Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It seems that several can baptize at the same time. For unity is contained in multitude, but not "vice versa." Wherefore it seems that many can do whatever one can but not "vice versa": thus many draw a ship which one could draw. But one man can baptize. Therefore several, too, can baptize one at the same time.

Objection 2: Further, it is more difficult for one agent to act on many things, than for many to act at the same time on one. But one man can baptize several at the same time. Much more, therefore, can many baptize one at the same time.

Objection 3: Further, Baptism is a sacrament of the greatest necessity. Now in certain cases it seems necessary for several to baptize one at the same time; for instance, suppose a child to be in danger of death, and two persons present, one of whom is dumb, and the other without hands or arms; for then the mutilated person would have to pronounce the words, and the dumb person would have to perform the act of baptizing. Therefore it seems that several can baptize one at the same time.

On the contrary, Where there is one agent there is one action. If, therefore, several were to baptize one, it seems to follow that there would be several baptisms: and this is contrary to Eph. 4:5: "one Faith, one Baptism."

I answer that, The Sacrament of Baptism derives its power principally from its form, which the Apostle calls "the word of life" (Eph. 5:26). Consequently, if several were to baptize one at the same time, we must consider what form they would use. For were they to say: "We baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," some maintain that the sacrament of Baptism would not be conferred, because the form of the Church would not be observed, i.e. "I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." But this reasoning is disproved by the form observed in the Greek Church. For they might say: "The servant of God, N . . ., is baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," under which form the Greeks receive the sacrament of Baptism: and yet this form differs far more from the form that we use, than does this: "We baptize thee."

The point to be observed, however, is this, that by this form, "We baptize thee," the intention expressed is that several concur in conferring one Baptism: and this seems contrary to the notion of a minister; for a man does not baptize save as a minister of Christ, and as standing in His place; wherefore just as there is one Christ, so should there be one minister to represent Christ. Hence the Apostle says pointedly (Eph. 4:5): "one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism." Consequently, an intention which is in opposition to this seems to annul the sacrament of Baptism.

On the other hand, if each were to say: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," each would signify his intention as though he were conferring Baptism independently of the other. This might occur in the case where both were striving to baptize someone; and then it is clear that whichever pronounced the words first would confer the sacrament of Baptism; while the other, however great his right to baptize, if he presume to utter the words, would be liable to be punished as a rebaptizer. If, however, they were to pronounce the words absolutely at the same time, and dipped or sprinkled the man together, they should be punished for baptizing in an improper manner, but not for rebaptizing: because each would intend to baptize an unbaptized person, and each, so far as he is concerned, would baptize. Nor would they confer several sacraments: but the one Christ baptizing inwardly would confer one sacrament by means of both together.

Reply to Objection 1: This argument avails in those agents that act by their own power. But men do not baptize by their own, but by Christ's power, Who, since He is one, perfects His work by means of one minister.

Reply to Objection 2: In a case of necessity one could baptize several at the same time under this form: "I baptize ye": for instance, if they were threatened by a falling house, or by the sword or something of the kind, so as not to allow of the delay involved by baptizing them singly. Nor would this cause a change in the Church's form, since the plural is nothing but the singular doubled: especially as we find the plural expressed in Mt. 28:19: "Baptizing them," etc. Nor is there parity between the baptizer and the baptized; since Christ, the baptizer in chief, is one: while many are made one in Christ by Baptism.

Reply to Objection 3: As stated above (Question 66, Article 1), the integrity of Baptism consists in the form of words and the use of the matter. Consequently, neither he who only pronounces the words, baptizes, nor he who dips. Where fore if one pronounces the words and the other dips, no form of words can be fitting. For neither could he say: "I baptize thee": since he dips not, and therefore baptizes not. Nor could they say: "We baptize thee": since neither baptizes. For if of two men, one write one part of a book, and the other write the other, it would not be a proper form of speech to say: "We wrote this book," but the figure of synecdoche in which the whole is put for the part.

Articulus 6

Argumentum 1

Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod plures possint simul baptizare. In multitudine enim continetur unum, sed non convertitur. Unde videtur quod quidquid potest facere unus, possint facere multi, et non e converso, sicut multi trahunt navem quam unus trahere non posset. Sed unus homo potest baptizare. Ergo et plures possunt simul unum baptizare.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, difficilius est quod unum agens agat in plura quam quod plures agentes agant simul in unum. Sed unus homo potest simul baptizare plures. Ergo multo magis plures possunt simul unum baptizare.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, baptismus est sacramentum maximae necessitatis. Sed in aliquo casu videtur esse necessarium quod plures simul unum baptizarent, puta si aliquis parvulus esset in articulo mortis, et adessent duo quorum alter esset mutus, et alter manibus et brachiis careret; tunc enim oporteret quod mutilatus verba proferret, et mutus baptismum exerceret. Ergo videtur quod plures possint simul unum baptizare.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod unius agentis una est actio. Si ergo plures unum baptizarent, videretur sequi quod essent plures baptismi.

Quod est contra id quod dicitur Ephes. IV, una fides, unum baptisma.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod sacramentum baptismi praecipue habet virtutem ex forma, quam apostolus nominat verbum vitae, Ephes. V.

Et ideo considerare oportet, si plures unum simul baptizarent, qua forma uterentur. Si enim dicerent, nos te baptizamus in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti, dicunt quidam quod non conferretur sacramentum baptismi eo quod non servaretur forma ecclesiae, quae sic habet, ego te baptizo in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti.

Sed hoc excluditur per formam baptizandi qua utitur ecclesia Graecorum. Possent enim dicere, baptizatur servus christi n. In nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti, sub qua forma Graeci baptismum suscipiunt, quae tamen forma multo magis dissimilis est formae qua nos utimur, quam si diceretur, nos te baptizamus. Sed considerandum est quod ex tali forma, nos te baptizamus, exprimitur talis intentio quod plures conveniunt ad unum baptismum conferendum. Quod quidem videtur esse contra rationem ministerii, homo enim non baptizat nisi ut minister christi et vicem eius gerens; unde, sicut unus est christus, ita oportet esse unum ministrum qui christum repraesentet.

Propter quod signanter apostolus dicit, Ephes. IV, unus dominus, una fides, unum baptisma.

Et ideo contraria intentio videtur excludere baptismi sacramentum. Si vero uterque diceret, ego te baptizo in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti, uterque exprimeret suam intentionem quasi ipse singulariter baptismum conferret. Quod posset contingere in eo casu in quo contentiose uterque aliquem baptizare conaretur. Et tunc manifestum est quod ille qui prius verba proferret, daret baptismi sacramentum. Alius vero, quantumcumque ius baptizandi haberet, etsi verba pronuntiare praesumeret, esset puniendus tanquam rebaptizator. Si autem omnino simul verba proferrent et hominem immergerent aut aspergerent, essent puniendi de inordinato modo baptizandi, et non de iteratione baptismi, quia uterque intenderet nonbaptizatum baptizare, et uterque, quantum est in se, baptizaret. Nec traderent aliud et aliud sacramentum, sed christus, qui est unus interius baptizans, unum sacramentum per utrumque conferret.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ratio illa locum habet in his quae agunt propria virtute. Sed homines non baptizant propria virtute, sed virtute christi, qui, cum sit unus, per unum ministrum perficit suum opus.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod in casu necessitatis unus posset simul plures baptizare sub hac forma, ego vos baptizo, puta si immineret ruina aut gladius aut aliquid huiusmodi, quod moram omnino non pateretur, si singillatim omnes baptizarentur. Nec per hoc diversificaretur forma ecclesiae, quia plurale non est nisi singulare geminatum, praesertim cum pluraliter dicatur, Matth. Ult., baptizantes eos, etc..

Nec est simile de baptizante et baptizato.

Quia christus, qui principaliter baptizat, est unus, sed multi per baptismum efficiuntur unum in christo.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, integritas baptismi consistit in forma verborum et in usu materiae. Et ideo neque ille qui tantum verba profert baptizat, neque ille qui immergit. Et ideo, si unus verba proferat et alius immergit, nulla forma verborum poterit esse conveniens. Neque enim poterit dici, ego te baptizo, cum ipse non immergat, et per consequens non baptizet. Neque etiam poterit dicere, nos te baptizamus, cum neuter baptizet. Si enim duo sint quorum unus unam partem libri scribat et alius aliam, non est propria locutio, nos scripsimus librum istum, sed synecdochica, inquantum totum ponitur pro parte.