Bonaventure

## DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit Magister: Baptismus est tinctio, id est ablutio corporis facta sub forma verborum praescripta. Videtur enim mala esse ista notificatio: quia notificatio debet convenire notificato praecise¹¹; sed haec non est talis, quia, cum lava-

tur pannus, est ablutio corporis, et potest fieri sub forma verborum praescripta, et sic esset baptismus; quod falsum est.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod ablutio antonomastice¹ determinatur ad standum pro ablutione aquae; similiter corpus ad standum pro corpore humano, ut sit sensus, quod baptismus est ablutio corporis humani in aqua facta² etc.

Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod ablutio facta in elemento fit Sacramentum. Ex hoc enim videtur, quod ablutio passive dicta sit Sacramentum; contra: Sacramentum est signum gratiae, quia «est invisibilis gratiae visibilis forma³»; sed gratia non est lota, sed lavans: ergo signum non est lotio passiva, sed activa.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod in baptismo concurrit lotio tribus modis dicta. Nam ille qui mergit, dicitur lavare et ideo baptizare; similiter et aqua dicitur lavare, et corpus lavari: et sic est lotio hominis lavantis et aquae lavantis et corporis loti. — Quia ergo ad baptismum haec triplex lotio necessario concurrit, per illam potissimum describitur, quae alias claudit et praesupponit; et haec est lotio corporis passiva, quae immediatius respicit baptizatum⁴ et praesupponit duplicem lotionem praedictam, quia facta et ab homine et ab aqua. — Quod quod obiicitur, quod non est signum gratiae; dicendum, quod haec lotio passiva signum est effectus gratiae; nec habet perfectam significationem, nisi prout coniungitur lotioni aquae et ministri; tunc enim signum est, quod anima purificatur a Deo per gratiam⁵.

Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: In duobus consistit Sacramentum baptismi. Videtur enim falsum dicere, quia, ut dicit Ambrosius⁶ «omne Sacramentum est simplex»: ergo non consistit in duobus, quia tunc esset compositum.

Respondeo: Aliqui faciunt vim in hoc, quod dicitur Sacramentum, quia non vocat Sacramentum signum exterius, sed effectum gratiae interiorem, qui est gratia simplex⁷. Aliqui vim faciunt in simplicitate, quia non dicitur simplex, quia non habet partes, sed quia non dividitur in plura Sacramenta. — Sed neutrum istorum est magnum quid dicere; ideo credo, quod vocat Sacramentum simplex, quia eius denominatio fit in instanti. Nam si Sacramentum remaneat imperfectum, nihil est factum, nec etiam debet dici inceptum, sed totum est reincipiendum. Et hoc patet ex verbis eius infra⁸: «Ubi non est plenum Sacramentum baptismi, nec principium nec species aliqua baptismi aestimatur»; et ideo dicit esse simplex.

Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: In nomine sanctae Trinitatis et in nomine Christi... unum et idem est.

Notandum, quod non vult dicere quod verba eandem virtutem habeant, nec quod omnino idem sonent, sed quod modus baptizandi in Ecclesia primitiva conformis fuit modo, quem nunc tenet Ecclesia. Nam in Christo intellectus clauditur Trinitatis, tamen implicite et remote. — Vel, idem est, quia eiusdem virtutis et efficaciae; sed hoc intelligendum est pro tempore illo, in quo nondum erat nomen Christi promulgatum⁹.

Dub. V.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Ubi non est plenum baptismi Sacramentum, nec principium etc.

Notandum, quod illud est dictum propter characteris impressionem; quousque enim character imprimatur, nihil de Sacramento factum est stabile¹⁰. Et quoniam character imprimitur in instanti, quando factum est aliquid, totum perfectum est. Si ergo non est perfectum, nihil omnino factum est, non quantum ad operationem exteriorem, ubi est successio, sed interiorem, ubi est subita impressio.

Dub. VI.

Item quaeritur super hoc quod dicit Ambrosius, quod sufficit aliquam personarum exprimere.

Nota, illud esse intelligendum, non quia ibi sit plena forma — si enim crederet et negligens esset, quod credit exprimere, non sufficeret — et ideo solum in casu est credendum, ipsum locutum esse, scilicet si plena sit fides in corde, nec desit aliquid in sermone ex negligentia, sed solum impotentia; tunc supplet divina misericordia et sapientia.

## DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first about what the Master says: Baptism is a dipping, that is, an ablution of the body performed under a prescribed form of words. For this description seems to be a poor one: because a description ought to fit the thing described precisely¹¹; but this one is not such, because, when a cloth is washed, it is an ablution of a body, and it can be done under a prescribed form of words, and so it would be baptism; which is false.

I respond: It must be said that ablution, by antonomasia¹, is determined to stand for the ablution of water; likewise body to stand for a human body, so that the sense is that baptism is an ablution of a human body performed in water², etc.

Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about what he says, that the ablution performed in the element becomes the Sacrament. For from this it seems that an ablution taken passively is the Sacrament; on the contrary: the Sacrament is a sign of grace, because «it is the visible form of an invisible grace³»; but grace is not the thing washed, but the thing washing: therefore the sign is not the passive washing, but the active.

I respond: It must be said that in baptism a washing comes together, spoken of in three ways. For he who immerses is said to wash and therefore to baptize; likewise the water too is said to wash, and the body to be washed: and so there is the washing of the man washing, of the water washing, and of the body washed. — Since therefore this threefold washing necessarily comes together for baptism, it is described chiefly by that one which includes and presupposes the others; and this is the passive washing of the body, which more immediately regards the one baptized⁴ and presupposes the twofold washing aforesaid, since it is performed both by the man and by the water. — As to what is objected, that it is not a sign of grace; it must be said that this passive washing is a sign of the effect of grace; nor does it have its full signification except insofar as it is joined to the washing of the water and of the minister; for then it is a sign that the soul is purified by God through grace⁵.

Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: The Sacrament of baptism consists in two things. For it seems false to say so, because, as Ambrose says⁶, «every Sacrament is simple»: therefore it does not consist in two things, since then it would be composite.

I respond: Some put the force in this, that it is called a Sacrament, because he does not call the Sacrament the exterior sign, but the interior effect of grace, which is simple grace⁷. Some put the force in simplicity, because it is called simple not because it has no parts, but because it is not divided into several Sacraments. — But neither of these is anything great to say; therefore I believe that he calls the Sacrament simple because its denomination comes about in an instant. For if the Sacrament remains incomplete, nothing has been done, nor even ought it to be called begun, but the whole is to be begun again. And this is clear from his words below⁸: «Where there is not the full Sacrament of baptism, neither a beginning nor any kind of baptism is reckoned»; and therefore he says it to be simple.

Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: In the name of the holy Trinity and in the name of Christ... it is one and the same.

It must be noted that he does not mean to say that the words have the same power, nor that they sound altogether the same, but that the manner of baptizing in the primitive Church was conformable to the manner which the Church now holds. For in Christ the understanding of the Trinity is enclosed, yet implicitly and remotely. — Or, it is the same, because of the same power and efficacy; but this must be understood for that time in which the name of Christ had not yet been promulgated⁹.

Doubt V.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: Where there is not the full Sacrament of baptism, neither a beginning etc.

It must be noted that this is said on account of the impression of the character; for until the character is impressed, nothing of the Sacrament has been made stable¹⁰. And since the character is impressed in an instant, when something has been made, the whole is complete. If therefore it is not complete, nothing at all has been done, not as regards the exterior operation, where there is succession, but the interior, where there is a sudden impression.

Doubt VI.

Likewise it is asked about what Ambrose says, that it suffices to express one of the persons.

Note that this is to be understood not as though there were a full form there — for if one believed and were negligent of what he believes himself to express, it would not suffice — and therefore it is only in such a case to be believed that he has spoken, namely if there is full faith in the heart, and nothing is lacking in the speech from negligence, but only from incapacity; then the divine mercy and wisdom supplies.