D. 6 - Conditions for baptism

Above the Master delineated who could baptize; here he means to determine who baptizes fittingly, and how; and this is divided into three parts: in the first, he shows how baptism is fittingly done on the part of the one baptizing; in the second, how it is fittingly done on the part of the one baptized; namely, whether anyone should be rebaptized or not, at: But it is usual to ask concerning those who were baptized by heretics whether they ought to be re-baptized; (Peter Lombard, Sententiae IV, 6.2 (37), 1.) in the third part, how it is fittingly done as to the rite of baptism, at: it is also to be known that “in baptizing those who have been chosen, two times are to be observed.” (Sent. IV, 6.4 (39), 3 Leo I, Epistola 16 (ad universos episcopos Siciliae), chs. 5–6.) The second part is divided into three parts: in the first, he shows whether someone should be rebaptized because of a defect in the baptizer; in the second, whether someone should be rebaptized because of a defect in the one baptized, at: Nor is it to be overlooked that no one can be baptized in his mother’s womb; (Sent. IV, 6.3 (38), 1.) in the third, whether someone should be rebaptized because of a defect in the things that pertain to baptism, at: It is also usual to ask whether there is a baptism, if the aforementioned words are uttered in a corrupt form. (Sent. IV, 6.4 (39), 1.)

The first is divided into three parts: in the first part, he shows that people baptized by heretics are not to be rebaptized; in the second, he excludes the contrary opinion, at: but there are some among the doctors . . . who seem to say that baptism cannot be given by heretics; (Sent. IV, 6.2 (37), 4.) in the third, he removes a certain objection, which seems to defend rebaptizing, at: It is also to be known that “although there is a triple immersion,” etc. (Sent. IV, 6.2 (37), 6 citing Jerome, In quatuor epistolas Paulinas, Eph. 4:5.)

Nor is it to be overlooked that no one can be baptized in his mother’s womb, etc. Here he inquires whether someone should be rebaptized because of not having been born from the womb; and concerning this he does two things: first, he shows that those who are not yet born, existing in their mothers’ wombs, have not received baptism by their mothers’ baptism; hence they must be baptized. Second, he objects to the contrary, and resolves it, at: But if it is objected that we read of Jeremias and John the Baptist that they were sanctified in the womb, etc. (Sent. IV, 6.3 (38), 2 citing Jer 1:5; Lk 1:15.)

It is also usual to ask whether there is a baptism, if the aforementioned words are uttered in a corrupt form. Here he inquires whether there may be some people who have to be rebaptized because of the lack of what is required for baptism. And first, whether because of a corruption of the form; second, whether because of uncertainty about the baptismal pouring, at: it is also to be known that those concerning whom “no proofs exist among their relatives nor among the clergy or neighbors, whereby they may be shown to have been baptized, action must be taken for their regeneration, lest they perish;” (Sent. IV, 6.4 (39), 2 citing Pope Leo I, Epistola 167 (ad Rusticum Narbonensem), inq. 16–17.) third, whether because of a defect of intention, at: it is also usual to ask concerning one who, in jest, like an actor, is immersed with the commemoration of the Trinity. (Sent. IV, 6.5 (40), 1.)

It is also to be known that “in baptizing those who have been chosen, two times are to be observed.” Here he shows how baptism is fittingly done on the part of the rite, and concerning this he does three things: first, he shows what time is deputed for the solemn celebration of baptism; second, he examines the profession that precedes baptism, at: next all who come to baptism are to profess their faith; (Sent. IV, 6.2 (41), 1.) third, he considers the catechism and exorcism, in which a profession like this is made, at: however that interrogation and response as to faith is done with the catechumen. (Sent. IV, 6.7 (42), 1.) Concerning the second he does two things: first, he shows the argument; second, he raises two questions, the first one at: But if it is asked in what sense I believe or I seek faith, is said on behalf of the child, we say that it is to be understood of the sacrament of faith; (Sent. IV, 6.6 (41), 2.) the second, at: But it is also asked in what sense is the response: I believe in God the Father, etc. (Sent. IV, 6.6 (41), 3.)

Here there are two questions. First, concerning what is required for baptism on the part of the one baptizing and the one being baptized. Second, concerning the rite of baptism.

Question 1

Conditions for baptism

About the first, three questions arise:

first, whether birth out of the womb is required for baptizing;

• second, whether both will and intention are required;
• third, whether faith is required.
• Article 1

Whether birth out of the womb is required for baptizing

Quaestiuncula 1

Obj. 1: To the first we proceed thus. (Parallel: ST III, q. 68, a. 11.) It seems that one should not wait for birth out of the womb. For in no state of man is the way of salvation closed off by him who wills all men to be saved (1 Tim 2:4). But existing in their mothers’ wombs they are humans, since they are already endowed with a rational soul, and they are in danger of damnation because of the original sin they have contracted, and the ease of corruption. Therefore, since for them no remedy can be applied for attaining life except through baptism, it seems they must be baptized.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, the child existing in his mother’s womb is almost like a part of the mother, as a fruit hanging from a tree is a part of the tree. Therefore, when the mother is baptized, the child in her womb is baptized.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, sometimes it happens that a certain part comes out first, as is read of Esau, that his hand came out first; and nevertheless danger of death is feared (cf. Gen 25:25). Therefore, it seems that at least in this case one should not wait for birth from the womb, but the part emerging should be sprinkled with baptismal water.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, eternal death is infinitely worse than bodily death. But the lesser of two evils is always to be chosen. Therefore, the mother should be cut open and the child taken out, so that, baptized, he may be freed from eternal death, and his birth from the womb should not be waited for.

On the contrary (1), What is spiritual does not come first, but what is animal, and then the spiritual (1 Cor 15:46). But baptism is a certain spiritual regeneration. Therefore, man must be born by his animal and fleshly birth before being baptized.

Furthermore (2), a sacrament is an act of the Church Militant. But while a child is in his mother’s womb, he is not yet numbered with the other members of the Church. Therefore, baptism cannot be administered to him.

Quaestiuncula 2

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that also no one can be sanctified in his mother’s womb by the gift of sanctifying grace. (Literally, “grace that makes pleasing.”) For as Isidore says, regeneration cannot be asserted in one for whom generation has not gone before. (Isidore, Sententiae (CCSL 111), ch. 22, n. 5.) But by sanctifying grace man becomes a son of God, and in this way he is regenerated. Therefore, a human cannot be sanctified before being born from the womb.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, just as actual sin is contracted by our acts, so also original sin is contracted through our origin. But actual sin cannot be remitted as long as a man is actually sinning. Therefore, neither can original sin be forgiven in a child existing in this mother’s womb, who is still actually existing in his origin.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, where danger is greater, there divine mercy comes to the rescue. But those who are about to die before they are born from the womb are in greater danger than John the Baptist and Jeremiah, who were born after their sanctification. If, therefore, we do not say those children mentioned are sanctified in the womb lest they be prevented by death, it seems that much less were John the Baptist and Jeremiah sanctified in the womb.

On the contrary (1), is what is said: before you came forth out of the womb, I sanctified you (Jer 1:5); and what is said of John, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb (Luke 1:15). Therefore, certain people have been sanctified in utero.

Furthermore (2), the Church only celebrates a feast day for someone who is a saint. But it celebrates the birth of John. Therefore, he was holy at his birth; therefore, he was sanctified in utero.

Quaestiuncula 3

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that those sanctified in the womb do not need to be baptized. For in sanctification in utero, greater grace is given than in baptism; for the grace of sanctification is said to be a grace that strengthens salvation against mortal sin. But whoever baptized a baptized person would do injury to baptism. Therefore, whoever sanctified a sanctified person by baptizing him again, would do injury to sanctification in utero.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, nature does not work through many things what it can work through one. But the operation of grace is more ordered than that of nature. Since, therefore, the grace of sanctification suffices for salvation, it seems that baptism would be added in vain.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, divine operation is not less effective in spiritual healing than in physical healing. But among those whom it has cured physically, no curative needed to be added by man. Therefore, also among those whom it has healed by the grace of interior sanctification the medicine of the sacraments need not be applied.

On the contrary (1), baptism took the place of circumcision. But John, who was sanctified in the womb, is read to have been circumcised on the eighth day after birth (Luke 1:59). Therefore, those sanctified in the womb would also have needed to be baptized.

Furthermore (2), sanctification in the womb is a baptism of spirit. But adults baptized with the baptism of the spirit through their contrition do need to be baptized with the baptism of water. Therefore, it is also the same with those sanctified in the womb.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

To the first question, I answer that baptism is a hierarchical act according to Dionysius; (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 2, (PG 3:391).) hence it must be conferred by the ministers of the Church, or by those who occupy the place of ministers in necessity. However, while a baby exists in the womb of his mother, he cannot be subjected to the operation of the ministers of the Church, nor is he known to people; and thus he cannot be baptized at that time.

However, some people assign other reasons, which are not of great weight: one of which is that divine justice requires that no sin be forgiven without some penalty suffered, which the baby experiences in baptism, which could not happen while he is still in his mother’s womb. But this is nothing, because baptism, according to Ambrose, (Actually Ambrosiaster, On the Epistle to the Romans 11:29 (CSEL 81.1:385).) does not require external penalty to be suffered. And furthermore for original sin no sensible penalty is required to be inflicted. Another argument is that grace gives ordered being; and therefore the regeneration of grace presupposes the generation of nature. Another is that while a baby is in the mother’s womb, he is still joined to the cause of original sin; and so he cannot be cleansed of it. But these two reasons are opposed to sanctification in the womb, as well as baptism. Another argument is that in baptism there should be water and spirit against the infection of the flesh and soul by original sin; and thus before baptism can happen, conception in the womb must happen, by which the soul is infused, as well as birth from the womb, by which the body is born. But this is nothing: for birth is neither of the soul nor of the body, but of the two joined; hence at conception in the womb the soul and the body are both brought to life. Hence the first argument should be upheld.

Reply Obj. 1: It is not from a lack of divine mercy that children in their mothers’ wombs are not given the remedy, but because they are not capable of this remedy, by which, according to the common rule, they would be made partakers in the Passion of Christ, from which comes the remission of sins. For they cannot be subject to the operation of the ministers of the Church by which this kind of remedy is administered.

Reply Obj. 2: A baby in his mother’s womb, although he is joined to his mother in his body, which he drew from her, nevertheless is entirely distinct in his rational soul, which he has from outside. And thus according to any physical change in the mother, he is changed bodily, but it is not necessary that when the mother is sanctified through baptism, he should be spiritually sanctified.

Reply Obj. 3: Complete delivery from the uterus should be waited for, unless a danger of death is feared; but then once the principal part is delivered, namely the head, where the operations of the soul are most evident, as some people say, he should be baptized. However, it is different with the other parts, like the hand and the foot, although there is no harm if then those parts were also to be sprinkled with baptismal water, for divine mercy is not to be constricted. However, if afterward he should be completely born, he is not to be rebaptized, according to some people. But no danger would befall if, for safety’s sake, he were baptized under this form: if you are not baptized, I baptize you, etc.

Reply Obj. 4: Bad things should not be done so that good things will come, as is said in Romans 3:8. And thus someone should rather allow the infant to perish than perish himself by committing murder against the mother.

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

To the second question, it should be said that just as God did not bind his own power to natural things so that he would not be able to work without them when he willed what he does in miraculous acts; so also he did not bind his power to the sacraments so that he would not be able to sanctify someone without the ministry of the sacraments; and thus it is read that certain people, outside the common rule, have been sanctified almost miraculously in their mothers’ wombs, particularly those who were more immediately ordered to his most holy conception; and thus his mother is believed to have been sanctified, and John the Baptist, who bore witness to him while he was in his mother’s womb, and Jeremiah, who foretold his conception in the prophecy he announced: the Lord will do something new upon the earth. A woman shall encompass a man (Jer 31:22). And thus in the Blessed Virgin there was also a fuller sanctification, in which the kindling for sin was weakened or quenched to the extent that she would never be inclined to actual sin. In others, though, it inclined to venial sin, but not to mortal sin; and in John the Baptist, whose internal sanctification welled up in a certain exultation observable by others, it was also more explicit than in Jeremiah, since it is said: the infant leapt in her womb (Luke 1:41), so that the degree of sanctification follows the degree of closeness to Christ.

Reply Obj. 1: Spiritual generation presupposes the natural one corresponding to it; and thus the spiritual generation that occurs through the ministry of men in baptism presupposes birth from the womb, by which a man comes forth into the awareness and society of men. But the regeneration that happens divinely does not necessarily presuppose anything but conception in the womb, by which a man created by God is formed.

Reply Obj. 2: Once the rational soul is infused in the now-formed unborn child, he does not receive anything from his mother but nourishment. However, original sin is not contracted by the nutritive act, but by the generative act; and thus the child is only in the act of contracting original sin in the moment of the soul’s infusion; and consequently nothing prohibits a child in this state from being cleansed of original sin after the soul’s infusion.

Reply Obj. 3: Those things that happen outside the common rule do not happen chiefly for the benefit of one person, but for the instilling and committal of grace; and thus even if there was not such great danger among those sanctified in the womb, who were about to come forth, nevertheless since they were divinely chosen as special heralds of grace and ministry, thus they were endowed with such a privileged sanctification.

Response to Quaestiuncula 3

To the third question, it should be said that those sanctified in the womb should be baptized for three reasons. First, in order to acquire the character, by which they will be numbered among the people of God and entitled in a certain way to receive the divine sacraments. Second, so that by receiving baptism they may be conformed to the Passion of Christ bodily as well. Third, on account of the good of obedience, for the command about baptism was given to all and should be fulfilled by all, unless an emergency should exclude the sacrament.

Reply Obj. 1: Baptism surpasses sanctification in its extension; for in baptism a character is imprinted, and man is bodily configured to Christ’s death; although in intensity a fuller grace may perhaps be supplied in sanctification; and thus it causes no injury to sanctification if baptism is conferred on someone already sanctified.

Reply Obj. 2: Not all that baptism does is done by sanctification, for it does not imprint a character; and thus baptism is not added to it in vain. Moreover, in baptism grace is increased even in the sanctified.

Reply Obj. 3: Nothing could be added to the health of those Christ cured by bodily medicine; and so the situation is not the same.

Article 2

Whether both will and intention are required for baptism

Quaestiuncula 1

Obj. 1: To the second we proceed thus. (Parallels: below, d. 7, q. 3, a. 1, qa. 1, ad 3; d. 8, q. 2, a. 4, qa. 3, ad 1; d. 30, q. 1, a. 3, ad 3; ST III, q. 60, a. 8; q. 64, a. 8.) It seems that the intention of the one baptizing would not be required for baptism. For intention is not required for any work except in the principal agent, who has predetermined the end, and by his command moves others to the end intended by himself. But the priest baptizing is not the principal agent, but an instrumental one, as was said above. Therefore, his intention is not required for baptism.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, a man’s intention is not certainly known by anyone but himself. Therefore, if his intention were required for baptism, it would not be certainly known whether anyone had been baptized, except to the one who baptized him; and it is unfitting that a man should be in so much doubt of his salvation.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, just as Augustine says, madmen and drunks can baptize. (Augustine, In Iohannis euangelium tractatus (CCSL 36), Tract. 5, n. 17.) But it would seem that they cannot have the intention, since they are lacking the use of reason. Therefore, an intention is not required for baptism.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, an intention requires thought. But thoughts are often easily swept away to other things. Therefore, baptism would often be prevented.

On the contrary (1), those things that happen outside of intention are by chance. But this does not apply to the sacraments, since they have determinate effects and determinate causes. Therefore, intention is required in baptism and the other sacraments.

Furthermore (2), works that flow from the will are determined and specified by the intention. Hence, Ambrose says your desire imposes a name on your work; (Ambrose, De Officiis, Bk. 1, ch. 30 (CCSL 15:53): “Adfectus tuus nomen imponit operi tuo: quomodo a te proficiscitur sic aestimatur.”) and in the Gloss on Matthew 12 it is said, however much you intend, that much you do. (Glossa interlinearis, at Matthew 12:35 (in Glossa ordinaria 5.228).) But to baptize is a willed act. Therefore, intention is required in it on the part of the one baptizing.

Quaestiuncula 2

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that right intention is required. (Parallels: below, exposition of the text; d. 11, q. 2, a. 1, qa. 3, ad 1; d. 30, q. 1, a. 3, ad 3; ST III, q. 64, a. 10; q. 74, a. 2, ad 2.) For the intention of doing what the Church does is required. But to intend this belongs to the right intention. Therefore, the right intention is required for baptism.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, in anything requiring an intention, a corrupt intention would ruin it. But baptism, when it is truly given, cannot be corrupt, as was said in the preceding distinction. Therefore, it seems that a wicked intention could not confer baptism.

On the contrary, baptism is not impeded by the wickedness of the one baptizing. But a wrong intention pertains to the wickedness of the one baptizing. Therefore, a wrong intention in others does not impede the effect of baptism.

Quaestiuncula 3

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that the intention or the will is not required in the one baptized. (Parallels: below, d. 27, q. 1, a. 2, qa. 4; ST III, q. 68, a. 7; q. 69, a. 9.) For baptism is given against original sin. But original sin is contracted without will or intention. Therefore, intention and will in the one to be baptized are not required for baptism.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, children, sleeping persons, and the mentally disabled can be baptized, as was said above in Distinction 4, Question 3, Article 1, Subquestions 2 and 3. But they all lack the intention of baptism. Therefore, for baptism intention is not required on the part of the one being baptized.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, any thing may be corrupted by the same things that made it, just acting in the opposite way, as is said in the Ethics 2. (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Bk. 2, ch. 1, 1103b7.) Therefore, if by the intention of the one being baptized baptism was done, then the baptismal character could be erased by his intention as well, which is false.

On the contrary (1), in baptism a certain spiritual wedding takes place of the soul to God. But in marriage, consent is required. Therefore, also in baptism.

Furthermore (2), baptism’s effect is impeded more on the part of the one being baptized than on the part of the one baptizing, for the wickedness of the one baptizing does not impede the reception of grace in baptism, but it can be impeded by the wickedness of the one receiving the sacrament. But a defect of intention on the part of the one baptizing impedes the sacrament. Therefore, much more would a defect of intention on the part of the baptized.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

To the first question, I answer that since a single effect has a single cause, if a single effect proceeds from several causes, it is necessary that those causes be in some way made one with each other. Now for a sacrament’s effect we see that many things must concur; namely, the minister, the form of the words, and the matter. However, these things cannot be united into one cause except by the intention of the one baptizing, who actually applies the form to the matter, and indeed his own ministry to both, and all this pertains to the conferral of the sacrament. And thus the intention of the one baptizing is required. And likewise, in all the other sacraments also the intention of the minister is required with the due matter and form, not only for bringing about the sacrament’s effect, but for receiving the sacrament.

Reply Obj. 1: As it says in the Ethics 8, there are two kinds of instruments, namely, animate, like a slave, and inanimate, like an axe. (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Bk. 8, ch. 13, 1161b4.) Therefore, a proper intention is not required in an inanimate instrument, for the instrument’s very inclination to the effect by the motion of the principal agent takes the place of an intention. But in an animate instrument, which is not only used but acts in some way, namely acting by a command, and not moved by a force, intention is required to exercise the ministry to which it is applied.

Reply Obj. 2: There are two ways of answering this according to different opinions. For some people say that if mental intention is lacking in the one baptizing, he does not confer the sacrament of baptism; however, in an adult, faith and devotion can supply the effect of baptism, so that danger from this would not affect the one baptized who did not know the intention of the one baptizing. But if it were a child, it is piously believed that the highest priest, namely, God, would supply the defect, and confer on him salvation. Nevertheless, if he does not do this, he does not act unjustly, just as neither does he act unjustly in someone who is not subjected to the sacrament. Other people say that in baptism and in the other sacraments that have in their form the act exercised, a mental intention is not required but the expression of the intention by the words instituted by the Church suffices. And thus if the form is preserved, and nothing is said outwardly that expresses a contrary intention, the person is baptized. For not without reason in the sacraments of necessity, namely, baptism, and certain others, is the act of the one baptizing expressed so carefully for the expression of the intention.

Reply Obj. 3: Although someone who is drunk cannot have an actual intention, nevertheless a drunk can be sober at a certain moment, and baptize having the intention of baptizing.

Reply Obj. 4: Although the minister of the sacrament may have to struggle to guard his own heart as much as he can, so that he actually has the intention of the form as much as possible in the sacramental words, nevertheless, since thought is so distractible, even if the actual intention is not present at the moment when he utters the words, as long as he intended it before, and no contrary intention has occurred in the meantime, the sacrament is not impeded; for it works at that moment by the force of the principal intention. For it is not necessary that in a work the intention is always actually joined to it, but it suffices that the work proceeds from the intention.

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

To the second question, it should be said that something is “right” or “straight” when its middle does not depart from the end points. Now the sacrament of baptism stands in the middle between the effect of baptism and the baptized soul aquiring the effect; hence the intention is “right” or “straight” when the one baptizing or the one baptized orders the sacrament to the effect of baptism, which is salvation.

Therefore, if the intention is present in the one baptizing, for he does intend to confer the sacrament, but rectitude is lacking, because he orders the sacrament to an undue end, this does not impede the sacrament’s reception in the one receiving it, for the one baptizing intends the sacrament’s reception. Nor does it impede the sacrament’s effect, for interior cleansing does not come from the minister, and thus his intention does nothing toward this. But if in the baptized there were the intention of receiving the sacrament, but rectitude of intention were lacking, he would indeed receive the sacrament he intends, but not the reality of the sacrament: for he places an obstacle to the Holy Spirit by his wicked intention.

Reply Obj. 1: Although the intention of doing what the Church does is required for the sacrament, nevertheless it is not required as being necessary for the sacrament that one does what the Church does for the reason that the Church does it: and this is what rectitude of intention consists in.

Reply Obj. 2: Baptism does not have goodness from its minister in the way that other operations of the will have goodness from the one doing them; and thus it is not the same.

Response to Quaestiuncula 3

To the third question, it should be said that in baptism a baptized person receives two things, namely, the sacrament and the reality behind the sacrament. But to receive these two things, nothing is required on the part of the one receiving baptism that would cause them, but only the removal of the impediment, which is nothing other than a will contrary to one of the things mentioned. And thus, among adults and those having the use of reason, in whom a contrary will can exist either actually or habitually, baptism requires contrition or devotion, to receive the reality behind the sacrament; as well as intention or will, to receive the sacrament. But among children lacking in either one, both the sacrament and the reality are received; and likewise among those lacking the use of reason, unless there is a will to the contrary in them habitually, even if not actually. (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.)

Nevertheless, it should be known that an absolute will to receive what the Church confers is not required in an adult, but it is enough to will it conditionally, as happens in matters of mixed willing, which is discussed in the Ethics 3; (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Bk. 3, ch. 1, 1110a11.) and thus if it is completely forced, such that its principle is completely external, with the one undergoing it contributing nothing, as when someone is violently dunked while crying out in protest, that person receives neither the sacrament nor the reality behind it. But if it is compelling inducement, as with threats or beating, such that the baptized chooses to receive baptism rather than suffer such things, then he does receive the sacrament, but not the reality behind it.

Reply Obj. 1: Intention or willing in the baptized, as was said, is not required as something causing the effacement of original sin, but only as something removing what prevents it, namely, a contrary will.

Reply Obj. 2: Among children there cannot be a contrary will either actually or habitually; and thus in them neither willing nor intention is required for any impediment to be removed. But among those mentally disabled or asleep there can be a habitual contrary will, although it may not be actual; and thus if before they fell asleep or lost their wits they were of contrary will, they do not receive the sacrament, for that will remains habitually afterward. But if they had planned to receive baptism, and made this known through some kind of sign, then emergency baptism should be conferred on them, and they receive both the sacrament and the reality behind it, even if they should speak against it in their mental illness: for that contradiction does not proceed from their rational will, by which they are capable of baptismal grace. But if there is no necessity, a lucid interval should be waited for in the mentally ill, and waking in the ones sleeping. But if someone should be baptized in that state, he does receive the sacrament, although the one baptizing him sins.

Reply Obj. 3: The will or intention to receive baptism is not required for baptism as a cause or disposition to the character, but only as removing what prevents it; therefore the argument does not hold.

Article 3

Whether faith is required for baptism

Quaestiuncula 1

Obj. 1: To the third question we proceed thus. (Parallels: above, d. 2, q. 2, a. 4; d. 6, q. 1, a. 3, qa. 1, and q. 2, a. 2, qa. 3; d. 9, a. 2, qa. 2, ad 2; ST III, q. 68, a. 8.) It seems that in baptism faith is required for one to receive the sacrament. For baptism is called the sacrament of faith. But this would only be on account of the faith of the person receiving it. Therefore, faith is required in the person to be baptized.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, it is said, whoever believes and is baptized (Mark 16:16). Therefore, it seems that it is required in an adult that he believe in order to be baptized.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, faith is more essential to the sacrament than will. But will is required, as has been said. Therefore, faith is required much more.

On the contrary (4), adults are not in a worse condition than children. Yet among children the faith of the Church suffices for baptism, and the faith of the person himself is not required. Therefore, neither is it required in adults.

Furthermore (5), charity is closer to grace than faith is, since charity cannot exist without grace, as faith can. But charity is not required in the one receiving baptism, since then no adult would receive grace again then. Therefore, faith is not required there.

Quaestiuncula 2

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that faith is required in the one baptizing. (Parallel: ST III, q. 64, a. 9.) For the intention of conferring the sacrament is required in the one baptizing. But an unbeliever does not believe in the sacrament of baptism as far as the article of the Creed goes. Therefore, he cannot intend to confer it, and thus he cannot baptize.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, baptism is a sacrament of the Church. But faith is how members of the Church are first united with each other. Therefore, anyone who has no faith cannot baptize, since he is not of the Church.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, the person baptizing is more closely related to baptism than the one offering the child to be baptized. But faith is required in the one offering, for he is the one who answers, I believe. Therefore, much more is it required in the one baptizing.

On the contrary, it is determined in the text that heretics confer valid baptism. But heretics are unbelievers. Therefore, etc.

Quaestiuncula 3

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that those receiving baptism from heretics do not obtain the reality behind the sacrament. (Parallel: ST III, q. 68, a. 9.) For Augustine says that those who are baptized outside the Church do not receive baptism to salvation, but to their ruin. (In fact, Pseudo-Augustine, Dialogus quaestionum 65 Orosii percontantis et Augustini respondentis, qu. 59; but there are many similar passages in Augustine, e.g.: “Sed propterea dolemus errantes et eos per caritatem Christi lucrari Deo cupimus, ut sanctum sacramentum, quod foris ab ecclesia habent ad perniciem, in pace ecclesiae habeant ad salutem” (Epistle 61, CSEL 34.2:223).) But those baptized by heretics receive baptism outside the Church. Therefore, they do not receive it to their salvation, and so they do not receive the reality behind the sacrament.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, whoever receives something from someone who does not have the right to give it receives unjustly. But a heretic does not have the right to give baptism, as Augustine says: if a heretic did not have the right to baptize, nevertheless, it is Christ’s that he gave. (Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Bk. 5, ch. 15 (CSEL 51:278).) Therefore, anyone receiving from a heretic receives unjustly, and so he sins.

On the contrary, the sin of one baptizing does not soil baptism, as was said above. But unbelief is a certain sin. Therefore, it does not impede baptism’s effect in the baptized.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

To the first question, I answer that when it is asked whether faith is required as something necessary for baptism, the question is not understood as dealing with absolute necessity, but the necessity that comes from the condition of the end. But there are two ends in baptism. The first is the reception of the sacrament; the second is the reception of the reality behind the sacrament. Therefore, I say that in adults a personal faith is also required by the necessity arising from the second end: for unless someone believes, he is considered a fake, as was said above in Distinction 4, Question 3, Article 2, Subquestions 1, 2, and 3; and accordingly he does not obtain the reality behind the sacrament. But it is not required for obtaining the first end: for someone can receive the sacrament even if he does not believe. Hence Augustine says that it can absolutely happen that some people have valid baptism who do not have true faith. (Augustine, On the One Baptism, ch. 11 (CSEL 53:18).) However, for children the faith of the Church suffices for both ends.

Reply Obj. 1: Baptism is called the sacrament of faith because by it a man is brought together into the assemblies of the faithful. And thus whoever receives baptism shows that he has faith; and if he does not have it, he is considered a fake, and he does not receive the reality behind the sacrament he has received.

Reply Obj. 2: The Lord shows in those words what is required in the one to be baptized to obtain salvation, which is the reality behind the sacrament; hence he adds afterwards, whoever believes and is baptized will be saved (Mark 16:16).

Reply Obj. 3: The sacrament of baptism is received in the soul as a character. But a soul cannot be subject to something unwillingly; and thus by will or intention a man makes himself subject to the sacrament. But by faith a man makes himself subject in the right way. Hence faith is required only for the reception of the reality behind the sacrament, but intention for the reception of the sacrament simply speaking.

Reply Obj. 4: And since the other arguments prove that faith is not required for the final effect either, for this reason it should be said to the fourth objection that in children there cannot be anything contrary to baptismal grace from their personal will; and thus personal faith is not required for obtaining the reality behind the sacrament, as it is required in adults in whom there can be personal unbelief.

Reply Obj. 5: Right intention is required to obtain the reality behind the sacrament. But faith directs intention, and without it there can be no right intention, especially in matters like these; but charity makes the intention meritorious as well. And thus for a man to prepare himself to receive grace in baptism, faith is prerequisite, but not charity: for beforehand attrition is enough, even if it is not contrition.

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

To the second question, it should be said that when heretics or any kind of unbelievers keep the due form and have the intention of baptizing, they confer a valid sacrament: for baptism does not have efficacy from the merit of the one baptizing, but from the merit of Christ, who works in the baptized person through his own faith, for an adult, or through the faith of the Church for a child.

Reply Obj. 1: Although the person who does not believe baptism to be a sacrament or to have any spiritual power, does not intend when he baptizes to confer a sacrament, nevertheless, he does at that time intend to do what the Church does, even if he considers that to be nothing; and since the Church does do something, therefore consequently and implicitly he does intend to do something, although not explicitly.

Reply Obj. 2: Although a heretic is not a member of the Church by true faith, nevertheless as far as he preserves the custom of the Church in baptizing, he hands on the baptism of the Church; hence he regenerates sons of Christ and of the Church, not for himself or his heresy. For just as Jacob begot sons by free women and slave girls (Gen 40), so does Christ by Catholics and heretics, good men and bad, as Augustine says against Donatus. (Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists (CSEL 51), Bk. 5, ch. 15.)

Reply Obj. 3: Personal faith is not required of those offering a child for baptism, nor of any particular person, but only the faith of the Church Militant, which is not possible to fail completely, with God so ordering it, as he said: behold I am with you even to the end of the age (Matt 28:20). But nevertheless if it were to fail, what faith remained in the Church Triumphant, namely, the vision, would supply. Nor does the one offering a child for baptism say in his own person, I believe, but in the person of the child, so that the sense is, I believe, i.e., I am ready to receive the sacrament of faith.

Response to Quaestiuncula 3

To the third question, I say that no one who is baptized by a heretic is deprived of baptismal grace because of the sin of the heretic, but sometimes because of his own sin. Hence if it is a child, in whom actual fault does not happen, if he is baptized in the form of the Church, he receives the sacrament and the reality behind the sacrament. (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.) Likewise, if it is an adult, and the one baptizing is not an obvious heretic, cut off from the Church, or if the baptized is in a state of emergency. But if he knows that the other is a heretic, and he receives baptism from him, then it happens because he either supports his heresy, or acts in contempt of the Church, or for the sake of some temporal convenience; and in this way the baptized person sins. Hence by his own sin he places an obstacle to the Holy Spirit, so that he does not obtain the reality behind the sacrament.

Reply Obj. 1: In this case Augustine speaks of when someone receives baptism from a heretic in support of the heresy or for some other bad end.

Reply Obj. 2: The right to give baptism comes from two sources, namely, from the priestly order, and from legal authority. Therefore, in a heretic who has been cut off from the Church, the right of giving baptism remains as to the priestly order, if he was a priest in the Church before. However, it does not remain as to legal authority, which he has lost. Nevertheless, it does not follow that someone receiving baptism from a heretic always receives it illicitly, since he believes that the other has the right to give it and is not a heretic, or it is an emergency situation, in which anyone has the power to baptize.

Question 2

The rite of baptism

Next, inquiry is made about the rite of baptism; and concerning this, three questions arise:

first, about the rite of baptism itself;

• second, about the rite of catechism;
• third, about the rite of exorcism.
• Article 1

About the rite of baptism itself

Quaestiuncula 1

Obj. 1: To the first question we proceed thus. (Parallels: above, d. 2, q. 1, a. 2, ad 2; d. 12, q. 3, a. 1, qa. 1, ad 2; d. 14, q. 1, a. 4, qa. 3; ST III, q. 66, a. 9; q. 80, a. 10, ad 1; q. 84, a. 10, ad 1 & 5; SCG IV, chs. 69 & 71; Super Ioan. 3, lec. 1; Super Eph. 4, lec. 2; Super Heb. 6, lec. 1.) It seems that baptism can be received again. For the Eucharist is a more excellent sacrament than baptism, since it is perfection, according to Dionysius. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 3 (PG 3:423).) But the Eucharist can be received again. Therefore, baptism can also be received again.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, grace is a more important effect of baptism than the character. But grace may be lost, although the character is not erased. Therefore, it seems that baptism may be received again for the sake of regaining grace.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, a single action requires not just singularity of time, but also a single agent. But many people can baptize someone at the same time, for one person does not impede another; and this is particularly necessary if one person is mute and cannot utter the words, and the other one is disabled and cannot immerse the baptized. Therefore, in the same way someone can be baptized by several people at different times.

On the contrary (1), is what is said: there is one faith, one baptism (Eph 4:5). Therefore, it should not be received again.

Furthermore (2), baptism is given against original sin. But original sin is not contracted again. Therefore, neither should baptism be received again.

Quaestiuncula 2

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that there should not be those two times designated for baptism, namely, Holy Saturday and the eve of Pentecost. (Parallel: ST III, q. 66, a. 10, ad 1.) For when someone is in danger, help should be brought him, the sooner the better. But man, because of the frailty of his nature, is always in danger of his life. Therefore, he should not have to wait for any designated time for baptism, but should be baptized immediately.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, by baptism a man is reborn as a son of God in the image of Christ. Therefore, baptism should especially be celebrated in the feast of the Nativity.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, Christ’s baptism conferred on the waters the regenerative power. But Christ was baptized on the day of the Epiphany. Therefore, a man should especially be baptized on that day.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, baptism has its efficacy from the Passion of Christ. Therefore, baptism should be celebrated on the day of the Lord’s Passion rather than on Holy Saturday.

Quaestiuncula 3

Obj. 1: Moreover, (Parallel: ST III, q. 66, a. 10.) it seems that the sacramentals of baptism are wrongly listed by Dionysius. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 2, n. 2 (PG 3:394ff.).) For he lists first the reception of the person to be baptized by the bishop, whom he calls the highest priest, with all the existing fullness of the Church. For the one to be baptized must be received by the one who is most properly the minister of baptism. But that is the priest, and not the bishop. Therefore, it should not include reception by the bishop.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, the Holy Spirit is given by the imposition of the hands for strengthening, which pertains to confirmation, which follows baptism. Therefore, it is unfitting that he includes the bishop imposing his hands on the one to be baptized before baptism.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, salt is placed in the mouth of the one to be baptized, and his ears and nostrils are anointed with saliva. Therefore, since Dionysius makes no mention of these, it seems that he lists baptism’s sacramentals incompletely.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, he includes the anointing with oil before baptism, by which the Christian would be anointed as before a fight, as he himself says. But the sacrament of confirmation is particularly ordained to the spiritual battle. Therefore, it seems that this anointing should not take place in baptism.

Obj. 5: Furthermore, the sacraments are distinct. Therefore, it seems that he should not count the reception of the Eucharist and anointing with sacred chrism together with baptism.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

To the first question, I answer that baptism should not be repeated at all, for four reasons. The first is taken from the disease against which baptism is given, namely, original sin, which is not contracted again; hence neither should its medicine be given again. The second is taken from the reality behind the sacrament: for in baptism guilt and punishment are completely wiped away. Hence if it were permitted for someone to receive baptism frequently, it would be a provocation to sin, for the ease of forgiveness would present an incentive for wrongdoing, as Gregory says. (In fact, Ambrose, On Psalm 118, ch. 26 (CSEL 62:165): “facilitas enim ueniae incentiuum tribuit delinquendi.”) The third is taken from its signification: for it configures one to the death of Christ, who only died once. The fourth is taken from the sacrament itself, namely, the character, which remains indelibly; hence injury would be done to the sacrament if baptism were received over and over, as though the first sanctification was not enough; and again, because this sacrament is a certain regeneration, while any given thing is generated only once. But when it is unknown whether something has been done, it is not done again. Hence if it were found for certain that someone had been lacking one of the things that belong to the essence of the sacrament, he must absolutely be baptized again, with the following form: If you are not baptized, I baptize you in the name of the Father, etc.

Reply Obj. 1: Just as in the sacrament of the Eucharist matter is sanctified, so in baptism the person receiving is sanctified by the imprint of the character. Hence just as injury would be done to the Eucharist if a consecrated host were consecrated again, in the same way injury would be done to baptism if someone already baptized were baptized again. For just as in the first case the sanctification is directed to the matter, so in the second case it is directed to the one receiving the sacrament.

Reply Obj. 2: Although grace is a nobler effect of baptism than the character, and in a certain way it is more important, nevertheless it is not for this reason more properly its effect and in this it is not so important: for grace lost can be recovered through the other sacraments; and thus it is not necessary that baptism be received again for its recovery.

Reply Obj. 3: If several people immersed someone at the same time, such that each one said, I baptize you etc., there would be a baptism, although they would sin in not observing the rite of the Church: nevertheless they would not be punished for baptizing again unless they had intended that: for it happens that the same action may be executed by one person and by several, but it cannot happen that it is the same action that is done at several different times. But if they said, We baptize you, there would be no baptism: for the due form was not preserved, as was said above in Distinction 3, Question 1, Article 2, Subquestion 2. In the same way there will be no baptism if one person is crippled and the other one mute, and one utters the words while the other does the immersion: for the words of the form themselves show that the immersion and pronouncement of words must be done by the same person.

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

To the second question, it should be said that two things must be considered in baptism, namely, the sacrament’s substance and its solemnity. And as to its substance there is no predetermined time for baptism; on the contrary, baptism can be celebrated on any day at any hour. But the solemn celebration of baptism in the Church has a designated time, namely, the two Saturdays that were mentioned in the text. And the reason for this is that baptism has efficacy from two things, namely, the power of the Holy Spirit, and therefore baptism is solemnly celebrated on the vigil of Pentecost; and also from the Passion of Christ, to whose death someone is configured through baptism as buried with Christ into death (Rom 6:3–4); and thus it is solemnly celebrated on the day Christ lay in the grave, which is Holy Saturday.

Reply Obj. 1: In emergencies, it is not necessary to wait for these two times. Hence it is said in the Decretals: Concerning the catechumens to be baptized, this is decreed, that they should come for baptism on the feast of Easter or Pentecost; however, the sick or frail alone should be baptized in the remaining solemnities. (See Gratian’s Decretals, Part 3, De consecratione, d. 4, ch. 15 (PL 187:1798).) And since infants are considered frail because of the feebleness of nature, and because of the danger of damnation from which they cannot otherwise be freed, for this reason nowadays those infants are baptized right away in most cases, and those two times are not awaited, as it was customary to wait for adults.

Reply Obj. 2: In the feast of Christmas, the Lord’s birth is commemorated according to the flesh. But we are not made his brothers by birth in the flesh, but in the spirit; and thus it is not fitting that baptism be celebrated then.

Reply Obj. 3: By Christ’s baptism, all that happened was that the matter was prepared for the act of baptism; but the acting power in baptism is the merit of Christ’s Passion and the power of the Holy Spirit. And since what acts in something is more important than its matter, for this reason baptism is celebrated at the two designated times rather than at Epiphany. Nevertheless, the reason it was not specifically established that baptism be celebrated on that day was to exclude the error of certain people, who said that baptism can never be conferred except on that day on which the Lord was baptized.

Reply Obj. 4: Man is conformed to Christ’s Passion in baptism by a certain manner of being buried with him, as the Apostle says in Romans 6:4; and thus it is done more becomingly on the day of his entombment than on the day of his Passion.

Response to Quaestiuncula 3

To the third question, it should be said that Dionysius describes the rite of baptism that was observed in the early Church in the solemn celebration of baptism, when adults were coming for baptism; and for this reason he sets down four things in order, of which the first pertains to catechizing, the second to exorcising, the third to baptizing, and the fourth to baptism’s completion.

To catechesis pertain these things, which he touches on in order. First, instruction in the faith by the preaching of the bishop. Second, conversion of the unbeliever to the faith, and approach to the bishop by means of the godparent, whom he calls the anadochus. Third, thanksgiving and prayer made by the bishop and clerics. Fourth, the requesting of baptism and profession of observing the Christian religion. Fifth, the imposition of hands, and signing the catechumen with the sign of the cross. Sixth, the conscription of the person to be baptized and the anadochus.

But as regards exorcism, he lists four things. First, blowing toward the west and renunciation of the devil. Second, raising the hands to heaven with the sacred confession of the faith and profession of the Christian religion. Third, prayer, benediction, and imposition of hands. Fourth, disrobing and anointing with holy oil, which is called the oil of catechumens.

But as to baptism, he sets down a threefold immersion with the other things that are required for baptism; and as to the completion of baptism, which follows, he lists three things, namely the handing over of the garment, the anointing with chrism on the crown of the head, and the reception of the Eucharist.

Reply Obj. 1: Dionysius is handing on the rite of baptism in its greatest solemnity; and for this reason he sets down not just the sufficient minister, but the most excellent one.

Reply Obj. 2: As is clear from above, three impositions of hands are given in the course of baptism. One during the catechesis, so that a man may be strengthened in himself in faith; another in the exorcism, so that he may be strengthened in the fight against the devil; the third in confirmation, so that he may be strengthened to confess the faith against the pressures of the world.

Reply Obj. 3: Concerning those sacramentals that belong to the solemnity of baptism, certain ones existed in the early Church that are no longer, and certain ones were added later. Hence something has been taken away from the exorcism, as is evident from the rite that Rabanus teaches, (Rabanus Maurus, De institutione clericorum, Bk. 1, ch. 25 (PL 107:311).) namely, turning toward the west and the east; and something has been added, namely, feeding the salt and anointing the ears and nostrils with saliva, to designate the removal of anything that could especially impede the teaching of the faith, whose sacrament is about to be received. For it can be prevented from being received, and against this the ears are opened with saliva, to receive the faith by hearing the word of God, and the nostrils to seek the teaching of the faith by the good odor its news spread in the fellowship and teaching of holy men; in imitation of the Lord who made mud out of saliva and anointed the eyes of the man born blind. The reason the eyes are not anointed is that sight is in service of discovery, while faith does not come from human discovery. The sharing of the faith can also be prevented among those confessing and teaching it; and thus the salt of discretion is placed in the mouth, so that every utterance of the faithful may be kept with salt.

Reply Obj. 4: There are three anointings surrounding baptism. The first is done before the baptism with holy oil, which is called the oil of catechumens, and according to Dionysius (In the text cited above.) and Ambrose, (Ambrose, On the Sacraments, Bk. 1, ch. 2 (CSEL 73:17).) this is done as a sign of the fight against the enemy, just as athletes are anointed; or, according to Rabanus, (In the text just cited.) so that no trace of the hidden enemy may remain: for what has been softened can more easily be washed away from internal filth. The second anointing is done after the baptism with chrism on the head, so that cleansing from sins is signified, just as by washing with water. In this way, the grace to act well in the mind may be signified by the anointing with chrism on the head, as the odor of good example is diffused to others. The third is done in confirmation, about which we will speak below, in Distinction 7, Question 3, Article 3, Subquestion 2.

Reply Obj. 5: That anointing with chrism is not the sacrament of confirmation, but it is given only as a sign, just like the white garment and the lit candle; so that by the white garment may be signified the newness and purity of life, by the chrism, the odor of good reputation, by the lit candle, truth of teaching. However, the reception of the Eucharist is not listed by Dionysius as a sacramental of baptism, but because the now-baptized person is configured, he is admitted to the sacramental table; and again because every sacrament is consummated by the Eucharist, as Dionysius says. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 3, p. 1 (PG 3:423).)

Article 2

About the rite of catechism

Quaestiuncula 1

Obj. 1: To the second question we proceed thus. (Parallel: ST III, q. 71, a. 1.) It seems that catechism should not precede baptism. For as Augustine says in On Catechizing the Uninstructed: The narration is full when each person is catechized in the first instance from what is written in the text, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,” all the way to the present time of the Church. (Augustine, On Catechizing the Uninstructed (CCSL 46), ch. 3.) But this cannot be done without taking a long time. Therefore, since it is dangerous to defer baptism so much, it seems that catechism should not precede baptism.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, it is said in Matthew 7:6: do not give what is holy to dogs. But holy there is said of sacred doctrine, which is not to be entrusted to the unclean, as Dionysius says. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 1 (PG 3:370).) Since, therefore, the unbaptized are unclean, it seems that the unbaptized should not be catechized.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, baptism is a spiritual regeneration by which something spiritual is given, as Dionysius says. (Ibid., ch. 2 (PG 3:391).) But receiving being comes before receiving teaching. Therefore, baptism should precede catechism.

On the contrary (1), is what is said: teach all nations, baptizing them, etc. (Matt 28:19). Therefore, the teaching of the faith that pertains to catechism must precede baptism.

Furthermore (2), no one approaches baptism worthily who approaches falsely. But someone who does not believe is considered false according to Augustine. Since therefore, faith is from hearing, but hearing is through the word of Christ (Rom 10:17), it seems that someone would have to be instructed through the word of Christ before approaching baptism.

Quaestiuncula 2

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that to catechize is not the duty of a priest. (Parallel: ST III, q. 71, a. 4.) For, according to Dionysius in Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, (Ibid., ch. 5, p. 1, n. 6 (PG 3:507).) deacons are responsible for all the unclean, for they have the purifying power. But to be a catechumen is the first step of one unclean, as he himself says. Therefore, their instruction belongs to the deacons.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, instructing those to be baptized and leading them to baptism seem to belong to the same person. But this is the anadochus, i.e., the godparent, according to Dionysius, and not the priest. Therefore, neither will catechizing be the duty of the priest.

On the contrary, Pope Nicholas says: the catechizing of those to be baptized can be done by the priests of each church. (See Gratian’s Decretals, Part 3, De consecratione, d. 4, ch. 57 (PL 187:1818).) Therefore, it seems to be the duty of priests.

Quaestiuncula 3

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that children should not be catechized. (Parallel: ST III, q. 71, a. 1, ad 2.) For instruction is given in vain to anyone who is not able to learn. But a child is not able to learn, for he does not have the use of his free will. Therefore, instruction should not be applied to him.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, the confession of the faith and the profession of the Christian religion are required in catechism, as is clear from Dionysius. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 2, p. 2, nn. 5–6 (PG 3:394–95).) But this is something a child cannot do by himself, nor can anyone do it for him: for no one can be obliged by the vow of another. Therefore, it seems that children should not be catechized.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, if a godparent professes the faith on behalf of a child, it seems therefore that that godparent is obliged to instruct the child in those things that belong to the Christian faith; and so it seems that it would be extremely dangerous to lift a child from the baptismal font, since rarely does anyone take care of the instruction of a child.

On the contrary (1), the rite of baptism must be observed in all matters the same, so that the unity of baptism may be shown. If therefore, adults are catechized, then children should be catechized likewise.

Furthermore (2), this is the general custom of the Church.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

To the first question, I answer that just as in other sciences and teachings, certain things are common, so that not knowing them means not knowing this art. But others are proper, which can be unknown without ignorance of that teaching. So also in the teaching of the faith certain things are said that are the common rudiments of the faith, which all men are bound to believe explicitly, such as the faith in the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Passion, divine judgment, and the providence of God about the deeds of men; and this kind of instruction is called catechism: but about the other things one should be instructed after baptism over time.

Reply Obj. 1: It is not necessary that every thing that is contained in the whole Bible be taught individually, but just a certain summary, so that one sees just how in every state of the world God had care of men.

Reply Obj. 2: The Lord speaks of those uncleansed who oppose the faith, not of those who want to embrace the faith; hence he continues, lest they turn and maul you (Matt 7:6).

Reply Obj. 3: Natural generation does not presuppose any understanding, and so no instruction can precede it; but spiritual regeneration presupposes the life of nature, and thus some instruction can precede it.

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

To the second question, I answer that there are three kinds of instruction in the faith. First, admonitory instruction, by which someone is converted to the faith, and this is properly for priests, to whom it belongs to preach and teach; hence Dionysius also attributes this instruction to the bishop. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 5, p. 1, nn. 6–7 (PG 3:506).) Another is disciplinal instruction, by which someone is instructed how he should approach baptism and what he should believe; this belongs to the office of deacon, and consequently to the priest, for whatever belongs to a deacon also belongs to a priest. Third, the instruction that follows baptism, and this pertains to the anadochus, and to the prelates of the Church. For the prelates of the Church have a sort of general teaching which is adapted by the office of anadochus to this or that in particular according as it suits him.

Reply Obj. 1: In the early Church, when adults came to baptism who needed a lot of instruction, this was accomplished by the deacons, since priests were occupied by bigger things; and hence Dionysius attributes it to deacons.

Reply Obj. 2: An anadochus does not instruct someone in the faith before baptism, but he receives him once he has converted and provides him with instruction.

Reply Obj. 3: Whatever a deacon can do, priests can also do; hence the fact that a priest can catechize does not do away with the fact that to catechize is the office of a deacon.

Response to Quaestiuncula 3

To the third question, I answer that catechism is like a certain disposition to baptism. Now, dispositions should be proportioned to whatever they dispose toward; hence in adults, in whom personal faith and willing are required for baptism, it is also required that each one be catechized himself, and confess for himself, and profess the Christian religion. However, in a child whose baptism works only by the faith of the Church and the merit of Christ, instruction happens by means of someone else; hence the same things in which he is to be instructed are proposed to the anadochus standing by, to whom he is entrusted to be instructed in these things; and he makes the confession and profession in place of the child.

Reply Obj. 1: Although the child is not actually able to learn at that time, nevertheless, he has the root ability in his power of reason, which he has by nature, and in the habit of faith which he receives in baptism.

Reply Obj. 2: Although a child may not be able to confess by himself, or to profess, nevertheless another may supply it in his stead, not indeed confessing his own personal faith but the faith of the child, both according to what currently exists, so that the sense of it is: I believe, that is, I am ready to receive the sacrament of faith, speaking in the person of the child, as Augustine explains; (In the text of Lombard for this distinction; cf. Epistola 98 ad Bonifacium, n. 9 (CSEL 34.2:531).) and according to what will be, so that the sense becomes, I believe, that is, when I reach maturity, I will consent to the faith, as Dionysius explains; (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 7, n. 11 (PG 3:566).) and this indeed can be confessed from the intention of having concern for him, so that in another way the sense could be, I believe, that is, I will work toward his believing; and in this the child himself is obligated, as well as the anadochus: for concerning those things that all are bound to, it is not unfitting if one person obliges another; however, it is different with the counsels, to which not all are bound.

Reply Obj. 3: Here there is no great danger in modern times, for the child’s parents are Christians, and it can be expected with enough probability that they will nourish him in the faith, and also that he will learn more of the faith from the others with whom he lives. However, it was different in the early Church where a child would be living with unbelievers; and thus more care had to be taken by the anadochus or godparent. And it would be likewise even now if the child’s parents were suspected of unbelief, or if the child were perhaps going to be living among unbelievers.

Article 3

About the rite of exorcism

Quaestiuncula 1

Obj. 1: To the third question we proceed thus. (Parallels: below, qa. 2, ad 4; ST III, q. 71, a. 2.) It seems that exorcism should not precede baptism in the same person. For exorcisms were established against possession. But not everyone who approaches baptism is possessed. Therefore, not everyone should be exorcised.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, a cause should be cured before an effect may be cured. But sin is the cause of the devil having power in certain people. Therefore, if exorcisms are to expel the power of the devil, it seems that someone should first be cleansed from sin by baptism before being cleansed from the power of the devil by exorcism.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, it is superfluous to apply different remedies to the same thing. But holy water suffices for protecting from the power of the Devil. Therefore, there do not need to be other exorcisms for this.

On the contrary (1), Pope Celestine says: whether little ones or the youth come to the sacrament of regeneration, they may not go to the font of life before the unclean spirit is driven out of them by the priests’ exorcism and blowing upon them. (See Gratian’s Decretals, Part 3, De consecratione, d. 4, ch. 53 (PL 187:1818).)

Furthermore (2), other things that are sanctified are first exorcised, as is seen in the case of holy water and in the salt that is inserted. Therefore, since in baptism a man is consecrated, it seems that first he should be exorcised.

Quaestiuncula 2

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that the exorcism does not have any effect, but it is only for the sake of signifying. (Parallel: ST III, q. 71, a. 3.) For nothing more is required for a sacrament of the New Law but that it signifies and effects what it signifies. If therefore those things that are in the exorcism do not just signify but also effect, then they are themselves sacraments, and not sacramentals.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, just as exorcism precedes baptism, so also certain other sacramentals follow it, as was said before. But those things that follow are only for the sake of signifying. Therefore, so also is exorcism.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, if some child should die after the exorcism but before baptism, it is clear that this would not free him from the demon. Therefore, at least in his soul, exorcism would have had no effect.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, as Cyprian said: you should know that the wickedness of the devil can remain until the saving water; but in baptism the wickedness drops away. (Cf. Cyprian, Epistle 69 (CCSL 3), ch. 15: “Quod si aliquis in illo mouetur quod quidam de his qui aegri baptizantur spiritibus adhuc inmundis temptabantur, sciat diaboli nequitiam pertinacem usque ad aquam salutarem ualere, in baptismo uero omne nequitiae suae uirus amittere.”) But when an exorcism is omitted because of an emergency, sometimes if the danger has passed, it is done also after baptism. Therefore, it does not free from the power of the demon, and it seems to have no other effect.

On the contrary (1), Gregory says on Ezekiel: when the priest by the grace of exorcism places his hands on the believers, and speaks against the malignant spirits living in their minds, what else does he do but cast out demons? (Gregory, Homilies on the Gospels, Bk. 2, Homily 29, n. 4 (CCSL 141:248).) Therefore, it does have some effect.

Furthermore (2), the exorcisms of Solomon had a certain effect in driving back demons. (Thomas refers to King Solomon as an exorcist in one other place, namely, De Potentia, q. 6, a. 10, obj. 3 and ad 3. Given that Aquinas apparently knew Josephus (see, e.g., ST I-II, q. 102, a. 4), the probable source of his information on Solomon is Josephus’s Antiquities of the Jews, Bk. 8, ch. 2, n. 5.) Therefore, much stronger are the exorcisms of the Church.

Quaestiuncula 3

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that to exorcise is the office of those who are established in sacred orders. (Parallel: ST III, q. 71, a. 4.) For to work among the unclean, according to Dionysius, pertains to the deacon. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 5, n. 6 (PG 3:507).) But the possessed hold a place among the unclean, according to Dionysius. Since therefore exorcising is to them as catechizing is to catechumens, it seems that it belongs to those who are in sacred orders.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, catechism precedes exorcism. But among operative arts it is such that the more important operation of an art comes later, as is clear from the art of cutting wood and the art of ship-building. Since therefore catechism is done by deacons or priests, it seems that exorcism could not be done by those who are in minor orders.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, this is the custom of the Church, since exorcising is done by priests alone, which is also clear from the authority of Gregory cited.

On the contrary, the Master says below, Distinction 24, that it pertains to exorcists to hold exorcisms by memory, and to place their hands on the possessed. Therefore, since “exorcist” is not a sacred order, it seems that someone who is established in minor orders could exorcise by his office.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

To the first question, I answer that because of man’s sin the devil received power over man, and over all things that come under man’s use, for harming him. And since there is no agreement between Christ and Belial (cf. 2 Cor 6:15), for this reason whenever something is to be sanctified for divine worship, it is first exorcised, so that freed from the devil’s power, by which he could use it to harm man, it may be consecrated to God; and this is evident in the blessing of water, in the consecration of a temple, and in everything like this. Hence since the first sanctification by which man is consecrated to God is in baptism, it is fitting that a man is also exorcised before he is baptized, for a much greater reason than with other things: because in a man himself is the cause by which the devil received power over man and the other things that are for man’s sake (namely, original and actual sin). And this is what the things said in an exorcism signify, as when it is said: depart from him, Satan, and other things like that. And similarly, what is done then: because the blowing symbolizes the expulsion of the demon; moreover, the blessing with the imposition of hands blocks the way for the one who has been cast out, so that he cannot return; while the salt placed in the mouth and the anointing of the nostrils and ears with saliva represents the removal of impediments from that demon with respect to teaching or learning the faith, as was said; but the anointing with oil represents man’s charging into the fight that he has undertaken against the devil, from whose power he has been released.

Reply Obj. 1: Possessed people are said to be laboring inwardly, from the Greek word, energumens, which means labor inside. And although not all those to be baptized are possessed, nor are they laboring inwardly in the sense of being physically plagued by the devil, nevertheless they labor or suffer inwardly from the infection of sin’s tinderwood because of the devil having power over them.

Reply Obj. 2: When the effect strengthens the cause, then one should first work to cure the effect, so that in that way one may proceed more expeditiously to the cure of the cause. But the power of a demon, which results from sin, both holds and keeps man in malice and sin, and thus, first the power of the demon must be eradicated or diminished, which is done in an exorcism, lest it should impede the curing of the cause, i.e., sin, accomplished in baptism.

Reply Obj. 3: The devil attacks us both from inside and from without. Therefore, holy water is ordered against the devil’s attacks that come from outside, but exorcism against the attacks that come from inside. Hence those to whom exorcism is applied are called energumens, that is, laboring inwardly.

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

To the second question, it should be said that concerning this there are two opinions. For some people say that the things that are done in an exorcism are only signs of those things that are fulfilled afterward in baptism, in which the power of the demon is completely driven out, as Cyprian says in the text cited. But this is contrary the text of Gregory cited, and contrary to the things that are said in exorcising, which would be said in vain unless they had a certain effect, particularly since they are said in the mode of command and not only in the mode of prayer, by the fact that it is said: therefore, cursed devil, go out from him, etc. And thus it should be said, following others, that these words do not only represent but also effect something, not only in the body but also in the soul, since the infection of the fomes is in both. However, that effect is a weakening of the power of the devil, only so that he cannot be in a man as before, lest he impede the baptism and other goods in him. But the power mentioned is completely removed in baptism, just as also Pharaoh was first afflicted with scourges when the Jewish people had not yet left Egypt, and afterward he was completely drowned in the Red Sea, which is a figure of baptism.

Reply Obj. 1: Sacraments of the New Law have an effect by conferring the grace by which one is perfectly rescued from the disease that the sacrament is ordered against, but sacramentals have their effect by removing contrary dispositions, or impediments to grace; and thus they are multiplied according to the different impediments, nor is grace conferred in them.

Reply Obj. 2: The sacramentals that follow a sacrament are not the same as the ones that precede it: for once baptism has its full effect, the things impeding baptism do not need to be taken away, since it can no longer be impeded; nevertheless, this does not take away the fact that chrism oil on the crown of the head after baptism has some effect in conferring or preserving grace.

Reply Obj. 3: Praepositinus said that someone who dies after being exorcised but before baptism will suffer less darkness. But this amounts to nothing: for that darkness consists only of the absence of the divine vision, since they do not have any sensory punishment; and this darkness will exist equally for all. And thus it should be said rather that it will not have an effect in conferring grace, but only in weakening the power of the demon; and so this benefits someone only in life.

Reply Obj. 4: So that uniformity may be observed in baptism, if the exorcism has been left out, it may be supplied after the baptism; and then it only signifies, or perhaps it adds a certain inhibition against attacks from the devil. Nor is this unfitting, since some power of the devil is also repressed by the holy water that is sprinkled after baptism.

Response to Quaestiuncula 3

To the third question, it should be said that exorcising pertains to exorcists by their proper office of order; but nevertheless it is also of superior orders. But for the sake of showing the unity of baptism, it is customary in the Church that all that pertains to baptism be fulfilled by one person, namely, by the priest; and particularly now, when a great number of people are not coming to be baptized at the same time, and there are many priests. But in the early Church sometimes a great crowd came to be baptized at once, and there were few priests; hence sacramentals like this were left to those in minor orders.

Reply Obj. 1: Under the term ‘ministers’, Dionysius includes all the lower orders; and thus to the ministers who are called deacons, he attributed everything that belongs to the lower orders: for perhaps in the early Church those orders did not yet exist as distinct, because of the scarcity of ministers.

Reply Obj. 2: Just as the exorcism pertains to the exorcist in the first place, so also the first order, which whose act is catechizing, is the order of lectors, although afterward this may be completed by higher orders; and thus just as catechism precedes exorcism, so does the order of lector precede the order of exorcist.

Reply Obj. 3: Complete power in exorcising belongs to the priest; and thus when there is no great necessity, he performs the act of exorcism according to the custom of the Church; and this custom is what the authority of Gregory speaks about.

Exposition of the Text

It is also to be known, that “although there is a triple immersion for the mystery of the Trinity, yet it is held to be one baptism.” (Sent IV, 6.2 (37). 6 citing Jerome, In quatuor epistolas Paulinas, Eph. 4,5.) The threefold immersion was discussed above, in Distinction 3.

“If in the child the use of reason is accelerated.” (Sent. IV, 6.2 (38), 2, citing Augustine, Epistola 187, ch. 7, n. 24.) Since Augustine speaks about this ambiguously, people have understood it in various ways. For some people have said that John’s exultation was not any bodily movement, but a miraculous kind of rejoicing, so that the arrival of the mother of the Savior would be made known to his mother. But others say differently, and better, that he was given the use of reason at that moment; nor is it unfitting if afterward it was taken away, just as also someone is taken up to heaven by a grace given for a moment; but it is different with sanctifying grace, which is not taken away without blame.

“If the one who baptized did not introduce any error,” (Sent IV, 6.4 (39). 1 citing Pope Zacharias, Epistola 7.) etc. Since if someone wanted to lead into error, intending to change the Church’s form, he would by this very fact not intend to do what the Church does; and thus he would not baptize. But corruption of the form has been discussed above, at Distinction 3.

“I would think that we ought to pray imploringly for the declaration of God’s judgment through the miracle of some revelation.” (Sent. IV, 6.5 (40), 1, Augustine, De baptismo contra Donatistas, Bk. 7, ch. 53, n. 102.) It seems that Augustine speaks poorly: for divine judgment is not required in this way, except in matters of doubt. But it seems certain that if someone did this in jest, the intention was lacking, and there was no valid baptism. And it should be said that joking sometimes excludes the intention, and sometimes does not. For when things are said to be done in jest that are done only for pleasure, without the intention of a certain benefit, the joke of the ones baptizing in jest can exclude the intention with respect to both effects of the pouring, namely, the conferral of the sacrament and of the reality behind the sacrament; and then a person does not intend to do what the Church does in conferring a sacrament; and so this kind of joke removes the intention that is required for the sacrament. Or it can exclude only the second benefit, namely, so that someone wants to make his joke out of conferring the sacrament of baptism, not doing it for the sake of the sanctification of the one to be baptized, and then an intention remains that suffices for baptism. And thus, on account of this doubt Augustine said to pray imploringly for the declaration of divine judgment; (See Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Bk. 7, ch. 53 (CSEL 51:374).) and thus it is said that as a child, Athanasius while playing pretended to be a bishop and baptized certain people, and it was judged by Bishop Alexander that they were not to be rebaptized: for it was found that he had the intention of baptizing; which is also clear from the fact that he only baptized catechumens. (The story is recounted thus by the Orthodox Church of America: “A group of children, which included Athanasius, were playing at the seashore. The Christian children decided to baptize their pagan playmates. The young Athanasius, whom the children designated as ‘bishop,’ performed the Baptism, precisely repeating the words he heard in church during this sacrament. Patriarch Alexander observed all this from a window. He then commanded that the children and their parents be brought to him. He conversed with them for a long while, and determined that the Baptism performed by the children was done according to the Church order. He acknowledged the Baptism as real and sealed it with the sacrament of Chrismation. From this moment, the Patriarch looked after the spiritual upbringing of Athanasius and in time brought him into the clergy, at first as a reader, and then he ordained him as a deacon.” From http://oca.org/saints/lives/2014/05/02/101269-st-athanasius-the-great-the-patriarch-of-alexandria, accessed January 9, 2015.)

Exorcism follows catechism, etc. (Sent. IV, 6.7 (42), 1.) It seems that an exorcism should precede catechism, since evil must be removed before someone can be perfected in good. And it should be said that this is true if both things are in the same genus. But catechism is ordered to the good not by effecting anything but only by instructing, while exorcism removes evil in its working; and instruction in such things should precede operation so that a man might know what should be done in it.