Now the minister is
designated
by the
words, "I baptize thee"; and the principal cause in the words, "in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
words, "I baptize thee"; and the principal cause in the words, "in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Summa Theologica
in
the washing. Hence the Master (iv, 3) says that "Baptism is the outward
washing of the body done together with the prescribed form of words. "
The Baptismal character is both reality and sacrament: because it is
something real signified by the outward washing; and a sacramental sign
of the inward justification: and this last is the reality only, in this
sacrament---namely, the reality signified and not signifying.
Reply to Objection 1: That which is both sacrament and reality---i. e.
the character---and that which is reality only---i. e. the inward
justification---remain: the character remains and is indelible, as
stated above ([4415]Q[63], A[5]); the justification remains, but can be
lost. Consequently Damascene defined Baptism, not as to that which is
done outwardly, and is the sacrament only; but as to that which is
inward. Hence he sets down two things as pertaining to the
character---namely, "seal" and "safeguarding"; inasmuch as the
character which is called a seal, so far as itself is concerned,
safeguards the soul in good. He also sets down two things as pertaining
to the ultimate reality of the sacrament---namely, "regeneration" which
refers to the fact that man by being baptized begins the new life of
righteousness; and "enlightenment," which refers especially to faith,
by which man receives spiritual life, according to Habac 2 (Heb. 10:38;
cf. Habac 2:4): "But (My) just man liveth by faith"; and Baptism is a
sort of protestation of faith; whence it is called the "Sacrament of
Faith. " Likewise Dionysius defined Baptism by its relation to the other
sacraments, saying (Eccl. Hier. ii) that it is "the principle that
forms the habits of the soul for the reception of those most holy words
and sacraments"; and again by its relation to heavenly glory, which is
the universal end of all the sacraments, when he adds, "preparing the
way for us, whereby we mount to the repose of the heavenly kingdom";
and again as to the beginning of spiritual life, when he adds, "the
conferring of our most sacred and Godlike regeneration. "
Reply to Objection 2: As already stated, the opinion of Hugh of St.
Victor on this question is not to be followed. Nevertheless the saying
that "Baptism is water" may be verified in so far as water is the
material principle of Baptism: and thus there would be "causal
predication. "
Reply to Objection 3: When the words are added, the element becomes a
sacrament, not in the element itself, but in man, to whom the element
is applied, by being used in washing him. Indeed, this is signified by
those very words which are added to the element, when we say: "I
baptize thee," etc.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Baptism was instituted after Christ's Passion?
Objection 1: It seems that Baptism was instituted after Christ's
Passion. For the cause precedes the effect. Now Christ's Passion
operates in the sacraments of the New Law. Therefore Christ's Passion
precedes the institution of the sacraments of the New Law: especially
the sacrament of Baptism since the Apostle says (Rom. 6:3): "All we,
who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death," etc.
Objection 2: Further, the sacraments of the New Law derive their
efficacy from the mandate of Christ. But Christ gave the disciples the
mandate of Baptism after His Passion and Resurrection, when He said:
"Going, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father," etc. (Mat. 28:19). Therefore it seems that Baptism was
instituted after Christ's Passion.
Objection 3: Further, Baptism is a necessary sacrament, as stated above
([4416]Q[65] , A[4]): wherefore, seemingly, it must have been binding
on man as soon as it was instituted. But before Christ's Passion men
were not bound to be baptized: for Circumcision was still in force,
which was supplanted by Baptism. Therefore it seems that Baptism was
not instituted before Christ's Passion.
On the contrary, Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (Append.
Serm. , clxxxv): "As soon as Christ was plunged into the waters, the
waters washed away the sins of all. " But this was before Christ's
Passion. Therefore Baptism was instituted before Christ's Passion.
I answer that, As stated above ([4417]Q[62], A[1]), sacraments derive
from their institution the power of conferring grace. Wherefore it
seems that a sacrament is then instituted, when it receives the power
of producing its effect. Now Baptism received this power when Christ
was baptized. Consequently Baptism was truly instituted then, if we
consider it as a sacrament. But the obligation of receiving this
sacrament was proclaimed to mankind after the Passion and Resurrection.
First, because Christ's Passion put an end to the figurative
sacraments, which were supplanted by Baptism and the other sacraments
of the New Law. Secondly, because by Baptism man is "made conformable"
to Christ's Passion and Resurrection, in so far as he dies to sin and
begins to live anew unto righteousness. Consequently it behooved Christ
to suffer and to rise again, before proclaiming to man his obligation
of conforming himself to Christ's Death and Resurrection.
Reply to Objection 1: Even before Christ's Passion, Baptism, inasmuch
as it foreshadowed it, derived its efficacy therefrom; but not in the
same way as the sacraments of the Old Law. For these were mere figures:
whereas Baptism derived the power of justifying from Christ Himself, to
Whose power the Passion itself owed its saving virtue.
Reply to Objection 2: It was not meet that men should be restricted to
a number of figures by Christ, Who came to fulfil and replace the
figure by His reality. Therefore before His Passion He did not make
Baptism obligatory as soon as it was instituted; but wished men to
become accustomed to its use; especially in regard to the Jews, to whom
all things were figurative, as Augustine says (Contra Faust. iv). But
after His Passion and Resurrection He made Baptism obligatory, not only
on the Jews, but also on the Gentiles, when He gave the commandment:
"Going, teach ye all nations. "
Reply to Objection 3: Sacraments are not obligatory except when we are
commanded to receive them. And this was not before the Passion, as
stated above. For our Lord's words to Nicodemus (Jn. 3:5), "Unless a
man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the
kingdom of God, seem to refer to the future rather than to the
present. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether water is the proper matter of Baptism?
Objection 1: It seems that water is not the proper matter of Baptism.
For Baptism, according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v) and Damascene (De
Fide Orth. iv), has a power of enlightening. But enlightenment is a
special characteristic of fire. Therefore Baptism should be conferred
with fire rather than with water: and all the more since John the
Baptist said when foretelling Christ's Baptism (Mat. 3:11): "He shall
baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire. "
Objection 2: Further, the washing away of sins is signified in Baptism.
But many other things besides water are employed in washing, such as
wine, oil, and such like. Therefore Baptism can be conferred with these
also; and consequently water is not the proper matter of Baptism.
Objection 3: Further, the sacraments of the Church flowed from the side
of Christ hanging on the cross, as stated above ([4418]Q[62], A[5]).
But not only water flowed therefrom, but also blood. Therefore it seems
that Baptism can also be conferred with blood. And this seems to be
more in keeping with the effect of Baptism, because it is written
(Apoc. 1:5): "(Who) washed us from our sins in His own blood. "
Objection 4: Further, as Augustine (cf. Master of the Sentences, iv, 3)
and Bede (Exposit. in Luc. iii, 21) say, Christ, by "the touch of His
most pure flesh, endowed the waters with a regenerating and cleansing
virtue. " But all waters are not connected with the waters of the Jordan
which Christ touched with His flesh. Consequently it seems that Baptism
cannot be conferred with any water; and therefore water, as such, is
not the proper matter of Baptism.
Objection 5: Further, if water, as such, were the proper matter of
Baptism, there would be no need to do anything to the water before
using it for Baptism. But in solemn Baptism the water which is used for
baptizing, is exorcized and blessed. Therefore it seems that water, as
such, is not the proper matter of Baptism.
On the contrary, our Lord said (Jn. 3:5): "Unless a man be born again
of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. "
I answer that, By Divine institution water is the proper matter of
Baptism; and with reason. First, by reason of the very nature of
Baptism, which is a regeneration unto spiritual life. And this answers
to the nature of water in a special degree; wherefore seeds, from which
all living things, viz. plants and animals are generated, are moist and
akin to water. For this reason certain philosophers held that water is
the first principle of all things.
Secondly, in regard to the effects of Baptism, to which the properties
of water correspond. For by reason of its moistness it cleanses; and
hence it fittingly signifies and causes the cleansing from sins. By
reason of its coolness it tempers superfluous heat: wherefore it
fittingly mitigates the concupiscence of the fomes. By reason of its
transparency, it is susceptive of light; hence its adaptability to
Baptism as the "sacrament of Faith. "
Thirdly, because it is suitable for the signification of the mysteries
of Christ, by which we are justified. For, as Chrysostom says (Hom. xxv
in Joan. ) on Jn. 3:5, "Unless a man be born again," etc. , "When we dip
our heads under the water as in a kind of tomb our old man is buried,
and being submerged is hidden below, and thence he rises again
renewed. "
Fourthly, because by being so universal and abundant, it is a matter
suitable to our need of this sacrament: for it can easily be obtained
everywhere.
Reply to Objection 1: Fire enlightens actively. But he who is baptized
does not become an enlightener, but is enlightened by faith, which
"cometh by hearing" (Rom. 10:17). Consequently water is more suitable,
than fire, for Baptism.
But when we find it said: "He shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and
fire," we may understand fire, as Jerome says (In Matth. ii), to mean
the Holy Ghost, Who appeared above the disciples under the form of
fiery tongues (Acts 2:3). Or we may understand it to mean tribulation,
as Chrysostom says (Hom. iii in Matth. ): because tribulation washes
away sin, and tempers concupiscence. Or again, as Hilary says (Super
Matth. ii) that "when we have been baptized in the Holy Ghost," we
still have to be "perfected by the fire of the judgment. "
Reply to Objection 2: Wine and oil are not so commonly used for
washing, as water. Neither do they wash so efficiently: for whatever is
washed with them, contracts a certain smell therefrom; which is not the
case if water be used. Moreover, they are not so universal or so
abundant as water.
Reply to Objection 3: Water flowed from Christ's side to wash us;
blood, to redeem us. Wherefore blood belongs to the sacrament of the
Eucharist, while water belongs to the sacrament of Baptism. Yet this
latter sacrament derives its cleansing virtue from the power of
Christ's blood.
Reply to Objection 4: Christ's power flowed into all waters, by reason
of, not connection of place, but likeness of species, as Augustine says
in a sermon on the Epiphany (Append. Serm. cxxxv): "The blessing that
flowed from the Saviour's Baptism, like a mystic river, swelled the
course of every stream, and filled the channels of every spring. "
Reply to Objection 5: The blessing of the water is not essential to
Baptism, but belongs to a certain solemnity, whereby the devotion of
the faithful is aroused, and the cunning of the devil hindered from
impeding the baptismal effect.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether plain water is necessary for Baptism?
Objection 1: It seems that plain water is not necessary for Baptism.
For the water which we have is not plain water; as appears especially
in sea-water, in which there is a considerable proportion of the
earthly element, as the Philosopher shows (Meteor. ii). Yet this water
may be used for Baptism. Therefore plain and pure water is not
necessary for Baptism.
Objection 2: Further, in the solemn celebration of Baptism, chrism is
poured into the water. But this seems to take away the purity and
plainness of the water. Therefore pure and plain water is not necessary
for Baptism.
Objection 3: Further, the water that flowed from the side of Christ
hanging on the cross was a figure of Baptism, as stated above (A[3], ad
3). But that water, seemingly, was not pure, because the elements do
not exist actually in a mixed body, such as Christ's. Therefore it
seems that pure or plain water is not necessary for Baptism.
Objection 4: Further, lye does not seem to be pure water, for it has
the properties of heating and drying, which are contrary to those of
water. Nevertheless it seems that lye can be used for Baptism; for the
water of the Baths can be so used, which has filtered through a
sulphurous vein, just as lye percolates through ashes. Therefore it
seems that plain water is not necessary for Baptism.
Objection 5: Further, rose-water is distilled from roses, just as
chemical waters are distilled from certain bodies. But seemingly, such
like waters may be used in Baptism; just as rain-water, which is
distilled from vapors. Since, therefore, such waters are not pure and
plain water, it seems that pure and plain water is not necessary for
Baptism.
On the contrary, The proper matter of Baptism is water, as stated above
[4419](A[3]). But plain water alone has the nature of water. Therefore
pure plain water is necessary for Baptism.
I answer that, Water may cease to be pure or plain water in two ways:
first, by being mixed with another body; secondly, by alteration. And
each of these may happen in a twofold manner; artificially and
naturally. Now art fails in the operation of nature: because nature
gives the substantial form, which art cannot give; for whatever form is
given by art is accidental; except perchance when art applies a proper
agent to its proper matter, as fire to a combustible; in which manner
animals are produced from certain things by way of putrefaction.
Whatever artificial change, then, takes place in the water, whether by
mixture or by alteration, the water's nature is not changed.
Consequently such water can be used for Baptism: unless perhaps such a
small quantity of water be mixed artificially with a body that the
compound is something other than water; thus mud is earth rather than
water, and diluted wine is wine rather than water.
But if the change be natural, sometimes it destroys the nature of the
water; and this is when by a natural process water enters into the
substance of a mixed body: thus water changed into the juice of the
grape is wine, wherefore it has not the nature of water. Sometimes,
however, there may be a natural change of the water, without
destruction of species: and this, both by alteration, as we may see in
the case of water heated by the sun; and by mixture, as when the water
of a river has become muddy by being mixed with particles of earth.
We must therefore say that any water may be used for Baptism, no matter
how much it may be changed, as long as the species of water is not
destroyed; but if the species of water be destroyed, it cannot be used
for Baptism.
Reply to Objection 1: The change in sea-water and in other waters which
we have to hand, is not so great as to destroy the species of water.
And therefore such waters may be used for Baptism.
Reply to Objection 2: Chrism does not destroy the nature of the water
by being mixed with it: just as neither is water changed wherein meat
and the like are boiled: except the substance boiled be so dissolved
that the liquor be of a nature foreign to water; in this we may be
guided by the specific gravity [spissitudine]. If, however, from the
liquor thus thickened plain water be strained, it can be used for
Baptism: just as water strained from mud, although mud cannot be used
for baptizing.
Reply to Objection 3: The water which flowed from the side of Christ
hanging on the cross, was not the phlegmatic humor, as some have
supposed. For a liquid of this kind cannot be used for Baptism, as
neither can the blood of an animal, or wine, or any liquid extracted
from plants. It was pure water gushing forth miraculously like the
blood from a dead body, to prove the reality of our Lord's body, and
confute the error of the Manichees: water, which is one of the four
elements, showing Christ's body to be composed of the four elements;
blood, proving that it was composed of the four humors.
Reply to Objection 4: Baptism may be conferred with lye and the waters
of Sulphur Baths: because such like waters are not incorporated,
artificially or naturally, with certain mixed bodies, and suffer only a
certain alteration by passing through certain bodies.
Reply to Objection 5: Rose-water is a liquid distilled from roses:
consequently it cannot be used for Baptism. For the same reason
chemical waters cannot be used, as neither can wine. Nor does the
comparison hold with rain-water, which for the most part is formed by
the condensing of vapors, themselves formed from water, and contains a
minimum of the liquid matter from mixed bodies; which liquid matter by
the force of nature, which is stronger than art, is transformed in this
process of condensation into real water, a result which cannot be
produced artificially. Consequently rain-water retains no properties of
any mixed body; which cannot be said of rose-water or chemical waters.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether this be a suitable form of Baptism: "I baptize thee in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"?
Objection 1: It seems that this is not a suitable form of Baptism: "I
baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost. " For action should be ascribed to the principal agent rather
than to the minister. Now the minister of a sacrament acts as an
instrument, as stated above ([4420]Q[64], A[1]); while the principal
agent in Baptism is Christ, according to Jn. 1:33, "He upon Whom thou
shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, He it is that
baptizeth. " It is therefore unbecoming for the minister to say, "I
baptize thee": the more so that "Ego" [I] is understood in the word
"baptizo" [I baptize], so that it seems redundant.
Objection 2: Further, there is no need for a man who does an action, to
make mention of the action done; thus he who teaches, need not say, "I
teach you. " Now our Lord gave at the same time the precepts both of
baptizing and of teaching, when He said (Mat. 28:19): "Going, teach ye
all nations," etc. Therefore there is no need in the form of Baptism to
mention the action of baptizing.
Objection 3: Further, the person baptized sometimes does not understand
the words; for instance, if he be deaf, or a child. But it is useless
to address such a one; according to Ecclus. 32:6: "Where there is no
hearing, pour not out words. " Therefore it is unfitting to address the
person baptized with these words: "I baptize thee. "
Objection 4: Further, it may happen that several are baptized by
several at the same time; thus the apostles on one day baptized three
thousand, and on another, five thousand (Acts 2, 4). Therefore the form
of Baptism should not be limited to the singular number in the words,
"I baptize thee": but one should be able to say, "We baptize you. "
Objection 5: Further, Baptism derives its power from Christ's Passion.
But Baptism is sanctified by the form. Therefore it seems that Christ's
Passion should be mentioned in the form of Baptism.
Objection 6: Further, a name signifies a thing's property. But there
are three Personal Properties of the Divine Persons, as stated in the
[4421]FP, Q[32], A[3]. Therefore we should not say, "in the name," but
"in the names of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. "
Objection 7: Further, the Person of the Father is designated not only
by the name Father, but also by that of "Unbegotten and Begetter"; and
the Son by those of "Word," "Image," and "Begotten"; and the Holy Ghost
by those of "Gift," "Love," and the "Proceeding One. " Therefore it
seems that Baptism is valid if conferred in these names.
On the contrary, our Lord said (Mat. 28:19): "Going . . . teach ye all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost. "
I answer that, Baptism receives its consecration from its form,
according to Eph. 5:26: "Cleansing it by the laver of water in the word
of life. " And Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo iv) that "Baptism is
consecrated by the words of the Gospel. " Consequently the cause of
Baptism needs to be expressed in the baptismal form. Now this cause is
twofold; the principal cause from which it derives its virtue, and this
is the Blessed Trinity; and the instrumental cause, viz. the minister
who confers the sacrament outwardly. Wherefore both causes should be
expressed in the form of Baptism.
Now the minister is designated by the
words, "I baptize thee"; and the principal cause in the words, "in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. " Therefore
this is the suitable form of Baptism: "I baptize thee in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. "
Reply to Objection 1: Action is attributed to an instrument as to the
immediate agent; but to the principal agent inasmuch as the instrument
acts in virtue thereof. Consequently it is fitting that in the
baptismal form the minister should be mentioned as performing the act
of baptizing, in the words, "I baptize thee"; indeed, our Lord
attributed to the ministers the act of baptizing, when He said:
"Baptizing them," etc. But the principal cause is indicated as
conferring the sacrament by His own power, in the words, "in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost": for Christ does
not baptize without the Father and the Holy Ghost.
The Greeks, however, do not attribute the act of baptizing to the
minister, in order to avoid the error of those who in the past ascribed
the baptismal power to the baptizers, saying (1 Cor. 1:12): "I am of
Paul . . . and I of Cephas. " Wherefore they use the form: "May the
servant of Christ, N . . . , be baptized, in the name of the Father,"
etc. And since the action performed by the minister is expressed with
the invocation of the Trinity, the sacrament is validly conferred. As
to the addition of "Ego" in our form, it is not essential; but it is
added in order to lay greater stress on the intention.
Reply to Objection 2: Since a man may be washed with water for several
reasons, the purpose for which it is done must be expressed by the
words of the form. And this is not done by saying: "In the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"; because we are bound to
do all things in that Name (Col. 3:17). Wherefore unless the act of
baptizing be expressed, either as we do, or as the Greeks do, the
sacrament is not valid; according to the decretal of Alexander III: "If
anyone dip a child thrice in the water in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen, without saying, I baptize thee
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen,
the child is not baptized. "
Reply to Objection 3: The words which are uttered in the sacramental
forms, are said not merely for the purpose of signification, but also
for the purpose of efficiency, inasmuch as they derive efficacy from
that Word, by Whom "all things were made. " Consequently they are
becomingly addressed not only to men, but also to insensible creatures;
for instance, when we say: "I exorcize thee, creature salt" (Roman
Ritual).
Reply to Objection 4: Several cannot baptize one at the same time:
because an action is multiplied according to the number of the agents,
if it be done perfectly by each. So that if two were to combine, of
whom one were mute, and unable to utter the words, and the other were
without hands, and unable to perform the action, they could not both
baptize at the same time, one saying the words and the other performing
the action.
On the other hand, in a case of necessity, several could be baptized at
the same time; for no single one of them would receive more than one
baptism. But it would be necessary, in that case, to say: "I baptize
ye. " Nor would this be a change of form, because "ye" is the same as
"thee and thee. " Whereas "we" does not mean "I and I," but "I and
thou"; so that this would be a change of form.
Likewise it would be a change of form to say, "I baptize myself":
consequently no one can baptize himself. For this reason did Christ
choose to be baptized by John (Extra, De Baptismo et ejus effectu, cap.
Debitum).
Reply to Objection 5: Although Christ's Passion is the principal cause
as compared to the minister, yet it is an instrumental cause as
compared to the Blessed Trinity. For this reason the Trinity is
mentioned rather than Christ's Passion.
Reply to Objection 6: Although there are three personal names of the
three Persons, there is but one essential name. Now the Divine power
which works in Baptism, pertains to the Essence; and therefore we say,
"in the name," and not, "in the names. "
Reply to Objection 7: Just as water is used in Baptism, because it is
more commonly employed in washing, so for the purpose of designating
the three Persons, in the form of Baptism, those names are chosen,
which are generally used, in a particular language, to signify the
Persons. Nor is the sacrament valid if conferred in any other names.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Baptism can be conferred in the name of Christ?
Objection 1: It seems that Baptism can be conferred in the name of
Christ. For just as there is "one Faith," so is there "one Baptism"
(Eph. 4:5). But it is related (Acts 8:12) that "in the name of Jesus
Christ they were baptized, both men and women. " Therefore now also can
Baptism be conferred in the name of Christ.
Objection 2: Further, Ambrose says (De Spir. Sanct. i): "If you mention
Christ, you designate both the Father by Whom He was anointed, and the
Son Himself, Who was anointed, and the Holy Ghost with Whom He was
anointed. " But Baptism can be conferred in the name of the Trinity:
therefore also in the name of Christ.
Objection 3: Further, Pope Nicholas I, answering questions put to him
by the Bulgars, said: "Those who have been baptized in the name of the
Trinity, or only in the name of Christ, as we read in the Acts of the
Apostles (it is all the same, as Blessed Ambrose saith), must not be
rebaptized. " But they would be baptized again if they had not been
validly baptized with that form. Therefore Baptism can be celebrated in
the name of Christ by using this form: "I baptize thee in the name of
Christ. "
On the contrary, Pope Pelagius II wrote to the Bishop Gaudentius: "If
any people living in your Worship's neighborhood, avow that they have
been baptized in the name of the Lord only, without any hesitation
baptize them again in the name of the Blessed Trinity, when they come
in quest of the Catholic Faith. " Didymus, too, says (De Spir. Sanct. ):
"If indeed there be such a one with a mind so foreign to faith as to
baptize while omitting one of the aforesaid names," viz. of the three
Persons, "he baptizes invalidly. "
I answer that, As stated above ([4422]Q[64], A[3]), the sacraments
derive their efficacy from Christ's institution. Consequently, if any
of those things be omitted which Christ instituted in regard to a
sacrament, it is invalid; save by special dispensation of Him Who did
not bind His power to the sacraments. Now Christ commanded the
sacrament of Baptism to be given with the invocation of the Trinity.
And consequently whatever is lacking to the full invocation of the
Trinity, destroys the integrity of Baptism.
Nor does it matter that in the name of one Person another is implied,
as the name of the Son is implied in that of the Father, or that he who
mentions the name of only one Person may believe aright in the Three;
because just as a sacrament requires sensible matter, so does it
require a sensible form. Hence, for the validity of the sacrament it is
not enough to imply or to believe in the Trinity, unless the Trinity be
expressed in sensible words. For this reason at Christ's Baptism,
wherein was the source of the sanctification of our Baptism, the
Trinity was present in sensible signs: viz. the Father in the voice,
the Son in the human nature, the Holy Ghost in the dove.
Reply to Objection 1: It was by a special revelation from Christ that
in the primitive Church the apostles baptized in the name of Christ; in
order that the name of Christ, which was hateful to Jews and Gentiles,
might become an object of veneration, in that the Holy Ghost was given
in Baptism at the invocation of that Name.
Reply to Objection 2: Ambrose here gives this reason why exception
could, without inconsistency, be allowed in the primitive Church;
namely, because the whole Trinity is implied in the name of Christ, and
therefore the form prescribed by Christ in the Gospel was observed in
its integrity, at least implicitly.
Reply to Objection 3: Pope Nicolas confirms his words by quoting the
two authorities given in the preceding objections: wherefore the answer
to this is clear from the two solutions given above.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether immersion in water is necessary for Baptism?
Objection 1: It seems that immersion in water is necessary for Baptism.
Because it is written (Eph. 4:5): "One faith, one baptism. " But in many
parts of the world the ordinary way of baptizing is by immersion.
Therefore it seems that there can be no Baptism without immersion.
Objection 2: Further, the Apostle says (Rom. 6:3,4): "All we who are
baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death: for we are buried
together with Him, by Baptism into death. " But this is done by
immersion: for Chrysostom says on Jn. 3:5: "Unless a man be born again
of water and the Holy Ghost," etc. : "When we dip our heads under the
water as in a kind of tomb, our old man is buried, and being submerged,
is hidden below, and thence he rises again renewed. " Therefore it seems
that immersion is essential to Baptism.
Objection 3: Further, if Baptism is valid without total immersion of
the body, it would follow that it would be equally sufficient to pour
water over any part of the body. But this seems unreasonable; since
original sin, to remedy which is the principal purpose of Baptism, is
not in only one part of the body. Therefore it seems that immersion is
necessary for Baptism, and that mere sprinkling is not enough.
On the contrary, It is written (Heb. 10:22): "Let us draw near with a
true heart in fulness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an
evil conscience, and our bodies washed with clean water. "
I answer that, In the sacrament of Baptism water is put to the use of a
washing of the body, whereby to signify the inward washing away of
sins. Now washing may be done with water not only by immersion, but
also by sprinkling or pouring. And, therefore, although it is safer to
baptize by immersion, because this is the more ordinary fashion, yet
Baptism can be conferred by sprinkling or also by pouring, according to
Ezech. 36:25: "I will pour upon you clean water," as also the Blessed
Lawrence is related to have baptized. And this especially in cases of
urgency: either because there is a great number to be baptized, as was
clearly the case in Acts 2 and 4, where we read that on one day three
thousand believed, and on another five thousand: or through there being
but a small supply of water, or through feebleness of the minister, who
cannot hold up the candidate for Baptism; or through feebleness of the
candidate, whose life might be endangered by immersion. We must
therefore conclude that immersion is not necessary for Baptism.
Reply to Objection 1: What is accidental to a thing does not diversify
its essence. Now bodily washing with water is essential to Baptism:
wherefore Baptism is called a "laver," according to Eph. 5:26:
"Cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life. " But that the
washing be done this or that way, is accidental to Baptism. And
consequently such diversity does not destroy the oneness of Baptism.
Reply to Objection 2: Christ's burial is more clearly represented by
immersion: wherefore this manner of baptizing is more frequently in use
and more commendable. Yet in the other ways of baptizing it is
represented after a fashion, albeit not so clearly; for no matter how
the washing is done, the body of a man, or some part thereof, is put
under water, just as Christ's body was put under the earth.
Reply to Objection 3: The principal part of the body, especially in
relation to the exterior members, is the head, wherein all the senses,
both interior and exterior, flourish. And therefore, if the whole body
cannot be covered with water, because of the scarcity of water, or
because of some other reason, it is necessary to pour water over the
head, in which the principle of animal life is made manifest.
And although original sin is transmitted through the members that serve
for procreation, yet those members are not to be sprinkled in
preference to the head, because by Baptism the transmission of original
sin to the offspring by the act of procreation is not deleted, but the
soul is freed from the stain and debt of sin which it has contracted.
Consequently that part of the body should be washed in preference, in
which the works of the soul are made manifest.
Nevertheless in the Old Law the remedy against original sin was affixed
to the member of procreation; because He through Whom original sin was
to be removed, was yet to be born of the seed of Abraham, whose faith
was signified by circumcision according to Rom. 4:11.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether trine immersion is essential to Baptism?
Objection 1: It seems that trine immersion is essential to Baptism. For
Augustine says in a sermon on the Symbol, addressed to the Neophytes:
"Rightly were you dipped three times, since you were baptized in the
name of the Trinity. Rightly were you dipped three times, because you
were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, Who on the third day rose
again from the dead. For that thrice repeated immersion reproduces the
burial of the Lord by which you were buried with Christ in Baptism. "
Now both seem to be essential to Baptism, namely, that in Baptism the
Trinity of Persons should be signified, and that we should be conformed
to Christ's burial. Therefore it seems that trine immersion is
essential to Baptism.
Objection 2: Further, the sacraments derive their efficacy from
Christ's mandate. But trine immersion was commanded by Christ: for Pope
Pelagius II wrote to Bishop Gaudentius: "The Gospel precept given by
our Lord God Himself, our Saviour Jesus Christ, admonishes us to confer
the sacrament of Baptism to each one in the name of the Trinity and
also with trine immersion. " Therefore, just as it is essential to
Baptism to call on the name of the Trinity, so is it essential to
baptize by trine immersion.
Objection 3: Further, if trine immersion be not essential to Baptism,
it follows that the sacrament of Baptism is conferred at the first
immersion; so that if a second or third immersion be added, it seems
that Baptism is conferred a second or third time. which is absurd.
Therefore one immersion does not suffice for the sacrament of Baptism,
and trine immersion is essential thereto.
On the contrary, Gregory wrote to the Bishop Leander: "It cannot be in
any way reprehensible to baptize an infant with either a trine or a
single immersion: since the Trinity can be represented in the three
immersions, and the unity of the Godhead in one immersion. "
I answer that As stated above (A[7], ad 1), washing with water is of
itself required for Baptism, being essential to the sacrament: whereas
the mode of washing is accidental to the sacrament. Consequently, as
Gregory in the words above quoted explains, both single and trine
immersion are lawful considered in themselves; since one immersion
signifies the oneness of Christ's death and of the Godhead; while trine
immersion signifies the three days of Christ's burial, and also the
Trinity of Persons.
But for various reasons, according as the Church has ordained, one mode
has been in practice, at one time, the other at another time. For since
from the very earliest days of the Church some have had false notions
concerning the Trinity, holding that Christ is a mere man, and that He
is not called the "Son of God" or "God" except by reason of His merit,
which was chiefly in His death; for this reason they did not baptize in
the name of the Trinity, but in memory of Christ's death, and with one
immersion. And this was condemned in the early Church. Wherefore in the
Apostolic Canons (xlix) we read: "If any priest or bishop confer
baptism not with the trine immersion in the one administration, but
with one immersion, which baptism is said to be conferred by some in
the death of the Lord, let him be deposed": for our Lord did not say,
"Baptize ye in My death," but "In the name of the Father and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost. "
Later on, however, there arose the error of certain schismatics and
heretics who rebaptized: as Augustine (Super. Joan. , cf. De Haeres.
lxix) relates of the Donatists. Wherefore, in detestation of their
error, only one immersion was ordered to be made, by the (fourth)
council of Toledo, in the acts of which we read: "In order to avoid the
scandal of schism or the practice of heretical teaching let us hold to
the single baptismal immersion. "
But now that this motive has ceased, trine immersion is universally
observed in Baptism: and consequently anyone baptizing otherwise would
sin gravely, through not following the ritual of the Church. It would,
however, be valid Baptism.
Reply to Objection 1: The Trinity acts as principal agent in Baptism.
Now the likeness of the agent enters into the effect, in regard to the
form and not in regard to the matter. Wherefore the Trinity is
signified in Baptism by the words of the form. Nor is it essential for
the Trinity to be signified by the manner in which the matter is used;
although this is done to make the signification clearer.
In like manner Christ's death is sufficiently represented in the one
immersion. And the three days of His burial were not necessary for our
salvation, because even if He had been buried or dead for one day, this
would have been enough to consummate our redemption: yet those three
days were ordained unto the manifestation of the reality of His death,
as stated above ([4423]Q[53], A[2]). It is therefore clear that neither
on the part of the Trinity, nor on the part of Christ's Passion, is the
trine immersion essential to the sacrament.
Reply to Objection 2: Pope Pelagius understood the trine immersion to
be ordained by Christ in its equivalent; in the sense that Christ
commanded Baptism to be conferred "in the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. " Nor can we argue from the form to the
use of the matter, as stated above (ad 1).
Reply to Objection 3: As stated above ([4424]Q[64], A[8]), the
intention is essential to Baptism. Consequently, one Baptism results
from the intention of the Church's minister, who intends to confer one
Baptism by a trine immersion. Wherefore Jerome says on Eph. 4:5,6:
"Though the Baptism," i. e. the immersion, "be thrice repeated, on
account of the mystery of the Trinity, yet it is reputed as one
Baptism. "
If, however, the intention were to confer one Baptism at each immersion
together with the repetition of the words of the form, it would be a
sin, in itself, because it would be a repetition of Baptism.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Baptism may be reiterated?
Objection 1: It seems that Baptism may be reiterated. For Baptism was
instituted, seemingly, in order to wash away sins. But sins are
reiterated. Therefore much more should Baptism be reiterated: because
Christ's mercy surpasses man's guilt.
Objection 2: Further, John the Baptist received special commendation
from Christ, Who said of him (Mat. 11:11): "There hath not risen among
them that are born of women, a greater than John the Baptist. " But
those whom John had baptized were baptized again, according to Acts
19:1-7, where it is stated that Paul rebaptized those who had received
the Baptism of John. Much more, therefore, should those be rebaptized,
who have been baptized by heretics or sinners.
Objection 3: Further, it was decreed in the Council of Nicaea (Can.
xix) that if "any of the Paulianists or Cataphrygians should be
converted to the Catholic Church, they were to be baptized": and this
seemingly should be said in regard to other heretics. Therefore those
whom the heretics have baptized, should be baptized again.
Objection 4: Further, Baptism is necessary for salvation. But sometimes
there is a doubt about the baptism of those who really have been
baptized. Therefore it seems that they should be baptized again.
Objection 5: Further, the Eucharist is a more perfect sacrament than
Baptism, as stated above ([4425]Q[65], A[3]). But the sacrament of the
Eucharist is reiterated. Much more reason, therefore, is there for
Baptism to be reiterated.
On the contrary, It is written, (Eph. 4:5): "One faith, one Baptism. "
I answer that, Baptism cannot be reiterated.
First, because Baptism is a spiritual regeneration; inasmuch as a man
dies to the old life, and begins to lead the new life. Whence it is
written (Jn. 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy
Ghost, He cannot see [Vulg. : 'enter into'] the kingdom of God. " Now one
man can be begotten but once. Wherefore Baptism cannot be reiterated,
just as neither can carnal generation. Hence Augustine says on Jn. 3:4:
"'Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born again':
So thou," says he, "must understand the birth of the Spirit, as
Nicodemus understood the birth of the flesh . . . . As there is no
return to the womb, so neither is there to Baptism. "
Secondly, because "we are baptized in Christ's death," by which we die
unto sin and rise again unto "newness of life" (cf. Rom. 6:3,4). Now
"Christ died" but "once" (Rom. 6:10). Wherefore neither should Baptism
be reiterated. For this reason (Heb. 6:6) is it said against some who
wished to be baptized again: "Crucifying again to themselves the Son of
God"; on which the gloss observes: "Christ's one death hallowed the one
Baptism. "
Thirdly, because Baptism imprints a character, which is indelible, and
is conferred with a certain consecration. Wherefore, just as other
consecrations are not reiterated in the Church, so neither is Baptism.
This is the view expressed by Augustine, who says (Contra Epist.
Parmen. ii) that "the military character is not renewed": and that "the
sacrament of Christ is not less enduring than this bodily mark, since
we see that not even apostates are deprived of Baptism, since when they
repent and return they are not baptized anew. "
Fourthly, because Baptism is conferred principally as a remedy against
original sin. Wherefore, just as original sin is not renewed, so
neither is Baptism reiterated, for as it is written (Rom. 5:18), "as by
the offense of one, unto all men to condemnation, so also by the
justice of one, unto all men to justification of life. "
Reply to Objection 1: Baptism derives its efficacy from Christ's
Passion, as stated above (A[2], ad 1). Wherefore, just as subsequent
sins do not cancel the virtue of Christ's Passion, so neither do they
cancel Baptism, so as to call for its repetition. on the other hand the
sin which hindered the effect of Baptism is blotted out on being
submitted to Penance.
Reply to Objection 2: As Augustine says on Jn. 1:33: "'And I knew Him
not': Behold; after John had baptized, Baptism was administered; after
a murderer has baptized, it is not administered: because John gave his
own Baptism; the murderer, Christ's; for that sacrament is so sacred,
that not even a murderer's administration contaminates it. "
Reply to Objection 3: The Paulianists and Cataphrygians used not to
baptize in the name of the Trinity.
the washing. Hence the Master (iv, 3) says that "Baptism is the outward
washing of the body done together with the prescribed form of words. "
The Baptismal character is both reality and sacrament: because it is
something real signified by the outward washing; and a sacramental sign
of the inward justification: and this last is the reality only, in this
sacrament---namely, the reality signified and not signifying.
Reply to Objection 1: That which is both sacrament and reality---i. e.
the character---and that which is reality only---i. e. the inward
justification---remain: the character remains and is indelible, as
stated above ([4415]Q[63], A[5]); the justification remains, but can be
lost. Consequently Damascene defined Baptism, not as to that which is
done outwardly, and is the sacrament only; but as to that which is
inward. Hence he sets down two things as pertaining to the
character---namely, "seal" and "safeguarding"; inasmuch as the
character which is called a seal, so far as itself is concerned,
safeguards the soul in good. He also sets down two things as pertaining
to the ultimate reality of the sacrament---namely, "regeneration" which
refers to the fact that man by being baptized begins the new life of
righteousness; and "enlightenment," which refers especially to faith,
by which man receives spiritual life, according to Habac 2 (Heb. 10:38;
cf. Habac 2:4): "But (My) just man liveth by faith"; and Baptism is a
sort of protestation of faith; whence it is called the "Sacrament of
Faith. " Likewise Dionysius defined Baptism by its relation to the other
sacraments, saying (Eccl. Hier. ii) that it is "the principle that
forms the habits of the soul for the reception of those most holy words
and sacraments"; and again by its relation to heavenly glory, which is
the universal end of all the sacraments, when he adds, "preparing the
way for us, whereby we mount to the repose of the heavenly kingdom";
and again as to the beginning of spiritual life, when he adds, "the
conferring of our most sacred and Godlike regeneration. "
Reply to Objection 2: As already stated, the opinion of Hugh of St.
Victor on this question is not to be followed. Nevertheless the saying
that "Baptism is water" may be verified in so far as water is the
material principle of Baptism: and thus there would be "causal
predication. "
Reply to Objection 3: When the words are added, the element becomes a
sacrament, not in the element itself, but in man, to whom the element
is applied, by being used in washing him. Indeed, this is signified by
those very words which are added to the element, when we say: "I
baptize thee," etc.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Baptism was instituted after Christ's Passion?
Objection 1: It seems that Baptism was instituted after Christ's
Passion. For the cause precedes the effect. Now Christ's Passion
operates in the sacraments of the New Law. Therefore Christ's Passion
precedes the institution of the sacraments of the New Law: especially
the sacrament of Baptism since the Apostle says (Rom. 6:3): "All we,
who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death," etc.
Objection 2: Further, the sacraments of the New Law derive their
efficacy from the mandate of Christ. But Christ gave the disciples the
mandate of Baptism after His Passion and Resurrection, when He said:
"Going, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father," etc. (Mat. 28:19). Therefore it seems that Baptism was
instituted after Christ's Passion.
Objection 3: Further, Baptism is a necessary sacrament, as stated above
([4416]Q[65] , A[4]): wherefore, seemingly, it must have been binding
on man as soon as it was instituted. But before Christ's Passion men
were not bound to be baptized: for Circumcision was still in force,
which was supplanted by Baptism. Therefore it seems that Baptism was
not instituted before Christ's Passion.
On the contrary, Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (Append.
Serm. , clxxxv): "As soon as Christ was plunged into the waters, the
waters washed away the sins of all. " But this was before Christ's
Passion. Therefore Baptism was instituted before Christ's Passion.
I answer that, As stated above ([4417]Q[62], A[1]), sacraments derive
from their institution the power of conferring grace. Wherefore it
seems that a sacrament is then instituted, when it receives the power
of producing its effect. Now Baptism received this power when Christ
was baptized. Consequently Baptism was truly instituted then, if we
consider it as a sacrament. But the obligation of receiving this
sacrament was proclaimed to mankind after the Passion and Resurrection.
First, because Christ's Passion put an end to the figurative
sacraments, which were supplanted by Baptism and the other sacraments
of the New Law. Secondly, because by Baptism man is "made conformable"
to Christ's Passion and Resurrection, in so far as he dies to sin and
begins to live anew unto righteousness. Consequently it behooved Christ
to suffer and to rise again, before proclaiming to man his obligation
of conforming himself to Christ's Death and Resurrection.
Reply to Objection 1: Even before Christ's Passion, Baptism, inasmuch
as it foreshadowed it, derived its efficacy therefrom; but not in the
same way as the sacraments of the Old Law. For these were mere figures:
whereas Baptism derived the power of justifying from Christ Himself, to
Whose power the Passion itself owed its saving virtue.
Reply to Objection 2: It was not meet that men should be restricted to
a number of figures by Christ, Who came to fulfil and replace the
figure by His reality. Therefore before His Passion He did not make
Baptism obligatory as soon as it was instituted; but wished men to
become accustomed to its use; especially in regard to the Jews, to whom
all things were figurative, as Augustine says (Contra Faust. iv). But
after His Passion and Resurrection He made Baptism obligatory, not only
on the Jews, but also on the Gentiles, when He gave the commandment:
"Going, teach ye all nations. "
Reply to Objection 3: Sacraments are not obligatory except when we are
commanded to receive them. And this was not before the Passion, as
stated above. For our Lord's words to Nicodemus (Jn. 3:5), "Unless a
man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the
kingdom of God, seem to refer to the future rather than to the
present. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether water is the proper matter of Baptism?
Objection 1: It seems that water is not the proper matter of Baptism.
For Baptism, according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v) and Damascene (De
Fide Orth. iv), has a power of enlightening. But enlightenment is a
special characteristic of fire. Therefore Baptism should be conferred
with fire rather than with water: and all the more since John the
Baptist said when foretelling Christ's Baptism (Mat. 3:11): "He shall
baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire. "
Objection 2: Further, the washing away of sins is signified in Baptism.
But many other things besides water are employed in washing, such as
wine, oil, and such like. Therefore Baptism can be conferred with these
also; and consequently water is not the proper matter of Baptism.
Objection 3: Further, the sacraments of the Church flowed from the side
of Christ hanging on the cross, as stated above ([4418]Q[62], A[5]).
But not only water flowed therefrom, but also blood. Therefore it seems
that Baptism can also be conferred with blood. And this seems to be
more in keeping with the effect of Baptism, because it is written
(Apoc. 1:5): "(Who) washed us from our sins in His own blood. "
Objection 4: Further, as Augustine (cf. Master of the Sentences, iv, 3)
and Bede (Exposit. in Luc. iii, 21) say, Christ, by "the touch of His
most pure flesh, endowed the waters with a regenerating and cleansing
virtue. " But all waters are not connected with the waters of the Jordan
which Christ touched with His flesh. Consequently it seems that Baptism
cannot be conferred with any water; and therefore water, as such, is
not the proper matter of Baptism.
Objection 5: Further, if water, as such, were the proper matter of
Baptism, there would be no need to do anything to the water before
using it for Baptism. But in solemn Baptism the water which is used for
baptizing, is exorcized and blessed. Therefore it seems that water, as
such, is not the proper matter of Baptism.
On the contrary, our Lord said (Jn. 3:5): "Unless a man be born again
of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. "
I answer that, By Divine institution water is the proper matter of
Baptism; and with reason. First, by reason of the very nature of
Baptism, which is a regeneration unto spiritual life. And this answers
to the nature of water in a special degree; wherefore seeds, from which
all living things, viz. plants and animals are generated, are moist and
akin to water. For this reason certain philosophers held that water is
the first principle of all things.
Secondly, in regard to the effects of Baptism, to which the properties
of water correspond. For by reason of its moistness it cleanses; and
hence it fittingly signifies and causes the cleansing from sins. By
reason of its coolness it tempers superfluous heat: wherefore it
fittingly mitigates the concupiscence of the fomes. By reason of its
transparency, it is susceptive of light; hence its adaptability to
Baptism as the "sacrament of Faith. "
Thirdly, because it is suitable for the signification of the mysteries
of Christ, by which we are justified. For, as Chrysostom says (Hom. xxv
in Joan. ) on Jn. 3:5, "Unless a man be born again," etc. , "When we dip
our heads under the water as in a kind of tomb our old man is buried,
and being submerged is hidden below, and thence he rises again
renewed. "
Fourthly, because by being so universal and abundant, it is a matter
suitable to our need of this sacrament: for it can easily be obtained
everywhere.
Reply to Objection 1: Fire enlightens actively. But he who is baptized
does not become an enlightener, but is enlightened by faith, which
"cometh by hearing" (Rom. 10:17). Consequently water is more suitable,
than fire, for Baptism.
But when we find it said: "He shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and
fire," we may understand fire, as Jerome says (In Matth. ii), to mean
the Holy Ghost, Who appeared above the disciples under the form of
fiery tongues (Acts 2:3). Or we may understand it to mean tribulation,
as Chrysostom says (Hom. iii in Matth. ): because tribulation washes
away sin, and tempers concupiscence. Or again, as Hilary says (Super
Matth. ii) that "when we have been baptized in the Holy Ghost," we
still have to be "perfected by the fire of the judgment. "
Reply to Objection 2: Wine and oil are not so commonly used for
washing, as water. Neither do they wash so efficiently: for whatever is
washed with them, contracts a certain smell therefrom; which is not the
case if water be used. Moreover, they are not so universal or so
abundant as water.
Reply to Objection 3: Water flowed from Christ's side to wash us;
blood, to redeem us. Wherefore blood belongs to the sacrament of the
Eucharist, while water belongs to the sacrament of Baptism. Yet this
latter sacrament derives its cleansing virtue from the power of
Christ's blood.
Reply to Objection 4: Christ's power flowed into all waters, by reason
of, not connection of place, but likeness of species, as Augustine says
in a sermon on the Epiphany (Append. Serm. cxxxv): "The blessing that
flowed from the Saviour's Baptism, like a mystic river, swelled the
course of every stream, and filled the channels of every spring. "
Reply to Objection 5: The blessing of the water is not essential to
Baptism, but belongs to a certain solemnity, whereby the devotion of
the faithful is aroused, and the cunning of the devil hindered from
impeding the baptismal effect.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether plain water is necessary for Baptism?
Objection 1: It seems that plain water is not necessary for Baptism.
For the water which we have is not plain water; as appears especially
in sea-water, in which there is a considerable proportion of the
earthly element, as the Philosopher shows (Meteor. ii). Yet this water
may be used for Baptism. Therefore plain and pure water is not
necessary for Baptism.
Objection 2: Further, in the solemn celebration of Baptism, chrism is
poured into the water. But this seems to take away the purity and
plainness of the water. Therefore pure and plain water is not necessary
for Baptism.
Objection 3: Further, the water that flowed from the side of Christ
hanging on the cross was a figure of Baptism, as stated above (A[3], ad
3). But that water, seemingly, was not pure, because the elements do
not exist actually in a mixed body, such as Christ's. Therefore it
seems that pure or plain water is not necessary for Baptism.
Objection 4: Further, lye does not seem to be pure water, for it has
the properties of heating and drying, which are contrary to those of
water. Nevertheless it seems that lye can be used for Baptism; for the
water of the Baths can be so used, which has filtered through a
sulphurous vein, just as lye percolates through ashes. Therefore it
seems that plain water is not necessary for Baptism.
Objection 5: Further, rose-water is distilled from roses, just as
chemical waters are distilled from certain bodies. But seemingly, such
like waters may be used in Baptism; just as rain-water, which is
distilled from vapors. Since, therefore, such waters are not pure and
plain water, it seems that pure and plain water is not necessary for
Baptism.
On the contrary, The proper matter of Baptism is water, as stated above
[4419](A[3]). But plain water alone has the nature of water. Therefore
pure plain water is necessary for Baptism.
I answer that, Water may cease to be pure or plain water in two ways:
first, by being mixed with another body; secondly, by alteration. And
each of these may happen in a twofold manner; artificially and
naturally. Now art fails in the operation of nature: because nature
gives the substantial form, which art cannot give; for whatever form is
given by art is accidental; except perchance when art applies a proper
agent to its proper matter, as fire to a combustible; in which manner
animals are produced from certain things by way of putrefaction.
Whatever artificial change, then, takes place in the water, whether by
mixture or by alteration, the water's nature is not changed.
Consequently such water can be used for Baptism: unless perhaps such a
small quantity of water be mixed artificially with a body that the
compound is something other than water; thus mud is earth rather than
water, and diluted wine is wine rather than water.
But if the change be natural, sometimes it destroys the nature of the
water; and this is when by a natural process water enters into the
substance of a mixed body: thus water changed into the juice of the
grape is wine, wherefore it has not the nature of water. Sometimes,
however, there may be a natural change of the water, without
destruction of species: and this, both by alteration, as we may see in
the case of water heated by the sun; and by mixture, as when the water
of a river has become muddy by being mixed with particles of earth.
We must therefore say that any water may be used for Baptism, no matter
how much it may be changed, as long as the species of water is not
destroyed; but if the species of water be destroyed, it cannot be used
for Baptism.
Reply to Objection 1: The change in sea-water and in other waters which
we have to hand, is not so great as to destroy the species of water.
And therefore such waters may be used for Baptism.
Reply to Objection 2: Chrism does not destroy the nature of the water
by being mixed with it: just as neither is water changed wherein meat
and the like are boiled: except the substance boiled be so dissolved
that the liquor be of a nature foreign to water; in this we may be
guided by the specific gravity [spissitudine]. If, however, from the
liquor thus thickened plain water be strained, it can be used for
Baptism: just as water strained from mud, although mud cannot be used
for baptizing.
Reply to Objection 3: The water which flowed from the side of Christ
hanging on the cross, was not the phlegmatic humor, as some have
supposed. For a liquid of this kind cannot be used for Baptism, as
neither can the blood of an animal, or wine, or any liquid extracted
from plants. It was pure water gushing forth miraculously like the
blood from a dead body, to prove the reality of our Lord's body, and
confute the error of the Manichees: water, which is one of the four
elements, showing Christ's body to be composed of the four elements;
blood, proving that it was composed of the four humors.
Reply to Objection 4: Baptism may be conferred with lye and the waters
of Sulphur Baths: because such like waters are not incorporated,
artificially or naturally, with certain mixed bodies, and suffer only a
certain alteration by passing through certain bodies.
Reply to Objection 5: Rose-water is a liquid distilled from roses:
consequently it cannot be used for Baptism. For the same reason
chemical waters cannot be used, as neither can wine. Nor does the
comparison hold with rain-water, which for the most part is formed by
the condensing of vapors, themselves formed from water, and contains a
minimum of the liquid matter from mixed bodies; which liquid matter by
the force of nature, which is stronger than art, is transformed in this
process of condensation into real water, a result which cannot be
produced artificially. Consequently rain-water retains no properties of
any mixed body; which cannot be said of rose-water or chemical waters.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether this be a suitable form of Baptism: "I baptize thee in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"?
Objection 1: It seems that this is not a suitable form of Baptism: "I
baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost. " For action should be ascribed to the principal agent rather
than to the minister. Now the minister of a sacrament acts as an
instrument, as stated above ([4420]Q[64], A[1]); while the principal
agent in Baptism is Christ, according to Jn. 1:33, "He upon Whom thou
shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, He it is that
baptizeth. " It is therefore unbecoming for the minister to say, "I
baptize thee": the more so that "Ego" [I] is understood in the word
"baptizo" [I baptize], so that it seems redundant.
Objection 2: Further, there is no need for a man who does an action, to
make mention of the action done; thus he who teaches, need not say, "I
teach you. " Now our Lord gave at the same time the precepts both of
baptizing and of teaching, when He said (Mat. 28:19): "Going, teach ye
all nations," etc. Therefore there is no need in the form of Baptism to
mention the action of baptizing.
Objection 3: Further, the person baptized sometimes does not understand
the words; for instance, if he be deaf, or a child. But it is useless
to address such a one; according to Ecclus. 32:6: "Where there is no
hearing, pour not out words. " Therefore it is unfitting to address the
person baptized with these words: "I baptize thee. "
Objection 4: Further, it may happen that several are baptized by
several at the same time; thus the apostles on one day baptized three
thousand, and on another, five thousand (Acts 2, 4). Therefore the form
of Baptism should not be limited to the singular number in the words,
"I baptize thee": but one should be able to say, "We baptize you. "
Objection 5: Further, Baptism derives its power from Christ's Passion.
But Baptism is sanctified by the form. Therefore it seems that Christ's
Passion should be mentioned in the form of Baptism.
Objection 6: Further, a name signifies a thing's property. But there
are three Personal Properties of the Divine Persons, as stated in the
[4421]FP, Q[32], A[3]. Therefore we should not say, "in the name," but
"in the names of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. "
Objection 7: Further, the Person of the Father is designated not only
by the name Father, but also by that of "Unbegotten and Begetter"; and
the Son by those of "Word," "Image," and "Begotten"; and the Holy Ghost
by those of "Gift," "Love," and the "Proceeding One. " Therefore it
seems that Baptism is valid if conferred in these names.
On the contrary, our Lord said (Mat. 28:19): "Going . . . teach ye all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost. "
I answer that, Baptism receives its consecration from its form,
according to Eph. 5:26: "Cleansing it by the laver of water in the word
of life. " And Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo iv) that "Baptism is
consecrated by the words of the Gospel. " Consequently the cause of
Baptism needs to be expressed in the baptismal form. Now this cause is
twofold; the principal cause from which it derives its virtue, and this
is the Blessed Trinity; and the instrumental cause, viz. the minister
who confers the sacrament outwardly. Wherefore both causes should be
expressed in the form of Baptism.
Now the minister is designated by the
words, "I baptize thee"; and the principal cause in the words, "in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. " Therefore
this is the suitable form of Baptism: "I baptize thee in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. "
Reply to Objection 1: Action is attributed to an instrument as to the
immediate agent; but to the principal agent inasmuch as the instrument
acts in virtue thereof. Consequently it is fitting that in the
baptismal form the minister should be mentioned as performing the act
of baptizing, in the words, "I baptize thee"; indeed, our Lord
attributed to the ministers the act of baptizing, when He said:
"Baptizing them," etc. But the principal cause is indicated as
conferring the sacrament by His own power, in the words, "in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost": for Christ does
not baptize without the Father and the Holy Ghost.
The Greeks, however, do not attribute the act of baptizing to the
minister, in order to avoid the error of those who in the past ascribed
the baptismal power to the baptizers, saying (1 Cor. 1:12): "I am of
Paul . . . and I of Cephas. " Wherefore they use the form: "May the
servant of Christ, N . . . , be baptized, in the name of the Father,"
etc. And since the action performed by the minister is expressed with
the invocation of the Trinity, the sacrament is validly conferred. As
to the addition of "Ego" in our form, it is not essential; but it is
added in order to lay greater stress on the intention.
Reply to Objection 2: Since a man may be washed with water for several
reasons, the purpose for which it is done must be expressed by the
words of the form. And this is not done by saying: "In the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"; because we are bound to
do all things in that Name (Col. 3:17). Wherefore unless the act of
baptizing be expressed, either as we do, or as the Greeks do, the
sacrament is not valid; according to the decretal of Alexander III: "If
anyone dip a child thrice in the water in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen, without saying, I baptize thee
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen,
the child is not baptized. "
Reply to Objection 3: The words which are uttered in the sacramental
forms, are said not merely for the purpose of signification, but also
for the purpose of efficiency, inasmuch as they derive efficacy from
that Word, by Whom "all things were made. " Consequently they are
becomingly addressed not only to men, but also to insensible creatures;
for instance, when we say: "I exorcize thee, creature salt" (Roman
Ritual).
Reply to Objection 4: Several cannot baptize one at the same time:
because an action is multiplied according to the number of the agents,
if it be done perfectly by each. So that if two were to combine, of
whom one were mute, and unable to utter the words, and the other were
without hands, and unable to perform the action, they could not both
baptize at the same time, one saying the words and the other performing
the action.
On the other hand, in a case of necessity, several could be baptized at
the same time; for no single one of them would receive more than one
baptism. But it would be necessary, in that case, to say: "I baptize
ye. " Nor would this be a change of form, because "ye" is the same as
"thee and thee. " Whereas "we" does not mean "I and I," but "I and
thou"; so that this would be a change of form.
Likewise it would be a change of form to say, "I baptize myself":
consequently no one can baptize himself. For this reason did Christ
choose to be baptized by John (Extra, De Baptismo et ejus effectu, cap.
Debitum).
Reply to Objection 5: Although Christ's Passion is the principal cause
as compared to the minister, yet it is an instrumental cause as
compared to the Blessed Trinity. For this reason the Trinity is
mentioned rather than Christ's Passion.
Reply to Objection 6: Although there are three personal names of the
three Persons, there is but one essential name. Now the Divine power
which works in Baptism, pertains to the Essence; and therefore we say,
"in the name," and not, "in the names. "
Reply to Objection 7: Just as water is used in Baptism, because it is
more commonly employed in washing, so for the purpose of designating
the three Persons, in the form of Baptism, those names are chosen,
which are generally used, in a particular language, to signify the
Persons. Nor is the sacrament valid if conferred in any other names.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Baptism can be conferred in the name of Christ?
Objection 1: It seems that Baptism can be conferred in the name of
Christ. For just as there is "one Faith," so is there "one Baptism"
(Eph. 4:5). But it is related (Acts 8:12) that "in the name of Jesus
Christ they were baptized, both men and women. " Therefore now also can
Baptism be conferred in the name of Christ.
Objection 2: Further, Ambrose says (De Spir. Sanct. i): "If you mention
Christ, you designate both the Father by Whom He was anointed, and the
Son Himself, Who was anointed, and the Holy Ghost with Whom He was
anointed. " But Baptism can be conferred in the name of the Trinity:
therefore also in the name of Christ.
Objection 3: Further, Pope Nicholas I, answering questions put to him
by the Bulgars, said: "Those who have been baptized in the name of the
Trinity, or only in the name of Christ, as we read in the Acts of the
Apostles (it is all the same, as Blessed Ambrose saith), must not be
rebaptized. " But they would be baptized again if they had not been
validly baptized with that form. Therefore Baptism can be celebrated in
the name of Christ by using this form: "I baptize thee in the name of
Christ. "
On the contrary, Pope Pelagius II wrote to the Bishop Gaudentius: "If
any people living in your Worship's neighborhood, avow that they have
been baptized in the name of the Lord only, without any hesitation
baptize them again in the name of the Blessed Trinity, when they come
in quest of the Catholic Faith. " Didymus, too, says (De Spir. Sanct. ):
"If indeed there be such a one with a mind so foreign to faith as to
baptize while omitting one of the aforesaid names," viz. of the three
Persons, "he baptizes invalidly. "
I answer that, As stated above ([4422]Q[64], A[3]), the sacraments
derive their efficacy from Christ's institution. Consequently, if any
of those things be omitted which Christ instituted in regard to a
sacrament, it is invalid; save by special dispensation of Him Who did
not bind His power to the sacraments. Now Christ commanded the
sacrament of Baptism to be given with the invocation of the Trinity.
And consequently whatever is lacking to the full invocation of the
Trinity, destroys the integrity of Baptism.
Nor does it matter that in the name of one Person another is implied,
as the name of the Son is implied in that of the Father, or that he who
mentions the name of only one Person may believe aright in the Three;
because just as a sacrament requires sensible matter, so does it
require a sensible form. Hence, for the validity of the sacrament it is
not enough to imply or to believe in the Trinity, unless the Trinity be
expressed in sensible words. For this reason at Christ's Baptism,
wherein was the source of the sanctification of our Baptism, the
Trinity was present in sensible signs: viz. the Father in the voice,
the Son in the human nature, the Holy Ghost in the dove.
Reply to Objection 1: It was by a special revelation from Christ that
in the primitive Church the apostles baptized in the name of Christ; in
order that the name of Christ, which was hateful to Jews and Gentiles,
might become an object of veneration, in that the Holy Ghost was given
in Baptism at the invocation of that Name.
Reply to Objection 2: Ambrose here gives this reason why exception
could, without inconsistency, be allowed in the primitive Church;
namely, because the whole Trinity is implied in the name of Christ, and
therefore the form prescribed by Christ in the Gospel was observed in
its integrity, at least implicitly.
Reply to Objection 3: Pope Nicolas confirms his words by quoting the
two authorities given in the preceding objections: wherefore the answer
to this is clear from the two solutions given above.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether immersion in water is necessary for Baptism?
Objection 1: It seems that immersion in water is necessary for Baptism.
Because it is written (Eph. 4:5): "One faith, one baptism. " But in many
parts of the world the ordinary way of baptizing is by immersion.
Therefore it seems that there can be no Baptism without immersion.
Objection 2: Further, the Apostle says (Rom. 6:3,4): "All we who are
baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death: for we are buried
together with Him, by Baptism into death. " But this is done by
immersion: for Chrysostom says on Jn. 3:5: "Unless a man be born again
of water and the Holy Ghost," etc. : "When we dip our heads under the
water as in a kind of tomb, our old man is buried, and being submerged,
is hidden below, and thence he rises again renewed. " Therefore it seems
that immersion is essential to Baptism.
Objection 3: Further, if Baptism is valid without total immersion of
the body, it would follow that it would be equally sufficient to pour
water over any part of the body. But this seems unreasonable; since
original sin, to remedy which is the principal purpose of Baptism, is
not in only one part of the body. Therefore it seems that immersion is
necessary for Baptism, and that mere sprinkling is not enough.
On the contrary, It is written (Heb. 10:22): "Let us draw near with a
true heart in fulness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an
evil conscience, and our bodies washed with clean water. "
I answer that, In the sacrament of Baptism water is put to the use of a
washing of the body, whereby to signify the inward washing away of
sins. Now washing may be done with water not only by immersion, but
also by sprinkling or pouring. And, therefore, although it is safer to
baptize by immersion, because this is the more ordinary fashion, yet
Baptism can be conferred by sprinkling or also by pouring, according to
Ezech. 36:25: "I will pour upon you clean water," as also the Blessed
Lawrence is related to have baptized. And this especially in cases of
urgency: either because there is a great number to be baptized, as was
clearly the case in Acts 2 and 4, where we read that on one day three
thousand believed, and on another five thousand: or through there being
but a small supply of water, or through feebleness of the minister, who
cannot hold up the candidate for Baptism; or through feebleness of the
candidate, whose life might be endangered by immersion. We must
therefore conclude that immersion is not necessary for Baptism.
Reply to Objection 1: What is accidental to a thing does not diversify
its essence. Now bodily washing with water is essential to Baptism:
wherefore Baptism is called a "laver," according to Eph. 5:26:
"Cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life. " But that the
washing be done this or that way, is accidental to Baptism. And
consequently such diversity does not destroy the oneness of Baptism.
Reply to Objection 2: Christ's burial is more clearly represented by
immersion: wherefore this manner of baptizing is more frequently in use
and more commendable. Yet in the other ways of baptizing it is
represented after a fashion, albeit not so clearly; for no matter how
the washing is done, the body of a man, or some part thereof, is put
under water, just as Christ's body was put under the earth.
Reply to Objection 3: The principal part of the body, especially in
relation to the exterior members, is the head, wherein all the senses,
both interior and exterior, flourish. And therefore, if the whole body
cannot be covered with water, because of the scarcity of water, or
because of some other reason, it is necessary to pour water over the
head, in which the principle of animal life is made manifest.
And although original sin is transmitted through the members that serve
for procreation, yet those members are not to be sprinkled in
preference to the head, because by Baptism the transmission of original
sin to the offspring by the act of procreation is not deleted, but the
soul is freed from the stain and debt of sin which it has contracted.
Consequently that part of the body should be washed in preference, in
which the works of the soul are made manifest.
Nevertheless in the Old Law the remedy against original sin was affixed
to the member of procreation; because He through Whom original sin was
to be removed, was yet to be born of the seed of Abraham, whose faith
was signified by circumcision according to Rom. 4:11.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether trine immersion is essential to Baptism?
Objection 1: It seems that trine immersion is essential to Baptism. For
Augustine says in a sermon on the Symbol, addressed to the Neophytes:
"Rightly were you dipped three times, since you were baptized in the
name of the Trinity. Rightly were you dipped three times, because you
were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, Who on the third day rose
again from the dead. For that thrice repeated immersion reproduces the
burial of the Lord by which you were buried with Christ in Baptism. "
Now both seem to be essential to Baptism, namely, that in Baptism the
Trinity of Persons should be signified, and that we should be conformed
to Christ's burial. Therefore it seems that trine immersion is
essential to Baptism.
Objection 2: Further, the sacraments derive their efficacy from
Christ's mandate. But trine immersion was commanded by Christ: for Pope
Pelagius II wrote to Bishop Gaudentius: "The Gospel precept given by
our Lord God Himself, our Saviour Jesus Christ, admonishes us to confer
the sacrament of Baptism to each one in the name of the Trinity and
also with trine immersion. " Therefore, just as it is essential to
Baptism to call on the name of the Trinity, so is it essential to
baptize by trine immersion.
Objection 3: Further, if trine immersion be not essential to Baptism,
it follows that the sacrament of Baptism is conferred at the first
immersion; so that if a second or third immersion be added, it seems
that Baptism is conferred a second or third time. which is absurd.
Therefore one immersion does not suffice for the sacrament of Baptism,
and trine immersion is essential thereto.
On the contrary, Gregory wrote to the Bishop Leander: "It cannot be in
any way reprehensible to baptize an infant with either a trine or a
single immersion: since the Trinity can be represented in the three
immersions, and the unity of the Godhead in one immersion. "
I answer that As stated above (A[7], ad 1), washing with water is of
itself required for Baptism, being essential to the sacrament: whereas
the mode of washing is accidental to the sacrament. Consequently, as
Gregory in the words above quoted explains, both single and trine
immersion are lawful considered in themselves; since one immersion
signifies the oneness of Christ's death and of the Godhead; while trine
immersion signifies the three days of Christ's burial, and also the
Trinity of Persons.
But for various reasons, according as the Church has ordained, one mode
has been in practice, at one time, the other at another time. For since
from the very earliest days of the Church some have had false notions
concerning the Trinity, holding that Christ is a mere man, and that He
is not called the "Son of God" or "God" except by reason of His merit,
which was chiefly in His death; for this reason they did not baptize in
the name of the Trinity, but in memory of Christ's death, and with one
immersion. And this was condemned in the early Church. Wherefore in the
Apostolic Canons (xlix) we read: "If any priest or bishop confer
baptism not with the trine immersion in the one administration, but
with one immersion, which baptism is said to be conferred by some in
the death of the Lord, let him be deposed": for our Lord did not say,
"Baptize ye in My death," but "In the name of the Father and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost. "
Later on, however, there arose the error of certain schismatics and
heretics who rebaptized: as Augustine (Super. Joan. , cf. De Haeres.
lxix) relates of the Donatists. Wherefore, in detestation of their
error, only one immersion was ordered to be made, by the (fourth)
council of Toledo, in the acts of which we read: "In order to avoid the
scandal of schism or the practice of heretical teaching let us hold to
the single baptismal immersion. "
But now that this motive has ceased, trine immersion is universally
observed in Baptism: and consequently anyone baptizing otherwise would
sin gravely, through not following the ritual of the Church. It would,
however, be valid Baptism.
Reply to Objection 1: The Trinity acts as principal agent in Baptism.
Now the likeness of the agent enters into the effect, in regard to the
form and not in regard to the matter. Wherefore the Trinity is
signified in Baptism by the words of the form. Nor is it essential for
the Trinity to be signified by the manner in which the matter is used;
although this is done to make the signification clearer.
In like manner Christ's death is sufficiently represented in the one
immersion. And the three days of His burial were not necessary for our
salvation, because even if He had been buried or dead for one day, this
would have been enough to consummate our redemption: yet those three
days were ordained unto the manifestation of the reality of His death,
as stated above ([4423]Q[53], A[2]). It is therefore clear that neither
on the part of the Trinity, nor on the part of Christ's Passion, is the
trine immersion essential to the sacrament.
Reply to Objection 2: Pope Pelagius understood the trine immersion to
be ordained by Christ in its equivalent; in the sense that Christ
commanded Baptism to be conferred "in the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. " Nor can we argue from the form to the
use of the matter, as stated above (ad 1).
Reply to Objection 3: As stated above ([4424]Q[64], A[8]), the
intention is essential to Baptism. Consequently, one Baptism results
from the intention of the Church's minister, who intends to confer one
Baptism by a trine immersion. Wherefore Jerome says on Eph. 4:5,6:
"Though the Baptism," i. e. the immersion, "be thrice repeated, on
account of the mystery of the Trinity, yet it is reputed as one
Baptism. "
If, however, the intention were to confer one Baptism at each immersion
together with the repetition of the words of the form, it would be a
sin, in itself, because it would be a repetition of Baptism.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Baptism may be reiterated?
Objection 1: It seems that Baptism may be reiterated. For Baptism was
instituted, seemingly, in order to wash away sins. But sins are
reiterated. Therefore much more should Baptism be reiterated: because
Christ's mercy surpasses man's guilt.
Objection 2: Further, John the Baptist received special commendation
from Christ, Who said of him (Mat. 11:11): "There hath not risen among
them that are born of women, a greater than John the Baptist. " But
those whom John had baptized were baptized again, according to Acts
19:1-7, where it is stated that Paul rebaptized those who had received
the Baptism of John. Much more, therefore, should those be rebaptized,
who have been baptized by heretics or sinners.
Objection 3: Further, it was decreed in the Council of Nicaea (Can.
xix) that if "any of the Paulianists or Cataphrygians should be
converted to the Catholic Church, they were to be baptized": and this
seemingly should be said in regard to other heretics. Therefore those
whom the heretics have baptized, should be baptized again.
Objection 4: Further, Baptism is necessary for salvation. But sometimes
there is a doubt about the baptism of those who really have been
baptized. Therefore it seems that they should be baptized again.
Objection 5: Further, the Eucharist is a more perfect sacrament than
Baptism, as stated above ([4425]Q[65], A[3]). But the sacrament of the
Eucharist is reiterated. Much more reason, therefore, is there for
Baptism to be reiterated.
On the contrary, It is written, (Eph. 4:5): "One faith, one Baptism. "
I answer that, Baptism cannot be reiterated.
First, because Baptism is a spiritual regeneration; inasmuch as a man
dies to the old life, and begins to lead the new life. Whence it is
written (Jn. 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy
Ghost, He cannot see [Vulg. : 'enter into'] the kingdom of God. " Now one
man can be begotten but once. Wherefore Baptism cannot be reiterated,
just as neither can carnal generation. Hence Augustine says on Jn. 3:4:
"'Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born again':
So thou," says he, "must understand the birth of the Spirit, as
Nicodemus understood the birth of the flesh . . . . As there is no
return to the womb, so neither is there to Baptism. "
Secondly, because "we are baptized in Christ's death," by which we die
unto sin and rise again unto "newness of life" (cf. Rom. 6:3,4). Now
"Christ died" but "once" (Rom. 6:10). Wherefore neither should Baptism
be reiterated. For this reason (Heb. 6:6) is it said against some who
wished to be baptized again: "Crucifying again to themselves the Son of
God"; on which the gloss observes: "Christ's one death hallowed the one
Baptism. "
Thirdly, because Baptism imprints a character, which is indelible, and
is conferred with a certain consecration. Wherefore, just as other
consecrations are not reiterated in the Church, so neither is Baptism.
This is the view expressed by Augustine, who says (Contra Epist.
Parmen. ii) that "the military character is not renewed": and that "the
sacrament of Christ is not less enduring than this bodily mark, since
we see that not even apostates are deprived of Baptism, since when they
repent and return they are not baptized anew. "
Fourthly, because Baptism is conferred principally as a remedy against
original sin. Wherefore, just as original sin is not renewed, so
neither is Baptism reiterated, for as it is written (Rom. 5:18), "as by
the offense of one, unto all men to condemnation, so also by the
justice of one, unto all men to justification of life. "
Reply to Objection 1: Baptism derives its efficacy from Christ's
Passion, as stated above (A[2], ad 1). Wherefore, just as subsequent
sins do not cancel the virtue of Christ's Passion, so neither do they
cancel Baptism, so as to call for its repetition. on the other hand the
sin which hindered the effect of Baptism is blotted out on being
submitted to Penance.
Reply to Objection 2: As Augustine says on Jn. 1:33: "'And I knew Him
not': Behold; after John had baptized, Baptism was administered; after
a murderer has baptized, it is not administered: because John gave his
own Baptism; the murderer, Christ's; for that sacrament is so sacred,
that not even a murderer's administration contaminates it. "
Reply to Objection 3: The Paulianists and Cataphrygians used not to
baptize in the name of the Trinity.
