D. 3 - Baptism in itself
After the Master has examined those things that are required for the sacraments of the New Law, here he begins to consider each individual sacrament of the New Law; and this is divided into two parts. In the first, he examines those sacraments that are directed to the remedy of one person; in the second, those that are directed to the remedy of the whole Church, at Distinction 24: Now let us proceed to the consideration of sacred ordination. (Peter Lombard, Sententiae IV, 24.1 (131), 1.)
The first part is divided into three: in the first, he examines the sacrament of those entering, namely, baptism; in the second, the sacraments of those progressing, at Distinction 7: Now we must add something about the sacrament of confirmation; (Sent. IV, 7.1 (43), 1.) in the third, the sacrament of those departing, namely, extreme unction, at Distinction 23: After the ones mentioned above, there is another sacrament, namely, anointing of the sick. (Sent. IV, 23.1 (127), 1.)
The first is in three parts: first, he examines baptism in itself; in the second, baptism in relation to those receiving it, at Distinction 4: Here it is to be said that some receive the sacrament and the thing, etc.; (Sent. IV, 4.1 (26), 1.) in the third, baptism in relation to its ministers, at Distinction 5: after these matters, it is to be known that the sacrament of baptism is given by good and wicked ministers. (Sent. IV, 5.1 (33), 1.)
The first is in two parts: in the first, he defines baptism in itself; in the second, he examines it in comparison to circumcision, at: It is usual to ask whether circumcision lost its standing after the institution of baptism. (Sent. IV, 3.8 (24), 1.)
The first is in two parts: in the first he defines what baptism is; in the second, those things that are required for baptism, at: but what is that word at whose addition to the element the sacrament is brought about? (Sent. IV, 3.2 (18), 1.) This part is divided into three according to the three things that are required for baptism: for in the first he defines the form of baptism; in the second, its matter, at: And this sacrament is celebrated only in water; (Sent. IV, 3.6 (22), 1.) in the third, the act itself of washing or immersing, at: As to the immersion, if it is asked how it ought to be done exactly, we answer. (Sent. IV, 3.7 (23), 1.)
The first is in two parts: in the first he defines the form of baptism; in the second, its institution, at: On the institution of baptism, or when it may have begun, there are various opinions. (Sent. IV, 3.5 (21), 1.) Concerning the first he does two things: first, he defines the form of baptism; second, he raises certain questions about the form of baptism, and considers them, at: here it is asked whether it would be a true baptism if it were given only in the name of the Father. (Sent. IV, 3.4 (20), 1.)
The first is in two parts: in the first he considers the principal form of baptism; in the second, a certain secondary form observed for a time, at: And yet we read in the Acts of the Apostles that the Apostles baptized in the name of Christ. (Sent. IV, 3.3 (19), 1, citing Acts 18:12; 19:5; 2:38.)
It is usual to ask whether circumcision lost its standing after the institution of baptism. (Sent. IV, 3.8 (24), 1.) Here he examines baptism by comparison with circumcision, and concerning this he does three things: first, he considers the cessation of circumcision; second, the institution of baptism, at: but the cause of the institution of baptism is the renewal of the mind; (Sent. IV, 3.9 (25), 1.) third, the effect of each, at: If it is asked whether baptism opened heaven, which circumcision had not done, we say that neither baptism, nor circumcision, but the Savior’s sacrifice, opened up access to the kingdom for us. (Sent. IV, 3.9 (25), 2.)
Question 1
The essence of baptism
Here five questions arise:
first, what baptism is;
- second, its form;
- third, its matter;
- fourth, its intention;
- fifth, its institution.
- Article 1
What baptism is
Quaestiuncula 1
Obj. 1: To the first we proceed thus. (Parallels: below, exposition of the text; ST III, q. 61, a. 1.) It seems that this definition of baptism, which is set down in the text, is unfittingly assigned, namely: Baptism is an external washing of the body, done under the prescribed form of words. For as long as the thing defined remains, the definition remains. But once a cleansing, which is a certain action or passion, has passed away, baptism still remains. Therefore, baptism is not a cleansing.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, a sacrament, according to Hugh, (Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis fidei, Bk. 1, pt. 9, ch. 2 (PL 176:317).) is a material element. Now a cleansing is not a material element but the use of an element. Therefore baptism, since it is a sacrament, will not be a cleansing.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, a sacrament is in the genus of relation, since it is a cause or a sign, as was said above. But baptism is a sacrament. Therefore, it is unfittingly included in the genus of action or passion.
Obj. 4: Furthermore, an instrument’s definition should include what it is for. But baptism, as well as all the other sacraments, as was said before, are instruments of sanctification. Therefore, since no mention is made of sanctification in its definition, it seems to be unfittingly assigned.
Quaestiuncula 2
Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that the definition of Hugh is also unfittingly assigned, which goes thus: baptism is water sanctified by the word of God for washing away our crimes. (Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis fidei, Bk. 2, pt. 6, ch. 2 (PL 176:443).) For nothing comes to be in itself. But baptism is done in water. Therefore, baptism is not water.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, nothing should be included in the definition of something that is not of its essence. But the sanctification of the matter is not of the essence of baptism: for a baptism can be done in the sea or in a river. Therefore, the sanctification of the water should not be included in the definition of baptism.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, a definition should be convertible with what it defines. But water can be sanctified by the word of life for washing away our crimes, and nevertheless there will not be a baptism, as when no one is dipped in the water. Therefore, this is not a suitable definition of baptism.
Obj. 4: Furthermore, an effect that can be prevented should not be included in the definition of a cause, because then the definition would be less than what is defined. But baptism can be prevented from washing away our crimes. Therefore, the washing away of crimes should not be included in the definition of baptism.
Quaestiuncula 3
Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that the definition of Dionysius, which he sets down in Chapter 2 of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, is also unfittingly assigned, where he says: Therefore, it is a certain principle of the holiest commands of sacred action, for the opportunity receptive of other divine utterances and sacred actions, forming our animal habits toward the anagogue of supercelestial rest, making our journey, the handing over of our sacred and most divine regeneration. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 2, n. 1 (PG 3:391).) For a principle is traced back to the genus of the things that derive from the principle. But a sacrament is not in the genus of principle, but in the genus of sacraments. Therefore, it should not be called a principle of the holiest commands.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, it should not be said to be a principle of holy commands except insofar as it prepares a way for other commands. Therefore, it was superfluous to add afterward: forming us for the opportunity receptive of other actions.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, nothing can be formed for divine utterances except what is able to perceive them. But what is animal in us cannot perceive divine utterances, but only what is rational. Therefore, he said wrongly: forming animal habits for divine utterances.
Obj. 4: Furthermore, form and matter are of the essence of a thing. But he makes no mention of the matter and form of baptism. Therefore, it seems that he defines it insufficiently.
Quaestiuncula 4
Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that the definition that Damascene gives in Book 4, Chapter 9 is unfittingly assigned, for he says: Baptism is that by which we receive the first fruits of the Holy Spirit, and the beginning of another life happens in us: a regeneration, and seal, and safekeeping, and illumination. (John Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith, Bk. 4, ch. 9 (PG 94:1122).) For some people have the Holy Spirit and spiritual life before they obtain baptism, as is clear in the case of Cornelius in Acts 10. Therefore, by baptism we do not always receive the first fruits of the Holy Spirit, nor is baptism necessarily the beginning of another life in us.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, the same thing cannot be included in its own definition. But regeneration is the same thing as baptism. Therefore, it should not be placed in the definition of baptism.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, illumination happens only by intellectual virtues. But baptism is not an intellectual virtue, but a sacrament. Therefore, illumination should not be attributed to it.
Obj. 4: Furthermore, safekeeping happens in us through divine providence, which is spoken of in Psalm 121 (120):4: Behold, he who keeps Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep. Therefore, this should not be attributed to baptism.
Response to Quaestiuncula 1
To the first question, I answer that according to the teaching of the Philosopher in Book 2 of the Posterior Analytics, there are three kinds of definition. (Aristotle, Posterior Analytics, Bk. 2, ch. 10, 94a11–14.) For some definitions are material, which we call conclusions of demonstration; some are formal, which are principles of demonstration; some are both material and formal, which are demonstrations differing in position: for they have a middle term of demonstration, inasmuch as they contain a formal definition, and a conclusion, inasmuch as they contain a material one; but only the order of terms is lacking. Since, however, everything completive is formal in a certain way with respect to whatever is completed, for this reason not only is the definition that contains the form called a formal definition, but also one that contains what is completive with respect to something else. And since the order among causes is such that matter is completed by form, and form by efficient cause, and efficient cause by final cause, for this reason a definition is sometimes called material, when it includes only the matter of the thing, but it is called formal when it includes the form. As, for example, ‘anger is the blood’s racing around the heart’ is called a material definition; and ‘anger is an appetite for vengeance’ is called a formal one. However, sometimes the material definition includes form and matter, while the formal definition includes the efficient cause, as this is called material: ‘thunder is a continual sound in the clouds’; while this is formal: ‘thunder is the discharge of fire in a cloud.’ But sometimes the material definition includes matter and form and efficient cause, but the formal definition includes the end: as, for example, ‘a house is a covering made from stones and wood in such-and-such a style with such-and-such a skill’ is a material definition in comparison with this one: ‘a house is a covering protecting us from cold and heat.’ And this happens particularly with instruments, for with them almost the entire account of their species is taken from the end.
And because baptism, since it is a sacrament, is a certain instrument, for this reason the material definition of it will be one that comprehends its matter and form and efficient cause; and its formal definition will comprehend its end. And in this way the definition that the Master sets down in the text is material. For it contains the matter when he says: external washing; and it gives a nod to the efficient cause in saying, done; and it includes the form in saying, under the form of words prescribed. And it should be known that Augustine gives the same definition, although under other words, for he says: baptism is a drenching in the water sanctified by the word of life.
Reply Obj. 1: In the sacrament of baptism there are three things. There is something that is only a sacrament, like the water that flows externally and flows away, and does not remain; and something that is a sacrament-and-reality, and this remains forever, namely, the character; and something that is only a reality, which sometimes remains and sometimes passes away, namely, grace. (For more about the sacrament alone, reality alone, and sacrament-and-reality, see the footnote at Dist.1, q.1, a.4, qa. 1, main response.) Therefore, the Master here defines baptism according as it is a sacrament only, for he intends to define it materially.
Reply Obj. 2: A sacrament of the New Law is a sign and a cause of grace; hence it is a sacrament according as it is able to signify and cause. But water is not able to signify and cause the effect of baptism, except insofar as it is cleansing. Hence baptism is essentially this very cleansing: for it was instituted to cause an interior cleansing, which the external cleansing itself causes by signifying it: but water is its remote matter, and the cleansing itself is the material of baptism; but the word of life is the form completive of the sacrament. Now Augustine and the Master define baptism by the proximate matter, which is properly predicated of baptism, like the matter of man-made things, as a cup is silver; but Hugh defined it by the remote matter, which is not as properly predicated, except through the remote cause.
Reply Obj. 3: Baptism, inasmuch as it is a sacrament, is in the genus of sign or cause; and it is constituted in this genus by the form of words, from which it has its signification and sacramental efficacy. Now just as man-made things are not placed in a genus by their form, simply speaking, but rather by their matter—for we do not say that a house is in the genus of quality except insofar as it is a man-made shape, but it is rather said to be in the genus of substance—so also is it with the sacraments. For baptism, simply speaking, is in the genus of cleansing; but according to one aspect, that is, inasmuch as it is a sacrament, it is in the genus of relation.
Reply Obj. 4: The end for which a sacrament exists is its ultimate formal aspect, from which its formal definition is taken. However, the Master does not here intend to define baptism formally, but materially; and so he omits sanctification.
Response to Quaestiuncula 2
To the second question, it should be said that that definition of Hugh encompasses both the matter of baptism by saying water, and the end by saying for washing away our crimes, and the form by saying sanctified by the word of life. Hence it is a definition composed of matter and form, as though a demonstration differing in position: and it completely encompasses the essence of baptism, except for leaving out the act of cleansing, which constitutes the proximate matter of baptism—although that could be understood from the other things that are included.
Reply Obj. 1: This is proper predication, ‘baptism happens in water’; but this is predication through the cause, ‘baptism is water.’
Reply Obj. 2: Sanctification is not touched upon there except that which happens by the form of baptism, which consists in the invocation of the Trinity; and this sanctification is of necessity for baptism.
Reply Obj. 3: Sacraments effect only what they represent. But by the very fact of including the washing away of crimes, the effect of baptism can be grasped: for baptism does not consist materially in water except as it cleanses; but whenever there is water sanctified in the act of cleansing, there is baptism.
Reply Obj. 4: Something numerically the same is sometimes an effect and sometimes an end, just as health is both an effect and an end of the one practicing medicine. But it is an effect according as it is produced by the action of the doctor, while it is an end according as it is intended by the doctor. Now a doctor can be impeded from producing health, but not from intending it; and thus health can be included in the definition as an end, but not as an effect; and similarly the washing away of crimes is included in the definition of this sacrament.
Response to Quaestiuncula 3
To the third question, it should be said that by the definition of baptism given, Dionysius intends to proceed to those things that are required materially in baptism. Hence, after having given this definition of baptism, he sets down the rite for baptism; and thus he includes it as a principle of demonstration; and because of this his definition is entirely formal. And it should be known that in his words something is included as the thing that is defined, and something else is included as the definition.
Something like the thing defined is set down, namely, the handing over of a sacred and most divine regeneration. For that is a certain circumlocution for baptism that he frequently uses, and this is clear from the fact that he does not call it baptism there—so that the sense is: it is a certain principle, etc., namely, a handing on of a sacred and most divine regeneration.
What serves as a definition is set down here where he says, a principle of the holiest commands of sacred action. And he sets down three things that baptism is ordered to, which formally complete its account.
One is what pertains to it as the door of the sacraments; and as to this he says that it is the principle of the holiest commands of sacred action. For sacred actions are what he calls the actions of the hierarchy, namely, to purify, to illuminate, and to perfect, which, in our hierarchy, principally consist in the administration of the sacraments; for certain actions were handed down to us under a precept, and baptism is a principle for them, as their door.
The second thing pertains to it as a cause, namely, as it imprints a character and confers grace, according to which man is informed and rendered apt for the reception of the other sacraments. And as to this he says that it is forming, through a character and grace, our animal habits, that is, the powers of the soul, for the receptive opportunity, that is, for the appropriate and opportune reception, of divine utterances, as to the teaching of the faith, and sacred actions, as to the other sacraments, none of which should be conferred on someone who has not been baptized.
The third thing pertains to it as a sign and figure of the heavens, and, according to this, through baptism we are led by the hand to the contemplation of the heavens; and as to this, he says that it is making our journey, that is, preparing the way of contemplation for us, for the anagogue, that is, for being taken upward, of supercelestial rest, which consists in the contemplation of spiritual things. Or it can be said that by the second he touches on the proximate end of baptism as regards those things that are of the way, while by the third, he touches on the remote and last end as regards those things that are of heaven, to which baptism leads us through the grace that it confers, which is the reality signified and not contained.
Reply Obj. 1: Dionysius examines baptism according as it is a certain hierarchical action; and thus he defines it as a *principle of commands—*not of just any commands, but of those by which the actions of the hierarchy are handed on to us.
Reply Obj. 2: By the first phrase he touches upon only the order of baptism to the other sacraments, but by the second phrase he refers to its effect, by means of which it leads suitably to the receiving of the other sacraments, as is clear from what has been said.
Reply Obj. 3: Here, the phrase animal habits is named from the anima, not from that animality that we share with the other animals. He includes this phrase so that he may show that baptism does not merely wash the body externally, but also forms the soul interiorly.
Reply Obj. 4: This definition is the principle of all that Dionysius delivers concerning baptism; hence he places this definition immediately at the beginning. And since in all things that are for the sake of the end one must must accept from the end both the form that befits the end and the matter befitting the form and the end, for this reason he does not place form and matter in this definition, but only those things to which baptism is ordered as proximate or remote end.
Response to Quaestiuncula 4
To the fourth question, it should be said that Damascene arrives at the definition mentioned from the fact that baptism is called a regeneration. For since generation is a movement toward being, it is clear that baptism is that by which we are granted spiritual being. And since no one can perform an action of a certain nature unless first he has being in that nature, thus it is concluded that baptism is the beginning of all spiritual actions. And according to this, Damascene defined baptism by even more basic things than Dionysius, inasmuch as he takes the first effect of baptism, which is to constitute one in spiritual life, on which basis it may be called regeneration. And thus he defines baptism as the beginning of the spiritual life in that he says, the beginning of another life, namely, the spiritual one, which is other than the natural one; so that this generation is different from the natural one, and is called regeneration; and again, as the beginning of the first things that follow upon life, and thus he says, by which the first movements of the Holy Spirit happen, that is, the first spiritual effects in us. But these effects either result from the generation itself, like sonship or some relation like that, and in this way we are said to be regenerated by baptism as sons of God, and in this respect he says regeneration, or they result from the form instilled by that generation, and this happens in three ways. First, in the order to the one generating, according to which the one generated is made like the one generating by the form instilled; and this is how it is called a seal. The second has to do with the being of the one generated himself, which is preserved by that form; and in regard to this it is called a safekeeping. The third has to do with the action of whatever this form is the beginning of, and in this respect it is called illumination.
Reply Obj. 1: The first fruits of the Spirit are given before baptism is actually received, but not before the habitual intention of receiving it, as was the case with Cornelius, or the actual intention, as is the case with others who have the faith of baptism. (That is, those who, as catechumens, believe the faith of which baptism is the sign.) Or it could be said that here he speaks of the spiritual life, according to which man is considered a member of the Church as to externals, which does not happen before baptism, for no one is admitted to the acts of the faithful before baptism.
Reply Obj. 2: Regeneration here stands for the relation that follows upon regeneration, as sonship is.
Reply Obj. 3: Dionysius also attributed illuminative force to baptism, (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 5, n. 3 (PG 3:503).) which indeed befits it as it is the sacrament of faith; hence someone already baptized is admitted to behold the sacraments as one illuminated, but he should not be admitted before that, lest holy things be given to dogs, according to Dionysius. (Reference is made here to the disciplina arcani, that is, the agreement of the early Christians to protect the sacred mysteries from the profanation of mockery or unbelief by keeping their content, meaning, and performance hidden from those who were not already practicing Christians. As the Byzantine prayer before communion has it: “I will not reveal your mysteries to your enemies, nor will I give you a kiss as did Judas...”)
Reply Obj. 4. Safekeeping implies preservation, which indeed is from God as an efficient principle, but from baptismal grace as a formal principle.
Article 2
The form of baptism
Quaestiuncula 1
Obj. 1: To the second we proceed thus. (Parallels: ST III, q. 60, a. 8; q. 61, a. 5; q. 84, a. 3; Super I ad Cor. 1, lec. 2.) It seems that the integrity of the baptismal form is not contained in these words, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. For an action should be attributed more to a principal agent than to a secondary one. But the principal baptizer is Christ, as is clear from the passage: He it is who baptizes (John 1:33); man, however, is only the minister of baptism. Therefore, it should be said Christ baptizes you, etc., rather than I baptize you.
Obj. 2: Further, according to grammarians, in verbs of the first and second person a certain and determinate subject is understood. But baptizo is a verb in the first person. Therefore, it was not necessary to add ego.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, sacraments have efficacy from divine institution and power. But on the basis of the form that the Lord handed down at the end of Matthew, where it is said, Go therefore and teach all nations (Matt 28:19), one cannot hold that I baptize you is the form of baptism: for this participle baptizing is set down there to designate the exercise of an act, not as part of the form. Therefore, it seems that it is not necessary to the form.
Obj. 4: Furthermore, the Lord commanded the acts of teaching and baptizing at the same time (cf. Matt 28:19). But it is not required for teaching that a priest say, I teach you. Therefore, in the same way it is not required for baptism that he say, I baptize you.
Obj. 5: Furthermore, words should not be directed to someone who is imperceptive to the meaning of words. But sometimes the baptized person cannot perceive the meaning of the words, as is clear when a child is baptized. Therefore, he should not say, I baptize you, but I baptize John.
Obj. 6: Furthermore, this seems to be the manner of speaking used by the Lord, putting the ones to be baptized in the third person, saying: Baptizing them (Matt 28:19).
Obj. 7: Furthermore, the matter of the sacrament is no less essential to the sacrament than the one receiving that sacrament. But in the form, no mention is made of the water, which is the matter of the sacrament. Therefore, no mention should be made of the recipient, as is said: I baptize you.
Obj. 8: Furthermore, baptism has efficacy from the Passion of Christ, and is a figure of Christ’s death, as is clear from Romans 6. Therefore, in the form of baptism mention should have been made of faith in the Passion rather than faith in the Trinity.
Obj. 9: Furthermore, everything that the Divine Persons do not have in common should be said of them in the plural. But the Persons are distinguished by name, for the name ‘Son’ does not apply to the Father, nor vice versa. Therefore, it should not have been said, In the name of the Father, etc., but, In the names.
Quaestiuncula 2
Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that it is permitted to change what is in this form without detriment to baptism. (Parallels: below, exposition of the text; ST III, q. 61, a. 5; Super Matt. 28; Super I ad Cor. 1, lec. 2.) For the Byzantines have this form for baptizing: the servant of Christ, Nicholas, is baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. But there is one baptism among all men. Therefore also, our baptism could be done in a similar way.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, saying I baptize you is included in the form to express the act of baptism. But the act of baptism can be done by one or two people, and to one or two people. Therefore, a change of the form can be made so that it is said, We baptize you two.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, when it comes to administering the sacraments, the Church has the same power now that the early Church had. But the early Church changed the form of baptism: for they were baptizing in the name of Christ, as is read in Acts. (See Acts 2:38 and 8:16.) Therefore, the Church today could also change the form.
Obj. 4: Furthermore, three Persons are put in the form of baptism to express faith in the Trinity. But faith in the Trinity would be just as much expressed if one said, in the name of the Trinity, as when one says, In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, a change can be made so that it is said, In the name of the Trinity.
Obj. 5: Furthermore, words hold no sacramental power unless they are referred to the signification; otherwise, they would not have any power except in one language, for vocal expressions are not the same among all. But ‘father’ means the same thing as the one who generates, and ‘son’ as the one generated, and ‘Holy Spirit’ as the one proceeding from both. Therefore, a change could be made in this way, so that it would be said: In the name of the one who generates, the one generated, and the one proceeding from both.
Obj. 6: Furthermore, someone who mangles words changes letters and syllables, and as a result, speech. But below, in Distinction 6, it is said that baptism is considered valid even when some of the words are uttered incorrectly. Therefore, a change can happen to the form.
Quaestiuncula 3
Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that something could not be added or taken away. For there is no less necessity in the words that belong to the forms of the sacraments than in the words of Sacred Scripture. But it is not permitted to add to or take away from the words of Sacred Scripture, as is clear from the last chapter of the Book of Revelation. (See Rev 22:18–19.) Therefore, neither is it permitted with the words of the forms in the sacraments.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, among natural forms it is such that a difference added or subtracted changes the species. Therefore, also if something is added or subtracted among the forms of the sacraments, the nature of that sacrament will be destroyed.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, the Arians did not change that form except by addition. For they said, In the name of the greater Father and of the lesser Son; and for that reason they were not considered to have been baptized. Therefore, it is not permitted to add to or take away from the form.
On the contrary (4), in the text there is a statement by Ambrose that if faith in the whole Trinity is held in the heart and only one Person is named, it is a valid baptism. Therefore, it is permitted to leave something out of the form.
Furthermore (5), the act of baptizing is set down in the form to stir up the attention. Therefore, as it seems, it is permitted to add a word signaling the intention, as if it were said: I intend to baptize you.
Quaestiuncula 4
Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that there could not be an interjection or transposition. For baptism is one act, but an act is one when it is continuous, as is said in the Physics 5. (Aristotle, Physics, Bk. 5, ch. 4, 228a20.) An interruption, however, takes away the continuity of baptism. Therefore, it takes away its unity; therefore, there should not be any interruption.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, just as three Persons pertain to faith in the Trinity, so also does the order of Persons. But in a transposition, the order is varied. Therefore, the form is corrupted.
On the contrary, nouns and verbs that are transposed mean the same thing.
Response to Quaestiuncula 1
To the first question, I answer that a completive form is in a certain way a middle thing between the matter that it perfects, and the efficient cause that produces it, so that efficient power is transferred to matter by means of a form. And since a middle in some way embraces both extremes, thus the form of baptism contains both the principal agent, from which baptism has efficacy, and the proximate matter of baptism, which is the act of washing; and thus it is set down: In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, as the principal agent from which baptism has its efficacy; and the material act is set down by the two parties to it, namely, the bestower and the recipient, by saying: I baptize you.
Reply Obj. 1: The principal agent is signified in the invocation of the Trinity, which acts invisibly; and thus it remained for the secondary agent, that is, the minister of the sacrament, to be set down in relation to the material act.
Reply Obj. 2: The forms of the sacraments are taken not only as significative speech, but as efficacious speech. And since nothing acts except according as it is complete, for this reason it is of the integrity of baptismal form that it set down all that is required for baptism, even if one thing could be understood from another.
Reply Obj. 3: In those words the Lord did not principally intend to hand down the form of the sacrament, since he had given that to them previously, when they were baptizing even before the Passion; but he intended to command the act of baptizing according to the form previously given them; and thus, from those words the aforesaid form can be probably deduced, although it is not explicitly included there.
Reply Obj. 4: Since baptism is a necessary sacrament, and intention is required in a sacrament, for this reason all those things needed to be expressed that determine the intention to that act; but it is not this way with other acts in which there is not such danger if the intention is not present. Or it could be said that other acts have their efficacy from the very exercise of them, but the act of baptizing has its efficacy from the form of words. And since sacramental efficacy is like this, on that account it is necessary that the words of the form supply the efficacy of the act by signifying; and thus it is necessary for the one baptizing to signify his act with words, although this may not be found in other acts.
Reply Obj. 5: That argument holds about those words that are uttered only for the sake of signification, but not those that are uttered for the sake of effecting, which must be uttered even toward things that do not understand, so that the effect of the words is determined to those things; hence it is also said: I exorcize you, creature of salt.
Reply Obj. 6: The Lord was commanding the act of baptism as of those absent, and thus it was necessary that the third person be used; but it is otherwise with those who exercise this act toward those present.
Reply Obj. 7: Water is understood in the definition of baptism, for baptism is nothing other than a washing done in water; and thus it would be silliness if it were included again.
Reply Obj. 8: An action is always attributed more to the principal agent, since it more effectively propels the thing being done. For all the power of the middle cause is from the first cause and not the other way around. Since the first cause from which baptism has efficacy is, in the manner of origination, the Trinity, while the Passion of Christ is the secondary and meritorious cause, mention is better made of the Trinity than of the Passion.
Reply Obj. 9: A vocal expression deserves to be called a name only inasmuch as it brings about recognition of a thing; for ‘name’ is said as if ‘designating’. (There is a play on words in Latin that is impossible to translate.) Now we have recognition of the Trinity by faith. And since there is one faith in the Trinity, and one confession of God, although there are various expressions signifying the three Persons, for this reason it is said, in the name, as in an invocation, which takes place by the outward profession of interior faith.
Response to Quaestiuncula 2
To the second question, it should be said that since sacraments have their efficacy from divine institution, and the form is a more central thing in the sacraments than even the matter; therefore, just as no one is permitted to change a sacrament or to institute something new, so also no one is allowed to change the form of a sacrament in regard to what is essential to the form without the special counsel of the Holy Spirit, who did not bind his own power to those words; and if the form is changed, nothing is done; (That is, the sacrament is not perfected or confected.) and besides this, guilt is incurred. If, however, something that belongs to the form by the determination of the Church is changed, the sacrament nevertheless exists, but guilt is incurred. However, in the baptismal form the more essential thing is to express the agent cause, from which its whole efficacy comes, than to express the act exercised; and for this reason, with respect to everyone, the invocation of the Trinity is essential to the form, nor can anyone change the form with respect to this. But some people were saying that the exercise of the act is not essential to the form, and that the essence of the form consists in that invocation of the Trinity; which the authority of Pope Alexander refuted, who said that that bath in which someone is plunged in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, without adding anything, is not baptism. (Alexander III, Decreta (MA XXI, 1101); cf. Decretal. Gregor. IX, Bk. 3, tit. 42, ch. 1, “Si quis sane puerum” (RF II, 644). Thomas quotes the decretal of Alexander III in ST III, q. 66, a. 5, ad 2.)
Reply Obj. 1: According to the opinion of the Byzantines, of necessity for the form is the act of baptism as regards what is signified, but not as regards what is consignified. Now the person baptizing through his ministry is not necessary to the form, for baptism does not get its efficacy from him; but the person receiving is necessary to the form, for the act is terminated in the one receiving; and thus the Byzantines differ in form from us in three things. First, because they do not express the person of the minister in the form; and they say this to remove the error that was in the early Church which attributed the efficacy of baptism to the one baptizing, as is clear from 1 Corinthians 3. Second, in that they signify the act under a different person, the third person, and in a different mood, the subjunctive or optative, to signify that an interior act is expected from outside. Third, because they place the person in the nominative case, and in the third person; for sometimes the baptized does not have understanding such that speech could be directed to him.
However, whether they may alter something that is of the substance of the form, so that it would be necessary to be rebaptized, although some people say so, nevertheless has not been determined, but there is a doubt among some people, to whom it seems that it would be enough to signify the act of baptism for the completion of the sacrament, and that the determination of consignification would be from the Church’s institution.
However, this much is certain, that the form that we use is better—both because it is more complete, as is clear from what has been said, and because it is more consonant with the words of the Gospel that asserts ministers baptizing; and because of the authority of the Church, which handed down this form and which has never been read to have declined from the true faith, having retained this form from the apostles; and therefore it is not permitted, especially to Latins, to baptize in the form of the Byzantines; and if they were to presume to do so, according to some people it would not be a valid baptism, while according to others it would be valid, but they would have sinned gravely.
Reply Obj. 2: One act that can be completed by one agent cannot come forth from many agents at the same time, and thus one person baptizing, since he can baptize alone, should signify his act not as going out from many but as coming from himself alone. And thus it cannot be said, we baptize; but according to some people it can be said, I baptize all of you, if there is a present necessity. Nor is this any change of the form, as to its meaning, for the plural is nothing but the singular doubled. And another reason can be brought forth: I baptize all of you is the same as I baptize you and you; and thus, by this no change of form happens as to the meaning, but only as to the expression. But we baptize is the same as he and I, but not the same as I and I. Therefore, it is not altogether the same; and for this reason whoever says we baptize does nothing; but whoever says, I baptize all of you, if he baptizes several at the same time, does baptize; but he sins unless doing it out of some great necessity.
Reply Obj. 3: The form that the Lord handed down was not changed by the apostles as to its meaning, for in the name ‘Christ’ the whole Trinity is understood, as is maintained in the text; but it was changed only as to the expression: and this is why some people say the sensible form was changed but not the intelligible form. Nor would they have been able to do anything like that, unless by the intimate counsel of the Holy Spirit. However, the reason for the change was in order that the name of Christ might be rendered more lovable, if baptism were done in his name; and the Church could do this even now, if it had a special command from the Holy Spirit, but not by its own authority. And because the reason for that change was befitting the time, once the cause ceases, the effect ceases; and nowadays it would not be a valid baptism if someone were to baptize in the name of Christ, as is commonly said; although some people say the contrary.
Reply Obj. 4: In the name ‘Trinity’ those Persons are not expressed, but only the number of Persons; and thus it is not enough to say, In the name of the Trinity, nor would it be a valid baptism, if that were said.
Reply Obj. 5: ‘One who generates’ signifies the person of the Father not as a subsisting hypostasis (as the name ‘Father’ does), but rather in the manner of an act. And therefore if it is said, “In the name of the One who generates,” the meaning is not the same as if it is said, In the name of the Father. And the argument is the same with the other expressions. However, although there is not the same vocal sound in Greek and Latin, nevertheless the meaning of the vocal sound is the same; and in any language, those words pertain to the form that are instituted chiefly for indicating those Persons.
Reply Obj. 6: Whoever utters words incorrectly either does it deliberately, and then he does not seem to intend what the Church intends; hence it is not a valid baptism; or else he does it out of ignorance or a defect of his knowledge of the language; and then it is said that if it is such a great corruption that it completely takes away the meaning of the speech, then it is not a valid baptism; but if the meaning of the speech remains, then there will be a baptism. And it especially happens that the meaning is not changed when the corruption happens at the end of a word: for a change on the part of the end varies the consignification but not the signification, as grammarians say. But a change in the beginning changes the signification; hence that kind of corruption, especially if it is a large one, takes away the entire meaning of the speech. But when the meaning of the speech remains in any way, then, although the form is changed in its sensible sound, it is nevertheless not changed as to its signification; for although prayers incorrectly spoken signify nothing by the truth of imposition, nevertheless they do signify by the accommodation of use.
Response to Quaestiuncula 3
To the third question, it should be said that concerning subtraction it is certain that if anything is subtracted that is essential to the form, it is not a valid baptism, and the one baptizing sins gravely. And since the invocation of the Trinity is essential to the form among all men, there is no way it can be taken away.
But some people say the expression of the act is not of the substance of the form; hence, if it is taken away, having only made invocation of the Trinity, there will be a baptism, although the one baptizing would sin. But against this is the decretal of Pope Alexander III, (See reference above.) who says that if someone should immerse a child in water three times while saying, In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, if he does not say, I baptize you, an immersion of this kind would not constitute a baptism. For it is necessary that through the form the power of the Trinity invoked is determined to the matter at hand, which is what happens in the expression of the act.
Likewise, too, the expression of the person baptized is of the substance of the form, for by it the act is determined to this baptism; and so if it were taken away, it would not be a baptism.
But it is said that the expression of the one baptizing is part of the form not as something necessary to the sacrament but as coming from the institution of the Church, so that the intention will be more referred to that act; and so if it were omitted, there would still be a valid baptism, but the one omitting it would sin.
But concerning addition, two things should be observed. The first is on the part of the one adding. For if he added something, intending it to be of the form, as though wanting by this to introduce a new rite, it is clear that he does not intend to utter the form that the Church uses, and so neither does he do what the Church does; which is why it would not be a valid baptism. It is otherwise, however, if someone added something for some other reason, say, out of a certain devotion.
The second thing to be considered is on the part of what is added; for if it is corruptive of the form, then there is no baptism, but if not, there is a valid baptism, according to certain people—for example if it were said: “In the name of the Greater Father and of the Lesser Son,” then the faith that the form professes is corrupted. But if what was added was, “and of the Blessed Virgin Mary,” certain people say that it is not a valid baptism, because baptism does not happen in the power of the Blessed Virgin Mary; however, it would be valid if it were said, “And may the Blessed Virgin Mary help this child*,”* or something like that.
But others say, and this is more likely, that it would be a valid baptism even in the case of the first kind of addition. For according to the Master, in the name of the Father is the same as in the invocation. But baptism can happen in the invocation of the Blessed Virgin together with the invocation of the Trinity—not as though the baptism would get its efficacy from her power, as it does from the power of the Trinity, but so that her intercession would assist the baptized to salvation. However, some people add a third consideration: for they say that if an addition is made in the middle or in the beginning, it is not a valid baptism; but if at the end, it is a valid baptism. But this seems to have no reason. Hence, according to others, it does not matter how the addition is done, as long as it is not contrary to the form and the one baptizing does not intend to change the rite of baptism.
Reply Obj. 1: This is said against the heretics who were adding to the Scriptures or took away from them because of the corruption of their faith; and likewise in this case, addition or subtraction corrupting the form takes away baptism.
Reply Obj. 2: This is true of essential differences, but not of accidental ones. Hence if something existing in the essence of the form were withdrawn, or if something were added that was not of the essence of the form as if it were of the essence of the form, it would not be a valid baptism.
Reply Obj. 3: That addition corrupted the faith in the Trinity which the form expresses; and thus it corrupted the form.
Reply Obj. 4: According to some people it was enough for the invocation of the Trinity that nothing be taken away from the intelligible form, although something was taken away from the sensible form, for in one Divine Person, all are understood. Therefore, they said that one Person named would be a complete baptism, if the interior faith were complete. But because the faith or unbelief of the person baptizing neither furthers nor harms the baptism, which is done in the faith of the Church, for this reason it is now said almost universally that it is necessary for all three Persons to be expressed. And so the words of Ambrose are answered in several ways. For some people say that when he says, the sacrament is made complete, he says ‘sacrament’ in place of ‘faith’: for whoever confesses only one Person, as long as he has the others in his heart, has complete faith. But some people say that the phrase is understood as to the completeness of that sacrament, which it has from faith; which is clear by the fact that he says, complete is the sacrament of faith; or that it may be understood, according to some people, in the case where the child or the priest dies when only one Person has been named (for it is believed that the invisible Priest would supply the defect), or in similar cases, in which the apostles baptized in the name of Christ; and this is more consonant with his words.
Reply Obj. 5: Someone who intends to do something does not necessarily do it; hence it would be a corruption of the form to say, I intend to baptize you.
Response to Quaestiuncula 4
To the fourth question, it should be said that since the form of words consists in three things—namely, signification, integrity of the words, and order—some people say that if any of these are changed or altered, it will not be a valid baptism. But since the forms of the sacraments are certain professions of faith, while the words of the form only profess the faith by reason of their signification, for this reason others say that as long as the understanding is preserved, whether implicitly or explicitly, even if the integrity of expression or the order is not there, there will be a valid baptism all the same. But because a sacrament, as to form and matter, should be a sign of the same thing, for that reason others take a middle stance, saying that both the full signification and all the words that are essential to the form are required; but if the order or something about the words is changed and it does not take away the signification or the integrity of the words, the baptism will be valid.
Reply Obj. 1: If an interruption happens such that it disrupts the intention of the one baptizing, then there will not be one form; and thus both pieces will be incomplete in themselves, and will not suffice for baptism; for example if someone were to say, In the name of the Father, and then break out into a long story, and afterward say, and of the Son. However if a small interruption happens—either of words that do not corrupt the form, as if someone said, In the name of the Father omnipotent, or an interruption of silence, or a cough, or something like that, which does not disrupt the intention—then there will be unity of form from the unity of intention. For it is clear that continuity of form cannot have unity from the expressions used, since speech is a discrete quantity.
Reply Obj. 2: Some people say that if the order of words is such that it changes the understanding, baptism does not happen; for example, if one were to say, In the name of the Father I baptize you, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. However, if the understanding is not changed, there will be a baptism, as if were said, In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, I baptize you. But others say that however the order of words is changed, the understanding of them does not seem to be changed, and thus there will be a valid baptism, although the one changing the order would sin. And according to this, it should be said that the order of the Persons is not that by which one is before another, but that by which one is from another—an order the very names of the Persons display, in whatever order they are named.
Article 3
The matter of baptism
Quaestiuncula 1
Obj. 1: To the third question we proceed thus. (Parallels: below, exposition of the text; d. 5, q. 2, a. 1, qa. 1 & 3; d. 17, q. 3, a. 4, qa. 3; ST III, q. 66; q. 67, a. 3; q. 74, a. 1; SCG IV, ch. 69; Quodl. I, q. 6, a. 1; Super Ioan. 3, lec. 1.) It seems that baptism should not be done in water. For like effects are produced from like causes. But baptism has an effect similar to circumcision. Since, then, water has nothing in common with the instrument of circumcision, it seems unfitting that baptism be done in water.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, according to Damascene (John Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith, Bk. 4, ch. 9 (PG 94:1122).) and Dionysius, (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 5, p. 1, n. 3 (PG 3:503).) baptism has an illuminative force, and in it the Holy Spirit is given, and man is regenerated as a son of God. But among all the elements, fire has the most light, and by it is represented the Holy Spirit, who is charity, by reason of its heat. And according to Dionysius in the end of the Celestial Hierarchy, (Pseudo-Dionysius, Celestial Hierarchy, ch. 15, n. 2 (PG 3:327).) fire most of all represents what is godlike. Therefore, baptism should be done in fire and not in water.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, according to Damascene, (In the same passage.) baptism is the principle of life and the sacrament of greatest necessity. But air has most to do with life, for it is hot and wet, and it is most common element, so that its scarcity would never be a danger, as sometimes there is a danger to infants because of a lack of water. Therefore, baptism should have been done in air, not water.
Obj. 4: Furthermore, by baptism we are configured to the burial of Christ (Rom 6:4). But Christ was buried in the earth. Therefore, baptism should happen in earth, not in water.
Obj. 5: Furthermore, oil and wine are cleansing, and cheering, and fattening. But baptism, besides being a cleansing of sins, bestows spiritual joy and richness. Therefore, it should be done in these liquids.
Obj. 6: Furthermore, the sacraments flowed from the side of Christ. But as water flowed, so also did blood. Therefore, baptism should be done in blood.
On the contrary (1), is what is said: unless a man is reborn of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5).
Furthermore (2), the repair should correspond to the original creation. But in the creation of the world the Spirit of the Lord is recorded to have been first borne over the waters, and to have first produced living beings from the waters, as is clear from Genesis 1. Therefore, in the work of reparation, too, the Holy Spirit should be first given in water, and through him, spiritual life. And so baptism, which is the beginning of another life, and by which we receive the first fruits of the Holy Spirit, should be done in water.
Quaestiuncula 2
Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that it should not be done in plain water. (Parallel: ST III, q. 66, a. 4.) For medicine should be proportioned to the sick. But we to whom the medicine of baptism is applied have bodies of mixed elements. Therefore, the water of baptism should not be a simple element.
Obj. 2: Moreover, the sacraments flowed from the side of Christ sleeping on the Cross. But it is not likely that from his side flowed water as a pure element, since it is not found that way in mixed bodies. Therefore, baptism should not happen in plain water.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, pure elements, according to the philosophers, do not exist in the extremes but in the middle of the elements, for in the extremes they change into each other. If therefore it were necessary for baptism to be done in plain water, we would not be able to do it.
Obj. 4: Furthermore, it is clear that seawater is not plain water, as its bitterness and saltiness shows, which happen from being mixed with earth. But a baptism can be done with seawater. Therefore, plain water is not required.
Obj. 5: Furthermore, water is used in baptism for the sake of cleansing. But certain watery mixtures cleanse better, such as lye and things of that sort. Therefore, they would suit baptism better.
On the contrary, a mixture is neither of the things mixed to make it up. If therefore baptism happens in a watery mixture, it does not happen in water, which would be against the doctrine of the Gospel.
Quaestiuncula 3
Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that baptism cannot be done in any plain water whatsoever. (Parallel: ST III, q. 66, a. 4.) For the Lord conferred their regenerative power on the waters by the contact with his most immaculate flesh. But he only touched the waters of the Jordan. Therefore, those waters alone have regenerative power, and so baptism cannot be done in any water whatsoever.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, baptism cannot be done except in water sanctified by the word of life. If, therefore, baptism happened in the sea, or in a certain river, all the water of the river would be sanctified, which seems absurd.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, certain waters do not have the power of cleansing, but rather they soil, like swamp water. Therefore, it seems that in waters like these a baptism cannot be done.
On the contrary, the matter of baptism should be common, for baptism is the most necessary sacrament. But this would not be the case unless a baptism could be done in any water whatsoever. Therefore, baptism can be done in any water.
Response to Quaestiuncula 1
I answer that, by divine institution it is necessary for baptism to be done in water. Now six reasons can be given for this institution. The first is that water, by reason of its transparency, has something of light, and in this way it befits baptism which has illuminative power, inasmuch as grace is conferred in it. The second is that by reason of its wetness it has cleansing power; and that befits baptism, in which the soil of guilt is washed away. The third is that by reason of its coolness it has a refreshing power; and that befits baptism, in which the heat of the kindling [of sin] is mitigated. The fourth is that, as is said in On Animals 17, (In modern editions, Aristotle, On the Generation of Animals, Bk. 3, ch. 11, 762a10ff.; Bk. 4, ch. 2, 767a31.) water is best suited to generation and the growth of living things; hence, too, at the beginning of the world animals were produced for the first time from water; and thus it befits baptism, in which there is a regeneration to spiritual life. The fifth is that in every part of the world water can be found. The sixth is that it is a thing that can be had easily by anyone without a great cost. And these last two things befit baptism inasmuch as it is a necessary sacrament.
Reply Obj. 1: Neither circumcision nor baptism takes away original sin by the natural power of those things, but inasmuch as they represent something spiritual; and in signification, water has something in common with the instrument of circumcision, for in both, a certain removal occurs.
Reply Obj. 2: Fire has, of itself, light and heat, which is an active quality; and since the Holy Spirit is the first to make men godlike in baptism, and the first illuminator, but baptism is like a certain instrumental cause, for this reason it befits the Holy Spirit to be represented by fire, but baptism by water, by means of which light is poured out by the Holy Spirit into the soul, just as physical light passes through the transparent medium to the senses.
Reply Obj. 3: Although air has much in common with life, nevertheless it does not play the role in the generation of living things that water does; and because of this, water is more fitting for baptism than air.
Reply Obj. 4: The burial of Christ is the thing signified but not contained; whereas the institution of the sacramental matter is chiefly directed to the signification of the thing contained. Now water is better suited to this signification in baptism than earth; and so the argument does not follow.
Reply Obj. 5: Oil and wine are not habitually used for washing, as water is, nor do they wash so well, since from them a certain soiling happens; and again, other conditions are lacking that make water suitable. And thus they are not as suitable for baptism as water. Further, the richness and joy of devotion are some of the effects consequent upon baptism, and not before it.
Reply Obj. 6: From the side of Christ flowed blood and water; but the blood was to redeem us, as is said in 1 Peter 1:18, while the water was for washing. And thus water is suited to baptism, and not blood.
Response to Quaestiuncula 2
To the second question, I answer that a mixture of water can be of two kinds. There is one that takes away the species, as when it changes into another species [of substance] by an alteration, like changing into wine by a certain fermenting or decomposition, or also by so great an addition of another liquid that the species of water disappears, as when a small amount of water is mixed into a lot of wine. There is another kind of mixture that does not destroy the species of water, as when the water is changed according to something accidental, and the species remains, as is the case with heated water; or when something is added to the water which either does not dissolve, as when something solid is put into the water—or, if it is able to be mixed in, like something moist, is nevertheless of such a small quantity that it does not constitute a new mixture, but is thoroughly converted into the water.
In the first kind of watery mixture, therefore, a baptism cannot be done, for it is no longer water; but in the second kind of mixture it can be done. So that it may be recognized when this or that mixture is water, however, it should be known that just as we judge difference of species in animals from the difference of their shapes, so also we recognize different species among the elements by the difference of rare and dense; and thus, if such an alteration or mixture is made of the water that it is withdrawn from the terminus of rarity or denseness of water either in act or in potency, it is a sign that it is a kind of transformed water. And I say “in potency” to indicate when a certain fluid is not condensed and evaporated by heat or cold as water is, but differently, as we see in the instances of wine, oil, milk, and things like that.
Reply Obj. 1: Water does not need to correspond to us by sharing in our natural properties, but by signifying the effect that should happen in us.
Reply Obj. 2: What came from the side of Christ was true water, just as also came forth true blood; and this was to prove that the body of Christ was real, not an illusion as the Manichees maintain. For there was in him a composition of elements, which was proved by the fact that water, which is an element, went forth from his side; and the blood flowing out proved a composition of fluids.
Reply Obj. 3: Although the water that we have available to us may be somewhat altered and contain some mixture of other elements, nevertheless it has not lost its proper species.
Reply Obj. 4: And the same thing can be said to the fourth objection about seawater.
Reply Obj. 5: Even if they retain their power of washing, those waters that lose the species of water by some transformation cannot be the matter for baptism, since the first power of washing is in true water; and it also washes more purely, for from washing with other liquids bodies sometimes become infected; and for washing we most commonly use water. But about lye, some say that it has lost the species of water; hence it cannot be the matter for baptism. But this does not seem to be the case, for by the same argument, water passing through sulfurous channels and scorched earth could not be the matter for baptism, which is false. For lye differs from water only by the fact that it has passed through ashes. Hence, it seems that it should be said otherwise, that baptism can be done with lye, just as in sulfurous waters, and in other waters that are changed by the earth they passed through.
Response to Quaestiuncula 3
To the third question, I answer that the difference in waters that arises from place and position is an accidental difference; hence it does not change the species of water. And thus a baptism can be done in any water, whether in the sea, or a river, or a well, or a fountain, or a pool.
Reply Obj. 1: By touching the water, the Lord gave a regenerative power to the whole species of water, establishing it as the instrument of baptism.
Reply Obj. 2: If someone is baptized in the sea, the only seawater that pertains to this baptism is the seawater that has some effect on the baptized person, whether by washing or cooling, and not the whole sea.
Reply Obj. 3: If the marsh-water were so mucky that it departed from the true rarity of water, just as if it were mud, there would not be a baptism; otherwise it would be a baptism, for the species of water would still remain.
Article 4
The intention of baptism
Quaestiuncula 1
Obj. 1: To the fourth we proceed thus. (Parallel: ST III. q. 66, a. 7.) It seems that immersion is necessary to baptism. For by baptism we are configured to the burial of Christ, as is said in Romans 6:4. But this only happens by baptism except the extent that we are immersed and hidden in the water, as Christ was beneath the earth. Therefore, immersion is necessary to baptism.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, baptism is given as a remedy against original sin. But original sin is in the whole body. Therefore, the whole should be immersed.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, if dunking a certain part of the body would suffice, it would seem that this would be especially the genital members, in which original sin dwells, and in which circumcision happened. But washing cannot fittingly happen to those members without immersing the whole body. Therefore, the whole body should be immersed.
On the contrary (1), is the custom in certain churches, in which baptism is sometimes celebrated by sprinkling and not by immersion.
Furthermore (2), in the martyrdom of blessed Laurence it is read that Romanus, to be baptized by him, brought a jug of water, in which he obviously could not have been immersed. (Thomas’s source here is Bd. Jacobus de Voragine, Legenda aurea, Vita S. Laurentii, ch. 117.) Therefore, immersion is not necessary to baptism.
Quaestiuncula 2
Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that it does not have to be done three times. (Parallels: below, d. 28, q. 1, a. 1, qa. 2; ST III, q. 66, a. 8.) For baptism is a dipping in water sanctified by the word of life, as Augustine says. (Augustine, In Iohannis euangelium tractatus (CCSL 36), Tract. 15, par. 4.) But there is one baptism. Therefore, there should be one dipping or immersion.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, faith in the unity and Trinity of the Persons is required for baptism. But the Trinity of Persons is expressed sufficiently in the form. Therefore, the oneness of essence should be expressed in the oneness of immersion.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, baptism is a figure of the Passion of Christ. But there is one Passion of Christ. Therefore, there should be one immersion in baptism.
On the contrary (1), Dionysius (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 2, p. 3, n. 7 (PG 3:403).) says that baptism should be done with three immersions and elevations, to represent that Christ lay in the tomb for three days and three nights.
Furthermore (2), Chrysostom comments upon John 3: the immersion is done so that you may learn that the power of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit fulfills all these things. (John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, hom. 28, n. 2 (PG 59:448).) Jerome says the same thing in his commentary on Ephesians 4. (Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians, PL 26:496.)
Quaestiuncula 3
Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that a triple immersion is necessary to the sacrament. (Parallels: below, d. 23, q. 1, a. 1, qa. 2; ST III, q. 66, a. 8.) For it is read in the decree On Consecration, Distinction 6: if any presbyter or bishop should immerse once and do one immersion, let him be deposed. (See the Decretum Gratiani, d. 6, ch. 79 (PL 187:1825).) But this would not be the case unless a triple immersion were necessary to the sacrament. Therefore, it is necessary to the sacrament.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, just as faith in the Trinity is expressed by the names of the three Persons, so also by a triple immersion, as is clear from what has been said. But if the three Persons are not named it would not be a valid baptism. Therefore, it is the same if a triple immersion is not done.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, if a triple immersion is not necessary to the sacrament, the baptism will have its whole effect right after the first immersion. Therefore, other immersions would be added in vain, and injury would be done to the sacrament.
On the contrary (1), immersion itself is not necessary to the sacrament, much less the number of immersions.
Furthermore (2), the authority of Gregory cited in the text says that either way can be done in keeping with the custom of the Church. Therefore, whether there are one or three immersions is not of necessity for the sacrament.
Response to Quaestiuncula 1
To the first question, I answer that baptism implies cleansing. However, cleansing by water can happen not only by immersion but also by sprinkling or pouring; and thus a baptism can be done in either way. And it seems that the apostles baptized in this way, when it is read in Acts 2 and 3 that five thousand were converted together on one day, and then another three thousand. And thus when the custom of the Church allows, or when necessity compels for want of water, or because of the danger to a child whose death is feared, or even because of the feebleness of the priest rendering him unable to lift the infant, a baptism may be celebrated without immersion.
Reply Obj. 1: In the pouring of water, too, a man is in a certain way placed under the water; and thus, by baptism he is in a certain way buried with Christ.
Reply Obj. 2: All animal operations have their beginning in the head—since baptism forms animal habits, according to the definition of Dionysius quoted above, Article 1, Subquestion 3—although the natural or vital operations do not. Thus, if the head is sprinkled with water, the sprinkling is considered to be for the whole body; just as also the jurists say that where the head of a man lies, it is considered as though the whole man were buried in the same place. But it is not this way with the other body parts.
Reply Obj. 3: Although original sin exists particularly in the genital members as to its origin, nevertheless it is completed in animal operations as far as the notion of guilt is concerned; and thus baptism must be administered to the head, if necessity prevents the whole body from being immersed.
Response to Quaestiuncula 2
To the second question, it should be said that a triple immersion is the most fitting thing to do, both to express in deeds the faith in the Trinity and to signify the burial of Christ, in which we are buried together by baptism, as is clear from the authorities cited.
Reply Obj. 1: The Master explained dipping by washing. However, although there are three plunges in a triple immersion, there is nevertheless one washing; just as also in purely material washings we see it happen that something is immersed in water or water is poured over it several times before one washing is complete.
Reply Obj. 2: Faith in the Trinity includes faith in the unity; and thus in baptism, together with the faith expressed in the Trinity one is given to understand faith in the unity, both in the form of words (by the fact that In the name is said in the singular) and in the immersion (on account of the similarity of immersions). But faith in the Trinity is not included in faith in the unity of God; and so it is more fitting that faith in the Trinity be expressed also in the act of baptism.
Reply Obj. 3: Although the Passion of Christ is one, nevertheless after suffering Christ rested three days in the tomb; and baptism had to represent this by the triple immersion.
Response to Quaestiuncula 3
To the third question, it should be said that since the triple immersion is not for signifying the reality contained in the sacrament, which has to be signified by the matter and use of the sacrament, but rather, for signifying the reality signified but not contained (a signification that is not foremost in the sacrament), it follows that the triple immersion is not necessary to the sacrament, as it says in the text. Nevertheless, were it omitted against the custom of the Church, a person would sin gravely by immersing someone only once; and thus a penalty is applied by the canons.
By this the answer to the first is clear.
Reply Obj. 2: The form should chiefly represent where the efficacy of the sacrament comes from, since it is a medium by which the efficacy contacts the matter that is sanctified by that word. But the matter should chiefly signify the effect that follows immediately upon its use.
Reply Obj. 3: Unity of intention in the triple immersion is what makes the unity of baptism, as has been said. And thus when someone intends to immerse three times, the first immersion does not complete the intention of the one baptizing, and as a result, the being of the baptism is not completed either, nor by that one immersion does it have its effect, except through its order to the others; hence the other immersions are not superfluous. But if he intends to do only one, then the first immersion alone would complete the baptism, fulfilling the intention of the one baptizing.
Article 5
The institution of baptism
Quaestiuncula 1
Obj. 1: To the fifth we proceed thus. (Parallels: ST III, q. 62, a. 6, ad 3; q. 70, a. 4; Super Rom. 4, lec. 2.) It seems that it was not necessary to institute baptism after circumcision. For the reason for the institution of baptism, as is said in the text, is the renewal of the mind. But circumcision renewed the mind, since it removed sin, and conferred grace, as was said above. (See d. 1, q. 2, a. 2, qa. 5.) Therefore, it was not necessary to institute baptism.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, in the sacraments efficacy corresponds to signification. But as it seems, circumcision signified more expressly the removal of original sin both as to the cause of the removal, which is the shedding of Christ’s blood, and as to the cause of contracting original sin, which is generation, since it involved a shedding of blood from the member of generation. Therefore, it had greater efficacy than baptism; and thus baptism did not need to be instituted after it.
On the contrary, the perfect should succeed the imperfect. But baptism is more perfect than circumcision, because it is common to more people. Therefore, it had to be instituted after circumcision.
Quaestiuncula 2
Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that it was instituted before the Passion. (Parallels: ST III, q. 66, a. 2; q. 73, a. 5, ad 4.) For the Lord conferred regenerative power on the waters by the touch of his flesh. But this happened in his own baptism, before the Passion. Therefore, it had been instituted before the Passion.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, he said, unless one is reborn of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5). But this was before the Passion. Therefore, baptism had been instituted before the Passion.
On the contrary (1), an effect does not precede its cause. But baptism has its efficacy from the Passion of Christ. Therefore, it should not have been instituted before the Passion.
Furthermore (2), baptism does not happen without its form. But its form was instituted after the Passion (Matt 28:19). Therefore, so was baptism.
Quaestiuncula 3
Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that it was obligatory immediately upon its institution. (Parallels: ST III, q. 66, a. 2; q. 73, a. 5, ad 4.) For it is said at the beginning of its institution, as it were: unless one is reborn of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5)—which implies an obligation. Therefore, it was obligatory immediately.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, the institution of the sacraments of the New Law is in the manner of a precept. But a precept is obligatory immediately. Therefore, the institution of baptism obliged immediately.
On the contrary, two remedies are not needed for the same thing. But before the Passion, when baptism had just been instituted, men were still obliged to circumcision, which is ordered to the same thing as baptism. Therefore, they were not obligated to baptism.
Response to Quaestiuncula 1
To the first question, I answer that according to Hugh of St. Victor, (Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis fidei, Bk. 2, pt. 6, ch. 3 (PL 176:448).) it was necessary that as time progressed, signs of spiritual graces be given with more and more obviousness. And thus, it was fitting that baptism be instituted after circumcision, for circumcision signified only by removing something, yet the perfection of sanctification does not consist in removing something but rather in the conferral of grace, whose effect water represents—namely, life, illumination, and the like, of which we have spoken above; and because of this, it signifies washing; and again, there is also perfection as to its use, for it is common to both sexes, which was not the case with circumcision.
Reply Obj. 1: Although circumcision removed guilt as baptism does, nevertheless it did not confer such a plenitude of grace as baptism, nor did it diminish the kindling of sin as much. And thus it was necessary for baptism to succeed it. For renewal consists not only in the removal of guilt but in the conferral of grace.
Reply Obj. 2: Those are the significations of the res non contenta; and so they have nothing to do with this question.
Response to Quaestiuncula 2
To the second question, it should be said that the institution of baptism had many phases.
For it was first instituted at Christ’s baptism as to the matter, for at that time he conferred regenerative power on the waters, and in a certain way the form was represented by the presence of the three Persons in sensible signs, since the Father appeared in the voice, the Son in the flesh, and the Holy Spirit in the dove; and in a similar way the fruit of baptism was prefigured there, for the heavens were opened above him.
Its necessity was declared when he said: unless one is reborn of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5).
Its use was set in motion when he sent his disciples out preaching and baptizing, as is seen in Matthew 10.
It gained its efficacy from Christ’s Passion, as to its ultimate effect, which is the opening of the gate [of heaven].
Its proclamation to all nations was commanded at the end of the Gospel of Matthew, where he said, go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them, etc. (Matt 28:19).
And by this the answers to the objections are evident. Nevertheless, it should be known that the form was not instituted at the end of the Gospel of Matthew, since they had been baptizing using the same form before the Passion, as is said in the text; but there it was reiterated.
Response to Quaestiuncula 3
To the third question, it should be said that no one was obliged to baptism before the Passion, for at that time it had not been instituted in such a way as to obligate, but rather for its exercise. But after the Passion it was obligatory, when circumcision had passed away for all those whom baptism’s institution could reach.
And by this, the solution to the objections becomes clear. For in John 3, the Lord foretold the future obligation rather than announcing a present one, nor did the precept obligate before it was proclaimed to all.
Exposition of the Text
What we call baptism is an intinction, that is, an exterior washing of the body, etc. (Sent. IV, 3.1 (17). 2.) It should be known that ‘to baptize’ is, in Greek, the same as ‘to wash’ in Latin; for by ‘washing’ two things are spoken of—namely, a bath, which signifies water, prepared by human skill, in which cleansing happens; or else, the very cleansing that signifies the use of the bath. Therefore, baptism can mean the water itself, which is called the bath; hence it is said, by the bath of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit (Tit 3:5). And it can mean the washing itself: holding to the tradition of men, the washing of cups and pots, that is, ceremonial cleansing (Mark 7:4–8). And thus Hugh of St. Victor (Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis fidei, Bk. 2, pt. 6, ch. 2 (PL 176:443).) defined baptism as water, according to the first interpretation; but the Master defined it as a cleansing, according to the second. But this latter definition is more proper, since water does not signify cleansing, nor does it cause it, except when it is washing.
“And from where does water acquire so great a power that by touching the body it cleanses the heart, except by the work of the word?” (Sent. IV, 3.1 (17), 2, citing Augustine, In Ioannem, Tract. 80, n. 3.) What that power is, and when it is given, was discussed above in Distinction 1. (See q. 1, a. 4, qa. 2.)
It also appears to be indicated that a true baptism can be conferred in the name of the Father alone, etc. (Sent. IV, 3.4 (20), 3.) This is to be understood in cases like the one where the apostles baptized in the name of Christ; otherwise, the Master would speak wrongly.
And this sacrament is celebrated only in water. (Sent. IV, 3.6 (22), 1.) It should be known that water is the matter of baptism, and can be considered in three ways. For as it is considered in its own nature, it is like a remote matter, since by its natural properties it has a certain fittingness to be the matter of baptism by reason of likeness. But as it was instituted for this action, receiving regenerative power through contact with the Savior’s flesh, it is like matter that has been disposed. But considered under the form of the words, it is like matter now informed.
But it is usual to ask whether circumcision lost its standing after the institution of baptism. (Sent. IV, 3.8 (24), 1.) This was discussed before in Distinction 1. (See q. 2, a. 5, qa. 1.)
The Savior’s sacrifice opened up access to the kingdom for us. (Sent. IV, 3.9 (25), 2; see Bk. 3, dist. 18, ch. 5.) The opening of the gate is nothing but the removal of the impediment that kept the entire human race from the entrance to heaven, an impediment that was indeed taken away by Christ’s Passion, as was said in Book III, Distinction 18. (See q. 1, a. 6, qa. 3.)
Chapter 139 of 186