Tertia Pars · Baptism and Confirmation

Of the Sacrament of Baptism

III, q. 66 · Twelve articles

Prooemium · Thomas's plan for this question

Deinde considerandum est de singulis sacramentis in speciali. Et primo, de Baptismo; secundo, de confirmatione; tertio, de Eucharistia; quarto, de poenitentia; quinto, de extrema unctione; sexto, de ordine; septimo, de matrimonio. Circa primum occurrit duplex consideratio, prima, de ipso Baptismo; secunda, de praeparatoriis Baptismi. Circa primum quatuor consideranda occurrunt, primo, de his quae pertinent ad sacramentum Baptismi; secundo, de ministro huius sacramenti; tertio, de recipientibus hoc sacramentum; quarto, de effectu huius sacramenti. Circa primum quaeruntur duodecim. Primo, quid sit Baptismus, utrum sit ablutio. Secundo, de institutione huius sacramenti. Tertio, utrum aqua sit propria materia huius sacramenti. Quarto, utrum requiratur aqua simplex. Quinto, utrum haec sit conveniens forma huius sacramenti, ego te baptizo in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti. Sexto, utrum sub hac forma possit aliquis baptizari, ego te baptizo in nomine Christi. Septimo, utrum immersio sit de necessitate Baptismi. Octavo, utrum requiratur trina immersio. Nono, utrum Baptismus possit iterari. Decimo, de ritu Baptismi. Undecimo, de distinctione Baptismatum. Duodecimo, de comparatione Baptismatum.

We have now to consider each sacrament specially: (1) Baptism; (2) Confirmation; (3) the Eucharist; (4) Penance; (5) Extreme Unction; (6) Order; (7) Matrimony.

Concerning the first, our consideration will be twofold: (1) of Baptism itself; (2) of things preparatory to Baptism.

Concerning the first, four points arise for our consideration: (1) Things pertaining to the sacrament of Baptism; (2) The minister of this sacrament; (3) The recipients of this sacrament; (4) The effect of this sacrament.

Concerning the first there are twelve points of inquiry:

(1) What is Baptism? Is it a washing?

(2) Of the institution of this sacrament;

(3) Whether water be the proper matter of this sacrament?

(4) Whether plain water be required?

(5) Whether this be a suitable form of this sacrament: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"?

(6) Whether one could baptize with this form: "I baptize thee in the name of Christ?"

(7) Whether immersion is necessary for Baptism?

(8) Whether trine immersion is necessary?

(9) Whether Baptism can be reiterated?

(10) Of the Baptismal rite;

(11) Of the various kinds of Baptism;

(12) Of the comparison between various Baptisms.

  1. 1 Whether Baptism Is the Mere Washing?
  2. 2 Whether Baptism Was Instituted After Christ's Passion?
  3. 3 Whether Water Is the Proper Matter of Baptism?
  4. 4 Whether Plain Water Is Necessary for Baptism?
  5. 5 Whether This Be a Suitable Form of Baptism: "I Baptize Thee in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"?
  6. 6 Whether Baptism Can Be Conferred in the Name of Christ?
  7. 7 Whether Immersion in Water Is Necessary for Baptism?
  8. 8 Whether Trine Immersion Is Essential to Baptism?
  9. 9 Whether Baptism May Be Reiterated?
  10. 10 Whether the Church Observes a Suitable Rite in Baptizing?
  11. 11 Whether Three Kinds of Baptism Are Fittingly Described—viz. Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit?
  12. 12 Whether the Baptism of Blood Is the Most Excellent of These?

Articulus I

Whether Baptism Is the Mere Washing?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Baptismus non sit ipsa ablutio. Ablutio enim corporalis transit. Baptismus autem permanet. Ergo Baptismus non est ipsa ablutio, sed potius regeneratio et sigillum et custodia et illuminatio, ut Damascenus dicit, in IV libro.

It seems that Baptism is not the mere washing. For the washing of the body is something transitory: but Baptism is something permanent. Therefore Baptism is not the mere washing; but rather is it "the regeneration, the seal, the safeguarding, the enlightenment," as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv).

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, Hugo de sancto Victore dicit quod Baptismus est aqua diluendis criminibus sanctificata per verbum Dei. Aqua autem non est ipsa ablutio, sed ablutio est quidam usus aquae.

Further, Hugh of St. Victor says (De Sacram. ii) that "Baptism is water sanctified by God's word for the blotting out of sins." But the washing itself is not water, but a certain use of water.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, super Ioan., accedit verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum. Elementum autem est ipsa aqua. Ergo Baptismus est ipsa aqua, non autem ablutio.

Further, Augustine says (Tract. lxxx super Joan.): "The word is added to the element, and this becomes a sacrament." Now, the element is the water. Therefore Baptism is the water and not the washing.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod dicitur Eccli. XXXIV, qui baptizatur a mortuo et iterum tangit mortuum, quid proficit lotio eius? Videtur ergo quod Baptismus sit ipsa ablutio, sive lotio.

On the contrary, It is written (Ecclus. 34:30): "He that washeth himself (baptizatur) after touching the dead, if he touch him again, what does his washing avail?" It seems, therefore, that Baptism is the washing or bathing.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod in sacramento Baptismi est tria considerare, aliquid scilicet quod est sacramentum tantum; aliquid autem quod est res et sacramentum; aliquid autem quod est res tantum. Sacramentum autem tantum est aliquid visibile exterius existens, quod scilicet est signum interioris effectus, hoc enim pertinet ad rationem sacramenti. Exterius autem suppositum sensui est et ipsa aqua, et usus eius, qui est ablutio. Quidam ergo existimaverunt quod ipsa aqua sit sacramentum. Quod quidem sonare videntur verba Hugonis de sancto Victore. Nam ipse in communi definitione sacramenti dicit quod est materiale elementum, et in definitione Baptismi dicit quod est aqua. Sed hoc non est verum. Cum enim sacramenta novae legis sanctificationem quandam operentur, ibi perficitur sacramentum ubi perficitur sanctificatio. In aqua autem non perficitur sanctificatio, sed est ibi quaedam sanctificationis virtus instrumentalis, non permanens, sed fluens in hominem, qui est verae sanctificationis subiectum. Et ideo sacramentum non perficitur in ipsa aqua, sed in applicatione aquae ad hominem, quae est ablutio. Et ideo Magister, in III dist. IV Sent., dicit quod Baptismus est ablutio corporis exterior facta sub forma praescripta verborum. Res autem et sacramentum est character baptismalis, qui est res significata per exteriorem ablutionem, et est signum sacramentale interioris iustificationis. Quae est res tantum huius sacramenti, scilicet, significata et non significans.

I answer that, In the sacrament of Baptism, three things may be considered: namely, that which is sacrament only; that which is reality and sacrament; and that which is reality only. That which is sacrament only, is something visible and outward; the sign, namely, of the inward effect: for such is the very nature of a sacrament. And this outward something that can be perceived by the sense is both the water itself and its use, which is the washing. Hence some have thought that the water itself is the sacrament: which seems to be the meaning of the passage quoted from Hugh of St. Victor. For in the general definition of a sacrament he says that it is "a material element": and in defining Baptism he says it is "water."

But this is not true. For since the sacraments of the New Law effect a certain sanctification, there the sacrament is completed where the sanctification is completed. Now, the sanctification is not completed in water; but a certain sanctifying instrumental virtue, not permanent but transient, passes from the water, in which it is, into man who is the subject of true sanctification. Consequently the sacrament is not completed in the very water, but in applying the water to man, i.e. in the washing. Hence the Master (iv, 3) says that "Baptism is the outward washing of the body done together with the prescribed form of words."

The Baptismal character is both reality and sacrament: because it is something real signified by the outward washing; and a sacramental sign of the inward justification: and this last is the reality only, in this sacrament—namely, the reality signified and not signifying.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod id quod est sacramentum et res, scilicet character, et id quod est res tantum, scilicet interior iustificatio, permanent, sed character permanet indelebiliter, ut supra dictum est; iustificatio autem permanet, sed amissibiliter. Damascenus ergo Baptismum definivit, non quantum ad id quod exterius agitur, quod est sacramentum tantum, sed quantum ad id quod est interius. Unde posuit duo pertinentia ad characterem, scilicet sigillum et custodiam, inquantum ipse character, qui sigillum dicitur, quantum est de se, custodit animam in bono. Duo etiam ponit pertinentia ad ultimam rem sacramenti, scilicet regenerationem, quae ad hoc pertinet quod per Baptismum homo inchoat novam vitam iustitiae; et illuminationem, quae pertinet specialiter ad fidem, per quam homo spiritualem vitam accipit, secundum illud Habacuc II, iustus autem ex fide vivit; Baptismus autem est quaedam fidei protestatio. Unde dicitur fidei sacramentum. Et similiter Dionysius Baptismum definivit per ordinem ad alia sacramenta, dicens, II cap. Eccles. Hier., quod est quoddam principium sanctissimorum mandatorum sacrae actionis, ad eorum susceptivam opportunitatem formans nostros animales habitus. Et iterum in ordine ad caelestem gloriam, quae est universalis finis sacramentorum, cum subdit, ad supercaelestis quietis anagogen nostrum iter faciens. Et iterum quantum ad principium spiritualis vitae, per hoc quod subdit, sacrae et divinissimae nostrae regenerationis traditio.

That which is both sacrament and reality—i.e. the character—and that which is reality only—i.e. the inward justification—remain: the character remains and is indelible, as stated above (Q. 63, A. 5); the justification remains, but can be lost. Consequently Damascene defined Baptism, not as to that which is done outwardly, and is the sacrament only; but as to that which is inward. Hence he sets down two things as pertaining to the character—namely, "seal" and "safeguarding"; inasmuch as the character which is called a seal, so far as itself is concerned, safeguards the soul in good. He also sets down two things as pertaining to the ultimate reality of the sacrament—namely, "regeneration" which refers to the fact that man by being baptized begins the new life of righteousness; and "enlightenment," which refers especially to faith, by which man receives spiritual life, according to Habac 2 (Heb. 10:38; cf. Habac 2:4): "But (My) just man liveth by faith"; and Baptism is a sort of protestation of faith; whence it is called the "Sacrament of Faith." Likewise Dionysius defined Baptism by its relation to the other sacraments, saying (Eccl. Hier. ii) that it is "the principle that forms the habits of the soul for the reception of those most holy words and sacraments"; and again by its relation to heavenly glory, which is the universal end of all the sacraments, when he adds, "preparing the way for us, whereby we mount to the repose of the heavenly kingdom"; and again as to the beginning of spiritual life, when he adds, "the conferring of our most sacred and Godlike regeneration."

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, opinionem Hugonis de sancto Victore in hac parte sequi non oportet. Potest tamen verificari ut Baptismus dicatur aqua esse, quia aqua est materiale Baptismi principium. Et sic erit praedicatio per causam.

As already stated, the opinion of Hugh of St. Victor on this question is not to be followed. Nevertheless the saying that "Baptism is water" may be verified in so far as water is the material principle of Baptism: and thus there would be "causal predication."

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, accedente verbo ad elementum fit sacramentum, non quidem in ipso elemento, sed in homine, cui adhibetur elementum per usum ablutionis. Et hoc etiam significat ipsum verbum quod accedit ad elementum, cum dicitur, ego te baptizo, et cetera.

When the words are added, the element becomes a sacrament, not in the element itself, but in man, to whom the element is applied, by being used in washing him. Indeed, this is signified by those very words which are added to the element, when we say: "I baptize thee," etc.

Articulus II

Whether Baptism Was Instituted After Christ's Passion?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Baptismus fuerit institutus post Christi passionem. Causa enim praecedit effectum. Sed passio Christi operatur in sacramentis novae legis. Ergo passio Christi praecedit institutionem sacramentorum novae legis. Et praecipue institutionem Baptismi, cum apostolus dicat, Rom. VI, quicumque baptizati sumus in Christo Iesu, in morte ipsius baptizati sumus, et cetera.

It seems that Baptism was instituted after Christ's Passion. For the cause precedes the effect. Now Christ's Passion operates in the sacraments of the New Law. Therefore Christ's Passion precedes the institution of the sacraments of the New Law: especially the sacrament of Baptism since the Apostle says (Rom. 6:3): "All we, who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death," etc.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, sacramenta novae legis efficaciam habent ex mandato Christi. Sed Christus mandatum baptizandi dedit discipulis post passionem et resurrectionem suam, dicens, euntes, docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine patris, etc., ut habetur Matth. ult. Ergo videtur quod post passionem Christi Baptismus fuerit institutus.

Further, the sacraments of the New Law derive their efficacy from the mandate of Christ. But Christ gave the disciples the mandate of Baptism after His Passion and Resurrection, when He said: "Going, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father," etc. (Matt. 28:19). Therefore it seems that Baptism was instituted after Christ's Passion.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, Baptismus est sacramentum necessitatis, ut supra dictum est, et ita videtur quod ex quo Baptismus institutus fuit, homines obligarentur ad Baptismum. Sed ante passionem Christi homines non obligabantur ad Baptismum, quia adhuc circumcisio suam virtutem habebat, in cuius loco successit Baptismus. Ergo videtur quod Baptismus non fuerit institutus ante passionem Christi.

Further, Baptism is a necessary sacrament, as stated above (Q. 65, A. 4): wherefore, seemingly, it must have been binding on man as soon as it was instituted. But before Christ's Passion men were not bound to be baptized: for Circumcision was still in force, which was supplanted by Baptism. Therefore it seems that Baptism was not instituted before Christ's Passion.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in quodam sermone Epiphaniae, ex quo Christus in aquis immergitur, ex eo omnium peccata abluit aqua. Sed hoc fuit ante Christi passionem. Ergo Baptismus ante Christi passionem fuit institutus.

On the contrary, Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (Append. Serm., clxxxv): "As soon as Christ was plunged into the waters, the waters washed away the sins of all." But this was before Christ's Passion. Therefore Baptism was instituted before Christ's Passion.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est supra, sacramenta ex sui institutione habent quod conferant gratiam. Unde tunc videtur aliquod sacramentum institui, quando accipit virtutem producendi suum effectum. Hanc autem virtutem accepit Baptismus quando Christus est baptizatus. Unde tunc vere Baptismus institutus fuit, quantum ad ipsum sacramentum. Sed necessitas utendi hoc sacramento indicta fuit hominibus post passionem et resurrectionem. Tum quia in passione Christi terminata sunt figuralia sacramenta, quibus succedit Baptismus et alia sacramenta novae legis. Tum etiam quia per Baptismum configuratur homo passioni et resurrectioni Christi, inquantum moritur peccato et incipit novam iustitiae vitam. Et ideo oportuit Christum pati prius et resurgere quam hominibus indiceretur necessitas se configurandi morti et resurrectioni eius.

I answer that, As stated above (Q. 62, A. 1), sacraments derive from their institution the power of conferring grace. Wherefore it seems that a sacrament is then instituted, when it receives the power of producing its effect. Now Baptism received this power when Christ was baptized. Consequently Baptism was truly instituted then, if we consider it as a sacrament. But the obligation of receiving this sacrament was proclaimed to mankind after the Passion and Resurrection. First, because Christ's Passion put an end to the figurative sacraments, which were supplanted by Baptism and the other sacraments of the New Law. Secondly, because by Baptism man is "made conformable" to Christ's Passion and Resurrection, in so far as he dies to sin and begins to live anew unto righteousness. Consequently it behooved Christ to suffer and to rise again, before proclaiming to man his obligation of conforming himself to Christ's Death and Resurrection.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod etiam ante passionem Christi Baptismus habebat efficaciam a Christi passione, inquantum eam praefigurabat, aliter tamen quam sacramenta veteris legis. Nam illa erant figurae tantum, Baptismus autem ab ipso Christo virtutem habebat iustificandi, per cuius virtutem etiam ipsa passio salutifera fuit.

Even before Christ's Passion, Baptism, inasmuch as it foreshadowed it, derived its efficacy therefrom; but not in the same way as the sacraments of the Old Law. For these were mere figures: whereas Baptism derived the power of justifying from Christ Himself, to Whose power the Passion itself owed its saving virtue.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod homines non debebant multiplicibus figuris arctari per Christum, qui venerat sua veritate figuras impletas auferre. Et ideo ante passionem suam Baptismum institutum non posuit sub praecepto, sed voluit ad eius exercitium homines assuefieri; et praecipue in populo Iudaeorum, apud quem omnia facta figuralia erant, ut Augustinus dicit, contra Faustum. Post passionem vero et resurrectionem, non solum Iudaeis, sed etiam gentilibus suo praecepto necessitatem Baptismi imposuit, dicens, euntes, docete omnes gentes.

It was not meet that men should be restricted to a number of figures by Christ, Who came to fulfil and replace the figure by His reality. Therefore before His Passion He did not make Baptism obligatory as soon as it was instituted; but wished men to become accustomed to its use; especially in regard to the Jews, to whom all things were figurative, as Augustine says (Contra Faust. iv). But after His Passion and Resurrection He made Baptism obligatory, not only on the Jews, but also on the Gentiles, when He gave the commandment: "Going, teach ye all nations."

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod sacramenta non sunt obligatoria nisi quando sub praecepto ponuntur. Quod quidem non fuit ante passionem, ut dictum est. Quod enim dominus ante passionem Nicodemo dixit, Ioan. III, nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei, magis videtur ad futurum respicere quam ad praesens tempus.

Sacraments are not obligatory except when we are commanded to receive them. And this was not before the Passion, as stated above. For our Lord's words to Nicodemus (John 3:5), "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, seem to refer to the future rather than to the present."

Articulus III

Whether Water Is the Proper Matter of Baptism?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod aqua non sit propria materia Baptismi. Baptismus enim, secundum Dionysium et Damascenum, habet vim illuminativam. Sed illuminatio maxime competit igni. Ergo Baptismus magis debet fieri in igne quam in aqua, praesertim cum Ioannes Baptista, praenuntians Christi Baptismum, dicat, ille vos baptizabit in spiritu sancto et igni.

It seems that water is not the proper matter of Baptism. For Baptism, according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v) and Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv), has a power of enlightening. But enlightenment is a special characteristic of fire. Therefore Baptism should be conferred with fire rather than with water: and all the more since John the Baptist said when foretelling Christ's Baptism (Matt. 3:11): "He shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire."

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, in Baptismo significatur ablutio peccatorum. Sed multa alia sunt ablutiva quam aqua, sicut vinum et oleum et alia huiusmodi. Ergo etiam in his potest fieri Baptismus. Non ergo aqua est propria materia Baptismi.

Further, the washing away of sins is signified in Baptism. But many other things besides water are employed in washing, such as wine, oil, and such like. Therefore Baptism can be conferred with these also; and consequently water is not the proper matter of Baptism.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, sacramenta Ecclesiae fluxerunt de latere Christi pendentis in cruce, ut supra dictum est. Sed inde fluxit non solum aqua, sed etiam sanguis. Ergo videtur quod etiam in sanguine possit fieri Baptismus. Quod etiam magis videtur convenire cum effectu Baptismi, quia dicitur Apoc. I, lavit nos a peccatis nostris in sanguine suo.

Further, the sacraments of the Church flowed from the side of Christ hanging on the cross, as stated above (Q. 62, A. 5). But not only water flowed therefrom, but also blood. Therefore it seems that Baptism can also be conferred with blood. And this seems to be more in keeping with the effect of Baptism, because it is written (Apoc. 1:5): "(Who) washed us from our sins in His own blood."

Arg. 4 Objection 4

Praeterea, sicut Augustinus et Beda dicunt, Christus tactu suae mundissimae carnis vim regenerativam et purgativam contulit aquis. Sed non omnis aqua continuatur cum aqua Iordanis, quam Christus tetigit sua carne. Ergo videtur quod non in omni aqua possit fieri Baptismus. Et ita aqua, inquantum huiusmodi, non est propria materia Baptismi.

Further, as Augustine (cf. Master of the Sentences, iv, 3) and Bede (Exposit. in Luc. iii, 21) say, Christ, by "the touch of His most pure flesh, endowed the waters with a regenerating and cleansing virtue." But all waters are not connected with the waters of the Jordan which Christ touched with His flesh. Consequently it seems that Baptism cannot be conferred with any water; and therefore water, as such, is not the proper matter of Baptism.

Arg. 5 Objection 5

Praeterea, si aqua secundum se esset propria Baptismi materia, non oporteret aliquid aliud fieri circa aquam, ad hoc quod in ea Baptismus fieret. Sed in solemni Baptismo aqua in qua debet celebrari Baptismus, exorcizatur et benedicitur. Ergo videtur quod aqua secundum se non sit propria materia Baptismi.

Further, if water, as such, were the proper matter of Baptism, there would be no need to do anything to the water before using it for Baptism. But in solemn Baptism the water which is used for baptizing, is exorcized and blessed. Therefore it seems that water, as such, is not the proper matter of Baptism.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod dominus dicit, Ioan. III, nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei.

On the contrary, our Lord said (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod ex institutione divina aqua est propria materia Baptismi. Et hoc convenienter. Primo quidem, quantum ad ipsam rationem Baptismi, qui est regeneratio in spiritualem vitam, quod maxime congruit aquae. Unde et semina, ex quibus generantur omnia viventia, scilicet plantae et animalia, humida sunt, et ad aquam pertinent. Propter quod quidam philosophi posuerunt aquam omnium rerum principium. Secundo, quantum ad effectus Baptismi, quibus competunt aquae proprietates. Quae sua humiditate lavat, ex quo conveniens est ad significandum et causandum ablutionem peccatorum. Sua frigiditate etiam temperat superfluitatem caloris, et ex hoc competit ad mitigandum concupiscentiam fomitis. Sua diaphanitate est luminis susceptiva, unde competit Baptismo inquantum est fidei sacramentum. Tertio, quia convenit ad repraesentandum mysteria Christi, quibus iustificamur. Ut enim dicit Chrysostomus, super illud Ioan., nisi quis renatus fuerit etc., sicut in quodam sepulcro, in aqua, submergentibus nobis capita, vetus homo sepelitur, et submersus deorsum occultatur, et deinde novus rursus ascendit. Quarto, quia ratione suae communitatis et abundantiae est conveniens materia necessitati huius sacramenti, potest enim ubique de facili haberi.

I answer that, By Divine institution water is the proper matter of Baptism; and with reason. First, by reason of the very nature of Baptism, which is a regeneration unto spiritual life. And this answers to the nature of water in a special degree; wherefore seeds, from which all living things, viz. plants and animals are generated, are moist and akin to water. For this reason certain philosophers held that water is the first principle of all things.

Secondly, in regard to the effects of Baptism, to which the properties of water correspond. For by reason of its moistness it cleanses; and hence it fittingly signifies and causes the cleansing from sins. By reason of its coolness it tempers superfluous heat: wherefore it fittingly mitigates the concupiscence of the fomes. By reason of its transparency, it is susceptive of light; hence its adaptability to Baptism as the "sacrament of Faith."

Thirdly, because it is suitable for the signification of the mysteries of Christ, by which we are justified. For, as Chrysostom says (Hom. xxv in Joan.) on John 3:5, "Unless a man be born again," etc., "When we dip our heads under the water as in a kind of tomb our old man is buried, and being submerged is hidden below, and thence he rises again renewed."

Fourthly, because by being so universal and abundant, it is a matter suitable to our need of this sacrament: for it can easily be obtained everywhere.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illuminatio pertinet ad ignem active. Ille autem qui baptizatur, non efficitur illuminans, sed illuminatus per fidem, quae est ex auditu, ut dicitur Rom. X. Et ideo magis competit aqua Baptismo quam ignis. Quod autem dicitur, baptizabit vos in spiritu sancto et igni, potest per ignem, ut Hieronymus dicit, intelligi spiritus sanctus, qui super discipulos in igneis linguis apparuit, ut dicitur Act. II. Vel per ignem potest intelligi tribulatio, ut Chrysostomus dicit, super Matth., quia tribulatio peccata purgat, et concupiscentiam diminuit. Vel quia, ut Hilarius dicit, super Matth., baptizatis in spiritu sancto reliquum est consummari igne iudicii.

Fire enlightens actively. But he who is baptized does not become an enlightener, but is enlightened by faith, which "cometh by hearing" (Rom. 10:17). Consequently water is more suitable, than fire, for Baptism.

But when we find it said: "He shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire," we may understand fire, as Jerome says (In Matth. ii), to mean the Holy Ghost, Who appeared above the disciples under the form of fiery tongues (Acts 2:3). Or we may understand it to mean tribulation, as Chrysostom says (Hom. iii in Matth.): because tribulation washes away sin, and tempers concupiscence. Or again, as Hilary says (Super Matth. ii) that "when we have been baptized in the Holy Ghost," we still have to be "perfected by the fire of the judgment."

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod vinum et oleum communiter non sumuntur ad usum ablutionis, sicut aqua. Nec etiam ita perfecte abluunt, quia ex illorum ablutione remanet aliqua infectio quantum ad odorem, quod non contingit de aqua. Illa etiam non ita communiter et abundanter habentur sicut aqua.

Wine and oil are not so commonly used for washing, as water. Neither do they wash so efficiently: for whatever is washed with them, contracts a certain smell therefrom; which is not the case if water be used. Moreover, they are not so universal or so abundant as water.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod ex latere Christi fluxit aqua ad abluendum, sanguis autem ad redimendum. Et ideo sanguis competit sacramento Eucharistiae, aqua autem sacramento Baptismi. Qui tamen habet vim ablutivam ex virtute sanguinis Christi.

Water flowed from Christ's side to wash us; blood, to redeem us. Wherefore blood belongs to the sacrament of the Eucharist, while water belongs to the sacrament of Baptism. Yet this latter sacrament derives its cleansing virtue from the power of Christ's blood.

Ad 4 Reply to Objection 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod virtus Christi derivata est ad omnem aquam, non propter continuitatem loci, sed propter similitudinem speciei, ut dicit Augustinus, in quodam sermone Epiphaniae, quae de salvatoris Baptismate benedictio fluxit, tanquam fluvius spiritalis, omnium gurgitum tractus, universorum fontium venas implevit.

Christ's power flowed into all waters, by reason of, not connection of place, but likeness of species, as Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (Append. Serm. cxxxv): "The blessing that flowed from the Saviour's Baptism, like a mystic river, swelled the course of every stream, and filled the channels of every spring."

Ad 5 Reply to Objection 5

Ad quintum dicendum quod illa benedictio quae adhibetur aquae, non est de necessitate Baptismi, sed pertinet ad quandam solemnitatem, per quam excitatur devotio fidelium, et impeditur astutia Daemonis, ne impediat Baptismi effectum.

The blessing of the water is not essential to Baptism, but belongs to a certain solemnity, whereby the devotion of the faithful is aroused, and the cunning of the devil hindered from impeding the baptismal effect.

Articulus IV

Whether Plain Water Is Necessary for Baptism?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod ad Baptismum non requiratur aqua simplex. Aqua enim quae apud nos est, non est aqua pura, quod praecipue apparet de aqua maris, in qua plurimum admiscetur de terrestri, ut patet per philosophum, in libro Meteorol. Et tamen in tali aqua potest fieri Baptismus. Ergo non requiritur aqua simplex et pura ad Baptismum.

It seems that plain water is not necessary for Baptism. For the water which we have is not plain water; as appears especially in sea-water, in which there is a considerable proportion of the earthly element, as the Philosopher shows (Meteor. ii). Yet this water may be used for Baptism. Therefore plain and pure water is not necessary for Baptism.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, in solemni celebratione Baptismi aquae infunditur chrisma. Sed hoc videtur impedire puritatem et simplicitatem aquae. Ergo aqua pura et simplex non requiritur ad Baptismum.

Further, in the solemn celebration of Baptism, chrism is poured into the water. But this seems to take away the purity and plainness of the water. Therefore pure and plain water is not necessary for Baptism.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, aqua fluens de latere Christi pendentis in cruce fuit significativa Baptismi, ut dictum est. Sed aqua illa non videtur fuisse aqua pura, eo quod in corpore mixto, cuiusmodi fuit corpus Christi, non sunt elementa in actu. Ergo videtur quod non requiratur aqua pura vel simplex ad Baptismum.

Further, the water that flowed from the side of Christ hanging on the cross was a figure of Baptism, as stated above (A. 3, ad 3). But that water, seemingly, was not pure, because the elements do not exist actually in a mixed body, such as Christ's. Therefore it seems that pure or plain water is not necessary for Baptism.

Arg. 4 Objection 4

Praeterea, lixivium non videtur esse aqua pura, habet enim contrarias proprietates aquae, scilicet calefaciendi et desiccandi. Et tamen in lixivio videtur posse fieri Baptismus, sicut et in aquis balneorum, quae transeunt per venas sulphureas, sicut et lixivium colatur per cineres. Ergo videtur quod aqua simplex non requiratur ad Baptismum.

Further, lye does not seem to be pure water, for it has the properties of heating and drying, which are contrary to those of water. Nevertheless it seems that lye can be used for Baptism; for the water of the Baths can be so used, which has filtered through a sulphurous vein, just as lye percolates through ashes. Therefore it seems that plain water is not necessary for Baptism.

Arg. 5 Objection 5

Praeterea, aqua rosacea generatur per sublimationem a rosis, sicut etiam aquae alchimicae generantur per sublimationem ab aliquibus corporibus. Sed in his aquis, ut videtur, potest fieri Baptismus, sicut et in aquis pluvialibus, quae per sublimationem vaporum generantur. Cum igitur huiusmodi aquae non sint purae et simplices, videtur quod aqua pura et simplex non requiratur ad Baptismum.

Further, rose-water is distilled from roses, just as chemical waters are distilled from certain bodies. But seemingly, such like waters may be used in Baptism; just as rain-water, which is distilled from vapors. Since, therefore, such waters are not pure and plain water, it seems that pure and plain water is not necessary for Baptism.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod propria materia Baptismi est aqua, ut dictum est. Sed speciem aquae non habet nisi aqua simplex. Ergo aqua pura et simplex ex necessitate requiritur ad Baptismum.

On the contrary, The proper matter of Baptism is water, as stated above (A. 3). But plain water alone has the nature of water. Therefore pure plain water is necessary for Baptism.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod aqua suam puritatem et simplicitatem potest amittere dupliciter, uno modo, per mixtionem alterius corporis; alio modo, per alterationem. Utrumque autem horum contingit fieri dupliciter, scilicet per artem, et per naturam. Ars autem deficit ab operatione naturae, quia natura dat formam substantialem, quod ars facere non potest, sed omnes formae artificiales sunt accidentales; nisi forte apponendo proprium agens ad propriam materiam, sicut ignem combustibili, per quem modum a quibusdam quaedam animalia per putrefactionem generantur. Quaecumque igitur transmutatio circa aquam facta est per artem, sive commiscendo sive alterando, non transmutatur species aquae. Unde in tali aqua potest fieri Baptismus, nisi forte aqua admisceatur per artem in tam parva quantitate alicui corpori quod compositum magis sit aliud quam aqua; sicut lutum magis est terra quam aqua, et vinum lymphatum magis est vinum quam aqua. Sed transmutatio quae fit a natura, quandoque quidem speciem aquae solvit, et hoc fit quando aqua efficitur per naturam de substantia alicuius corporis mixti; sicut aqua conversa in liquorem uvae est vinum, unde non habet speciem aquae. Aliquando autem fit per naturam transmutatio aquae sine solutione speciei, et hoc tam per alterationem, sicut patet de aqua calefacta a sole; quam etiam per mixtionem, sicut patet de aqua fluminis turbida ex permixtione terrestrium partium. Sic igitur dicendum est quod in qualibet aqua, qualitercumque transmutata, dummodo non solvatur species aquae, potest fieri Baptismus. Si autem solvatur species aquae, non potest fieri Baptismus.

I answer that, Water may cease to be pure or plain water in two ways: first, by being mixed with another body; secondly, by alteration. And each of these may happen in a twofold manner; artificially and naturally. Now art fails in the operation of nature: because nature gives the substantial form, which art cannot give; for whatever form is given by art is accidental; except perchance when art applies a proper agent to its proper matter, as fire to a combustible; in which manner animals are produced from certain things by way of putrefaction.

Whatever artificial change, then, takes place in the water, whether by mixture or by alteration, the water's nature is not changed. Consequently such water can be used for Baptism: unless perhaps such a small quantity of water be mixed artificially with a body that the compound is something other than water; thus mud is earth rather than water, and diluted wine is wine rather than water.

But if the change be natural, sometimes it destroys the nature of the water; and this is when by a natural process water enters into the substance of a mixed body: thus water changed into the juice of the grape is wine, wherefore it has not the nature of water. Sometimes, however, there may be a natural change of the water, without destruction of species: and this, both by alteration, as we may see in the case of water heated by the sun; and by mixture, as when the water of a river has become muddy by being mixed with particles of earth.

We must therefore say that any water may be used for Baptism, no matter how much it may be changed, as long as the species of water is not destroyed; but if the species of water be destroyed, it cannot be used for Baptism.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod transmutatio facta in aqua maris, et in aliis aquis quae penes nos sunt, non est tanta quae solvat speciem aquae. Et ideo in huiusmodi aquis potest fieri Baptismus.

The change in sea-water and in other waters which we have to hand, is not so great as to destroy the species of water. And therefore such waters may be used for Baptism.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod admixtio chrismatis non solvit speciem aquae. Sicut nec etiam aqua decoctionis carnium, aut aliorum huiusmodi, nisi forte sit facta tanta resolutio corporum lixatorum in aqua quod liquor plus habeat de aliena substantia quam de aqua; quod ex spissitudine perspici potest. Si tamen ex liquore sic inspissato exprimatur aqua subtilis, potest in ea fieri Baptismus, sicut et in aqua quae exprimitur ex luto, licet in luto Baptismus fieri non possit.

Chrism does not destroy the nature of the water by being mixed with it: just as neither is water changed wherein meat and the like are boiled: except the substance boiled be so dissolved that the liquor be of a nature foreign to water; in this we may be guided by the specific gravity (spissitudine). If, however, from the liquor thus thickened plain water be strained, it can be used for Baptism: just as water strained from mud, although mud cannot be used for baptizing.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod aqua fluens de latere Christi pendentis in cruce non fuit humor phlegmaticus, ut quidam dixerunt. In tali enim humore non posset fieri Baptismus, sicut nec in sanguine animalis, aut in vino, aut in quocumque liquore alicuius plantae. Fuit autem aqua pura miraculose egrediens a corpore mortuo, sicut et sanguis, ad comprobandam veritatem dominici corporis, contra Manichaeorum errorem, ut scilicet per aquam, quae est unum quatuor elementorum, ostenderetur corpus Christi vere fuisse compositum ex quatuor elementis; per sanguinem vero ostenderetur esse compositum ex quatuor humoribus.

The water which flowed from the side of Christ hanging on the cross, was not the phlegmatic humor, as some have supposed. For a liquid of this kind cannot be used for Baptism, as neither can the blood of an animal, or wine, or any liquid extracted from plants. It was pure water gushing forth miraculously like the blood from a dead body, to prove the reality of our Lord's body, and confute the error of the Manichees: water, which is one of the four elements, showing Christ's body to be composed of the four elements; blood, proving that it was composed of the four humors.

Ad 4 Reply to Objection 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod in lixivio, et in aquis sulphureorum balneorum, potest fieri Baptismus, quia tales aquae non incorporantur per artem vel naturam aliquibus corporibus mixtis, sed solum alterationem quandam recipiunt ex hoc quod transeunt per aliqua corpora.

Baptism may be conferred with lye and the waters of Sulphur Baths: because such like waters are not incorporated, artificially or naturally, with certain mixed bodies, and suffer only a certain alteration by passing through certain bodies.

Ad 5 Reply to Objection 5

Ad quintum dicendum quod aqua rosacea est liquor rosae resolutus. Unde in ea non potest fieri Baptismus. Et, eadem ratione, nec in aquis alchimicis, sicut in vino. Nec est eadem ratio de aquis pluvialibus, quae generantur ex maiori parte ex subtiliatione vaporum resolutorum ex aquis, minimum autem ibi est de liquoribus corporum mixtorum, qui tamen per huiusmodi sublimationem, virtute naturae, quae est fortior arte, resolvuntur in veram aquam, quod ars facere non potest. Unde aqua pluvialis nullam proprietatem retinet alicuius corporis mixti, quod de aquis rosaceis et de aquis alchimicis dici non potest.

Rose-water is a liquid distilled from roses: consequently it cannot be used for Baptism. For the same reason chemical waters cannot be used, as neither can wine. Nor does the comparison hold with rain-water, which for the most part is formed by the condensing of vapors, themselves formed from water, and contains a minimum of the liquid matter from mixed bodies; which liquid matter by the force of nature, which is stronger than art, is transformed in this process of condensation into real water, a result which cannot be produced artificially. Consequently rain-water retains no properties of any mixed body; which cannot be said of rose-water or chemical waters.

Articulus V

Whether This Be a Suitable Form of Baptism: "I Baptize Thee in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod haec non sit conveniens forma Baptismi, ego te baptizo in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti. Actus enim magis debet attribui principali agenti quam ministro. Sed in sacramento minister agit ut instrumentum, ut supra dictum est, principale autem agens in Baptismo est Christus, secundum illud Ioan. I, super quem videris spiritum descendentem et manentem, hic est qui baptizat. Inconvenienter ergo minister dicit, ego te baptizo, praesertim quia in hoc quod dicitur baptizo, intelligitur ego, et sic videtur superflue apponi.

It seems that this is not a suitable form of Baptism: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." For action should be ascribed to the principal agent rather than to the minister. Now the minister of a sacrament acts as an instrument, as stated above (Q. 64, A. 1); while the principal agent in Baptism is Christ, according to John 1:33, "He upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, He it is that baptizeth." It is therefore unbecoming for the minister to say, "I baptize thee": the more so that Ego (I) is understood in the word baptizo (I baptize), so that it seems redundant.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, non oportet quod ille qui aliquem actum exercet, de actu exercito faciat mentionem, sicut ille qui docet, non oportet quod dicat, ego vos doceo. Dominus autem simul tradidit praeceptum baptizandi et docendi, dicens, euntes, docete omnes gentes, et cetera. Ergo non oportet quod in forma Baptismi fiat mentio de actu Baptismi.

Further, there is no need for a man who does an action, to make mention of the action done; thus he who teaches, need not say, "I teach you." Now our Lord gave at the same time the precepts both of baptizing and of teaching, when He said (Matt. 28:19): "Going, teach ye all nations," etc. Therefore there is no need in the form of Baptism to mention the action of baptizing.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, ille qui baptizatur, quandoque non intelligit verba, puta si sit surdus aut puer. Frustra autem ad talem sermo dirigitur, secundum illud Eccli., ubi non est auditus, non effundas sermonem. Ergo inconvenienter dicitur, ego te baptizo, sermone directo ad eum qui baptizatur.

Further, the person baptized sometimes does not understand the words; for instance, if he be deaf, or a child. But it is useless to address such a one; according to Ecclus. 32:6: "Where there is no hearing, pour not out words." Therefore it is unfitting to address the person baptized with these words: "I baptize thee."

Arg. 4 Objection 4

Praeterea, contingit simul plures baptizari a pluribus, sicut apostoli baptizaverunt una die tria millia, et alia die quinque millia, ut dicitur Act. II et IV. Non ergo debet forma Baptismi determinari in singulari numero, ut dicatur, ego te baptizo, sed potest dici, nos vos baptizamus.

Further, it may happen that several are baptized by several at the same time; thus the apostles on one day baptized three thousand, and on another, five thousand (Acts 2, 4). Therefore the form of Baptism should not be limited to the singular number in the words, "I baptize thee": but one should be able to say, "We baptize you."

Arg. 5 Objection 5

Praeterea, Baptismus virtutem habet a passione Christi. Sed per formam Baptismus sanctificatur. Ergo videtur quod in forma Baptismi debeat fieri mentio de passione Christi.

Further, Baptism derives its power from Christ's Passion. But Baptism is sanctified by the form. Therefore it seems that Christ's Passion should be mentioned in the form of Baptism.

Arg. 6 Objection 6

Praeterea, nomen designat proprietatem rei. Sed tres sunt proprietates personales divinarum personarum, ut in prima parte dictum est. Non ergo debet dici, in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti, sed, in nominibus.

Further, a name signifies a thing's property. But there are three Personal Properties of the Divine Persons, as stated in the First Part (Q. 32, A. 3). Therefore we should not say, "in the name," but "in the names of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

Arg. 7 Objection 7

Praeterea, persona patris non solum significatur nomine patris, sed etiam nomine innascibilis et genitoris; filius etiam significatur nomine verbi et imaginis et geniti; spiritus etiam sanctus potest significari nomine doni et amoris, et nomine procedentis. Ergo videtur quod etiam his nominibus utendo perficitur Baptismus.

Further, the Person of the Father is designated not only by the name Father, but also by that of "Unbegotten and Begetter"; and the Son by those of "Word," "Image," and "Begotten"; and the Holy Ghost by those of "Gift," "Love," and the "Proceeding One." Therefore it seems that Baptism is valid if conferred in these names.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod dominus dicit, Matth. ult., euntes, docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti.

On the contrary, our Lord said (Matt. 28:19): "Going . . . teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod Baptismus per suam formam consecratur, secundum illud Ephes. V, mundans eam lavacro aquae in verbo vitae, et Augustinus dicit, in libro de unico Baptismo, quod Baptismus verbis evangelicis consecratur. Et ideo oportet quod in forma Baptismi exprimatur causa Baptismi. Est autem eius duplex causa, una quidem principalis, a qua virtutem habet, quae est sancta Trinitas; alia autem est instrumentalis, scilicet minister, qui tradit exterius sacramentum. Et ideo debet in forma Baptismi de utraque fieri mentio. Minister autem tangitur cum dicitur, ego te baptizo, causa autem principalis, cum dicitur, in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti. Unde haec est conveniens forma Baptismi, ego te baptizo in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti.

I answer that, Baptism receives its consecration from its form, according to Eph. 5:26: "Cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life." And Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo iv) that "Baptism is consecrated by the words of the Gospel." Consequently the cause of Baptism needs to be expressed in the baptismal form. Now this cause is twofold; the principal cause from which it derives its virtue, and this is the Blessed Trinity; and the instrumental cause, viz. the minister who confers the sacrament outwardly. Wherefore both causes should be expressed in the form of Baptism. Now the minister is designated by the words, "I baptize thee"; and the principal cause in the words, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Therefore this is the suitable form of Baptism: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod actio attribuitur instrumento sicut immediate agenti, attribuitur autem principali agenti sicut in cuius virtute instrumentum agit. Et ideo in forma Baptismi convenienter significatur minister ut exercens actum Baptismi, per hoc quod dicitur, ego te baptizo, et ipse dominus baptizandi actum attribuit ministris, dicens, baptizantes eos, et cetera. Causa autem principalis significatur ut in cuius virtute sacramentum agitur, per hoc quod dicitur, in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti, non enim Christus baptizat sine patre et spiritu sancto. Graeci autem non attribuunt actum Baptismi ministris, ad evitandum antiquorum errorem, qui virtutem Baptismi Baptistis attribuebant, dicentes, ego sum Pauli, et ego Cephae. Et ideo dicunt, baptizetur servus Christi talis in nomine patris, et cetera. Et quia exprimitur actus exercitus per ministrum cum invocatione Trinitatis, verum perficitur sacramentum. Quod autem additur ego in forma nostra, non est de substantia formae, sed ponitur ad maiorem expressionem intentionis.

Action is attributed to an instrument as to the immediate agent; but to the principal agent inasmuch as the instrument acts in virtue thereof. Consequently it is fitting that in the baptismal form the minister should be mentioned as performing the act of baptizing, in the words, "I baptize thee"; indeed, our Lord attributed to the ministers the act of baptizing, when He said: "Baptizing them," etc. But the principal cause is indicated as conferring the sacrament by His own power, in the words, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost": for Christ does not baptize without the Father and the Holy Ghost.

The Greeks, however, do not attribute the act of baptizing to the minister, in order to avoid the error of those who in the past ascribed the baptismal power to the baptizers, saying (1 Cor. 1:12): "I am of Paul . . . and I of Cephas." Wherefore they use the form: "May the servant of Christ, N . . ., be baptized, in the name of the Father," etc. And since the action performed by the minister is expressed with the invocation of the Trinity, the sacrament is validly conferred. As to the addition of "Ego" in our form, it is not essential; but it is added in order to lay greater stress on the intention.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod, quia ablutio hominis in aqua propter multa fieri potest, oportet quod determinetur in verbis formae ad quid fiat. Quod quidem non fit per hoc quod dicitur, in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti, quia omnia in tali nomine facere debemus, ut habetur Coloss. III. Et ideo, si non exprimatur actus Baptismi, vel per modum nostrum vel per modum Graecorum, non perficitur sacramentum, secundum illam decretalem Alexandri III, si quis puerum ter in aquam merserit in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti amen, et non dixerit, ego te baptizo in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti amen, non est puer baptizatus.

Since a man may be washed with water for several reasons, the purpose for which it is done must be expressed by the words of the form. And this is not done by saying: "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"; because we are bound to do all things in that Name (Col. 3:17). Wherefore unless the act of baptizing be expressed, either as we do, or as the Greeks do, the sacrament is not valid; according to the decretal of Alexander III: "If anyone dip a child thrice in the water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen, without saying, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen, the child is not baptized."

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod verba quae proferuntur in formis sacramentorum, non pronuntiantur solum causa significandi, sed etiam causa efficiendi, inquantum habent efficaciam ab illo verbo per quod facta sunt omnia. Et ideo convenienter diriguntur non solum ad homines, sed etiam ad creaturas insensibiles, ut cum dicitur, exorcizo te, creatura salis.

The words which are uttered in the sacramental forms, are said not merely for the purpose of signification, but also for the purpose of efficiency, inasmuch as they derive efficacy from that Word, by Whom "all things were made." Consequently they are becomingly addressed not only to men, but also to insensible creatures; for instance, when we say: "I exorcize thee, creature salt" (Roman Ritual).

Ad 4 Reply to Objection 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod plures simul non possunt unum baptizare, quia actus multiplicatur secundum multiplicationem agentium, si perfecte ab unoquoque agatur. Et sic, si convenirent duo quorum unus esset mutus, qui non posset proferre verba, et alius carens manibus, qui non posset exercere actum, non possent ambo simul baptizare, uno dicente verba et alio exercente actum. Possunt autem, si necessitas exigit, plures simul baptizari, quia nullus eorum recipiet nisi unum Baptismum. Sed tunc oportebit dicere, ego baptizo vos. Nec erit mutatio formae, quia vos nihil aliud est quam te et te. Quod autem dicitur nos, non est idem quod ego et ego, sed, ego et tu, et sic iam mutaretur forma. Similiter autem mutaretur forma si diceretur, ego baptizo me. Et ideo nullus potest baptizare seipsum. Propter quod etiam Christus a Ioanne voluit baptizari, ut dicitur extra, de Baptismo et eius effectu, cap. debitum.

Several cannot baptize one at the same time: because an action is multiplied according to the number of the agents, if it be done perfectly by each. So that if two were to combine, of whom one were mute, and unable to utter the words, and the other were without hands, and unable to perform the action, they could not both baptize at the same time, one saying the words and the other performing the action.

On the other hand, in a case of necessity, several could be baptized at the same time; for no single one of them would receive more than one baptism. But it would be necessary, in that case, to say: "I baptize ye." Nor would this be a change of form, because "ye" is the same as "thee and thee." Whereas "we" does not mean "I and I," but "I and thou"; so that this would be a change of form.

Likewise it would be a change of form to say, "I baptize myself": consequently no one can baptize himself. For this reason did Christ choose to be baptized by John (Extra, De Baptismo et ejus effectu, cap. Debitum).

Ad 5 Reply to Objection 5

Ad quintum dicendum quod passio Christi, etsi sit principalis causa respectu ministri, est tamen causa instrumentalis respectu sanctae Trinitatis. Et ideo potius commemoratur Trinitas quam passio Christi.

Although Christ's Passion is the principal cause as compared to the minister, yet it is an instrumental cause as compared to the Blessed Trinity. For this reason the Trinity is mentioned rather than Christ's Passion.

Ad 6 Reply to Objection 6

Ad sextum dicendum quod, etsi sint tria nomina personalia trium personarum, est tamen unum nomen essentiale. Virtus autem divina, quae operatur in Baptismo, ad essentiam pertinet. Et ideo dicitur in nomine, et non in nominibus.

Although there are three personal names of the three Persons, there is but one essential name. Now the Divine power which works in Baptism, pertains to the Essence; and therefore we say, "in the name," and not, "in the names."

Ad 7 Reply to Objection 7

Ad septimum dicendum quod, sicut aqua sumitur ad Baptismum quia eius usus est communior ad abluendum, ita ad significandum tres personas in forma Baptismi assumuntur illa nomina quibus communius consueverunt nominari personae in illa lingua. Nec in aliis nominibus perficitur sacramentum.

Just as water is used in Baptism, because it is more commonly employed in washing, so for the purpose of designating the three Persons, in the form of Baptism, those names are chosen, which are generally used, in a particular language, to signify the Persons. Nor is the sacrament valid if conferred in any other names.

Articulus VI

Whether Baptism Can Be Conferred in the Name of Christ?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in nomine Christi possit dari Baptismus. Sicut enim una est fides, et unum Baptisma, ut dicitur Ephes. IV. Sed Act. VIII dicitur quod in nomine Iesu Christi baptizabantur viri et mulieres. Ergo etiam nunc potest dari Baptismus in nomine Christi.

It seems that Baptism can be conferred in the name of Christ. For just as there is "one Faith," so is there "one Baptism" (Eph. 4:5). But it is related (Acts 8:12) that "in the name of Jesus Christ they were baptized, both men and women." Therefore now also can Baptism be conferred in the name of Christ.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, Ambrosius dicit, si Christum dicas, et patrem, a quo unctus est, et ipsum qui unctus est, filium, et spiritum, quo unctus est, designasti. Sed in nomine Trinitatis potest fieri Baptismus. Ergo et in nomine Christi.

Further, Ambrose says (De Spir. Sanct. i): "If you mention Christ, you designate both the Father by Whom He was anointed, and the Son Himself, Who was anointed, and the Holy Ghost with Whom He was anointed." But Baptism can be conferred in the name of the Trinity: therefore also in the name of Christ.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, Nicolaus Papa, ad consulta Bulgarorum respondens, dicit, qui in nomine sanctae Trinitatis, vel tantum in nomine Christi, sicut in actibus apostolorum legitur, baptizati sunt, unum quippe idemque est, ut sanctus ait Ambrosius, rebaptizari non debent. Rebaptizarentur autem si in hac forma baptizati sacramentum Baptismi non reciperent. Ergo potest consecrari Baptismus in nomine Christi sub hac forma, ego te baptizo in nomine Christi.

Further, Pope Nicholas I, answering questions put to him by the Bulgars, said: "Those who have been baptized in the name of the Trinity, or only in the name of Christ, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles (it is all the same, as Blessed Ambrose saith), must not be rebaptized." But they would be baptized again if they had not been validly baptized with that form. Therefore Baptism can be celebrated in the name of Christ by using this form: "I baptize thee in the name of Christ."

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod Pelagius Papa scribit Gaudentio episcopo, si hi qui in locis dilectionis tuae vicinis commorari dicuntur, se solummodo in nomine domini baptizatos fuisse confitentur, sine cuiusquam dubitationis ambiguo, eos ad fidem Catholicam venientes in sanctae Trinitatis nomine baptizabis. Didymus etiam dicit, in libro de spiritu sancto, licet quis possit existere mentis alienae qui ita baptizaret ut unum de praedictis nominibus, scilicet trium personarum, praetermittat, sine perfectione baptizabit.

On the contrary, Pope Pelagius II wrote to the Bishop Gaudentius: "If any people living in your Worship's neighborhood, avow that they have been baptized in the name of the Lord only, without any hesitation baptize them again in the name of the Blessed Trinity, when they come in quest of the Catholic Faith." Didymus, too, says (De Spir. Sanct.): "If indeed there be such a one with a mind so foreign to faith as to baptize while omitting one of the aforesaid names," viz. of the three Persons, "he baptizes invalidly."

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, sacramenta habent efficaciam ab institutione Christi. Et ideo, si praetermittatur aliquid eorum quae Christus instituit circa aliquod sacramentum, efficacia caret, nisi ex speciali dispensatione eius, qui virtutem suam sacramentis non alligavit. Christus autem instituit sacramentum Baptismi dari cum invocatione Trinitatis. Et ideo quidquid desit ad invocationem plenam Trinitatis, tollit integritatem Baptismi. Nec obstat quod in nomine unius personae intelligitur alia, sicut in nomine patris intelligitur filius; aut quod ille qui nominat unam solam personam, potest habere rectam fidem de tribus. Quia ad sacramentum, sicut requiritur materia sensibilis, ita et forma sensibilis. Unde non sufficit intellectus vel fides Trinitatis ad perfectionem sacramenti, nisi sensibilibus verbis Trinitas exprimatur. Unde et in Baptismo Christi, ubi fuit origo sanctificationis nostri Baptismi, affuit Trinitas sensibilibus, scilicet pater in voce, filius in humana natura, spiritus sanctus in columba.

I answer that, As stated above (Q. 64, A. 3), the sacraments derive their efficacy from Christ's institution. Consequently, if any of those things be omitted which Christ instituted in regard to a sacrament, it is invalid; save by special dispensation of Him Who did not bind His power to the sacraments. Now Christ commanded the sacrament of Baptism to be given with the invocation of the Trinity. And consequently whatever is lacking to the full invocation of the Trinity, destroys the integrity of Baptism.

Nor does it matter that in the name of one Person another is implied, as the name of the Son is implied in that of the Father, or that he who mentions the name of only one Person may believe aright in the Three; because just as a sacrament requires sensible matter, so does it require a sensible form. Hence, for the validity of the sacrament it is not enough to imply or to believe in the Trinity, unless the Trinity be expressed in sensible words. For this reason at Christ's Baptism, wherein was the source of the sanctification of our Baptism, the Trinity was present in sensible signs: viz. the Father in the voice, the Son in the human nature, the Holy Ghost in the dove.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ex speciali Christi revelatione apostoli in primitiva Ecclesia in nomine Christi baptizabant, ut nomen Christi, quod erat odiosum Iudaeis et gentibus, honorabile redderetur, per hoc quod ad eius invocationem spiritus sanctus dabatur in Baptismo.

It was by a special revelation from Christ that in the primitive Church the apostles baptized in the name of Christ; in order that the name of Christ, which was hateful to Jews and Gentiles, might become an object of veneration, in that the Holy Ghost was given in Baptism at the invocation of that Name.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod Ambrosius assignat rationem quare convenienter talis dispensatio fieri potuit in primitiva Ecclesia, quia scilicet in nomine Christi tota Trinitas intelligitur; et ideo servabatur ad minus integritate intelligibili forma quam Christus tradidit in Evangelio.

Ambrose here gives this reason why exception could, without inconsistency, be allowed in the primitive Church; namely, because the whole Trinity is implied in the name of Christ, and therefore the form prescribed by Christ in the Gospel was observed in its integrity, at least implicitly.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod Nicolaus Papa dictum suum confirmat ex duobus praemissis. Et ideo eius responsio patet ex primis duabus solutionibus.

Pope Nicolas confirms his words by quoting the two authorities given in the preceding objections: wherefore the answer to this is clear from the two solutions given above.

Articulus VII

Whether Immersion in Water Is Necessary for Baptism?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod immersio in aqua sit de necessitate Baptismi. Ut enim dicitur Ephes. IV, una fides, unum Baptisma. Sed apud multos communis modus baptizandi est per immersionem. Ergo videtur quod non possit esse Baptismus sine immersione.

It seems that immersion in water is necessary for Baptism. Because it is written (Eph. 4:5): "One faith, one baptism." But in many parts of the world the ordinary way of baptizing is by immersion. Therefore it seems that there can be no Baptism without immersion.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, apostolus dicit, Rom. VI, quicumque baptizati sumus in Christo Iesu, in morte ipsius baptizati sumus, consepulti enim sumus cum illo per Baptismum in morte. Sed hoc fit per immersionem, dicit enim Chrysostomus, super illud Ioan. III, nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu sancto, etc., sicut in quodam sepulcro, in aqua, submergentibus nobis capita, vetus homo sepelitur, et submersus deorsum occultatur, deinde novus rursus ascendit. Ergo videtur quod immersio sit de necessitate Baptismi.

Further, the Apostle says (Rom. 6:3, 4): "All we who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death: for we are buried together with Him, by Baptism into death." But this is done by immersion: for Chrysostom says on John 3:5: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost," etc.: "When we dip our heads under the water as in a kind of tomb, our old man is buried, and being submerged, is hidden below, and thence he rises again renewed." Therefore it seems that immersion is essential to Baptism.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, si sine immersione totius corporis posset fieri Baptismus, sequeretur quod pari ratione sufficeret quamlibet partem aqua perfundi. Sed hoc videtur inconveniens, quia originale peccatum, contra quod praecipue datur Baptismus, non est in una tantum corporis parte. Ergo videtur quod requiratur immersio ad Baptismum, et non sufficiat sola aspersio.

Further, if Baptism is valid without total immersion of the body, it would follow that it would be equally sufficient to pour water over any part of the body. But this seems unreasonable; since original sin, to remedy which is the principal purpose of Baptism, is not in only one part of the body. Therefore it seems that immersion is necessary for Baptism, and that mere sprinkling is not enough.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod Heb. X dicitur, accedamus ad eum vero corde in plenitudine fidei, aspersi corda a conscientia mala, et abluti corpus aqua munda.

On the contrary, It is written (Heb. 10:22): "Let us draw near with a true heart in fulness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with clean water."

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod aqua assumitur in sacramento Baptismi ad usum ablutionis corporalis, per quam significatur interior ablutio peccatorum. Ablutio autem fieri potest per aquam non solum per modum immersionis, sed etiam per modum aspersionis vel effusionis. Et ideo, quamvis tutius sit baptizare per modum immersionis, quia hoc habet communior usus; potest tamen fieri Baptismus per modum aspersionis; vel etiam per modum effusionis, secundum illud Ezech. XXXVI, effundam super vos aquam mundam, sicut et beatus Laurentius legitur baptizasse. Et hoc praecipue propter necessitatem. Vel quia est magna multitudo baptizandorum, sicut patet Act. II et IV, ubi dicitur quod crediderunt una die tria millia, et alia quinque millia. Quandoque autem potest imminere necessitas propter paucitatem aquae; vel propter debilitatem ministri, qui non potest sustentare baptizandum; vel propter debilitatem baptizandi, cui posset imminere periculum mortis ex immersione. Et ideo dicendum est quod immersio non est de necessitate Baptismi.

I answer that, In the sacrament of Baptism water is put to the use of a washing of the body, whereby to signify the inward washing away of sins. Now washing may be done with water not only by immersion, but also by sprinkling or pouring. And, therefore, although it is safer to baptize by immersion, because this is the more ordinary fashion, yet Baptism can be conferred by sprinkling or also by pouring, according to Ezech. 36:25: "I will pour upon you clean water," as also the Blessed Lawrence is related to have baptized. And this especially in cases of urgency: either because there is a great number to be baptized, as was clearly the case in Acts 2 and 4, where we read that on one day three thousand believed, and on another five thousand: or through there being but a small supply of water, or through feebleness of the minister, who cannot hold up the candidate for Baptism; or through feebleness of the candidate, whose life might be endangered by immersion. We must therefore conclude that immersion is not necessary for Baptism.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ea quae sunt per accidens, non variant substantiam rei. Per se autem requiritur ad Baptismum corporalis ablutio per aquam, unde et Baptismus lavacrum nominatur, secundum illud Ephes. V, mundans eam lavacro aquae in verbo vitae. Sed quod fiat ablutio hoc vel illo modo, accidit Baptismo. Et ideo talis diversitas non tollit unitatem Baptismi.

What is accidental to a thing does not diversify its essence. Now bodily washing with water is essential to Baptism: wherefore Baptism is called a "laver," according to Eph. 5:26: "Cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life." But that the washing be done this or that way, is accidental to Baptism. And consequently such diversity does not destroy the oneness of Baptism.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod in immersione expressius repraesentatur figura sepulturae Christi, et ideo hic modus baptizandi est communior et laudabilior. Sed in aliis modis baptizandi repraesentatur aliquo modo, licet non ita expresse, nam, quocumque modo fiat ablutio, corpus hominis, vel aliqua pars eius, aquae supponitur, sicut corpus Christi fuit positum sub terra.

Christ's burial is more clearly represented by immersion: wherefore this manner of baptizing is more frequently in use and more commendable. Yet in the other ways of baptizing it is represented after a fashion, albeit not so clearly; for no matter how the washing is done, the body of a man, or some part thereof, is put under water, just as Christ's body was put under the earth.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod principalis pars corporis, praecipue quantum ad exteriora membra, est caput, in quo vigent omnes sensus et interiores et exteriores. Et ideo, si totum corpus aqua non possit perfundi, propter aquae paucitatem vel propter aliquam aliam causam, oportet caput perfundere, in quo manifestatur principium animalis vitae. Et licet per membra quae generationi deserviunt peccatum originale traducatur, non tamen sunt membra illa potius aspergenda quam caput, quia per Baptismum non tollitur transmissio originalis in prolem per actum generationis, sed liberatur anima a macula et reatu peccati quod incurrit. Et ideo debet praecipue lavari illa pars corporis in qua manifestantur opera animae. In veteri tamen lege remedium contra originale peccatum institutum erat in membro generationis, quia adhuc ille per quem originale erat amovendum, nasciturus erat ex semine Abrahae, cuius fidem circumcisio significabat, ut dicitur Rom. IV.

The principal part of the body, especially in relation to the exterior members, is the head, wherein all the senses, both interior and exterior, flourish. And therefore, if the whole body cannot be covered with water, because of the scarcity of water, or because of some other reason, it is necessary to pour water over the head, in which the principle of animal life is made manifest.

And although original sin is transmitted through the members that serve for procreation, yet those members are not to be sprinkled in preference to the head, because by Baptism the transmission of original sin to the offspring by the act of procreation is not deleted, but the soul is freed from the stain and debt of sin which it has contracted. Consequently that part of the body should be washed in preference, in which the works of the soul are made manifest.

Nevertheless in the Old Law the remedy against original sin was affixed to the member of procreation; because He through Whom original sin was to be removed, was yet to be born of the seed of Abraham, whose faith was signified by circumcision according to Rom. 4:11.

Articulus VIII

Whether Trine Immersion Is Essential to Baptism?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod trina immersio sit de necessitate Baptismi. Dicit enim Augustinus, in quodam sermone de symbolo ad baptizatos, recte tertio mersi estis, quia accepistis Baptismum in nomine Trinitatis. Recte tertio mersi estis, quia accepistis Baptismum in nomine Iesu Christi, qui tertia die resurrexit a mortuis. Illa enim tertio repetita immersio typum dominicae exprimit sepulturae, per quam Christo consepulti estis in Baptismo. Sed utrumque videtur ad necessitatem Baptismi pertinere, scilicet et quod significetur in Baptismo Trinitas personarum; et quod fiat configuratio ad sepulturam Christi. Ergo videtur quod trina immersio sit de necessitate Baptismi.

It seems that trine immersion is essential to Baptism. For Augustine says in a sermon on the Symbol, addressed to the Neophytes: "Rightly were you dipped three times, since you were baptized in the name of the Trinity. Rightly were you dipped three times, because you were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, Who on the third day rose again from the dead. For that thrice repeated immersion reproduces the burial of the Lord by which you were buried with Christ in Baptism." Now both seem to be essential to Baptism, namely, that in Baptism the Trinity of Persons should be signified, and that we should be conformed to Christ's burial. Therefore it seems that trine immersion is essential to Baptism.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, sacramenta ex mandato Christi efficaciam habent. Sed trina immersio est ex mandato Christi, scripsit enim Pelagius Papa Gaudentio episcopo, evangelicum praeceptum, ipso domino Deo et salvatore nostro Iesu Christo tradente, nos admonet in nomine Trinitatis, trina etiam immersione, sanctum Baptismum unicuique tribuere. Ergo, sicut baptizare in nomine Trinitatis est de necessitate Baptismi, ita baptizare trina immersione videtur esse de necessitate Baptismi.

Further, the sacraments derive their efficacy from Christ's mandate. But trine immersion was commanded by Christ: for Pope Pelagius II wrote to Bishop Gaudentius: "The Gospel precept given by our Lord God Himself, our Saviour Jesus Christ, admonishes us to confer the sacrament of Baptism to each one in the name of the Trinity and also with trine immersion." Therefore, just as it is essential to Baptism to call on the name of the Trinity, so is it essential to baptize by trine immersion.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, si trina immersio non sit de necessitate Baptismi, ergo ad primam immersionem aliquis Baptismi consequitur sacramentum. Si vero addatur secunda et tertia, videtur quod secundo vel tertio baptizetur, quod est inconveniens. Non ergo una immersio sufficit ad sacramentum Baptismi, sed trina videtur esse de necessitate ipsius.

Further, if trine immersion be not essential to Baptism, it follows that the sacrament of Baptism is conferred at the first immersion; so that if a second or third immersion be added, it seems that Baptism is conferred a second or third time, which is absurd. Therefore one immersion does not suffice for the sacrament of Baptism, and trine immersion is essential thereto.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod Gregorius scribit Leandro episcopo, reprehensibile esse nullatenus potest infantem in Baptismate vel tertio vel semel immergere, quoniam et in tribus immersionibus personarum Trinitas, et una potest divinitatis singularitas designari.

On the contrary, Gregory wrote to the Bishop Leander: "It cannot be in any way reprehensible to baptize an infant with either a trine or a single immersion: since the Trinity can be represented in the three immersions, and the unity of the Godhead in one immersion."

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut prius dictum est, ad Baptismum per se requiritur ablutio aquae, quae est de necessitate sacramenti, modus autem ablutionis per accidens se habet ad sacramentum. Et ideo, sicut ex praedicta auctoritate Gregorii patet, quantum est de se, utrumque licite fieri potest, scilicet et semel et ter immergere, quia unica immersione significatur unitas mortis Christi, et unitas deitatis; per trinam autem immersionem significatur triduum sepulturae Christi, et etiam Trinitas personarum. Sed diversis ex causis, secundum ordinationem Ecclesiae, quandoque institutus est unus modus, quandoque alius. Quia enim a principio nascentis Ecclesiae quidam de Trinitate male sentiebant, Christum purum hominem aestimantes, nec dici filium Dei et Deum nisi per meritum eius, quod praecipue fuit in morte, ideo non baptizabant in nomine Trinitatis, sed in commemorationem mortis Christi, et una immersione. Quod reprobatum fuit in primitiva Ecclesia. Unde in canonibus apostolorum legitur, si quis presbyter aut episcopus non trinam immersionem unius ministerii, sed semel mergat in Baptismate, quod dari a quibusdam dicitur in morte domini, deponatur, non enim nobis dixit dominus, in morte mea baptizate, sed, in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti. Postmodum vero inolevit quorundam schismaticorum et haereticorum error homines rebaptizantium, sicut de Donatistis Augustinus narrat, super Ioan. Et ideo, in detestationem erroris eorum, fuit statutum in Concilio Toletano quod fieret una sola immersio, ubi sic legitur, propter vitandum schismatis scandalum, vel haeretici dogmatis usum, simplam teneamus Baptismi immersionem. Sed, cessante tali causa, communiter observatur in Baptismo trina immersio. Et ideo graviter peccaret aliter baptizans, quasi ritum Ecclesiae non observans. Nihilominus tamen esset Baptismus.

I answer that As stated above (A. 7, ad 1), washing with water is of itself required for Baptism, being essential to the sacrament: whereas the mode of washing is accidental to the sacrament. Consequently, as Gregory in the words above quoted explains, both single and trine immersion are lawful considered in themselves; since one immersion signifies the oneness of Christ's death and of the Godhead; while trine immersion signifies the three days of Christ's burial, and also the Trinity of Persons.

But for various reasons, according as the Church has ordained, one mode has been in practice, at one time, the other at another time. For since from the very earliest days of the Church some have had false notions concerning the Trinity, holding that Christ is a mere man, and that He is not called the "Son of God" or "God" except by reason of His merit, which was chiefly in His death; for this reason they did not baptize in the name of the Trinity, but in memory of Christ's death, and with one immersion. And this was condemned in the early Church. Wherefore in the Apostolic Canons (xlix) we read: "If any priest or bishop confer baptism not with the trine immersion in the one administration, but with one immersion, which baptism is said to be conferred by some in the death of the Lord, let him be deposed": for our Lord did not say, "Baptize ye in My death," but "In the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

Later on, however, there arose the error of certain schismatics and heretics who rebaptized: as Augustine (Super. Joan., cf. De Haeres. lxix) relates of the Donatists. Wherefore, in detestation of their error, only one immersion was ordered to be made, by the (fourth) council of Toledo, in the acts of which we read: "In order to avoid the scandal of schism or the practice of heretical teaching let us hold to the single baptismal immersion."

But now that this motive has ceased, trine immersion is universally observed in Baptism: and consequently anyone baptizing otherwise would sin gravely, through not following the ritual of the Church. It would, however, be valid Baptism.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Trinitas est sicut agens principale in Baptismo. Similitudo autem agentis pervenit ad effectum secundum formam, et non secundum materiam. Et ideo significatio Trinitatis fit in Baptismo per verba formae. Nec est de necessitate quod significetur Trinitas per usum materiae, sed hoc fit ad maiorem expressionem. Similiter etiam mors Christi figuratur sufficienter in unica immersione. Triduum autem sepulturae non est de necessitate nostrae salutis, quia etiam si una die fuisset sepultus vel mortuus, suffecisset ad perficiendam nostram redemptionem; sed triduum illud ordinatur ad manifestandam veritatem mortis, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo patet quod trina immersio nec ex parte Trinitatis, nec ex parte passionis Christi, est de necessitate sacramenti.

The Trinity acts as principal agent in Baptism. Now the likeness of the agent enters into the effect, in regard to the form and not in regard to the matter. Wherefore the Trinity is signified in Baptism by the words of the form. Nor is it essential for the Trinity to be signified by the manner in which the matter is used; although this is done to make the signification clearer.

In like manner Christ's death is sufficiently represented in the one immersion. And the three days of His burial were not necessary for our salvation, because even if He had been buried or dead for one day, this would have been enough to consummate our redemption: yet those three days were ordained unto the manifestation of the reality of His death, as stated above (Q. 53, A. 2). It is therefore clear that neither on the part of the Trinity, nor on the part of Christ's Passion, is the trine immersion essential to the sacrament.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod Pelagius Papa intelligit trinam immersionem esse ex mandato Christi in suo simili, in hoc scilicet quod Christus praecepit baptizari in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti. Non tamen est similis ratio de forma et de usu materiae, ut dictum est.

Pope Pelagius understood the trine immersion to be ordained by Christ in its equivalent; in the sense that Christ commanded Baptism to be conferred "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Nor can we argue from the form to the use of the matter, as stated above (ad 1).

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, intentio requiritur ad Baptismum. Et ideo ex intentione ministri Ecclesiae, qui intendit unum Baptismum dare trina immersione, efficitur unum Baptisma. Unde Hieronymus dicit, super epistolam ad Philipp., licet ter baptizetur, idest immergatur, propter mysterium Trinitatis, tamen unum Baptisma reputatur. Si vero intenderet ad unamquamque immersionem unum Baptisma dare, ad singulas immersiones repetens verba formae, peccaret, quantum in se est, pluries baptizans.

As stated above (Q. 64, A. 8), the intention is essential to Baptism. Consequently, one Baptism results from the intention of the Church's minister, who intends to confer one Baptism by a trine immersion. Wherefore Jerome says on Eph. 4:5, 6: "Though the Baptism," i.e. the immersion, "be thrice repeated, on account of the mystery of the Trinity, yet it is reputed as one Baptism."

If, however, the intention were to confer one Baptism at each immersion together with the repetition of the words of the form, it would be a sin, in itself, because it would be a repetition of Baptism.

Articulus IX

Whether Baptism May Be Reiterated?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad nonum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Baptismus possit iterari. Baptismus enim videtur institutus ad ablutionem peccatorum. Sed peccata iterantur. Ergo multo magis Baptismus debet iterari, quia misericordia Christi transcendit hominis culpam.

It seems that Baptism may be reiterated. For Baptism was instituted, seemingly, in order to wash away sins. But sins are reiterated. Therefore much more should Baptism be reiterated: because Christ's mercy surpasses man's guilt.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, Ioannes Baptista praecipue fuit a Christo commendatus, cum de eo dictum sit, Matth. XI, inter natos mulierum non surrexit maior Ioanne Baptista. Sed baptizati a Ioanne iterum rebaptizantur, ut habetur Act. XIX, ubi dicitur quod Paulus baptizavit eos qui erant baptizati Baptismo Ioannis. Ergo multo fortius illi qui sunt baptizati ab haereticis vel peccatoribus, sunt rebaptizandi.

Further, John the Baptist received special commendation from Christ, Who said of him (Matt. 11:11): "There hath not risen among them that are born of women, a greater than John the Baptist." But those whom John had baptized were baptized again, according to Acts 19:1-7, where it is stated that Paul rebaptized those who had received the Baptism of John. Much more, therefore, should those be rebaptized, who have been baptized by heretics or sinners.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, in Nicaeno Concilio statutum est, si quis confugeret ad Ecclesiam Catholicam de Paulianistis et Cataphrygis, baptizari eos debere. Videtur autem esse eadem ratio de haereticis aliis. Ergo baptizati ab haereticis debent esse rebaptizati.

Further, it was decreed in the Council of Nicaea (Can. xix) that if "any of the Paulianists or Cataphrygians should be converted to the Catholic Church, they were to be baptized": and this seemingly should be said in regard to other heretics. Therefore those whom the heretics have baptized, should be baptized again.

Arg. 4 Objection 4

Praeterea, Baptismus est necessarius ad salutem. Sed de quibusdam baptizatis aliquando dubitatur an sint baptizati. Ergo videtur quod debeant iterum rebaptizari.

Further, Baptism is necessary for salvation. But sometimes there is a doubt about the baptism of those who really have been baptized. Therefore it seems that they should be baptized again.

Arg. 5 Objection 5

Praeterea, Eucharistia est perfectius sacramentum quam Baptismus, ut supra dictum est. Sed sacramentum Eucharistiae iteratur. Ergo multo magis Baptismus potest iterari.

Further, the Eucharist is a more perfect sacrament than Baptism, as stated above (Q. 65, A. 3). But the sacrament of the Eucharist is reiterated. Much more reason, therefore, is there for Baptism to be reiterated.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod dicitur Ephes. IV, una fides, unum Baptisma.

On the contrary, It is written, (Eph. 4:5): "One faith, one Baptism."

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod Baptismus iterari non potest. Primo quidem, quia Baptismus est quaedam spiritualis regeneratio, prout scilicet aliquis moritur veteri vitae, et incipit novam vitam agere. Unde dicitur Ioan. III, nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu sancto, non potest videre regnum Dei. Unius autem non est nisi una generatio. Et ideo non potest Baptismus iterari, sicut nec carnalis generatio. Unde Augustinus dicit, super illud Ioan. III, nunquid potest in ventrem matris suae iterato introire et renasci, sic tu, inquit, intellige nativitatem spiritus, quo modo intellexit Nicodemus nativitatem carnis. Quo modo enim uterus non potest repeti, sic nec Baptismus. Secundo, quia in morte Christi baptizamur, per quam morimur peccato et resurgimus in novitatem vitae. Christus autem semel tantum mortuus est. Et ideo nec Baptismus iterari debet. Propter quod, Heb. VI, contra quosdam rebaptizari volentes dicitur, rursus crucifigentes sibimetipsis filium Dei, ubi Glossa dicit, una Christi mors unum Baptisma consecravit. Tertio, quia Baptismus imprimit characterem, qui est indelebilis, et cum quadam consecratione datur. Unde, sicut aliae consecrationes non iterantur in Ecclesia, ita nec Baptismus. Et hoc est quod Augustinus dicit, in II contra epistolam Parmeniani, quod character militaris non repetitur; et quod non minus haeret sacramentum Christi quam corporalis haec nota, cum videamus nec apostatas carere Baptismate, quibus utique per poenitentiam redeuntibus non restituitur. Quarto, quia Baptismus principaliter datur contra originale peccatum. Et ideo, sicut originale peccatum non iteratur, ita etiam nec Baptismus iteratur, quia, ut dicitur Rom. V, sicut per unius delictum in omnes homines in condemnationem, sic per unius iustitiam in omnes homines in iustificationem vitae.

I answer that, Baptism cannot be reiterated.

First, because Baptism is a spiritual regeneration; inasmuch as a man dies to the old life, and begins to lead the new life. Whence it is written (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, He cannot see [Vulg.: 'enter into'] the kingdom of God." Now one man can be begotten but once. Wherefore Baptism cannot be reiterated, just as neither can carnal generation. Hence Augustine says on John 3:4: "'Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born again': So thou," says he, "must understand the birth of the Spirit, as Nicodemus understood the birth of the flesh . . . . As there is no return to the womb, so neither is there to Baptism."

Secondly, because "we are baptized in Christ's death," by which we die unto sin and rise again unto "newness of life" (cf. Rom. 6:3, 4). Now "Christ died" but "once" (Rom. 6:10). Wherefore neither should Baptism be reiterated. For this reason (Heb. 6:6) is it said against some who wished to be baptized again: "Crucifying again to themselves the Son of God"; on which the gloss observes: "Christ's one death hallowed the one Baptism."

Thirdly, because Baptism imprints a character, which is indelible, and is conferred with a certain consecration. Wherefore, just as other consecrations are not reiterated in the Church, so neither is Baptism. This is the view expressed by Augustine, who says (Contra Epist. Parmen. ii) that "the military character is not renewed": and that "the sacrament of Christ is not less enduring than this bodily mark, since we see that not even apostates are deprived of Baptism, since when they repent and return they are not baptized anew."

Fourthly, because Baptism is conferred principally as a remedy against original sin. Wherefore, just as original sin is not renewed, so neither is Baptism reiterated, for as it is written (Rom. 5:18), "as by the offense of one, unto all men to condemnation, so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification of life."

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Baptismus operatur in virtute passionis Christi, sicut supra dictum est. Et ideo, sicut peccata sequentia virtutem passionis Christi non auferunt, ita etiam non auferunt Baptismum, ut necesse sit ipsum iterari, sed, poenitentia superveniente, tollitur peccatum, quod impediebat effectum Baptismi.

Baptism derives its efficacy from Christ's Passion, as stated above (A. 2, ad 1). Wherefore, just as subsequent sins do not cancel the virtue of Christ's Passion, so neither do they cancel Baptism, so as to call for its repetition. On the other hand the sin which hindered the effect of Baptism is blotted out on being submitted to Penance.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, super illud Ioan. I, sed ego nesciebam eum, ecce, post Ioannem baptizatum est, post homicidam non est baptizatum, quia Ioannes dedit Baptismum suum, homicida dedit Baptismum Christi; quia sacramentum tam sanctum est ut nec homicida ministrante polluatur.

As Augustine says on John 1:33: "'And I knew Him not': Behold; after John had baptized, Baptism was administered; after a murderer has baptized, it is not administered: because John gave his own Baptism; the murderer, Christ's; for that sacrament is so sacred, that not even a murderer's administration contaminates it."

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod Pauliani et Cataphrygae non baptizabant in nomine Trinitatis. Unde Gregorius dicit, scribens Quirico episcopo, hi haeretici qui in Trinitatis nomine minime baptizantur, sicut sunt Bonosiani et Cataphrygae, qui scilicet idem sentiebant cum Paulianis, quia et isti Christum Deum non credunt, existimantes scilicet ipsum esse purum hominem, et isti, scilicet Cataphrygae, spiritum sanctum perverso sensu esse purum hominem, Montanum scilicet, credunt, qui cum ad sanctam Ecclesiam veniunt, baptizantur, quia Baptisma non fuit quod, in errore positi, sanctae Trinitatis nomine minime perceperunt. Sed, sicut in regulis ecclesiasticis dicitur, si qui apud illos haereticos baptizati sunt qui in sanctae Trinitatis confessione baptizant, et veniunt ad Catholicam fidem, recipiantur ut baptizati.

The Paulianists and Cataphrygians used not to baptize in the name of the Trinity. Wherefore Gregory, writing to the Bishop Quiricus, says: "Those heretics who are not baptized in the name of the Trinity, such as the Bonosians and Cataphrygians" (who were of the same mind as the Paulianists), "since the former believe not that Christ is God" (holding Him to be a mere man), "while the latter," i.e. the Cataphrygians, "are so perverse as to deem a mere man," viz. Montanus, "to be the Holy Ghost: all these are baptized when they come to holy Church, for the baptism which they received while in that state of error was no Baptism at all, not being conferred in the name of the Trinity." On the other hand, as set down in De Eccles. Dogm. xxii: "Those heretics who have been baptized in the confession of the name of the Trinity are to be received as already baptized when they come to the Catholic Faith."

Ad 4 Reply to Objection 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod, sicut dicit decretalis Alexandri III, de quibus dubium est an baptizati fuerint, baptizentur his verbis praemissis, si baptizatus es, non te rebaptizo, sed si non baptizatus es, ego te baptizo, et cetera. Non enim videtur iterari quod nescitur esse factum.

According to the Decretal of Alexander III: "Those about whose Baptism there is a doubt are to be baptized with these words prefixed to the form: 'If thou art baptized, I do not rebaptize thee; but if thou art not baptized, I baptize thee,' etc.: for that does not appear to be repeated, which is not known to have been done."

Ad 5 Reply to Objection 5

Ad quintum dicendum quod utrumque sacramentum, scilicet Baptismi et Eucharistiae, est repraesentativum dominicae mortis et passionis, aliter tamen et aliter. Nam in Baptismo commemoratur mors Christi inquantum homo Christo commoritur ut in novam vitam regeneretur. Sed in sacramento Eucharistiae commemoratur mors Christi inquantum ipse Christus passus exhibetur nobis quasi paschale convivium, secundum illud I Cor. V, Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus, itaque epulemur. Et quia homo semel nascitur, multoties autem cibatur, semel tantum datur Baptismus, multoties autem Eucharistia.

Both sacraments, viz. Baptism and the Eucharist, are a representation of our Lord's death and Passion, but not in the same way. For Baptism is a commemoration of Christ's death in so far as man dies with Christ, that he may be born again into a new life. But the Eucharist is a commemoration of Christ's death, in so far as the suffering Christ Himself is offered to us as the Paschal banquet, according to 1 Cor. 5:7, 8: "Christ our pasch is sacrificed; therefore let us feast." And forasmuch as man is born once, whereas he eats many times, so is Baptism given once, but the Eucharist frequently.

Articulus X

Whether the Church Observes a Suitable Rite in Baptizing?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad decimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sit conveniens ritus quo Ecclesia utitur in baptizando. Ut enim dicit Chrysostomus, nunquam aquae Baptismi purgare peccata credentium possent, nisi tactu dominici corporis sanctificatae fuissent. Hoc autem factum fuit in Baptismo Christi, qui celebratur in festo Epiphaniae. Ergo magis deberet celebrari solemnis Baptismus in festo Epiphaniae quam in vigilia Paschae et in vigilia Pentecostes.

It seems that the Church observes an unsuitable rite in baptizing. For as Chrysostom (Chromatius, in Matth. 3:15) says: "The waters of Baptism would never avail to purge the sins of them that believe, had they not been hallowed by the touch of our Lord's body." Now this took place at Christ's Baptism, which is commemorated in the Feast of the Epiphany. Therefore solemn Baptism should be celebrated at the Feast of the Epiphany rather than on the eves of Easter and Whitsunday.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, ad idem sacramentum non videtur pertinere diversarum materierum usus. Sed ab Baptismum pertinet ablutio aquae. Inconvenienter igitur ille qui baptizatur bis inungitur oleo sancto, primum in pectore, deinde inter scapulas, tertio, chrismate in vertice.

Further, it seems that several matters should not be used in the same sacrament. But water is used for washing in Baptism. Therefore it is unfitting that the person baptized should be anointed thrice with holy oil first on the breast, and then between the shoulders, and a third time with chrism on the top of the head.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, in Christo Iesu non est masculus neque femina, barbarus et Scytha, et eadem ratione nec aliquae aliae huiusmodi differentiae. Multo igitur minus diversitas vestium aliquid operatur in fide Christi. Inconvenienter ergo baptizatis traditur candida vestis.

Further, "in Christ Jesus . . . there is neither male nor female" (Gal. 3:23) . . . "neither Barbarian nor Scythian" (Col. 3:11), nor, in like manner, any other such like distinctions. Much less, therefore can a difference of clothing have any efficacy in the Faith of Christ. It is consequently unfitting to bestow a white garment on those who have been baptized.

Arg. 4 Objection 4

Praeterea, sine huiusmodi observantiis potest Baptismus celebrari. Haec igitur quae dicta sunt, videntur esse superflua, et ita inconvenienter ab Ecclesia instituta esse in ritu Baptismi.

Further, Baptism can be celebrated without such like ceremonies. Therefore it seems that those mentioned above are superfluous; and consequently that they are unsuitably inserted by the Church in the baptismal rite.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod Ecclesia regitur spiritu sancto, qui nihil inordinatum operatur.

On the contrary, The Church is ruled by the Holy Ghost, Who does nothing inordinate.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod in sacramento Baptismi aliquid agitur quod est de necessitate sacramenti, et aliquid est quod ad quandam solemnitatem sacramenti pertinet. De necessitate quidem sacramenti est et forma, quae designat principalem causam sacramenti; et minister, qui est causa instrumentalis; et usus materiae, scilicet ablutio in aqua, quae designat principalem sacramenti effectum. Cetera vero omnia quae in ritu baptizandi observat Ecclesia, magis pertinent ad quandam solemnitatem sacramenti. Quae quidem adhibentur sacramento propter tria. Primo quidem, ad excitandam devotionem fidelium, et reverentiam ad sacramentum. Si enim simpliciter fieret ablutio in aqua, absque solemnitate, de facili ab aliquibus aestimaretur quasi quaedam communis ablutio. Secundo, ad fidelium instructionem. Simplices enim, qui litteris non erudiuntur, oportet erudire per aliqua sensibilia signa, puta per picturas, et aliqua huiusmodi. Et per hunc modum per ea quae in sacramentis aguntur, vel instruuntur, vel sollicitantur ad quaerendum de his quae per huiusmodi sensibilia signa significantur. Et ideo, quia, praeter principalem sacramenti effectum, oportet quaedam alia scire circa Baptismum, conveniens fuit ut etiam quibusdam exterioribus signis repraesentarentur. Tertio, quia per orationes et benedictiones et alia huiusmodi cohibetur vis Daemonis ab impedimento sacramentalis effectus.

I answer that, In the sacrament of Baptism something is done which is essential to the sacrament, and something which belongs to a certain solemnity of the sacrament. Essential indeed, to the sacrament are both the form which designates the principal cause of the sacrament; and the minister who is the instrumental cause; and the use of the matter, namely, washing with water, which designates the principal sacramental effect. But all the other things which the Church observes in the baptismal rite, belong rather to a certain solemnity of the sacrament.

And these, indeed, are used in conjunction with the sacrament for three reasons. First, in order to arouse the devotion of the faithful, and their reverence for the sacrament. For if there were nothing done but a mere washing with water, without any solemnity, some might easily think it to be an ordinary washing.

Secondly, for the instruction of the faithful. Because simple and unlettered folk need to be taught by some sensible signs, for instance, pictures and the like. And in this way by means of the sacramental ceremonies they are either instructed, or urged to seek the signification of such like sensible signs. And consequently, since, besides the principal sacramental effect, other things should be known about Baptism, it was fitting that these also should be represented by some outward signs.

Thirdly, because the power of the devil is restrained, by prayers, blessings, and the like, from hindering the sacramental effect.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Christus in Epiphania baptizatus est Baptismo Ioannis, ut supra dictum est, quo quidem Baptismo non baptizantur fideles, sed potius Baptismo Christi. Qui quidem habet efficaciam ex passione Christi, secundum illud Rom. VI, quicumque baptizati sumus in Christo Iesu, in morte ipsius baptizati sumus; et ex spiritu sancto, secundum illud Ioan. III, nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu sancto. Et ideo solemnis Baptismus agitur in Ecclesia et in vigilia Paschae, quando fit commemoratio dominicae sepulturae, et resurrectionis eiusdem; propter quod et dominus post resurrectionem praeceptum de Baptismo discipulis dedit, ut habetur Matth. ult., et in vigilia Pentecostes, quando incipit celebrari solemnitas spiritus sancti; unde et apostoli leguntur ipso die Pentecostes, quo spiritum sanctum receperant, tria millia baptizasse.

Christ was baptized on the Epiphany with the Baptism of John, as stated above (Q. 39, A. 2), with which baptism, indeed, the faithful are not baptized, rather are they baptized with Christ's Baptism. This has its efficacy from the Passion of Christ, according to Rom. 6:3: "We who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death"; and in the Holy Ghost, according to John 3:5: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost." Therefore it is that solemn Baptism is held in the Church, both on Easter Eve, when we commemorate our Lord's burial and resurrection; for which reason our Lord gave His disciples the commandment concerning Baptism as related by Matthew (28:19): and on Whitsun-eve, when the celebration of the Feast of the Holy Ghost begins; for which reason the apostles are said to have baptized three thousand on the very day of Pentecost when they had received the Holy Ghost.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod usus aquae adhibetur in Baptismo quasi pertinens ad substantiam sacramenti, sed usus olei vel chrismatis adhibetur ad quandam solemnitatem. Nam primo, baptizandus inungitur oleo sancto et in pectore et in scapulis, quasi athleta Dei, ut Ambrosius dicit, in libro de sacramentis, sicut pugiles inungi consueverunt. Vel, sicut Innocentius dicit, in quadam decretali de sacra unctione, baptizandus in pectore inungitur, ut spiritus sancti donum recipiat, errorem abiiciat et ignorantiam, et fidem rectam suscipiat, quia iustus ex fide vivit; inter scapulas autem inungitur, ut spiritus sancti gratiam induat, exuat negligentiam et torporem, et bonam operationem exerceat; ut per fidei sacramentum sit munditia cogitationum in pectore, et fortitudo laborum in scapulis. Post Baptismum vero, ut Rabanus dicit, statim signatur in cerebro a presbytero cum sacro chrismate, sequente simul et oratione, ut Christi regni particeps fiat, et a Christo Christianus possit vocari. Vel, sicut Ambrosius dicit, unguentum super caput effunditur, quia sapientis sensus in capite eius, ut scilicet sit paratus omni petenti de fide reddere rationem.

The use of water in Baptism is part of the substance of the sacrament; but the use of oil or chrism is part of the solemnity. For the candidate is first of all anointed with Holy oil on the breast and between the shoulders, as "one who wrestles for God," to use Ambrose's expression (De Sacram. i): thus are prize-fighters wont to besmear themselves with oil. Or, as Innocent III says in a decretal on the Holy Unction: "The candidate is anointed on the breast, in order to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, to cast off error and ignorance, and to acknowledge the true faith, since 'the just man liveth by faith'; while he is anointed between the shoulders, that he may be clothed with the grace of the Holy Ghost, lay aside indifference and sloth, and become active in good works; so that the sacrament of faith may purify the thoughts of his heart, and strengthen his shoulders for the burden of labor." But after Baptism, as Rabanus says (De Sacram. iii), "he is forthwith anointed on the head by the priest with Holy Chrism, who proceeds at once to offer up a prayer that the neophyte may have a share in Christ's kingdom, and be called a Christian after Christ." Or, as Ambrose says (De Sacram. iii), his head is anointed, because "the senses of a wise man are in his head" (Eccl 2:14): to wit, that he may "be ready to satisfy everyone that asketh" him to give "a reason of his faith" (cf. 1 Pet. 3:15; Innocent III, Decretal on Holy Unction).

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod vestis illa candida traditur baptizato, non quidem ea ratione quod non liceat ei aliis vestibus uti, sed in signum gloriosae resurrectionis, ad quam homines per Baptismum regenerantur; et ad designandam puritatem vitae, quam debent post Baptismum observare, secundum illud Rom. VI, in novitate vitae ambulemus.

This white garment is given, not as though it were unlawful for the neophyte to use others: but as a sign of the glorious resurrection, unto which men are born again by Baptism; and in order to designate the purity of life, to which he will be bound after being baptized, according to Rom. 6:4: "That we may walk in newness of life."

Ad 4 Reply to Objection 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod ea quae pertinent ad solemnitatem sacramenti, etsi non sint de necessitate sacramenti, non tamen sunt superflua, quia sunt ad bene esse sacramenti, ut supra dictum est.

Although those things that belong to the solemnity of a sacrament are not essential to it, yet are they not superfluous, since they pertain to the sacrament's wellbeing, as stated above.

Articulus XI

Whether Three Kinds of Baptism Are Fittingly Described—viz. Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad undecimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter describantur tria Baptismata, scilicet aquae, sanguinis et flaminis, scilicet spiritus sancti. Quia apostolus dicit, Ephes. IV, una fides, unum Baptisma. Sed non est nisi una fides. Ergo non debent tria Baptismata esse.

It seems that the three kinds of Baptism are not fittingly described as Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit, i.e. of the Holy Ghost. Because the Apostle says (Eph. 4:5): "One Faith, one Baptism." Now there is but one Faith. Therefore there should not be three Baptisms.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, Baptismus est quoddam sacramentum, ut ex supra dictis patet. Sed solum Baptismus aquae est sacramentum. Ergo non debent poni alii duo Baptismi.

Further, Baptism is a sacrament, as we have made clear above (Q. 65, A. 1). Now none but Baptism of Water is a sacrament. Therefore we should not reckon two other Baptisms.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, Damascenus, in IV libro, determinat plura alia genera Baptismatum. Non ergo solum debent poni tria Baptismata.

Further, Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv) distinguishes several other kinds of Baptism. Therefore we should admit more than three Baptisms.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod, super illud Heb. VI, Baptismatum doctrinae, dicit Glossa, pluraliter dicit, quia est Baptismus aquae, poenitentiae, et sanguinis.

On the contrary, on Heb. 6:2, "Of the doctrine of Baptisms," the gloss says: "He uses the plural, because there is Baptism of Water, of Repentance, and of Blood."

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, Baptismus aquae efficaciam habet a passione Christi, cui aliquis configuratur per Baptismum; et ulterius, sicut a prima causa, a spiritu sancto. Licet autem effectus dependeat a prima causa, causa tamen superexcedit effectum, nec dependet ab effectu. Et ideo, praeter Baptismum aquae, potest aliquis consequi sacramenti effectum ex passione Christi, inquantum quis ei conformatur pro Christo patiendo. Unde dicitur Apoc. VII, hi sunt qui venerunt ex tribulatione magna, et laverunt stolas suas et dealbaverunt eas in sanguine agni. Eadem etiam ratione aliquis per virtutem spiritus sancti consequitur effectum Baptismi, non solum sine Baptismo aquae, sed etiam sine Baptismo sanguinis, inquantum scilicet alicuius cor per spiritum sanctum movetur ad credendum et diligendum Deum, et poenitendum de peccatis; unde etiam dicitur Baptismus poenitentiae. Et de hoc dicitur Isaiae IV, si abluerit dominus sordes filiarum Sion, et sanguinem Ierusalem laverit de medio eius, in spiritu iudicii et spiritu ardoris. Sic igitur utrumque aliorum Baptismatum nominatur Baptismus, inquantum supplet vicem Baptismi. Unde dicit Augustinus, in IV libro de unico Baptismo parvulorum, Baptismi vicem aliquando implere passionem, de latrone illo cui non baptizato dictum est, hodie mecum eris in Paradiso, beatus Cyprianus non leve documentum assumit. Quod etiam atque etiam considerans, invenio non tantum passionem pro nomine Christi id quod ex Baptismo deerat posse supplere, sed etiam fidem conversionemque cordis, si forte ad celebrandum mysterium Baptismi in angustiis temporum succurri non potest.

I answer that, As stated above (Q. 62, A. 5), Baptism of Water has its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apoc. 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb." In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. Of this it is written (Isa. 4:4): "If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning." Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo Parvulorum iv): "The Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason from the thief to whom, though not baptized, it was said: 'Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise' that suffering can take the place of Baptism. Having weighed this in my mind again and again, I perceive that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply for what was lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if perchance on account of the stress of the times the celebration of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable."

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod alia duo Baptismata includuntur in Baptismo aquae, qui efficaciam habet et ex passione Christi et ex spiritu sancto. Et ideo per hoc non tollitur unitas Baptismatis.

The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, sacramentum habet rationem signi. Alia vero duo conveniunt cum Baptismo aquae, non quidem quantum ad rationem signi, sed quantum ad effectum Baptismatis. Et ideo non sunt sacramenta.

As stated above (Q. 60, A. 1), a sacrament is a kind of sign. The other two, however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal effect. Consequently they are not sacraments.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod Damascenus ponit quaedam Baptismata figuralia. Sicut diluvium, quod fuit signum nostri Baptismi quantum ad salvationem fidelium in Ecclesia, sicut tunc paucae animae salvae factae sunt in arca, ut dicitur I Petr. III. Ponit etiam transitum maris rubri, qui significat nostrum Baptisma quantum ad liberationem a servitute peccati; unde apostolus dicit, I Cor. X, quod omnes baptizati sunt in nube et in mari. Ponit etiam ablutiones diversas quae fiebant in veteri lege, praefigurantes nostrum Baptisma quantum ad purgationem peccatorum. Ponit etiam Baptismum Ioannis, qui fuit praeparatorius ad nostrum Baptisma.

Damascene enumerates certain figurative Baptisms. For instance, "the Deluge" was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of the salvation of the faithful in the Church; since then "a few . . . souls were saved in the ark [Vulg.: 'by water']," according to 1 Pet. 3:20. He also mentions "the crossing of the Red Sea": which was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of our delivery from the bondage of sin; hence the Apostle says (1 Cor. 10:2) that "all . . . were baptized in the cloud and in the sea." And again he mentions "the various washings which were customary under the Old Law," which were figures of our Baptism, as to the cleansing from sins: also "the Baptism of John," which prepared the way for our Baptism.

Articulus XII

Whether the Baptism of Blood Is the Most Excellent of These?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad duodecimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Baptismus sanguinis non sit potissimus inter tria Baptismata. Baptismus enim aquae imprimit characterem. Quod quidem Baptismus sanguinis non facit. Ergo Baptismus sanguinis non est potior quam Baptismus aquae.

It seems that the Baptism of Blood is not the most excellent of these three. For the Baptism of Water impresses a character; which the Baptism of Blood cannot do. Therefore the Baptism of Blood is not more excellent than the Baptism of Water.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, Baptismus sanguinis non valet sine Baptismo flaminis, qui est per caritatem, dicitur enim I Cor. XIII, si tradidero corpus meum ita ut ardeam, caritatem autem non habuero, nihil mihi prodest. Sed Baptismus flaminis valet sine Baptismo sanguinis, non enim soli martyres salvantur. Ergo Baptismus sanguinis non est potissimus.

Further, the Baptism of Blood is of no avail without the Baptism of the Spirit, which is by charity; for it is written (1 Cor. 13:3): "If I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." But the Baptism of the Spirit avails without the Baptism of Blood; for not only the martyrs are saved. Therefore the Baptism of Blood is not the most excellent.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, sicut Baptismus aquae habet efficaciam a passione Christi, cui, secundum praedicta, respondet Baptismus sanguinis, ita passio Christi efficaciam habet a spiritu sancto, secundum illud Heb. IX, sanguis Christi, qui per spiritum sanctum obtulit semetipsum pro nobis, emundabit conscientias nostras ab operibus mortuis, et cetera. Ergo Baptismus flaminis potior est quam Baptismus sanguinis. Non ergo Baptismus sanguinis est potissimus.

Further, just as the Baptism of Water derives its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which, as stated above (A. 11), the Baptism of Blood corresponds, so Christ's Passion derives its efficacy from the Holy Ghost, according to Heb. 9:14: "The Blood of Christ, Who by the Holy Ghost offered Himself unspotted unto God, shall cleanse our conscience from dead works," etc. Therefore the Baptism of the Spirit is more excellent than the Baptism of Blood. Therefore the Baptism of Blood is not the most excellent.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod Augustinus, ad Fortunatum, loquens de comparatione Baptismatum, dicit, baptizatus confitetur fidem suam coram sacerdote, martyr coram persecutore. Ille post confessionem suam aspergitur aqua, hic sanguine. Ille per impositionem manus pontificis recipit spiritum sanctum, hic templum efficitur spiritus sancti.

On the contrary, Augustine (Ad Fortunatum) speaking of the comparison between Baptisms says: "The newly baptized confesses his faith in the presence of the priest: the martyr in the presence of the persecutor. The former is sprinkled with water, after he has confessed; the latter with his blood. The former receives the Holy Ghost by the imposition of the bishop's hands; the latter is made the temple of the Holy Ghost."

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, effusio sanguinis pro Christo, et operatio interior spiritus sancti, dicuntur Baptismata inquantum efficiunt effectum Baptismi aquae. Baptismus autem aquae efficaciam habet a passione Christi et a spiritu sancto, ut dictum est. Quae quidem duae causae operantur in quolibet horum trium Baptismatum, excellentissime autem in Baptismo sanguinis. Nam passio Christi operatur quidem in Baptismo aquae per quandam figuralem repraesentationem; in Baptismo autem flaminis vel poenitentiae per quandam affectionem; sed in Baptismo sanguinis per imitationem operis. Similiter etiam virtus spiritus sancti operatur in Baptismo aquae per quandam virtutem latentem; in Baptismo autem poenitentiae per cordis commotionem; sed in Baptismo sanguinis per potissimum dilectionis et affectionis fervorem, secundum illud Ioan. XV, maiorem hac dilectionem nemo habet, ut animam suam ponat quis pro amicis suis.

I answer that, As stated above (A. 11), the shedding of blood for Christ's sake, and the inward operation of the Holy Ghost, are called baptisms, in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water. Now the Baptism of Water derives its efficacy from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost, as already stated (A. 11). These two causes act in each of these three Baptisms; most excellently, however, in the Baptism of Blood. For Christ's Passion acts in the Baptism of Water by way of a figurative representation; in the Baptism of the Spirit or of Repentance, by way of desire; but in the Baptism of Blood, by way of imitating the (Divine) act. In like manner, too, the power of the Holy Ghost acts in the Baptism of Water through a certain hidden power; in the Baptism of Repentance by moving the heart; but in the Baptism of Blood by the highest degree of fervor of dilection and love, according to John 15:13: "Greater love than this no man hath that a man lay down his life for his friends."

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod character est res et sacramentum. Non autem dicimus quod Baptismus sanguinis praeeminentiam habeat secundum rationem sacramenti, sed quantum ad sacramenti effectum.

A character is both reality and a sacrament. And we do not say that the Baptism of Blood is more excellent, considering the nature of a sacrament; but considering the sacramental effect.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod effusio sanguinis non habet rationem Baptismi si sit sine caritate. Ex quo patet quod Baptismus sanguinis includit Baptismum flaminis, et non e converso. Unde ex hoc probatur perfectior.

The shedding of blood is not in the nature of a Baptism if it be without charity. Hence it is clear that the Baptism of Blood includes the Baptism of the Spirit, but not conversely. And from this it is proved to be more perfect.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod Baptismus sanguinis praeeminentiam habet non solum ex parte passionis Christi, sed etiam ex parte spiritus sancti, ut dictum est.

The Baptism owes its pre-eminence not only to Christ's Passion, but also to the Holy Ghost, as stated above.

Showing Thomas's answers only.