Sed contra est quod propria materia Baptismi est aqua, ut dictum est. Sed speciem aquae non habet nisi aqua simplex. Ergo aqua pura et simplex ex necessitate requiritur ad Baptismum. On the contrary, The proper matter of Baptism is water, as stated above (A. 3). But plain water alone has the nature of water. Therefore pure plain water is necessary for Baptism. Respondeo dicendum quod aqua suam puritatem et simplicitatem potest amittere dupliciter, uno modo, per mixtionem alterius corporis; alio modo, per alterationem. Utrumque autem horum contingit fieri dupliciter, scilicet per artem, et per naturam. Ars autem deficit ab operatione naturae, quia natura dat formam substantialem, quod ars facere non potest, sed omnes formae artificiales sunt accidentales; nisi forte apponendo proprium agens ad propriam materiam, sicut ignem combustibili, per quem modum a quibusdam quaedam animalia per putrefactionem generantur. I answer that, Water may cease to be pure or plain water in two ways: first, by being mixed with another body; second, by alteration. And each of these may happen in a twofold manner; artificially and naturally. Now art fails in the operation of nature: because nature gives the substantial form, which art cannot give; for whatever form is given by art is accidental; except perchance when art applies a proper agent to its proper matter, as fire to a combustible; in which manner animals are produced from certain things by way of putrefaction. Quaecumque igitur transmutatio circa aquam facta est per artem, sive commiscendo sive alterando, non transmutatur species aquae. Unde in tali aqua potest fieri Baptismus, nisi forte aqua admisceatur per artem in tam parva quantitate alicui corpori quod compositum magis sit aliud quam aqua; sicut lutum magis est terra quam aqua, et vinum lymphatum magis est vinum quam aqua. Whatever artificial change, then, takes place in the water, whether by mixture or by alteration, the water’s nature is not changed. Consequently such water can be used for Baptism: unless perhaps such a small quantity of water be mixed artificially with a body that the compound is something other than water; thus mud is earth rather than water, and diluted wine is wine rather than water. Sed transmutatio quae fit a natura, quandoque quidem speciem aquae solvit, et hoc fit quando aqua efficitur per naturam de substantia alicuius corporis mixti; sicut aqua conversa in liquorem uvae est vinum, unde non habet speciem aquae. Aliquando autem fit per naturam transmutatio aquae sine solutione speciei, et hoc tam per alterationem, sicut patet de aqua calefacta a sole; quam etiam per mixtionem, sicut patet de aqua fluminis turbida ex permixtione terrestrium partium. But if the change be natural, sometimes it destroys the nature of the water; and this is when by a natural process water enters into the substance of a mixed body: thus water changed into the juice of the grape is wine, wherefore it has not the nature of water. Sometimes, however, there may be a natural change of the water, without destruction of species: and this, both by alteration, as we may see in the case of water heated by the sun; and by mixture, as when the water of a river has become muddy by being mixed with particles of earth. Sic igitur dicendum est quod in qualibet aqua, qualitercumque transmutata, dummodo non solvatur species aquae, potest fieri Baptismus. Si autem solvatur species aquae, non potest fieri Baptismus. We must therefore say that any water may be used for Baptism, no matter how much it may be changed, as long as the species of water is not destroyed; but if the species of water be destroyed, it cannot be used for Baptism. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod transmutatio facta in aqua maris, et in aliis aquis quae penes nos sunt, non est tanta quae solvat speciem aquae. Et ideo in huiusmodi aquis potest fieri Baptismus. Reply Obj. 1: The change in sea-water and in other waters which we have to hand, is not so great as to destroy the species of water. And therefore such waters may be used for Baptism. Ad secundum dicendum quod admixtio chrismatis non solvit speciem aquae. Sicut nec etiam aqua decoctionis carnium, aut aliorum huiusmodi, nisi forte sit facta tanta resolutio corporum lixatorum in aqua quod liquor plus habeat de aliena substantia quam de aqua; quod ex spissitudine perspici potest. Si tamen ex liquore sic inspissato exprimatur aqua subtilis, potest in ea fieri Baptismus, sicut et in aqua quae exprimitur ex luto, licet in luto Baptismus fieri non possit. Reply Obj. 2: Chrism does not destroy the nature of the water by being mixed with it: just as neither is water changed wherein meat and the like are boiled: except the substance boiled be so dissolved that the liquor be of a nature foreign to water; in this we may be guided by the specific gravity (spissitudine). If, however, from the liquor thus thickened plain water be strained, it can be used for Baptism: just as water strained from mud, although mud cannot be used for baptizing. Ad tertium dicendum quod aqua fluens de latere Christi pendentis in cruce non fuit humor phlegmaticus, ut quidam dixerunt. In tali enim humore non posset fieri Baptismus, sicut nec in sanguine animalis, aut in vino, aut in quocumque liquore alicuius plantae. Fuit autem aqua pura miraculose egrediens a corpore mortuo, sicut et sanguis, ad comprobandam veritatem dominici corporis, contra Manichaeorum errorem, ut scilicet per aquam, quae est unum quatuor elementorum, ostenderetur corpus Christi vere fuisse compositum ex quatuor elementis; per sanguinem vero ostenderetur esse compositum ex quatuor humoribus. Reply Obj. 3: The water which flowed from the side of Christ hanging on the cross, was not the phlegmatic humor, as some have supposed. For a liquid of this kind cannot be used for Baptism, as neither can the blood of an animal, or wine, or any liquid extracted from plants. It was pure water gushing forth miraculously like the blood from a dead body, to prove the reality of our Lord’s body, and confute the error of the Manichees: water, which is one of the four elements, showing Christ’s body to be composed of the four elements; blood, proving that it was composed of the four humors. Ad quartum dicendum quod in lixivio, et in aquis sulphureorum balneorum, potest fieri Baptismus, quia tales aquae non incorporantur per artem vel naturam aliquibus corporibus mixtis, sed solum alterationem quandam recipiunt ex hoc quod transeunt per aliqua corpora. Reply Obj. 4: Baptism may be conferred with lye and the waters of Sulphur Baths: because such like waters are not incorporated, artificially or naturally, with certain mixed bodies, and suffer only a certain alteration by passing through certain bodies. Ad quintum dicendum quod aqua rosacea est liquor rosae resolutus. Unde in ea non potest fieri Baptismus. Et, eadem ratione, nec in aquis alchimicis, sicut in vino. Nec est eadem ratio de aquis pluvialibus, quae generantur ex maiori parte ex subtiliatione vaporum resolutorum ex aquis, minimum autem ibi est de liquoribus corporum mixtorum, qui tamen per huiusmodi sublimationem, virtute naturae, quae est fortior arte, resolvuntur in veram aquam, quod ars facere non potest. Unde aqua pluvialis nullam proprietatem retinet alicuius corporis mixti, quod de aquis rosaceis et de aquis alchimicis dici non potest. Reply Obj. 5: Rose-water is a liquid distilled from roses: consequently it cannot be used for Baptism. For the same reason chemical waters cannot be used, as neither can wine. Nor does the comparison hold with rain-water, which for the most part is formed by the condensing of vapors, themselves formed from water, and contains a minimum of the liquid matter from mixed bodies; which liquid matter by the force of nature, which is stronger than art, is transformed in this process of condensation into real water, a result which cannot be produced artificially. Consequently rain-water retains no properties of any mixed body; which cannot be said of rose-water or chemical waters. Articulus 5 Article 5 Utrum haec sit conveniens forma Baptismi, ‘ego te baptizo in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti’ Whether this be a suitable form of Baptism: “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”? 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. 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 Spirit. 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 (Q. 64, A. 1); while the principal agent in Baptism is Christ, according to John 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 (I) is understood in the word baptizo (I baptize), so that it seems redundant. 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, et cetera. Ergo non oportet quod in forma Baptismi fiat mentio de actu Baptismi. Obj. 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 (Matt 28:19): Going, teach ye all nations, etc. Therefore there is no need in the form of Baptism to mention the action of baptizing. 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. Obj. 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. 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. Obj. 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. Praeterea, Baptismus virtutem habet a passione Christi. Sed per formam Baptismus sanctificatur. Ergo videtur quod in forma Baptismi debeat fieri mentio de passione Christi. Obj. 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. 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. Obj. 6: Further, a name signifies a thing’s property. But there are three Personal Properties of the Divine Persons, as stated in the First Part (Q. 32, A. 3). Therefore we should not say, in the name, but in the names of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. 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. Obj. 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 Spirit by those of Gift, Love, and the Proceeding One. Therefore it seems that Baptism is valid if conferred in these names. Sed contra est quod dominus dicit, Matth. ult., euntes, docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti. On the contrary, our Lord said (Matt 28:19): Going . . . teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. 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. 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 Spirit. 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 Spirit. 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, et cetera. 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. Reply Obj. 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 Spirit: for Christ does not baptize without the Father and the Holy Spirit. 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, et cetera. 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. 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. 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. Reply Obj. 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 Spirit; 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 Spirit, Amen, without saying, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen, the child is not baptized. 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. Reply Obj. 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 of salt (Roman Ritual). 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. Reply Obj. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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. Reply Obj. 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. 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. Reply Obj. 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. 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. Reply Obj. 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 6 Article 6 Utrum in nomine Christi possit dari Baptismus Whether Baptism can be conferred in the name of Christ? 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. 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. 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. Obj. 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 Spirit with Whom He was anointed. But Baptism can be conferred in the name of the Trinity: therefore also in the name of Christ. 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. Obj. 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.