Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 68 [<< | >>]
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?
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 68 [<< | >>]
Article: 1 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: 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.
Objection 2: 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.
Objection 3: 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.
On the contrary, It is written (@Jn. 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."
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 (@Rm. 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.
Reply to Objection 1: 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 (@Rm. 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.
Reply to Objection 2: As we have stated in the FS, Question [81], Article [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 Rm. 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.
Reply to Objection 3: 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.
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 68 [<< | >>]
Article: 2 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For our Lord
said (@Jn. 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.
Objection 2: 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.
Objection 3: Further, as stated above (Article [1]; Question [65], Article [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.
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.
I answer that, The sacrament or 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."
Reply to Objection 1: As it is written (@1 Kgs. 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 (@Rm. 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."
Reply to Objection 2: 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.
Reply to Objection 3: 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).
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 68 [<< | >>]
Article: 3 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: 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.
Objection 2: 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.
Objection 3: Further, as we read in Is. 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.
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.
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 (Article [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 Jn. 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 (Article [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 (Question [66], Article [11]).
Reply to Objection 1: 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.
Reply to Objection 2: 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."
Reply to Objection 3: 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 Jn. 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."
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 68 [<< | >>]
Article: 4 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It seems that sinners should be baptized. For it is written
(Zach. 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.
Objection 2: Further, our Lord said (@Mt. 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.
Objection 3: 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.
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.
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.
Reply to Objection 1: The words quoted are to be understood of those sinners
whose will is set on renouncing sin.
Reply to Objection 2: 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.
Reply to Objection 3: 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).
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 68 [<< | >>]
Article: 5 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: 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.
Objection 2: 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.
Objection 3: 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.
On the contrary, Ambrose commenting on Rm. 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."
I answer that, As the Apostle says (@Rm. 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 (Question [48], Articles [2],4; Question [49], Article [3]) that Christ's death
satisfied sufficiently for sins, "not for ours only, but also for those
of the whole world," according to 1 Jn. 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.
Reply to Objection 1: 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 (@Is. 53:4): "Surely He hath
borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows."
Reply to Objection 2: 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 Mt. 9:14,15: and the same is written 1
Pt. 2:2: "As new-born babes desire . . . milk . . . that thereby you may
grow unto salvation."
Reply to Objection 3: 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.
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 68 [<< | >>]
Article: 6 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It seems that sinners who are going to be baptized are bound to
confess their sins. For it is written (@Mt. 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.
Objection 2: 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.
Objection 3: 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.
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 Rm. 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.
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 (Article [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 Mt. 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.
Reply to Objection 1: 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 Rm. 11:29); and
therefore there is no comparison.
Reply to Objection 2: 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.
Reply to Objection 3: Confession is a part of sacramental Penance, which is not
required before Baptism, as stated above: but the inward virtue of
Penance is required.
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 68 [<< | >>]
Article: 7 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: 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.
Objection 2: 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 (Question [66], Article [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.
Objection 3: 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.
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.
I answer that, By Baptism a man dies to the old life of sin, and begins
a certain newness of life, according to Rm. 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.
Reply to Objection 1: 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.
Reply to Objection 2: 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."
Reply to Objection 3: Baptism is a remedy not only against original, but also
against actual sins, which are caused by our will and intention.
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 68 [<< | >>]
Article: 8 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: 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.
Objection 2: 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.
Objection 3: 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.
Objection 4: Further, unbelief is a most grievous sin, as we have shown in the
SS, Question [10], Article [3]. But those who remain in sin should not be baptized:
therefore neither should those who remain in unbelief.
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.
I answer that, As appears from what has been said above (Question [63], Article [6]; Question [66], Article [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 Rm. 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.
Reply to Objection 1: 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."
Reply to Objection 2: The Church's intention in Baptizing men is that they may be
cleansed from sin, according to Is. 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."
Reply to Objection 3: 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.
Reply to Objection 4: 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.
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 68 [<< | >>]
Article: 9 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: 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 (Article [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.
Objection 2: Further, Baptism is the sacrament of faith, as stated above
(Question [39], Article [5]; Question [66], Article [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.
Objection 3: Further, it is written (@1 Pt. 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.
On the contrary, Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii): "Our heavenly
guides," i.e. the Apostles, "approved of infants being admitted to
Baptism."
I answer that, As the Apostle says (@Rm. 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 (@Rm. 5:12). Much more, therefore,
can children receive grace through Christ, so as to reign in eternal
life. But our Lord Himself said (@Jn. 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).
Reply to Objection 1: 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.
Reply to Objection 2: 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.
Reply to Objection 3: 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.
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 68 [<< | >>]
Article: 10 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: 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.
Objection 2: 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.
Objection 3: 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.
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."
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.
Reply to Objection 1: 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.
Reply to Objection 2: Jews are slaves of rulers by civil slavery, which does not
exclude the order of the natural and Divine law.
Reply to Objection 3: 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.
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 68 [<< | >>]
Article: 11 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: 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 (@Rm. 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.
Objection 2: 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.
Objection 3: 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.
Objection 4: Further, it happens at times that some part of the child comes forth first, as we read in Gn. 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.
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.
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 (Question [66], Article [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.
Reply to Objection 1: 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.
Reply to Objection 2: 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.
Reply to Objection 3: We should "not do evil that there may come good" (@Rm. 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.
Reply to Objection 4: 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.
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 68 [<< | >>]
Article: 12 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: 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 (Article [7]). But since madmen and imbeciles lack the use of
reason, they can have but a disorderly intention. Therefore they should
not be baptized.
Objection 2: 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.
Objection 3: 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.
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.
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 (Article [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.
Reply to Objection 1: 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 (Article [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.
Reply to Objection 2: 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.
Reply to Objection 3: 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).