Reply to
Objection
2: When Baptism is celebrated solemnly and with due
form, it should be conferred by a priest having charge of souls, or by
one representing him.
form, it should be conferred by a priest having charge of souls, or by
one representing him.
Summa Theologica
Of this it is written (Is.
4:4): "If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion,
and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by
the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning. " Thus, therefore,
each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes
the place of Baptism. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo
Parvulorum iv): "The Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason
from the thief to whom, though not baptized, it was said: 'Today shalt
thou be with Me in Paradise' that suffering can take the place of
Baptism. Having weighed this in my mind again and again, I perceive
that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply for what was
lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if
perchance on account of the stress of the times the celebration of the
mystery of Baptism is not practicable. "
Reply to Objection 1: The other two Baptisms are included in the
Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's
Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity
of Baptism is not destroyed.
Reply to Objection 2: As stated above ([4429]Q[60], A[1]), a sacrament
is a kind of sign. The other two, however, are like the Baptism of
Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal effect.
Consequently they are not sacraments.
Reply to Objection 3: Damascene enumerates certain figurative Baptisms.
For instance, "the Deluge" was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of
the salvation of the faithful in the Church; since then "a few . . .
souls were saved in the ark [Vulg. : 'by water']," according to 1 Pet.
3:20. He also mentions "the crossing of the Red Sea": which was a
figure of our Baptism, in respect of our delivery from the bondage of
sin; hence the Apostle says (1 Cor. 10:2) that "all . . . were baptized
in the cloud and in the sea. " And again he mentions "the various
washings which were customary under the Old Law," which were figures of
our Baptism, as to the cleansing from sins: also "the Baptism of John,"
which prepared the way for our Baptism.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the Baptism of Blood is the most excellent of these?
Objection 1: It seems that the Baptism of Blood is not the most
excellent of these three. For the Baptism of Water impresses a
character; which the Baptism of Blood cannot do. Therefore the Baptism
of Blood is not more excellent than the Baptism of Water.
Objection 2: Further, the Baptism of Blood is of no avail without the
Baptism of the Spirit, which is by charity; for it is written (1 Cor.
13:3): "If I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity,
it profiteth me nothing. " But the Baptism of the Spirit avails without
the Baptism of Blood; for not only the martyrs are saved. Therefore the
Baptism of Blood is not the most excellent.
Objection 3: Further, just as the Baptism of Water derives its efficacy
from Christ's Passion, to which, as stated above [4430](A[11]), the
Baptism of Blood corresponds, so Christ's Passion derives its efficacy
from the Holy Ghost, according to Heb. 9:14: "The Blood of Christ, Who
by the Holy Ghost offered Himself unspotted unto God, shall cleanse our
conscience from dead works," etc. Therefore the Baptism of the Spirit
is more excellent than the Baptism of Blood. Therefore the Baptism of
Blood is not the most excellent.
On the contrary, Augustine (Ad Fortunatum) speaking of the comparison
between Baptisms says: "The newly baptized confesses his faith in the
presence of the priest: the martyr in the presence of the persecutor.
The former is sprinkled with water, after he has confessed; the latter
with his blood. The former receives the Holy Ghost by the imposition of
the bishop's hands; the latter is made the temple of the Holy Ghost. "
I answer that, As stated above [4431](A[11]), the shedding of blood for
Christ's sake, and the inward operation of the Holy Ghost, are called
baptisms, in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water.
Now the Baptism of Water derives its efficacy from Christ's Passion and
from the Holy Ghost, as already stated [4432](A[11]). These two causes
act in each of these three Baptisms; most excellently, however, in the
Baptism of Blood. For Christ's Passion acts in the Baptism of Water by
way of a figurative representation; in the Baptism of the Spirit or of
Repentance, by way of desire. but in the Baptism of Blood, by way of
imitating the (Divine) act. In like manner, too, the power of the Holy
Ghost acts in the Baptism of Water through a certain hidden power. in
the Baptism of Repentance by moving the heart; but in the Baptism of
Blood by the highest degree of fervor of dilection and love, according
to Jn. 15:13: "Greater love than this no man hath that a man lay down
his life for his friends. "
Reply to Objection 1: A character is both reality and a sacrament. And
we do not say that the Baptism of Blood is more excellent, considering
the nature of a sacrament; but considering the sacramental effect.
Reply to Objection 2: The shedding of blood is not in the nature of a
Baptism if it be without charity. Hence it is clear that the Baptism of
Blood includes the Baptism of the Spirit, but not conversely. And from
this it is proved to be more perfect.
Reply to Objection 3: The Baptism owes its pre-eminence not only to
Christ's Passion, but also to the Holy Ghost, as stated above.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE MINISTERS BY WHOM THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM IS CONFERRED (EIGHT
ARTICLES)
We have now to consider the ministers by whom the sacrament of Baptism
is conferred. And concerning this there are eight points of inquiry:
(1) Whether it belongs to a deacon to baptize?
(2) Whether this belongs to a priest, or to a bishop only?
(3) Whether a layman can confer the sacrament of Baptism?
(4) Whether a woman can do this?
(5) Whether an unbaptized person can baptize?
(6) Whether several can at the same time baptize one and the same
person?
(7) Whether it is essential that someone should raise the person
baptized from the sacred font?
(8) Whether he who raises someone from the sacred font is bound to
instruct him?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is part of a deacon's duty to baptize?
Objection 1: It seems that it is part of a deacon's duty to baptize.
Because the duties of preaching and of baptizing were enjoined by our
Lord at the same time, according to Mat. 28:19: "Going . . . teach ye
all nations, baptizing them," etc. But it is part of a deacon's duty to
preach the gospel. Therefore it seems that it is also part of a
deacon's duty to baptize.
Objection 2: Further, according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v) to
"cleanse" is part of the deacon's duty. But cleansing from sins is
effected specially by Baptism, according to Eph. 5:26: "Cleansing it by
the laver of water in the word of life. " Therefore it seems that it
belongs to a deacon to baptize.
Objection 3: Further, it is told of Blessed Laurence, who was a deacon,
that he baptized many. Therefore it seems that it belongs to deacons to
baptize.
On the contrary, Pope Gelasius I says (the passage is to be found in
the Decrees, dist. 93): "We order the deacons to keep within their own
province"; and further on: "Without bishop or priest they must not dare
to baptize, except in cases of extreme urgency, when the aforesaid are
a long way off. "
I answer that, Just as the properties and duties of the heavenly orders
are gathered from their names, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. vi), so
can we gather, from the names of the ecclesiastical orders, what
belongs to each order. Now "deacons" are so called from being
"ministers"; because, to wit, it is not in the deacon's province to be
the chief and official celebrant in conferring a sacrament, but to
minister to others, his elders, in the sacramental dispensations. And
so it does not belong to a deacon to confer the sacrament of Baptism
officially as it were; but to assist and serve his elders in the
bestowal of this and other sacraments. Hence Isidore says (Epist. ad
Ludifred. ): "It is a deacon's duty to assist and serve the priests, in
all the rites of Christ's sacraments, viz. those of Baptism, of the
Chrism, of the Paten and Chalice. "
Reply to Objection 1: It is the deacon's duty to read the Gospel in
church, and to preach it as one catechizing; hence Dionysius says
(Eccl. Hier. v) that a deacon's office involves power over the unclean
among whom he includes the catechumens. But to teach, i. e. to expound
the Gospel, is the proper office of a bishop, whose action is "to
perfect," as Dionysius teaches (Eccl. Hier. v); and "to perfect" is the
same as "to teach. " Consequently, it does not follow that the office of
baptizing belongs to deacons.
Reply to Objection 2: As Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. ii), Baptism has a
power not only of "cleansing" but also of "enlightening. " Consequently,
it is outside the province of the deacon whose duty it is to cleanse
only: viz. either by driving away the unclean, or by preparing them for
the reception of a sacrament.
Reply to Objection 3: Because Baptism is a necessary sacrament, deacons
are allowed to baptize in cases of urgency when their elders are not at
hand; as appears from the authority of Gelasius quoted above. And it
was thus that Blessed Laurence, being but a deacon, baptized.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether to baptize is part of the priestly office, or proper to that of
bishops?
Objection 1: It seems that to baptize is not part of the priestly
office, but proper to that of bishops. Because, as stated above (A[1],
OBJ[1]), the duties of teaching and baptizing are enjoined in the same
precept (Mat. 28:19). But to teach, which is "to perfect," belongs to
the office of bishop, as Dionysius declares (Eccl. Hier. v, vi).
Therefore to baptize also belongs to the episcopal office.
Objection 2: Further, by Baptism a man is admitted to the body of the
Christian people: and to do this seems consistent with no other than
the princely office. Now the bishops hold the position of princes in
the Church, as the gloss observes on Lk. 10:1: indeed, they even take
the place of the apostles, of whom it is written (Ps. 44:17): "Thou
shalt make them princes over all the earth. " Therefore it seems that to
baptize belongs exclusively to the office of bishops.
Objection 3: Further, Isidore says (Epist. ad Ludifred. ) that "it
belongs to the bishop to consecrate churches, to anoint altars, to
consecrate [conficere] the chrism; he it is that confers the
ecclesiastical orders, and blesses the consecrated virgins. " But the
sacrament of Baptism is greater than all these. Therefore much more
reason is there why to baptize should belong exclusively to the
episcopal office.
On the contrary, Isidore says (De Officiis. ii): "It is certain that
Baptism was entrusted to priests alone. "
I answer that, Priests are consecrated for the purpose of celebrating
the sacrament of Christ's Body, as stated above ([4433]Q[65], A[3]).
Now that is the sacrament of ecclesiastical unity, according to the
Apostle (1 Cor. 10:17): "We, being many, are one bread, one body, all
that partake of one bread and one chalice. " Moreover, by Baptism a man
becomes a participator in ecclesiastical unity, wherefore also he
receives the right to approach our Lord's Table. Consequently, just as
it belongs to a priest to consecrate the Eucharist, which is the
principal purpose of the priesthood, so it is the proper office of a
priest to baptize: since it seems to belong to one and the same, to
produce the whole and to dispose the part in the whole.
Reply to Objection 1: Our Lord enjoined on the apostles, whose place is
taken by the bishops, both duties, namely, of teaching and of
baptizing, but in different ways. Because Christ committed to them the
duty of teaching, that they might exercise it themselves as being the
most important duty of all: wherefore the apostles themselves said
(Acts 6:2): "It is not reason that we should leave the word of God and
serve tables. " On the other hand, He entrusted the apostles with the
office of baptizing, to be exercised vicariously; wherefore the Apostle
says (1 Cor. 1:17): "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the
Gospel. " And the reason for this was that the merit and wisdom of the
minister have no bearing on the baptismal effect, as they have in
teaching, as may be seen from what we have stated above (Q[64], A[1],
ad 2; [4434]AA[5],9). A proof of this is found also in the fact that
our Lord Himself did not baptize, but His disciples, as John relates
(4:2). Nor does it follow from this that bishops cannot baptize; since
what a lower power can do, that can also a higher power. Wherefore also
the Apostle says (1 Cor. 1:14, 16) that he had baptized some.
Reply to Objection 2: In every commonwealth minor affairs are entrusted
to lower officials, while greater affairs are restricted to higher
officials; according to Ex. 18:22: "When any great matter soever shall
fall out, let them refer it to thee, and let them judge the lesser
matters only. " Consequently it belongs to the lower officials of the
state to decide matters concerning the lower orders; while to the
highest it belongs to set in order those matters that regard the higher
orders of the state. Now by Baptism a man attains only to the lowest
rank among the Christian people: and consequently it belongs to the
lesser officials of the Church
to baptize, namely, the priests, who hold the place of the seventy-two
disciples of Christ, as the gloss says in the passage quoted from Luke
10.
Reply to Objection 3: As stated above ([4435]Q[65], A[3]), the
sacrament of Baptism holds the first place in the order of necessity;
but in the order of perfection there are other greater sacraments which
are reserved to bishops.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether a layman can baptize?
Objection 1: It seems that a layman cannot baptize. Because, as stated
above [4436](A[2]), to baptize belongs properly to the priestly order.
But those things which belong to an order cannot be entrusted to one
that is not ordained. Therefore it seems that a layman, who has no
orders, cannot baptize.
Objection 2: Further, it is a greater thing to baptize, than to perform
the other sacramental rites of Baptism, such as to catechize, to
exorcize, and to bless the baptismal water. But these things cannot be
done by laymen, but only by priests. Therefore it seems that much less
can laymen baptize.
Objection 3: Further, just as Baptism is a necessary sacrament, so is
Penance. But a layman cannot absolve in the tribunal of Penance.
Neither, therefore, can he baptize.
On the contrary, Pope Gelasius I and Isidore say that "it is often
permissible for Christian laymen to baptize, in cases of urgent
necessity. "
I answer that, It is due to the mercy of Him "Who will have all men to
be saved" (1 Tim. 2:4) that in those things which are necessary for
salvation, man can easily find the remedy. Now the most necessary among
all the sacraments is Baptism, which is man's regeneration unto
spiritual life: since for children there is no substitute, while adults
cannot otherwise than by Baptism receive a full remission both of guilt
and of its punishment. Consequently, lest man should have to go without
so necessary a remedy, it was ordained, both that the matter of Baptism
should be something common that is easily obtainable by all, i. e.
water; and that the minister of Baptism should be anyone, even not in
orders, lest from lack of being baptized, man should suffer loss of his
salvation.
Reply to Objection 1: To baptize belongs to the priestly order by
reason of a certain appropriateness and solemnity; but this is not
essential to the sacrament. Consequently, if a layman were to baptize
even outside a case of urgency; he would sin, yet he would confer the
sacrament; nor would the person thus baptized have to be baptized
again.
Reply to Objection 2: These sacramental rites of Baptism belong to the
solemnity of, and are not essential to, Baptism. And therefore they
neither should nor can be done by a layman, but only by a priest, whose
office it is to baptize solemnly.
Reply to Objection 3: As stated above ([4437]Q[65], AA[3],4), Penance
is not so necessary as Baptism; since contrition can supply the defect
of the priestly absolution which does not free from the whole
punishment, nor again is it given to children. Therefore the comparison
with Baptism does not stand, because its effect cannot be supplied by
anything else.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether a woman can baptize?
Objection 1: It seems that a woman cannot baptize. For we read in the
acts of the Council of Carthage (iv): "However learned and holy a woman
may be, she must not presume to teach men in the church, or to
baptize. " But in no case is a woman allowed to teach in church,
according to 1 Cor. 14:35: "It is a shame for a woman to speak in the
church. " Therefore it seems that neither is a woman in any
circumstances permitted to baptize.
Objection 2: Further, to baptize belongs to those having authority.
wherefore baptism should be conferred by priests having charge of
souls. But women are not qualified for this; according to 1 Tim. 2:12:
"I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over man, but to
be subject to him [Vulg. : 'but to be in silence']. " Therefore a woman
cannot baptize.
Objection 3: Further, in the spiritual regeneration water seems to hold
the place of the mother's womb, as Augustine says on Jn. 3:4, "Can" a
man "enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born again? "
While he who baptizes seems to hold rather the position of father. But
this is unfitting for a woman. Therefore a woman cannot baptize.
On the contrary, Pope Urban II says (Decreta xxx): "In reply to the
questions asked by your beatitude, we consider that the following
answer should be given: that the baptism is valid when, in cases of
necessity, a woman baptizes a child in the name of the Trinity. "
I answer that, Christ is the chief Baptizer, according to Jn. 1:33: "He
upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him,
He it is that baptizeth. " For it is written in Col. 3 (cf. Gal. 3:28),
that in Christ there is neither male nor female. Consequently, just as
a layman can baptize, as Christ's minister, so can a woman.
But since "the head of the woman is the man," and "the head of . . .
man, is Christ" (1 Cor. 11:3), a woman should not baptize if a man be
available for the purpose; just as neither should a layman in the
presence of a cleric, nor a cleric in the presence of a priest. The
last, however, can baptize in the presence of a bishop, because it is
part of the priestly office.
Reply to Objection 1: Just as a woman is not suffered to teach in
public, but is allowed to instruct and admonish privately; so she is
not permitted to baptize publicly and solemnly, and yet she can baptize
in a case of urgency.
Reply to Objection 2: When Baptism is celebrated solemnly and with due
form, it should be conferred by a priest having charge of souls, or by
one representing him. But this is not required in cases of urgency,
when a woman may baptize.
Reply to Objection 3: In carnal generation male and female co-operate
according to the power of their proper nature; wherefore the female
cannot be the active, but only the passive, principle of generation.
But in spiritual generation they do not act, either of them, by their
proper power, but only instrumentally by the power of Christ.
Consequently, on the same grounds either man or woman can baptize in a
case of urgency.
If, however, a woman were to baptize without any urgency for so doing.
there would be no need of rebaptism: as we have said in regard to
laymen (A[3], ad 1). But the baptizer herself would sin, as also those
who took part with her therein, either by receiving Baptism from her,
or by bringing someone to her to be baptized.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether one that is not baptized can confer the sacrament of Baptism?
Objection 1: It seems that one that is not baptized cannot confer the
sacrament of Baptism. For "none gives what he has not. " But a
non-baptized person has not the sacrament of Baptism. Therefore he
cannot give it.
Objection 2: Further, a man confers the sacrament of Baptism inasmuch
as he is a minister of the Church. But one that is not baptized,
belongs nowise to the Church, i. e. neither really nor sacramentally.
Therefore he cannot confer the sacrament of Baptism.
Objection 3: Further, it is more to confer a sacrament than to receive
it. But one that is not baptized, cannot receive the other sacraments.
Much less, therefore, can he confer any sacrament.
On the contrary, Isidore says: "The Roman Pontiff does not consider it
to be the man who baptizes, but that the Holy Ghost confers the grace
of Baptism, though he that baptizes be a pagan. " But he who is
baptized, is not called a pagan. Therefore he who is not baptized can
confer the sacrament of Baptism.
I answer that, Augustine left this question without deciding it. For he
says (Contra Ep. Parmen. ii): "This is indeed another question, whether
even those can baptize who were never Christians; nor should anything
be rashly asserted hereupon, without the authority of a sacred council
such as suffices for so great a matter. " But afterwards it was decided
by the Church that the unbaptized, whether Jews or pagans, can confer
the sacrament of Baptism, provided they baptize in the form of the
Church. Wherefore Pope Nicolas I replies to the questions propounded by
the Bulgars: "You say that many in your country have been baptized by
someone, whether Christian or pagan you know not. If these were
baptized in the name of the Trinity, they must not be rebaptized. " But
if the form of the Church be not observed, the sacrament of Baptism is
not conferred. And thus is to be explained what Gregory II [*Gregory
III] writes to Bishop Boniface: "Those whom you assert to have been
baptized by pagans," namely, with a form not recognized by the Church,
"we command you to rebaptize in the name of the Trinity. " And the
reason of this is that, just as on the part of the matter, as far as
the essentials of the sacrament are concerned, any water will suffice,
so, on the part of the minister, any man is competent. Consequently, an
unbaptized person can baptize in a case of urgency. So that two
unbaptized persons may baptize one another, one baptizing the other and
being afterwards baptized by him: and each would receive not only the
sacrament but also the reality of the sacrament. But if this were done
outside a case of urgency, each would sin grievously, both the baptizer
and the baptized, and thus the baptismal effect would be frustrated,
although the sacrament itself would not be invalidated.
Reply to Objection 1: The man who baptizes offers but his outward
ministration; whereas Christ it is Who baptizes inwardly, Who can use
all men to whatever purpose He wills. Consequently, the unbaptized can
baptize: because, as Pope Nicolas I says, "the Baptism is not theirs,"
i. e. the baptizers', "but His," i. e. Christ's.
Reply to Objection 2: He who is not baptized, though he belongs not to
the Church either in reality or sacramentally, can nevertheless belong
to her in intention and by similarity of action, namely, in so far as
he intends to do what the Church does, and in baptizing observes the
Church's form, and thus acts as the minister of Christ, Who did not
confine His power to those that are baptized, as neither did He to the
sacraments.
Reply to Objection 3: The other sacraments are not so necessary as
Baptism. And therefore it is allowable that an unbaptized person should
baptize rather than that he should receive other sacraments.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether several can baptize at the same time?
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 Mat. 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 ([4438]Q[66], A[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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether in Baptism it is necessary for someone to raise the baptized from
the sacred font?
Objection 1: It seems that in Baptism it is not necessary for someone
to raise the baptized from the sacred font. For our Baptism is
consecrated by Christ's Baptism and is conformed thereto. But Christ
when baptized was not raised by anyone from the font, but according to
Mat. 3:16, "Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water. "
Therefore it seems that neither when others are baptized should anyone
raise the baptized from the sacred font.
Objection 2: Further, Baptism is a spiritual regeneration, as stated
above [4439](A[3]). But in carnal generation nothing else is required
but the active principle, i. e. the father, and the passive principle,
i. e. the mother. Since, then, in Baptism he that baptizes takes the
place of the father, while the very water of Baptism takes the place of
the mother, as Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (cxxxv); it
seems that there is no further need for someone to raise the baptized
from the sacred font.
Objection 3: Further, nothing ridiculous should be observed in the
sacraments of the Church. But it seems ridiculous that after being
baptized, adults who can stand up of themselves and leave the sacred
font, should be held up by another. Therefore there seems no need for
anyone, especially in the Baptism of adults, to raise the baptized from
the sacred font.
On the contrary, Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. ii) that "the priests
taking the baptized hand him over to his sponsor and guide. "
I answer that, The spiritual regeneration, which takes place in
Baptism, is in a certain manner likened to carnal generation: wherefore
it is written (1 Pet. 2:2): "As new-born babes, endowed with reason
desire milk [Vulg. : 'desire reasonable milk'] without guile. " Now, in
carnal generation the new-born child needs nourishment and guidance:
wherefore, in spiritual generation also, someone is needed to undertake
the office of nurse and tutor by forming and instructing one who is yet
a novice in the Faith, concerning things pertaining to Christian faith
and mode of life, which the clergy have not the leisure to do through
being busy with watching over the people generally: because little
children and novices need more than ordinary care. Consequently someone
is needed to receive the baptized from the sacred font as though for
the purpose of instructing and guiding them. It is to this that
Dionysius refers (Eccl. Hier. xi) saying: "It occurred to our heavenly
guides," i. e. the Apostles, "and they decided, that infants should be
taken charge of thus: that the parents of the child should hand it over
to some instructor versed in holy things, who would thenceforth take
charge of the child, and be to it a spiritual father and a guide in the
road of salvation. "
Reply to Objection 1: Christ was baptized not that He might be
regenerated, but that He might regenerate others: wherefore after His
Baptism He needed no tutor like other children.
Reply to Objection 2: In carnal generation nothing is essential besides
a father and a mother: yet to ease the latter in her travail, there is
need for a midwife; and for the child to be suitably brought up there
is need for a nurse and a tutor: while their place is taken in Baptism
by him who raises the child from the sacred font. Consequently this is
not essential to the sacrament, and in a case of necessity one alone
can baptize with water.
Reply to Objection 3: It is not on account of bodily weakness that the
baptized is raised from the sacred font by the godparent, but on
account of spiritual weakness, as stated above.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether he who raises anyone from the sacred font is bound to instruct him?
Objection 1: It seems that he who raises anyone from the sacred font is
not bound to instruct him. For none but those who are themselves
instructed can give instruction. But even the uneducated and
ill-instructed are allowed to raise people from the sacred font.
Therefore he who raises a baptized person from the font is not bound to
instruct him.
Objection 2: Further, a son is instructed by his father better than by
a stranger: for, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. viii), a son receives
from his father, "being, food, and education. " If, therefore,
godparents are bound to instruct their godchildren, it would be fitting
for the carnal father, rather than another, to be the godparent of his
own child. And yet this seems to be forbidden, as may be seen in the
Decretals (xxx, qu. 1, Cap. Pervenit and Dictum est).
Objection 3: Further, it is better for several to instruct than for one
only. If, therefore, godparents are bound to instruct their
godchildren, it would be better to have several godparents than only
one. Yet this is forbidden in a decree of Pope Leo, who says: "A child
should not have more than one godparent, be this a man or a woman. "
On the contrary, Augustine says in a sermon for Easter (clxviii): "In
the first place I admonish you, both men and women, who have raised
children in Baptism, that ye stand before God as sureties for those
whom you have been seen to raise from the sacred font. "
I answer that, Every man is bound to fulfil those duties which he has
undertaken to perform. Now it has been stated above [4440](A[7]) that
godparents take upon themselves the duties of a tutor. Consequently
they are bound to watch over their godchildren when there is need for
them to do so: for instance when and where children are brought up
among unbelievers. But if they are brought up among Catholic
Christians, the godparents may well be excused from this
responsibility, since it may be presumed that the children will be
carefully instructed by their parents. If, however, they perceive in
any way that the contrary is the case, they would be bound, as far as
they are able, to see to the spiritual welfare of their godchildren.
Reply to Objection 1: Where the danger is imminent, the godparent, as
Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. vii), should be someone "versed in holy
things. " But where the danger is not imminent, by reason of the
children being brought up among Catholics, anyone is admitted to this
position, because the things pertaining to the Christian rule of life
and faith are known openly by all. Nevertheless an unbaptized person
cannot be a godparent, as was decreed in the Council of Mainz, although
an unbaptized person: because the person baptizing is essential to the
sacrament, wherefore as the godparent is not, as stated above (A[7], ad
2).
Reply to Objection 2: Just as spiritual generation is distinct from
carnal generation, so is spiritual education distinct from that of the
body; according to Heb. 12:9: "Moreover we have had fathers of our
flesh for instructors, and we reverenced them: shall we not much more
obey the Father of Spirits, and live? " Therefore the spiritual father
should be distinct from the carnal father, unless necessity demanded
otherwise.
Reply to Objection 3: Education would be full of confusion if there
were more than one head instructor. Wherefore there should be one
principal sponsor in Baptism: but others can be allowed as assistants.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THOSE WHO RECEIVE BAPTISM (TWELVE ARTICLES)
We have now to consider those who receive Baptism; concerning which
there are twelve points of inquiry:
(1) Whether all are bound to receive Baptism?
(2) Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?
(3) Whether Baptism should be deferred?
(4) Whether sinners should be baptized?
(5) Whether works of satisfaction should be enjoined on sinners that
have been baptized?
(6) Whether Confession of sins is necessary?
(7) Whether an intention is required on the part of the one baptized?
(8) Whether faith is necessary?
(9) Whether infants should be baptized?
(10) Whether the children of Jews should be baptized against the will
of their parents?
(11) Whether anyone should be baptized in the mother's womb?
(12) Whether madmen and imbeciles should be baptized?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether all are bound to receive Baptism?
Objection 1: It seems that not all are bound to receive Baptism. For
Christ did not narrow man's road to salvation. But before Christ's
coming men could be saved without Baptism: therefore also after
Christ's coming.
Objection 2: Further, Baptism seems to have been instituted principally
as a remedy for original sin. Now, since a man who is baptized is
without original sin, it seems that he cannot transmit it to his
children. Therefore it seems that the children of those who have been
baptized, should not themselves be baptized.
Objection 3: Further, Baptism is given in order that a man may, through
grace, be cleansed from sin. But those who are sanctified in the womb,
obtain this without Baptism. Therefore they are not bound to receive
Baptism.
On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 3:5): "Unless a man be born again
of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. "
Again it is stated in De Eccl. Dogm. xli, that "we believe the way of
salvation to be open to those only who are baptized. "
I answer that, Men are bound to that without which they cannot obtain
salvation. Now it is manifest that no one can obtain salvation but
through Christ; wherefore the Apostle says (Rom. 5:18): "As by the
offense of one unto all men unto condemnation; so also by the justice
of one, unto all men unto justification of life. " But for this end is
Baptism conferred on a man, that being regenerated thereby, he may be
incorporated in Christ, by becoming His member: wherefore it is written
(Gal. 3:27): "As many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put
on Christ. " Consequently it is manifest that all are bound to be
baptized: and that without Baptism there is no salvation for men.
Reply to Objection 1: At no time, not even before the coming of Christ,
could men be saved unless they became members of Christ: because, as it
is written (Acts 4:12), "there is no other name under heaven given to
men, whereby we must be saved. " But before Christ's coming, men were
incorporated in Christ by faith in His future coming: of which faith
circumcision was the "seal," as the Apostle calls it (Rom. 4:11):
whereas before circumcision was instituted, men were incorporated in
Christ by "faith alone," as Gregory says (Moral. iv), together with the
offering of sacrifices, by means of which the Fathers of old made
profession of their faith. Again, since Christ's coming, men are
incorporated in Christ by faith; according to Eph. 3:17: "That Christ
may dwell by faith in your hearts. " But faith in a thing already
present is manifested by a sign different from that by which it was
manifested when that thing was yet in the future: just as we use other
parts of the verb, to signify the present, the past, and the future.
Consequently although the sacrament itself of Baptism was not always
necessary for salvation, yet faith, of which Baptism is the sacrament,
was always necessary.
Reply to Objection 2: As we have stated in the [4441]FS, Q[81], A[3],
ad 2, those who are baptized are renewed in spirit by Baptism, while
their body remains subject to the oldness of sin, according to Rom.
8:10: "The body, indeed, is dead because of sin, but the spirit liveth
because of justification. " Wherefore Augustine (Contra Julian. vi)
proves that "not everything that is in man is baptized. " Now it is
manifest that in carnal generation man does not beget in respect of his
soul, but in respect of his body.
4:4): "If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion,
and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by
the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning. " Thus, therefore,
each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes
the place of Baptism. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo
Parvulorum iv): "The Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason
from the thief to whom, though not baptized, it was said: 'Today shalt
thou be with Me in Paradise' that suffering can take the place of
Baptism. Having weighed this in my mind again and again, I perceive
that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply for what was
lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if
perchance on account of the stress of the times the celebration of the
mystery of Baptism is not practicable. "
Reply to Objection 1: The other two Baptisms are included in the
Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's
Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity
of Baptism is not destroyed.
Reply to Objection 2: As stated above ([4429]Q[60], A[1]), a sacrament
is a kind of sign. The other two, however, are like the Baptism of
Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal effect.
Consequently they are not sacraments.
Reply to Objection 3: Damascene enumerates certain figurative Baptisms.
For instance, "the Deluge" was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of
the salvation of the faithful in the Church; since then "a few . . .
souls were saved in the ark [Vulg. : 'by water']," according to 1 Pet.
3:20. He also mentions "the crossing of the Red Sea": which was a
figure of our Baptism, in respect of our delivery from the bondage of
sin; hence the Apostle says (1 Cor. 10:2) that "all . . . were baptized
in the cloud and in the sea. " And again he mentions "the various
washings which were customary under the Old Law," which were figures of
our Baptism, as to the cleansing from sins: also "the Baptism of John,"
which prepared the way for our Baptism.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the Baptism of Blood is the most excellent of these?
Objection 1: It seems that the Baptism of Blood is not the most
excellent of these three. For the Baptism of Water impresses a
character; which the Baptism of Blood cannot do. Therefore the Baptism
of Blood is not more excellent than the Baptism of Water.
Objection 2: Further, the Baptism of Blood is of no avail without the
Baptism of the Spirit, which is by charity; for it is written (1 Cor.
13:3): "If I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity,
it profiteth me nothing. " But the Baptism of the Spirit avails without
the Baptism of Blood; for not only the martyrs are saved. Therefore the
Baptism of Blood is not the most excellent.
Objection 3: Further, just as the Baptism of Water derives its efficacy
from Christ's Passion, to which, as stated above [4430](A[11]), the
Baptism of Blood corresponds, so Christ's Passion derives its efficacy
from the Holy Ghost, according to Heb. 9:14: "The Blood of Christ, Who
by the Holy Ghost offered Himself unspotted unto God, shall cleanse our
conscience from dead works," etc. Therefore the Baptism of the Spirit
is more excellent than the Baptism of Blood. Therefore the Baptism of
Blood is not the most excellent.
On the contrary, Augustine (Ad Fortunatum) speaking of the comparison
between Baptisms says: "The newly baptized confesses his faith in the
presence of the priest: the martyr in the presence of the persecutor.
The former is sprinkled with water, after he has confessed; the latter
with his blood. The former receives the Holy Ghost by the imposition of
the bishop's hands; the latter is made the temple of the Holy Ghost. "
I answer that, As stated above [4431](A[11]), the shedding of blood for
Christ's sake, and the inward operation of the Holy Ghost, are called
baptisms, in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water.
Now the Baptism of Water derives its efficacy from Christ's Passion and
from the Holy Ghost, as already stated [4432](A[11]). These two causes
act in each of these three Baptisms; most excellently, however, in the
Baptism of Blood. For Christ's Passion acts in the Baptism of Water by
way of a figurative representation; in the Baptism of the Spirit or of
Repentance, by way of desire. but in the Baptism of Blood, by way of
imitating the (Divine) act. In like manner, too, the power of the Holy
Ghost acts in the Baptism of Water through a certain hidden power. in
the Baptism of Repentance by moving the heart; but in the Baptism of
Blood by the highest degree of fervor of dilection and love, according
to Jn. 15:13: "Greater love than this no man hath that a man lay down
his life for his friends. "
Reply to Objection 1: A character is both reality and a sacrament. And
we do not say that the Baptism of Blood is more excellent, considering
the nature of a sacrament; but considering the sacramental effect.
Reply to Objection 2: The shedding of blood is not in the nature of a
Baptism if it be without charity. Hence it is clear that the Baptism of
Blood includes the Baptism of the Spirit, but not conversely. And from
this it is proved to be more perfect.
Reply to Objection 3: The Baptism owes its pre-eminence not only to
Christ's Passion, but also to the Holy Ghost, as stated above.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE MINISTERS BY WHOM THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM IS CONFERRED (EIGHT
ARTICLES)
We have now to consider the ministers by whom the sacrament of Baptism
is conferred. And concerning this there are eight points of inquiry:
(1) Whether it belongs to a deacon to baptize?
(2) Whether this belongs to a priest, or to a bishop only?
(3) Whether a layman can confer the sacrament of Baptism?
(4) Whether a woman can do this?
(5) Whether an unbaptized person can baptize?
(6) Whether several can at the same time baptize one and the same
person?
(7) Whether it is essential that someone should raise the person
baptized from the sacred font?
(8) Whether he who raises someone from the sacred font is bound to
instruct him?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is part of a deacon's duty to baptize?
Objection 1: It seems that it is part of a deacon's duty to baptize.
Because the duties of preaching and of baptizing were enjoined by our
Lord at the same time, according to Mat. 28:19: "Going . . . teach ye
all nations, baptizing them," etc. But it is part of a deacon's duty to
preach the gospel. Therefore it seems that it is also part of a
deacon's duty to baptize.
Objection 2: Further, according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v) to
"cleanse" is part of the deacon's duty. But cleansing from sins is
effected specially by Baptism, according to Eph. 5:26: "Cleansing it by
the laver of water in the word of life. " Therefore it seems that it
belongs to a deacon to baptize.
Objection 3: Further, it is told of Blessed Laurence, who was a deacon,
that he baptized many. Therefore it seems that it belongs to deacons to
baptize.
On the contrary, Pope Gelasius I says (the passage is to be found in
the Decrees, dist. 93): "We order the deacons to keep within their own
province"; and further on: "Without bishop or priest they must not dare
to baptize, except in cases of extreme urgency, when the aforesaid are
a long way off. "
I answer that, Just as the properties and duties of the heavenly orders
are gathered from their names, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. vi), so
can we gather, from the names of the ecclesiastical orders, what
belongs to each order. Now "deacons" are so called from being
"ministers"; because, to wit, it is not in the deacon's province to be
the chief and official celebrant in conferring a sacrament, but to
minister to others, his elders, in the sacramental dispensations. And
so it does not belong to a deacon to confer the sacrament of Baptism
officially as it were; but to assist and serve his elders in the
bestowal of this and other sacraments. Hence Isidore says (Epist. ad
Ludifred. ): "It is a deacon's duty to assist and serve the priests, in
all the rites of Christ's sacraments, viz. those of Baptism, of the
Chrism, of the Paten and Chalice. "
Reply to Objection 1: It is the deacon's duty to read the Gospel in
church, and to preach it as one catechizing; hence Dionysius says
(Eccl. Hier. v) that a deacon's office involves power over the unclean
among whom he includes the catechumens. But to teach, i. e. to expound
the Gospel, is the proper office of a bishop, whose action is "to
perfect," as Dionysius teaches (Eccl. Hier. v); and "to perfect" is the
same as "to teach. " Consequently, it does not follow that the office of
baptizing belongs to deacons.
Reply to Objection 2: As Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. ii), Baptism has a
power not only of "cleansing" but also of "enlightening. " Consequently,
it is outside the province of the deacon whose duty it is to cleanse
only: viz. either by driving away the unclean, or by preparing them for
the reception of a sacrament.
Reply to Objection 3: Because Baptism is a necessary sacrament, deacons
are allowed to baptize in cases of urgency when their elders are not at
hand; as appears from the authority of Gelasius quoted above. And it
was thus that Blessed Laurence, being but a deacon, baptized.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether to baptize is part of the priestly office, or proper to that of
bishops?
Objection 1: It seems that to baptize is not part of the priestly
office, but proper to that of bishops. Because, as stated above (A[1],
OBJ[1]), the duties of teaching and baptizing are enjoined in the same
precept (Mat. 28:19). But to teach, which is "to perfect," belongs to
the office of bishop, as Dionysius declares (Eccl. Hier. v, vi).
Therefore to baptize also belongs to the episcopal office.
Objection 2: Further, by Baptism a man is admitted to the body of the
Christian people: and to do this seems consistent with no other than
the princely office. Now the bishops hold the position of princes in
the Church, as the gloss observes on Lk. 10:1: indeed, they even take
the place of the apostles, of whom it is written (Ps. 44:17): "Thou
shalt make them princes over all the earth. " Therefore it seems that to
baptize belongs exclusively to the office of bishops.
Objection 3: Further, Isidore says (Epist. ad Ludifred. ) that "it
belongs to the bishop to consecrate churches, to anoint altars, to
consecrate [conficere] the chrism; he it is that confers the
ecclesiastical orders, and blesses the consecrated virgins. " But the
sacrament of Baptism is greater than all these. Therefore much more
reason is there why to baptize should belong exclusively to the
episcopal office.
On the contrary, Isidore says (De Officiis. ii): "It is certain that
Baptism was entrusted to priests alone. "
I answer that, Priests are consecrated for the purpose of celebrating
the sacrament of Christ's Body, as stated above ([4433]Q[65], A[3]).
Now that is the sacrament of ecclesiastical unity, according to the
Apostle (1 Cor. 10:17): "We, being many, are one bread, one body, all
that partake of one bread and one chalice. " Moreover, by Baptism a man
becomes a participator in ecclesiastical unity, wherefore also he
receives the right to approach our Lord's Table. Consequently, just as
it belongs to a priest to consecrate the Eucharist, which is the
principal purpose of the priesthood, so it is the proper office of a
priest to baptize: since it seems to belong to one and the same, to
produce the whole and to dispose the part in the whole.
Reply to Objection 1: Our Lord enjoined on the apostles, whose place is
taken by the bishops, both duties, namely, of teaching and of
baptizing, but in different ways. Because Christ committed to them the
duty of teaching, that they might exercise it themselves as being the
most important duty of all: wherefore the apostles themselves said
(Acts 6:2): "It is not reason that we should leave the word of God and
serve tables. " On the other hand, He entrusted the apostles with the
office of baptizing, to be exercised vicariously; wherefore the Apostle
says (1 Cor. 1:17): "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the
Gospel. " And the reason for this was that the merit and wisdom of the
minister have no bearing on the baptismal effect, as they have in
teaching, as may be seen from what we have stated above (Q[64], A[1],
ad 2; [4434]AA[5],9). A proof of this is found also in the fact that
our Lord Himself did not baptize, but His disciples, as John relates
(4:2). Nor does it follow from this that bishops cannot baptize; since
what a lower power can do, that can also a higher power. Wherefore also
the Apostle says (1 Cor. 1:14, 16) that he had baptized some.
Reply to Objection 2: In every commonwealth minor affairs are entrusted
to lower officials, while greater affairs are restricted to higher
officials; according to Ex. 18:22: "When any great matter soever shall
fall out, let them refer it to thee, and let them judge the lesser
matters only. " Consequently it belongs to the lower officials of the
state to decide matters concerning the lower orders; while to the
highest it belongs to set in order those matters that regard the higher
orders of the state. Now by Baptism a man attains only to the lowest
rank among the Christian people: and consequently it belongs to the
lesser officials of the Church
to baptize, namely, the priests, who hold the place of the seventy-two
disciples of Christ, as the gloss says in the passage quoted from Luke
10.
Reply to Objection 3: As stated above ([4435]Q[65], A[3]), the
sacrament of Baptism holds the first place in the order of necessity;
but in the order of perfection there are other greater sacraments which
are reserved to bishops.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether a layman can baptize?
Objection 1: It seems that a layman cannot baptize. Because, as stated
above [4436](A[2]), to baptize belongs properly to the priestly order.
But those things which belong to an order cannot be entrusted to one
that is not ordained. Therefore it seems that a layman, who has no
orders, cannot baptize.
Objection 2: Further, it is a greater thing to baptize, than to perform
the other sacramental rites of Baptism, such as to catechize, to
exorcize, and to bless the baptismal water. But these things cannot be
done by laymen, but only by priests. Therefore it seems that much less
can laymen baptize.
Objection 3: Further, just as Baptism is a necessary sacrament, so is
Penance. But a layman cannot absolve in the tribunal of Penance.
Neither, therefore, can he baptize.
On the contrary, Pope Gelasius I and Isidore say that "it is often
permissible for Christian laymen to baptize, in cases of urgent
necessity. "
I answer that, It is due to the mercy of Him "Who will have all men to
be saved" (1 Tim. 2:4) that in those things which are necessary for
salvation, man can easily find the remedy. Now the most necessary among
all the sacraments is Baptism, which is man's regeneration unto
spiritual life: since for children there is no substitute, while adults
cannot otherwise than by Baptism receive a full remission both of guilt
and of its punishment. Consequently, lest man should have to go without
so necessary a remedy, it was ordained, both that the matter of Baptism
should be something common that is easily obtainable by all, i. e.
water; and that the minister of Baptism should be anyone, even not in
orders, lest from lack of being baptized, man should suffer loss of his
salvation.
Reply to Objection 1: To baptize belongs to the priestly order by
reason of a certain appropriateness and solemnity; but this is not
essential to the sacrament. Consequently, if a layman were to baptize
even outside a case of urgency; he would sin, yet he would confer the
sacrament; nor would the person thus baptized have to be baptized
again.
Reply to Objection 2: These sacramental rites of Baptism belong to the
solemnity of, and are not essential to, Baptism. And therefore they
neither should nor can be done by a layman, but only by a priest, whose
office it is to baptize solemnly.
Reply to Objection 3: As stated above ([4437]Q[65], AA[3],4), Penance
is not so necessary as Baptism; since contrition can supply the defect
of the priestly absolution which does not free from the whole
punishment, nor again is it given to children. Therefore the comparison
with Baptism does not stand, because its effect cannot be supplied by
anything else.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether a woman can baptize?
Objection 1: It seems that a woman cannot baptize. For we read in the
acts of the Council of Carthage (iv): "However learned and holy a woman
may be, she must not presume to teach men in the church, or to
baptize. " But in no case is a woman allowed to teach in church,
according to 1 Cor. 14:35: "It is a shame for a woman to speak in the
church. " Therefore it seems that neither is a woman in any
circumstances permitted to baptize.
Objection 2: Further, to baptize belongs to those having authority.
wherefore baptism should be conferred by priests having charge of
souls. But women are not qualified for this; according to 1 Tim. 2:12:
"I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over man, but to
be subject to him [Vulg. : 'but to be in silence']. " Therefore a woman
cannot baptize.
Objection 3: Further, in the spiritual regeneration water seems to hold
the place of the mother's womb, as Augustine says on Jn. 3:4, "Can" a
man "enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born again? "
While he who baptizes seems to hold rather the position of father. But
this is unfitting for a woman. Therefore a woman cannot baptize.
On the contrary, Pope Urban II says (Decreta xxx): "In reply to the
questions asked by your beatitude, we consider that the following
answer should be given: that the baptism is valid when, in cases of
necessity, a woman baptizes a child in the name of the Trinity. "
I answer that, Christ is the chief Baptizer, according to Jn. 1:33: "He
upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him,
He it is that baptizeth. " For it is written in Col. 3 (cf. Gal. 3:28),
that in Christ there is neither male nor female. Consequently, just as
a layman can baptize, as Christ's minister, so can a woman.
But since "the head of the woman is the man," and "the head of . . .
man, is Christ" (1 Cor. 11:3), a woman should not baptize if a man be
available for the purpose; just as neither should a layman in the
presence of a cleric, nor a cleric in the presence of a priest. The
last, however, can baptize in the presence of a bishop, because it is
part of the priestly office.
Reply to Objection 1: Just as a woman is not suffered to teach in
public, but is allowed to instruct and admonish privately; so she is
not permitted to baptize publicly and solemnly, and yet she can baptize
in a case of urgency.
Reply to Objection 2: When Baptism is celebrated solemnly and with due
form, it should be conferred by a priest having charge of souls, or by
one representing him. But this is not required in cases of urgency,
when a woman may baptize.
Reply to Objection 3: In carnal generation male and female co-operate
according to the power of their proper nature; wherefore the female
cannot be the active, but only the passive, principle of generation.
But in spiritual generation they do not act, either of them, by their
proper power, but only instrumentally by the power of Christ.
Consequently, on the same grounds either man or woman can baptize in a
case of urgency.
If, however, a woman were to baptize without any urgency for so doing.
there would be no need of rebaptism: as we have said in regard to
laymen (A[3], ad 1). But the baptizer herself would sin, as also those
who took part with her therein, either by receiving Baptism from her,
or by bringing someone to her to be baptized.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether one that is not baptized can confer the sacrament of Baptism?
Objection 1: It seems that one that is not baptized cannot confer the
sacrament of Baptism. For "none gives what he has not. " But a
non-baptized person has not the sacrament of Baptism. Therefore he
cannot give it.
Objection 2: Further, a man confers the sacrament of Baptism inasmuch
as he is a minister of the Church. But one that is not baptized,
belongs nowise to the Church, i. e. neither really nor sacramentally.
Therefore he cannot confer the sacrament of Baptism.
Objection 3: Further, it is more to confer a sacrament than to receive
it. But one that is not baptized, cannot receive the other sacraments.
Much less, therefore, can he confer any sacrament.
On the contrary, Isidore says: "The Roman Pontiff does not consider it
to be the man who baptizes, but that the Holy Ghost confers the grace
of Baptism, though he that baptizes be a pagan. " But he who is
baptized, is not called a pagan. Therefore he who is not baptized can
confer the sacrament of Baptism.
I answer that, Augustine left this question without deciding it. For he
says (Contra Ep. Parmen. ii): "This is indeed another question, whether
even those can baptize who were never Christians; nor should anything
be rashly asserted hereupon, without the authority of a sacred council
such as suffices for so great a matter. " But afterwards it was decided
by the Church that the unbaptized, whether Jews or pagans, can confer
the sacrament of Baptism, provided they baptize in the form of the
Church. Wherefore Pope Nicolas I replies to the questions propounded by
the Bulgars: "You say that many in your country have been baptized by
someone, whether Christian or pagan you know not. If these were
baptized in the name of the Trinity, they must not be rebaptized. " But
if the form of the Church be not observed, the sacrament of Baptism is
not conferred. And thus is to be explained what Gregory II [*Gregory
III] writes to Bishop Boniface: "Those whom you assert to have been
baptized by pagans," namely, with a form not recognized by the Church,
"we command you to rebaptize in the name of the Trinity. " And the
reason of this is that, just as on the part of the matter, as far as
the essentials of the sacrament are concerned, any water will suffice,
so, on the part of the minister, any man is competent. Consequently, an
unbaptized person can baptize in a case of urgency. So that two
unbaptized persons may baptize one another, one baptizing the other and
being afterwards baptized by him: and each would receive not only the
sacrament but also the reality of the sacrament. But if this were done
outside a case of urgency, each would sin grievously, both the baptizer
and the baptized, and thus the baptismal effect would be frustrated,
although the sacrament itself would not be invalidated.
Reply to Objection 1: The man who baptizes offers but his outward
ministration; whereas Christ it is Who baptizes inwardly, Who can use
all men to whatever purpose He wills. Consequently, the unbaptized can
baptize: because, as Pope Nicolas I says, "the Baptism is not theirs,"
i. e. the baptizers', "but His," i. e. Christ's.
Reply to Objection 2: He who is not baptized, though he belongs not to
the Church either in reality or sacramentally, can nevertheless belong
to her in intention and by similarity of action, namely, in so far as
he intends to do what the Church does, and in baptizing observes the
Church's form, and thus acts as the minister of Christ, Who did not
confine His power to those that are baptized, as neither did He to the
sacraments.
Reply to Objection 3: The other sacraments are not so necessary as
Baptism. And therefore it is allowable that an unbaptized person should
baptize rather than that he should receive other sacraments.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether several can baptize at the same time?
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 Mat. 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 ([4438]Q[66], A[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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether in Baptism it is necessary for someone to raise the baptized from
the sacred font?
Objection 1: It seems that in Baptism it is not necessary for someone
to raise the baptized from the sacred font. For our Baptism is
consecrated by Christ's Baptism and is conformed thereto. But Christ
when baptized was not raised by anyone from the font, but according to
Mat. 3:16, "Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water. "
Therefore it seems that neither when others are baptized should anyone
raise the baptized from the sacred font.
Objection 2: Further, Baptism is a spiritual regeneration, as stated
above [4439](A[3]). But in carnal generation nothing else is required
but the active principle, i. e. the father, and the passive principle,
i. e. the mother. Since, then, in Baptism he that baptizes takes the
place of the father, while the very water of Baptism takes the place of
the mother, as Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (cxxxv); it
seems that there is no further need for someone to raise the baptized
from the sacred font.
Objection 3: Further, nothing ridiculous should be observed in the
sacraments of the Church. But it seems ridiculous that after being
baptized, adults who can stand up of themselves and leave the sacred
font, should be held up by another. Therefore there seems no need for
anyone, especially in the Baptism of adults, to raise the baptized from
the sacred font.
On the contrary, Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. ii) that "the priests
taking the baptized hand him over to his sponsor and guide. "
I answer that, The spiritual regeneration, which takes place in
Baptism, is in a certain manner likened to carnal generation: wherefore
it is written (1 Pet. 2:2): "As new-born babes, endowed with reason
desire milk [Vulg. : 'desire reasonable milk'] without guile. " Now, in
carnal generation the new-born child needs nourishment and guidance:
wherefore, in spiritual generation also, someone is needed to undertake
the office of nurse and tutor by forming and instructing one who is yet
a novice in the Faith, concerning things pertaining to Christian faith
and mode of life, which the clergy have not the leisure to do through
being busy with watching over the people generally: because little
children and novices need more than ordinary care. Consequently someone
is needed to receive the baptized from the sacred font as though for
the purpose of instructing and guiding them. It is to this that
Dionysius refers (Eccl. Hier. xi) saying: "It occurred to our heavenly
guides," i. e. the Apostles, "and they decided, that infants should be
taken charge of thus: that the parents of the child should hand it over
to some instructor versed in holy things, who would thenceforth take
charge of the child, and be to it a spiritual father and a guide in the
road of salvation. "
Reply to Objection 1: Christ was baptized not that He might be
regenerated, but that He might regenerate others: wherefore after His
Baptism He needed no tutor like other children.
Reply to Objection 2: In carnal generation nothing is essential besides
a father and a mother: yet to ease the latter in her travail, there is
need for a midwife; and for the child to be suitably brought up there
is need for a nurse and a tutor: while their place is taken in Baptism
by him who raises the child from the sacred font. Consequently this is
not essential to the sacrament, and in a case of necessity one alone
can baptize with water.
Reply to Objection 3: It is not on account of bodily weakness that the
baptized is raised from the sacred font by the godparent, but on
account of spiritual weakness, as stated above.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether he who raises anyone from the sacred font is bound to instruct him?
Objection 1: It seems that he who raises anyone from the sacred font is
not bound to instruct him. For none but those who are themselves
instructed can give instruction. But even the uneducated and
ill-instructed are allowed to raise people from the sacred font.
Therefore he who raises a baptized person from the font is not bound to
instruct him.
Objection 2: Further, a son is instructed by his father better than by
a stranger: for, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. viii), a son receives
from his father, "being, food, and education. " If, therefore,
godparents are bound to instruct their godchildren, it would be fitting
for the carnal father, rather than another, to be the godparent of his
own child. And yet this seems to be forbidden, as may be seen in the
Decretals (xxx, qu. 1, Cap. Pervenit and Dictum est).
Objection 3: Further, it is better for several to instruct than for one
only. If, therefore, godparents are bound to instruct their
godchildren, it would be better to have several godparents than only
one. Yet this is forbidden in a decree of Pope Leo, who says: "A child
should not have more than one godparent, be this a man or a woman. "
On the contrary, Augustine says in a sermon for Easter (clxviii): "In
the first place I admonish you, both men and women, who have raised
children in Baptism, that ye stand before God as sureties for those
whom you have been seen to raise from the sacred font. "
I answer that, Every man is bound to fulfil those duties which he has
undertaken to perform. Now it has been stated above [4440](A[7]) that
godparents take upon themselves the duties of a tutor. Consequently
they are bound to watch over their godchildren when there is need for
them to do so: for instance when and where children are brought up
among unbelievers. But if they are brought up among Catholic
Christians, the godparents may well be excused from this
responsibility, since it may be presumed that the children will be
carefully instructed by their parents. If, however, they perceive in
any way that the contrary is the case, they would be bound, as far as
they are able, to see to the spiritual welfare of their godchildren.
Reply to Objection 1: Where the danger is imminent, the godparent, as
Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. vii), should be someone "versed in holy
things. " But where the danger is not imminent, by reason of the
children being brought up among Catholics, anyone is admitted to this
position, because the things pertaining to the Christian rule of life
and faith are known openly by all. Nevertheless an unbaptized person
cannot be a godparent, as was decreed in the Council of Mainz, although
an unbaptized person: because the person baptizing is essential to the
sacrament, wherefore as the godparent is not, as stated above (A[7], ad
2).
Reply to Objection 2: Just as spiritual generation is distinct from
carnal generation, so is spiritual education distinct from that of the
body; according to Heb. 12:9: "Moreover we have had fathers of our
flesh for instructors, and we reverenced them: shall we not much more
obey the Father of Spirits, and live? " Therefore the spiritual father
should be distinct from the carnal father, unless necessity demanded
otherwise.
Reply to Objection 3: Education would be full of confusion if there
were more than one head instructor. Wherefore there should be one
principal sponsor in Baptism: but others can be allowed as assistants.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THOSE WHO RECEIVE BAPTISM (TWELVE ARTICLES)
We have now to consider those who receive Baptism; concerning which
there are twelve points of inquiry:
(1) Whether all are bound to receive Baptism?
(2) Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?
(3) Whether Baptism should be deferred?
(4) Whether sinners should be baptized?
(5) Whether works of satisfaction should be enjoined on sinners that
have been baptized?
(6) Whether Confession of sins is necessary?
(7) Whether an intention is required on the part of the one baptized?
(8) Whether faith is necessary?
(9) Whether infants should be baptized?
(10) Whether the children of Jews should be baptized against the will
of their parents?
(11) Whether anyone should be baptized in the mother's womb?
(12) Whether madmen and imbeciles should be baptized?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether all are bound to receive Baptism?
Objection 1: It seems that not all are bound to receive Baptism. For
Christ did not narrow man's road to salvation. But before Christ's
coming men could be saved without Baptism: therefore also after
Christ's coming.
Objection 2: Further, Baptism seems to have been instituted principally
as a remedy for original sin. Now, since a man who is baptized is
without original sin, it seems that he cannot transmit it to his
children. Therefore it seems that the children of those who have been
baptized, should not themselves be baptized.
Objection 3: Further, Baptism is given in order that a man may, through
grace, be cleansed from sin. But those who are sanctified in the womb,
obtain this without Baptism. Therefore they are not bound to receive
Baptism.
On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 3:5): "Unless a man be born again
of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. "
Again it is stated in De Eccl. Dogm. xli, that "we believe the way of
salvation to be open to those only who are baptized. "
I answer that, Men are bound to that without which they cannot obtain
salvation. Now it is manifest that no one can obtain salvation but
through Christ; wherefore the Apostle says (Rom. 5:18): "As by the
offense of one unto all men unto condemnation; so also by the justice
of one, unto all men unto justification of life. " But for this end is
Baptism conferred on a man, that being regenerated thereby, he may be
incorporated in Christ, by becoming His member: wherefore it is written
(Gal. 3:27): "As many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put
on Christ. " Consequently it is manifest that all are bound to be
baptized: and that without Baptism there is no salvation for men.
Reply to Objection 1: At no time, not even before the coming of Christ,
could men be saved unless they became members of Christ: because, as it
is written (Acts 4:12), "there is no other name under heaven given to
men, whereby we must be saved. " But before Christ's coming, men were
incorporated in Christ by faith in His future coming: of which faith
circumcision was the "seal," as the Apostle calls it (Rom. 4:11):
whereas before circumcision was instituted, men were incorporated in
Christ by "faith alone," as Gregory says (Moral. iv), together with the
offering of sacrifices, by means of which the Fathers of old made
profession of their faith. Again, since Christ's coming, men are
incorporated in Christ by faith; according to Eph. 3:17: "That Christ
may dwell by faith in your hearts. " But faith in a thing already
present is manifested by a sign different from that by which it was
manifested when that thing was yet in the future: just as we use other
parts of the verb, to signify the present, the past, and the future.
Consequently although the sacrament itself of Baptism was not always
necessary for salvation, yet faith, of which Baptism is the sacrament,
was always necessary.
Reply to Objection 2: As we have stated in the [4441]FS, Q[81], A[3],
ad 2, those who are baptized are renewed in spirit by Baptism, while
their body remains subject to the oldness of sin, according to Rom.
8:10: "The body, indeed, is dead because of sin, but the spirit liveth
because of justification. " Wherefore Augustine (Contra Julian. vi)
proves that "not everything that is in man is baptized. " Now it is
manifest that in carnal generation man does not beget in respect of his
soul, but in respect of his body.
