Bonaventure — Opera Omnia

Dist. 5, Art. 1, Q. 1

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 5

Textus Latinus

p. 120

Articulus I. De extensione potestatis collata baptizantibus.

Quaestio I. Utrum soli sacerdotes sive clerici habeant potestatem baptizandi.

Et quod non tantum sacerdotes, sed etiam laici, ostenditur sic.

1. Si baptizaret vetula, servata forma verborum, ille quem baptizat, non rebaptizatur¹: ergo est baptizatus; sed vetula non baptizaret, nisi haberet potestatem: ergo etc.

2. Item, alia ratione videtur: baptismus, quia est Sacramentum necessitatis, ideo institutum est in p. 121 elemento omnibus communi²; sed elementum non sufficit, nisi adsit qui possit baptizare: ergo potestas baptizandi omnibus debuit conferri, tam clericis quam laicis.

3. Item, Ioannis quarto³ dicitur, quod Dominus non baptizabat, sed discipuli; sed discipulis nondum erat collata potestas sacerdotalis: ergo etc.

Contra: 1. Isidorus⁴: «Constat, baptismum solis sacerdotibus traditum esse, nec ipsis diaconibus eius ministerium esse permissum».

2. Item, baptismus est Sacramentum Ecclesiae; sed ordo est in ecclesiastica hierarchia: ergo ab his solis potest tradi, qui ad hoc in Ecclesia sunt ordinati. Sed illi soli sunt, qui habent ordinis Sacramentum: ergo etc.

3. Item, si propter necessitatem solam confertur omnibus: ergo cum Sacramentum poenitentiae sit Sacramentum necessitatis, videtur, quod in casu illo debeat quilibet absolvere, etiam laicus.

4. Item, si in casu necessitatis indultum est, videtur, quod si aliquis laicus baptizet praeter necessitatem, debet rebaptizari.

Conclusio. Non soli sacerdotes, sed etiam laici non muti neque manci possunt et in casu necessitatis debent baptizare.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod Sacramentum baptismi est Sacramentum ecclesiasticum, necessarium et primum. Quia ecclesiasticum, ideo eius administratio primo et principaliter est commissa clericis et inter hos sacerdotibus. Quia vero necessarium, et sacerdos non semper adest; ideo eius administratio se extendit etiam ad laicos, divina misericordia faciente, quae neminem vult perire⁵. Quia vero primum, ideo a nullo alio Sacramento dependet; et ideo huius ministerii potestas se extendit ad omnes qui possunt facere ea quae sunt de integritate Sacramenti; et quicumque illa faciat, baptizatum est: ille ergo solus excluditur, qui non potest.

Propter quod notandum, quod baptismus, sicut alia Sacramenta, est Sacramentum, et Sacramentum unum et verum et integrum. Quia Sacramentum, ideo est signum visibile, et ideo debet habere dispensatorem visibilem, ut hominem, non spiritum. Quia vero unum, ideo debet tradi ab uno dispensatore, non a pluribus. Quia verum, ideo non debet idem esse baptizans et baptizatus, sed alius, quia in forma duplex persona exprimitur, cum dicitur: baptizo te. Quia vero integrum, ideo concurrunt in eo necessario duo, scilicet elementum et verbum. Verbum autem debet dici; et quia dicere est cum intentione proferre⁶: ideo necesse est, quod baptizans habeat discretionem et non sit stultus, et oportet, quod habeat locutionem et non sit mutus. Quia vero in elementum debet mergere, oportet, quod non sit mancus. Omnis talis potest baptizare⁷ et in casu necessitatis debet, etiam si non habet ordinem; praeter casum necessitatis solus sacerdos debet baptizare, et si alius facit, quamvis baptizet, graviter peccat.

Ad obiecta:

1. 2. Patent igitur obiecta, quia Isidorus loquitur secundum congruitatem exsequendi, non secundum potestatem. — Et similiter patet aliud, quia, etsi sit ecclesiasticum, tamen est necessarium et primum, et ideo etiam secundum rectam ordinationem Ecclesiae competit eius administratio omnibus eis qui possunt exercere quae sunt de integritate Sacramenti.

3. Ad illud de poenitentia dicendum, quod etsi sit necessarium, non tamen primum, sed eorum qui iam sunt de Ecclesia. Praeterea, hoc Sacramentum est tantum adultorum, qui possunt adire sacerdotem interiorem, cum carent exteriori; sed non sic baptismus, quia est remedium parvulorum.

4. Ad ultimum dicendum, quod potestas non tantum data est in casu necessitatis, sed tunc imposita, ut, si alias fecerit, peccet; tunc vero non peccat, si facit, immo peccat, si non facit; nihilominus tamen si fecerit, factum est. Et sic patet responsio ad illud.

Ex praedictis patent aliqui casus, qui circa potestatem baptizantium possunt quaeri. — Solet enim quaeri, utrum in articulo necessitatis possit aliquis a sathana baptizari, esto quod se transfiguret in angelum lucis⁸. Et quod sic, videtur: quia omnia verba potest dicere et omnem actum facere, quem alius potest.

Et ad hoc patet responsio, quod non, quia ipsi non competit administratio Sacramenti sensibilis. — Potest autem huius triplex ratio reddi. Prima est, quia spiritus est; administratio autem sive dispensatio Sacramentorum per Christum — hominem instituta est per homines ad salutem hominum dispensandam⁹. — Secunda ratio est, quia spiritus est ita praecisus ab Ecclesia, quod nec est membrum actu nec potentia; et ideo administratio et potestas, quae descendit a capite Christo, non pervenit ad p. 122 ipsum. — Tertia ratio est, quia in omnibus sinistram habet intentionem. «Sicut enim Christus omnia bene fecit, ita diabolus omnia male¹⁰»; et ideo, etiam si faceret actum et diceret verbum, non intenderet baptizare, sed potius deludere. — Et sic patet, quod non potest baptizare. Prima tamen ratio melius valet¹¹.

Solet etiam quaeri, utrum aliquis in articulo necessitatis positus possit baptizare se ipsum. Videtur enim, quod sic, propter statum necessitatis, cum possit se mergere et verbum dicere. Et hoc ipsum videtur Innocentius in quadam decretali¹² dicere, quod «si Iudaeus aliquis aspergat se aqua, utens forma baptismi, non habens qui ei Sacramentum tribuat; evolat et inter fideles computandus est», ut dicit.

Et ad hoc patet responsio, quod nullus potest sibi administrare Sacramentum baptismi¹³. — Et prima quidem ratio tacta est, quia non salvatur veritas formae, cum in forma duplex persona exprimatur; cum dicitur: baptizo te. — Secunda vero est, quia baptizans pater est spiritualis baptizati: si ergo nemo est filius suus, nemo se ipsum potest baptizare. — Postremo, deficit ibi ratio significationis: quia enim significatur ibi mundans et mundatus spiritualiter, et hic non potest esse idem, sed alius; ita necesse est etiam, quod sit in Sacramento. — Prima tamen ratio potior¹⁴ est.

Solet etiam poni talis casus: esto quod aliquis habeat consortium muti et manci. Alter non potest baptizare, quia deficit ei verbum, alter non potest, quia deficit ei actus; videtur ergo, quod ambo simul possint totum supplere et baptizare propter necessitatem.

Et ad hoc patet responsio, quod non possunt. Aut enim dicit mancus ille baptizamus, aut baptizo. Si dicat baptizamus, mutat formam. Si dicat baptizo, falsum dicit, quia, cum sit mancus, non mergit; et ita non potest ibi salvari quod est de integritate Sacramenti. — Si autem duo baptizent, quorum uterque mergit et verbum dicit; si dicunt ambo baptizamus, neuter baptizat, quia formam mutat¹⁵; si vero dicunt baptizo, alter eum baptizat, scilicet qui prius loquitur et complet, alter vero omnino nihil facit.

Solet etiam quaeri: si plures sint in extrema necessitate, utrum possint simul baptizari. Et quod sic, videtur: quia propter necessitatem indultum est omnibus: ergo videtur, quod unus possit baptizare plures, ubi est periculum mortis.

Et ad hoc aliter respondetur quam ad praedicta¹⁶, quod potest; et si baptizaret ita: baptizo vos in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti; baptizatum est. — Et si tu obiicias, quod mutat formam, si dicatur: nos baptizamus; dicendum, quod in hoc est mutatio formae. Nam, sicut dicit Priscianus¹⁷, nos non geminat singulare suum, ut dicatur ego et ego, sed ego et tu, vel ego et ille; et ideo, si dicatur: nos baptizamus, aliquid dicitur a forma extraneum, et forma mutatur. — Sed cum dicitur: baptizo vos, sensus est: baptizo te et te; et ideo non est formae mutatio, sed geminatio, nec hic introducitur persona alia nisi baptizans et baptizata; non sic est in forma alia, cum dicitur: nos baptizamus.

Attendendum tamen, quod si per pluralem numerum non fiat vis aliqua, nisi quae sit secundum cursum solitum loquendi, secundum quod Papa de se unico dicit: nos dicimus, et in vulgari hoc utimur linguagio¹⁸; non dicerem, tunc formam mutari nec corruptam esse. Sed si istud serio diceretur et cum pondere sui sensus, alium generaret intellectum; et ideo non esset baptismus, quia, sicut praedeterminatum est¹⁹, mutatio formae aufert baptismum. — Ex praedictis igitur patet, quod unus potest simul baptizare plures, non plures unum; et ratio est mutatio formae in uno, et non in alio. p. 123 Potest nihilominus alia ratio assignari, quia non est necesse quod simul duo baptizent, si uterque potest verbum dicere et mergere. Sed necessitas et utilitas est, quod simul duo baptizentur, quando sunt in articulo mortis. — Alia tamen ratio est, quia baptizans minister significat Christum; unde sicut in hoc, quod unus habeat plures uxores, salvari potuit ratio Sacramenti aliquo modo²⁰, quia Christus est sponsus multarum animarum, sed non e converso; sic in proposito est intelligendum, quia unus est baptizans interius, scilicet Christus Dominus, a quo est unitas in Sacramento baptismi²¹.

Scholion

I. Circa 1. et 2. articulum huius dist., scilicet de valore baptismi a malis et haereticis collati, emanarunt multa Ecclesiae decreta. Sufficiat notare decretum Stephani I, qui contra errorem S. Cypriani defendit traditionem Ecclesiae, quod baptizati ab haereticis non sint rebaptizandi; et quoad malos ministros Bullam Martini V, quae in art. 22. errorem a Wikleff et Huss sparsum damnat et docet «quod malus sacerdos cum debita materia et forma, et cum intentione faciendi quod facit Ecclesia, vere conficiat, vere absolvat, vere baptizet, vere conferat alia sacramenta». Idem definivit Concil. Trid. (Sess. VII. de Sacram. in genere, can. 12.). — Etiam in solvendis adiunctis casibus Scholastici satis conveniunt; qui tamen de eis vel in hac vel in seq. dist. agunt. De I. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 6. a. 1. 4. et de adiunctis casibus a. 4-8. — Scot., in utroque Scripto IV. Sent. d. 6. q. I. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1. et 3; S. III. q. 67. a. 3. 4. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 1-4. — Durand., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1.

II. De seq. (2.) quaestione alii Commentores Lombardi solent agere in seq. dist.: cfr. Alex. Hal., loc. cit. a. 3. — S. Thom., d. 6. q. I. a. 3. quaestiunc. 2. 3; S. loc. cit. q. 64. a. 9. — B. Albert., d. 6. a. 2. — Petr. a Tar., d. 6. q. I. a. I. quaestiunc. I. — Richard. a Med., d. 6. a. 1. q. I. — Dionys. Carth., d. 6. q. 2.

---

English Translation

Article I. On the extension of the power conferred on those baptizing.

Question I. Whether only priests or clerics have the power to baptize.

And that not only priests but also laics [have it] is shown thus.

1. If an old woman should baptize, the form of the words being observed, he whom she baptizes is not rebaptized¹: therefore he is baptized; but the old woman would not baptize unless she had the power: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, by another reason it seems [so]: baptism, because it is a Sacrament of necessity, was therefore instituted in p. 121 an element common to all²; but the element does not suffice unless there be present one who can baptize: therefore the power of baptizing ought to have been conferred on all, on clerics as well as on laics.

3. Likewise, in John, chapter four³, it is said that the Lord did not baptize, but his disciples; but on the disciples the priestly power had not yet been conferred: therefore etc.

On the contrary: 1. Isidore⁴: «It is established that baptism was handed over to priests alone, nor was its ministry permitted even to deacons themselves».

2. Likewise, baptism is a Sacrament of the Church; but order is in the ecclesiastical hierarchy: therefore it can be handed over only by those who are ordained for this in the Church. But those alone are [such] who have the Sacrament of order: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, if it is conferred on all on account of necessity alone: therefore, since the Sacrament of penance is a Sacrament of necessity, it seems that in that case anyone, even a layman, ought to absolve.

4. Likewise, if it is granted in the case of necessity, it seems that if some layman should baptize apart from necessity, he ought to be rebaptized.

Conclusion. Not only priests, but also laics who are not mute nor maimed, can — and in the case of necessity ought to — baptize.

I respond: It must be said that the Sacrament of baptism is a Sacrament ecclesiastical, necessary, and first. Because it is ecclesiastical, therefore its administration is first and principally committed to clerics, and among these to priests. But because it is necessary, and a priest is not always present; therefore its administration extends also to laics, divine mercy bringing it about, which wills no one to perish⁵. But because it is first, therefore it depends on no other Sacrament; and therefore the power of this ministry extends to all who can do those things which belong to the integrity of the Sacrament; and whoever does them, he is baptized: that one therefore alone is excluded who cannot.

On account of which it must be noted that baptism, like the other Sacraments, is a Sacrament, and a Sacrament one and true and entire. Because it is a Sacrament, therefore it is a visible sign, and therefore it must have a visible dispenser, namely a man, not a spirit. But because it is one, therefore it must be handed over by one dispenser, not by several. Because it is true, therefore the one baptizing and the one baptized must not be the same, but another, since in the form a twofold person is expressed, when it is said: I baptize thee. But because it is entire, therefore there necessarily concur in it two things, namely the element and the word. Now the word must be spoken; and because to speak is to utter with intention⁶: therefore it is necessary that the one baptizing have discretion and not be a fool, and it is required that he have speech and not be mute. But because he must immerse into the element, it is required that he not be maimed. Every such one can baptize⁷ and in the case of necessity ought to, even if he does not have order; apart from the case of necessity only a priest ought to baptize, and if another does it, although he baptizes, he sins gravely.

To the objections:

1. 2. The objections, then, are plain, since Isidore speaks according to the fittingness of carrying out, not according to power. — And likewise the other is plain, since, although it is ecclesiastical, nevertheless it is necessary and first, and therefore even according to the right ordination of the Church its administration belongs to all those who can exercise the things which belong to the integrity of the Sacrament.

3. To that about penance it must be said that, although it is necessary, it is nevertheless not first, but of those who are already of the Church. Moreover, this Sacrament is only of adults, who can approach the interior priest when they lack the exterior one; but not so baptism, since it is the remedy of little children.

4. To the last it must be said that the power is not only given in the case of necessity, but then imposed, so that, if he should do otherwise, he sins; but then he does not sin if he does it, nay rather he sins if he does not do it; nevertheless, if he does it, it is done. And so the response to that is plain.

From the foregoing there appear certain cases which can be asked concerning the power of those baptizing. — For it is wont to be asked whether, in the moment of necessity, anyone can be baptized by Satan, supposing that he transfigure himself into an angel of light⁸. And that [he can], it seems: because he can say all the words and do every act which another can.

And to this the response is plain, that [he can]not, because the administration of a sensible Sacrament does not belong to him. — Now a threefold reason of this can be given. The first is that he is a spirit; but the administration or dispensation of the Sacraments through Christ — [who is] man — was instituted [to be done] through men for the dispensing of salvation to men⁹. — The second reason is that the spirit is so cut off from the Church that he is a member neither in act nor in potency; and therefore the administration and power which descends from the head, Christ, does not reach p. 122 him. — The third reason is that in all things he has a sinister intention. «For as Christ did all things well, so the devil [does] all things ill¹⁰»; and therefore, even if he were to do the act and say the word, he would not intend to baptize, but rather to mock. — And so it is plain that he cannot baptize. The first reason, however, holds better¹¹.

It is also wont to be asked whether anyone placed in the moment of necessity can baptize himself. For it seems that [he can], on account of the state of necessity, since he can immerse himself and say the word. And this same thing Innocent seems to say in a certain decretal¹², that «if some Jew should sprinkle himself with water, using the form of baptism, not having one to confer the Sacrament on him; he flies off [to heaven] and is to be counted among the faithful», as he says.

And to this the response is plain, that no one can administer to himself the Sacrament of baptism¹³. — And the first reason has indeed been touched on, that the truth of the form is not preserved, since in the form a twofold person is expressed; when it is said: I baptize thee. — But the second is that the one baptizing is the spiritual father of the one baptized: if therefore no one is his own son, no one can baptize himself. — Lastly, the account of signification is lacking there: for since the one cleansing and the one cleansed spiritually are signified there, and here it cannot be the same, but another; so it is necessary also that it be [so] in the Sacrament. — The first reason, however, is the stronger¹⁴.

It is also wont to be put forward such a case: suppose someone has the company of a mute and a maimed man. The one cannot baptize, because the word is lacking to him; the other cannot, because the act is lacking to him; it seems therefore that the two together could supply the whole and baptize on account of necessity.

And to this the response is plain, that they cannot. For either the maimed one says we baptize, or I baptize. If he says we baptize, he changes the form. If he says I baptize, he says what is false, since, being maimed, he does not immerse; and so there cannot be preserved there that which belongs to the integrity of the Sacrament. — But if two should baptize, of whom each immerses and says the word; if both say we baptize, neither baptizes, because he changes the form¹⁵; but if they say I baptize, one of them baptizes him, namely he who speaks first and completes [it], while the other does nothing at all.

It is also wont to be asked: if several should be in extreme necessity, whether they can be baptized at once. And that [they can], it seems: because on account of necessity it is granted to all: therefore it seems that one could baptize several, where there is danger of death.

And to this the response is otherwise than to the foregoing¹⁶, that [one] can; and if he were to baptize thus: I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; it is baptized. — And if you object that he changes the form, if it be said: we baptize; it must be said that in this there is a changing of the form. For, as Priscian says¹⁷, nos ("we") does not double its singular, so that it be said I and I, but I and thou, or I and he; and therefore, if it be said: we baptize, something foreign to the form is said, and the form is changed. — But when it is said: I baptize you, the sense is: I baptize thee and thee; and therefore there is not a changing of the form, but a doubling, nor is there here introduced another person except the one baptizing and the one baptized; not so is it in the other form, when it is said: we baptize.

It must be noted, however, that if by the plural number no force is made except such as is according to the usual course of speaking — according as the Pope, of himself alone, says: we say, and in the vernacular we use this idiom¹⁸ — I would not say that the form is then changed nor [is it] corrupted. But if that were said in earnest and with the weight of its sense, it would generate another meaning; and therefore it would not be baptism, since, as has been predetermined¹⁹, a changing of the form takes away baptism. — From the foregoing, then, it is plain that one can baptize several at once, [but] not several [baptize] one; and the reason is the changing of the form in the one [case] and not in the other. p. 123 There can nevertheless another reason be assigned, that it is not necessary that two baptize at once, if each can say the word and immerse. But it is a necessity and a usefulness that two be baptized at once, when they are in the moment of death. — Yet another reason is that the baptizing minister signifies Christ; whence just as in this, that one [man] should have several wives, the account of the Sacrament could be preserved in some way²⁰, because Christ is the spouse of many souls, but not conversely; so in the case at hand it must be understood that one is the one baptizing interiorly, namely Christ the Lord, from whom is the unity in the Sacrament of baptism²¹.

Scholion

I. Concerning the 1st and 2nd articles of this distinction, namely on the validity of baptism conferred by the wicked and by heretics, many decrees of the Church have issued. Let it suffice to note the decree of Stephen I, who against the error of St. Cyprian defended the tradition of the Church, that those baptized by heretics are not to be rebaptized; and, as regards wicked ministers, the Bull of Martin V, which in article 22 condemns the error scattered by Wyclif and Huss and teaches «that a wicked priest, with the due matter and form, and with the intention of doing what the Church does, truly consecrates, truly absolves, truly baptizes, truly confers the other sacraments». The same was defined by the Council of Trent (Session VII, On the Sacraments in general, can. 12). — Also in solving the attendant cases the Scholastics sufficiently agree; who, however, treat of them either in this or in the following distinction. On the 1st question: Alexander of Hales, Summa p. IV, q. 8, m. 6, a. 1, 4, and on the attendant cases a. 4–8. — Scotus, in both writings on IV Sent. d. 6, q. I. — St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 1 and 3; Summa III, q. 67, a. 3, 4. — B. Albert, here a. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 4, q. 1–4. — Durandus, on this and the following question, here q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1.

II. On the following (2nd) question other Commentators of Lombard are wont to treat in the following distinction: cf. Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. a. 3. — St. Thomas, d. 6, q. I, a. 3, little-question 2, 3; Summa loc. cit. q. 64, a. 9. — B. Albert, d. 6, a. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, d. 6, q. I, a. I, little-question I. — Richard of Mediavilla, d. 6, a. 1, q. I. — Dionysius the Carthusian, d. 6, q. 2.

---

Apparatus Criticus

1
Cfr. infra lit. Magistri, d. VI. c. 2. — Superius post laici edd. supplent possint baptizare.
Cf. below in the Master's text, d. VI, c. 2. — Above, after laici ("laics") the editions supply possint baptizare ("may baptize").
2
De quo vide supra d. 3. p. II. a. 1. q. 1.
Concerning which see above d. 3, p. II, a. 1, q. 1.
3
Vers. 2.
Verse 2 [John 4, 2].
4
Libr. II. de Ecclesiast. offic. c. 23. n. 9. Vide infra lit. Magistri, d. VI. c. 1.
Book II On the Ecclesiastical Offices, c. 23, n. 9. See below in the Master's text, d. VI, c. 1.
5
Cfr. C. In necessitate (21.), de Consecrat. d. 4. — Pro faciente codd. T U favente.
Cf. the canon In necessitate (21), On the Consecration, d. 4. — For faciente ("bringing about") codices T U [read] favente ("favoring").
6
Vide I. Sent. d. 27. p. II. q. 1, et II. Sent. d. 10. a. 3. q. 1.
See I Sent. d. 27, p. II, q. 1, and II Sent. d. 10, a. 3, q. 1.
7
Vat. glossando: omnis ergo talis, qui potest exercere ea quae sunt de integritate Sacramenti, potest baptizare.
The Vatican edition, glossing: omnis ergo talis, qui potest exercere ea quae sunt de integritate Sacramenti, potest baptizare ("every such one, therefore, who can exercise the things which belong to the integrity of the Sacrament, can baptize").
8
Epist. II. Cor. 11, 14. — Inferius edd. omittunt quod non.
[Paul's] letter, II Cor. 11, 14. — Lower down the editions omit quod non ("that... not").
9
Cfr. Matth. 18, 18. et 28. 19. Vide etiam supra d. 1. p. I. q. 2. ad 5. et d. 3. p. II. a. 1. q. I. in fine. — De secunda ratione, in qua voci spiritus cod. P praemittit ipse malus (cod. Z addit malus, cod. bb ille), cfr. III. Sent. d. 13. a. 2. q. I-3.
Cf. Matt. 18, 18 and 28, 19. See also above d. 1, p. I, q. 2, ad 5, and d. 3, p. II, a. 1, q. I, at the end. — On the second reason, in which before the word spiritus ("spirit") cod. P prefixes ipse malus ("the evil one himself") (cod. Z adds malus, cod. bb ille), cf. III Sent. d. 13, a. 2, q. I–3.
10
Secundum Glossam ordinariam in Matth. 12, 35. et II. Cor. 6, 15. Cfr. tom. III. pag. 493, nota 1. Edd. facit pro fecit, quae etiam paulo inferius inter verba non intenderet interserunt tamen.
According to the Ordinary Gloss on Matt. 12, 35 and II Cor. 6, 15. Cf. tome III, p. 493, note 1. The editions [read] facit ("does") for fecit ("did"), and they also insert tamen ("yet") a little below, between the words non intenderet ("would not intend").
11
Vide Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 6. a. 4.
See Alexander of Hales, Summa p. IV, q. 8, m. 6, a. 4.
12
Cap. Debitum (1.). X. (lib. III. tit. 42.), de Baptismo et eius effectu. Notamus, quod S. Bonav., sicut et Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 6. a. 8, ad formandam obiectionem quasdam tantum propositiones praemissi capituli selegerunt. Nam ibidem ipse Innocentius urget, quod baptizans et baptizatus debent esse distincti, et aliam veramque rationem, cur ille evolasset, subiungit, scilicet quod «protinus evolasset, propter Sacramenti fidem, etsi non propter fidei Sacramentum».
The chapter Debitum (1), in the Decretals (book III, title 42), On Baptism and its Effect. We note that St. Bonaventure, like Alexander of Hales (Summa p. IV, q. 8, m. 6, a. 8), in framing the objection selected only certain propositions of the foregoing chapter. For there Innocent himself urges that the one baptizing and the one baptized must be distinct, and he subjoins another, and true, reason why that one would have flown off [to heaven], namely that «he would forthwith have flown off, on account of his faith in the Sacrament, even if not on account of the Sacrament of the faith».
13
In codd. F Q additur: Ad illud Innocentii, quod si Iudaeus se aspergat etc.; dicendum, quod ipse non est baptizatus, quia non servat formam; sed si fecit quod potuit, creditur salvari per baptismum flaminis. Quod autem talis non sit baptizatus, triplex ratio assignatur. — Pro sibi cod. II sibi ipsi.
In codices F Q there is added: To that [text] of Innocent, that if a Jew sprinkle himself etc.; it must be said that he is not baptized, because he does not preserve the form; but if he did what he could, he is believed to be saved by the baptism of the Spirit. But that such a one is not baptized, a threefold reason is assigned. — For sibi ("to himself") cod. II [reads] sibi ipsi.
14
Codd. F H Q efficacior.
Codices F H Q [read] efficacior ("more efficacious").
15
Ita codd. H K mutant, cod. F legit non baptizant, quia formam mutant, edd. forma mutatur. Superius pro baptizent codd. A G R W baptizarent.
Thus codices H K [read] mutant ("they change"), cod. F reads non baptizant, quia formam mutant ("they do not baptize, because they change the form"), the editions forma mutatur ("the form is changed"). Above, for baptizent ("should baptize") codices A G R W [read] baptizarent.
16
Codd. M O U addunt et dicitur. Superius post necessitate codd. R S addunt positi. Subinde pro baptizaret plures codd. baptizet, et pro baptizatum est cod. II baptizati sunt.
Codices M O U add et dicitur ("and it is said"). Above, after necessitate ("necessity") codices R S add positi ("placed"). Then for baptizaret plures ("should baptize several") the codices [read] baptizet, and for baptizatum est ("it is baptized") cod. II [reads] baptizati sunt ("they are baptized").
17
Verba Prisciani, ex quibus hoc colligi potest, haec sunt. Libr. V. Grammat. c. 9. numerum singularem describens ait: «Singularis quoque numerus bene dicitur, quod ipse geminatus et multiplicatus facit omnes numeros», Libr. XII. c. 3. exponens hanc dictionem nos fecimus dicit: «Unusquisque enim loquentium conceptionem facit eorum qui una secum loquuntur; quippe cum unusquisque pars est totius, qui, si velit ceteros indicare secum loquentes, necessario secundae [tu] vel tertiae [ille] eos attribuit personae». Libr. XVII. c. 16. et 19. ponuntur haec exempla: Ego et tu legimus, ego et ille legimus. — Edd. verbis est mutatio formae cum aliquot codd. praemittunt non, quae lectio non contradicit nostrae, cum referri possit ad superius positam propositionem: Baptizo vos.
The words of Priscian, from which this can be gathered, are these. In Book V of the Grammar, c. 9, describing the singular number, he says: «The singular number too is well [so] called, because, doubled and multiplied, it makes all the numbers»; in Book XII, c. 3, expounding this expression nos fecimus ("we did"), he says: «For each of those speaking forms the conception of those who speak together with him; since indeed each is part of a whole, who, if he wishes to indicate the others speaking with him, necessarily assigns them to the second [thou] or third [he] person». In Book XVII, c. 16 and 19, these examples are put forward: Ego et tu legimus, ego et ille legimus ("I and thou read, I and he read"). — The editions, with several codices, prefix non to the words est mutatio formae ("there is a changing of the form"), which reading does not contradict ours, since it can be referred to the proposition put above: Baptizo vos ("I baptize you").
18
Linguagium, secundum Du Cange, Glossarium etc., idem significat ac idioma, sicut italicum linguaggio. — Mox pro istud, cui manus secunda in cod. II addit verbum, codd. F L substituunt verbum, edd. sermo iste.
Linguagium, according to Du Cange, Glossarium etc., means the same as idioma ("idiom"), like the Italian linguaggio. — Soon, for istud ("that"), to which a second hand in cod. II adds verbum, codices F L substitute verbum, the editions sermo iste ("that speech").
19
Dist. 3. p. I. a. 2. q. 3. — Pro aufert codd. A K auferret. Inferius post ratio est cod. aa addit quia est.
Distinction 3, p. I, a. 2, q. 3. — For aufert ("takes away") codices A K [read] auferret. Lower down, after ratio est ("the reason is") cod. aa adds quia est.
20
Cfr. infra d. 33. a. 1. q. 2. et dub. 5. — Superius pro minister cod. F qui ministrat, et pro habeat Vat. habebat.
Cf. below d. 33, a. 1, q. 2, and dub. 5. — Above, for minister ("minister") cod. F [reads] qui ministrat ("who ministers"), and for habeat the Vatican edition [reads] habebat.
21
Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. et infra dub. 5.
See here the Master's text, c. 2, and below dub. 5.