

---