Dist. 5, Art. 1, 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/5/q/bon-sent-IV-d5-a1-q1
----------------------------------------
### 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 rebaptized: 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

an element common to all; 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 four, 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. Isidore: «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 perish. 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 intention: 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 baptize 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 light*. 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 men. — 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

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 ill»; 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 better.

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 decretal, 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 baptism. — 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 stronger.

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 form; 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 foregoing, 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 says, *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 idiom — 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 predetermined, 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.

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 way, 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 baptism.