Bonaventure

DUB. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit Augustinus: In illo puero acceleratus est usus rationis, utrum beatus Ioannes in utero habuerit usum liberi arbitrii. Et quod sic, videtur: quia exsultavit ad vocem beatae Mariae, sicut dicitur in textu¹; sed talis exsultatio non fuit nisi per apprehensionem rei amatae; res autem non apprehendebatur nisi ratione, nec amabilis erat nisi voluntate rationata², scilicet praesentia Christi vel eius Matris: ergo videtur, cum

usus liberi arbitrii sit secundum actum rationis et voluntatis, quod simpliciter habuit usum. Sed contra: Augustinus ad Dardanum³: « Non est dictum, quia credidit infans »; ergo si motus fidei primus est inter motus virtutum, videtur, quod non habuerit actum alicuius virtutis: ergo cum hoc non fuerit propter defectum gratiae, fuit ergo propter defectum liberi arbitrii.

Respondeo: Dicendum quod circa hoc duplex fuit opinio; et Augustinus loquitur dubie. Fuerunt enim qui dicerent, Ioannem non habuisse motum liberi arbitrii, nec exsultationem illam fuisse ab eo, sed magis in eo, non per naturam, sed supra naturam; sicut asina Balaam locuta est, et tamen non intellexit⁴; sic dicunt Ioannem motum fuisse a Spiritu sancto ad adventum Domini, et illum motum fuisse ad modum exsultantis, non quia ipse perciperet, sed quia volebat Dominus, ut mater motu pueri Dominum perciperet et Matrem eius, et ut hoc esset futurorum praesagium. Et huic opinioni verba consonant Augustini.

Fuerunt alii, qui dixerunt, Ioanni statim datum motum liberi arbitrii et illustrationem cognitionis, qua cognovit Dominum praesentem et gavisus est supra naturam. Et si tu obiicias, quod Dominus non subtrahit dona, et ita post semper habuit usum liberi arbitrii, quod nec creditur nec est probabile; propterea breviter respondetur, quod sicut Dominus gratiam raptus alicui dat ad unam horam; sic etiam Deus fecit hoc supra naturam ob specialem causam. — Utraque positio probabilis est nec potest de facili improbari⁵.

DUB. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Zacharias: Si ille qui baptizavit, non errorem introducens etc. Videtur enim dicere, quod si vellet errorem introducere, quod non esset baptismus. Sed contra: fides, vel haeresis baptizantis nihil facit ad hoc, quod non sit baptismus⁶: ergo videtur, quod idem sit iudicium, sive intendat errorem introducere, sive non.

Respondeo: Ad hoc dixerunt aliqui, quod quamvis infidelitas circa alios articulos nihil faciat ad baptismi integritatem, tamen infidelitas circa baptismum multum facit. — Sed si attendamus: cum fidelitas comprehendat omnem articulum; et fidelitas circa aliquem articulum cum infidelitate circa alium non sit fides nec pars fidei⁷: nihil facit ad hoc, ut videtur, ratione eius, qua est fidelitas, vel infidelitas. Ideo dicendum, quod nulla infidelitas aufert baptismum, dum tamen intentio sit salva, faciendi scilicet quod facit Ecclesia; et quoniam iste qui intendit introducere haeresim, intendit novam formam cudere⁸ et quod facit Ecclesia infirmare: ideo non est salva intentio, ac per hoc nec baptismus.

DUB. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Leo papa: De illis, de quibus nulla exstant indicia inter propinquos, agendum, ut renascantur. Videtur enim male dicere, quia ita magnum peccatum est rebaptizare baptizatum, sicut omittere baptismum: ergo qui baptizat illum, de quo nulla exstant indicia, committit se periculo et discrimini, quia nescit, utrum rebaptizet baptizatum; sed omnis talis peccat: ergo etc.

Iuxta hoc quaeritur, utrum aliquis possit baptizari dormiendo; et videtur, quod sic, quia de lethargico, qui non potest evigilare, videtur, quod debeat baptizari.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod ignorantia facti, adhibita debita diligentia, excusat a toto⁹; et quoniam, si aliquis baptizet aliquem, de quo non potest cognosci per aliquem, quod fuerit baptizatus, ignorat, eum esse baptizatum, et adhibet diligentiam, si requirat a notis: ideo non peccat. Rursus, quia illud est signum probabile, quod non sit baptizatus; tenetur et debet baptizari: et ita patet, quod baptizando non committit se discrimini¹⁰.

Quod quaeritur de dormiente, dicendum, quod si est adultus, aut prius consensit et voluit, aut noluit et renuit. Si consensit et voluit; si baptizatur, baptizatus est. Aut si¹¹ prius negavit et renuit, baptizatus non est. Si autem indifferenter se habuit quantum ad id quod exterius est; non potest sciri nisi per ipsum; et si prius voluit, baptizatus est; si noluit, non; quia oportet, quod sit aliqualis consensus in adulto, vel coactus vel spontaneus¹².

Si quaeratur, quid debeat fieri; dicendum, quod nullus debet aliquem baptizare dormiendo, nisi praesumatur, quod non evigilet ante mortem, et nisi praesumatur de eius praesenti voluntate per signa

vel verba, saltem quia de Christianis natus. In hoc casu his concurrentibus, debet baptizari; et nisi fuerit fictio in anima ipsius ante dormitionem; tunc recipit Sacramentum et rem, ut dicit Innocentius¹³. Si autem fuerit fictio, sed tamen voluntas ad baptismum; recipit Sacramentum et non rem. Omnino eodem modo dicendum est de furioso.

DUB. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Augustinus: Si totum mimice et ioculariter ageretur, implorandum esset etc. Videtur enim male dicere, quia intentio est de necessitate baptismi¹⁴: ergo si totum factum est ioculariter, non est baptismus: ergo non est implorandum divinum consilium, sed baptizandus; quia in his, in quibus certi sumus et habemus humanum consilium, non oportet confugere ad Deum.

Respondeo: Dicendum quod, sicut dicit Hugo¹⁵, ludus non semper excludit intentionem, sed compatitur, sicut patet. Et Hugo ponit exemplum: quia velle dare ludicre est duobus modis: uno modo velle ludere ita, quod nullo modo dare; alio modo ita, quod vult ludere, et nihilominus vult dare. Et primo quidem modo excludit intentionem, et qui sic dat ludendo non dat; secundo modo ponit intentionem dandi et vere dat. Sic in proposito intelligendum. Unde potest esse intentio cum ludo. Et ideo dicit Augustinus¹⁶, « implorandum esse divinum consilium ». Quod si Dominus non revelat, rebaptizandus est, tamen sub conditione. Et hoc est quod dicitur, quaestione prima¹⁷, de casu, qui ibi proponitur, quod puer Athanasius, simulans, se esse episcopum, baptizavit quosdam pueros ludicre, qui postmodum consilio Alexandri episcopi non sunt rebaptizati: quia inferius subditur, quod idem episcopus supervenit et quaesivit de intentione et cognovit per verba iuvenis, quod habuit intentionem; et ideo non debuerunt rebaptizari. Et quod habuit intentionem, coniicitur¹⁸, quia non baptizavit nisi catechumenos. Et sic patet intellectus verbi Augustini.

DUB. V.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Cognoscendum, duo tempora in baptizandis electis esse servanda. Videtur enim, quod magis competeret dies Epiphaniae, quia Dominus fuit in illo baptizatus.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod die Epiphaniae non fit ita solemniter propter haeresim exstirpandam, quae dixit, solum illa die aquas posse regenerare. Fit autem aliis duobus diebus, quoniam in Paschate lavit nos a peccatis nostris in sanguine suo¹⁹, in Pentecoste baptizavit Spiritu sancto; et quia baptismus hunc duplicem effectum habet; ideo tunc generaliter omnibus datur, sed specialiter datur cuilibet, quando timetur de morte²⁰.

DUB. VI.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Magister, quod parvuli, alio profitente, baptizantur; utrum ille qui profitetur, debeat dici patrinus. Et quod sic, habet communis usus. Sed in contrarium videtur, quia pater dicitur solum qui generat aliquo modo, vel spiritualiter, vel carnaliter; sed talis neutro modo. — Item, quaeritur, utrum possint esse plures.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod, sicut dicit Hugo de sancto Victore²¹, « patrini vocantur qui parvulos ad baptismum offerunt, quia regenerandos ad novam vitam offerunt, et in oblatione et in responsione quodam modo faciunt ad ipsorum regenerationem »; et ideo recte patrini dicuntur. — Et post subiungit: « Placuit Patribus, ut per singulos baptizandos patrini singuli admitterentur, id est unus tantum vir, sive mulier, propterea fortassis, ne spiritualis cognatio, cui reverentia debetur, passim diffusa in matrimonii copulam obesse potuisset. Sed quaedam Ecclesiae hanc consuetudinem non servant, plures ad susceptionem parvulorum admittentes ».

DUB. VII.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Exorcismus fit post catechismum. Videtur enim, quod male ordinet: quia exorcismus est ad expulsionem mali, sed catechismus ad institutionem boni; sed prius est malum expellere quam bonum inserere: ergo prius fuit agendum de exorcismo.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod ista duo possunt tripliciter ordinari: aut ratione eius, ad quod sunt; aut ratione eius, a quo dispensantur; aut ratione eius, in quem fiunt. Si ratione eius ad quod; sic, quia catechismus est ad perfectionem intellectus, et

exorcismus ad id quod respicit affectum, quia ad suggestionem diaboli expellendam; catechismus praecedit, et sic ante exorcismum est catechismus²². — Si ratione eius a quo; quia instructio est ab ordine lectorum, et exorcizatio ab exorcistis, et lectorum ordo praecedit²³; sic ante exorcismum est catechismus. Si ratione eius in quem; sic dicendum est, quod si adultus est, prius est capax doctrinae quam gratiae, parvulus e contrario; et ideo in adultis praecedit catechismus, in parvulis e contrario exorcismus. Et ideo ordo mutatus est secundum aliquas Ecclesias, nec servatur ille qui consuevit esse in primitiva Ecclesia, quia tunc baptizabantur adulti, nunc autem parvuli²⁴.

---

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 text¹; 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 will², 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 Dardanus³: « 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 understand⁴; 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 disproved⁵.

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 baptism⁶: 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 faith⁷: 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 form⁸ 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 entirely⁹; 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 danger¹⁰.

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 if¹¹ 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 spontaneous¹².

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 says¹³. 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 baptism¹⁴: 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 says¹⁵, 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 says¹⁶, « 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 question¹⁷, 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 gathered¹⁸, 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 blood¹⁹, 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 feared²⁰.

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 says²¹, « 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 catechism²². — If by reason of that by whom; because instruction is from the order of lectors, and exorcizing from exorcists, and the order of lectors precedes²³; 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 infants²⁴.

---