Dist. 3, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 3
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-q3
----------------------------------------
### Question III. *On the variation of the form.*

Thirdly it is asked concerning the variation of the form; which can happen in five ways: *by changing, by adding, by corrupting, by transmuting, by interposing.*

1. *Change* occurs, as when one name is put for another, for instance if for *father* one says *begetter*. — And that this does not invalidate, seems to be the case: because the form of baptism is not regarded in the words as the words are [mere sounds], for then it would not be the same form among us and among the Greeks, but in the words insofar as they are significative; if therefore *father* and *begetter* signify the same, the one will do the same thing in the form as the other. — And besides, *father* and *begetter* agree more than the name *father* in Greek and in Latin, since they are of the same language.

2. *Addition* is when a name not expressed in the form is added over and above, as if one says *in the name of the Father almighty,* etc. And that this does not invalidate, seems to be the case: because, when a name is added, even if it does nothing, there nevertheless remains the whole that constituted the Sacrament: and if the whole, in which the power resides, remains, then it is a full and efficacious Sacrament.

3. *Corruption* is when the utterance of the name is in a less fitting manner, for instance if one says: *in the name of the patrias and the filias,* etc. — And that this does not invalidate, seems to be the case: because Zachary, writing to Boniface, says: «If it should happen that someone, through ignorance, in baptizing says with a broken pronunciation: *in the name of the patria and the filia,* he is not to be rebaptized». And the reason for this can be given, namely that the sense is sound.

4. *Transposition* is when the form is ordered otherwise, for instance if one says first *in the name of the Son* and afterward *in the name of the Father.* — And that this does not invalidate, seems to be the case: because «transposed names signify the same, as if one says: *est homo albus; est albus homo*» [a man is white; white is a man]: if therefore the sense is altogether the same and the profession of faith the same, transposition does not invalidate.

5. *Interposition* is when in the middle some act intervenes, such as a sneeze, or a word, as: *in the name of the Father, and this water is cold, and of the Son,* etc. — And that this does not invalidate, seems to be the case: because the whole is preserved when something is interposed; and some men are so forgetful that they always interpose something before they can complete the utterance begun.

**On the contrary:** 1. That *change* invalidates, seems to be the case: because the power was given to those words, and not to others: therefore, etc.

2. Likewise, that *addition* invalidates, seems to be the case: because, if nothing may be added to the canon of Scripture, much more strongly nothing may be added to the form of the Sacrament. The first is plain from what is said in the last [chapter] of the Apocalypse: *If anyone shall add to these things,* etc.

3. Likewise, that *corruption* invalidates, seems to be the case: because corrupt words either signify nothing or signify something else:

as is plain when one says *patria;* but the words are necessary as significative: therefore, etc.

4. Likewise, concerning *transmutation* it seems so: because, just as the number of persons belongs to the integrity of the faith, so does the order of procession: therefore, just as change of number invalidates, so also change of order.

5. Likewise, concerning *interposition* it seems so: because to baptize is one continuous act: therefore if it is interrupted, it is necessary to begin again, or it will not be one [act], and so neither a baptism.

> **Conclusion.** A certain variation of the form invalidates the Sacrament, but a certain other does not.

**I respond:** To this some have wished to say that, in whatever way the variation occurs, provided that all the persons are expressed, the Sacrament is whole. — The position of others was that it is necessary that complete identity be preserved; for however small a variation in the form makes it not to be a Sacrament.

But both of these positions are to be rejected; for each *goes too far.* Hence it must be said that some variation invalidates, some does not. For the variation of *change* invalidates, whether it is done from sure knowledge or in some other way. *Change,* I say, *of the name,* as if one says: *in the name of the begetter and the begotten,* because it is one mode of expressing the Trinity through the principal names, another through non-principal names. *Change* also *of number* invalidates, as if one says: *I baptize thee in the names,* because the meaning is different.

1. To that, then, which is objected, that they signify the same; it must be said that the *mode of signifying* must be attended to, because the power was given to the names expressing the Trinity, and this principally according to every language. — As for what it objects, that they agree more because they are in the same language; it must be said that, although [they agree] more as to the mode of speaking, nevertheless not more as to the mode of signifying. For in a name there are three things to consider: the *sound,* the *note* or *expression,* and the *signification.* As to the *first* they agree more, but as to the *second* less, as to the *third* equally. And the power of regeneration was given by reason of the *note,* or as to the character of making known, from which the name is imposed; and this is the same among all.

2. Concerning *addition* it must be said that it is either an addition of a word *distracting from the meaning;* and this invalidates, if the opposite be added, as if one says *of the Father begotten;* or one *preserving [it],* as *of the Father unbegotten,* and then it does not invalidate, unless one wishes to introduce an error. — As for what is objected concerning the threat of the Apocalypse, it is understood of an addition that *distracts*.

3. To that which is asked concerning *corruption,* it must be said that corruption is either so great that it in no way holds the sense, and then it altogether invalidates; or it is not so great but that [the sense] well remains, as with a stammering child, who is nevertheless understood; and then it must be said that it does not invalidate. — As for what it objects, that the words do not signify; it must be said that, although they do not signify *by institution,* they nevertheless signify *by the accommodation of usage,* as *olli* for *illi*.

4. To that which is asked concerning *transmutation,* it must be said that, if it is done simply without the dogmatizing of an error, it does not invalidate. And the reason for this is that the order is understood in the words themselves, namely that the Son proceeds from the Father; and it is not necessary to express the order in the way that the names of the persons [are expressed]; and thus what it objects is plain.

5. To that which it objects concerning *interposition* or *intermission,* it must be said that either the intermission is so great that it interrupts the intention and makes a long delay: for instance if one makes a long speech, or goes to make water; and then it is necessary that he begin again. But if a slight little pause intervenes through forgetfulness or a sneeze, the act is not interrupted, nor is it necessary to begin again.

---