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.I have added the numerical notation in these paragraphs [nn.64-67] for ease of comprehension and reference. 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,Syncope is when a syllable is removed from within a word, as ‘camra’ for ‘camera’. 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.