Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It seems that this is not a suitable form of Baptism: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." For action should be ascribed to the principal agent rather than to the minister. Now the minister of a sacrament acts as an instrument, as stated above (Question 64, Article 1); while the principal agent in Baptism is Christ, according to Jn. 1:33, "He upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, He it is that baptizeth." It is therefore unbecoming for the minister to say, "I baptize thee": the more so that "Ego" is understood in the word "baptizo" , so that it seems redundant.

Objection 2: Further, there is no need for a man who does an action, to make mention of the action done; thus he who teaches, need not say, "I teach you." Now our Lord gave at the same time the precepts both of baptizing and of teaching, when He said (Mt. 28:19): "Going, teach ye all nations," etc. Therefore there is no need in the form of Baptism to mention the action of baptizing.

Objection 3: Further, the person baptized sometimes does not understand the words; for instance, if he be deaf, or a child. But it is useless to address such a one; according to Ecclus. 32:6: "Where there is no hearing, pour not out words." Therefore it is unfitting to address the person baptized with these words: "I baptize thee."

Objection 4: Further, it may happen that several are baptized by several at the same time; thus the apostles on one day baptized three thousand, and on another, five thousand (Acts 2,4). Therefore the form of Baptism should not be limited to the singular number in the words, "I baptize thee": but one should be able to say, "We baptize you."

Objection 5: Further, Baptism derives its power from Christ's Passion. But Baptism is sanctified by the form. Therefore it seems that Christ's Passion should be mentioned in the form of Baptism.

Objection 6: Further, a name signifies a thing's property. But there are three Personal Properties of the Divine Persons, as stated in the 1, Question 32, Article 3. Therefore we should not say, "in the name," but "in the names of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

Objection 7: Further, the Person of the Father is designated not only by the name Father, but also by that of "Unbegotten and Begetter"; and the Son by those of "Word," "Image," and "Begotten"; and the Holy Ghost by those of "Gift," "Love," and the "Proceeding One." Therefore it seems that Baptism is valid if conferred in these names.

On the contrary, our Lord said (Mt. 28:19): "Going . . . teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

I answer that, Baptism receives its consecration from its form, according to Eph. 5:26: "Cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life." And Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo iv) that "Baptism is consecrated by the words of the Gospel." Consequently the cause of Baptism needs to be expressed in the baptismal form. Now this cause is twofold; the principal cause from which it derives its virtue, and this is the Blessed Trinity; and the instrumental cause, viz. the minister who confers the sacrament outwardly. Wherefore both causes should be expressed in the form of Baptism. Now the minister is designated by the words, "I baptize thee"; and the principal cause in the words, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Therefore this is the suitable form of Baptism: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

Reply to Objection 1: Action is attributed to an instrument as to the immediate agent; but to the principal agent inasmuch as the instrument acts in virtue thereof. Consequently it is fitting that in the baptismal form the minister should be mentioned as performing the act of baptizing, in the words, "I baptize thee"; indeed, our Lord attributed to the ministers the act of baptizing, when He said: "Baptizing them," etc. But the principal cause is indicated as conferring the sacrament by His own power, in the words, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost": for Christ does not baptize without the Father and the Holy Ghost.

The Greeks, however, do not attribute the act of baptizing to the minister, in order to avoid the error of those who in the past ascribed the baptismal power to the baptizers, saying (1 Cor. 1:12): "I am of Paul . . . and I of Cephas." Wherefore they use the form: "May the servant of Christ, N . . ., be baptized, in the name of the Father," etc. And since the action performed by the minister is expressed with the invocation of the Trinity, the sacrament is validly conferred. As to the addition of "Ego" in our form, it is not essential; but it is added in order to lay greater stress on the intention.

Reply to Objection 2: Since a man may be washed with water for several reasons, the purpose for which it is done must be expressed by the words of the form. And this is not done by saying: "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"; because we are bound to do all things in that Name (Col. 3:17). Wherefore unless the act of baptizing be expressed, either as we do, or as the Greeks do, the sacrament is not valid; according to the decretal of Alexander III: "If anyone dip a child thrice in the water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen, without saying, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen, the child is not baptized."

Reply to Objection 3: The words which are uttered in the sacramental forms, are said not merely for the purpose of signification, but also for the purpose of efficiency, inasmuch as they derive efficacy from that Word, by Whom "all things were made." Consequently they are becomingly addressed not only to men, but also to insensible creatures; for instance, when we say: "I exorcize thee, creature salt" (Roman Ritual).

Reply to Objection 4: Several cannot baptize one at the same time: because an action is multiplied according to the number of the agents, if it be done perfectly by each. So that if two were to combine, of whom one were mute, and unable to utter the words, and the other were without hands, and unable to perform the action, they could not both baptize at the same time, one saying the words and the other performing the action.

On the other hand, in a case of necessity, several could be baptized at the same time; for no single one of them would receive more than one baptism. But it would be necessary, in that case, to say: "I baptize ye." Nor would this be a change of form, because "ye" is the same as "thee and thee." Whereas "we" does not mean "I and I," but "I and thou"; so that this would be a change of form.

Likewise it would be a change of form to say, "I baptize myself": consequently no one can baptize himself. For this reason did Christ choose to be baptized by John (Extra, De Baptismo et ejus effectu, cap. Debitum).

Reply to Objection 5: Although Christ's Passion is the principal cause as compared to the minister, yet it is an instrumental cause as compared to the Blessed Trinity. For this reason the Trinity is mentioned rather than Christ's Passion.

Reply to Objection 6: Although there are three personal names of the three Persons, there is but one essential name. Now the Divine power which works in Baptism, pertains to the Essence; and therefore we say, "in the name," and not, "in the names."

Reply to Objection 7: Just as water is used in Baptism, because it is more commonly employed in washing, so for the purpose of designating the three Persons, in the form of Baptism, those names are chosen, which are generally used, in a particular language, to signify the Persons. Nor is the sacrament valid if conferred in any other names.

Articulus 5

Argumentum 1

Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod haec non sit conveniens forma baptismi, ego te baptizo in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti.

Actus enim magis debet attribui principali agenti quam ministro. Sed in sacramento minister agit ut instrumentum, ut supra dictum est, principale autem agens in baptismo est christus, secundum illud Ioan. I, super quem videris spiritum descendentem et manentem, hic est qui baptizat.

Inconvenienter ergo minister dicit, ego te baptizo, praesertim quia in hoc quod dicitur baptizo, intelligitur ego, et sic videtur superflue apponi.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, non oportet quod ille qui aliquem actum exercet, de actu exercito faciat mentionem, sicut ille qui docet, non oportet quod dicat, ego vos doceo. Dominus autem simul tradidit praeceptum baptizandi et docendi, dicens, euntes, docete omnes gentes, etc.. Ergo non oportet quod in forma baptismi fiat mentio de actu baptismi.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, ille qui baptizatur, quandoque non intelligit verba, puta si sit surdus aut puer. Frustra autem ad talem sermo dirigitur, secundum illud Eccli., ubi non est auditus, non effundas sermonem.

Ergo inconvenienter dicitur, ego te baptizo, sermone directo ad eum qui baptizatur.

Argumentum 4

Praeterea, contingit simul plures baptizari a pluribus, sicut apostoli baptizaverunt una die tria millia, et alia die quinque millia, ut dicitur Act. II et IV.

Non ergo debet forma baptismi determinari in singulari numero, ut dicatur, ego te baptizo, sed potest dici, nos vos baptizamus.

Argumentum 5

Praeterea, baptismus virtutem habet a passione christi. Sed per formam baptismus sanctificatur. Ergo videtur quod in forma baptismi debeat fieri mentio de passione christi.

Argumentum 6

Praeterea, nomen designat proprietatem rei. Sed tres sunt proprietates personales divinarum personarum, ut in prima parte dictum est.

Non ergo debet dici, in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti, sed, in nominibus.

Argumentum 7

Praeterea, persona patris non solum significatur nomine patris, sed etiam nomine innascibilis et genitoris; filius etiam significatur nomine verbi et imaginis et geniti; spiritus etiam sanctus potest significari nomine doni et amoris, et nomine procedentis. Ergo videtur quod etiam his nominibus utendo perficitur baptismus.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod dominus dicit, Matth. Ult., euntes, docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod baptismus per suam formam consecratur, secundum illud Ephes. V, mundans eam lavacro aquae in verbo vitae, et Augustinus dicit, in libro de unico baptismo, quod baptismus verbis evangelicis consecratur.

Et ideo oportet quod in forma baptismi exprimatur causa baptismi. Est autem eius duplex causa, una quidem principalis, a qua virtutem habet, quae est sancta trinitas; alia autem est instrumentalis, scilicet minister, qui tradit exterius sacramentum. Et ideo debet in forma baptismi de utraque fieri mentio. Minister autem tangitur cum dicitur, ego te baptizo, causa autem principalis, cum dicitur, in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti.

Unde haec est conveniens forma baptismi, ego te baptizo in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod actio attribuitur instrumento sicut immediate agenti, attribuitur autem principali agenti sicut in cuius virtute instrumentum agit. Et ideo in forma baptismi convenienter significatur minister ut exercens actum baptismi, per hoc quod dicitur, ego te baptizo, et ipse dominus baptizandi actum attribuit ministris, dicens, baptizantes eos, etc..

Causa autem principalis significatur ut in cuius virtute sacramentum agitur, per hoc quod dicitur, in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti, non enim christus baptizat sine patre et spiritu sancto.

Graeci autem non attribuunt actum baptismi ministris, ad evitandum antiquorum errorem, qui virtutem baptismi baptistis attribuebant, dicentes, ego sum Pauli, et ego cephae.

Et ideo dicunt, baptizetur servus christi talis in nomine patris, etc..

Et quia exprimitur actus exercitus per ministrum cum invocatione trinitatis, verum perficitur sacramentum. Quod autem additur ego in forma nostra, non est de substantia formae, sed ponitur ad maiorem expressionem intentionis.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod, quia ablutio hominis in aqua propter multa fieri potest, oportet quod determinetur in verbis formae ad quid fiat. Quod quidem non fit per hoc quod dicitur, in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti, quia omnia in tali nomine facere debemus, ut habetur Coloss. III.

Et ideo, si non exprimatur actus baptismi, vel per modum nostrum vel per modum Graecorum, non perficitur sacramentum, secundum illam decretalem Alexandri III, si quis puerum ter in aquam merserit in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti amen, et non dixerit, ego te baptizo in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti amen, non est puer baptizatus.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod verba quae proferuntur in formis sacramentorum, non pronuntiantur solum causa significandi, sed etiam causa efficiendi, inquantum habent efficaciam ab illo verbo per quod facta sunt omnia. Et ideo convenienter diriguntur non solum ad homines, sed etiam ad creaturas insensibiles, ut cum dicitur, exorcizo te, creatura salis.

Ad 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod plures simul non possunt unum baptizare, quia actus multiplicatur secundum multiplicationem agentium, si perfecte ab unoquoque agatur. Et sic, si convenirent duo quorum unus esset mutus, qui non posset proferre verba, et alius carens manibus, qui non posset exercere actum, non possent ambo simul baptizare, uno dicente verba et alio exercente actum.

Possunt autem, si necessitas exigit, plures simul baptizari, quia nullus eorum recipiet nisi unum baptismum. Sed tunc oportebit dicere, ego baptizo vos. Nec erit mutatio formae, quia vos nihil aliud est quam te et te. Quod autem dicitur nos, non est idem quod ego et ego, sed, ego et tu, et sic iam mutaretur forma.

Similiter autem mutaretur forma si diceretur, ego baptizo me.

Et ideo nullus potest baptizare seipsum.

Propter quod etiam christus a ioanne voluit baptizari, ut dicitur extra, de baptismo et eius effectu, cap. Debitum.

Ad 5

Ad quintum dicendum quod passio christi, etsi sit principalis causa respectu ministri, est tamen causa instrumentalis respectu sanctae trinitatis. Et ideo potius commemoratur trinitas quam passio christi.

Ad 6

Ad sextum dicendum quod, etsi sint tria nomina personalia trium personarum, est tamen unum nomen essentiale. Virtus autem divina, quae operatur in baptismo, ad essentiam pertinet.

Et ideo dicitur in nomine, et non in nominibus.

Ad 7

Ad septimum dicendum quod, sicut aqua sumitur ad baptismum quia eius usus est communior ad abluendum, ita ad significandum tres personas in forma baptismi assumuntur illa nomina quibus communius consueverunt nominari personae in illa lingua.

Nec in aliis nominibus perficitur sacramentum.