II. To the Initial Arguments

59. As to the first argument [n.26]: the antecedent is not true when speaking of one baptism, for if the same person baptizes several people, this is by several undergoings of baptism, and so there are several baptisms. And if the intention is to prove the major by speaking of one baptism, I say that the first proof, about many who are sprinkled at once, does not prove this (as is plain in the third member of the distinction [nn.47-49]); nor does the second proof about monstrous births, for if there were two persons in such a monstrous birth, they would have to be baptized individually; and if they were baptized together under this form ‘I baptize you (plural)’, then although the minister would sin without necessity (because a case could not easily be found of a sort that their baptism one by one could not be waited for), yet they would be two baptisms (as was said in the third member of the distinction [nn.47-49]). As to the third proof, about the eucharist, I say that although the priest, by speaking the words once, may consecrate several hosts at once, yet there are several instances of being consecrated there; and it could also be conceded that they would be several hosts or eucharists; similarly, just as there would be several hosts, there would be several consecrated wines.

60. To the second [n.27] I say that in some case several things run together each of which without the other is something in itself (and just as it is something in itself, thus can it remain so as to be something of the whole - just as in that example about the parts of the house). It is not this way in the issue at hand, because neither are the words without the washing anything of the baptism, nor is the washing without the words.

61. And if you say that at least as existing together they [the washing and the words] are something of baptism, and in this way can they yet be from several diverse ministers - this is true if the unity of the efficient cause were not requisite insofar as they constitute a single sign; but unity is requisite because of the ordaining by its principal agent [=God] (not also by its provider [=the Church]) that it is an efficacious sign when it is administered totally by the same minister.