Bonaventure — Opera Omnia

Dist. 3, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 2

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 3

Textus Latinus

p. 71

Quaestio II. Utrum expressio totius Trinitatis sit de necessitate baptismi.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum expressio totius Trinitatis sit de necessitate baptismi. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Per formam a Domino traditam, Matthaei ultimo¹. Fundamenta.

2. Item, Fulgentius²: «Mysterium redemptionis nullo modo habetur, si Patris vel Filii vel Spiritus sancti nomen subtrahatur».

3. Item, Pelagius Gaudentio episcopo³: «Re vera si hi de haereticis, qui in locis dilectionis tuae et vicinis commorari dicuntur, solum in nomine Domini se baptizatos fuisse fortasse confitentur, sine cuiusquam dubitationis ambiguo eos ad catholicam fidem venientes in sanctae Trinitatis nomine baptizabis»: ergo non fuerunt baptizati.

4. Item, ratione videtur: quia necessarium est verbum vocale ad professionem fidei; sed sicut non sufficit credere tantum alteram personarum, sic nec sufficit profiteri: ergo si professio sufficiens est necessaria⁴, necesse est totam Trinitatem exprimere in baptismo.

p. 72

Sed contra: Ad oppositum.

1. Ambrosius dicit in libro de Trinitate, et habetur in littera⁵: «Si unum in sermone comprehendas, vel Patrem vel Filium vel Spiritum sanctum, fide autem nec Patrem nec Filium nec Spiritum sanctum abneges; plenum est fidei Sacramentum»: ergo videtur, quod non est necesse exprimere totam Trinitatem, sed credere.

2. Item, ratione videtur: quia una est potestas et operatio Trinitatis⁶: ergo quod operatur Pater, et tota Trinitas: ergo si dicatur: baptizo te in nomine Patris, tantumdem valet, ac si tota Trinitas exprimatur.

3. Item, Apostoli in primitiva Ecclesia baptizaverunt in nomine Christi⁷: ergo si nullo modo licuit eis mutare formam a Domino institutam, ergo ista forma non discordabit ab illa: ergo videtur, quod sufficiat alteram personarum exprimere. Si dicas, quod non mutatur propria, sed divina auctoritate; tunc ergo divina auctoritas contulit vim illi nomini: ergo si quod Deus contulit, illud homo auferre non potest, adhuc potest baptizari in nomine Christi. Si dicas, quod non fuit collata virtus⁸ nisi ad tempus; quaero: quare magis collata est virtus simpliciter nomini totius Trinitatis quam nomini Christi? Et rursus: quare magis collata est virtus nomini Christi pro illo tempore quam pro nostro? — Et quod simpliciter habeat, videtur: quia baptismus virtutem habet a passione, ergo et a fide passionis⁹: ergo si Christus, non tota Trinitas, fuit passa, potius debet dici: in nomine Christi, quam: totius Trinitatis.

Conclusio.

Expressio verbalis totius Trinitatis in baptismo est necessaria.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod notitia Trinitatis sive nominatio potest esse in baptismo quatuor modis¹⁰: Modi 4. aut ita, quod sit plena in corde et in ore, et tunc secundum omnes plenum est Sacramentum; aut ita, quod sit semiplena in corde et in ore, et tunc secundum omnes non est Sacramentum plenum; aut ita, quod plena in ore et semiplena in corde; aut ita, quod plena in corde et semiplena in ore. De primo modo et secundo¹¹ non est controversia, sed de duobus sequentibus fuit opinio diversa.

Quia enim baptismus est Sacramentum fidei et virtutem habet a fide, quae in corde est; ideo voluerunt aliqui dicere, quod plenitudo fidei in corde cum qualicumque Trinitatis expressione, sive duae sive una sive tres personae exprimantur, plenum facit Sacramentum, quia fides supplet defectum sermonis; e converso autem, si non est fides in corde, si¹² exprimantur tres ore, non est plenum Sacramentum. Opinio I. Et hoc videtur dicere Ambrosius, et huius opinionis videtur fuisse Hugo¹³ et Magister quantum ad primam partem opinionis. — Sed quia, ut determinat Augustinus, baptismus est Sacramentum fidei non singularis personae, sed totius Ecclesiae; ideo fides personae nihil obest, nihil prodest. Improbatur.

Et ideo determinat alia positio, quod quidquid sit de fide cordis, iudicandum est de baptismate secundum expressionem oris sive sermonis; et ideo, qualitercumque credat, et si totam exprimat Trinitatem, baptizatus est; si autem non totam, non est baptizatus et rebaptizandus est. Et hoc communiter et certitudinaliter asserunt magistri. Opinio II. et conclusio. Nota.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de Ambrosio, dicendum, quod verbum Ambrosii est exponendum, ut sacramentum fidei ponatur pro ipsa fide: «plenum sacramentum fidei», id est ipsa fides, quae significatur per Sacramentum. — Vel si de Sacramento intelligitur, habet locum in casu; ut quando puer deficit in manibus sacerdotis, ubi credendum est quod divina misericordia et summus Sacerdos non dimittat imperfectum quod inchoatum est. Solutio oppositorum. Aliter.

2. Ad aliud dicendum, quod etsi potestas et operatio Trinitatis uniat, tamen fides distinguit; et ideo non sufficit unam personarum credere, sed necesse est credere omnes. Et quia baptismus est Sacramentum plenae professionis; ideo necesse est profiteri omnes personas.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de nomine Christi, dicendum, quod Apostolis licuit baptizare in nomine Christi divinitus inspiratis¹⁴, sed non licet modo nobis. De baptismo in nomine Christi.

Dicunt tamen aliqui, quod verbum illud non amisit virtutem propter constitutionem Ecclesiae ordinantis, quod tantum fiat in nomine Trinitatis; unde etsi peccaret sic baptizans, tamen baptizatum esset. Opinio aliorum. — Sed communis opinio et certior est, quod non esset baptizatum, quia, cum sit unicum baptisma in Ecclesia, ideo unica debet esse forma; et ideo tantum in nomine Trinitatis baptizat tota Ecclesia.

p. 73

Quod ergo obiicitur, quod Apostoli baptizabant in nomine Christi; dicendum, quod data fuit virtus illi verbo tempore primitivae Ecclesiae. Ratio I. Et una ratio fuit, quod nomen Christi implicat et insinuat totam Trinitatem; Christus enim unctus dicitur, et ideo ungentem et unctum et unctionem insinuat, et sic cum praedicta forma concordabat¹⁵. Ratio II. — Alia ratio fuit: quia nomen Christi erat ignotum et contumeliosum, utpote crucifixi, ut nomen publicaretur et in reverentia haberetur, tunc temporis tali forma¹⁶ usi sunt. Et quia cessante causa, cessat effectus, Christi nomine publicato et honorabili facto, amplius nec debuit nec potuit in eo impleri Sacramentum baptismi, quia ad tempus tantum institutum fuit. — Quod ergo obiicitur, quod debuit simpliciter institui propter fidem passionis; dicendum, quod recreator dicitur dupliciter: vel sicut auctor, et sic tota Trinitas; vel sicut mediator, et sic Christus¹⁷. Distinctio. Ad hoc ergo, quod esset plenum Sacramentum necesse, erat fide profiteri mediatorem et auctorem, sed tamen principalius auctorem. Quia ergo per actum immergendi mors Christi intelligitur, et ita mediator; necesse fuit, voce exprimi auctorem, et ita totam Trinitatem nominari oportuit¹⁸.

English Translation

Question II. Whether the expression of the whole Trinity belongs to the necessity of baptism.

Secondly it is asked whether the expression of the whole Trinity belongs to the necessity of baptism. And that it does, seems [to be the case]:

1. By the form handed down by the Lord, in the last [chapter] of Matthew¹. Grounds.

2. Likewise, Fulgentius²: «The mystery of redemption is in no way had, if the name of the Father or of the Son or of the Holy Spirit be withdrawn».

3. Likewise, Pelagius to bishop Gaudentius³: «Truly, if these of the heretics, who are said to dwell in the places near and neighboring to your charity, perhaps confess that they were baptized only in the name of the Lord, then, without any ambiguity of doubt, when they come to the catholic faith you shall baptize them in the name of the holy Trinity»: therefore they were not baptized.

4. Likewise, it seems by reason: because a vocal word is necessary for the profession of faith; but just as it does not suffice to believe in only one of the persons, so neither does it suffice to profess [only one]: therefore, if a sufficient profession is necessary⁴, it is necessary to express the whole Trinity in baptism.

On the contrary: To the opposite.

1. Ambrose says in the book On the Trinity, and it is had in the text [of the Master]⁵: «If you comprehend in speech one [person], whether the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit, yet by faith deny neither the Father nor the Son nor the Holy Spirit; the Sacrament of faith is full»: therefore it seems that it is not necessary to express the whole Trinity, but to believe [it].

2. Likewise, it seems by reason: because the power and operation of the Trinity is one⁶: therefore what the Father operates, the whole Trinity [operates] also: therefore if it be said: I baptize you in the name of the Father, it is worth just as much as if the whole Trinity were expressed.

3. Likewise, the Apostles in the primitive Church baptized in the name of Christ⁷: therefore if it was in no way permitted to them to change the form instituted by the Lord, then this form will not be discordant from that one: therefore it seems that it suffices to express one of the persons. If you say that it [the form] is not changed by its own [authority], but by divine authority; then therefore divine authority conferred power upon that name: therefore if what God conferred man cannot take away, one can still be baptized in the name of Christ. If you say that the power⁸ was conferred only for a time; I ask: why was power conferred simply upon the name of the whole Trinity rather than upon the name of Christ? And again: why was power conferred upon the name of Christ for that time rather than for ours? — And that it has [power] simply, seems [the case]: because baptism has its power from the passion, therefore also from faith in the passion⁹: therefore if Christ, not the whole Trinity, suffered, it ought rather to be said: in the name of Christ, than: of the whole Trinity.

Conclusion.

The verbal expression of the whole Trinity in baptism is necessary.

I respond: It must be said that the knowledge or naming of the Trinity can be in baptism in four ways¹⁰: Four ways. either thus, that it be full in heart and in mouth, and then according to all the Sacrament is full; or thus, that it be half-full in heart and in mouth, and then according to all the Sacrament is not full; or thus, that it be full in mouth and half-full in heart; or thus, that it be full in heart and half-full in mouth. About the first way and the second¹¹ there is no controversy, but about the two following there was a diversity of opinion.

For because baptism is the Sacrament of faith and has its power from the faith which is in the heart; therefore some wished to say that fullness of faith in the heart, together with any expression whatever of the Trinity—whether two or one or three persons be expressed—makes the Sacrament full, because faith supplies the defect of speech; but conversely, if there is no faith in the heart, even if three be expressed by mouth, the Sacrament is not full¹². Opinion I. And Ambrose seems to say this, and of this opinion Hugh¹³ and the Master seem to have been as to the first part of the opinion. — But because, as Augustine determines, baptism is the Sacrament of the faith not of a single person, but of the whole Church; therefore the faith of the [individual] person neither hinders nor profits. It is disproved.

And therefore another position determines that, whatever may be the case with the faith of the heart, judgment is to be made about the baptism according to the expression of mouth or speech; and therefore, however one believes, even if he expresses the whole Trinity, he is baptized; but if not the whole, he is not baptized and is to be rebaptized. And this the masters commonly and with certainty assert. Opinion II. and conclusion. Note.

1. To that, then, which is objected concerning Ambrose, it must be said that the word of Ambrose is to be expounded so that Sacrament of faith be taken for the faith itself: «full Sacrament of faith», that is, the faith itself, which is signified by the Sacrament. — Or if it is understood of the Sacrament, it has its place in a case [of necessity]; as when a child fails in the hands of the priest, where it is to be believed that the divine mercy and the highest Priest do not abandon imperfect what has been begun. Solution of the opposites. Otherwise.

2. To the other it must be said that, although the power and operation of the Trinity unites [them], nevertheless faith distinguishes [them]; and therefore it does not suffice to believe one of the persons, but it is necessary to believe all. And because baptism is the Sacrament of full profession; therefore it is necessary to profess all the persons.

3. To that which is objected concerning the name of Christ, it must be said that it was permitted to the Apostles, divinely inspired¹⁴, to baptize in the name of Christ, but it is not now permitted to us. On baptism in the name of Christ.

Yet some say that that word did not lose its power on account of the constitution of the Church ordaining that it be done only in the name of the Trinity; whence even if one baptizing thus would sin, nevertheless [the person] would be baptized. The opinion of others. — But the common and more certain opinion is that [the person] would not be baptized, because, since there is one baptism in the Church, therefore the form ought to be one; and therefore the whole Church baptizes only in the name of the Trinity.

Therefore, to what is objected, that the Apostles baptized in the name of Christ; it must be said that power was given to that word in the time of the primitive Church. Reason I. And one reason was that the name of Christ implies and intimates the whole Trinity; for Christ is called the anointed, and therefore intimates the one anointing, the one anointed, and the anointing, and thus it accorded with the aforesaid form¹⁵. Reason II. — Another reason was: because the name of Christ was unknown and contemptible, inasmuch as [the name] of one crucified, so that the name might be made public and held in reverence, they used such a form¹⁶ at that time. And because, the cause ceasing, the effect ceases, once the name of Christ was made public and made honorable, the Sacrament of baptism neither ought nor could any longer be fulfilled in it, because it was instituted only for a time. — Therefore, to what is objected, that it ought to have been instituted simply on account of faith in the passion; it must be said that the re-creator is so called in two ways: either as author, and thus the whole Trinity; or as mediator, and thus Christ¹⁷. Distinction. To this, then, that it should be a full Sacrament, it was necessary to profess by faith the mediator and the author, but yet principally the author. Since, therefore, by the act of immersing the death of Christ is understood, and thus the mediator; it was necessary that the author be expressed by voice, and thus it was fitting that the whole Trinity be named¹⁸.

Apparatus Criticus

1
Vers. 19.
Verse 19. [Matthew 28:19.]
2
Epist. 8. ad Donatum, c. 9. n. 18: Mysterium autem redemptionis humanae nulla ratione perficitur, si in baptismo vel Filii vel Spiritus sancti vocabulum subtrahatur.
Letter 8, to Donatus, c. 9, n. 18: «But the mystery of human redemption is by no reasoning brought to perfection, if in baptism the word either of the Son or of the Holy Spirit be withdrawn.»
3
Can. Si revera (30.), de Consecrat. d. 4: Si revera hi de haereticis, qui in locis tuae dilectioni vicinis etc.
Canon Si revera (30.), On Consecration, dist. 4: «If truly these of the heretics, who [dwell] in the places neighboring to your charity, etc.»
4
In edd. desideratur necessaria.
In the editions necessaria (necessary) is wanting.
5
Hic c. 4. Liber de Trinitate intelligendus est liber 1. de Spiritu sancto, c. 3. n. 42.
Here c. 4. The book On the Trinity is to be understood as the first book On the Holy Spirit, c. 3, n. 42.
6
Cfr. tom. III. pag. 12, nota 2. — Mox post Trinitas cod. F addit operatur, et post dicatur [cod. Z dico] codd. A G Ego.
Cf. vol. III, p. 12, note 2. — Soon, after Trinitas (Trinity) codex F adds operatur (operates), and after dicatur (let it be said) [codex Z dico (I say)] codices A G [read] Ego (I).
7
Act. 2, 38; 10, 48; 19, 5. — Aliquanto inferius pro mutatur cod. G mutaverunt.
Acts 2:38; 10:48; 19:5. — Somewhat below, for mutatur (is changed) codex G [reads] mutaverunt (they changed).
8
In cod. F additur nomini Christi simpliciter.
In codex F is added nomini Christi simpliciter (to the name of Christ simply).
9
Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 3. — Post virtutem habent codd. F H supplent recreandi [cod. H regenerandi] sive iustificandi.
Cf. above, a. 1, q. 3. — After virtutem (power) codices F H have they supply recreandi (of re-creating) [codex H regenerandi (of regenerating)] or iustificandi (of justifying).
10
Cfr. III. Sent. d. 20. q. 5.
Cf. III. Sent. d. 20. q. 5.
11
Permulti codd. omittunt et secundo, edd. substituunt Primis duobus modis.
Very many codices omit et secundo (and the second), the editions substitute Primis duobus modis (in the first two ways).
12
Ita codd. et edd. pro etsi.
Thus the codices and editions, for etsi (even if).
13
Libr. II. de Sacram. p. VI. c. 2. — Opinionem Magistri vide hic in lit. c. 4; sententiam Augustini vero in eius Epist. 98. (alias 23.) n. 5. Cfr. etiam infra lit. Magistri, d. V, C. Si inter bonos (25. seqq.), de Consecrat. d. 4.
Bk. II On the Sacraments, p. VI, c. 2. — See the opinion of the Master here in the text, c. 4; the judgment of Augustine in his Letter 98 (otherwise 23), n. 5. Cf. also below in the text of the Master, d. V, C. Si inter bonos (25 ff.), On Consecration, dist. 4.
14
Plurimi codd. inspirantis, sed G I addunt auctoritate Spiritus sancti ante divinitus. Inferius pro baptizatum cod. H bis baptismus, et pro unde etsi peccaret sic baptizans ed. I cum pluribus codd. unde etsi peccator sit baptizans, cod. F unde etsi peccatum sic baptizare.
Most codices [read] inspirantis (of the one inspiring), but G I add auctoritate Spiritus sancti (by the authority of the Holy Spirit) before divinitus (divinely). Below, for baptizatum (baptized) codex H twice [reads] baptismus (baptism), and for unde etsi peccaret sic baptizans (whence even if one baptizing thus would sin) edition I with many codices [reads] unde etsi peccator sit baptizans (whence even if the one baptizing be a sinner), codex F unde etsi peccatum sic baptizare (whence even if to baptize thus [be] a sin).
15
Secundum Ambros. hic in lit. Magistri, c. 5. allegatum.
According to Ambrose, here cited in the text of the Master, c. 5.
16
Ex codd. F H (bb a secunda manu) dicta forma, codd. M O dicta forma, Vat. eo. — De seq. axiomate (cessante causa, cessat effectus) cfr. Aristot., II. Phys. text. 37. (c. 3.), et Avicenna, Metaph. tr. 4. c. 1.
From codices F H (bb by a second hand) dicta forma (the said form), codices M O dicta forma, the Vatican [edition] eo (by that). — On the following axiom (the cause ceasing, the effect ceases) cf. Aristotle, Physics II, text 37 (c. 3), and Avicenna, Metaphysics tr. 4, c. 1.
17
Cfr. III. Sent. d. 19. a. 2. q. 1.
Cf. III. Sent. d. 19. a. 2. q. 1.
18
Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.
See the scholion to the preceding question. [The Article II scholion (I–III) is given in chunk a2-q1.]