Tertia Pars · Baptism and Confirmation

Of Those Who Receive Baptism

III, q. 68 · Twelve articles

Prooemium · Thomas's plan for this question

Deinde considerandum est de suscipientibus Baptismum. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duodecim. Primo, utrum omnes teneantur ad suscipiendum Baptismum. Secundo, utrum aliquis possit salvari sine Baptismo. Tertio, utrum Baptismus sit differendus. Quarto, utrum peccatores sint baptizandi. Quinto, utrum peccatoribus baptizatis sint imponenda opera satisfactoria. Sexto, utrum requiratur confessio peccatorum. Septimo, utrum requiratur intentio ex parte baptizati. Octavo, utrum requiratur fides. Nono, utrum pueri sint baptizandi. Decimo, utrum pueri Iudaeorum sint baptizandi invitis parentibus. Undecimo, utrum aliqui sint baptizandi in maternis uteris existentes. Duodecimo, utrum furiosi et amentes sint baptizandi.

We have now to consider those who receive Baptism; concerning which there are twelve points of inquiry:

(1) Whether all are bound to receive Baptism?

(2) Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?

(3) Whether Baptism should be deferred?

(4) Whether sinners should be baptized?

(5) Whether works of satisfaction should be enjoined on sinners that have been baptized?

(6) Whether Confession of sins is necessary?

(7) Whether an intention is required on the part of the one baptized?

(8) Whether faith is necessary?

(9) Whether infants should be baptized?

(10) Whether the children of Jews should be baptized against the will of their parents?

(11) Whether anyone should be baptized in the mother's womb?

(12) Whether madmen and imbeciles should be baptized?

  1. 1 Whether All Are Bound to Receive Baptism?
  2. 2 Whether a Man Can Be Saved Without Baptism?
  3. 3 Whether Baptism Should Be Deferred?
  4. 4 Whether Sinners Should Be Baptized?
  5. 5 Whether Works of Satisfaction Should Be Enjoined on Sinners That Have Been Baptized?
  6. 6 Whether Sinners Who Are Going to Be Baptized Are Bound to Confess Their Sins?
  7. 7 Whether the Intention of Receiving the Sacrament of Baptism Is Required on the Part of the One Baptized?
  8. 8 Whether Faith Is Required on the Part of the One Baptized?
  9. 9 Whether Children Should Be Baptized?
  10. 10 Whether Children of Jews or Other Unbelievers Should Be Baptized Against the Will of Their Parents?
  11. 11 Whether a Child Can Be Baptized While Yet in Its Mother's Womb?
  12. 12 Whether Madmen and Imbeciles Should Be Baptized?

Articulus I

Whether All Are Bound to Receive Baptism?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non teneantur omnes ad susceptionem Baptismi. Per Christum enim non est hominibus arctata via salutis. Sed ante Christi adventum poterant homines salvari sine Baptismo. Ergo etiam post Christi adventum.

It seems that not all are bound to receive Baptism. For Christ did not narrow man's road to salvation. But before Christ's coming men could be saved without Baptism: therefore also after Christ's coming.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, Baptismus maxime videtur esse institutus in remedium peccati originalis. Sed ille qui est baptizatus, cum non habeat originale peccatum, non videtur quod possit transfundere in prolem. Ergo filii baptizatorum non videntur esse baptizandi.

Further, Baptism seems to have been instituted principally as a remedy for original sin. Now, since a man who is baptized is without original sin, it seems that he cannot transmit it to his children. Therefore it seems that the children of those who have been baptized, should not themselves be baptized.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, Baptismus datur ad hoc quod aliquis per gratiam a peccato mundetur. Sed hoc consequuntur illi qui sunt sanctificati in utero, sine Baptismo. Ergo non tenentur ad suscipiendum Baptismum.

Further, Baptism is given in order that a man may, through grace, be cleansed from sin. But those who are sanctified in the womb, obtain this without Baptism. Therefore they are not bound to receive Baptism.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod dicitur Ioan. III, nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei. Et in libro de ecclesiasticis dogmatibus dicitur, baptizatis tantum iter salutis esse credimus.

On the contrary, It is written (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Again it is stated in De Eccl. Dogm. xli, that "we believe the way of salvation to be open to those only who are baptized."

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod ad illud homines tenentur sine quo salutem consequi non possunt. Manifestum est autem quod nullus salutem potest consequi nisi per Christum, unde et apostolus dicit, Rom. V, sicut per unius delictum in omnes homines in condemnationem, sic et per unius iustitiam in omnes homines in iustificationem vitae. Ad hoc autem datur Baptismus ut aliquis, per ipsum regeneratus, incorporetur Christo, factus membrum ipsius, unde dicitur Gal. III, quicumque in Christo baptizati estis, Christum induistis. Unde manifestum est quod omnes ad Baptismum tenentur; et sine eo non potest esse salus hominibus.

I answer that, Men are bound to that without which they cannot obtain salvation. Now it is manifest that no one can obtain salvation but through Christ; wherefore the Apostle says (Rom. 5:18): "As by the offense of one unto all men unto condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all men unto justification of life." But for this end is Baptism conferred on a man, that being regenerated thereby, he may be incorporated in Christ, by becoming His member: wherefore it is written (Gal. 3:27): "As many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ." Consequently it is manifest that all are bound to be baptized: and that without Baptism there is no salvation for men.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod nunquam homines potuerunt salvari, etiam ante Christi adventum, nisi fierent membra Christi, quia, ut dicitur Act. IV, non est aliud nomen datum hominibus in quo oporteat nos salvos fieri. Sed ante adventum Christi, homines Christo incorporabantur per fidem futuri adventus, cuius fidei signaculum erat circumcisio, ut apostolus dicit, Rom. IV. Ante vero quam circumcisio institueretur, sola fide, ut Gregorius dicit, cum sacrificiorum oblatione, quibus suam fidem antiqui patres profitebantur, homines Christo incorporabantur. Post adventum etiam Christi, homines per fidem Christo incorporantur, secundum illud Ephes. III habitare Christum per fidem in cordibus vestris. Sed alio signo manifestatur fides rei iam praesentis quam demonstrabatur quando erat futura, sicut aliis verbis significatur praesens, praeteritum et futurum. Et ideo, licet ipsum sacramentum Baptismi non semper fuerit necessarium ad salutem, fides tamen, cuius Baptismus sacramentum est, semper necessaria fuit.

At no time, not even before the coming of Christ, could men be saved unless they became members of Christ: because, as it is written (Acts 4:12), "there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved." But before Christ's coming, men were incorporated in Christ by faith in His future coming: of which faith circumcision was the "seal," as the Apostle calls it (Rom. 4:11): whereas before circumcision was instituted, men were incorporated in Christ by "faith alone," as Gregory says (Moral. iv), together with the offering of sacrifices, by means of which the Fathers of old made profession of their faith. Again, since Christ's coming, men are incorporated in Christ by faith; according to Eph. 3:17: "That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts." But faith in a thing already present is manifested by a sign different from that by which it was manifested when that thing was yet in the future: just as we use other parts of the verb, to signify the present, the past, and the future. Consequently although the sacrament itself of Baptism was not always necessary for salvation, yet faith, of which Baptism is the sacrament, was always necessary.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut in secunda parte dictum est, illi qui baptizantur, renovantur per Baptismum secundum spiritum, corpus tamen remanet subiectum vetustati peccati, secundum illud Rom. VIII, corpus quidem mortuum est propter peccatum, spiritus vero vivit propter iustificationem. Unde Augustinus probat, in libro contra Iulianum, quod non baptizatur in homine quidquid in eo est. Manifestum est autem quod homo non generat generatione carnali secundum spiritum, sed secundum carnem. Et ideo filii baptizatorum cum peccato originali nascuntur. Unde indigent baptizari.

As we have stated in the I-II, Q. 81, A. 3, ad 2, those who are baptized are renewed in spirit by Baptism, while their body remains subject to the oldness of sin, according to Rom. 8:10: "The body, indeed, is dead because of sin, but the spirit liveth because of justification." Wherefore Augustine (Contra Julian. vi) proves that "not everything that is in man is baptized." Now it is manifest that in carnal generation man does not beget in respect of his soul, but in respect of his body. Consequently the children of those who are baptized are born with original sin; wherefore they need to be baptized.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod illi qui sunt sanctificati in utero, consequuntur quidem gratiam emundantem a peccato originali, non tamen ex hoc ipso consequuntur characterem, quo Christo configurentur. Et propter hoc, si aliqui nunc sanctificarentur in utero, necesse esset eos baptizari, ut per susceptionem characteris aliis membris Christi conformarentur.

Those who are sanctified in the womb, receive indeed grace which cleanses them from original sin, but they do not therefore receive the character, by which they are conformed to Christ. Consequently, if any were to be sanctified in the womb now, they would need to be baptized, in order to be conformed to Christ's other members by receiving the character.

Articulus II

Whether a Man Can Be Saved Without Baptism?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod sine Baptismo nullus possit salvari. Dicit enim dominus, Ioan. III, nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei. Sed illi soli salvantur qui regnum Dei intrant. Ergo nullus potest salvari sine Baptismo, quo aliquis regeneratur ex aqua et spiritu sancto.

It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For our Lord said (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." But those alone are saved who enter God's kingdom. Therefore none can be saved without Baptism, by which a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, in libro de ecclesiasticis dogmatibus dicitur, nullum catechumenum, quamvis in bonis operibus defunctum, aeternam vitam habere credimus, excepto martyrio, ubi tota sacramenta Baptismi complentur. Sed si aliquis sine Baptismo possit salvari, maxime hoc haberet locum in catechumenis bona opera habentibus, qui videntur habere fidem per dilectionem operantem. Videtur ergo quod sine Baptismo nullus possit salvari.

Further, in the book De Eccl. Dogm. xli, it is written: "We believe that no catechumen, though he die in his good works, will have eternal life, except he suffer martyrdom, which contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism." But if it were possible for anyone to be saved without Baptism, this would be the case specially with catechumens who are credited with good works, for they seem to have the "faith that worketh by charity" (Gal. 5:6). Therefore it seems that none can be saved without Baptism.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, sicut supra dictum est, Baptismi sacramentum est de necessitate salutis. Necessarium autem est sine quo non potest aliquid esse, ut dicitur in V Metaphys. Ergo videtur quod sine Baptismo nullus possit consequi salutem.

Further, as stated above (A. 1; Q. 65, A. 4), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary "without which something cannot be" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, super Levit., invisibilem sanctificationem quibusdam affuisse et profuisse sine visibilibus sacramentis, visibilem vero sanctificationem, quae fit sacramento visibili, sine invisibili posse adesse, sed non prodesse. Cum ergo sacramentum Baptismi ad visibilem sanctificationem pertineat, videtur quod sine sacramento Baptismi aliquis possit salutem consequi per invisibilem sanctificationem.

On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that "some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit." Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod sacramentum Baptismi dupliciter potest alicui deesse. Uno modo, et re et voto, quod contingit in illis qui nec baptizantur nec baptizari volunt. Quod manifeste ad contemptum sacramenti pertinet, quantum ad illos qui habent usum liberi arbitrii. Et ideo hi quibus hoc modo deest Baptismus, salutem consequi non possunt, quia nec sacramentaliter nec mentaliter Christo incorporantur, per quem solum est salus. Alio modo potest sacramentum Baptismi alicui deesse re, sed non voto, sicut cum aliquis baptizari desiderat, sed aliquo casu praevenitur morte antequam Baptismum suscipiat. Talis autem sine Baptismo actuali salutem consequi potest, propter desiderium Baptismi, quod procedit ex fide per dilectionem operante, per quam Deus interius hominem sanctificat, cuius potentia sacramentis visibilibus non alligatur. Unde Ambrosius dicit de Valentiniano, qui catechumenus mortuus fuit, quem regeneraturus eram, amisi, veruntamen ille gratiam quam poposcit, non amisit.

I answer that, The sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.

Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut dicitur I Reg. XVI, homines vident ea quae parent, dominus autem intuetur cor. Ille autem qui desiderat per Baptismum regenerari ex aqua et spiritu sancto, corde quidem regeneratus est, licet non corpore, sicut et apostolus dicit, Rom. II, quod circumcisio cordis est in spiritu, non in littera; cuius laus non ex hominibus, sed ex Deo est.

As it is written (1 Kings 16:7), "man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart." Now a man who desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. Thus the Apostle says (Rom. 2:29) that "the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God."

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod nullus pervenit ad vitam aeternam nisi absolutus ab omni culpa et reatu poenae. Quae quidem universalis absolutio fit in perceptione Baptismi, et in martyrio, propter quod dicitur quod in martyrio omnia sacramenta Baptismi complentur, scilicet quantum ad plenam liberationem a culpa et poena. Si quis ergo catechumenus sit habens desiderium Baptismi (quia aliter in bonis operibus non moreretur, quae non possunt esse sine fide per dilectionem operante), talis decedens non statim pervenit ad vitam aeternam, sed patietur poenam pro peccatis praeteritis, ipse tamen salvus erit sic quasi per ignem, ut dicitur I Cor. III.

No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom "contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism," i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without "faith that worketh by charity"), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, "but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" as is stated 1 Cor. 3:15.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod pro tanto dicitur sacramentum Baptismi esse de necessitate salutis, quia non potest esse hominis salus nisi saltem in voluntate habeatur, quae apud Deum reputatur pro facto.

The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).

Articulus III

Whether Baptism Should Be Deferred?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod Baptismus sit differendus. Dicit enim Leo Papa, duo tempora, idest Pascha et Pentecoste, ad baptizandum a Romano pontifice legitima praefixa sunt. Unde dilectionem vestram monemus ut nullos alios dies huic observationi misceatis. Videtur ergo quod oporteat non statim aliquos baptizari, sed usque ad praedicta tempora Baptismum differri.

It seems that Baptism should be deferred. For Pope Leo says (Epist. xvi): "Two seasons," i.e. Easter and Whitsuntide, "are fixed by the Roman Pontiff for the celebration of Baptism. Wherefore we admonish your Beatitude not to add any other days to this custom." Therefore it seems that Baptism should be conferred not at once, but delayed until the aforesaid seasons.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, in Concilio Agathensi legitur, Iudaei, quorum perfidia frequenter ad vomitum redit, si ad leges Catholicas venire voluerint, octo menses inter catechumenos Ecclesiae limen introeant, et, si pura fide venire noscantur, tunc demum Baptismi gratiam mereantur. Non ergo statim sunt homines baptizandi, sed usque ad certum tempus est differendum Baptisma.

Further, we read in the decrees of the Council of Agde (Can. xxxiv): "If Jews whose bad faith often 'returns to the vomit,' wish to submit to the Law of the Catholic Church, let them for eight months enter the porch of the church with the catechumens; and if they are found to come in good faith then at last they may deserve the grace of Baptism." Therefore men should not be baptized at once, and Baptism should be deferred for a certain fixed time.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, sicut dicitur Isaiae XXVII, iste est omnis fructus, ut auferatur peccatum. Sed magis videtur auferri peccatum, vel etiam diminui, si Baptismus differatur. Primo quidem, quia peccantes post Baptismum gravius peccant, secundum illud Heb. X, quanto magis putatis deteriora mereri supplicia qui sanguinem testamenti pollutum duxerit, in quo sanctificatus est, scilicet per Baptismum? Secundo, quia Baptismus tollit peccata praeterita, non autem futura, unde, quanto Baptismus magis differtur, tanto plura peccata tollet. Videtur ergo quod Baptismus debeat diu differri.

Further, as we read in Isa. 27:9, "this is all the fruit, that the sin . . . should be taken away." Now sin seems to be taken away, or at any rate lessened, if Baptism be deferred. First, because those who sin after Baptism, sin more grievously, according to Heb. 10:29: "How much more, do you think, he deserveth worse punishments, who hath . . . esteemed the blood of the testament," i.e. Baptism, "unclean, by which he was sanctified?" Secondly, because Baptism takes away past, but not future, sins: wherefore the more it is deferred, the more sins it takes away. Therefore it seems that Baptism should be deferred for a long time.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod dicitur Eccli. V, ne tardes converti ad dominum, et ne differas de die in diem. Sed perfecta conversio ad Deum est eorum qui regenerantur in Christo per Baptismum. Non ergo Baptismus debet differri de die in diem.

On the contrary, It is written (Ecclus. 5:8): "Delay not to be converted to the Lord, and defer it not from day to day." But the perfect conversion to God is of those who are regenerated in Christ by Baptism. Therefore Baptism should not be deferred from day to day.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod circa hoc distinguendum est utrum sint baptizandi pueri vel adulti. Si enim pueri sint baptizandi, non est differendum Baptisma. Primo quidem, quia non expectatur in eis maior instructio, aut etiam plenior conversio. Secundo, propter periculum mortis, quia non potest alio remedio subveniri nisi per sacramentum Baptismi. Adultis vero subveniri potest per solum Baptismi desiderium, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo adultis non statim cum convertuntur, est sacramentum Baptismi conferendum, sed oportet differre usque ad aliquod certum tempus. Primo quidem, propter cautelam Ecclesiae, ne decipiatur, ficte accedentibus conferens, secundum illud I Ioan. IV, nolite omni spiritui credere, sed probate spiritus si ex Deo sunt. Quae quidem probatio sumitur de accedentibus ad Baptismum, quando per aliquod spatium eorum fides et mores examinantur. Secundo, hoc est necessarium ad utilitatem eorum qui baptizantur, quia aliquo temporis spatio indigent ad hoc quod plene instruantur de fide, et exercitentur in his quae pertinent ad vitam Christianam. Tertio, hoc est necessarium ad quandam reverentiam sacramenti, dum in solemnitatibus praecipuis, scilicet Paschae et Pentecostes, homines ad Baptismum admittuntur, et ita devotius sacramentum suscipiunt. Haec tamen dilatio est praetermittenda duplici ratione. Primo quidem, quando illi qui sunt baptizandi, apparent perfecte instructi in fide et ad Baptismum idonei, sicut Philippus statim baptizavit eunuchum, ut habetur Act. VIII; et Petrus Cornelium et eos qui cum ipso erant, ut habetur Act. X. Secundo, propter infirmitatem, aut aliquod periculum mortis. Unde Leo Papa dicit, hi qui necessitate mortis, aegritudinis, obsidionis et persecutionis et naufragii, urgentur, omni tempore debent baptizari. Si tamen aliquis praeveniatur morte, articulo necessitatis sacramentum excludente, dum expectat tempus ab Ecclesia institutum, salvatur, licet per ignem, ut supra dictum est. Peccat autem si ultra tempus ab Ecclesia statutum differret accipere Baptismum, nisi ex causa necessaria et licentia praelatorum Ecclesiae. Sed tamen et hoc peccatum cum aliis deleri potest per succedentem contritionem, quae supplet vicem Baptismi, ut supra dictum est.

I answer that, In this matter we must make a distinction and see whether those who are to be baptized are children or adults. For if they be children, Baptism should not be deferred. First, because in them we do not look for better instruction or fuller conversion. Secondly, because of the danger of death, for no other remedy is available for them besides the sacrament of Baptism.

On the other hand, adults have a remedy in the mere desire for Baptism, as stated above (A. 2). And therefore Baptism should not be conferred on adults as soon as they are converted, but it should be deferred until some fixed time. First, as a safeguard to the Church, lest she be deceived through baptizing those who come to her under false pretenses, according to 1 John 4:1: "Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, if they be of God." And those who approach Baptism are put to this test, when their faith and morals are subjected to proof for a space of time. Secondly, this is needful as being useful for those who are baptized; for they require a certain space of time in order to be fully instructed in the faith, and to be drilled in those things that pertain to the Christian mode of life. Thirdly, a certain reverence for the sacrament demands a delay whereby men are admitted to Baptism at the principal festivities, viz. of Easter and Pentecost, the result being that they receive the sacrament with greater devotion.

There are, however, two reasons for forgoing this delay. First, when those who are to be baptized appear to be perfectly instructed in the faith and ready for Baptism; thus, Philip baptized the Eunuch at once (Acts 8); and Peter, Cornelius and those who were with him (Acts 10). Secondly, by reason of sickness or some kind of danger of death. Wherefore Pope Leo says (Epist. xvi): "Those who are threatened by death, sickness, siege, persecution, or shipwreck, should be baptized at any time." Yet if a man is forestalled by death, so as to have no time to receive the sacrament, while he awaits the season appointed by the Church, he is saved, yet "so as by fire," as stated above (A. 2, ad 2). Nevertheless he sins if he defer being baptized beyond the time appointed by the Church, except this be for an unavoidable cause and with the permission of the authorities of the Church. But even this sin, with his other sins, can be washed away by his subsequent contrition, which takes the place of Baptism, as stated above (Q. 66, A. 11).

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illud mandatum Leonis Papae de observandis duobus temporibus in Baptismo, intelligendum est, excepto tamen periculo mortis (quod semper in pueris est timendum), ut dictum est.

This decree of Pope Leo, concerning the celebration of Baptism at two seasons, is to be understood "with the exception of the danger of death" (which is always to be feared in children) as stated above.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod illud de Iudaeis est statutum ad Ecclesiae cautelam, ne simplicium fidem corrumpant, si non fuerint plene conversi. Et tamen, ut ibidem subditur, si infra tempus praescriptum aliquod periculum infirmitatis incurrerint, debent baptizari.

This decree concerning the Jews was for a safeguard to the Church, lest they corrupt the faith of simple people, if they be not fully converted. Nevertheless, as the same passage reads further on, "if within the appointed time they are threatened with danger of sickness, they should be baptized."

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod Baptismus per gratiam quam confert non solum removet peccata praeterita, sed etiam impedit peccata futura ne fiant. Hoc autem considerandum est, ut homines non peccent, secundarium est ut levius peccent, vel etiam ut eorum peccata mundentur; secundum illud I Ioan. II, filioli mei, haec scribo vobis ut non peccetis. Sed et si quis peccaverit, advocatum habemus apud patrem Iesum Christum iustum, et ipse est propitiatio pro peccatis nostris.

Baptism, by the grace which it bestows, removes not only past sins, but hinders the commission of future sins. Now this is the point to be considered—that men may not sin: it is a secondary consideration that their sins be less grievous, or that their sins be washed away, according to 1 John 2:1, 2: "My little children, these things I write to you, that you may not sin. But if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the just; and He is the propitiation for our sins."

Articulus IV

Whether Sinners Should Be Baptized?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod peccatores sint baptizandi. Dicitur enim Zach. XIII, in die illa erit fons patens domui David et habitantibus Ierusalem in ablutionem peccatoris et menstruatae, quod quidem intelligitur de fonte baptismali. Ergo videtur quod sacramentum Baptismi sit etiam peccatoribus exhibendum.

It seems that sinners should be baptized. For it is written (Zech. 13:1): "In that day there shall be a fountain open to the House of David, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem: for the washing of the sinner and of the unclean woman": and this is to be understood of the fountain of Baptism. Therefore it seems that the sacrament of Baptism should be offered even to sinners.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, dominus dicit, Matth. IX, non est opus valentibus medicus, sed male habentibus. Male autem habentes sunt peccatores. Cum igitur spiritualis medici, scilicet Christi, medicina sit Baptismus, videtur quod peccatoribus sacramentum Baptismi sit exhibendum.

Further, our Lord said (Matt. 9:12): "They that are in health need not a physician, but they that are ill." But they that are ill are sinners. Therefore since Baptism is the remedy of Christ the physician of our souls, it seems that this sacrament should be offered to sinners.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, nullum subsidium peccatoribus debet subtrahi. Sed peccatores baptizati ex ipso charactere baptismali spiritualiter adiuvantur, cum sit quaedam dispositio ad gratiam. Ergo videtur quod sacramentum Baptismi sit peccatoribus exhibendum.

Further, no assistance should be withdrawn from sinners. But sinners who have been baptized derive spiritual assistance from the very character of Baptism, since it is a disposition to grace. Therefore it seems that the sacrament of Baptism should be offered to sinners.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, qui creavit te sine te, non iustificabit te sine te. Sed peccator, cum habeat voluntatem non dispositam, non cooperatur Deo. Ergo frustra adhibetur sibi Baptismus ad iustificationem.

On the contrary, Augustine says (Serm. clxix): "He Who created thee without thee, will not justify thee without thee." But since a sinner's will is ill-disposed, he does not co-operate with God. Therefore it is useless to employ Baptism as a means of justification.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod aliquis potest dici peccator dupliciter. Uno modo, propter maculam et reatum praeteritum. Et sic peccatoribus est sacramentum Baptismi conferendum, quia est ad hoc specialiter institutum ut per ipsum peccatorum sordes mundentur, secundum illud Ephes. V, mundans eam, scilicet Ecclesiam, lavacro aquae in verbo vitae. Alio modo potest dici aliquis peccator ex voluntate peccandi et proposito persistendi in peccato. Et sic peccatoribus non est sacramentum Baptismi conferendum. Primo quidem, quia per Baptismum homines Christo incorporantur, secundum illud Galat. III, quicumque in Christo baptizati estis, Christum induistis. Quandiu autem aliquis habet voluntatem peccandi, non potest esse Christo coniunctus, secundum illud II Cor. VI, quae participatio iustitiae cum iniquitate? Unde et Augustinus dicit, in libro de poenitentia, quod nullus suae voluntatis arbiter constitutus potest novam vitam inchoare, nisi eum veteris vitae poeniteat. Secundo, quia in operibus Christi et Ecclesiae nihil debet fieri frustra. Frustra autem est quod non pertingit ad finem ad quem est ordinatum. Nullus autem habens voluntatem peccandi simul potest a peccato mundari, ad quod ordinatur Baptismus, quia hoc esset ponere contradictoria esse simul. Tertio, quia in sacramentalibus signis non debet esse aliqua falsitas. Est autem signum falsum cui res significata non respondet. Ex hoc autem quod aliquis lavandum se praebet per Baptismum, significatur quod se disponat ad interiorem ablutionem. Quod non contingit de eo qui habet propositum persistendi in peccato. Unde manifestum est quod talibus sacramentum Baptismi non est conferendum.

I answer that, A man may be said to be a sinner in two ways. First, on account of the stain and the debt of punishment incurred in the past: and on sinners in this sense the sacrament of Baptism should be conferred, since it is instituted specially for this purpose, that by it the uncleanness of sin may be washed away, according to Eph. 5:26: "Cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life."

Secondly, a man may be called a sinner because he wills to sin and purposes to remain in sin: and on sinners in this sense the sacrament of Baptism should not be conferred. First, indeed, because by Baptism men are incorporated in Christ, according to Gal. 3:27: "As many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ." Now so long as a man wills to sin, he cannot be united to Christ, according to 2 Cor. 6:14: "What participation hath justice with injustice?" Wherefore Augustine says in his book on Penance (Serm. cccli) that "no man who has the use of free-will can begin the new life, except he repent of his former life." Secondly, because there should be nothing useless in the works of Christ and of the Church. Now that is useless which does not reach the end to which it is ordained; and, on the other hand, no one having the will to sin can, at the same time, be cleansed from sin, which is the purpose of Baptism; for this would be to combine two contradictory things. Thirdly, because there should be no falsehood in the sacramental signs. Now a sign is false if it does not correspond with the thing signified. But the very fact that a man presents himself to be cleansed by Baptism, signifies that he prepares himself for the inward cleansing: while this cannot be the case with one who purposes to remain in sin. Therefore it is manifest that on such a man the sacrament of Baptism is not to be conferred.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illud verbum est intelligendum de peccatoribus qui habent voluntatem recedendi a peccato.

The words quoted are to be understood of those sinners whose will is set on renouncing sin.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod spiritualis medicus, scilicet Christus, dupliciter operatur. Uno modo, interius per seipsum, et sic praeparat voluntatem hominis ut bonum velit et malum odiat. Alio modo operatur per ministros, exterius adhibendo sacramenta, et sic operatur perficiendo id quod est exterius inchoatum. Et ideo sacramentum Baptismi non est exhibendum nisi ei in quo interioris conversionis aliquod signum apparet, sicut nec medicina corporalis adhibetur infirmo nisi in eo aliquis motus vitalis appareat.

The physician of souls, i.e. Christ, works in two ways. First, inwardly, by Himself: and thus He prepares man's will so that it wills good and hates evil. Secondly, He works through ministers, by the outward application of the sacraments: and in this way His work consists in perfecting what was begun outwardly. Therefore the sacrament of Baptism is not to be conferred save on those in whom there appears some sign of their interior conversion: just as neither is bodily medicine given to a sick man, unless he show some sign of life.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod Baptismus est fidei sacramentum. Fides autem informis non sufficit ad salutem, nec ipsa est fundamentum, sed sola fides formata, quae per dilectionem operatur, ut Augustinus dicit, in libro de fide et operibus. Unde nec sacramentum Baptismi salutem conferre potest cum voluntate peccandi, quae fidei formam excludit. Non autem est per impressionem characteris baptismalis aliquis disponendus ad gratiam, quandiu apparet in eo voluntas peccandi, quia, Deus neminem ad virtutem compellit, sicut Damascenus dicit.

Baptism is the sacrament of faith. Now dead faith does not suffice for salvation; nor is it the foundation, but living faith alone, "that worketh by charity" (Gal. 5:6), as Augustine says (De Fide et oper.). Neither, therefore, can the sacrament of Baptism give salvation to a man whose will is set on sinning, and hence expels the form of faith. Moreover, the impression of the baptismal character cannot dispose a man for grace as long as he retains the will to sin; for "God compels no man to be virtuous," as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii).

Articulus V

Whether Works of Satisfaction Should Be Enjoined on Sinners That Have Been Baptized?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod peccatoribus baptizatis sint opera satisfactoria imponenda. Hoc enim ad iustitiam Dei pertinere videtur, ut pro quolibet peccato aliquis puniatur, secundum illud Eccle. ult., cuncta quae fiunt adducet Deus in iudicium. Sed opera satisfactoria imponuntur peccatoribus in poenam praeteritorum peccatorum. Ergo videtur quod peccatoribus baptizatis sint opera satisfactoria imponenda.

It seems that works of satisfaction should be enjoined on sinners that have been baptized. For God's justice seems to demand that a man should be punished for every sin of his, according to Eccles. 12:14: "All things that are done, God will bring into judgment." But works of satisfaction are enjoined on sinners in punishment of past sins. Therefore it seems that works of satisfaction should be enjoined on sinners that have been baptized.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, per opera satisfactoria exercitantur peccatores de novo conversi ad iustitiam, et subtrahuntur occasiones peccandi, nam satisfacere est peccatorum causas excidere et peccatis aditum non indulgere. Sed hoc maxime necessarium est nuper baptizatis. Ergo videtur quod opera satisfactoria sint baptizatis iniungenda.

Further, by means of works of satisfaction sinners recently converted are drilled into righteousness, and are made to avoid the occasions of sin: "for satisfaction consists in extirpating the causes of vice, and closing the doors to sin" (De Eccl. Dogm. iv). But this is most necessary in the case of those who have been baptized recently. Therefore it seems that works of satisfaction should be enjoined on sinners.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, non minus debitum est ut homo Deo satisfaciat quam proximo. Sed nuper baptizatis iniungendum est quod satisfaciant proximis, si eos laeserunt. Ergo etiam est eis iniungendum ut Deo satisfaciant per opera poenitentiae.

Further, man owes satisfaction to God not less than to his neighbor. But if those who were recently baptized have injured their neighbor, they should be told to make reparation to God by works of penance.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod Ambrosius, super Rom. XI, sine poenitentia sunt dona Dei et vocatio, dicit, gratia Dei in Baptismo non requirit gemitum neque planctum, vel etiam opus aliquod, sed solam fidem, et omnia gratis condonat.

On the contrary, Ambrose commenting on Rom. 11:29: "The gifts and the calling of God are without repentance," says: "The grace of God requires neither sighs nor groans in Baptism, nor indeed any work at all, but faith alone; and remits all, gratis."

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut apostolus dicit, Rom. VI, quicumque baptizati sumus in Christo Iesu, in morte ipsius baptizati sumus, consepulti enim sumus ei per Baptismum in mortem, ita scilicet quod homo per Baptismum incorporatur ipsi morti Christi. Manifestum est autem ex supra dictis quod mors Christi satisfactoria fuit sufficienter pro peccatis, non solum nostris, sed etiam totius mundi, ut dicitur I Ioan. II. Et ideo ei qui baptizatur pro quibuscumque peccatis non est aliqua satisfactio iniungenda, hoc autem esset iniuriam facere passioni et morti Christi, quasi ipsa non esset sufficiens ad plenariam satisfactionem pro peccatis baptizandorum.

I answer that, As 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 unto death"; which is to say that by Baptism man is incorporated in the very death of Christ. Now it is manifest from what has been said above (Q. 48, AA. 2, 4; Q. 49, A. 3) that Christ's death satisfied sufficiently for sins, "not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world," according to 1 John 2:2. Consequently no kind of satisfaction should be enjoined on one who is being baptized, for any sins whatever: and this would be to dishonor the Passion and death of Christ, as being insufficient for the plenary satisfaction for the sins of those who were to be baptized.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro de Baptismo parvulorum, ad hoc Baptismus valet ut baptizati Christo incorporentur ut membra eius. Unde ipsa poena Christi fuit satisfactoria pro peccatis baptizandorum, sicut et poena unius membri potest esse satisfactoria pro peccato alterius membri. Unde Isaiae LIII dicitur, vere languores nostros ipse tulit, et dolores nostros ipse portavit.

As Augustine says in his book on Infant Baptism (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i), "the effect of Baptism is to make those, who are baptized, to be incorporated in Christ as His members." Wherefore the very pains of Christ were satisfactory for the sins of those who were to be baptized; just as the pain of one member can be satisfactory for the sin of another member. Hence it is written (Isa. 53:4): "Surely He hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows."

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod nuper baptizati exercitandi sunt ad iustitiam, non per opera poenalia, sed per opera facilia, ut quasi quodam lacte facilis exercitii promoveantur ad perfectiora, ut Glossa dicit, super illud Psalmi, sicut ablactatus super matre sua. Unde et dominus discipulos suos de novo conversos a ieiunio excusavit, ut patet Matth. IX. Et hoc est quod dicitur I Pet. II, sicut modo geniti infantes lac concupiscite, ut in eo crescatis in salutem.

Those who have been lately baptized should be drilled into righteousness, not by penal, but by "easy works, so as to advance to perfection by taking exercise, as infants by taking milk," as a gloss says on Ps. 130:2: "As a child that is weaned is towards his mother." For this reason did our Lord excuse His disciples from fasting when they were recently converted, as we read in Matt. 9:14, 15: and the same is written 1 Pet. 2:2: "As new-born babes desire . . . milk . . . that thereby you may grow unto salvation."

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod restituere male ablata proximis, et satisfacere de iniuriis illatis, est cessare a peccando, quia hoc ipsum quod est detinere aliena et proximum non placare, est peccatum. Et ideo peccatoribus baptizatis iniungendum est quod satisfaciant proximis, sicut et quod desistant a peccato. Non est autem eis iniungendum quod pro peccatis praeteritis aliquam poenam patiantur.

To restore what has been ill taken from one's neighbor, and to make satisfaction for wrong done to him, is to cease from sin: for the very fact of retaining what belongs to another and of not being reconciled to one's neighbor, is a sin. Wherefore those who are baptized should be enjoined to make satisfaction to their neighbor, as also to desist from sin. But they are not to be enjoined to suffer any punishment for past sins.

Articulus VI

Whether Sinners Who Are Going to Be Baptized Are Bound to Confess Their Sins?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod peccatores ad Baptismum accedentes teneantur sua peccata confiteri. Dicitur enim Matth. III quod baptizabantur multi a Ioanne in Iordane, confitentes peccata sua. Sed Baptismus Christi est perfectior quam Baptismus Ioannis. Ergo videtur quod multo magis illi qui sunt baptizandi Baptismo Christo, debeant sua peccata confiteri.

It seems that sinners who are going to be baptized are bound to confess their sins. For it is written (Matt. 3:6) that many "were baptized" by John "in the Jordan confessing their sins." But Christ's Baptism is more perfect than John's. Therefore it seems that there is yet greater reason why they who are about to receive Christ's Baptism should confess their sins.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, Prov. XXVIII dicitur, qui abscondit scelera sua, non dirigetur, qui autem confessus fuerit et reliquerit ea, misericordiam consequetur. Sed ad hoc aliqui baptizantur ut de peccatis suis misericordiam consequantur. Ergo baptizandi debent sua peccata confiteri.

Further, it is written (Prov. 28:13): "He that hideth his sins, shall not prosper; but he that shall confess and forsake them, shall obtain mercy." Now for this is a man baptized, that he may obtain mercy for his sins. Therefore those who are going to be baptized should confess their sins.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, poenitentia requiritur ante Baptismum, secundum illud Act. II, agite poenitentiam, et baptizetur unusquisque vestrum. Sed confessio est pars poenitentiae. Ergo videtur quod confessio peccatorum requiratur ante Baptismum.

Further, Penance is required before Baptism, according to Acts 2:38: "Do penance and be baptized every one of you." But confession is a part of Penance. Therefore it seems that confession of sins should take place before Baptism.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod confessio peccatorum debet esse cum fletu, ut dicit Augustinus, in libro de poenitentia, omnis ista varietas consideranda est et deflenda. Sed, sicut Ambrosius dicit, gratia Dei in Baptismo non requirit gemitum neque planctum. Ergo a baptizandis non est requirenda confessio peccatorum.

On the contrary, Confession of sins should be sorrowful: thus Augustine says (De Vera et Falsa Poenit. xiv): "All these circumstances should be taken into account and deplored." Now, as Ambrose says on Rom. 11:29, "the grace of God requires neither sighs nor groans in Baptism." Therefore confession of sins should not be required of those who are going to be baptized.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod duplex est peccatorum confessio. Una quidem interior, quae fit Deo. Et talis confessio peccatorum requiritur ante Baptismum, ut scilicet homo, peccata sua recogitans, de eis doleat, non enim potest inchoare novam vitam, nisi poeniteat eum veteris vitae, ut Augustinus dicit, in libro de poenitentia. Alia vero est confessio peccatorum exterior, quae fit sacerdoti. Et talis confessio non requiritur ante Baptismum. Primo quidem, quia talis confessio, cum respiciat personam ministri, pertinet ad poenitentiae sacramentum, quod non requiritur ante Baptismum, qui est ianua omnium sacramentorum. Secundo, quia confessio exterior, quae fit sacerdoti, ordinatur ad hoc quod sacerdos confitentem absolvat a peccatis, et liget ad opera satisfactoria, quae baptizatis non sunt imponenda, ut supra dictum est. Nec etiam baptizati indigent remissione peccatorum per claves Ecclesiae, quibus omnia remittuntur per Baptismum. Tertio, quia ipsa particularis confessio homini facta est poenosa, propter verecundiam confitentis. Baptizato autem nulla exterior poena imponitur. Et ideo a baptizatis non requiritur specialis confessio peccatorum, sed sufficit generalis, quam faciunt cum, secundum ritum Ecclesiae, abrenuntiant Satanae et omnibus operibus eius. Et hoc modo dicit quaedam Glossa Matth. III, quod in Baptismo Ioannis exemplum datur baptizandis confitendi peccata et promittendi meliora. Si qui tamen baptizandi ex devotione sua peccata confiteri vellent, esset eorum confessio audienda, non ad hoc quod satisfactio eis imponeretur; sed ad hoc quod contra peccata consueta eis spiritualis vitae informatio tradatur.

I answer that, Confession of sins is twofold. One is made inwardly to God: and such confession of sins is required before Baptism: in other words, man should call his sins to mind and sorrow for them; since "he cannot begin the new life, except he repent of his former life," as Augustine says in his book on Penance (Serm. cccli). The other is the outward confession of sins, which is made to a priest; and such confession is not required before Baptism. First, because this confession, since it is directed to the person of the minister, belongs to the sacrament of Penance, which is not required before Baptism, which is the door of all the sacraments. Secondly, because the reason why a man makes outward confession to a priest, is that the priest may absolve him from his sins, and bind him to works of satisfaction, which should not be enjoined on the baptized, as stated above (A. 5). Moreover those who are being baptized do not need to be released from their sins by the keys of the Church, since all are forgiven them in Baptism. Thirdly, because the very act of confession made to a man is penal, by reason of the shame it inflicts on the one confessing: whereas no exterior punishment is enjoined on a man who is being baptized.

Therefore no special confession of sins is required of those who are being baptized; but that general confession suffices which they make when in accordance with the Church's ritual they "renounce Satan and all his works." And in this sense a gloss explains Matt. 3:6, saying that in John's Baptism "those who are going to be baptized learn that they should confess their sins and promise to amend their life."

If, however, any persons about to be baptized, wish, out of devotion, to confess their sins, their confession should be heard; not for the purpose of enjoining them to do satisfaction, but in order to instruct them in the spiritual life as a remedy against their vicious habits.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in Baptismo Ioannis non remittebantur peccata, sed erat Baptismus poenitentiae. Et ideo accedentes ad illud Baptisma convenienter confitebantur peccata, ut secundum qualitatem peccatorum eis poenitentia determinaretur. Sed Baptismus Christi est sine exteriori poenitentia, ut Ambrosius dicit. Unde non est similis ratio.

Sins were not forgiven in John's Baptism, which, however, was the Baptism of Penance. Consequently it was fitting that those who went to receive that Baptism, should confess their sins, so that they should receive a penance in proportion to their sins. But Christ's Baptism is without outward penance, as Ambrose says (on Rom. 11:29); and therefore there is no comparison.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod baptizatis sufficit confessio interior Deo facta, et etiam exterior generalis, ad hoc quod dirigantur et misericordiam consequantur, nec requiritur confessio specialis exterior, ut dictum est.

It is enough that the baptized make inward confession to God, and also an outward general confession, for them to "prosper and obtain mercy": and they need no special outward confession, as stated above.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod confessio est pars poenitentiae sacramentalis, quae non requiritur ante Baptismum, ut dictum est, sed requiritur interioris poenitentiae virtus.

Confession is a part of sacramental Penance, which is not required before Baptism, as stated above: but the inward virtue of Penance is required.

Articulus VII

Whether the Intention of Receiving the Sacrament of Baptism Is Required on the Part of the One Baptized?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod ex parte baptizati non requiratur intentio suscipiendi sacramentum Baptismi. Baptizatus enim se habet sicut patiens in sacramento. Intentio autem non requiritur ex parte patientis, sed ex parte agentis. Ergo videtur quod ex parte baptizati non requiratur intentio suscipiendi Baptismum.

It seems that the intention of receiving the sacrament of Baptism is not required on the part of the one baptized. For the one baptized is, as it were, "patient" in the sacrament. But an intention is required not on the part of the patient but on the part of the agent. Therefore it seems that the intention of receiving Baptism is not required on the part of the one baptized.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, si praetermittatur id quod requiritur ad Baptismum, homo est denuo baptizandus, sicut cum praetermittitur invocatio Trinitatis, sicut supra dictum est. Sed ex hoc non videtur aliquis denuo baptizandus quod intentionem non habebat suscipiendi Baptismum, alioquin, cum de intentione baptizati non constet, quilibet posset petere se denuo baptizari propter intentionis defectum. Non videtur ergo quod intentio requiratur ex parte baptizati ut suscipiat sacramentum.

Further, if what is necessary for Baptism be omitted, the Baptism must be repeated; for instance, if the invocation of the Trinity be omitted, as stated above (Q. 66, A. 9, ad 3). But it does not seem that a man should be rebaptized through not having had the intention of receiving Baptism: else, since his intention cannot be proved, anyone might ask to be baptized again on account of his lack of intention. Therefore it seems that no intention is required on the part of the one baptized, in order that he receive the sacrament.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, Baptismus contra peccatum originale datur. Sed originale peccatum contrahitur sine intentione nascentis. Ergo Baptismus, ut videtur, intentionem non requirit ex parte baptizati.

Further, Baptism is given as a remedy for original sin. But original sin is contracted without the intention of the person born. Therefore, seemingly, Baptism requires no intention on the part of the person baptized.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod, secundum ritum Ecclesiae, baptizandi profitentur se petere ab Ecclesia Baptismum. Per quod profitentur suam intentionem de susceptione sacramenti.

On the contrary, According to the Church's ritual, those who are to be baptized ask of the Church that they may receive Baptism: and thus they express their intention of receiving the sacrament.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod per Baptismum aliquis moritur veteri vitae peccati, et incipit quandam vitae novitatem, secundum illud Rom. VI, consepulti sumus Christo per Baptismum in mortem, ut, quomodo Christus resurrexit a mortuis, ita et nos in novitate vitae ambulemus. Et ideo, sicut ad hoc quod homo moriatur veteri vitae, requiritur, secundum Augustinum, in habente usum liberi arbitrii, voluntas qua eum veteris vitae poeniteat; ita requiritur voluntas qua intendat vitae novitatem, cuius principium est ipsa susceptio sacramenti. Et ideo ex parte baptizati requiritur voluntas, sive intentio, suscipiendi sacramentum.

I answer that, By Baptism a man dies to the old life of sin, and begins a certain newness of life, according to Rom. 6:4: "We are buried together with" Christ "by Baptism into death; that, as Christ is risen from the dead . . . so we also may walk in newness of life." Consequently, just as, according to Augustine (Serm. cccli), he who has the use of free-will, must, in order to die to the old life, "will to repent of his former life"; so must he, of his own will, intend to lead a new life, the beginning of which is precisely the receiving of the sacrament. Therefore on the part of the one baptized, it is necessary for him to have the will or intention of receiving the sacrament.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in iustificatione, quae fit per Baptismum, non est passio coacta, sed voluntaria. Et ideo requiritur intentio recipiendi id quod ei datur.

When a man is justified by Baptism, his passiveness is not violent but voluntary: wherefore it is necessary for him to intend to receive that which is given him.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod, si in adulto deesset intentio suscipiendi sacramentum, esset rebaptizandus. Si tamen hoc non constaret, esset dicendum, si non es baptizatus, ego te baptizo.

If an adult lack the intention of receiving the sacrament, he must be rebaptized. But if there be doubt about this, the form to be used should be: "If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee."

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod Baptismus ordinatur non solum contra originale peccatum, sed etiam contra actualia, quae per voluntatem et intentionem causantur.

Baptism is a remedy not only against original, but also against actual sins, which are caused by our will and intention.

Articulus VIII

Whether Faith Is Required on the Part of the One Baptized?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod fides requiratur ex parte baptizati. Sacramentum enim Baptismi a Christo est institutum. Sed Christus, formam Baptismi tradens, fidem Baptismo praemittit, dicens, Marc. ult., qui crediderit et baptizatus fuerit, salvus erit. Ergo videtur quod, nisi sit fides, non possit esse sacramentum Baptismi.

It seems that faith is required on the part of the one baptized. For the sacrament of Baptism was instituted by Christ. But Christ, in giving the form of Baptism, makes faith to precede Baptism (Mk. 16:16): "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved." Therefore it seems that without faith there can be no sacrament of Baptism.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, nihil frustra in sacramentis Ecclesiae agitur. Sed secundum ritum Ecclesiae, qui accedit ad Baptismum de fide interrogatur, cum dicitur, credis in Deum patrem omnipotentem? Ergo videtur quod fides ad Baptismum requiratur.

Further, nothing useless is done in the sacraments of the Church. But according to the Church's ritual, the man who comes to be baptized is asked concerning his faith: "Dost thou believe in God the Father Almighty?" Therefore it seems that faith is required for Baptism.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, ad Baptismum requiritur intentio suscipiendi sacramentum. Sed hoc non potest esse sine recta fide, cum Baptismus sit rectae fidei sacramentum, per eum enim incorporantur homines Christo, ut Augustinus dicit, in libro de Baptismo parvulorum; hoc autem esse non potest sine recta fide, secundum illud Ephes. III, habitare Christum per fidem in cordibus vestris. Ergo videtur quod ille qui non habet rectam fidem, non possit suscipere sacramentum Baptismi.

Further, the intention of receiving the sacrament is required for Baptism. But this cannot be without right faith, since Baptism is the sacrament of right faith: for thereby men "are incorporated in Christ," as Augustine says in his book on Infant Baptism (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i); and this cannot be without right faith, according to Eph. 3:17: "That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts." Therefore it seems that a man who has not right faith cannot receive the sacrament of Baptism.

Arg. 4 Objection 4

Praeterea, infidelitas est gravissimum peccatum, ut in secunda parte habitum est. Sed permanentes in peccato non sunt baptizandi. Ergo nec etiam permanentes in infidelitate.

Further, unbelief is a most grievous sin, as we have shown in the Second Part (II-II, Q. 10, A. 3). But those who remain in sin should not be baptized: therefore neither should those who remain in unbelief.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod Gregorius, scribens Quirico episcopo, dicit, ab antiqua patrum institutione didicimus ut qui apud haeresim in Trinitatis nomine baptizantur, cum ad sanctam Ecclesiam redeunt, aut unctione chrismatis, aut impositione manus, aut sola professione fidei, ad sinum matris Ecclesiae revocentur. Hoc autem non esset, si fides ex necessitate requireretur ad susceptionem Baptismi.

On the contrary, Gregory writing to the bishop Quiricus says: "We have learned from the ancient tradition of the Fathers that when heretics, baptized in the name of the Trinity, come back to Holy Church, they are to be welcomed to her bosom, either with the anointing of chrism, or the imposition of hands, or the mere profession of faith." But such would not be the case if faith were necessary for a man to receive Baptism.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut ex dictis patet, duo efficiuntur in anima per Baptismum, scilicet character et gratia. Dupliciter ergo aliquid ex necessitate requiritur ad Baptismum. Uno modo, sine quo gratia haberi non potest, quae est ultimus effectus sacramenti. Et hoc modo recta fides ex necessitate requiritur ad Baptismum, quia, sicut dicitur Rom. III, iustitia Dei est per fidem Iesu Christi. Alio modo requiritur aliquid ex necessitate ad Baptismum, sine quo character Baptismi imprimi non potest. Et sic recta fides baptizati non requiritur ex necessitate ad Baptismum, sicut nec recta fides baptizantis, dummodo adsint cetera quae sunt de necessitate sacramenti. Non enim sacramentum perficitur per iustitiam hominis dantis vel suscipientis Baptismum, sed per virtutem Dei.

I answer that, As appears from what has been said above (Q. 63, A. 6; Q. 66, A. 9) Baptism produces a twofold effect in the soul, viz. the character and grace. Therefore in two ways may a thing be necessary for Baptism. First, as something without which grace, which is the ultimate effect of the sacrament, cannot be had. And thus right faith is necessary for Baptism, because, as it appears from Rom. 3:22, the justice of God is by faith of Jesus Christ.

Secondly, something is required of necessity for Baptism, because without it the baptismal character cannot be imprinted. And thus right faith is not necessary in the one baptized any more than in the one who baptizes: provided the other conditions are fulfilled which are essential to the sacrament. For the sacrament is not perfected by the righteousness of the minister or of the recipient of Baptism, but by the power of God.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod dominus loquitur ibi de Baptismo secundum quod perducit homines ad salutem secundum gratiam iustificantem, quod quidem sine recta fide esse non potest. Et ideo signanter dicit, qui crediderit et baptizatus fuerit, salvus erit.

Our Lord is speaking there of Baptism as bringing us to salvation by giving us sanctifying grace: which of course cannot be without right faith: wherefore He says pointedly: "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved."

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod Ecclesia intendit homines baptizare ut emundentur a peccato, secundum illud Isaiae XXVII, hic est omnis fructus, ut auferatur peccatum. Et ideo, quantum est de se, non intendit dare Baptismum nisi habentibus rectam fidem, sine qua non est remissio peccatorum. Et propter hoc interrogat ad Baptismum accedentes, an credant. Si tamen sine recta fide aliquis Baptismum suscipiat extra Ecclesiam, non percipit illud ad suam salutem. Unde Augustinus dicit, Ecclesia Paradiso comparata indicat nobis posse quidem Baptismum eius homines etiam foris accipere, sed salutem beatitudinis extra eam neminem percipere vel tenere.

The Church's intention in baptizing men is that they may be cleansed from sin, according to Isa. 27:9: "This is all the fruit, that the sin . . . should be taken away." And therefore, as far as she is concerned, she does not intend to give Baptism save to those who have right faith, without which there is no remission of sins. And for this reason she asks those who come to be baptized whether they believe. If, on the contrary, anyone, without right faith, receive Baptism outside the Church, he does not receive it unto salvation. Hence Augustine says (De Baptism. contr. Donat. iv): "From the Church being compared to Paradise we learn that men can receive her Baptism even outside her fold, but that elsewhere none can receive or keep the salvation of the blessed."

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod etiam non habens rectam fidem circa alios articulos, potest habere rectam fidem circa sacramentum Baptismi, et ita non impeditur quin possit habere intentionem suscipiendi sacramentum Baptismi. Si tamen etiam circa hoc sacramentum non recte sentiat, sufficit ad perceptionem sacramenti generalis intentio qua intendit suscipere Baptismum sicut Christus instituit, et sicut Ecclesia tradit.

Even he who has not right faith on other points, can have right faith about the sacrament of Baptism: and so he is not hindered from having the intention of receiving that sacrament. Yet even if he think not aright concerning this sacrament, it is enough, for the receiving of the sacrament, that he should have a general intention of receiving Baptism, according as Christ instituted, and as the Church bestows it.

Ad 4 Reply to Objection 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod, sicut sacramentum Baptismi non est conferendum ei qui non vult ab aliis peccatis recedere, ita nec etiam ei qui non vult infidelitatem deserere. Uterque tamen suscipit sacramentum si ei conferatur, licet non ad salutem.

Just as the sacrament of Baptism is not to be conferred on a man who is unwilling to give up his other sins, so neither should it be given to one who is unwilling to renounce his unbelief. Yet each receives the sacrament if it be conferred on him, though not unto salvation.

Articulus IX

Whether Children Should Be Baptized?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad nonum sic proceditur. Videtur quod pueri non sint baptizandi. In eo enim qui baptizatur requiritur intentio suscipiendi sacramentum, ut supra dictum est. Huiusmodi autem intentionem non possunt pueri habere, cum non habeant usum liberi arbitrii. Ergo videtur quod non possint suscipere sacramentum Baptismi.

It seems that children should not be baptized. For the intention to receive the sacrament is required in one who is being baptized, as stated above (A. 7). But children cannot have such an intention, since they have not the use of free-will. Therefore it seems that they cannot receive the sacrament of Baptism.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, Baptismus est fidei sacramentum, ut supra dictum est. Sed pueri non habent fidem, quae consistit in credentium voluntate, ut Augustinus dicit, super Ioan. Nec etiam potest dici quod salventur in fide parentum, quia quandoque parentes sunt infideles, et sic magis per eorum infidelitatem damnarentur. Ergo videtur quod pueri non possint baptizari.

Further, Baptism is the sacrament of faith, as stated above (Q. 39, A. 5; Q. 66, A. 1, ad 1). But children have not faith, which demands an act of the will on the part of the believer, as Augustine says (Super Joan. xxvi). Nor can it be said that their salvation is implied in the faith of their parents; since the latter are sometimes unbelievers, and their unbelief would conduce rather to the damnation of their children. Therefore it seems that children cannot be baptized.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, I Pet. III dicitur quod homines salvos facit Baptisma, non carnis depositio sordium, sed conscientiae bonae interrogatio in Deum. Sed pueri neque conscientiam habent bonam vel malam, cum non habeant usum rationis, neque etiam convenienter ipsi interrogantur cum non intelligant. Ergo non debent pueri baptizari.

Further, it is written (1 Pet. 3:21) that "Baptism saveth" men; "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience towards God." But children have no conscience, either good or bad, since they have not the use of reason: nor can they be fittingly examined, since they understand not. Therefore children should not be baptized.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod Dionysius dicit, ult. cap. Eccl. Hier., divini nostri duces, scilicet apostoli, probaverunt infantes recipi ad Baptismum.

On the contrary, Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii): "Our heavenly guides," i.e. the Apostles, "approved of infants being admitted to Baptism."

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut apostolus dicit, Rom. V, si unius delicto mors regnavit per unum, scilicet per Adam, multo magis abundantiam gratiae et donationis et iustitiae accipientes in vita regnabunt per unum, Iesum Christum. Pueri autem ex peccato Adae peccatum originale contrahunt, quod patet ex hoc quod sunt mortalitati subiecti, quae per peccatum primi hominis in omnes pertransiit, ut ibidem apostolus dicit. Unde multo magis pueri possunt per Christum gratiam suscipere, ut regnent in vita aeterna. Ipse autem dominus dicit, Ioan. III, nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei. Unde necessarium fuit pueros baptizare, ut, sicut per Adam damnationem incurrerunt nascendo, ita per Christum salutem consequantur renascendo. Fuit etiam conveniens pueros baptizari ut a pueritia nutriti in his quae sunt Christianae vitae, firmius in ea perseverent, iuxta illud Prov. XXII, adolescens iuxta viam suam, etiam cum senuerit, non recedet ab ea. Et hanc rationem assignat Dionysius, ult. cap. Eccl. Hier.

I answer that, As the Apostle says (Rom. 5:17), "if by one man's offense death reigned through one," namely Adam, "much more they who receive abundance of grace, and of the gift, and of justice, shall reign in life through one, Jesus Christ." Now children contract original sin from the sin of Adam; which is made clear by the fact that they are under the ban of death, which "passed upon all" on account of the sin of the first man, as the Apostle says in the same passage (Rom. 5:12). Much more, therefore, can children receive grace through Christ, so as to reign in eternal life. But our Lord Himself said (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Consequently it became necessary to baptize children, that, as in birth they incurred damnation through Adam so in a second birth they might obtain salvation through Christ. Moreover it was fitting that children should receive Baptism, in order that being reared from childhood in things pertaining to the Christian mode of life, they may the more easily persevere therein; according to Prov. 22:5: "A young man according to his way, even when he is old, he will not depart from it." This reason is also given by Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. iii).

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod regeneratio spiritualis, quae fit per Baptismum, quodammodo similis est nativitati carnali, quantum ad hoc quod, sicut pueri in maternis uteris constituti non per seipsos nutrimentum accipiunt, sed ex nutrimento matris sustentantur, ita etiam pueri non habentes usum rationis, quasi in utero matris Ecclesiae constituti, non per seipsos, sed per actum Ecclesiae salutem suscipiunt. Unde Augustinus dicit, in libro de peccatorum meritis et Remiss., mater Ecclesia os maternum parvulis praebet, ut sacris mysteriis imbuantur, quia nondum possunt corde proprio credere ad iustitiam, nec ore proprio confiteri ad salutem. Si autem propterea recte fideles vocantur quoniam fidem per verba gestantium quodammodo profitentur, cur etiam non poenitentes habeantur, cum per eorundem verba gestantium Diabolo et huic saeculo abrenuntiare monstrentur? Et eadem ratione possunt dici intendentes, non per actum propriae intentionis, cum ipsi quandoque contranitantur et plorent, sed per actum eorum a quibus offeruntur.

The spiritual regeneration effected by Baptism is somewhat like carnal birth, in this respect, that as the child while in the mother's womb receives nourishment not independently, but through the nourishment of its mother, so also children before the use of reason, being as it were in the womb of their mother the Church, receive salvation not by their own act, but by the act of the Church. Hence Augustine says (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i): "The Church, our mother, offers her maternal mouth for her children, that they may imbibe the sacred mysteries: for they cannot as yet with their own hearts believe unto justice, nor with their own mouths confess unto salvation . . . And if they are rightly said to believe, because in a certain fashion they make profession of faith by the words of their sponsors, why should they not also be said to repent, since by the words of those same sponsors they evidence their renunciation of the devil and this world?" For the same reason they can be said to intend, not by their own act of intention, since at times they struggle and cry; but by the act of those who bring them to be baptized.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus, scribens Bonifacio, dicit, in Ecclesia salvatoris parvuli per alios credunt, sicut ex aliis quae in Baptismo remittuntur peccata traxerunt. Nec impeditur eorum salus si parentes sint infideles, quia, sicut Augustinus dicit, eidem Bonifacio scribens, offeruntur parvuli ad percipiendam spiritualem gratiam, non tam ab eis quorum gestantur manibus (quamvis et ab ipsis, si et ipsi boni fideles sunt), quam ab universa societate sanctorum atque fidelium. Ab omnibus namque offerri recte intelliguntur, quibus placet quod offeruntur, et quorum caritate ad communionem sancti spiritus adiunguntur. Infidelitas autem propriorum parentum, etiam si eos post Baptismum Daemoniorum sacrificiis imbuere conentur, pueris non nocet. Quia, ut ibidem Augustinus dicit, puer semel generatus per aliorum voluntatem, deinceps non potest vinculo alienae iniquitatis obstringi, ubi nulla sua voluntate consentit, secundum illud, Ezech. XVIII, sicut anima patris mea est, et anima filii, anima quae peccaverit, ipsa morietur. Sed ideo ex Adam traxit quod sacramenti illius gratia solveretur, quia nondum erat anima separata vivens. Fides autem unius, immo totius Ecclesiae, parvulo prodest per operationem spiritus sancti, qui unit Ecclesiam et bona unius alteri communicat.

As Augustine says, writing to Boniface (Cont. duas Ep. Pelag. i), "in the Church of our Saviour little children believe through others, just as they contracted from others those sins which are remitted in Baptism." Nor is it a hindrance to their salvation if their parents be unbelievers, because, as Augustine says, writing to the same Boniface (Ep. xcviii), "little children are offered that they may receive grace in their souls, not so much from the hands of those that carry them (yet from these too, if they be good and faithful) as from the whole company of the saints and the faithful. For they are rightly considered to be offered by those who are pleased at their being offered, and by whose charity they are united in communion with the Holy Ghost." And the unbelief of their own parents, even if after Baptism these strive to infect them with the worship of demons, hurts not the children. For as Augustine says (Cont. duas Ep. Pelag. i) "when once the child has been begotten by the will of others, he cannot subsequently be held by the bonds of another's sin so long as he consent not with his will, according to" Ezech. 18:4: "'As the soul of the Father, so also the soul of the son is mine; the soul that sinneth, the same shall die.' Yet he contracted from Adam that which was loosed by the grace of this sacrament, because as yet he was not endowed with a separate existence." But the faith of one, indeed of the whole Church, profits the child through the operation of the Holy Ghost, Who unites the Church together, and communicates the goods of one member to another.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut puer, cum baptizatur, non per seipsum, sed per alios credit; ita non per seipsum, sed per alios interrogatur, et interrogati confitentur fidem Ecclesiae in persona pueri, qui huic fidei aggregatur per fidei sacramentum. Conscientiam autem bonam consequitur puer etiam in seipso, non quidem actu, sed habitu, per gratiam iustificantem.

Just as a child, when he is being baptized, believes not by himself but by others, so is he examined not by himself but through others, and these in answer confess the Church's faith in the child's stead, who is aggregated to this faith by the sacrament of faith. And the child acquires a good conscience in himself, not indeed as to the act, but as to the habit, by sanctifying grace.

Articulus X

Whether Children of Jews or Other Unbelievers Should Be Baptized Against the Will of Their Parents?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad decimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod pueri Iudaeorum vel aliorum infidelium sint baptizandi, etiam invitis parentibus. Magis enim debet homini subveniri contra periculum mortis aeternae quam contra periculum mortis temporalis. Sed puero in periculo mortis temporalis existenti est subveniendum, etiam si parentes per malitiam contraniterentur. Ergo multo magis est subveniendum pueris infidelium filiis contra periculum mortis aeternae, etiam invitis parentibus.

It seems that children of Jews or other unbelievers should be baptized against the will of their parents. For it is a matter of greater urgency to rescue a man from the danger of eternal death than from the danger of temporal death. But one ought to rescue a child that is threatened by the danger of temporal death, even if its parents through malice try to prevent its being rescued. Therefore much more reason is there for rescuing the children of unbelievers from the danger of eternal death, even against their parents' will.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, filii servorum sunt servi, et in potestate dominorum. Sed Iudaei sunt servi regum et principum, et quicumque etiam alii infideles. Ergo absque omni iniuria possunt principes Iudaeorum filios, vel aliorum servorum infidelium, facere baptizari.

The children of slaves are themselves slaves, and in the power of their masters. But Jews and all other unbelievers are the slaves of kings and rulers. Therefore without any injustice rulers can have the children of Jews baptized, as well as those of other slaves who are unbelievers.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, quilibet homo est magis Dei, a quo habet animam, quam patris carnalis, a quo habet corpus. Non est ergo iniustum si pueri infidelium filii parentibus carnalibus auferantur, et Deo per Baptismum consecrentur.

Further, every man belongs more to God, from Whom he has his soul, than to his carnal father, from whom he has his body. Therefore it is not unjust if the children of unbelievers are taken away from their carnal parents, and consecrated to God by Baptism.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod in decretis, dist. XLV, ex Concilio Toletano, sic dicitur, de Iudaeis praecepit sancta synodus nemini deinceps ad credendum vim inferre, non enim tales inviti salvandi sunt, sed volentes, ut integra sit forma iustitiae.

On the contrary, It is written in the Decretals (Dist. xlv), quoting the council of Toledo: "In regard to the Jews the holy synod commands that henceforward none of them be forced to believe: for such are not to be saved against their will, but willingly, that their righteousness may be without flaw."

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod pueri infidelium filii aut habent usum rationis, aut non habent. Si autem habent, iam, quantum ad ea quae sunt iuris divini vel naturalis, incipiunt suae potestatis esse. Et ideo propria voluntate, invitis parentibus, possunt Baptismum suscipere, sicut et matrimonium contrahere. Et ideo tales licite moneri possunt et induci ad suscipiendum Baptismum. Si vero nondum habent usum liberi arbitrii, secundum ius naturale sunt sub cura parentum, quandiu ipsi sibi providere non possunt. Unde etiam et de pueris antiquorum dicitur quod salvabantur in fide parentum. Et ideo contra iustitiam naturalem esset si tales pueri, invitis parentibus, baptizarentur, sicut etiam si aliquis habens usum rationis baptizaretur invitus. Esset etiam periculosum taliter filios infidelium baptizare, quia de facili ad infidelitatem redirent, propter naturalem affectum ad parentes. Et ideo non habet hoc Ecclesiae consuetudo, quod filii infidelium, invitis parentibus, baptizentur.

I answer that, The children of unbelievers either have the use of reason or they have not. If they have, then they already begin to control their own actions, in things that are of Divine or natural law. And therefore of their own accord, and against the will of their parents, they can receive Baptism, just as they can contract marriage. Consequently such can lawfully be advised and persuaded to be baptized.

If, however, they have not yet the use of free-will, according to the natural law they are under the care of their parents as long as they cannot look after themselves. For which reason we say that even the children of the ancients "were saved through the faith of their parents." Wherefore it would be contrary to natural justice if such children were baptized against their parents' will; just as it would be if one having the use of reason were baptized against his will. Moreover under the circumstances it would be dangerous to baptize the children of unbelievers; for they would be liable to lapse into unbelief, by reason of their natural affection for their parents. Therefore it is not the custom of the Church to baptize the children of unbelievers against their parents' will.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod a morte corporali non est aliquis eripiendus contra ordinem iuris civilis, puta, si aliquis a suo iudice condemnetur ad mortem, nullus debet eum violenter a morte eripere. Unde nec aliquis debet irrumpere ordinem iuris naturae, quo filius est sub cura patris, ut eum liberet a periculo mortis aeternae.

It is not right to rescue a man from death of the body against the order of civil law: for instance, if a man be condemned to death by the judge who has tried him, none should use force in order to rescue him from death. Consequently, neither should anyone infringe the order of the natural law, in virtue of which a child is under the care of its father, in order to rescue it from the danger of eternal death.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod Iudaei sunt servi principum servitute civili, quae non excludit ordinem iuris naturalis vel divini.

Jews are slaves of rulers by civil slavery, which does not exclude the order of the natural and Divine law.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod homo ordinatur ad Deum per rationem, per quam Deum cognoscere potest. Unde puer, antequam usum rationis habeat, naturali ordine ordinatur in Deum per rationem parentum, quorum curae naturaliter subiacet, et secundum eorum dispositionem sunt circa ipsum divina agenda.

Man is ordained unto God through his reason, by which he can know God. Wherefore a child, before it has the use of reason, is ordained to God, by a natural order, through the reason of its parents, under whose care it naturally lies, and it is according to their ordering that things pertaining to God are to be done in respect of the child.

Articulus XI

Whether a Child Can Be Baptized While Yet in Its Mother's Womb?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad undecimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in maternis uteris existentes possint baptizari. Efficacius est enim donum Christi ad salutem quam peccatum Adae ad damnationem, ut apostolus dicit, Rom. V. Sed pueri in maternis uteris existentes damnantur propter peccatum Adae. Ergo multo magis salvari possunt per donum Christi. Quod quidem fit per Baptismum. Ergo pueri in maternis uteris existentes possunt baptizari.

It seems that a child can be baptized while yet in its mother's womb. For the gift of Christ is more efficacious unto salvation than Adam's sin unto condemnation, as the Apostle says (Rom. 5:15). But a child while yet in its mother's womb is under sentence of condemnation on account of Adam's sin. For much more reason, therefore, can it be saved through the gift of Christ, which is bestowed by means of Baptism. Therefore a child can be baptized while yet in its mother's womb.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, puer in utero matris existens aliquid matris esse videtur. Sed, baptizata matre, baptizatur quidquid est eius intra ipsam existens. Ergo videtur quod, baptizata matre, baptizetur puer in utero eius existens.

Further, a child, while yet in its mother's womb, seems to be part of its mother. Now, when the mother is baptized, whatever is in her and part of her, is baptized. Therefore it seems that when the mother is baptized, the child in her womb is baptized.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, mors aeterna peior est quam mors corporalis. Sed de duobus malis minus malum eligendum est. Si ergo puer in utero matris existens baptizari non potest, melius esset quod mater aperiretur et puer vi eductus baptizaretur, quam quod puer aeternaliter damnaretur, absque Baptismo decedens.

Further, eternal death is a greater evil than death of the body. But of two evils the less should be chosen. If, therefore, the child in the mother's womb cannot be baptized, it would be better for the mother to be opened, and the child to be taken out by force and baptized, than that the child should be eternally damned through dying without Baptism.

Arg. 4 Objection 4

Praeterea, contingit quandoque quod aliqua pars pueri prius egreditur, sicut legitur Gen. XXXVIII quod, pariente Thamar, in ipsa effusione infantium, unus protulit manum, in qua obstetrix ligavit coccinum, dicens, iste egredietur prior. Illo vero manum retrahente, egressus est alter. Quandoque autem in tali casu imminet periculum mortis. Ergo videtur quod illa pars debeat baptizari, puero adhuc in materno utero existente.

Further, it happens at times that some part of the child comes forth first, as we read in Gen. 38:27: "In the very delivery of the infants, one put forth a hand, whereon the midwife tied a scarlet thread, saying: This shall come forth the first. But he drawing back his hand, the other came forth." Now sometimes in such cases there is danger of death. Therefore it seems that that part should be baptized, while the child is yet in its mother's womb.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod Augustinus, in epistola ad Dardanum, dicit, nemo renascitur nisi primo nascatur. Sed Baptismus est quaedam spiritualis regeneratio. Non ergo debet aliquis baptizari priusquam ex utero nascatur.

On the contrary, Augustine says (Ep. ad Dardan.): "No one can be born a second time unless he be born first." But Baptism is a spiritual regeneration. Therefore no one should be baptized before he is born from the womb.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod de necessitate Baptismi est quod corpus baptizandi aliquo modo aqua abluatur, cum Baptismus sit quaedam ablutio, ut supra dictum est. Corpus autem infantis, antequam nascatur ex utero, non potest aliquo modo ablui aqua, nisi forte dicatur quod ablutio baptismalis qua corpus matris lavatur, ad filium in ventre existentem perveniat. Sed hoc non potest esse, tum quia anima pueri, ad cuius sanctificationem ordinatur Baptismus, distincta est ab anima matris; tum quia corpus puerperii animati iam est formatum, et per consequens a corpore matris distinctum. Et ideo Baptismus quo mater baptizatur, non redundat in prolem in utero existentem. Unde Augustinus dicit, contra Iulianum, si ad matris corpus id quod in ea concipitur pertinet, ita ut eius pars imputetur, non baptizaretur infans cuius mater baptizata est, aliquo mortis urgente periculo, cum gestaret in utero. Nunc vero, cum etiam ipse, scilicet infans, baptizetur, non utique ad maternum corpus, cum esset in utero, pertinebat. Et ita relinquitur quod nullo modo existentes in maternis uteris baptizari possunt.

I answer that, It is essential to Baptism that some part of the body of the person baptized be in some way washed with water, since Baptism is a kind of washing, as stated above (Q. 66, A. 1). But an infant's body, before being born from the womb, can nowise be washed with water; unless perchance it be said that the baptismal water, with which the mother's body is washed, reaches the child while yet in its mother's womb. But this is impossible: both because the child's soul, to the sanctification of which Baptism is ordained, is distinct from the soul of the mother; and because the body of the animated infant is already formed, and consequently distinct from the body of the mother. Therefore the Baptism which the mother receives does not overflow on to the child which is in her womb. Hence Augustine says (Cont. Julian. vi): "If what is conceived within a mother belonged to her body, so as to be considered a part thereof, we should not baptize an infant whose mother, through danger of death, was baptized while she bore it in her womb. Since, then, it," i.e. the infant, "is baptized, it certainly did not belong to the mother's body while it was in the womb." It follows, therefore, that a child can nowise be baptized while in its mother's womb.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod pueri in maternis uteris existentes nondum prodierunt in lucem, ut cum aliis hominibus vitam ducant. Unde non possunt subiici actioni humanae, ut per eorum ministerium sacramenta recipiant ad salutem. Possunt tamen subiici operationi Dei, apud quem vivunt, ut quodam privilegio gratiae sanctificationem consequantur, sicut patet de sanctificatis in utero.

Children while in the mother's womb have not yet come forth into the world to live among other men. Consequently they cannot be subject to the action of man, so as to receive the sacrament, at the hands of man, unto salvation. They can, however, be subject to the action of God, in Whose sight they live, so as, by a kind of privilege, to receive the grace of sanctification; as was the case with those who were sanctified in the womb.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod membrum interius matris est aliquid eius per continuationem et unionem materialis partis ad totum. Puer autem in utero matris existens est aliquid eius per quandam colligationem corporum distinctorum. Unde non est similis ratio.

An internal member of the mother is something of hers by continuity and material union of the part with the whole: whereas a child while in its mother's womb is something of hers through being joined with, and yet distinct from her. Wherefore there is no comparison.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod non sunt facienda mala ut veniant bona, ut dicitur Rom. III. Et ideo non debet homo occidere matrem ut baptizet puerum. Si tamen mater mortua fuerit vivente puero in utero, aperiri debet, ut puer baptizetur.

We should "not do evil that there may come good" (Rom. 3:8). Therefore it is wrong to kill a mother that her child may be baptized. If, however, the mother die while the child lives yet in her womb, she should be opened that the child may be baptized.

Ad 4 Reply to Objection 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod expectanda est totalis egressio pueri ex utero ad Baptismum, nisi mors immineat. Si tamen primo caput egrediatur, in quo fundatur sensus, debet baptizari, periculo imminente, et non est postea rebaptizandus, si eum perfecte nasci contigerit. Et videtur idem faciendum quaecumque alia pars egrediatur, periculo imminente. Quia tamen in nulla partium exteriorum integritas ita consistit sicut in capite, videtur quibusdam quod, propter dubium, quacumque alia parte corporis abluta, puer post perfectam nativitatem sit baptizandus sub hac forma, si non es baptizatus, ego te baptizo, et cetera.

Unless death be imminent, we should wait until the child has entirely come forth from the womb before baptizing it. If, however, the head, wherein the senses are rooted, appear first, it should be baptized, in cases of danger: nor should it be baptized again, if perfect birth should ensue. And seemingly the same should be done in cases of danger no matter what part of the body appear first. But as none of the exterior parts of the body belong to its integrity in the same degree as the head, some hold that since the matter is doubtful, whenever any other part of the body has been baptized, the child, when perfect birth has taken place, should be baptized with the form: "If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee," etc.

Articulus XII

Whether Madmen and Imbeciles Should Be Baptized?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad duodecimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod furiosi et amentes non debeant baptizari. Ad susceptionem enim Baptismi requiritur intentio in eo qui baptizatur, ut supra dictum est. Sed furiosi et amentes, cum careant usu rationis, non possunt habere nisi inordinatam intentionem. Ergo non debent baptizari.

It seems that madmen and imbeciles should not be baptized. For in order to receive Baptism, the person baptized must have the intention, as stated above (A. 7). But since madmen and imbeciles lack the use of reason, they can have but a disorderly intention. Therefore they should not be baptized.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, homo bruta animalia superexcedit in hoc quod habet rationem. Sed furiosi et amentes non habent usum rationis, et quandoque etiam in eis non expectatur, sicut expectatur in pueris. Ergo videtur quod, sicut bruta animalia non baptizantur, ita etiam nec tales furiosi et amentes debeant baptizari.

Further, man excels irrational animals in that he has reason. But madmen and imbeciles lack the use of reason, indeed in some cases we do not expect them ever to have it, as we do in the case of children. It seems, therefore, that just as irrational animals are not baptized, so neither should madmen and imbeciles in those cases be baptized.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, magis ligatus est usus rationis in furiosis vel amentibus quam in dormientibus. Sed Baptismus non consuevit dari dormientibus. Ergo non debet dari amentibus et furiosis.

Further, the use of reason is suspended in madmen and imbeciles more than it is in one who sleeps. But it is not customary to baptize people while they sleep. Therefore it should not be given to madmen and imbeciles.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, IV Confess., de amico suo, qui, cum desperaretur, baptizatus est. Et tamen in ipso Baptismus efficaciam habuit. Unde et carentibus usu rationis aliquando Baptismus dari debet.

On the contrary, Augustine says (Confess. iv) of his friend that "he was baptized when his recovery was despaired of": and yet Baptism was efficacious with him. Therefore Baptism should sometimes be given to those who lack the use of reason.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod circa amentes et furiosos est distinguendum. Quidam enim sunt a nativitate tales, nulla habentes lucida intervalla, in quibus etiam nullus usus rationis apparet. Et de talibus, quantum ad Baptismi susceptionem, videtur esse idem iudicium et de pueris, qui baptizantur in fide Ecclesiae, ut supra dictum est. Alii vero sunt amentes qui ex sana mente quam habuerunt prius, in amentiam inciderunt. Et tales sunt iudicandi secundum voluntatem quam habuerunt dum sanae mentis existerent. Et ideo, si tunc apparuit in eis voluntas suscipiendi Baptismum, debet exhiberi eis in furia vel amentia constitutis, etiam si tunc contradicant. Alioquin, si nulla voluntas suscipiendi Baptismum in eis apparuit dum sanae mentis essent, non sunt baptizandi. Quidam vero sunt qui, etsi a nativitate fuerint furiosi et amentes, habent tamen aliqua lucida intervalla, in quibus recta ratione uti possunt. Unde, si tunc baptizari voluerint, baptizari possunt etiam in amentia constituti. Et debet eis sacramentum tunc conferri si periculum timeatur, alioquin melius est ut tempus expectetur in quo sint sanae mentis ad hoc quod devotius suscipiant sacramentum. Si autem tempore lucidi intervalli non appareat in eis voluntas Baptismum suscipiendi, baptizari non debent in amentia constituti. Quidam vero sunt qui, etsi non omnino sanae mentis existant, in tantum tamen ratione utuntur quod possunt de sua salute cogitare, et intelligere sacramenti virtutem. Et de talibus idem est iudicium sicut de his qui sanae mentis existunt, qui baptizantur volentes, non inviti.

I answer that, In the matter of madmen and imbeciles a distinction is to be made. For some are so from birth, and have no lucid intervals, and show no signs of the use of reason. And with regard to these it seems that we should come to the same decision as with regard to children who are baptized in the Faith of the Church, as stated above (A. 9, ad 2).

But there are others who have fallen from a state of sanity into a state of insanity. And with regard to these we must be guided by their wishes as expressed by them when sane: so that, if then they manifested a desire to receive Baptism, it should be given to them when in a state of madness or imbecility, even though then they refuse. If, on the other hand, while sane they showed no desire to receive Baptism, they must not be baptized.

Again, there are some who, though mad or imbecile from birth, have, nevertheless, lucid intervals, in which they can make right use of reason. Wherefore, if then they express a desire for Baptism, they can be baptized though they be actually in a state of madness. And in this case the sacrament should be bestowed on them if there be fear of danger otherwise it is better to wait until the time when they are sane, so that they may receive the sacrament more devoutly. But if during the interval of lucidity they manifest no desire to receive Baptism, they should not be baptized while in a state of insanity.

Lastly there are others who, though not altogether sane, yet can use their reason so far as to think about their salvation, and understand the power of the sacrament. And these are to be treated the same as those who are sane, and who are baptized if they be willing, but not against their will.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod amentes qui nunquam habuerunt nec habent usum rationis, baptizantur ex intentione Ecclesiae, sicut ex ritu Ecclesiae credunt et poenitent, sicut supra de pueris dictum est. Illi vero qui aliquo tempore habuerunt vel habent usum rationis, secundum propriam intentionem baptizantur, quam habent vel habuerunt tempore sanae mentis.

Imbeciles who never had, and have not now, the use of reason, are baptized, according to the Church's intention, just as according to the Church's ritual, they believe and repent; as we have stated above of children (A. 9, ad Obj.). But those who have had the use of reason at some time, or have now, are baptized according to their own intention, which they have now, or had when they were sane.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod furiosi vel amentes carent usu rationis per accidens, scilicet propter aliquod impedimentum organi corporalis, non autem propter defectum animae rationalis, sicut bruta animalia. Unde non est de eis similis ratio.

Madmen and imbeciles lack the use of reason accidentally, i.e. through some impediment in a bodily organ; but not like irrational animals through want of a rational soul. Consequently the comparison does not hold.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod dormientes non sunt baptizandi nisi periculum mortis immineat. In quo casu baptizari debent si prius voluntas apparuit in eis suscipiendi Baptismum, sicut et de amentibus dictum est, sicut Augustinus narrat, in IV libro Confess., de amico suo, qui baptizatus est nesciens, propter periculum mortis.

A person should not be baptized while asleep, except he be threatened with the danger of death. In which case he should be baptized, if previously he has manifested a desire to receive Baptism, as we have stated in reference to imbeciles: thus Augustine relates of his friend that "he was baptized while unconscious," because he was in danger of death (Confess. iv).

Showing Thomas's answers only.