Parish Deacon

The Sacrament of Baptism

Matter and Form

Matter	Natural Water
Form	I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Minister	Priest or Deacon
Location	Catholic Church

“Baptism is a Sacrament instituted by Christ, in which, by the outward washing of the body with water, with invocation of the Three Persons of the Most Holy Trinity, man is spiritually reborn and sanctified unto life everlasting.”

According to Catholic teaching the remote matter of Baptism is natural water; its proximate matter is the act of external washing; while the sacramental form is contained in the words: “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

1. NATURAL WATER THE REMOTE MATTER OF BAPTISM.—By natural water (aqua naturalis) is meant a liquid compound of hydrogen and oxygen in the proportion of two to one. This definition excludes artificial compounds such as eau de Cologne, as well as water in other than liquid form, e.g. steam or ice. That natural water is indispensable for the validity of Baptism has been clearly defined by the Tridentine Council: “If any one saith that true and natural water is not of necessity for Baptism, … let him be anathema.”2 This declaration excludes the figurative use of the term “water,” as employed by the later Socinians, and denies Luther’s assertion that any liquid that can be used to bathe in, is valid matter for Baptism.

a) The Old Testament types clearly point to natural water as the element of the future Sacrament of Baptism. Such types are, e.g., the deluge, the passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea,5 the stream of water which Moses drew from the rock in the desert, etc. The prophetical “fons patens” in the passage quoted from Zacharias obviously refers to the baptismal font of the New Law. John and the disciples baptized with ordinary water. Jesus Christ descended into the river Jordan to receive Baptism. Wherever the New Testament mentions the Sacrament of regeneration, it invariably speaks of water. Cfr. John 3:5: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.” When Philip and the eunuch of Queen Candace “came to a certain water,” the latter exclaimed: “See, here is water: what doth hinder me from being baptized?”

The Baptism “of fire and the Holy Ghost,” of which the Precursor speaks, does not denote an outward rite but refers to the spiritual effect of the Sacrament administered in the name of Christ.

b) The Catholic Church has always conscientiously adhered, both in theory and practice, to the use of natural water as the only valid element of Baptism.

Tertullian exclaims: “O happy Sacrament of our water, by which, cleansed of the faults of pristine blindness, we are made free unto eternal life!”

St. Augustine says: “What is the Baptism of Christ? A bath in the word. Take away the water, and there is no Baptism; take away the word, and there is no Baptism.”

The Fathers of the Church were familiar with the ceremony of blessing the baptismal font.

St. Cyprian writes: “Therefore it behooves water to be first cleansed and sanctified by a priest, in order that by his Baptism he may be able to wash away the sins of him who is baptized.”

St. Gregory of Nyssa says: “The sanctified water cleanses and illumines a man.”

It was because of her firm conviction that water is the necessary element of Baptism that the Church condemned the practice of baptizing with oil, introduced by the Gnostic sect of the Marcosians, or with fire, as affected by the Jacobites and Cathari in the Middle Ages, or with beer, as attempted by certain Norwegians.

c) Speculative theology has discovered a variety of reasons showing the fitness of water to serve as the element of Baptism. We will mention only a few.

?) Baptism, being a Sacrament instituted for the forgiveness of sins, requires an element which symbolizes both the dissolution and removal of moral filth and the healing of the soul. Now water is not only the ordinary and most effective means of cleansing, but it is likewise a medicine and a preservative of health. Pindar’s saw ??????? ??? ????, embodies the universal conviction of mankind. Water, moreover, is by nature cool and refreshing, and consequently well adapted to serve as a symbol of grace, which extinguishes the fire of concupiscence. It was quite natural, therefore, for the Jews to employ water as an element of purification in their religious ceremonies, and for the Gentiles to use it in their mystic ablutions.16 Such usages clearly speak for the Catholic doctrine.

?) As the Sacrament of “regeneration,”—whence the term “neophytes” for those recently baptized,—Baptism furthermore requires an element that serves an important purpose in organic nature. Water is indispensable for the growth of plants and animals. Gen. 1:2: “And the spirit of God moved [the Hebrew text has ‘brooded’] over the waters.” The fact that the foetus of mammals, birds, and reptiles is enclosed in a “water bag” (amnion), led some of the Fathers, e.g. St. Chrysostom, to compare the baptismal font with the womb. Then there are creatures that can live only in water, and since Baptism, being “the first and most necessary Sacrament,” is as in-dispensable to the supernatural life of the soul as water is to the natural life of fish, Tertullian appropriately compares the faithful to “little fishes,” who are born in water and move in it as their vital element.

The fact that no natural element is so easily available as water also points to the necessity of Baptism for salvation.

2. WASHING WITH WATER THE PROXIMATE MATTER OF BAPTISM.—Baptism is administered by means of washing, i.e. applying the water to the subject. This application must be a true ablution (ablutio vera), i.e. it must involve a contact that is both physical and successive. In other words, the baptismal water must actually touch the body and flow over it.

This twofold contact can be effected by immersion, effusion, and aspersion. The validity of the present practice of effusion has been indirectly defined against the schismatic Greeks by the Council of Trent: “If any one saith that in the Roman Church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the Sacrament of Baptism, let him be anathema.”

a) The very name baptismus (derived from ???????, to immerse), as well as St. Paul’s use of the term “laver of water,” indicate that Baptism was originally accomplished by immersion.

However, since the Baptism of the three thousand converts on Pentecost Day, and that of the keeper of the prison and his family by Paul and Silas,23 can hardly be supposed to have taken place by immersion, it is likely that already in the Apostolic age Baptism was sometimes conferred by effusion or aspersion.

b) That washing with water is the materia proxima of Baptism cannot be proved from Sacred Scripture, but it can be convincingly demonstrated from Tradition.

St. Augustine declares that Baptism has the power of forgiving sins even if the water “merely sprinkles the child ever so slightly.”

A convincing proof for the antiquity of Baptism by effusion is furnished by the so-called “baptismns clinicorum” (? ?????, bed), which was always administered in that way. When a certain Magnus professed to have scruples of conscience regarding this mode of administering the Sacrament, St. Cyprian assured him that it was perfectly valid.

Baptism by effusion was regarded as equally valid with Baptism by immersion long before the time of St. Cyprian. The famous Didache (Doctrina XII Apostolorum), rediscovered in 1883 and ascribed to the time of the Emperor Nerva (d. 98), says: “Baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, in running water; but if thou hast no running water, baptize in other water, and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm. But if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (?????? ??? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?????????).”

c) A few observations on the history of the various methods of administering Baptism may prove useful.

?) During the first twelve centuries Baptism was generally administered by immersion. Three times in succession the candidate was plunged entirely in water by the baptizing bishop or priest, assisted by deacons, or, in the case of adult females, by deaconesses. Numerous ancient baptisteries (fontes sacri, ????????????) in various parts of the western world attest the antiquity of this custom. The Greeks (Russians, Bulgarians, etc.) have retained Baptism by immersion, though they no longer practice it in its pure form, but dip the child in warm water up to the neck and then pour water over his head. Despite the complaint of Marcus Eugenicus of Ephesus, the Orientals at the Council of Florence (1439) raised no objection to the Latin mode of baptizing, though to-day they regard it as invalid.30

Baptism by immersion was still the rule in Western Christendom at the time of St. Thomas, for he says in the third part of the Summa: “Although it is safer to baptize by immersion, because this is the more ordinary fashion, yet Baptism can be conferred by sprinkling or also by pouring …”

In Spain, which had been overrun by the Arian Visigoths, a single immersion was substituted for the three formerly employed, in order to illustrate Catholic belief in the unity of the Godhead in three Persons. St. Martin of Bracara (d. 580) decried this practice as Sabellian, but it was approved by Pope Gregory the Great (d. 604) and formally prescribed by the Fourth Council of Toledo (632).

?) Baptism by effusion gradually came into use in the thirteenth century, and finally replaced Baptism by immersion entirely in the West. St. Charles Borromeo still prescribed the ancient form of trine immersion for the churches of the Ambrosian rite, and this form continued to be widely used in Europe up to the sixteenth century. The reasons for the universal adoption of the change probably were the difficulties arising in cold countries and in regard to the immersion of women. When Europe had become entirely Christian, and there were no longer any adult pagans, the institute of deaconesses ceased to exist.

The method of baptizing by aspersion has never acquired practical importance, and the discussion of its validity is therefore purely academic.

3. THE SACRAMENTAL FORM, OR THE FORMULA OF BAPTISM.—The form of Baptism consists in the words accompanying the ablution. There are two essential parts: (1) the verbal designation of the baptismal act, and (2) the express invocation of the three Persons of the Most Holy Trinity.

The Decretum pro Armenis of Eugene IV says: “The form is: ‘I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,’ … because when the act is expressed, which is performed by the minister with the invocation of the Holy Trinity, the Sacrament is accomplished.”

a) The necessity of a baptismal formula is indicated by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Ephesians: “… cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life.”

The words of our Lord: “… baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” have always been understood by the Church not merely as a command to baptize, but as embodying the formula of Baptism. This is the unanimous teaching of Tradition. Tertullian writes: “The law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: ‘Go,’ He saith, ‘teach the nations,’ etc.”37 St. Cyprian says: “Christ Himself commanded the nations to be baptized in the full and undivided Trinity.” St. Ambrose instructs his catechumens that “Unless a man is baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, he cannot receive remission of his sins nor the gift of spiritual grace.”39 St. Augustine asks: “Who is there who does not know that there is no Baptism of Christ, if the words of the Gospel, in which consists the outward visible sign, are lacking?” St. Basil denies the validity of Baptism if conferred merely “in the name of the Lord,” because, he says, “as we believe in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, so, too, we are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”41 St. Chrysostom, in his explanation of Eph. 5:26, observes: “In the laver of water he cleanses him from his impurity. In the word, he says. In what word? In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

b) In connection with this subject theologians are wont to discuss two incidental problems, viz.: What was the meaning of Baptism “in the name of Jesus,” of which we read in the Acts of the Apostles? and: In how far may the prescribed baptismal formula be altered without affecting the validity of the Sacrament?

?) Did the Apostles baptize validly when they baptized “in the name of Jesus”? Opinions differ on this question. Peter Lombard says: “He who baptizes in the name of Christ, baptizes in the name of the Trinity, which is thereby understood;” but he cautiously adds: “It is, however, safer to name the Three Persons expressly.”44 The majority of theologians dissent from this view. They hold that the Apostles employed the formula “In the name of Jesus “by virtue of an extraordinary privilege. St. Thomas says: “It was by a special revelation from Christ that in the primitive Church the Apostles baptized in the name of Christ, in order that the name of Christ, which was hateful to Jews and Gentiles, might become an object of veneration, in that the Holy Ghost was given in Baptism at the invocation of that name.” Since the Tridentine Council the more general opinion is that Baptism in the name of Jesus, in contradistinction to the “Baptism of penance” which the Precursor administered,47 received its name not from the external rite but from its institution by Christ; in other words that in baptizing in the name of Christ the Apostles meant to baptize by His authority. This is not a new theory, but was held by many of the early Fathers. Though the Roman Catechism49 attempts to justify the view that “there was a time when, by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, the Apostles baptized in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ only,” we do not deem it prudent, without stringent proofs to admit such a radical distinction between the baptismal practice of Apostolic and that of post-Apostolic times. It is true that Pope Nicholas I (d. 867) seems to have admitted the validity of Baptism in the name of Christ, but his letter to the Bulgarians, in which he expresses this opinion, is not an ex cathedra decision; and even if it were, the fact would prove nothing, because in the case of the Bulgarians the question at issue was not the formula of Baptism but the qualifications required in the minister.52

?) Alterations in the formula of Baptism may or may not affect its substance. Substantial changes render the Sacrament invalid; purely accidental changes do not. It would be a substantial change, for instance, to omit all reference to the act performed, or to neglect to invoke the Three Persons of the Trinity. Hence we may distinguish three groups of formulas: (1) such as are certainly invalid, (2) such as are undoubtedly valid, and (3) such as are doubtful.

(1) Alexander III decided that it would render Baptism invalid to omit the words: “I baptize thee,” and simply to say: “In the name of the Father,” etc. As all Three Divine Persons must be expressly mentioned, it would likewise be invalid to baptize “in the name of the Most Holy Trinity.” The Montanist formula: “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and—of Montanus and Priscilla,” was plainly invalid. But even when all Three Persons are expressly named, Baptism would still be invalid if the minister would introduce a phrase embodying an anti-Trinitarian heresy,54 e.g., “I baptize thee in the names of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

(2) Any baptismal formula that meets the two requirements mentioned, is valid, even though it show accidental variations from the approved text, as does, for instance, the Greek formula: ?????????? ? ?????? ??? ???? (? ??????) ??? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?????????, the validity of which is expressly admitted in the Decretum pro Armenis. Valid, though illicit, are all those formulas in which some non-essential word or phrase is either added to or omitted from the prescribed text; e.g.: “Baptizo (abluo, tingo) te in nomine,” etc., or: “Baptizo te credentem in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, ut habeas vitam aeternam.” Alterations made in ignorance of the language employed, and without heretical intent, do not render Baptism invalid, provided that, according to popular estimation, the objective meaning of the formula is preserved. This was decided by Pope Zachary in a case submitted to him by St. Boniface, where an ignorant cleric had mispronounced the usual formula as follows: “Ego te baptizo in nomine patria et filia et spiritu sancta.” The Slavic formula: “Ja te krstim” (krstim derived from krstiti = make Christian; Krst = Christ) was approved by the Holy See in 1894, on the ground that the verb krsti also means to wash off. This can hardly be said to apply to our English word “christen.”

(3) Doubtful, though presumably valid, are those formulas in which it is difficult to decide whether the alterations that have been introduced relate to essential or to purely accidental portions, as, e.g.: “I baptize thee in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost.” The formula: “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy Ghost,” was considered doubtful by St. Alphonsus, but on Jan. 13, 1882, the Congregation of the Holy Office decided that the use of this formula does not render Baptism invalid, because the heresy of Tritheism is not necessarily implied therein.

Baptism has for its general effect the regeneration of the soul, and hence belongs to the “Sacraments of the dead.”

Its specific effects are three, viz.: (1) the grace of justification (iustificatio prima); (2) forgiveness of all the penalties of sin; and (3) the sacramental character.

1. FIRST EFFECT: THE GRACE OF JUSTIFICATION.—Justification comprises the remission of sin and the sanctification of the soul. Baptism, as a means of justification, must therefore forgive sin and infuse sanctifying grace. Such is indeed the defined teaching of the Church. “If any one denies,” says the Council of Trent, “that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in Baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin, is not taken away, … let him be anathema.” And in the Decretum pro Armenis Eugene IV declares: “The effect of this Sacrament [Baptism] is the remission of every sin, original and actual.”

a) For the Scriptural proof of this dogma we refer to our treatises on God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural, pp. 238 sqq., and Grace, Actual and Habitual, pp. 328 sqq., and also to the general introduction to the Sacraments, supra, pp. 188 sqq.

b) In this connection theologians are wont to discuss several problems intimately related to sacramental justification.

?) Though Baptism completely blots out the guilt of original sin (reatus culpae), there still remains concupiscence (fomes peccati, concupiscentia), which, however, no longer partakes of the nature of guilt, but is merely a consequence of original sin. This teaching was emphasized by St. Augustine.5

Besides forgiving sin and producing sanctifying grace, with all its formal effects—justice, supernatural beauty, the friendship of God, and His adoptive sonship—Baptism also effects the supernatural concomitants of sanctifying grace, viz.: the three divine virtues of faith, hope, and charity, the infused moral virtues, and the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost, including His personal indwelling in the soul, which is the crown and climax of the process of justification. The Fathers extol these prerogatives in glowing terms. St. Gregory of Nazianzus, e.g., says: “Baptism is the splendor of the soul, life’s amendment, the uplifting of conscience to God, a means of getting rid of our weakness, the laying aside of the flesh, the attainment of the spirit, the participation of the Word, the drowning of sin, the communication of light, the dispersion of darkness.”

?) The very excellence of these effects,—not to speak of the sacramental character which Baptism imprints,—compels us to draw an essential distinction between the Baptism of Christ and that administered by John the Baptist. The existence of such a distinction is expressly affirmed by the Tridentine Council: “If any one saith that the Baptism of John had the same force as the Baptism of Christ, let him be anathema.”10 The Baptism of John was merely an exhortation to do penance and to prepare for the coming of the Messias, and consequently cannot have had the same power as the Baptism of Christ. This explains why St. Paul, upon meeting the twelve disciples of John at Ephesus, commanded them to be rebaptized in the name of Jesus before he imposed his hands on them and called down the Holy Ghost. “John,” he explained, “baptized the people with the Baptism of penance, saying that they should believe in him who was to come after him, that is to say, in Jesus.” “The teaching of the Fathers agrees perfectly with this. We pass over Tertullian, St. Ambrose,13 St. Chrysostom, St. Gregory the Great,15 and others, and content ourselves with quoting a passage from St. Augustine. “I ask, therefore,” he says in his treatise De Baptismo contra Donatistas, “if sins were remitted by the Baptism of John, what more could the Baptism of Christ confer on those whom the Apostle Paul desired to be baptized with the Baptism of Christ after they had received the Baptism of John?” The difference must have consisted in this that the Baptism of John did not produce its effects ex opere operato, but through the disposition of the recipient (ex opere operantis), as St. Thomas explains with his usual clearness: “The Baptism of John did not confer grace, but only prepared for grace; and this in three ways: first, by John’s teaching, which led men to faith in Christ, secondly, by accustoming men to the rite of Christ’s Baptism; thirdly, by penance, preparing men to receive the effect of Christ’s Baptism.” In other words, “the Baptism of John was not in itself a Sacrament, properly so called, but a kind of sacramental, preparatory to the Baptism of Christ.”

2. SECOND EFFECT: THE REMISSION OF PUNISHMENTS DUE TO SIN.—Sin and its punishment are really distinct, and the remission not only of sin but of all the penalties due to it, is an effect peculiar to Baptism alone. According to the constant teaching of the Church, the Sacrament of Baptism remits not only the eternal penalties of sin,—the remission of which seems to be an essential part of the forgiveness of sin itself,—but likewise all temporal punishments, so that, were one to die immediately after receiving Baptism, he would go straightway to Heaven. “In those who are born again,” says the Council of Trent, “there is nothing that God hates, because there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by Baptism into death; … so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into Heaven.”21

a) This dogma cannot be conclusively proved from Sacred Scripture, but if we carefully consider the language used by St. Paul in comparing Baptism with the death and burial of our Lord, we can hardly doubt that the Apostle means to teach that Baptism remits not only all sins but also all the penalties due to them. Cfr. Rom. 6:4: “For we are buried together with him by baptism into death; that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life.” The Roman Catechism comments on this text as follows: “Of Baptism alone has it been said by the Apostle, that by it we die and are buried with Christ. Hence holy Church has always understood that to impose those offices of piety which are usually called by the holy Fathers works of satisfaction, on him who is to be purified by Baptism, cannot be done without the gravest injury to this Sacrament.”

b) Tertullian speaks the mind of the Latin Fathers when he says: “The guilt being removed, the penalty is removed also. Thus man is restored to God according to the likeness of him [i.e. Adam] who in days gone by had been [created] to the image of God.” And St. Athanasius expresses the universal belief of the Greeks when he declares: “Baptism is called a laver, because in it we wash off our sins; it is called grace, because through it are remitted the punishments due to sins.”

c) From this teaching Catholic theologians consistently infer that such penalties as remain after Baptism (e.g. sickness and death) no longer partake of the nature of punishment, but are purely medicinal. In the technical terminology of the Schoolmen, they are not poenae but poenalitates. This explains why no works of satisfaction are imposed on adults at Baptism. True, in the olden time the baptizandi were compelled to fast, as Tertullian reminds us; but this was done only to aid them in subduing concupiscence, to accustom them to pious practices, to obtain special graces, and for similar purposes.

By the “temporal punishments of sin” we do not, of course, means those which a secular judge is bound by law to inflict upon convicted offenders. Nevertheless St. Thomas recommends Christian rulers, “for the honor of the Sacrament,” to remit capital punishment to convicted pagans who ask for Baptism, and the Roman Catechism repeats the recommendation.

3. THIRD EFFECT: THE BAPTISMAL CHARACTER.—Like Confirmation and Holy Orders, Baptism imprints in the soul of the recipient an indelible mark, which renders repetition impossible. The Tridentine Council defines: “If any one saith that in the three Sacraments, to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, and Order, there is not imprinted in the soul a character, that is a certain spiritual and indelible sign, on account of which they cannot be repeated; let him be anathema.”

b) From the theological point of view the following considerations are pertinent.

?) That Baptism cannot be repeated, is owing to the fact that it is a rebirth of the soul and in a mystic manner exercises the same functions as Christ’s death on the cross.33 Referring to the former, St. Augustine observes: “The womb does not repeat its births,” and with the latter analogy in mind St. Chrysostom says: “As there is no second crucifixion for Christ, so there can be no such a thing as rebaptism.”35

Rebaptism has always been condemned by the Church as sacrilegious. St. Augustine shows its intrinsic absurdity by comparing it to an “impositio Christi super Christum.” The older Fathers furnish plenty of material for this argument. Clement of Alexandria, for example, quotes the following remarkable passage from the eclogues of Theodotus the Valentinian: “As even the dumb animals show by a mark to whom they belong, and each can be recognized by that mark, thus the faithful soul that has received the seal of truth37 bears the stigmata of Christ.” St. Basil eulogizes the Sacrament as follows: “Baptism is the ransom paid for prisoners, the remission of debts, the death of sin, the rebirth of the Soul, a shining garment, an indelible seal, a vehicle [to convey men] to Heaven, a medium of the kingdom [of God], a free gift of sonship.”40

?) The general purpose of the sacramental character has been sufficiently explained supra, pp. 88 sqq. In addition to what we have said there, we will briefly comment on what may be termed the secondary effects of the baptismal character.

In the first place the baptismal character, as a signum configurativum, incorporates the recipient into Christ’s own family, bestows upon him the Saviour’s coat-of-arms, and thus renders him a Christian, i.e. one who is like unto Christ. Cfr. Gal. 3:27: “As many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ.”

By Baptism, furthermore, one becomes a member of our Lord’s “mystic body,” i.e. the true Church. “Baptism,” says the Decretum pro Armenis, “is the door to the spiritual life, for by it we are made members of Christ and [part] of the body of the Church.” This is but another way of expressing St. Paul’s thought, 1 Cor. 12:13, 27: “We were all baptized into one body.… Now you are [together] the body of Christ, and severally his members.” In this respect the baptismal character is a signum distinctivum, marking off those who are baptized from those who are not. Only the former are “members” of the corpus Ecclesiae, while the latter may at most belong to the anima Ecclesiae.

By making them members of the Church, the baptismal character, as a signum obligativum, subjects all baptized Christians to her jurisdiction, obliges them to keep their baptismal vow and to observe the ecclesiastical precepts. In return, it guarantees them the graces they require for their respective state of life as well as all the benefits, privileges, and means of sanctification which the Church is pleased to bestow upon her children, particularly the right to receive the other Sacraments.

Baptism is necessary for salvation, but, under certain conditions, the place of Baptism by water (baptismus fluminis) may be supplied by Baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) or by Baptism of blood (baptismus sanguinis). We shall explain the Catholic teaching on this point in three theses.

Proof. We have, in a previous treatise, distinguished between two kinds of necessity: necessity of means (necessitas medii) and necessity of precept (necessitas praecepti).

Since Baptism is necessary for infants no less than for adults, it follows that all men need it as a means of salvation (necessitas medii), and that for adults it is also of precept (necessitas praecepti). However, since the Baptism of water may sometimes be supplied by the Baptism of desire or the Baptism of blood, Baptism of water is not absolutely necessary as a means of salvation but merely in a hypothetical way. That Baptism is necessary for salvation is an expressly defined dogma, for the Council of Trent declares: “If any one saith that Baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation, let him be anathema.”

a) This can be conclusively proved from Holy Scripture. Our Lord’s command: “Teach ye all nations, baptizing them,” plainly imposes on all men the duty to receive Baptism, as is evidenced by a parallel passage in St. Mark: “Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature; he that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.”4 Here we have Christ’s plain and express declaration that while unbelief is sufficient to incur damnation, faith does not ensure salvation unless it is accompanied by Baptism.

That Baptism is necessary as a means of salvation (necessitate medii) follows from John 3:5: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Spiritual regeneration is more than a mere keeping of the Commandments; it involves a complete transformation of the soul. As no one can come into this world without being born, so no one can enter Heaven unless he is supernaturally reborn. Hence Baptism is, ordinarily, a necessary means of salvation.6

The African bishops assembled at the Council of Carthage (416), in a letter to Innocent I, complain of the cruelty of the Pelagians, who condemn their children to eternal death by refusing them Baptism.

Tertullian writes: “The precept is laid down that without Baptism salvation is attainable by none, chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says: Unless a man be born of water, he hath not eternal life.”

St. Basil, at a somewhat later date, says: “If you have not passed through the water, you will not be freed from the cruel tyranny of the devil.”

This belief of the primitive Church was embodied, as it were, in the catechumenate, an institution which lasted well into the Middle Ages. “Catechumeni” was a name applied to adults who were under instruction with a view to receiving Baptism. Until recently they were believed to have been divided into three classes, viz.: audientes (??????????); genuflectentes (???? ?????????); and competentes (???????????). This theory was based upon a misunderstood canon of a council of Neocaesarea (between 314 and 325). Other theologians thought that there were two classes, catechumeni and competentes or electi. But this distinction is equally untenable, because St. Cyril of Jerusalem and other Fathers number the competentes, or candidates for Baptism, among the faithful (fideles, ??????). To the late Professor Funk belongs the credit of having shown that the catechumens were all in one class. But even though we now discard the three (or two) stages of preparation, this does not alter the fact that the ecclesiastical authorities were at great pains properly to instruct converts, so as to make them well-informed and loyal Catholics. The catechumens had to pass seven consecutive examinations (septem scrutinia) before they were admitted to Baptism. Besides, for a whole week after Baptism they wore white garments, which they put off on Low Sunday (Dominica in albis, scil. deponendis). Had not the Church been so firmly convinced of the importance and necessity of Baptism, she would certainly not have surrounded this Sacrament with so many imposing ceremonies nor spent so much time and labor in preparing candidates for its reception. The very existence of the catechumenate in the primitive Church proves that Baptism was always regarded as a matter of spiritual life and death.

c) It is a moot question among theologians at what time Baptism became a necessary means of salvation.

Even if it were true, as some older writers hold, that express belief in the Messias and the Trinity was a necessary condition of salvation already in the Old Testament, Baptism certainly was not, either as a means or in consequence of a positive precept. For those living under the New Law the necessity of Baptism, according to the Tridentine Council,14 began with “the promulgation of the Gospel.” When was the Gospel promulgated? Was it promulgated for all nations on the day of our Lord’s Ascension, or did its precepts go into effect only when they were actually preached to each? Were we to adopt the latter assumption, we should have to admit that the necessity of Baptism, and consequently the duty of receiving the Sacrament, was limited both with regard to time and place, e.g. that the law did not go into effect in Palestine until the Gospel had been sufficiently promulgated throughout that country, which required some thiry years or more. To be entirely consistent we should have to admit further that Baptism did not become necessary for salvation in the farther parts of the Roman Empire until about the close of the third century, in the Western hemisphere until the sixteenth century, in Central Africa or the Congo Free State until the beginning of the twentieth. This would practically mean that millions of pagans after the time of Christ were in precisely the same position as the entire human race before the atonement, and that their children could be saved by a mere “Sacrament of nature.” Though this way of reasoning appears quite legitimate in the light of the Tridentine declaration, it is open to serious theological objections. In the first place, we must not arbitrarily limit the validity of our Saviour’s baptismal mandate. Secondly, we cannot assume that for more than a thousand years the children of pagan nations were better off in the matter of salvation than innumerable infants of Christian parentage, who were unable to avail themselves of the “Sacrament of nature,” Third, the assumption under review practically renders illusory the necessity of Baptism through a period extending over many centuries. To obviate these difficulties we prefer the more probable opinion that the law making Baptism necessary for salvation was promulgated on Ascension day or, if you will, on Pentecost, simultaneously for the whole world, and at once became binding upon all nations.

Thesis II: In adults the place of Baptism by water can be supplied in case of urgent necessity by the so-called Baptism of desire

Proof. The Baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) differs from the Baptism of water (baptismus fluminis) in the same way in which spiritual differs from actual Communion. If the desire for Baptism is accompanied by perfect contrition, we have the so-called baptismus flaminis, which forthwith justifies the sinner, provided, of course, that the desire is a true votum sacramenti, i.e., that it implies a firm resolve to receive the Sacrament as soon as opportunity offers.

The Tridentine Council pronounces anathema against those who assert “that the Sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but superfluous, and that without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God through faith alone the grace of justification.”

At a later date the Holy See formally condemned a proposition extracted from the writings of Bajus, which says that “Perfect and sincere charity can exist both in catechumens and in penitents without the remission of sins.” Hence the Church teaches that perfect charity does remit sin, even in catechumens or in penitents, i.e. before the reception of the Sacrament, yet not without the Sacrament, as we have seen in Thesis I. Nothing remains, therefore, but to say that the remission of sins through perfect charity is due to the fact that such charity implies the desire of the Sacrament. Indeed the only Sacraments here concerned are Baptism and Penance. The Council of Trent explains that primal justification (from original sin) is impossible without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof, and20 that forgiveness of personal sin must not be expected from perfect charity without at least the desire of the Sacrament of Penance.

a) That perfect contrition effects immediate justification is apparent from the case of David, that of Zachaeus,22 and our Lord’s own words to one of the robbers crucified with Him on Calvary: “This day thou shalt be with me in paradise.”

The Prophet Ezechiel assured the Old Testament Jews in the name of Jehovah: “If the wicked do penance for all his sins, … he shall live, and shall not die.” In the New Testament our Lord Himself says of the penitent Magdalen: “Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much.”25 Since, however, God has ordained Baptism as a necessary means of salvation, perfect contrition, in order to obtain forgiveness of sins, must include the desire of the Sacrament. Cfr. John 14:23: “If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him.”

b) According to primitive Tradition, the Baptism of desire, when based on charity, effects justification, though not without some ideal relation to the Baptism of water.

The anonymous author of the treatise De Rebaptismate, which was composed about 256 against the practice championed by St. Cyprian, calls attention to the fact that the centurion Cornelius and his family were justified without the Sacrament, and adds: “No doubt men can be baptized without water, in the Holy Ghost, as you observe that these were baptized, before they were baptized with water, … since they received the grace of the New Covenant before the bath, which they reached later.”

The most striking Patristic pronouncement on the subject is found in St. Ambrose’s sermon on the death of the Emperor Valentinian II, who had died as a catechumen. “I hear you express grief,” he says, “because he [Valentinian] did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism. Tell me, what else is there in us except the will and petition? But he had long desired to be initiated before he came to Italy, and expressed his intention to be baptized by me as soon as possible, and it was for this reason, more than for any other, that he hastened to me. Has he not, therefore, the grace which he desired? Has he not received that for which he asked? Surely, he received [it] because he asked [for it].”

St. Augustine repeatedly speaks of the power inherent in the desire for Baptism. “I do not hesitate,” he says in his treatise De Baptismo against the Donatists, “to place the Catholic catechumen, who is burning with the love of God, before the baptized heretic.… The centurion Cornelius, before Baptism, was better than Simon [Magus], who had been baptized. For Cornelius, even before Baptism, was filled with the Holy Ghost, while Simon, after Baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit.” A seemingly contradictory passage occurs in the same author’s Homilies on the Gospel of St. John. “No matter what progress a catechumen may make,” it reads, “he still carries the burden of iniquity, which is not taken away until he has been baptized.” The two Augustinian passages quoted can, however, be easily reconciled. The command to receive the Baptism of water exists also for the catechumens and ceases to be binding only when there is an impossibility. “I find,” says the same author, “that not only martyrdom for the sake of Christ may supply what was wanting of Baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart, if recourse can not be had to the celebration of the mystery of Baptism for want of time.”34 St. Bernard invokes the authority of SS. Ambrose and Augustine in support of his teaching that a man may be saved by the Baptism of desire if death or some other insuperable obstacle prevents him from receiving the Baptism of water. The Popes decided many practical cases of conscience by this rule. Thus Innocent III unhesitatingly declared that a certain deceased priest, who had never been baptized, had undoubtedly obtained forgiveness of original sin and reached Heaven, and that the sacrifice of the Mass might be offered up for the repose of his soul.36

The question whether the votum baptismi accompanying perfect contrition must be explicit, is to be decided in the same way as the parallel problem whether pagans, in order to be justified, must have an express belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation, or whether an implicit belief in these mysteries is sufficient. The more common opinion holds that the votum implicitum is all that is required. This “implicit desire” may be defined as “a state of mind in which a man would ardently long for Baptism if he knew that it is necessary for salvation.”

Thesis III: Martyrdom (baptismus sanguinis) can also supply the place of Baptism

Though the Church has never formally pronounced on the subject, the teaching of Scripture and Tradition is sufficiently clear to enable us to regard this thesis as “doctrina certa.”

Proof. The Baptism of blood, or martyrdom, is the patient endurance of death, or of extreme violence apt to cause death, for the sake of Jesus Christ.

The theological concept of martyrdom (??????, a witness) includes three separate and distinct elements, viz.:

(1) Violent death or extremely cruel treatment which would naturally cause death, irrespective of whether the victim actually dies or is saved by a miracle, as was St. John the Evangelist when he escaped unharmed from the cauldron of boiling oil into which he had been thrown by order of the Emperor Domitian. (2) The endurance of death or violence for the sake of Christ, i.e. for the Catholic faith or for the practice of any supernatural virtue. Hence the so-called “martyrs” of revolution or heresy are not martyrs in the theological sense of the term. (3) Patient suffering, endured voluntarily and without resistance. This excludes soldiers who fall in battle, even though they fight in defence of the faith.

Since martyrdom effects justification in infants as well as adults, its efficacy must be conceived after the manner of an opus operatum, and in adults presupposes a moral preparation or disposition, consisting mainly of faith accompanied by imperfect contrition. It does not, however, require perfect contrition, else there would be no essential distinction between Baptism of blood and Baptism of desire.41

a) The supernatural efficacy of martyrdom may be deduced from our Lord’s declaration in the Gospel of St. Matthew: “Every one that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in Heaven,” and: “He that findeth his life, shall lose it; and he that shall lose his life for me, shall find it.”43 If a man gives up his life for Jesus, he will surely be rewarded. “Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” Consequently, martyrdom must be regarded as equivalent to Baptism for the unbaptized, and as a means of justification for the baptized.

b) The ancient Church explicitly interpreted Christ’s teaching in this sense, as is evident from the honors she paid to the martyrs.

Tertullian says: “We have, indeed, likewise a second font, itself one [with the former], of blood to wit.… This is the Baptism which both stands in lieu of the fontal bathing when that has not been received, and restores it when lost.” St. Cyprian declares that the catechumens who suffer martyrdom for Christ’s sake, go to Heaven. “Let them know … that the catechumens are not deprived of Baptism, since they are baptized with the most glorious and supreme Baptism of blood.”46 St. Augustine expresses himself in a similar manner: “To all those who die confessing Christ, even though they have not received the laver of regeneration, [martyrdom] will prove as effective for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the baptismal font.”

The Greek Church held the same belief. St. Cyril of Jerusalem writes: “If a man does not receive Baptism, he hath not salvation, the martyrs alone excepted, who attain to Heaven without water.” And St. Chrysostom: “As those baptized in water, so also those who suffer martyrdom, are washed clean, [the latter] in their own blood.”49

The primitive Church venerated in a special manner all those who suffered martyrdom for the faith, the unbaptized as well as the baptized. Among the earliest martyrs to whom public honors were paid, are St. Emerentiana, a foster-sister of St. Agnes, and the Holy Innocents, of whom St. Cyprian, following St. Irenaeus, says that though they were too young to fight for Christ, they were old enough to gain the crown of martyrdom.51

c) The Baptism of blood is more perfect than the Baptism of desire, and, in a certain sense, even excels Baptism by water.

?) It is more perfect than the Baptism of desire, both in essence and effect, because it justifies infants as well as adults quasi ex opere operato, whereas the Baptism of desire is efficacious ex opere operantis, and in adults only. Martyrdom, however, is not a Sacrament because it is no ecclesiastical rite and has not been instituted as an ordinary means of grace. It is superior to the Baptism of desire in this respect, that, like ordinary Baptism, it not only forgives sins and sanctifies the sinner, but remits all temporal punishments. St. Augustine says: “It would be an affront to pray for a martyr; we should [rather] commend ourselves to his prayers.” Hence the famous dictum of Pope Innocent III: “He who prays for a martyr insults him.” St. Thomas teaches: “Suffering endured for Christ’s sake … cleanses [the soul] of all guilt, both venial and mortal, unless the will be found actually attached to sin.”54

?) Martyrdom is inferior to Baptism in so far as it is not a Sacrament, and consequently neither imprints a character nor confers the right of receiving the other Sacraments. It excels Baptism in that it not only remits all sins, together with the temporal punishments due to them, but likewise confers the so-called aureole. It is superior to Baptism also in this that it more perfectly represents the passion and death of Christ. Cfr. Mark 10:38: “Can you drink of the chalice that I drink of, or be baptized with the baptism wherewith I am baptized?”—“Let him who is deemed worthy of martyrdom,” say the Apostolic Constitutions, “rejoice in the Lord for obtaining such a great crown.… Though he be a catechumen, let him depart without sadness; for the suffering he endures for Christ will be to him more effective than Baptism.”57 St. Bonaventure explains this as follows: “The reason why [martyrdom] has greater efficacy is that in the Baptism of blood there is an ampler and a fuller imitation and profession of the Passion of Christ than in the Baptism of water.… In the Baptism of water death is signified; in the Baptism of blood it is incurred.”

Catholic theology makes a distinction between solemn Baptism (baptismus solemnis) and private Baptism, which is also called Baptism of necessity (baptismus necessitatis). Any one can administer private Baptism, whereas solemn Baptism requires a specially qualified minister. The ordinary minister (minister ordinarius) of solemn Baptism is the bishop or priest. A deacon may administer the Sacrament solemnly only with the express permission of a bishop or priest, and consequently is called the extraordinary minister (minister extraordinarius) of the Sacrament.

1. THE ORDINARY MINISTER OF SOLEMN BAPTISM.—Baptism is called solemn when it is administered with all the prescribed ecclesiastical ceremonies. These ceremonies are not essential to the validity of the Sacrament and are omitted when it is conferred privately.

The ordinary minister of solemn Baptism is any validly ordained priest, who has the requisite ecclesiastical jurisdiction, that is to say, the bishop or any pastor or other priest duly authorized by either bishop or pastor to administer the Sacrament. “The [ordinary] minister of this Sacrament [Baptism],” says the Decretum pro Armenis, “is the priest, to whose office it belongs to baptize.”

a) Our Lord’s official mandate to baptize all nations was addressed to the Apostles and their successors, i.e. the bishops, who, in turn, gave it to others when it became impossible for them to be the sole ministers of the Sacrament. Cfr. 1 Cor. 1:17: “Christ hath not sent me to baptize, but to preach the gospel.” St. Peter did not himself baptize Cornelius and his family, but “commanded them to be baptized.”5 From which it may be seen that Holy Scripture, to say the least, is not averse to the ministerium ordinarium of the priesthood in respect of Baptism.

b) In the early days the solemn administration of Baptism usually took place at Easter or Pentecost, and was regarded as the exclusive prerogative of the bishop. When Christianity gradually spread to the rural districts, and the dioceses increased in size, simple priests were permitted to confer Baptism by virtue of their office, and the administration of this Sacrament became a prerogative of the pastors. Tertullian says: “Of giving Baptism, the chief priest, who is the bishop, has the right; in the next place the presbyters and deacons, not however, without the bishop’s authority, on account of the honor of the Church.” St. Thomas states the reason for this as follows: “Just as it belongs to a priest to consecrate the Eucharist, … so it is the proper office of a priest to baptize; since it seems to belong to one and the same person to produce the whole and to arrange the part in the whole.”

2. THE EXTRAORDINARY MINISTER OF SOLEMN BAPTISM.—The extraordinary ministry of the deacon in regard to Baptism comprises two essential elements: (a) the right to administer solemn Baptism, which is never granted to laymen, nor to clerics in minor orders; and (b) the special permission of bishop or pastor, given for an important reason.

The right (a) is required to establish the order of the diaconate, while without the latter condition (b) bishops and priests would have no prerogative in matters of Baptism over deacons. With regard to the first-mentioned point the Pontificale Romanum observes: “It belongs to the deacon to minister at the altar, to baptize, and to preach.” With regard to the last-mentioned point, the Catechism of the Council of Trent says: “Next to bishops and priests come deacons, for whom, as numerous decrees of the holy Fathers attest, it is not lawful to administer this Sacrament without the leave of the bishop or priest.”

The extraordinary character of the prerogative of deacons to confer Baptism is illustrated by the example of the deacon Philip, who, as the Acts of the Apostles tell us, baptized the eunuch of Queen Candace and a great number of other men and women in Samaria.12 Nevertheless the Church has always insisted that, apart from cases of urgent necessity, deacons may not confer solemn Baptism except with the permission of a bishop or priest.

Thus Pope Gelasius I (d. 496) admonished the bishops of Lucania: “Deacons must not presume to baptize without the permission of a bishop or priest, except in the absence of the aforesaid officials, if there be extreme necessity.” A similar passage occurs in the writings of St. Isidore (d. 636).14

In case of urgent necessity any human being, irrespective of sex or faith, can validly baptize. This teaching is based on the fact that Baptism is necessary for salvation. It is not a mere question of ecclesiastical discipline but a dogma, and can be rightly understood only in the light of Christ’s implicit command, as interpreted by Tradition. The Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215) declared: “The Sacrament of Baptism, … properly conferred, no matter by whom (a quocunque rite collatum), is useful for salvation.” The phrase “a quocunque” was explained by the Council of Florence (1439) as follows: “In case of necessity, not only a priest or a deacon, but a lay man or woman, nay even a pagan and a heretic, can [validly] baptize, provided only that he observes the form prescribed by the Church and has the intention of doing what the Church does.” To set forth the process of clarification through which this teaching has passed, it will be best to proceed chronologically.

1. BAPTISM ADMINISTERED BY CATHOLIC LAYMEN.—At a very early date it was believed that Catholic laymen (homines laici) could validly baptize in cases of urgent necessity, and that even where no such necessity existed, lay Baptism was valid, though illicit.

Tertullian says: “Besides these, even laymen have the right [to baptize]; for what is equally received can be equally given.”

Several centuries later St. Jerome taught: “If necessity urges, we know that even laymen are allowed [to baptize]; for as one has received, he may also give.” The argument embodied in this citation is, however, inconclusive and misleading. For if it were true that “what one has received, he may also give,” it would be equally true that “one cannot give what he has not received,” and Baptism would be invalid when administered by non-baptized persons, which is contrary to the teaching of the Church.

Augustine goes into the subject of lay Baptism at considerable length. He says among other things: “If it is done where no urgent necessity compels, it is a usurpation of another’s [i.e. the priest’s] office. But when necessity urges, it is either no sin at all, or only a venial sin; but though it is usurped without any necessity, and conferred by no matter whom on no matter whom, what is given cannot be said to have not been given, though it may truly be said that it is illicitly given.”

The Oriental Fathers were more reserved in regard to this question. St. Basil seems to have regarded lay Baptism as invalid. In process of time, however, the Greek Church admitted its validity, though only on condition that the baptizing layman be himself baptized, i.e. a Christian. In this form lay Baptism was incorporated into the canon law of the East. In 1672, a schismatic council held at Jerusalem decreed: “The minister of this [Sacrament] is the priest alone, but, in case of real and urgent necessity, any man [may baptize], provided only he be a Christian believer.”

2. BAPTISM ADMINISTERED BY HERETICS.—Tertullian denied that Baptism can be validly conferred by a heretic. The question was hotly debated in the famous controversy between St. Cyprian (d. 258) and Pope Stephen I, who finally decided that repenting heretics must not be rebaptized but reconciled through the Sacrament of Penance.

The First Ecumenical Council (325) forbade the rebaptism of heretics. When the controversy broke out anew, in the time of the Donatist schism, St. Augustine vigorously defended the Nicene teaching. Lastly, the Council of Trent defined: “If any one saith that the Baptism which is given by heretics, … is not a true Baptism, let him be anathema.”

3. BAPTISM ADMINISTERED BY UNBELIEVERS.—It is more difficult to understand how unbelievers (pagans, Jews, Mohammedans, etc.) can validly baptize, and hence we need not wonder that this point was long contested.

The false inference drawn from the argument used to defend the validity of Baptism when administered by laymen, viz.: that no one can give what he does not himself possess, proved a serious obstacle to the correct understanding of the Sacrament and its administration. Even St. Augustine was puzzled. Here, again, it was the Holy See which gave the final decision. St. Isidore observes: “The Roman Pontiff does not judge the man who baptizes, but [holds that] the Holy Ghost supplies the grace of Baptism, even though it be a pagan who baptizes.”14 The Council of Compiègne (757) confirmed the validity of a heretical Baptism with express reference to a decision of Pope Sergius (687–701). Nicholas I (d. 867) decided a case of conscience brought before him in the same sense. The Decretum pro Armenis reaffirmed the doctrine, and thus it has remained up to the present day.

It may be noted that the power of unbelievers to baptize was virtually included in the ancient Christian maxim that “Baptism can be given by any one,” and that the doctrine only needed to be worked out.

4. BAPTISM ADMINISTERED BY WOMEN.—The validity of Baptism administered by women came to be recognized last of all and rather late.

Tertullian and Epiphanius16 vigorously denounced certain women who claimed the right to baptize. It should be noted, however, that these women (Quintilla, the Collyridians, etc.) posed as priestesses, and presumed not only to baptize in cases of necessity, but to administer solemn Baptism. Probably the invectives of Tertullian, Epiphanius, and later writers were directed more against the presumption and disobedience of which these women were guilty than against the validity of Baptism administered by women in general. In view of St. Paul’s command that women should “keep silence in the churches,”18 it is not likely that Baptism was often administered by women in the primitive Church. To-day midwives give it quite frequently in cases of necessity. The first clear decision on the matter was issued in the eleventh century by Pope Urban II. In principle, Urban’s teaching was already contained in the ancient practice of lay Baptism, because there is no hierarchic distinction between lay men and women. But it was not defined dogmatically until 1439, when the Decretum pro Armenis21 recognized Baptism given by women as valid and permitted it in cases of urgent necessity. The dogma is convincingly demonstrated by St. Thomas in the third part of the Summa.

The requisites of valid reception in the case of Baptism are mainly three: (1) The recipient must be a human being, (2) He must be in the wayfaring state (status viae), and (3) He must not have been previously baptized.

1. THE RECIPIENT MUST BE A HUMAN BEING.—Baptism was instituted for the purpose of blotting out original sin, and therefore its effects are limited to the descendants of Adam. The baptismal mandate (Matth. 28:19; Mark 16:15) is intended only for the human race. A brute beast is as incapable of receiving Baptism as a pure spirit, and hence the story of the “baptized lion” in the so-called Acta Pauli is sufficient to brand that document as spurious.

The general rule is that every living being born of a human female can receive Baptism. In case of doubt whether the recipient is a human being, the Sacrament should be administered conditionally.

2. THE RECIPIENT MUST BE IN THE WAYFARING STATE.—Since Christ instituted His Sacraments for this world, not for the next, it is self-evident that they can be received only in statu viae. This applies particularly to Baptism. It is a somewhat difficult question to decide, however, just where in a given case the wayfaring state begins and where it ends.

“He who has never been born cannot be born again,” says St. Augustine. Consequently a child hidden in the maternal womb is incapable of receiving Baptism, and to baptize the mother in its stead would obviously be invalid. This explains the custom of treating still-born children as unbaptized and refusing them ecclesiastical burial. Quite another question is this: Is it necessary for a fœtus to be fully developed in order to be capable of Baptism, or does the wayfaring state begin at the moment when the soul is infused into the body? As the human fœtus is a person independent of the mother, its existence plainly begins with the infusion of the intellectual soul. Hence it is reasonable and customary to baptize the fœtus in case of premature birth as well as a full-grown child not yet brought to light when there is danger of death, and to rebaptize conditionally only when it has been impossible to reach the head.

b) The status viae ends with death. To baptize a corpse would be both illicit and invalid; Benedict XIV has expressly forbidden it.

It belongs to competent medical authority to decide whether or not in a given case death has set in. There is a curious passage in St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, which has been cited in favor of baptizing the dead and therefore requires a word of explanation. The Apostle says: “Otherwise what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? Why are they then baptized for them?” This passage is obscure and anything but relevant to the point. If the Corinthians were accustomed to baptize living persons in place of the dead, St. Paul surely did not mean to approve the practice, but merely cited it as an argumentum ad hominem to prove the dogma of the resurrection. In that hypothesis there would be question of baptizing not the dead, but living substitutes for the benefit of the dead. Most likely, however, the text refers to a symbolic intercession, consisting of works of penance voluntarily assumed by living relatives or friends for the spiritual benefit of the departed.7

3. THE RECIPIENT MUST BE UNBAPTIZED.—This requisite follows logically from the unity of Baptism and the fact that it cannot be repeated.

1. THE VALIDITY OF INFANT BAPTISM.—In regard to the Baptism of infants, and in general of those who have not yet reached the use of reason (paedobaptismus), there arises a twofold question: (1) Can infants validly receive the Sacrament? and (2) Should it be administered to children before they have attained the years of discretion?

a) In the first three centuries of the Christian era the Church tolerated, without, however, in any way approving, the practice of delaying Baptism to an advanced age, sometimes even to the hour of death. In 1439, the Council of Florence forbade the postponement of Baptism even for forty or eighty days. Since the Tridentine Council it is a strict ecclesiastical precept that infants must be baptized as soon as possible after birth.

The chief opponents of infant Baptism are the Anabaptists (or re-baptizers: ???) in Germany; the Antipedobaptists (????, ????, ???????) in England, a name which is now commonly shortened into Baptists; and the Mennonites.

b) The Second Council of Mileve (416) anathematized all “who deny that new-born infants should be baptized immediately after birth.” The Tridentine Council declared: “If anyone saith that little children, because they have not actual faith, are not, after having received Baptism, to be reckoned among the faithful, and that for this cause they are to be rebaptized when they have attained to years of discretion, or that it is better that the Baptism of such be omitted than that, while not believing by their own act, they should be baptized in the faith alone of the Church, let him be anathema.”12 Hence it is an article of faith that the Baptism of infants is valid, because it incorporates them into the body of the Church, and may not be repeated after they have attained the use of reason.

2. THE DOGMA PROVED FROM REVELATION.—As the validity of infant Baptism is neither positively asserted nor practically exemplified in Holy Writ, it is impossible to demonstrate this dogma conclusively from Scripture. It can, however, be so convincingly proved from Tradition that the great mass of Protestants prefer to contradict their own system by tacitly admitting the Catholic principle of Tradition, rather than surrender the ancient and universal practice of infant Baptism.

a) Though, as we have already remarked, infant Baptism cannot be demonstrated from the Bible, the Catholic dogma of its validity, far from being unscriptural, is in perfect conformity with the spirit of God’s written Revelation. In the first place, when, as was frequently the case (cfr. Acts 16:15; 1 Cor. 1:16), whole families were baptized, it is likely that sometimes there were little children among them. The Catholic dogma, moreover, fully agrees with the Scriptural teaching on the nature and necessity of Baptism. From our Lord’s dictum that the kingdom of heaven is for little children, and His solemn declaration that “unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” we may legitimately conclude that infants not only may but must be “born again,” i.e. baptized. It should be noted, too, that the Jewish rite of circumcision, which was preëminently the type of Christian Baptism, would have foreshadowed that Sacrament but very imperfectly, to say the least, if the children of the New Testament were deprived of the means of obtaining forgiveness of original sin,—a privilege which was granted to the children of the Old Testament Jews.

b) Tradition was already crystallized at the time of St. Augustine, who triumphantly opposed the practice of infant Baptism to the Pelagian denial of original sin. Hence we can limit the Patristic argument to the pre-Augustinian period. Augustine himself states the belief and practice of that period as follows: “The infants are brought to church, and if they cannot go there on their own feet, they run with the feet of others.… Let no one among you, therefore, murmur strange doctrines. This the Church has always had, this she has always held; this she received from the faith of the ancients; this she preserves tenaciously to the end.”18

St. Cyprian (d. 258), speaking in his own name and in that of his fellow-bishops at the Council of Carthage (253), said to Fidus: “No one agrees with you in your opinion as to what should be done, but we all, on the contrary, judge that to no one born of man was the mercy and the grace of God to be denied.” St. Augustine explains this utterance as follows: “The Blessed Cyprian, not forming any new decree, but maintaining the assured faith of the Church, in order to correct those who held that an infant should not be baptized before the eighth day, gives it as his own judgment and that of his fellow-bishops, that a child can be validly baptized as soon as born.”20

In the East, at about the same time, Origen says: “The Church hath received it as a tradition from the Apostles that infants, too, ought to be baptized.”

Long before either St. Cyprian or Origen, St. Irenaeus of Lyons (b. about 140) wrote: “Christ came to save all through Himself,—all, I say, who through Him are born again in God: infants and little children and boys and young men and old men.”

Recent discoveries in the Roman catacombs prove that infant Baptism was common in the primitive Church. Thus a certain Murtius Verinus placed on the tomb of his children the inscription: “Verina received [Baptism] at the age of ten months, Florina at the age of twelve months.” Above another tomb we read: “Here rests Achillia, a newly-baptized [infant]; she was one year and five months old, died February 23rd.”

3. A DOGMATIC COROLLARY.—The dogma of the validity of infant Baptism imposes on those who have been baptized in infancy the strict duty of keeping the baptismal vow made for them by their sponsors. Erasmus’ demand that baptized children should be left free to ratify that vow or to repudiate it when they attain to the years of discretion, was rejected by the Tridentine Council with the declaration: “If any one saith that those who have been thus baptized when children, are to be asked when they have grown up, whether they will ratify what their sponsors promised in their names when they were baptized, and that, in case they answer that they will not, they are to be left to their own will, … let him be anathema.”

To admit the contention of Erasmus, which is unblushingly put into practice by modern Rationalists, is like unfurling the banner of revolution within the sacred precincts of the Church.

To allow a baptized child, when he attains the use of reason, to choose freely between the true and a false religion, to decide whether he will keep the holy law of God or repudiate it at pleasure, betrays rank indifferentism. One sometimes hears the objection: “How can a promise given without my knowledge and consent by some other person, bind my conscience, so long as I have not expressly recognized and accepted the duty it imposes?” We answer that the baptismal vow derives its binding force not from the circumstance that it is made by the sponsors in the name of the baptized child, but from the fact that Baptism, by its very nature as well as by a positive divine ordinance, initiates the recipient into the Catholic religion and, by virtue of the baptismal character which it imprints on the soul, constitutes him a subject of Christ and the Church. By Baptism a man is, as it were, born into the society of the faithful and thereby immediately subjected to the law of Christ, just as the children of the Israelites became subject to the Mosaic law by circumcision. As man by the fact of being born a rational being, is bound to observe the moral law of nature and the positive laws of his country, no matter whether he approves of them or not, so, through the fact of his being born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he is incorporated into the Church and becomes subject to her laws. And as one need not ratify his physical birth by an act of formal and express approval, so a Christian has no right to make his supernatural rebirth conditional upon his subsequent consent. The customary renewal of the baptismal vow at solemn first Communion has for its object, not to permit the children to decide whether they will or will not ratify the promise made for them by their sponsors, but to give them an opportunity of freely promising to do what they are bound to do in any event.

READINGS:—The Scholastic commentators on Peter Lombard’s Liber Sententiarum, IV, dist. 3, and on St. Thomas, *Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 66; especially Billuart, Tract. de Baptismo (ed. Lequette, Vol. VI, pp. 253 sqq.).—Bellarmine, De Sacramento Baptismi (Opera Omnia, ed. J. Fèvre,. Vol. III, pp. 513 sqq., Paris 1870).—*Tournely, De Baptismo (in Migne, Curs. Theol. Complete., Vol. XXI).—Bertieri, De Sacramentis in Genere, Baptismo et Confirmatione, Vienna 1774.—Zimmermann, De Baptismi Origine eiusque Usu Hodierno, 1815.—Höfling, Das Sakrament der Taufe, 2 vols., 1846, 1848.—M. J. Ryan, De Doctrina S. Ioannis circa Baptismum, Rochester 1908.—*J. Corblet, Histoire Dogmatique, Liturgique et Archéologique du Sacrement de Baptême, 2 vols., Paris 1881.—Fanning, s. v. “Baptism,” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II.—P. Drew, s. v. “Baptism,” in the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. I.

Cfr. also the treatises on Baptism in the following works: *Probst, Sakramente und Sakramentalien in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, Tübingen 1872; De Augustinis, De Re Sacramentaria, Vol. I, 2nd ed., Rome 1899; P. Schanz, Die Lehre von den hl. Sakramenten der kath. Kirche, § 14 sqq., Freiburg 1893; L. Billot, De Ecclesiae Sacramentis, Vol. I, 4th ed., Rome 1907; Oswald, Die dogmatische Lehre von den hl. Sakramenten, Vol. I, 5th ed., Münster 1894; Chr. Pesch, Praelectiones Dogmaticae, Vol. VI, 3rd ed., Freiburg 1908; Tepe, Institutiones Theologicae, Vol. IV, Paris 1896; J. B. Sasse, De Sacramentis Ecclesiae, Vol. I, Freiburg 1897; P. Einig, Tractatus de Sacramentis, Treves 1900; *Heinrich-Gutberlet, Dogmatische Theologie, Vol. IX, Mainz 1901; Nik. Gihr, Die hi. Sakramente der kath. Kirche, Vol. I, 2nd ed., Freiburg 1902; Cabrol, Dictionnaire d’Archéologie Chrétienne et de Liturgie, s. v. “Baptême,” Paris 1903 sqq.; Fr. Dölger, Der Exorzismus im altchristlichen Taufritual. Eine religionsgeschichtliche Studie, Paderborn 1909; W. Koch, Die Taufe im Neuen Testament, Münster 1910; S. J. Hunter, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, Vol. III, pp. 214–233, London 1894; Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology, Vol. II, pp. 378–392, 2nd ed., London 1901; W. Humphrey, The One Mediator, pp. 81 sqq., London 1890; A. Devine, The Sacraments Explained, pp. 134 sqq., 3rd ed., London 1905.

The Sacrament of Confirmation owes its name to the fact that it was always regarded as a making fast or sure (?????????, confirmatio), a perfecting or completing (?????????, consummatio) in relation to Baptism. In ancient times these two Sacraments were generally administered together.

From its effects Confirmation is known as the “Sacrament of the Holy Ghost” (sacramentum Spiritus Sancti) and also as the “Sacrament of the Seal” (signaculum, sigillum, ???????, from ??????????, to confirm). It should be noted, however, that in the first two centuries of the Christian era the words ??????? and ??????? were frequently applied to Baptism.

From the external rite Confirmation was formerly also called “the laying-on of hands” (impositio manuum, ???????? ??????) or “anointing with chrism” (unctio, chrismatio, ??????, ?????). To-day these names are no longer in use, but the Sacrament is commonly known as “Confirmatio” in the Latin and ?? ????? in the Greek Church.

Confirmation may be defined as a Sacrament in which those already baptized, through the imposition of hands, anointment, and the prayer of the bishop, receive the power of the Holy Ghost, by which they are enabled to believe firmly and to profess the faith boldly. The Council of Trent contented itself with three short canons on the subject, which are appended to those dealing with Baptism. Confirmation both internally and externally bears so close a relation to Baptism that we may safely treat it along the same lines.

Pohle, J., & Preuss, A. (1917). The sacraments: a dogmatic treatise, volume 1 (pp. 204–277). St. Louis, MO; London: B. Herder.