Dist. 3, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 1
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/3/q/bon-sent-IV-d3-p1-a2-q1
----------------------------------------
### ARTICLE II.
### *On the things that pertain to the form of the word.*

Next there is a question about the form of the word, which must be attended to in baptism, and concerning this three things are asked. First it is asked whether the word expressing the act of baptizing belongs to the necessity of the form of baptizing. Second it is asked whether the expression of the whole Trinity belongs to the necessity of baptism. Third there is a question about the variation of the form.

### QUESTION I.
### *Whether the word expressing the act of baptizing belongs to the necessity of the form of baptizing.*

And that the word expressing the act is necessary, it seems:

1. Because the whole Church keeps this form: *I baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.*

2. Likewise, Alexander III says: « If anyone immerses a child three times in water, saying: In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, unless he say: I baptize you; such an immersion cannot be a baptism ».

3. Likewise, it seems by reason, because nothing is more necessary for baptism than the intention of the one baptizing; for the intention is as necessary as faith: therefore nothing belongs more to the necessity of the form than the word expressing intention; but such is this word *I baptize*: therefore if anything belongs to the necessity of the form of baptizing, the word of baptizing belongs to the necessity.

**On the contrary:**
1. Words do not belong to the necessity of the Sacrament, except those to which the Lord conferred power in instituting it; but when He instituted the form, He did not give power to this word *I baptize*: therefore it does not belong to the necessity. That He did not give it is evident, because in the last [chapter] of Matthew the form is handed down: *Teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit*: if therefore power were given to this word *baptizing*, it would not be permitted to change the participle: therefore no power has been handed down to it.

2. Likewise, that it is not necessary on account of intention, it seems: because the act of baptizing expresses intention equally well or more, than the *word*: therefore it seems that it is superfluous, or at least is not a necessary word. But that the act expresses [it] is evident by a similar case: because, when someone signs himself with the sign of the holy cross, it suffices to say: In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, nor is it necessary to add *with the sign*.

3. Likewise, if it is necessary to express the act in the Sacraments on account of intention: therefore since intention is necessary in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, it ought likewise to be expressed in the form, and if it is not expressed, it is not a Sacrament; but this is false: therefore the first [is false] also.

> **CONCLUSION.**
> The word expressing the act of baptizing belongs to the necessity of the form.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as the authority of Alexander says, the word of baptizing belongs to the necessity of the form. But the reason why it belongs to the necessity is the institution. And the reason for the institution is that intention is necessary to the Sacrament, and this is the Sacrament of necessity and is ordered to another. Therefore on account of the danger of a defect of intention it was expressed there in the form by its proper word. — From these things the objections are clear.

**To the objections:**

1. For what is objected, that the Lord did not hand it down in the form; it must be said that the Lord, before He said that, had instituted the form, which the Church now keeps and received from the Apostles. But that which is said in the last [chapter] of Matthew was a commemoration of the [form] already instituted; or, if Christ Himself did not institute it, the Church instituted it by the prompting of the Holy Spirit, and this is as much as if He Himself had said it with His own mouth. For the whole Trinity approves what the Holy Spirit Himself inspires to be done, just as that which Christ instituted.

2. To what is objected, that it is not necessary, because the act expresses intention: it must be said that on the contrary it is necessary, because the act can be done with manifold intention; for someone can immerse [another] in order to play, in order to wash the body, in order to baptize. And because the act could be done with manifold intention, therefore it did not determinately express the intention of baptizing; but the act of signing is wont to be done with one principal intention: therefore it is not a similar case.

3. To what is objected concerning the Eucharist, it must be said that it is not a Sacrament of necessity and moreover is not ordered to another; and again, it is done with greater solemnity: and therefore the intention there is gathered together, it does not wander then; therefore it is not necessary that it be expressed by a word, and therefore it did not need to be instituted, nor consequently observed. — There is another reason for this, but it will be said below, when the form of the Eucharist is treated.

### SCHOLION

**I.** The common doctrine of the Catholic doctors, which holds that in the form the act of baptizing must necessarily be expressed, is further confirmed by the decree of the Council of Florence (for the Armenians) and also by proposition (27.) reproved by Alexander VIII on 7 December 1690: « At one time a baptism conferred under this form was valid: In the name of the Father, etc., those words being omitted: I baptize you ». — On this Question I: Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. IV. q. 8. m. 3. a. 3. § 2. — Scotus, on this and the 2 following questions, here q. 2. — St. Thomas, on this and the two following questions, here q. I. a. 2. subquestions 1-3; *Summa* III. q. 66. a. 5. — Blessed Albert, on this and the 2 following questions, here a. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, on this and the following question, here q. 2. a. I. subquestions 1.2. — Richard of Mediavilla, on this and the 2 following questions, here a. 2. q. 3. — Durandus, on this and the following question, here q. I. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the 2 following questions, here q. 2.

**II.** In the following (2nd) question, to the 3rd [objection], it is taught with St. Thomas and all the ancient Scholastics that in the primitive Church, on account of a special disposition of God, a baptism conferred in the name of Christ without the expression of the Most Holy Trinity was valid; indeed a few others, to whom Cajetan adhered, asserted that even in our age a baptism so conferred is valid, but not licit. This opinion rests on certain passages of Acts (2:38; 8:16; 10:48) and especially on the words of Ambrose (*On the Holy Spirit*, bk., c. 3.) and of Pope Nicholas I (to the Bulgarians). Later theologians, however, think that it is not established as a fact that the Apostles actually baptized without our customary formula; indeed Estius (here § i. 5.) said that this supposition is improbable. But the Roman Catechism (p. II, On Baptism, n. 16.) judges better thus: « Although it can perhaps seem doubtful to someone with what kind of form the Apostles baptized anyone; if we wish to follow the authority of Ambrose and Basil, most holy and most weighty Fathers, who interpreted baptism in the name of Jesus Christ in such a way as to say that by those words is signified the baptism handed down not by John, but by Christ the Lord; even though the Apostles did not depart from the common and customary form, which contains the distinct names of the three persons ». — It can therefore be said that the ancient Scholastics spoke rather hypothetically, that is, on the supposition of that fact, without absolutely maintaining the fact itself. Besides the places cited: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. § 4. — St. Thomas, *Summa* loc. cit. a. 6.

**III.** On the 3rd question, besides the places cited: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. § 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2. a. 2. — Durandus, here q. 2.