 |
|
| A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z |
One of theSeven Sacraments of theChristian Church; frequently called the "firstsacrament", the "door of thesacraments", and the "door of theChurch". The subject will be treated under the following headings:
At the outset we think it advisable to give two documents which express clearly the mind of theChurch on the subject of baptism. They are valuable, also, as containing a summary of the main points to be considered in the treatment of this important matter. Baptism is defined positively in the one and negatively in the other.
"TheDecree for theArmenians", in theBull "Exultate Deo" ofPope Eugene IV, is often referred to as adecree of theCouncil of Florence. While it is not necessary to hold thisdecree to be adogmatic definition of thematter andform andminister of thesacraments, it is undoubtedly a practical instruction, emanating from theHoly See, and as such, has fullauthenticity in a canonical sense. That is, it is authoritative. Thedecree speaks thus of Baptism:
Holy Baptism holds the first place among thesacraments, because it is the door of the spiritual life; for by it we are made members ofChrist and incorporated with theChurch. And since through thefirst man death entered into all, unless we be born again of water and theHoly Ghost, we can not enter into thekingdom of Heaven, asTruth Himself has told us. Thematter of thissacrament is true and naturalwater; and it is indifferent whether it be cold or hot. Theform is:I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of theHoly Ghost. We do not, however, deny that the words:Let this servant ofChrist be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of theHoly Ghost; or:Thisperson is baptized by my hands in the name of the Father and of the Son and of theHoly Ghost, constitutetrue baptism; because since the principalcause from which baptism has its efficacy is theHoly Trinity, and the instrumentalcause is theminister who confers thesacrament exteriorly, then if the act exercised by theminister be expressed, together with the invocation of theHoly Trinity, thesacrament is perfected. Theminister of thissacrament is thepriest, to whom it belongs to baptize, by reason of his office. In case ofnecessity, however, not only apriest ordeacon, but even alayman orwoman, nay, even apagan orheretic can baptize, provided he observes theform used by theChurch, andintends to perform what theChurch performs. The effect of thissacrament is the remission of allsin, original and actual; likewise of all punishment which is due forsin. As a consequence, no satisfaction for pastsins is enjoined upon those who are baptized; and if they die before they commit anysin, they attain immediately to thekingdom of heaven and thevision of God.
The negative document we call the canons on baptismdecreed by theCouncil of Trent (Sess. VII, De Baptismo), in which the following doctrines areanathematized (declaredheretical):
The doctrines here condemned by theCouncil of Trent, are those of various leaders among the earlyreformers. The contradictory of all these statements is to be held as thedogmatic teaching of theChurch.
The wordBaptism is derived from the Greek word,bapto, orbaptizo, to wash or to immerse. It signifies, therefore, that washing is of the essentialidea of thesacrament.Scripture uses the termbaptize both literally and figuratively. It is employed in a metaphorical sense inActs 1:5, where the abundance of thegrace of theHoly Ghost is signified, and also inLuke 12:50, where the term is referred to the sufferings ofChrist in HisPassion. Otherwise in theNew Testament, the root word from which baptism is derived is used to designate the laving withwater, and it is employed, when speaking ofJewish lustrations, and of the baptism ofJohn, as well as of theChristian Sacrament of Baptism (cf.Hebrews 6:2;Mark 7:4). Inecclesiastical usage, however, when the termsBaptize,Baptism are employed without a qualifying word, they are intended to signify thesacramental washing by which thesoul is cleansed fromsin at the sametime thatwater is poured upon the body. Many other terms have been used as descriptive synonyms for baptism both in theBible andChristian antiquity, as the washing ofregeneration, illumination, theseal ofGod, thewater ofeternallife, thesacrament of theTrinity, and so on. In English, the termchristen is familiarly used forbaptize. As, however, the former word signifies only the effect of baptism, that is, to make one aChristian, but not the manner and the act,moralists hold that "I christen" could probably not be substituted validly for "I baptize" in conferring thesacrament.
TheRoman Catechism (Ad parochos, De bapt., 2, 2, 5) defines baptism thus:Baptism is thesacrament ofregeneration bywater in the word (per aquam in verbo).St. Thomas Aquinas (III:66:1) gives this definition: "Baptism is the external ablution of the body, performed with the prescribedform of words."
Latertheologians generally distinguish formally between the physical and themetaphysical defining of thissacrament. By the former they understand the formula expressing the action of ablution and the utterance of the invocation of theTrinity; by the latter, the definition: "Sacrament ofregeneration" or that institution ofChrist by which we are reborn tospiritual life.
The term "regeneration" distinguishes baptism from every othersacrament, for although penance revivifiesmenspiritually, yet this is rather a resuscitation, a bringing back from the dead, than a rebirth.Penance does not make usChristians; on the contrary, it presupposes that we have already been born ofwater and theHoly Ghost to the life ofgrace, while baptism on the other hand was instituted to confer uponmen the very beginnings of the spiritual life, to transfer them from the state of enemies ofGod to the state ofadoption, as sons ofGod.
The definition of theRoman Catechism combines the physical andmetaphysical definitions of baptism. "Thesacrament ofregeneration" is themetaphysicalessence of thesacrament, while the physicalessence is expressed by the second part of the definition, i.e. the washing withwater (matter), accompanied by the invocation of theHoly Trinity (form). Baptism is, therefore, thesacrament by which we are born again ofwater and theHoly Ghost, that is, by which we receive in a new and spiritual life, the dignity ofadoption as sons ofGod and heirs ofGod's kingdom.
Having considered theChristian meaning of the term "baptism", we now turn our attention to the variousrites which were its forerunners before the New Dispensation.
Types of thissacrament are to be found among theJews andGentiles. Its place in thesacramental system of theOld Law was taken bycircumcision, which is called by some of theFathers "the washing of blood" to distinguish it from "the washing ofwater". By therite ofcircumcision, the recipient was incorporated into the people ofGod and made a partaker in theMessianicpromises; a name was bestowed upon him and he was reckoned among the children ofAbraham, the father of all believers.
Other forerunners of baptism were the numerous purifications prescribed in theMosaicdispensation for legal uncleannesses. The symbolism of an outward washing to cleanse an invisible blemish was made very familiar to theJews by their sacredceremonies. But in addition to these more direct types, both theNew Testament writers and theFathers of the Church find manymysteriousforeshadowings of baptism. ThusSt. Paul (1 Corinthians 10) adduces the passage ofIsrael through theRed Sea, andSt. Peter (1 Peter 3) theDeluge, as types of the purification to be found inChristian baptism. Other foreshadowings of thesacrament are found by theFathers in the bathing of Naaman in theJordan, in the brooding of theSpirit of God over the waters, in the rivers ofParadise, in the blood of thePaschal Lamb, duringOld Testament times, and in the pool ofBethsaida, and in the healing of the dumb and blind in theNew Testament.
How natural and expressive the symbolism of exterior washing to indicate interior purification was recognized to be, is plain from the practice also of theheathen systems of religion. The use of lustral water is found among theBabylonians,Assyrians,Egyptians, Greeks, Romans,Hindus, and others. A closer resemblance toChristian baptism is found in aform ofJewish baptism, to be bestowed onproselytes, given in theBabylonianTalmud (Döllinger, First Age of the Church).
But above all must be considered the baptism ofSt. John the Precursor.John baptized with water (Mark 1) and it was a baptism of penance for the remission ofsins (Luke 3). While, then, the symbolism of thesacrament instituted byChrist was not new, the efficacy which He joined to therite is that which differentiates it from all its types. John's baptism did not producegrace, as he himself testifies (Matthew 3) when he declares that he is not theMessias whose baptism is to confer theHoly Ghost. Moreover, it was not John's baptism that remittedsin, but the penance that accompanied it; and henceSt. Augustine calls it (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Book V) "a remission ofsins inhope". As to the nature of thePrecursor's baptism,St. Thomas (III.38.1) declares: The baptism of John was not asacrament of itself, but a certainsacramental as it were, preparing the way (disponens) for the baptism ofChrist." Durandus calls it asacrament, indeed, but of theOld Law, andSt. Bonaventure places it as a medium between the Old and New Dispensations. It is ofCatholicfaith that thePrecursor's baptism was essentially different in its effects from the baptism ofChrist, It is also to be noted that those who had previously received John's baptism had to receive later theChristian baptism (Acts 19).
ThatChrist instituted theSacrament of Baptism is unquestionable.Rationalists, like Harnack (Dogmengeschichte, I, 68), dispute it, only by arbitrarily ruling out the texts whichprove it.Christ not only commands His Disciples (Matthew 28:19) to baptize and gives them theform to be used, but He also declares explicitly the absolutenecessity of baptism (John 3): "Unless aman be born again ofwater and theHoly Ghost, he can not enter into theKingdom of God." Moreover, from the generaldoctrine of theChurch on thesacraments, weknow that the efficacy attached to them is derivable only from the institution of theRedeemer.
When, however, we come to the question as towhen preciselyChrist instituted baptism, we find thatecclesiastical writers are not agreed. TheScriptures themselves are silent upon the subject. Various occasions have been pointed out as the probabletime of institution, as whenChrist was Himself baptized in theJordan, when He declared thenecessity of the rebirth toNicodemus, when He sent HisApostles and Disciples to preach and baptize.
The first opinion was quite a favorite with many of theFathers andSchoolmen, and they are fond of referring to the sanctification of the baptismalwater by contact with the flesh of theGod-man. Others, asSt. Jerome andSt. Maximus, appear to assume thatChrist baptizedJohn on this occasion and thus instituted thesacrament. There is nothing, however, in theGospels to indicate thatChrist baptized thePrecursor at thetime of His own baptism. As to the opinion that it was in the colloquy withNicodemus that thesacrament was instituted, it is not surprising that it has found few adherents.Christ's words indeed declare thenecessity of such an institution, but no more. It seems also very unlikely thatChrist would have instituted thesacrament in a secret conference with one who was not to be a herald of its institution.
The more probable opinion seems to be that baptism, as asacrament, had its origin whenChrist commissioned HisApostles to baptize, as narrated inJohn 3 and4. There is nothing directly in the text as to the institution, but as the Disciples acted evidently under the instruction ofChrist, He must have taught them at the very outset thematter andform of thesacrament which they were to dispense. It istrue thatSt. John Chrysostom (Homily 28 on the Gospel of John), Theophylactus (in cap. iii, Joan.), andTertullian (On Baptism, Chapter 2) declare that the baptism given by theDisciples of Christ as narrated in these chapters of St. John was a baptism of water only and not of theHoly Ghost; but their reason is that theHoly Ghost was not given until after theResurrection. Astheologians have pointed out, this is a confusion between the visible and the invisible manifestation of theHoly Spirit. The authority ofSt. Leo (Epistle 16) is also invoked for the same opinion, inasmuch as he seems to hold thatChrist instituted thesacrament when, after His rising from the dead, He gave the command (Matthew 28): "Go and teach . . . baptizing"; butSt. Leo's words can easily be explained otherwise, and in another part of the sameepistle he refers to the sanction ofregeneration given byChrist when the water of baptism flowed from His side on the Cross; consequently, before theResurrection. All authorities agree thatMatthew 28, contains the solemnpromulgation of thissacrament, andSt. Leo does not seem to intend more than this. We need not delay on the arguments of those who declare baptism to have been necessarily established afterChrist's death, because the efficacy of thesacraments is derived from HisPassion. This wouldprove also that theHoly Eucharist was not instituted before His death, which is untenable. As to the frequent statement of theFathers that thesacraments flowed from the side ofChrist upon the Cross, it is enough to say that beyond the symbolism found therein, their words can be explained as referring to the death ofChrist, as themeritoriouscause or perfection of thesacraments, but not necessarily as theirtime of institution.
All things considered, we can safely state, therefore, thatChrist most probably instituted baptism before HisPassion. For in the first place, as is evident fromJohn 3 and4,Christ certainly conferred baptism, at least by the hands of His Disciples, before His Passion. That this was an essentially differentrite fromJohn the Precursor's baptism seems plain, because the baptism ofChrist is always preferred to that ofJohn, and the latter himself states the reason: "I baptize withwater . . . [Christ] baptizeth with theHoly Ghost" (John 1). In the baptism given by the Disciples as narrated in these chapters we seem to have all the requisites of asacrament of the New Law:
In the second place, theApostles received othersacraments fromChrist, before HisPassion, as theHoly Eucharist at theLast Supper, andHoly orders (Council of Trent, Sess. XXVI, c. i). Now as baptism has always been held as the door of theChurch and thenecessarycondition for the reception of any othersacrament, it follows that theApostles must have received Christian baptism before theLast Supper. This argument is used bySt. Augustine (Epistle 44) and certainly seems valid. To suppose that the firstpastors of theChurch received the othersacraments bydispensation, before they had received baptism, is an opinion with no foundation inScripture orTradition and devoid of verisimilitude. TheScriptures nowhere state thatChrist Himself conferred baptism, but an ancienttradition (Nicephorus, Hist. eccl, II, iii;Clement of Alexandria,Stromata, Book III) declares that He baptized theApostle Peter only, and that the latter baptized Andrew, James, and John, and they the otherApostles.
In allsacraments we treat of thematter and theform. It is also usual to distinguish the remotematter and the proximatematter. In the case of baptism, the remotematter is natural and truewater. We shall consider this aspect of the question first.
(a) Remote matter
It is offaith (de fide) that true and naturalwater is the remotematter of baptism. In addition to the authorities already cited, we may also mention theFourth Council of the Lateran (c. i).
Some of the earlyFathers, asTertullian (On Baptism 1) andSt. Augustine (Adv. Hær., xlvi and lix) enumerateheretics who rejectedwater entirely as a constituent of baptism. Such were the Gaians,Manichians,Seleucians, and Hermians. In theMiddle Ages, theWaldensians are said to have held the same tenet (Ewald, Contra Walden., vi). Some of thesixteenth century reformers, while acceptingwater as the ordinarymatter of thissacrament, declared that whenwater could not be had, any liquid could be used in its place. SoLuther (Tischr., xvii) and Beza (Ep., ii, ad Till.). It was in consequence of this teaching that certain of theTridentine canons were framed.Calvin held that thewater used in baptism was simply symbolic of the Blood ofChrist (Instit., IV, xv).
As a rule, however, thosesects whichbelieve in baptism at the presenttime, recognizewater as thenecessarymatter of thesacrament.
Scripture is so positive in its statements as to the use of true and naturalwater for baptism that it is difficult to see why it should ever be called in question. Not only have we the explicit words ofChrist (John 3:5) "Unless a man be born again ofwater", etc., but also in theActs of the Apostles and theEpistles ofSt. Paul there are passages that preclude any metaphorical interpretation. Thus (Acts 10:47)St. Peter says "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized?" In theeighth chapter of the Acts is narrated the episode of Philip and the eunuch ofEthiopia, and inverse 36 we read: "They came to a certain water; and the eunuch said: See, here is water: what doth hinder me from being baptized?"
Equally positive is the testimony ofChristian tradition.Tertullian (On Baptism 1) begins his treatise: "Thehappysacrament of ourwater".Justin Martyr (First Apology, Chapter 1) describes theceremony of baptism and declares: Then they are led by us to where there iswater . . . and then they are laved in thewater".St. Augustine positively declares that there is no baptism withoutwater (Tractate 15 on the Gospel of John).
The remotematter of baptism, then, is water, and this taken in its usual meaning.Theologians tell us consequently that what men would ordinarily declare water is valid baptismal material, whether it be water of the sea, or fountain, or well, or marsh; whether it be clear or turbid; fresh or salty; hot or cold; colored or uncolored. Water derived from melted ice, snow, or hail is also valid. If, however, ice, snow, or hail be not melted, they do not come under the designationwater. Dew, sulfur or mineral water, and that which is derived from steam are also validmatter for thissacrament. As to a mixture of water and some other material, it is held as propermatter, provided the water certainly predominates and the mixture would still be called water. Invalidmatter is every liquid that is not usually designatedtrue water. Such are oil, saliva, wine, tears, milk, sweat, beer, soup, the juice of fruits, and any mixture containing water whichmen would no longer call water. When it isdoubtful whether a liquid could really be called water, it is not permissible to use it for baptism except in case of absolutenecessity when no certainly validmatter can be obtained.
On the other hand, it is never allowable to baptize with an invalid liquid. There is a response ofPope Gregory IX to theArchbishop ofTrondhjem inNorway where beer (or mead) had been employed for baptism. Thepontiff says: "Since according to theGospel teaching, aman must be born again of water and theHoly Ghost, those are not to be considered validly baptized who have been baptized with beer" (cervisia). It istrue that a statement declaringwine to be validmatter of baptism is attributed toPope Stephen II, but the document is void of all authority (Labbe, Conc., VI).
Those who have held that "water" in theGospel text is to be taken metaphorically, appeal to the words of thePrecursor (Matthew 3), "He shall baptize you in theHoly Ghost and fire". As "fire" must certainly be only a figure of speech here, so must "water" in the other texts. To this objection, it may be replied that theChristian Church, or at least theApostles themselves, must have understood what was prescribed to be taken literally and what figuratively. TheNew Testament andchurch historyprove that they never looked on fire as a material for baptism, while they certainly did require water. Outside of the insignificantsects ofSeleucians and Hermians, not evenheretics took the word "fire" in this text in its literal meaning. We may remark, however, that some of theFathers, asSt. John Damascene (Of the Orthodox Faith IV.9), concede this statement of theBaptist to have a literal fulfillment in thePentecostal fiery tongues. They do not refer it, however, literally to baptism. That water alone is thenecessarymatter of thissacrament depends of course on the will of Him Who instituted it, althoughtheologians discover many reasons why it should have been chosen in preference to other liquids. The most obvious of these is that water cleanses and purifies more perfectly than the others, and hence the symbolism is more natural.
(b) Proximate matter
The proximatematter of baptism is the ablution performed with water. The very word "baptize", as we have seen, means a washing.
Three forms of ablution have prevailed amongChristians, and theChurch holds them all to be valid because they fulfill the requisite signification of the baptismal laving. These forms are immersion, infusion, and aspersion.
The most ancient form usually employed was unquestionably immersion. This is not only evident from the writings of theFathers and the early rituals of both theLatin andOriental Churches, but it can also be gathered from theEpistles ofSt. Paul, who speaks of baptism as a bath (Ephesians 5:26;Romans 6:4;Titus 3:5). In theLatin Church, immersion seems to have prevailed until the twelfth century. After thattime it is found in some places even as late as the sixteenth century. Infusion and aspersion, however, were growing common in the thirteenth century and gradually prevailed in theWestern Church. TheOriental Churches have retained immersion, though not always in the sense of plunging the candidate's entire body below the water.Billuart (De Bapt., I, iii) says that commonly thecatechumen is placed in thefont, and then water is poured upon the head. He cites the authority ofGoar for this statement.
Although, as we have said, immersion was the form of baptism that generally prevailed in the early ages, it must not thereby be inferred that the other forms of infusion and aspersion were not also employed and held to be valid. In the case of the sick or dying, immersion was impossible and thesacrament was then conferred by one of the other forms. This was so well recognized that infusion or aspersion received the name of the baptism of the sick (baptismus clinicorum).St. Cyprian (Epistle 75) declares this form to be valid. From the canons of various early councils weknow that candidates forHoly orders who had been baptized by this method seem to have been regarded asirregular, but this was on account of the culpablenegligence supposed to be manifested in delaying baptism until sick or dying. That suchpersons, however, were not to be rebaptized is an evidence that theChurch held their baptism to be valid. It is also pointed out that the circumstances under whichSt. Paul (Acts 16) baptized his jailer and all his household seem to preclude the use of immersion. Moreover, theacts of the early martyrs frequently refer to baptizing inprisons where infusion or aspersion was certainly employed.
By the present authorized ritual of theLatin Church, baptism must be performed by a laving of the head of the candidate.Moralists, however, state that in case ofnecessity, the baptism would probably be valid if the water were applied to any other principal part of the body, as the breast or shoulder. In this case, however, conditional baptism would have to be administered if theperson survived (St. Alphonsus, no. 107). In like manner they consider as probably valid the baptism of an infant in its mother's womb, provided the water, by means of an instrument, would actually flow upon the child. Such baptism is, however, later to be repeated conditionally, if the child survives its birth (Lehmkuhl, n. 61).
It is to be noted that it is not sufficient for the water to merely touch the candidate; it must also flow, otherwise there would seem to be no real ablution. At best, such a baptism would be considereddoubtful. If the water touches only the hair, thesacrament has probably been validly conferred, though in practice the safer course must be followed. If only the clothes of theperson have received the aspersion, the baptism is undoubtedly void.
The water to be employed in solemn baptism should also beconsecrated for the purpose, but of this we shall treat in another section of this article. It isnecessary in baptizing to make use of a threefold ablution in conferring thissacrament, by reason of the prescription of theRoman ritual. This necessarily refers, however, to the liceity, not to the validity of theceremony, asSt. Thomas (III.66.8) and othertheologians expressly state.
The threefold immersion is unquestionably very ancient in theChurch and apparently ofApostolic origin. It is mentioned byTertullian (De Corona 3),St. Basil (On the Holy Spirit 27),St. Jerome (Against the Luciferians 8), and many other early writers. Its object is, of course, tohonor the three Persons of theHoly Trinity in whose name it is conferred. That this threefold ablution was not considerednecessary to the validity of thesacrament, however, is plain. In the seventh century the Fourth Council of Toledo (633) approved the use of a single ablution in baptism, as a protest against thefalse trinitarian theories of theArians, who seem to have given to the threefold immersion a significance which made it imply threenatures in theHoly Trinity. To insist on the unity andconsubstantiality of thethree Divine Persons, theSpanishCatholics adopted the single ablution and this method had the approval ofPope Gregory the Great (Letters I.43). TheEunomian heretics used only one immersion and their baptism was held invalid by theFirst Council of Constantinople (can. vii); but this was not on account of the single ablution, but apparently because they baptized in the death ofChrist. The authority of this canon is, moreover,doubtful at best.
The requisite and sole validform of baptism is: "I baptize thee (or Thisperson is baptized) in the name of the Father and of theSon and of theHoly Ghost." This was theform given byChrist to His Disciples in thetwenty-eighth chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel, as far, at least, as there is question of the invocation of the separate Persons of theTrinity and the expression of the nature of the action performed. For the Latin usage: "I baptize thee", etc., we have the authority of theCouncil of Trent (Sess. VII, can. iv) and of theCouncil of Florence in theDecree of Union. In addition we have the constant practice of the wholeWestern Church. The Latins also recognize as valid theform used by the Greeks: "This servant ofChrist is baptized", etc. TheFlorentinedecree acknowledges the validity of thisform and it is moreover recognized by theBull ofLeo X, "Accepimus nuper", and ofClement VII, "Provisionis nostrae." Substantially, the Latin and Greek forms are the same, and theLatin Church has never rebaptized Orientals on their return to unity.
At onetime someWesterntheologians disputed the Greekform, because theydoubted the validity of the imperative or deprecatory formula: "Let thisperson be baptized" (baptizetur). As a matter of fact, however, the Greeks use the indicative, or enuntiative, formula: "Thisperson is baptized" (baptizetai, baptizetur). This is unquestionable from their Euchologies, and from the testimony of Arcudius (apud Cat., tit. ii, cap. i), of Goar (Rit. Græc. Illust.), ofMartène (De Ant. Eccl. Rit., I) and of thetheological compendium of theschismaticalRussians (St. Petersburg, 1799). It istrue that in thedecree for theArmenians,Pope Eugene IV usesbaptizetur, according to the ordinary version of thisdecree, butLabbe, in his edition of theCouncil of Florence seems to consider it a corrupt reading, for in the margin he printsbaptizatur. It has been suggested by Goar that the resemblance betweenbaptizetai andbaptizetur is responsible for the mistake. The correct translation is, of course,baptizatur.
In administering thissacrament it is absolutelynecessary to use the word "baptize" or its equivalent (Alex. VIII, Prop. damn., xxvii), otherwise theceremony is invalid. This had already beendecreed byAlexander III (Cap. Si quis, I, x, De Bapt.), and it is confirmed by theFlorentinedecree. It has been the constant practice of both theLatin andGreek Churches to make use of words expressing the act performed.St. Thomas (III:66:5) says that since an ablution may be employed for many purposes, it isnecessary that in baptism the meaning of the ablution be determined by the words of theform. However, the words: "In the name of the Father", etc., would not be sufficient by themselves to determine thesacramentalnature of the ablution.St. Paul (Colossians 3) exhorts us to do all things in the name ofGod, and consequently an ablution could be performed in the name of theTrinity to obtain restoration of health. Therefore it is that in theform of thissacrament, the act of baptism must be expressed, and thematter andform be united to leave nodoubt of the meaning of theceremony.
In addition to thenecessary word "baptize", or its equivalent, it is alsoobligatory to mention the separate Persons of theHoly Trinity. This is the command ofChrist to His Disciples, and as thesacrament has its efficacy from Him Who instituted it, we can not omit anything that He has prescribed. Nothing is morecertain than that this has been the general understanding and practice of theChurch.Tertullian tells us (On Baptism 13): "Thelaw of baptism (tingendi) has been imposed and theform prescribed: Go, teach thenations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of theSon and of theHoly Ghost."St. Justin Martyr (First Apology 1) testifies to the practice in his time.St. Ambrose (On the Mysteries 4) declares: "Unless aperson has been baptized in the name of the Father and of theSon and of theHoly Ghost, he can not obtain the remission of hissins,"St. Cyprian (Epistle 72), rejecting the validity of baptism given in the name ofChrist only,affirms that the naming of all the Persons of theTrinity was commanded by theLord (in plena et adunata Trinitate). The same is declared by many other primitive writers, asSt. Jerome (IV, in Matt.),Origen (De Principiis I.2),St. Athanasius (Against the Arians, Oration 4),St. Augustine (On Baptism 6.25). It is not, of course, absolutelynecessary that the common names Father,Son, andHoly Ghost be used, provided the Persons be expressed by words that are equivalent or synonymous. But a distinct naming of the Divine Persons is required and theform: "I baptize thee in the name of theHoly Trinity", would be of more thandoubtful validity.
The singularform "In the name", not "names", is also to be employed, as it expresses the unity of the Divinenature. When, throughignorance, anaccidental, notsubstantial, change has been made in theform (asIn nomine patriâ forPatris), the baptism is to be held valid.
Themind of theChurch as to thenecessity of serving the trinitarian formula in thissacrament has been clearly shown by her treatment of baptism conferred byheretics. Anyceremony that did not observe thisform has been declared invalid. TheMontanists baptized in the name of the Father and theSon andMontanus andPriscilla (St. Basil,Epistle 188). As a consequence, the Council ofLaodicea ordered their rebaptism. TheArians at the time of theCouncil of Nicæa do not seem to have tampered with the baptismal formula, for that Council does not order their rebaptism. When, then,St. Athanasius (Against the Arians, Oration 2) andSt. Jerome (Against the Luciferians) declare theArians to have baptized in the name of the Creator and creatures, they must either refer to theirdoctrine or to a later changing of thesacramentalform. It is well known that the latter was the case with theSpanishArians and that consequentlyconverts from thesect were rebaptized. The Anomæans, a branch of theArians, baptized with the formula: "In the name of the uncreatedGod and in the name of thecreatedSon, and in the name of the Sanctifying Spirit, procreated by thecreatedSon" (Epiphanius, Hær., lxxvii).
OtherAriansects, such as theEunomians and Aetians, baptized "in the death ofChrist".Converts fromSabellianism were ordered by theFirst Council of Constantinople (can. vii) to be rebaptized because the doctrine of Sabellius that there was but oneperson in theTrinity had infected their baptismalform. The twosects sprung fromPaul of Samosata, who deniedChrist's Divinity, likewise conferred invalid baptism. They were the Paulianists andPhotinians.Pope Innocent I (Ad. Episc. Maced., vi) declares that these sectaries did not distinguish the Persons of theTrinity when baptizing. TheCouncil of Nicæa (canon 19) ordered the rebaptism of Paulianists, and theCouncil of Arles (can. xvi and xvii)decreed the same for both Paulianists andPhotinians.
There has been atheological controversy over the question as to whether baptism in the name ofChrist only was ever held valid. Certain texts in theNew Testament have given rise to this difficulty. ThusSt. Paul (Acts 19) commands somedisciples at Ephesus to be baptized inChrist's name: "They were baptized in thename of the Lord Jesus." InActs 10, we read thatSt. Peter ordered others to be baptized "in the name of theLord Jesus Christ". Those who wereconverted by Philip. (Acts 8) "were baptized in the name ofJesus Christ", and above all we have the explicit command of thePrince of the Apostles: "Be baptized every one of you in the name ofJesus Christ, for the remission of yoursins (Acts 2).
Owing to these texts sometheologians have held that theApostles baptized in the name ofChrist only.St. Thomas,St. Bonaventure, andAlbertus Magnus are invoked as authorities for this opinion, they declaring that theApostles so acted by specialdispensation. Other writers, asPeter Lombard andHugh of St. Victor, hold also that such baptism would be valid, but say nothing of adispensation for theApostles. The most probable opinion, however, seems to be that the terms "in the name ofJesus", "in the name ofChrist", either refer to baptism in thefaith taught byChrist, or are employed to distinguishChristian baptism from that ofJohn the Precursor. It seems altogether unlikely that immediately afterChrist had solemnlypromulgated the trinitarian formula of baptism, theApostles themselves would have substituted another. In fact, the words ofSt. Paul (Acts 19) imply quite plainly that they did not. For, when someChristians at Ephesus declared that they had never heard of theHoly Ghost, theApostle asks: "In whom then were you baptized?" This text certainly seems to declare thatSt. Paul took it for granted that the Ephesians must have heard the name of theHoly Ghost when thesacramental formula of baptism was pronounced over them.
The authority ofPope Stephen I has been alleged for the validity of baptism given in the name ofChrist only.St. Cyprian says (Epistle 72) that thispontiff declared all baptism valid provided it was given in the name ofJesus Christ. It must be noted that the same explanation applies toStephen's words as to theScriptural texts above given. Moreover,Firmilian, in hisletter toSt. Cyprian, implies thatPope Stephen required an explicit mention of theTrinity in baptism, for he quotes thepontiff as declaring that thesacramentalgrace is conferred because aperson has been baptized "with the invocation of the names of theTrinity, Father and Son andHoly Ghost".
A passage that is very difficult of explanation is found in the works ofSt. Ambrose (On the Holy Spirit I.3), where he declares that if aperson names one of theTrinity, he names all of them: "If you sayChrist, you have designatedGod the Father, by whom the Son was anointed, and Him Who was anointed Son, and theHoly Ghost in whom He was anointed." This passage has been generally interpreted as referring to thefaith of thecatechumen, but not to the baptismalform. More difficult is the explanation of the response ofPope Nicholas I to theBulgarians (cap. civ;Labbe, VIII), in which he states that aperson is not to be rebaptized who has already been baptized "in the name of theHoly Trinity or in the name ofChrist only, as we read in theActs of the Apostles (for it is one and the same thing, asSt. Ambrose has explained)". As in the passage to which thepope alludes,St. Ambrose was speaking of thefaith of the recipient of baptism, as we have already stated, it has been held probable that this is also the meaning thatPope Nicholas intended his words to convey (see another explanation in Pesch, Prælect. Dogm., VI, no. 389). What seems to confirm this is the samepontiff's reply to theBulgarians (Resp. 15) on another occasion when they consulted him on a practical case. They inquired whether certainpersons are to be rebaptized on whom a man, pretending to be a Greekpriest, had conferred baptism?Pope Nicholas replies that the baptism is to be held valid "if they were baptized, in the name of the supreme and undividedTrinity". Here thepope does not give baptism in the name ofChrist only as an alternative.Moralists raise the question of the validity of a baptism in whose administration something else had been added to the prescribedform as "and in the name of theBlessed Virgin Mary". They reply that such baptism would be invalid, if theminister intended thereby to attribute the same efficacy to the added name as to the names of theThree Divine Persons. If, however, it was done through a mistaken piety only, it would not interfere with the validity (S. Alph., n. 111).
From the foregoing it is evident that not all baptism administered byheretics orschismatics is invalid. On the contrary, if the propermatter andform be used and the one conferring thesacrament really "intends to perform what theChurch performs" the baptism is undoubtedly valid. This is also authoritatively stated in thedecree for theArmenians and the canons of theCouncil of Trent already given. The question becomes a practical one whenconverts to theFaith have to be dealt with. If there were one authorized mode of baptizing among thesects, and if thenecessity andtrue significance of thesacrament were uniformly taught and put in practice among them, there would be little difficulty as to the status ofconverts from thesects. But there is no such unity of teaching and practice among them, and consequently the particular case of eachconvert must be examined into when there is question of his reception into theChurch. For not only are therereligious denominations in which baptism is in all probability not validly administered, but there are those also which have a ritual sufficient indeed for validity, but in practice the likelihood of their members having received baptism validly is more thandoubtful. As a consequenceconverts must be dealt with differently. If it becertain that aconvert was validly baptized inheresy, thesacrament is not repeated, but theceremonies which had been omitted in such baptism are to be supplied, unless thebishop, for sufficient reasons, judges that they can bedispensed with. (For theUnited States, see theFirst Council of Baltimore.) If it be uncertain whether theconvert's baptism was valid or not, then he is to be baptized conditionally. In such cases the ritual is: "If thou art not yet baptized, then I baptize thee in the name", etc. The First Synod of Westminster,England, directs that adultconverts are to be baptized not publicly but privately withholy water (i.e. not theconsecrated baptismal water) and without the usualceremonies (Decr. xvi). Practically,converts in theUnited States are almost invariably baptized either absolutely or conditionally, not because the baptism administered byheretics is held to be invalid, but because it is generally impossible to discover whether they had ever been properly baptized. Even in cases where aceremony had certainly been performed, reasonabledoubt of validity will generally remain, on account of either theintention of the administrator or the mode of administration. Still each case must be examined into (S. C. Inquis., 20 Nov., 1878) lest thesacrament besacrilegiously repeated.
As to the baptism of the varioussects, Sabetti (no. 662) states that theOriental Churches and the"Old Catholics" generally administer baptism accurately; theSocinians andQuakers do not baptize at all; theBaptists use therite only for adults, and the efficacy of their baptism has been called in question owing to the separation of thematter and theform, for the latter is pronounced before the immersion takes place; theCongregationalists,Unitarians andUniversalists deny thenecessity of baptism, and hence the presumption is that they do not administer it accurately; theMethodists andPresbyterians baptize by aspersion or sprinkling, and it may be reasonablydoubted whether the water has touched the body and flowed upon it; among theEpiscopalians many consider baptism to have notrue efficacy and to be merely an emptyceremony, and consequently there is a well-grounded fear that they are not sufficiently careful in its administration. To this may be added, thatEpiscopalians often baptize by aspersion, and though such a method is undoubtedly valid if properly employed, yet in practice it is quite possible that the sprinkled water may not touch the skin. Sabetti also notes thatministers of the samesect do not everywhere follow a uniform method of baptizing.
The practical method of reconcilingheretics with theChurch is as follows:-- If baptism be conferred absolutely, theconvert is to make noabjuration or profession offaith, nor is he to make a confession of hissins and receiveabsolution, because thesacrament ofregeneration washes away his past offences. If his baptism is to be conditional, he must first make anabjuration of hiserrors, or a profession offaith, then receive the conditional baptism, and lastly make asacramental confession followed by conditionalabsolution. If theconvert's former baptism was judged to be certainly valid, he is only to make theabjuration or the profession offaith and receiveabsolution from thecensures he may have incurred (Excerpta Rit. Rom., 1878). Theabjuration or profession offaith here prescribed is theCreed ofPius IV, translated into the vernacular. In the case of conditional baptism, the confession may precede the administration of therite and the conditionalabsolution be imparted after the baptism. This is often done as a matter of fact, as the confession is an excellent preparation for the reception of thesacrament (De Herdt, VI, viii; Sabetti, no. 725).
To complete the consideration of the validity of baptism conferred byheretics, we must give some account of the celebrated controversy that raged around this point in the ancientChurch. InAfrica andAsia Minor thecustom had been introduced in the early part of the third century of rebaptizing allconverts fromheresy. As far as can be now ascertained, the practice of rebaptism arose inAfrica owing todecrees of aSynod of Carthage held probably between 218 and 222; while inAsia Minor it seems to have had its origin at theSynod ofIconium, celebrated between 230 and 235. The controversy on rebaptism is especially connected with the names ofPope St. Stephen and ofSt. Cyprian of Carthage. The latter was the main champion of the practice of rebaptizing. Thepope, however, absolutely condemned the practice, and commanded thatheretics on entering theChurch should receive only theimposition of handsin paenitentiam. In this celebrated controversy it is to noted thatPope Stephen declares that he is upholding the primitivecustom when he declares for the validity of baptism conferred byheretics.
Cyprian, on the contrary, implicitly admits that antiquity is against his own practice, but stoutly maintains that it is more in accordance with an enlightened study of the subject. Thetradition against him he declares to be "a human and unlawful tradition". NeitherCyprian, however, nor hiszealous abettor,Firmilian, could show that rebaptism was older than the century in which they were living. The contemporaneous but anonymous author of the book "De Rebaptismate" says that the ordinances ofPope Stephen, forbidding the rebaptism ofconverts, are in accordance with antiquity andecclesiastical tradition, and areconsecrated as an ancient, memorable, andsolemn observance of all thesaints and of all thefaithful.St. Augustinebelieves that thecustom of not rebaptizing is anApostolic tradition, andSt. Vincent of Lérins declares that theSynod of Carthage introduced rebaptism against theDivine Law (canonem), against the rule of theuniversalChurch, and against the customs and institutions of the ancients. ByPope Stephen's decision, he continues, antiquity was retained and novelty was destroyed (retenta est antiquitas, explosa novitas). It istrue that the so-calledApostolic Canons (xlv and xlvi) speak of the non-validity of baptism conferred byheretics, butDöllinger says that these canons are comparatively recent, andDe Marca points out thatSt. Cyprian would haveappealed to them had they been inexistence before the controversy.Pope St. Stephen, therefore, upheld adoctrine already ancient in the third century when he declared against the rebaptism ofheretics, and decided that thesacrament was not to be repeated because its first administration had been valid, This has been thelaw of theChurch ever since.
Theologians distinguish a twofoldnecessity, which they call anecessity of means (medii) and anecessity of precept (præcepti). The first (medii) indicates a thing to be sonecessary that, if lacking (though inculpably),salvation can not be attained. The second (præcepti) is had when a thing is indeed sonecessary that it may not be omitted voluntarily withoutsin; yet,ignorance of theprecept or inability to fulfill it, excuses one from its observance.
Baptism is held to benecessary bothnecessitate medii andpræcepti. Thisdoctrine is grounded on the words ofChrist. InJohn 3, He declares: "Unless a man be born again of water and theHoly Ghost, he can not enter into thekingdom of God."Christ makes no exception to thislaw and it is therefore general in its application, embracing both adults and infants. It is consequently not merely anecessity of precept but also anecessity of means.
This is the sense in which it has always been understood by theChurch, and theCouncil of Trent (Sess, IV, cap, vi) teaches thatjustification can not be obtained, since the promulgation of theGospel, without the washing ofregeneration or the desire thereof (in voto). In the seventh session, it declares (can. v)anathema upon anyone who says that baptism is notnecessary forsalvation. We have renderedvotum by "desire" for want of a better word. The council does not mean byvotum a simple desire of receiving baptism or even a resolution to do so. It means byvotum anact of perfect charity orcontrition, including, at least implicitly, the will to do all thingsnecessary forsalvation and thus especially to receive baptism.
The absolutenecessity of thissacrament is often insisted on by theFathers of the Church, especially when they speak of infant baptism. ThusSt. Irenæus (Against Heresies 2.22): "Christ came tosave all who are reborn through Him toGod — infants, children, and youths" (infantes et parvulos et pueros).St. Augustine (On the Soul, Book III) says "If you wish to be aCatholic, do notbelieve, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission oforiginal sin." A still stronger passage from the samedoctor (Epistle 28) reads:"Whoever says that even infants are vivified inChrist when they depart this life without the participation of HisSacrament (Baptism), both opposes theApostolic preaching and condemns the wholeChurch which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatinglybelieves that otherwise they can not possibly be vivified inChrist,"St. Ambrose (II De Abraham., c. xi) speaking of thenecessity of baptism, says:" No one is excepted, not the infant, not the one hindered by anynecessity."
In thePelagian controversy we find similarly strong pronouncements on the part of theCouncils of Carthage and Milevis, and ofPope Innocent I. It is owing to theChurch'sbelief in thisnecessity of baptism as a means tosalvation that, as was already noted bySt. Augustine, she committed the power of baptism in certain contingencies even tolaymen andwomen. When it is said that baptism is alsonecessary, by thenecessity of precept (praecepti), it is of course understood that this applies only to such as are capable of receiving aprecept, viz. adults.
Thenecessity in this case is shown by the command ofChrist to HisApostles (Matthew 28): "Go and teach all nations, baptizing them", etc. Since theApostles are commanded to baptize, thenations are commanded to receive baptism. Thenecessity of baptism has been called in question by some of theReformers or their immediate forerunners. It was denied byWyclif,Bucer, andZwingli. According toCalvin it isnecessary for adults as a precept but not as a means. Hence he contends that the infants ofbelievingparents are sanctified in the womb and thus freed fromoriginal sin without baptism. TheSocinians teach that baptism is merely an external profession of theChristianfaith and arite which each one is free to receive or neglect.
An argument against the absolutenecessity of baptism has been sought in the text ofScripture: "Unless you eat the flesh of theSon of man and drink his blood, you shall not havelife in you" (John 6). Here, they say, is a parallel to the text: "Unless a man be born again of water". Yet everyone admits that the Eucharist is notnecessary as a means but only as a precept. The reply to this is obvious. In the first instance,Christ addresses His words in the second person to adults; in the second, He speaks in the third person and without any distinction whatever.
Another favorite text is that ofSt. Paul (1 Corinthians 7): "The unbelieving husband is sanctified by thebelieving wife; and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by thebelieving husband; otherwise your children should beunclean; but now they areholy." Unfortunately for the strength of this argument, the context shows that theApostle in this passage is not treating ofregenerating or sanctifying grace at all, but answering certain questions proposed to him by the Corinthians concerning the validity of marriages betweenheathens and believers. The validity of such marriages isproved from the fact that children born of them are legitimate, not spurious. As far as the term "sanctified" is concerned, it can, at most, mean that thebelieving husband or wife mayconvert the unbelieving party and thus become an occasion of their sanctification.
A certain statement in the funeral oration ofSt. Ambrose over theEmperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as aproof that theChurch offeredsacrifices andprayers forcatechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such acustom to be found anywhere.St. Ambrose may have done so for thesoul of thecatechumenValentinian, but this would be a solitary instance, and it was done apparently because hebelieved that the emperor had had the baptism of desire. The practice of theChurch is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of theSecond Council of Braga: "Neither the commemoration ofSacrifice [oblationis] nor the service ofchanting [psallendi] is to be employed forcatechumens who have died without theredemption of baptism." The arguments for a contrary usage sought in theSecond Council of Arles (c. xii) and the Fourth Council of Carthage (c. lxxix) are not to the point, for these councils speak, not ofcatechumens, but of penitents who had died suddenly before their expiation was completed. It istrue that someCatholic writers (as Cajetan, Durandus,Biel,Gerson, Toletus,Klee) have held that infants may be saved by an act of desire on the part of theirparents, which is applied to them by some external sign, such asprayer or the invocation of theHoly Trinity; butPius V, by expunging this opinion, as expressed by Cajetan, from that author's commentary onSt. Thomas, manifested his judgment that such a theory was not agreeable to theChurch'sbelief.
TheFathers andtheologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ orfluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a realsacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, thegrace which remitssins. It is theteaching of theCatholicChurch that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility,eternallife may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.
The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfectcontrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or purelove ofGod which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism. The Latin wordflamen is used becauseFlamen is a name for theHoly Ghost, Whose special office it is to move the heart toloveGod and to conceive penitence forsin. The "baptism of theHoly Ghost" is a term employed in the third century by the anonymous author of the book "De Rebaptismate". The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, isproved from the words ofChrist. After He had declared thenecessity of baptism (John 3), Hepromisedjustifying grace for acts of charity or perfectcontrition (John 14): "He thatloveth Me, shall beloved of my Father: and I willlove him and will manifest myself to him." And again: "If any onelove me, he will keep my word, and my Father willlove him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him." Since these texts declare thatjustifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity orcontrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission ofsins. Thisdoctrine is set forth clearly by theCouncil of Trent. In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches thatcontrition is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconcilesman toGod, before theSacrament of Penance is received. In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of thenecessity of baptism, it says thatmen can not obtain original justice "except by the washing ofregeneration or its desire" (voto). The samedoctrine is taught byPope Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), and the contrary propositions are condemned byPopesPius V andGregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions ofBaius.
We have already alluded to the funeral oration pronounced bySt. Ambrose over theEmperor Valentinian II, acatechumen. Thedoctrine of the baptism of desire is here clearly set forth.St. Ambrose asks: "Did he not obtain thegrace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly he obtained it because he asked for it."St. Augustine (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, IV.22) andSt. Bernard (Ep. lxxvii, ad H. de S. Victore) likewise discourse in the same sense concerning the baptism of desire. If it be said that thisdoctrine contradicts the universallaw of baptism made byChrist (John 3), the answer is that the lawgiver has made an exception (John 14) in favor of those who have the baptism of desire. Neither would it be a consequence of thisdoctrine that apersonjustified by the baptism of desire would thereby bedispensed from seeking after the baptism of water when the latter became a possibility. For, as has already been explained thebaptismus flaminis contains thevotum of receiving thebaptismus aquæ. It istrue that some of theFathers of the Church arraign severely those who content themselves with the desire of receiving thesacrament ofregeneration, but they are speaking ofcatechumens who of their own accord delay the reception of baptism from unpraiseworthy motives. Finally, it is to be noted that only adults are capable of receiving the baptism of desire.
The baptism of blood (baptismus sanquinis) is the obtaining of thegrace ofjustification by sufferingmartyrdom for thefaith ofChrist. The term "washing of blood" (lavacrum sanguinis) is used byTertullian (On Baptism 16) to distinguish this species ofregeneration from the "washing of water" (lavacrum aquæ). "We have a second washing", he says "which is one and the same [with the first], namely the washing of blood."St. Cyprian (Epistle 73) speaks of "the mostglorious and greatest baptism of blood" (sanguinis baptismus).St. Augustine (City of God 13.7) says: "When any die for the confession ofChrist without having received the washing ofregeneration, it avails as much for the remission of theirsins as if they had been washed in thesacred font of baptism."
TheChurch grounds herbelief in the efficacy of the baptism of blood on the fact thatChrist makes a general statement of the saving power ofmartyrdom in thetenth chapter of St. Matthew: "Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is inheaven" (verse 32); and: "He that shall lose his life for me shall find it" (verse 39). It is pointed out that these texts are so broadly worded as to include even infants, especially the latter text. That the former text also applies to them, has been constantly maintained by theFathers, who declare that if infants can not confessChrist with the mouth, they can byact.Tertullian (Against the Valentinians 2) speaks of theinfants slaughtered by Herod asmartyrs, and this has been the constant teaching of theChurch.
Another evidence of the mind of theChurch as to the efficacy of the baptism of blood is found in the fact that she neverprays formartyrs. Her opinion is well voiced bySt. Augustine (Tractate 74 on the Gospel of John): "He does an injury to amartyr whoprays for him." This shows thatmartyrdom isbelieved to remit allsin and all punishment due tosin. Latertheologians commonly maintain that the baptism of blood justifies adultmartyrs independently of an act of charity or perfectcontrition, and, as it were,ex opere operato, though, of course, they must haveattrition for pastsins. The reason is that if perfect charity, orcontrition, were required inmartyrdom, the distinction between the baptism of blood and the baptism of desire would be a useless one. Moreover, as it must be conceded that infantmartyrs arejustified without an act of charity, of which they are incapable, there is no solid reason for denying the sameprivilege to adults. (Cf.Francisco Suárez, De Bapt., disp. xxxix.)
The fate of infants who die without baptism must be briefly considered here. TheCatholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart thislife without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from thevision of God. This teaching is grounded, as we have seen, onScripture andtradition, and thedecrees of theChurch. Moreover, that those who die inoriginal sin, without ever having contracted any actualsin, are deprived of thehappiness ofheaven is stated explicitly in the Confession of Faith of theEastern Emperor Michael Palæologus, which had been proposed to him byPope Clement IV in 1267, and which he accepted in the presence ofGregory X at theSecond Council of Lyons in 1274. The samedoctrine is found also in the Decree of Union of the Greeks, in theBull "Lætentur Caeli" ofPope Eugene IV, in the Profession of Faith prescribed for the Greeks byPope Gregory XIII, and in that authorized for the Orientals byUrban VIII andBenedict XIV. ManyCatholictheologians have declared that infants dying without baptism are excluded from thebeatific vision; but as to the exact state of thesesouls in the next world they are not agreed.
In speaking ofsouls who have failed to attainsalvation, thesetheologians distinguish the pain of loss (paena damni), or privation of thebeatific vision, and the pain of sense (paena sensus). Though thesetheologians have thought itcertain that unbaptized infants must endure the pain of loss, they have not been similarlycertain that they are subject to the pain of sense.St. Augustine (Of Sin and Merit I.16) held that they would not be exempt from the pain of sense, but at the same time he thought it would be of the mildest form. On the other hand,St. Gregory Nazianzen (Oration 40) expresses thebelief that such infants would suffer only the pain of loss.Sfondrati (Nod. Prædest., I, i) declares that while they are certainly excluded fromheaven, yet they are not deprived of naturalhappiness. This opinion seemed so objectionable to someFrenchbishops that they asked the judgment of theHoly See upon the matter.Pope Innocent XI replied that he would have the opinion examined into by acommission oftheologians, but nosentence seems ever to have been passed upon it. Since the twelfth century, the opinion of the majority oftheologians has been that unbaptized infants are immune from all pain of sense. This was taught bySt. Thomas Aquinas, Scotus,St. Bonaventure,Peter Lombard, and others, and is now the common teaching in theschools. It accords with the wording of adecree ofPope Innocent III (III Decr., xlii, 3): "The punishment oforiginal sin is the deprivation of thevision of God; of actualsin, theeternal pains ofhell." Infants, of course, can not be guilty of actualsin.
Othertheologians have urged that, under thelaw of nature and theMosaic dispensation, children could besaved by theact of theirparents and that consequently the same should be even more easy of attainment under thelaw ofgrace, because the power offaith has not been diminished but increased.
Common objections to this theory include the fact that infants are not said to be deprived ofjustification in the New Law through any decrease in the power offaith, but because of thepromulgation byChrist of theprecept of baptism which did not exist before the New Dispensation. Nor would this make the case of infants worse than it was before theChristian Church was instituted. While it works a hardship for some, it has undoubtedly improved thecondition of most.Supernaturalfaith is now much more diffused than it was before the coming ofChrist, and more infants are now saved by baptism than werejustified formerly by the activefaith of theirparents. Moreover, baptism can more readily be applied to infants than therite ofcircumcision, and by theancient law thisceremony had to be deferred till the eighth day after birth, while baptism can be bestowed upon infants immediately after they are born, and in case ofnecessity even in their mother's womb. Finally it must be borne in mind that unbaptized infants, if deprived ofheaven, would not be deprivedunjustly. Thevision of God is not something to whichhuman beings have anatural claim. It is a free gift of theCreator who can make whatconditions He chooses for imparting it or withholding it. Noinjustice is involved when an undueprivilege is not conferred upon aperson.Original sin deprived thehuman race of an unearnedright toheaven. Through the Divine mercy this bar to theenjoyment of God is removed by baptism; but if baptism be not conferred,original sin remains, and the unregeneratedsoul, having no claim onheaven, is notunjustly excluded from it.
As to the question, whether in addition to freedom from the pain of sense, unbaptized infants enjoy any positivehappiness in the next world,theologians are not agreed, nor is there any pronouncement of theChurch on the subject. Many, followingSt. Thomas (De Malo, Q. v, a. 3), declare that these infants are not saddened by the loss of thebeatific vision, either because they have noknowledge of it, and hence are not sensible of their privation; or because, knowing it, their will is entirely conformed toGod's will and they areconscious that they have missed an undueprivilege through no fault of their own. In addition to this freedom from regret at the loss ofheaven, these infants may also enjoy some positivehappiness.St. Thomas (In II Sent., dist. XXXIII, Q. ii, a. 5) says: "Although unbaptized infants are separated fromGod as far asglory is concerned, yet they are not separated from Him entirely. Rather are they joined to Him by a participation ofnatural goods; and so they may even rejoice in Him bynatural consideration andlove," Again (a. 2) he says: "They will rejoice in this, that they will share largely in the divinegoodness and innatural perfections." While the opinion, then, that unbaptized infants may enjoy anaturalknowledge andlove ofGod and rejoice in it, is perfectly tenable, it has not thecertainty that would arise from a unanimous consent of theFathers of the Church, or from a favorable pronouncement of ecclesiastical authority.
We may add here some brief remarks on thediscipline of the Church in regard to unbaptizedpersons. As baptism is the door of theChurch, the unbaptized are entirely without its pale. As a consequence:
In general, we may state that theChurch claims no authority over unbaptizedpersons, as they are entirely without her pale. She makeslaws concerning them only in so far as they hold relations with the subjects of theChurch.
Thissacrament is the door of theChurch of Christ and the entrance into a new life. We are reborn from the state of slaves ofsin into the freedom of theSons of God. Baptism incorporates us withChrist's mystical body and makes us partakers of all theprivileges flowing from theredemptive act of theChurch's Divine Founder. We shall now outline the principal effects of baptism.
This is clearly contained in theBible. Thus we read (Acts 2:38): "Be baptized every one of you in the name ofJesus Christ, for the remission of yoursins; and you shall receive theHoly Ghost. For thepromise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, whomsoever theLord our God shall call." We read also in thetwenty-second chapter of the Acts of the Apostles (verse 16):
Be baptized, and wash away thysins."St. Paul in thefifth chapter of his Epistle to the Ephesians beautifully represents the wholeChurch as being baptized and purified (5:25 sq.): "Christloved theChurch, and delivered Himself up for it: that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the washing of water in the word of life: that he might present it to Himself agloriousChurch, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should beholy and without blemish.
Theprophecy ofEzekiel (36:25) has also been understood of baptism: "I will pour upon you clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness (inquinamentis), where theprophet is unquestionably speaking ofmoral defilements.
This is also the solemn teaching of theChurch. In the profession offaith prescribed byPope Innocent III for theWaldensians in 1210, we read: Webelieve that allsins are remitted in baptism, bothoriginal sin and thosesins which have beenvoluntarily committed." TheCouncil of Trent (Sess. V., can. v)anathematizes whomsoever denies that thegrace ofChrist which is conferred in baptism does not remit the guilt oforiginal sin; or asserts that everything which can truly and properly be calledsin is not thereby taken away.
The same is taught by theFathers.St. Justin Martyr (First Apology 66) declares that in baptism we are created anew, that is, consequently, free from all stain ofsin.St. Ambrose (On the Mysteries 3) says of baptism: "This is the water in which the flesh is submerged that all carnalsin may be washed away. Every transgression is there buried."Tertullian (On Baptism 7) writes: "Baptism is a carnal act in as much as we are submerged in the water; but the effect is spiritual, for we are freed from oursins." The words ofOrigen (In Gen., xiii) are classic: "If you transgress, you write unto yourself the handwriting [chirographum] ofsin. But, behold, when you have once approached to the cross ofChrist and to thegrace of baptism, your handwriting is affixed to the cross and blotted out in thefont of baptism." It is needless to multiply testimonies from the early ages of theChurch. It is a point on which theFathers are unanimous, and telling quotations might also be made fromSt. Cyprian,Clement of Alexandria, St. Hilary,St. Cyril of Jerusalem,St. Basil,St. Gregory Nazianzen, and others.
Baptism not only washes awaysin, it also remits the punishment ofsin. This was the plain teaching of the primitiveChurch. We read inClement of Alexandria (Pædagog., i) of baptism: "It is called a washing because we are washed from oursins: it is calledgrace, because by it the punishments which are due tosin are remitted."St. Jerome (Ep. lxix) writes: "After the pardon (indulgentiam) of baptism, the severity of theJudge is not to befeared." AndSt. Augustine (De Pecc. et Mer., II, xxviii) says plainly: "If immediately [after baptism] there follows the departure from thislife, there will be absolutely nothing that aman must answer for [quod obnoxium hominem teneat], for he will have been freed from everything that bound him." In perfect accord with the earlydoctrine, theFlorentinedecree states: "No satisfaction is to be enjoined upon the baptized for pastsins; and if they die before anysin, they will immediately attain to thekingdom of heaven and to thevision of God." In like manner theCouncil of Trent (Sess. V) teaches: "There is no cause ofdamnation in those who have been truly buried withChrist by baptism . . . Nothing whatever will delay their entrance intoheaven."
Another effect of baptism is the infusion ofsanctifying grace andsupernatural gifts andvirtues. It is thissanctifying grace which rendersmen theadopted sons of God and confers theright toheavenlyglory. Thedoctrine on this subject is found in the seventh chapter onjustification in the sixth session of theCouncil of Trent. Many of theFathers of the Church also enlarge upon this subject (asSt. Cyprian,St. Jerome,Clement of Alexandria, and others), though not in the technical language of laterecclesiastical decrees.
Theologians likewise teach that baptism givesman theright to those specialgraces which arenecessary for attaining the end for which thesacrament was instituted and for enabling him to fulfill the baptismal promises. This doctrine of theschools, which claims for everysacrament thosegraces which are peculiar and diverse according to the end and object of thesacrament, was already enunciated byTertullian (On the Resurrection 8). It is treated and developed bySt. Thomas Aquinas (III:62:2).Pope Eugene IV repeats thisdoctrine in thedecree for theArmenians. In treating of thegrace bestowed by baptism, we presume that the recipient of thesacrament puts no obstacle (obex) in the way ofsacramentalgrace. In an infant, of course, this would be impossible, and as a consequence, the infant receives at once all the baptismalgrace. It is otherwise in the case of an adult, for in such a one it isnecessary that the requisite dispositions of thesoul be present.
TheCouncil of Trent (Sess. VI, c. vii) states that each one receivesgrace according to his disposition and co-operation. We are not to confound an obstacle (obex) to thesacrament itself with an obstacle to thesacramentalgrace. In the first case, there is implied a defect in thematter orform, or a lack of the requisiteintention on the part ofminister or recipient, and then thesacrament would be simply null. But even if all these essential requisites for constituting thesacrament be present, there can still be an obstacle put in the way of thesacramentalgrace, inasmuch as an adult might receive baptism with improper motives or without real detestation forsin. In that case theperson would indeed be validly baptized, but he would not participate in thesacramentalgrace. If, however, at a latertime he made amends for the past, the obstacle would be removed and he would obtain thegrace which he had failed to receive when thesacrament was conferred upon him. In such a case thesacrament is said to revive and there could be no question of rebaptism.
Finally, baptism, once validly conferred, can never be repeated. TheFathers (St. Ambrose,Chrysostom, and others) so understand the words ofSt. Paul (Hebrews 6:4), and this has been the constant teaching of theChurch bothEastern andWestern from the earliest times. On this account, baptism is said to impress an ineffaceablecharacter on thesoul, which theTridentine Fathers call a spiritual and indelible mark. That baptism (as well asConfirmation andHoly orders) really does imprint such acharacter, is defined explicitly by theCouncil of Trent (Sess. VII, can. ix). St. Cyril (Prologue to the Catechetical Lectures 17) calls baptism a "holy and indelible seal", andClement of Alexandria (Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? 42), "the seal of theLord".St. Augustine compares thischaracter or mark imprinted upon theChristiansoul with thecharacter militaris impressed upon soldiers in the imperial service.St. Thomas treats of thenature of this indelible seal, orcharacter, in theSumma (III:63:2).
The early leaders of the so-calledReformation held very different doctrines from those ofChristian antiquity on the effects of baptism.Luther (De Captiv. Bab.) andCalvin (Antid. C. Trid.) held that thissacrament made the baptized certain of the perpetualgrace ofadoption. Others declared that the calling to mind of one's baptism would free him fromsins committed after it; others again, that transgressions of theDivine law, althoughsins in themselves, would not be imputed assins to the baptizedperson provided he hadfaith. Thedecrees of theCouncil of Trent, drawn up in opposition to the then prevailingerrors, bear witness to the many strange and novel theories broached by various exponents of the nascentProtestanttheology.
TheChurch distinguishes between the ordinary and the extraordinaryminister of baptism. A distinction is also made as to the mode of administration. Solemn baptism is that which is conferred with all therites andceremonies prescribed by theChurch, and private baptism is that which may be administered at any time or place according to the exigencies ofnecessity. At one timesolemn and public baptism was conferred in theLatin Church only during the paschal season andWhitsuntide. The Orientals administered it likewise at theEpiphany.
The ordinaryminister ofsolemn baptism is first thebishop and second thepriest. Bydelegation, adeacon may confer thesacramentsolemnly as an extraordinaryminister.
Bishops are said to be ordinaryministers because they are thesuccessors of the Apostles who received directly the Divine command: "Go and teach allnations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of theSon and of theHoly Ghost."Priests are also ordinaryministers because by their office andsacred orders they arepastors ofsouls and administrators of thesacraments, and hence theFlorentinedecree declares: "Theminister of thisSacrament is thepriest, to whom it belongs to administer baptism by reason of his office." As, however,bishops are superior topriests by theDivine law, thesolemn administration of thissacrament was at one time reserved to thebishops, and apriest never administered thissacrament in the presence of abishop unless commanded to do so. How ancient thisdiscipline was, may be seen fromTertullian (On Baptism 17):
Theright to confer baptism belongs to the chiefpriest who is thebishop, then topriests anddeacons, but not without the authorization of thebishop.
Ignatius (Epistle to the Smyrnæans 8): "It is not lawful to baptize or celebrate theagape without thebishop."St. Jerome (Against the Luciferians 9)witnesses to the same usage in his days: "Withoutchrism and the command of thebishop, neitherpriest nordeacon has theright of conferring baptism."
Deacons are only extraordinaryministers ofsolemn baptism, as by their office they are assistants to thepriestly order.St. Isidore of Seville (De Eccl, Off., ii, 25) says: "It is plain that baptism is to be conferred bypriests only, and it is not lawful even fordeacons to administer it without permission of thebishop orpriest." Thatdeacons were, however,ministers of thissacrament bydelegation is evident from the quotations adduced. In the service ofordination of adeacon, thebishop says to the candidate: "It behooves adeacon tominister at thealtar, to baptize and to preach." Philip the deacon is mentioned in theBible (Acts 8) as conferring baptism, presumably bydelegation of theApostles.
It is to be noted that though everypriest, in virtue of hisordination is the ordinaryminister of baptism, yet byecclesiastical decrees he can not use this power licitly unless he hasjurisdiction. Hence theRoman Ritual declares: The legitimateminister of baptism is theparishpriest, or any otherpriestdelegated by theparishpriest or thebishop of the place." TheSecond Plenary Council of Baltimore adds: "Priests are deserving of grave reprehension who rashly baptize infants of anotherparish or of anotherdiocese."St. Alphonsus (n. 114) says thatparents who bring their children for baptism withoutnecessity to apriest other than their ownpastor, are guilty ofsin because they violate therights of theparishpriest. He adds, however, that otherpriests may baptize such children, if they have the permission, whether express, or tacit, or even reasonably presumed, of the properpastor. Those who have nosettled place of abode may be baptized by thepastor of any church they choose.
In case ofnecessity, baptism can be administered lawfully and validly by anyperson whatsoever who observes the essentialconditions, whether thisperson be aCatholiclayman or any other man orwoman,heretic orschismatic,infidel orJew.
The essentialconditions are that theperson pour water upon the one to be baptized, at the sametime pronouncing the words: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of theSon and of theHoly Ghost." Moreover, he must thereby intend really to baptize theperson, or technically, he must intend to perform what theChurch performs when administering thissacrament.
TheRoman Ritual adds that, even in conferring baptism in cases ofnecessity, there is an order of preference to be followed as to theminister. This order is: if apriest be present, he is to be preferred to adeacon, adeacon to asubdeacon, acleric to alayman, and a man to awoman, unless modesty should require (as in cases of childbirth) that no other than thefemale be theminister, or again, unless thefemale should understand better the method of baptizing. TheRitual also says that the father or mother should not baptize their own child, except in danger of death when no one else is at hand who could administer thesacrament. Pastors are also directed by theRitual to teach thefaithful, and especiallymidwives, the proper method of baptizing. When such private baptism is administered, the otherceremonies of therite are supplied later by apriest, if the recipient of thesacrament survives.
Thisright of anyperson whatsoever to baptize in case ofnecessity is in accord with the constanttradition and practice of theChurch.Tertullian (On Baptism 7) says, speaking oflaymen who have an opportunity to administer baptism: "He will be guilty of the loss of asoul, if he neglects to confer what he freely can,"St. Jerome (Against the Luciferians 9): "In case ofnecessity, weknow that it is also allowable for alayman [to baptize]; for as aperson receives, so may he give," TheFourth Council of the Lateran (cap. Firmiter)decrees: "The Sacrament of Baptism . . . no matter by whom conferred is available tosalvation,"St. Isidore of Seville (can. Romanus de cons., iv) declares: "TheSpirit of God administers thegrace of baptism, although it be apagan who does the baptizing,"Pope Nicholas I teaches theBulgarians (Resp. 104) that baptism by aJew or apagan is valid.
Owing to the fact thatwomen are barred from enjoying anyspecies ofecclesiastical jurisdiction, the question necessarily arose concerning their ability to bestow valid baptism.Tertullian (On Baptism 17) strongly opposes the administration of thissacrament bywomen, but he does not declare it void. In like manner, St. Epiphanius (Hær., lxxix) says offemales: "Not even the power of baptizing has been granted to them", but he is speaking ofsolemn baptism, which is a function of thepriesthood. Similar expressions may be found in the writings of otherFathers, but only when they are opposing the grotesque doctrine of someheretics, like theMarcionites, Pepuzians, andCataphrygians, who wished to makeChristian priestesses ofwomen. The authoritative decision of theChurch, however, is plain.Pope Urban II (c. Super quibus, xxx, 4) writes, "It istrue baptism if awoman in case ofnecessity baptizes a child in the name of theTrinity." TheFlorentinedecree for theArmenians says explicitly: "In case ofnecessity, not only apriest or adeacon, but even alayman orwoman, nay even apagan orheretic may confer baptism."
The main reason for this extension of power as to the administration of baptism is of course that theChurch has understood from the beginning that this was the will ofChrist.St. Thomas (III:62:3) says that owing to the absolutenecessity of baptism for thesalvation ofsouls, it is in accordance with the mercy ofGod, who wishes all to besaved, that the means of obtaining thissacrament should be put, as far as possible, within the reach of all; and as for that reason thematter of thesacrament was made of common water, which can most easily be had, so in like manner it was only proper that everyman should be made itsminister. Finally, it is to be noted that, by thelaw of theChurch, theperson administering baptism, even in cases ofnecessity, contracts a spiritualrelationship with the child and itsparents. Thisrelationship constitutes animpediment that would make a subsequent marriage with any of them null and void unless adispensation were obtained beforehand.SeeAFFINITY.
Everylivinghuman being, not yet baptized, is the subject of thissacrament.
As regards adults there is no difficulty or controversy.Christ's command excepts no one when He bids theApostles teach all nations and baptize them.
Infant baptism has, however, been the subject of much dispute. TheWaldenses andCathari and later theAnabaptists, rejected thedoctrine that infants are capable of receiving valid baptism, and some sectarians at the present day hold the same opinion.
TheCatholicChurch, however, maintains absolutely that thelaw ofChrist applies as well to infants as to adults. When theRedeemer declares (John 3) that it isnecessary to be born again of water and theHoly Ghost in order to enter theKingdom of God, His words may be justly understood to mean that He includes all who are capable of having aright to thiskingdom. Now, He has asserted such aright even for those who are not adults, when He says (Matthew 19:14): "Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for thekingdom of heaven is for such." It has been objected that this latter text does not refer to infants, inasmuch asChrist says "to come to me". In the parallel passage inSt. Luke (18:15), however, the text reads: "And they brought unto him also infants, that he might touch them"; and then follow the words cited fromSt. Matthew. In the Greek text, the wordsbrephe andprosepheron refer to infants in arms.
Moreover,St. Paul (Colossians 2) says that baptism in the New Law has taken the place ofcircumcision in theOld. It was especially to infants that therite ofcircumcision was applied by Divine precept. If it be said that there is no example of the baptism of infants to be found in theBible, we may answer that infants are included in such phrases as: "She was baptized and her household" (Acts 16:15); "Himself was baptized, and all his house immediately" (Acts 16:33); "I baptized the household of Stephanus" (1 Corinthians 1:16).
Thetradition ofChristian antiquity as to thenecessity of infant baptism is clear from the very beginning. We have given many striking quotations on this subject already, in dealing with thenecessity of baptism. A few, therefore, will suffice here.
Theologians also call attention to the fact that asGod sincerely wishes allmen to besaved, He does not exclude infants, for whom baptism of either water or blood is the only means possible. Thedoctrines also of the universality oforiginal sin and of the all-comprehendingatonement ofChrist are stated so plainly and absolutely inScripture as to leave no solidreason for denying that infants are included as well as adults.
To the objection that baptism requiresfaith,theologians reply that adults must havefaith, but infants receive habitualfaith, which is infused into them in thesacrament ofregeneration. As to actualfaith, theybelieve on thefaith of another; asSt. Augustine (De Verb. Apost., xiv, xviii) beautifully says: "Hebelieves by another, who hassinned by another."
As to theobligation imposed by baptism, the infant isobliged to fulfill them in proportion to its age and capacity, as is the case with alllaws.Christ, it istrue, prescribed instruction and actualfaith for adults asnecessary for baptism (Matthew 28;Mark 16), but in His generallaw on thenecessity of thesacrament (John 3) He makes absolutely no restriction as to the subject of baptism; and consequently while infants are included in thelaw, they can not be required to fulfillconditions that are utterly impossible at their age.
While not denying the validity of infant baptism,Tertullian (De Bapt., xviii) desired that thesacrament be not conferred upon them until they have attained theuse of reason, on account of the danger of profaning their baptism as youths amid the allurements ofpaganvice. In like manner,St. Gregory Nazianzen (Or. xl, De Bapt.) thought that baptism, unless there was danger of death, should be deferred until the child was three years old, for then it could hear and respond at theceremonies. Such opinions, however, were shared by few, and they contain no denial of the validity of infant baptism. It istrue that the Council of Neocæsarea (can. vi) declares that an infant can not be baptized in its mother's womb, but it was teaching only that neither the baptism of the mother nor herfaith is common to her and the infant in her womb, but are acts peculiar to the mother alone.
This leads to the baptism of infants in cases of difficult delivery. When theRoman Ritual declares that a child is not to be baptized while still enclosed (clausus) in its mother's womb, it supposes that the baptismal water can not reach the body of the child. When, however, this seems possible, even with the aid of an instrument,Benedict XIV (Syn. Diaec., vii, 5) declares thatmidwives should be instructed to confer conditional baptism. TheRitual further says that when the water can flow upon the head of the infant thesacrament is to be administered absolutely; but if it can be poured only on some other part of the body, baptism is indeed to be conferred, but it must be conditionally repeated in case the child survives its birth, It is to be noted that in these last two cases, therubric of theRitual supposes that the infant has partly emerged from the womb. For if the fetus was entirely enclosed, baptism is to be repeated conditionally in all cases (Lehmkuhl, n, 61).
In case of the death of the mother, the fetus is to be immediately extracted and baptized, should there be anylife in it. Infants have been taken alive from the womb well after the mother's death. After the Cæsarean incision has been performed, the fetus may be conditionally baptized before extraction if possible; if thesacrament is administered after its removal from the womb the baptism is to be absolute, provided it iscertain thatlife remains. If after extraction it isdoubtful whether it be still alive, it is to be baptized under thecondition: "If thou art alive". Physicians, mothers, andmidwives ought to be reminded of the graveobligation of administering baptism under these circumstances. It is to be borne in mind that according to the prevailing opinion among the learned, the fetus is animated by ahumansoul from the very beginning of its conception. In cases of delivery where the issue is a mass that is not certainly animated byhumanlife, it is to be baptized conditionally: "If thou art aman."
The perpetuallyinsane, who have never had the use ofreason, are in the samecategory as infants in what relates to the conferring of baptism, and consequently thesacrament is valid if administered.
If at onetime they had been sane, baptism bestowed upon them during theirinsanity would be probably invalid unless they had shown a desire for it before losing theirreason.Moralists teach that, in practice, this latter class may always be baptized conditionally, when it is uncertain whether or not they had ever asked for baptism (Sabetti, no. 661). In this connection it is to be remarked that, according to many writers, anyone who has a wish to receive all thingsnecessary tosalvation, has at the sametime an implicit desire for baptism, and that a more specific desire is not absolutelynecessary.
Foundlings are to be baptized conditionally, if there is no means of finding out whether they have been validly baptized or not. If a note has been left with a foundling stating that it had already received baptism, the more common opinion is that it should nevertheless be given conditional baptism, unless circumstances should make it plain that baptism had undoubtedly been conferred. O'Kane (no. 214) says that the same rule is to be followed whenmidwives or otherlay persons have baptized infants in case ofnecessity.
The question is also discussed as to whether the infant children ofJews orinfidels may be baptized against the will of theirparents. To the general query, the answer is a decided negative, because such a baptism would violate the naturalrights ofparents, and the infant would later be exposed to the danger of perversion. We say this, of course, only in regard to the liceity of such a baptism, for if it were actually administered it would undoubtedly be valid.St. Thomas (III:68:10) is very express in denying the lawfulness of imparting such baptism, and this has been the constant judgment of theHoly See, as is evident from variousdecrees of the Sacred Congregations and ofPope Benedict XIV (II Bullarii). We say the answer is negative to the general question, because particular circumstances may require a different response. For it would undoubtedly be licit to impart such baptism if the children were in proximate danger of death; or if they had been removed from theparental care and there was no likelihood of their returning to it; or if they were perpetuallyinsane; or if one of theparents were toconsent to the baptism; or finally, if, after the death of the father, the paternal grandfather would be willing, even though the mother objected. If the children were, however, not infants, but had the use ofreason and were sufficiently instructed, they should be baptized whenprudence dictated such a course.
In the celebrated case of theJewish child, Edgar Mortara,Pius IX indeed ordered that he should be brought up as aCatholic, even against the will of hisparents, but baptism had already been administered to him some years before when in danger of death.
It is not licit to baptize children against the will of theirProtestantparents; for their baptism would violateparentalright, expose them to the danger of perversion, and be contrary to the practice of theChurch.Kenrick also strongly condemns nurses who baptize the children ofProtestants unless they are in danger of death.
Should apriest baptize the child of non-Catholicparents if they themselves desire it? He certainly can do so if there is reason tohope that the child will be brought up aCatholic (First Provincial Council of Baltimore, decr. x). An even greater security for theCatholiceducation of such child would be the promise of one or bothparents that they themselves will embrace theFaith.
Concerning baptism for the dead, a curious and difficult passage inSt. Paul's Epistle has given rise to some controversy. TheApostle says: "Otherwise what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? Why are they then baptized for them?" (1 Corinthians 15:29). There seems to be no question here of any such absurdcustom as conferring baptism on corpses, as was practiced later by somehereticalsects. It has been conjectured that this otherwise unknown usage of the Corinthians consisted in somelivingperson receiving a symbolic baptism as representing another who had died with the desire of becoming aChristian, but had been prevented from realizing his wish for baptism by an unforeseen death. Those who give this explanation say thatSt. Paul merely refers to thiscustom of the Corinthians as anargumentum ad hominem, when discussing theresurrection of the dead, without approving the usage mentioned.
Archbishop MacEvilly in his exposition of theEpistles ofSt. Paul, holds a different opinion. He paraphrasesSt. Paul's text as follows: "Another argument in favor of theresurrection. If the dead will not arise, what means the profession offaith in theresurrection of the dead, made at baptism? Why are we all baptized with a profession of ourfaith in theirresurrection?" Thearchbishop comments, as follows:
It is almost impossible to glean anything likecertainty as to the meaning of these very abstruse words, from the host of interpretations that have been hazarded regarding them (seeCalmet's Dissertation on the matter).
In the first place, every interpretation referring the words 'baptized', or 'dead' to eithererroneous orevil practices, whichmen might have employed to express theirbelief in thedoctrine of the resurrection, should be rejected; as it appears by no means likely that theApostle would ground an argument, even though it were what thelogicians call anargumentum ad hominem, on either avicious orerroneous practice.
Besides, such a system of reasoning would be quite inconclusive. Hence, the words should not be referred to either theClinics, baptized at the hour of death, or to thevicarious baptisms in use among theJews, for their departed friends who departed without baptism.
The interpretation adopted in the paraphrase makes the words refer to the Sacrament of Baptism, which all wereobliged to approach withfaith in theresurrection of the dead as anecessarycondition. 'Credo inresurrectionem mortuorum'. This interpretation — the one adopted bySt. Chrysostom — has the advantage of giving the words 'baptized' and 'dead' their literal signification.
The only inconvenience in it is that the wordresurrection is introduced. But, it is understood from the entire context, and is warranted by a reference to other passages ofScripture. For, from theEpistle of the Hebrews (6:2) it appears that aknowledge of thefaith of theresurrection was one of the elementary points of instruction required for adult baptism; and hence theScriptures themselves furnish the ground for the introduction of the word.
There is another probable interpretation, which understands the words 'baptism' and 'dead' in a metaphorical sense, and refers them to the sufferings which theApostles and heralds ofsalvation underwent to preach theGospel to theinfidels,dead tograce and spiritual life, with thehope of making them sharers in theglory of ahappyresurrection. The word 'baptism' is employed in this sense inScripture, even by ourdivine Redeemer Himself — 'I have abaptism wherewith to be baptized', etc. And the word 'dead' is employed in several parts of theNew Testament to designate those spiritually dead tograce andjustice. In the Greek, the words 'for the dead',uper ton nekron that is,on account of or,in behalf of the dead, would serve to confirm, in some degree, this latter interpretation.
These appear to be the most probable of the interpretations of this passage; each, nodoubt, has its difficulties. The meaning of the words was known to the Corinthians at the time of theApostle. All that can be known of their meaning at this remote period, can not exceed the bounds of probable conjecture.
(loc. cit., chap. xv; cf. alsoCornely in Ep. I Cor.)
According to the canons of theChurch, baptism except in case ofnecessity is to be administered in churches (First Provincial Council of Baltimore, Decree 16). TheRoman Ritual says: "Churches in which there is abaptismal font, or where there is abaptistery close to the church". The term"baptistery" is commonly used for the space set aside for the conferring of baptism. In like manner the Greeks usephotisterion for the same purpose — a word derived fromSt. Paul's designation of baptism as an "illumination".
The words of theRitual just cited, however, mean by"baptistery", a separate building constructed for the purpose of administering baptism. Such buildings have been erected both in the East andWest, as atTyre,Padua,Pisa,Florence, and other places. In suchbaptisteries, besides thefont,altars were also built; and here the baptism was conferred. As a rule, however, the church itself contains a railed-off space containing thebaptismal font. Ancientlyfonts were attached only tocathedral churches, but at the present day nearly everyparish church has afont. This is the sense of theBaltimoredecree above cited. TheSecond Plenary Council of Baltimore declared, however, that if missionaries judge that the great difficulty of bringing an infant to church is a sufficientreason for baptizing in a private house, then they are to administer thesacrament with all the prescribedrites.
The ordinarylaw of theChurch is that when private baptism is conferred, the remainingceremonies are to be supplied not in the house but in the church itself. TheRitual also directs that thefont be of solid material, so that the baptismal water may be safely kept in it. A railing is to surround thefont, and a representation ofSt. John baptizingChrist should adorn it. The cover of thefont usually contains theholy oils used in baptism, and this cover must be under lock and key, according to theRitual.
In speaking of thematter of baptism, we stated thattrue, natural water is all that is required for its validity. In administeringsolemn baptism, however theChurch prescribes that the water used should have beenconsecrated onHoly Saturday or on theeve ofPentecost. For the liceity (not validity) of thesacrament, therefore, thepriest isobliged to useconsecrated water. Thiscustom is so ancient that we can not discover its origin. It is found in the most ancientliturgies of theLatin andGreek Churches and is mentioned in theApostolic Constitutions (VII, 43). Theceremony of itsconsecration is striking and symbolic. After signing the water with thecross, thepriest divides it with his hand and casts it to the four corners of the earth. This signifies the baptizing of all thenations. Then he breathes upon the water and immerses thepaschal candle in it.
Next he pours into the water, first theoil ofcatechumens and then thesacred chrism, and lastly bothholy oils together, pronouncing appropriateprayers. But what if during the year, the supply ofconsecrated water should be insufficient? In that case, theRitual declares that thepriest may add common water to what remains, but only in lessquantity. If theconsecrated water appears putrid, thepriest must examine whether or not it is really so, for the appearance may becaused only by the admixture of the sacred oils. If it has really become putrid, thefont is to be renovated and fresh water to beblessed by a form given in theRitual. In theUnited States, theHoly See hassanctioned a short formula for theconsecration of baptismal water (Second Plenary Council of Baltimore).
In baptism, thepriest uses theoil ofcatechumens, which is olive oil, andchrism, the latter being a mixture ofbalsam and oil. The oils areconsecrated by thebishop onMaundy Thursday. The anointing in baptism is recorded bySt. Justin,St. John Chrysostom, and other ancientFathers.Pope Innocent I declares that thechrism is to be applied to the crown of the head, not to the forehead, for the latter is reserved tobishops. The same may be found in the Sacramentaries ofSt. Gregory andSt. Gelasius (Martène, I, i). In theGreek Rite theoil ofcatechumens isblessed by thepriest during the baptismalceremony.
When infants are solemnly baptized,persons assist at theceremony to make profession of thefaith in the child's name. This practice comes from antiquity and iswitnessed to byTertullian,St. Basil,St. Augustine, and others. Suchpersons are designatedsponsores, offerentes, susceptores, fidejussores, andpatrini. The English term is godfather and godmother, or in Anglo-Saxon,gossip.
These sponsors, in default of the child'sparents, areobliged to instruct it concerningfaith andmorals. One sponsor is sufficient and not more than two are allowed. In the latter case, one should be male and the otherfemale. The object of these restrictions is the fact that the sponsor contracts a spiritualrelationship to the child and itsparents which would be animpediment to marriage. Sponsors must themselves be baptizedpersons having the use ofreason and they must have been designated as sponsors by thepriest orparents. During the baptism they must physically touch the child either personally or by proxy. They are required, moreover, to have theintention of really assuming theobligations of godparents. It is desirable that they should have been confirmed, but this is not absolutelynecessary. Certainpersons are prohibited from acting as sponsors. They are: members of religious orders, marriedpersons in respect to each other, orparents to their children, and in general those who are objectionable on such grounds asinfidelity,heresy,excommunication, or who are members of condemnedsecret societies, orpublic sinners (Sabetti, no. 663). Sponsors are also used in thesolemn baptism of adults. They are nevernecessary in private baptism.
From the earliest timesnames were given in baptism. Thepriest is directed to see that obscene, fabulous, and ridiculous names, or those ofheathen gods or ofinfidel men be not imposed. On the contrary thepriest is to recommend thenames ofsaints. Thisrubric is not a rigorousprecept, but it is an instruction to thepriest to do what he can in the matter. Ifparents are unreasonably obstinate, thepriest may add asaint's name to the one insisted upon.
In the primitiveChurch, a white robe was worn by thenewly baptized for a certain period after theceremony (St. Ambrose,On the Mysteries 7). Assolemn baptisms usually took place on the eves ofEaster orPentecost, the white garments became associated with those festivals. Thus,Sabbatum in Albis andDominica in Albis received their names from thecustom of putting off at thattime the baptismal robe which had been worn since the previousvigil of Easter. It is thought that the English name forPentecost —Whitsunday orWhitsuntide, also derived its appellation from the white garments of thenewly baptized. In our present ritual, a white veil is placed momentarily on the head of thecatechumen as a substitute for the baptismal robe.
Therites that accompany the baptismal ablution are as ancient as they are beautiful. The writings of the earlyFathers and the antiqueliturgies show that most of them are derived fromApostolic times.
The infant is brought to the door of the church by the sponsors, where it is met by thepriest. After the godparents have askedfaith from theChurch of God in the child's name, thepriest breathes upon its face andexorcises theevil spirit.St. Augustine (Ep. cxciv, Ad Sixtum) makes use of thisApostolic practice ofexorcising toprove theexistence oforiginal sin. Then the infant's forehead and breast aresigned with the cross, the symbol ofredemption.
Next follows theimposition of hands, acustom certainly as old as theApostles. Someblessedsalt is now placed in the mouth of the child. "Whensalt", says theCatechism of the Council of Trent "is put into the mouth ofperson to be baptized, it evidently imports that, by thedoctrine offaith and the gift ofgrace, he should be delivered from the corruption ofsin, experience a relish forgood works, and be delighted with the food of divine wisdom."
Placing hisstole over the child thepriest introduces it into the church, and on the way to thefont the sponsors make a profession offaith for the infant. Thepriest now touches the ears and nostrils of the child with spittle. The symbolic meaning is thus explained (Cat. C. Trid.) "His nostrils and ears are next touched with spittle and he is immediately sent to thebaptismal font, that, as sight was restored to the blind man mentioned in theGospel, whom theLord, after having spread clay over his eyes, commanded to wash them in the waters ofSiloe; so also he may understand that the efficacy of the sacred ablution is such as to bring light to themind to discernheavenlytruth."
Thecatechumen now makes the triple renunciation ofSatan, his works and his pomps, and he is anointed with theoil ofcatechumens on the breast and between the shoulders: "On the breast, that by thegift of theHoly Ghost, he may cast offerror andignorance and may receive thetruefaith, 'for thejustman liveth byfaith' (Galatians 3:11); on the shoulders, that by thegrace of theHoly Spirit, he may shake offnegligence and torpor and engage in the performance ofgoodworks; 'faith withoutworks is dead' (James 2:26)", says the Catechism.
The infant now, through its sponsors, makes a declaration offaith and asks for baptism. Thepriest, having meantime changed hisvioletstole for awhite one, then administers the threefold ablution, making thesign of the cross three times with the stream of water he pours on the head of the child, saying at the sametime: "N___, I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of theSon and of theHoly Ghost." The sponsors during the ablution either hold the child or at least touch it. If the baptism be given by immersion, thepriest dips the back part of the head three times into the water in the form of a cross, pronouncing thesacramental words. The crown of the child's head is now anointed withchrism, "to give him to understand that from that day he is united as a member toChrist, his head, and engrafted on His body; and therefore he is called aChristian fromChrist, butChrist fromchrism" (Catech.). A white veil is now put on the infant's head with the words: "Receive this white garment, which mayest thou carry without stain before the judgment seat ofOur Lord Jesus Christ, that thou mayest haveeternallife.Amen." Then a lightedcandle is placed in thecatechumen's hand, thepriest saying: "Receive this burning light, and keep thy baptism so as to be without blame. Observe thecommandments of God; that, whenOur Lord shall come to His nuptials, thou mayest meet Him together with all the Saints and mayest havelifeeverlasting, and live for ever and ever.Amen." The newChristian is then bidden to go in peace.
In the baptism of adults, all the essentialceremonies are the same as for infants. There are, however, some impressive additions. Thepriest wears thecope over his othervestments, and he should be attended by a number ofclerics or at least by two. While thecatechumen waits outside the church door, thepriest recites someprayers at thealtar. Then he proceeds to the place where the candidate is, and asks him the questions and performs theexorcisms almost as prescribed in theritual for infants. Before administering theblessedsalt, however, he requires thecatechumen to make an explicit renunciation of the form oferror to which he had formerly adhered, and he is thensigned with the cross on the brow, ears, eyes, nostrils, mouth, breast, and between the shoulders. Afterwards, the candidate, onbended knees, recites three several times theLord's Prayer, and across is made on his forehead, first by the godfather and then by thepriest. After this, taking him by the hand, thepriest leads him into the church, where headores prostrate and then rising he recites theApostles' Creed and theLord's Prayer. The otherceremonies are practically the same as for infants. It is to be noted that owing to the difficulty of carrying out with proper splendor theritual for baptizing adults, thebishops of theUnited States obtained permission from theHoly See to make use of the ceremonial of infant baptism instead. This generaldispensation lasted until 1857, when the ordinarylaw of theChurch went into force. (See COUNCILS OF BALTIMORE.) Some Americandioceses, however, obtainedindividual permissions to continue the use of theritual for infants when administering adult baptism.
The name "baptism" is sometimes applied improperly to otherceremonies.
This name has been given to theblessing ofbells, at least inFrance, since the eleventh century. It is derived from the washing of thebell withholy water by thebishop, before he anoints it with theoil of the infirm without and withchrism within. A fumingcenser is then placed under it. Thebishopprays that thesesacramentals of theChurch may, at the sound of thebell, put thedemons to flight, protect from storms, and call thefaithful toprayer.
At least since thetime of theCrusades, rituals have contained ablessing for ships. Thepriest begsGod tobless the vessel and protect those who sail in it, as He did theark of Noah, andPeter, when theApostle was sinking in the sea. The ship is then sprinkled withholy water.
APA citation.Fanning, W.(1907).Baptism. InThe Catholic Encyclopedia.New York: Robert Appleton Company.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm
MLA citation.Fanning, William."Baptism."The Catholic Encyclopedia.Vol. 2.New York: Robert Appleton Company,1907.<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm>.
Transcription.This article was transcribed for New Advent by Charles Sweeney, S.J.
Ecclesiastical approbation.Nihil Obstat. 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor.Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmasterat newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.