Single Question. Whether only a Priest can Baptize

10. About the first I ask whether only a priest can baptize.

11. And argument is made that so it is:

Isidore On Ecclesiastical Offices II ch.25 n.9 [Lombard, Sent IV d.6 ch.1], “It is agreed that baptism is only handed over to priests.”

12. Again, discharging sins is committed to the priest alone, John 20.23, Matthew16.19, 18.18; but in baptism sins are discharged;     therefore etc     .

13. To the contrary:

Gratian, Decretum, p.3 ‘On Consecration’ d.4 ch.23, “The Roman Pontiff does not judge the man who baptizes, but the Spirit of God administers the grace of baptism, even if it be a pagan who does the baptizing;” and if a pagan baptizes, much more, or equally, does any Christian [d.5 n.37].

I. To the Question

14. I reply:

Since it is necessary for the baptizer to wash the baptized, which is actively to make his body to be touched by water, and this either by motion of the body to water (as by immersion) or by motion of water to his body (as by pouring or sprinkling), the power to move is necessarily requisite in the baptizer, whereby the baptizer can, in one of these ways, actively wash another.

15. Since also it is necessary for the minister to speak words, in which is the form [of baptism], it is necessary for him to be able to speak.

16. Since too intention is requisite in the minister (as will be stated in the third article [n.96]), it is necessary for him to have the use of reason.

17. Simply, then, no supposit of an intellectual nature is excluded from being able to baptize, save because of one of the defects of these three [requisites, nn.14-16], or because of several of them, or because of all of them at once. Since therefore many nonpriests could have and do have these three [requisites], it follows that they are simply able to baptize.

18. But I said ‘supposit of an intellectual nature’ in general [n.17], because if a good angel were to baptize in an assumed body, along with all the aforesaid requisites, then one must suppose that his baptism is genuine, because he would not do it save at the command of God; nor is the one baptized by an angel to be baptized again (thus did Michael [the Archangel] prohibit the bishop from dedicating his church on Mt. Gargano, asserting that the church had been dedicated by himself).The sanctuary of Monte Sant’Angelo on Mount Gargano in Apulia in the South East of Italy is the oldest shrine to St. Michael in Western Europe. The story in the text is told by Jacob de Voragine, Legenda Aurea ch.141, “Therefore, as the Pope and the bishop with the citizens were instant on a three day fast, Michael appeared on this day to the bishop saying, ‘There is no need for you to dedicate the church which I have built; for I myself who built it have dedicated it.’” ³²

19. If too a bad angel were to baptize in an assumed body, and it were clear that it was at the command of God, such a one is to be held to be baptized, because a bad angel must, even unwillingly, obey God. But without a sure revelation had in addition one should not believe that a bad angel really baptized, both because God does not administer the sacraments through those who are definitely excluded from salvation, and because, if a bad angel were not constrained by divine precept to do the opposite, one should suppose that he is acting fraudulently and is not completely doing what would be necessary for the salvation of the one baptized, on account of the enmity a bad angel has, from his preexisting envy, to the salvation of men.

20. Generally, then, it is fitting for baptism to be conferred by a man who is a wayfarer and not by an angel - first because Christ, who instituted baptism, was a man; second because in a sacrament there is something sensible and something spiritual, and consequently it more befits a minister who uses sense and intellect than a purely intellectual minister; third because by receiving baptism one is ascribed as a member of the Church Militant; therefore it is fitting that baptism be done by someone in that Church.

21. Lastly I say that although, according to what has been said [nn.17-20], any supposit having the three aforesaid conditions can baptize, and also since, along with this, it befits only a man who is wayfarer to baptize, yet it is fitting that among wayfarers only a priest baptize, and to that priest alone is it fitting on whom is incumbent, from his office, the presiding [at baptism].

22. The reason for this is that by baptism the one baptized is received into the college of the Church Militant; but the reception of someone into a college belongs to the one who presides and has authority in the college; and therefore the more someone might have greater authority in the Church the more would it belong to him to receive and introduce into the Church, and consequently to baptize. Hence it would belong more to a bishop than to a simple priest, if there could be enough bishops; but because of the fewness of bishops and the manyness of those to be baptized, baptizing is regularly conceded to all priests.

II. To the Initial Arguments

23. Hereby is plain the answer to the authority of Isidore [n.11]; for he is speaking about the office of baptizing, because that is solely committed to a priest.

24. To the argument [n.12] I say that only a priest can discharge sins by way of judge and assessor, which is the way sins are remitted in [the sacrament of] penance; but in baptism sins are remitted by virtue of the sacrament, without assessment or judgment or accusation.