Dist. 3, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 2
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-q2
----------------------------------------
### 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 Matthew. *Grounds.*

2. Likewise, Fulgentius: «The mystery of redemption is in no way had, if the name of the Father or of the Son or of the Holy Spirit be withdrawn».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 Gaudentius: «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 necessary, 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]: «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 one: 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 Christ*: 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 power 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 passion: 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 ways: *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 second 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 full. *Opinion I.* And Ambrose seems to say this, and of this opinion Hugh 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 inspired, 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 form. *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 form 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 Christ. *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 named.