Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It seems that Baptism can be conferred in the name of Christ. For just as there is "one Faith," so is there "one Baptism" (Eph. 4:5). But it is related (Acts 8:12) that "in the name of Jesus Christ they were baptized, both men and women." Therefore now also can Baptism be conferred in the name of Christ.

Objection 2: Further, Ambrose says (De Spir. Sanct. i): "If you mention Christ, you designate both the Father by Whom He was anointed, and the Son Himself, Who was anointed, and the Holy Ghost with Whom He was anointed." But Baptism can be conferred in the name of the Trinity: therefore also in the name of Christ.

Objection 3: Further, Pope Nicholas I, answering questions put to him by the Bulgars, said: "Those who have been baptized in the name of the Trinity, or only in the name of Christ, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles (it is all the same, as Blessed Ambrose saith), must not be rebaptized." But they would be baptized again if they had not been validly baptized with that form. Therefore Baptism can be celebrated in the name of Christ by using this form: "I baptize thee in the name of Christ."

On the contrary, Pope Pelagius II wrote to the Bishop Gaudentius: "If any people living in your Worship's neighborhood, avow that they have been baptized in the name of the Lord only, without any hesitation baptize them again in the name of the Blessed Trinity, when they come in quest of the Catholic Faith." Didymus, too, says (De Spir. Sanct.): "If indeed there be such a one with a mind so foreign to faith as to baptize while omitting one of the aforesaid names," viz. of the three Persons, "he baptizes invalidly."

I answer that, As stated above (Question 64, Article 3), the sacraments derive their efficacy from Christ's institution. Consequently, if any of those things be omitted which Christ instituted in regard to a sacrament, it is invalid; save by special dispensation of Him Who did not bind His power to the sacraments. Now Christ commanded the sacrament of Baptism to be given with the invocation of the Trinity. And consequently whatever is lacking to the full invocation of the Trinity, destroys the integrity of Baptism.

Nor does it matter that in the name of one Person another is implied, as the name of the Son is implied in that of the Father, or that he who mentions the name of only one Person may believe aright in the Three; because just as a sacrament requires sensible matter, so does it require a sensible form. Hence, for the validity of the sacrament it is not enough to imply or to believe in the Trinity, unless the Trinity be expressed in sensible words. For this reason at Christ's Baptism, wherein was the source of the sanctification of our Baptism, the Trinity was present in sensible signs: viz. the Father in the voice, the Son in the human nature, the Holy Ghost in the dove.

Reply to Objection 1: It was by a special revelation from Christ that in the primitive Church the apostles baptized in the name of Christ; in order that the name of Christ, which was hateful to Jews and Gentiles, might become an object of veneration, in that the Holy Ghost was given in Baptism at the invocation of that Name.

Reply to Objection 2: Ambrose here gives this reason why exception could, without inconsistency, be allowed in the primitive Church; namely, because the whole Trinity is implied in the name of Christ, and therefore the form prescribed by Christ in the Gospel was observed in its integrity, at least implicitly.

Reply to Objection 3: Pope Nicolas confirms his words by quoting the two authorities given in the preceding objections: wherefore the answer to this is clear from the two solutions given above.

Articulus 6

Argumentum 1

Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in nomine christi possit dari baptismus. Sicut enim una est fides, et unum baptisma, ut dicitur Ephes. IV. Sed Act. VIII dicitur quod in nomine iesu christi baptizabantur viri et mulieres.

Ergo etiam nunc potest dari baptismus in nomine christi.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, Ambrosius dicit, si christum dicas, et patrem, a quo unctus est, et ipsum qui unctus est, filium, et spiritum, quo unctus est, designasti.

Sed in nomine trinitatis potest fieri baptismus.

Ergo et in nomine christi.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, Nicolaus Papa, ad consulta bulgarorum respondens, dicit, qui in nomine sanctae trinitatis, vel tantum in nomine christi, sicut in actibus apostolorum legitur, baptizati sunt, unum quippe idemque est, ut sanctus ait Ambrosius, rebaptizari non debent.

Rebaptizarentur autem si in hac forma baptizati sacramentum baptismi non reciperent. Ergo potest consecrari baptismus in nomine christi sub hac forma, ego te baptizo in nomine christi.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod Pelagius Papa scribit Gaudentio episcopo, si hi qui in locis dilectionis tuae vicinis commorari dicuntur, se solummodo in nomine domini baptizatos fuisse confitentur, sine cuiusquam dubitationis ambiguo, eos ad fidem catholicam venientes in sanctae trinitatis nomine baptizabis.

Didymus etiam dicit, in libro de spiritu sancto, licet quis possit existere mentis alienae qui ita baptizaret ut unum de praedictis nominibus, scilicet trium personarum, praetermittat, sine perfectione baptizabit.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, sacramenta habent efficaciam ab institutione christi. Et ideo, si praetermittatur aliquid eorum quae christus instituit circa aliquod sacramentum, efficacia caret, nisi ex speciali dispensatione eius, qui virtutem suam sacramentis non alligavit.

Christus autem instituit sacramentum baptismi dari cum invocatione trinitatis. Et ideo quidquid desit ad invocationem plenam trinitatis, tollit integritatem baptismi. Nec obstat quod in nomine unius personae intelligitur alia, sicut in nomine patris intelligitur filius; aut quod ille qui nominat unam solam personam, potest habere rectam fidem de tribus. Quia ad sacramentum, sicut requiritur materia sensibilis, ita et forma sensibilis. Unde non sufficit intellectus vel fides trinitatis ad perfectionem sacramenti, nisi sensibilibus verbis trinitas exprimatur. Unde et in baptismo christi, ubi fuit origo sanctificationis nostri baptismi, affuit trinitas sensibilibus, scilicet pater in voce, filius in humana natura, spiritus sanctus in columba.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ex speciali christi revelatione apostoli in primitiva ecclesia in nomine christi baptizabant, ut nomen christi, quod erat odiosum Iudaeis et gentibus, honorabile redderetur, per hoc quod ad eius invocationem spiritus sanctus dabatur in baptismo.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod Ambrosius assignat rationem quare convenienter talis dispensatio fieri potuit in primitiva ecclesia, quia scilicet in nomine christi tota trinitas intelligitur; et ideo servabatur ad minus integritate intelligibili forma quam christus tradidit in evangelio.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod Nicolaus Papa dictum suum confirmat ex duobus praemissis. Et ideo eius responsio patet ex primis duabus solutionibus.