The Ordinatio of John Duns Scotus :: Ordinatio. Book 4. Distinctions 1

Question Two. Whether this is the Precise Form of Baptism: ‘I Baptize you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit’

29. Proceeding to the second principal question [n.6], it is argued that the form of baptism is not this: ‘I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.’

30. First because in the case of everything that has form and matter, its form is in the matter; but this form is not in the water itself nor in the cleansing as in a subject (as is plain).

31. Second, Christ in Matthew 28.39 did not express this form when expressing the form of baptism; but the form of the sacraments he instituted is taken from him; therefore etc .

32. Third, if the above words are the form, then either as they are true or as they are false. But not as they are false, because there is nothing false in sacraments of truth. Nor as they are true, because their truth, in the order of nature, follows the conferring of the sacrament of baptism (for the truth of a statement follows the being of that which is signified by it, and the statement here signifies the conferring of the sacrament). But a form, in the way it is a form, is not posterior but prior to that of which it is the form, Metaphysics 7.3.1029a5-7.

33. Again, species and form are the same; but there are more species of baptism than the aforesaid form, because there are three: namely baptism of water, of fire, and of blood (Gratian Decretum p.3 d.4 ch.5.34), and the aforesaid form is not followed in the two last; therefore etc .

34. Again, there is argument about the parts of this form:

First as follows: the Greeks truly baptize, because Latins who come to them are not rebaptized, or because those baptized by them are not rebaptized when they come to us. Yet the Greeks do not keep the above form but this one: “May the servant of Christ be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”

35. Again, according to Priscian [Grammatical Instruction 8.18.101] the verb in the first person [in Latin] implicitly contains the first person pronoun without the addition of ‘I’. And this is confirmed by Gregory IX Decretals III tit.42 ch.1 [from Pope Alexander III] ‘On baptism and its effect’, where the gloss says that “the personal pronoun does not belong to the substance of the form, because the verb ‘baptizo’ (‘[I] baptize’) without the first person pronoun ‘ego’ completes the full sense.” Also Decretals p.3 d.4 ch.24, “If anyone says ‘[I] baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,’ the person is baptized from the fact that the one baptizing has the intention to baptize.” But the first person pronoun is not made express there.¹⁰

36. Again, Gratian, Decretum p.3 d.4 ch.24, from Ambrose On the Holy Spirit 1.3.40-43, “If they have been baptized in the name of the Trinity and of Christ they should not be rebaptized,” because thus did the Apostles baptize, as said in Acts 2.38, 8.12, 19.5.

37. Again Augustine On the Trinity 5.7.8, “It is the same thing to be Father and to be begetter;” therefore to say ‘in the name of the Begetter and the Begotten’ would have equally the same force as to say ‘in the name of the Father and of the Son etc .’

38. Again Ambrose ibid. 1.3.42 (and it is also in Lombard’s text), “If the mystery of the Trinity is held by faith and only one of the Persons is named, the sacrament is complete.”

39. Again [Aristotle] On Interpretation 10.20b1-2, “Nouns and verbs mean the same when transposed;” therefore the words would have equal force if they were transposed; therefore the form given above is not a precise one.

40. On the contrary:

Gregory IX Decretals III tit. 42 ch.1, “If anyone has immersed a child three times in water ‘in the name of the Father etc .’ and has not said, ‘I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’, the child is not baptized.¹¹

I. To the Question

A. Whether and How Certain Words could be the Form of Baptism

41. Here three [four]¹² things need to be considered. The first is whether certain words could be the form of this sacrament.

Here one must note that, when speaking properly of form as it is one of the two parts of a composite thing, the form of a sacrament is the relation of sign, by which relation it is formally such a sacrament; and the matter is the whole that is the foundation of the relation However, if there are in some foundation many things that one sacrament in some way comes to be from, and if these many things are not disposed altogether equally but one of them is as it were prior and a determinable while the other is as it were posterior and a determination of the preceding one, then the first can be called ‘matter’ by a certain likeness to matter, and the second can be called form. For it belongs to matter to precede in origin and to be determined, while it belongs to form to follow and to determine.

42. Likewise, what is more principal and more actual can be called form with respect to what is less principal and more potential.

43. Likewise, what is more spiritual can be called form with respect to what is less spiritual.

44. As to the question at issue, then, cleansing and words come together as foundation of the relation of baptism, either as parts of the foundation, according to one opinion [n.16], or as foundation and circumstances of the foundation, according to the other opinion [n.17].

45. If in the first way, the more principal part in signifying is the words themselves, because according to Augustine On Christian Doctrine 2.3.4, “Words among men have obtained the principality in signifying;” and he says something similar in On the Trinity 15.11.20. So, because of this principality in signifying, words could be called ‘form’ with respect to the other part.

46. But if in the second way [n.44], it is plain that words are the determining elements with respect to cleansing.

47. And whether this way or that, it is plain that words are more spiritual than cleansing.

And so, according to this metaphorical use of the terms, it is plain that where a visible sign and certain words come together at the same time in the foundation of some relation of a sacrament, the words always state the form.

B. About the Form of Baptism Needed on the Part of the Minister

48. The second thing that needs to be considered is what words are the form of baptism in the above stated way [n.29].

49. Here one needs to know that there is in sacraments something necessary simply, that is, on the part of the sacrament (something namely which when it does not exist there is altogether no sacrament), and also something necessary in a certain way, that is, on the part of the minister (without which the minister, when dispensing the sacrament, cannot avoid sin).

50. But if one asks about the necessary form in this second way [n.49], that is, about the form that must necessarily be observed by the minister, I say that in the whole Roman Church the form that the question is about [n.29] is necessary, namely necessary for the minister whose office it is to baptize. Who this minister is will be stated later (in d.5 nn.30, 70-73), for ignorance cannot excuse him since he is bound to know the matters of the office he is deputed to. The proof of the conclusion is that any minister in the Roman Church is bound necessarily to keep the form that the same Church has imposed on its ministers. Of this sort is the form that the question is about, as is plain from Gregory IX Decretals III t.42 ch1, ‘about baptism and its effect’.

51. But if one asks about the necessary form that a minister among the Greeks must observe, one can say that, as far as concerns certain non-principal words in the form, namely those that express the receiver and the act or the minister, the Greek Church has sometimes not wanted to keep that form [n.34], the reason for which is touched on by the Apostle I Corinthians 1.11-3, 3.3-6, “But this I say, that each of you says, ‘I am of Paul etc.’;” because they were glorying in the ministers who baptized them, as if baptism were attributed or ascribed to those ministers; and Paul rebukes them, and indicates their dispute when he says, “Is Christ divided?”

52. For this reason it was ordained among the Greeks (in order to take away the schism) that the minister would not be expressed, nor the act in the indicative mood but in the optative mood, because then the minister is signified not to be the author of baptism, but only the minister desiring and praying for the effect of baptism to be conferred by God; the receiver too would not be expressed in the second person but in the third person, as if he were precisely not receiving what he receives from someone directly speaking to him. However, it would have been possible for the receiver to have been expressed better than by the phrase ‘servant of Christ’, namely by his own name; for baptism is not of someone who is already a servant of Christ but so that he may be a servant of Christ - speaking of the spiritual servitude by which a Christian is a servant of Christ.

53. About this Greek form [n.34] one can say that, as long as it was tolerated by the Roman Church, it was permitted to the Greeks, and also permitted for the time which it was instituted for during the aforesaid cause [n.51]. But when the cause ceased, the common form [n.29] could reasonably have been imposed on them.

54. Either, then, the Roman Church has prohibited that form as far as the Greeks are concerned, and then they sin by keeping it (because it is not found in any chapter [of canon law] making special mention of them); or if the Roman Church has permitted or conceded it, then it seems licit for them to continue the form. And if, while such permission or license continues to stand, they have ordained in their particular Councils that such form is first to be kept among them, it seems that their ministers are bound to keep it. The case is just as when permission by the Roman Church continues to stand that in some places a triple immersion [in baptism] should be done and in others a single immersion; for then in a Church that has determined on a triple immersion a triple immersion should be done, and it is a necessity in the minister to keep the precept and the manner of his own Church.

So much about the necessary form on the part of the minister.

C. About the Form Necessary on the Part of the Sacrament

55. Third, as to the form necessary on the part of the sacrament [n.49], it is plain that this form is not necessary as to all the words, because of the fact that the Greeks did truly baptize, though not under the same form [nn.29, 34].

56. Hence one must note that in this form there are some words that belong to it principally and some that belong to it non-principally, because they express the minister, the act, and the receiver.

1. About the Non-Principal Words of the Form

57. One of these, namely the minister, is not required to be expressed by any word, not even by the pronoun for any person, because it is not in the words of Christ in the last chapter of Matthew (28.19).

58. But the other two, namely the act and the receiver, must be expressed, though not determinately in the way they are expressed in the words stated [n.29], namely the act in the indicative mood and the receiver by a second person pronoun. But the act can be expressed by a verb in another mood, and the receiver by a word or pronoun in another person, as the Greeks do [n.34]. But the reason for the necessity that these two be expressed in some way or other is taken from the phrase in the last chapter of Matthew, “baptizing them in the name of the Father etc.,” where the act and the receiver are expressed.

2. About the Principal Words of the Form

59. Now about the principal words, which are ‘in the name of the Father and of the Son etc.’, one must consider whether these precisely belong to the form.

60. To understand this one must note that, according to the Philosopher Physics 5.1.225a1-b3, 2.226a23-25, change is of four kinds, namely in substance, quality, quantity, and ‘where’.

61. Thus, there can be a fourfold variation in these words, namely in substance, when other words are put for these, or a different word for this or that word; in quantity, by adding or taking away - and if by adding, whether by diminishment or by putting something afterwards or in between; in quality, namely by taking away some termination required for appropriate speech; in ‘where’ by transposition.

62. About each of these variations I say that if he who varies in respect of them intends to use the words that he does use as the Church’s or baptism’s precise form, he does not baptize. For he lacks the intention to use the words that are used as the form by the Church; for he intends to use as the precise form of baptism words that are in some way altered.

63. Supposing that the intention is not lacking, then, we ask, on the part of the words in themselves, which of these variations can stand alongside the form and which cannot. The individual points will be dealt with in order.

a. About Variation in Substance

64. About the first [substance, n.61] I say that it can be understood in two ways: either [A] that a word different in a certain respect replaces one of the principal words (namely a different locution), though it signifies the same thing under the same idea; or [B] that a word different simply does the replacing, namely a different locution signifying a different thing.

65. And if the replacement happens in the second way [B], this can still be in two ways: either [B1] because the thing signified in that very place is altogether disparate from what is signified by the word that is replaced (as would be the case if ‘stone’ were to replace ‘Father’), or [B2] because what is signified is fitting and has altogether the same substrate in reality.

66. This latter way [B2] too happens in two ways:

Either [B2.1] because it distinctly expresses the Three Persons signified under ideas different from those signified by ‘of the Father and of the Son’ etc. (and such is the case with the nouns ‘of the Begetter, of the Begotten, and of the Inspirited’; for these signify the Persons under the idea of their properties, not under the idea of their subsistence and hypostasis).

Or [B2.2] these Persons are signified implicitly, and this either [B2.2a] as in some collective whole (in the way that the name ‘Holy Trinity’ signifies), or [B2.2b] implicitly in something that imports the Persons by some correspondence of effect to cause, as does the name ‘Christ’; for this name signifies the Son in his human nature, the anointed one, and it gives to be understood the ‘Father’ by whom he is anointed and the ‘Holy Spirit’ with whom he is anointed.

67. So therefore, as to this division of variation [sc. in substance], we have [1=A] a name different only in locution, or [2=B1] a name signifying something altogether disparate, or [3=B2.1] names that do not signify the Three Persons under the idea of Persons, as ‘Begetter’ and ‘Begotten’, or [4=B2.2a] a name that signifies them collectively, as ‘Trinity’, or [5=B2.2b] a name that connotes the Persons as effects connote their cause.¹³

68. About these five possibilities [n.67]:

About the first [1] it is plain that the same form remains, because baptism can be done in any language. Perhaps, however, it is not licit (for someone baptizing solemnly by virtue of his office) to use words of just any language (as it is not licit in the consecrating of the Eucharist). For the Roman Church has ordained that ecclesiastical offices be said and sacraments be administered in grammatical Latin. And this is reasonable, because grammatical Latin can be more distinctly written and spoken. As for words altogether inappropriate [2], it is plain that the form is not preserved in them.

69. As for names signifying properties of the Persons and not the Persons [3], as ‘Begetter’ etc., I say that the form is not preserved in them, because Christ wanted the Persons to be named with the names of the Persons, and he did so reasonably, in accord with what was touched on in Ord. I d.22 n.10. For just as a name was given to the Jews signifying the divine essence under its proper idea, which they call the ‘Tetragrammaton’ name of God, so Christ gave to the Church names signifying the Persons under their proper ideas. Or if he did not so give them, yet it is very possible that, in some invocation, the name of the Person has some efficacy that the name of the property of the Person does not have. For when seeking some gift from someone ‘for love of John’, the gift would be more quickly obtained than if, in place of the proper name, something signifying a property of the individual were put.

70. As for the name of the Trinity [4], it is plain that Christ understood that the Persons needed to be made explicit; but in the name ‘Trinity’ the Persons are only introduced implicitly. And therefore, as to what is said in the chapter from Gratian [n.36], ‘Trinity’ must be understood to be put for the three Persons explicitly.

71. As for the fifth [5], namely about the name ‘Christ’, it is plain that it was sometimes licit to baptize in that name, Acts 2.38, 9.17-18, 10.48.

72. But whether it would be baptism now if it were thus handed on is doubtful.

73. It seems that someone thus baptizing would sin mortally; indeed he would altogether not baptize.

The proof of the first part is that no inferior can revoke the law of a superior, neither simply nor for a time. The law about baptizing in the common form of ‘In the name of the Father etc .’ was promulgated by Christ, Matthew 28.19. So for the time Christ has not revoked the same, no one else can revoke it. But although Christ made dispensation from that law in the time of the primitive Church (because then there was a reason for dispensation, so that the name of Christ might be made public), yet he made no dispensation when that reason ceased. Therefore , no inferior can for any time thereafter be absolved in any way from that law.

The proof of the second part is similar, because the form commonly handed on always remains as the form unless another form has, by way of dispensation, been handed on for a certain time by the institutor of the form. But the form handed on by way of dispensation was only handed on for the time for which there was a reason for the dispensation, namely in the primitive Church, so that the name of Christ might be made public. Therefore when the time of dispensation ceased, only that form remains which, from the institution, was the form.

74. What then? For I do not dare to say that someone baptized today in the name of Christ would have been baptized; but neither do I dare to say or assert that he would not have been baptized, for I do not read where the dispensation was relaxed or revoked.

75. In this matter, then, I reckon there is a doubt whether such a one has been baptized. And in his case one should use the sort of remedy that is used in other doubtful cases, on which Gregory IX Decretals III tit.42 ch.2 says, “As to those about whom there is a doubt whether they have been baptized, let them be baptized in these words, ‘If you have been baptized, I do not baptize you; but if you have not been baptized I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’.”

76. And universally in all doubtful cases as to matter and form there are three maxims. The first is, ‘If it is possible, the safest way is to be chosen’; the second is, ‘If it is not possible, the way next to the safest is to be held to’; the third is, ‘When the impossibility ceases, one must cautiously supply what the earlier impossibility was preventing’.

b. About Variation in Quantity

77. About the second main variation, namely in quantity [n.61], I say that if anything is added that is repugnant to the principal words of the form, or that diminishes them, nothing is done, because the form is not preserved. An example of the first is if it be said ‘In the name of the Father the Greater and of the Son the Lesser etc.’; an example of the second is if there is an omission or a disjunction or if some condition that does not exist is interposed, as ‘If I am a bishop I baptize you in the name of the Father etc.’; or if there is some disjunctive speech against the idea of the form, because a disjunctive determinately posits one of the disjuncts; and the same in like cases.

78. About interposition, however, supposing it is not with respect to anything that is disruptive or repugnant, there is this special point that, if the interposition interrupts the due unity of the form, the form does not remain. But as to when such necessary unity is interrupted, let it be judged by other human acts. That is, when no judgment from an interruption by something impertinent is made in common discourse that the previous speaking cannot be continued, then likewise no such judgment should be made in the issue at hand. For example, if someone were to begin speaking and say ‘be quiet’ or ‘go away’, it would not for this reason be reckoned necessary for him to begin his speech again, but he could continue the same speech notwithstanding such interruption.

79. Now as to subtraction, if one of the non-principal words is taken away, the answer was stated before [nn.56-58]. But if one of the principal words is taken away, nothing is done, because each of those words is per se necessary for the form. But if some syllable is taken away by syncope,¹⁴ then the form is not for this reason destroyed. For God did not wish to bind man to words in the sacraments beyond the point where the words suffice for expressing the concept. But words with syncope suffice, as is plain, because the hearer can well understand with syncope the concept of the speaker. But syncope is to be more guarded against in sacramental words than in common words, because of the reverence of the sacrament. However, I would not dare to say that he who does not avoid syncope sins mortally (provided his failure to avoid it is not from contempt, but is from some infirmity or some human inadvertence that he might not avoid as much as possible in all cases).

c. About Variation in Quantity

80. About the third main variation, namely in quality [n.61]: As to the determination that belongs to the chief part of the words, the answer is plain from Gratian Decretum p.3 d.5 ch.86, where the Pope, mentioning a priest who baptized “in the name of the Fathera, the Sona, and the Holy Spirita,” replies that “if he did this from lack of skill in the language without intending to introduce error, he has truly baptized.” The point must be taken about an inappropriateness at the end of a word that does not prevent the concept signified by the words from being able to be understood. And how this is possible is well known by experience to those who listen to certain illiterates speaking improperly and yet they well grasp what they want to say, even as to individual words.

d. About Variation in ‘Where’

81. About the fourth main variation, namely in ‘where’ [n.61], I say that some transpositions do altogether vary the sense, as suppose it were said “I of the Father baptize you in the name of the Son, etc.” But some transpositions may retain in the form the same force, as suppose it were said “In the name of the Son and of the Father etc.” The first transposition is an impediment, because it removes the meaning from the statement as it has been instituted. The second is not an impediment, because although it would be fitting, when mentioning the Persons, to preserve the order (which is of the Persons according to origin), and although this is necessary as far as the minister is concerned, yet it does not seem altogether necessary on the part of the sacrament. For the Persons, in whatever order they are named, are a single efficient principle in baptism, and they are invoked as such.

II. To the Initial Arguments

82. To the first argument [n.30] the answer is plain from the first article [nn.41-47] about what the form properly is here, and how the words are the form.

83. To the second argument [n.31] the answer is plain from the second article [nn.48-54] that Christ expressed the words that are the principal ones in the form (namely the act and the receiver). But it was in the power of the Church to determine what words of the first or third person in the indicative or optative mood would express the receiver and the act. And the Latin Church has chosen to express the receiver in the second person and the act in the indicative mood - and reasonably, in order to indicate that the minister is truly conferring the sacrament. But the Greek Church has chosen to express the receiver in the third person and the act in the optative mood - and reasonably for the time, as was said [nn.51-53], namely so as to take away the schism between those who were glorying in the ministers who baptized them.

84. To the third [n.32] one can say that the division [sc. into false and true] is not sufficient, for it is very possible that some words taken materially are the form in some sacrament; indeed, God could have instituted non-significative word-signs for the form.

85. In another way it can be said that the speech is true, not for the time of speaking it, but for the final instant that completes the speaking, as will be said below in the material about the Eucharist [d.8 q.2 n.16]. And then, when the argument is made that a statement, as true, follows the actuality of the thing, this is true: it follows the cleansing itself, and the cleansing is introduced there by the word ‘I baptize’; and then the sense will not be, ‘I baptize, that is, I confer the sacrament of baptism’, but it will be ‘I baptize, that is, I cleanse’.

86. To the fourth [n.34]¹⁵, about the Greeks, the answer is plain from what was said above [nn.51-54].

87. To the fifth [n.35], about the pronoun ‘ego’, it is true that it does not belong simply to the form, neither as expressed nor as implied in a verb of the first person. But as to the Latin Church (at least after the time of Alexander III) it is necessary for the minister to express the pronoun ‘ego’; and the gloss with its proof can be understood of the time preceding the constitution of Alexander III.

88. To the one about the Trinity and Christ [nn.36, 38] the answer is plain from what was said about the first variation in words [nn.66-75].

89. To the one about ‘Begetter’ etc. [n.37] one must say that Augustine means there that ‘Begetter’ and ‘Father’ are the same as to their being said in relation to another, or as to importing the property of the same Person. But they are not the same as to the first signified concept in each case, because ‘Father’ signifies first and per se the supposit in the divine nature, while ‘Begetter’ signifies first and per se the property; and there is not the same force in a proper name and in the name of a property when one of the Persons is invoked for some effect.

90. To the last one [n.39] I say that the proposition of the Philosopher is true absolutely of transposed names, but it does not follow that the conception of the whole locution is the same when such names are transposed in this or that way. But the form [of baptism] does not consist only in the signification of single words but in the signification of the whole locution.

SUBSCRIBER:

past masters commons

Annotation Guide: