www.newadvent.org Open in urlscan Pro
2400:52e0:1e00::1079:1  Public Scan

Form analysis
1 forms found in the DOM

../utility/search.htm

<form id="searchbox_000299817191393086628:ifmbhlr-8x0" action="../utility/search.htm">
  <!-- Hidden Inputs -->
  <input type="hidden" name="safe" value="active">
  <input type="hidden" name="cx" value="000299817191393086628:ifmbhlr-8x0">
  <input type="hidden" name="cof" value="FORID:9">
  <!-- Search Box -->
  <label for="searchQuery" id="searchQueryLabel">Search:</label>
  <input id="searchQuery" name="q" type="text" size="25" aria-labelledby="searchQueryLabel">
  <!-- Submit Button -->
  <label for="submitButton" id="submitButtonLabel" class="visually-hidden">Submit Search</label>
  <input id="submitButton" type="submit" name="sa" value="Search" aria-labelledby="submitButtonLabel">
</form>

Text Content

 

Search: Submit Search



 Home   Encyclopedia   Summa   Fathers   Bible   Library 

 A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z 


Home > Catholic Encyclopedia > B > Baptism


BAPTISM

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this
website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church
Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

One of the Seven Sacraments of the Christian Church; frequently called the
"first sacrament", the "door of the sacraments", and the "door of the Church".
The subject will be treated under the following headings:

 * Authoritative statement of doctrine
 * Etymology
 * Definition
 * Types
 * Institution of the sacrament
 * Matter and form of the sacrament
 * Conditional baptism
 * Rebaptism
 * Necessity of baptism
 * Substitutes for the sacrament
 * Unbaptized infants
 * Effects of baptism
 * Minister of the sacrament
 * Recipient of baptism
 * Adjuncts of baptism
 * Ceremonies of baptism
 * Metaphorical baptism




AUTHORITATIVE STATEMENT OF DOCTRINE

At the outset we think it advisable to give two documents which express clearly
the mind of the Church on the subject of baptism. They are valuable, also, as
containing a summary of the main points to be considered in the treatment of
this important matter. Baptism is defined positively in the one and negatively
in the other.


THE POSITIVE DOCUMENT: "THE DECREE FOR THE ARMENIANS"

"The Decree for the Armenians", in the Bull "Exultate Deo" of Pope Eugene IV, is
often referred to as a decree of the Council of Florence. While it is not
necessary to hold this decree to be a dogmatic definition of the matter and form
and minister of the sacraments, it is undoubtedly a practical instruction,
emanating from the Holy See, and as such, has full authenticity in a canonical
sense. That is, it is authoritative. The decree speaks thus of Baptism:

> Holy Baptism holds the first place among the sacraments, because it is the
> door of the spiritual life; for by it we are made members of Christ and
> incorporated with the Church. And since through the first man death entered
> into all, unless we be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, we can not
> enter into the kingdom of Heaven, as Truth Himself has told us. The matter of
> this sacrament is true and natural water; and it is indifferent whether it be
> cold or hot. The form is: I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the
> Son and of the Holy Ghost. We do not, however, deny that the words: Let this
> servant of Christ be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of
> the Holy Ghost; or: This person is baptized by my hands in the name of the
> Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, constitute true baptism; because
> since the principal cause from which baptism has its efficacy is the Holy
> Trinity, and the instrumental cause is the minister who confers the sacrament
> exteriorly, then if the act exercised by the minister be expressed, together
> with the invocation of the Holy Trinity, the sacrament is perfected. The
> minister of this sacrament is the priest, to whom it belongs to baptize, by
> reason of his office. In case of necessity, however, not only a priest or
> deacon, but even a layman or woman, nay, even a pagan or heretic can baptize,
> provided he observes the form used by the Church, and intends to perform what
> the Church performs. The effect of this sacrament is the remission of all sin,
> original and actual; likewise of all punishment which is due for sin. As a
> consequence, no satisfaction for past sins is enjoined upon those who are
> baptized; and if they die before they commit any sin, they attain immediately
> to the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God.


THE NEGATIVE DOCUMENT: "DE BAPTISMO"

The negative document we call the canons on baptism decreed by the Council of
Trent (Sess. VII, De Baptismo), in which the following doctrines are
anathematized (declared heretical):

 * The baptism of John (the Precursor) had the same efficacy as the baptism of
   Christ,
 * True and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and therefore the words
   of Our Lord Jesus Christ "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy
   Ghost" are metaphorical.
 * The true doctrine of the sacrament of baptism is not taught by the Roman
   Church,
 * Baptism given by heretics in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
   Holy Ghost with the intention of performing what the Church performs, is not
   true baptism,
 * Baptism is free, that is, not necessary for salvation.
 * A baptized person, even if he wishes it, can not lose grace, no matter how
   much he sins, unless he refuses to believe.
 * Those who are baptized are obliged only to have faith, but not to observe the
   whole law of Christ.
 * Baptized persons are not obliged to observe all the precepts of the Church,
   written and traditional, unless of their own accord they wish to submit to
   them.
 * All vows made after baptism are void by reason of the promises made in
   baptism itself; because by these vows injury is done to the faith which has
   been professed in baptism and to the sacrament itself.
 * All sins committed after baptism are either forgiven or rendered venial by
   the sole remembrance and faith of the baptism that has been received.
 * Baptism although truly and properly administered, must be repeated in the
   case of a person who has denied the faith of Christ before infidels and has
   been brought again to repentance.
 * No one is to be baptized except at the age at which Christ was baptized or at
   the moment of death.
 * Infants, not being able to make an act of faith, are not to be reckoned among
   the faithful after their baptism, and therefore when they come to the age of
   discretion they are to be rebaptized; or it is better to omit their baptism
   entirely than to baptize them as believing on the sole faith of the Church,
   when they themselves can not make a proper act of faith.
 * Those baptized as infants are to be asked when they have grown up, whether
   they wish to ratify what their sponsors had promised for them at their
   baptism, and if they reply that they do not wish to do so, they are to be
   left to their own will in the matter and not to be forced by penalties to
   lead a Christian life, except to be deprived of the reception of the
   Eucharist and of the other sacraments, until they reform.



The doctrines here condemned by the Council of Trent, are those of various
leaders among the early reformers. The contradictory of all these statements is
to be held as the dogmatic teaching of the Church.


ETYMOLOGY

The word Baptism is derived from the Greek word, bapto, or baptizo, to wash or
to immerse. It signifies, therefore, that washing is of the essential idea of
the sacrament. Scripture uses the term baptize both literally and figuratively.
It is employed in a metaphorical sense in Acts 1:5, where the abundance of the
grace of the Holy Ghost is signified, and also in Luke 12:50, where the term is
referred to the sufferings of Christ in His Passion. Otherwise in the New
Testament, the root word from which baptism is derived is used to designate the
laving with water, and it is employed, when speaking of Jewish lustrations, and
of the baptism of John, as well as of the Christian Sacrament of Baptism (cf.
Hebrews 6:2; Mark 7:4). In ecclesiastical usage, however, when the terms
Baptize, Baptism are employed without a qualifying word, they are intended to
signify the sacramental washing by which the soul is cleansed from sin at the
same time that water is poured upon the body. Many other terms have been used as
descriptive synonyms for baptism both in the Bible and Christian antiquity, as
the washing of regeneration, illumination, the seal of God, the water of eternal
life, the sacrament of the Trinity, and so on. In English, the term christen is
familiarly used for baptize. As, however, the former word signifies only the
effect of baptism, that is, to make one a Christian, but not the manner and the
act, moralists hold that "I christen" could probably not be substituted validly
for "I baptize" in conferring the sacrament.


DEFINITION

The Roman Catechism (Ad parochos, De bapt., 2, 2, 5) defines baptism thus:
Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration by water in the word (per aquam in
verbo). St. Thomas Aquinas (III:66:1) gives this definition: "Baptism is the
external ablution of the body, performed with the prescribed form of words."

Later theologians generally distinguish formally between the physical and the
metaphysical defining of this sacrament. By the former they understand the
formula expressing the action of ablution and the utterance of the invocation of
the Trinity; by the latter, the definition: "Sacrament of regeneration" or that
institution of Christ by which we are reborn to spiritual life.

The term "regeneration" distinguishes baptism from every other sacrament, for
although penance revivifies men spiritually, yet this is rather a resuscitation,
a bringing back from the dead, than a rebirth. Penance does not make us
Christians; on the contrary, it presupposes that we have already been born of
water and the Holy Ghost to the life of grace, while baptism on the other hand
was instituted to confer upon men the very beginnings of the spiritual life, to
transfer them from the state of enemies of God to the state of adoption, as sons
of God.

The definition of the Roman Catechism combines the physical and metaphysical
definitions of baptism. "The sacrament of regeneration" is the metaphysical
essence of the sacrament, while the physical essence is expressed by the second
part of the definition, i.e. the washing with water (matter), accompanied by the
invocation of the Holy Trinity (form). Baptism is, therefore, the sacrament by
which we are born again of water and the Holy Ghost, that is, by which we
receive in a new and spiritual life, the dignity of adoption as sons of God and
heirs of God's kingdom.


TYPES

Having considered the Christian meaning of the term "baptism", we now turn our
attention to the various rites which were its forerunners before the New
Dispensation.

Types of this sacrament are to be found among the Jews and Gentiles. Its place
in the sacramental system of the Old Law was taken by circumcision, which is
called by some of the Fathers "the washing of blood" to distinguish it from "the
washing of water". By the rite of circumcision, the recipient was incorporated
into the people of God and made a partaker in the Messianic promises; a name was
bestowed upon him and he was reckoned among the children of Abraham, the father
of all believers.

Other forerunners of baptism were the numerous purifications prescribed in the
Mosaic dispensation for legal uncleannesses. The symbolism of an outward washing
to cleanse an invisible blemish was made very familiar to the Jews by their
sacred ceremonies. But in addition to these more direct types, both the New
Testament writers and the Fathers of the Church find many mysterious
foreshadowings of baptism. Thus St. Paul (1 Corinthians 10) adduces the passage
of Israel through the Red Sea, and St. Peter (1 Peter 3) the Deluge, as types of
the purification to be found in Christian baptism. Other foreshadowings of the
sacrament are found by the Fathers in the bathing of Naaman in the Jordan, in
the brooding of the Spirit of God over the waters, in the rivers of Paradise, in
the blood of the Paschal Lamb, during Old Testament times, and in the pool of
Bethsaida, and in the healing of the dumb and blind in the New Testament.

How natural and expressive the symbolism of exterior washing to indicate
interior purification was recognized to be, is plain from the practice also of
the heathen systems of religion. The use of lustral water is found among the
Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Hindus, and others. A closer
resemblance to Christian baptism is found in a form of Jewish baptism, to be
bestowed on proselytes, given in the Babylonian Talmud (Döllinger, First Age of
the Church).

But above all must be considered the baptism of St. John the Precursor. John
baptized with water (Mark 1) and it was a baptism of penance for the remission
of sins (Luke 3). While, then, the symbolism of the sacrament instituted by
Christ was not new, the efficacy which He joined to the rite is that which
differentiates it from all its types. John's baptism did not produce grace, as
he himself testifies (Matthew 3) when he declares that he is not the Messias
whose baptism is to confer the Holy Ghost. Moreover, it was not John's baptism
that remitted sin, but the penance that accompanied it; and hence St. Augustine
calls it (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Book V) "a remission of sins in
hope". As to the nature of the Precursor's baptism, St. Thomas (III.38.1)
declares: The baptism of John was not a sacrament of itself, but a certain
sacramental as it were, preparing the way (disponens) for the baptism of
Christ." Durandus calls it a sacrament, indeed, but of the Old Law, and St.
Bonaventure places it as a medium between the Old and New Dispensations. It is
of Catholic faith that the Precursor's baptism was essentially different in its
effects from the baptism of Christ, It is also to be noted that those who had
previously received John's baptism had to receive later the Christian baptism
(Acts 19).


INSTITUTION OF THE SACRAMENT

That Christ instituted the Sacrament of Baptism is unquestionable. Rationalists,
like Harnack (Dogmengeschichte, I, 68), dispute it, only by arbitrarily ruling
out the texts which prove it. Christ not only commands His Disciples (Matthew
28:19) to baptize and gives them the form to be used, but He also declares
explicitly the absolute necessity of baptism (John 3): "Unless a man be born
again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the Kingdom of God."
Moreover, from the general doctrine of the Church on the sacraments, we know
that the efficacy attached to them is derivable only from the institution of the
Redeemer.

When, however, we come to the question as to when precisely Christ instituted
baptism, we find that ecclesiastical writers are not agreed. The Scriptures
themselves are silent upon the subject. Various occasions have been pointed out
as the probable time of institution, as when Christ was Himself baptized in the
Jordan, when He declared the necessity of the rebirth to Nicodemus, when He sent
His Apostles and Disciples to preach and baptize.



The first opinion was quite a favorite with many of the Fathers and Schoolmen,
and they are fond of referring to the sanctification of the baptismal water by
contact with the flesh of the God-man. Others, as St. Jerome and St. Maximus,
appear to assume that Christ baptized John on this occasion and thus instituted
the sacrament. There is nothing, however, in the Gospels to indicate that Christ
baptized the Precursor at the time of His own baptism. As to the opinion that it
was in the colloquy with Nicodemus that the sacrament was instituted, it is not
surprising that it has found few adherents. Christ's words indeed declare the
necessity of such an institution, but no more. It seems also very unlikely that
Christ would have instituted the sacrament in a secret conference with one who
was not to be a herald of its institution.

The more probable opinion seems to be that baptism, as a sacrament, had its
origin when Christ commissioned His Apostles to baptize, as narrated in John 3
and 4. There is nothing directly in the text as to the institution, but as the
Disciples acted evidently under the instruction of Christ, He must have taught
them at the very outset the matter and form of the sacrament which they were to
dispense. It is true that St. John Chrysostom (Homily 28 on the Gospel of John),
Theophylactus (in cap. iii, Joan.), and Tertullian (On Baptism, Chapter 2)
declare that the baptism given by the Disciples of Christ as narrated in these
chapters of St. John was a baptism of water only and not of the Holy Ghost; but
their reason is that the Holy Ghost was not given until after the Resurrection.
As theologians have pointed out, this is a confusion between the visible and the
invisible manifestation of the Holy Spirit. The authority of St. Leo (Epistle
16) is also invoked for the same opinion, inasmuch as he seems to hold that
Christ instituted the sacrament when, after His rising from the dead, He gave
the command (Matthew 28): "Go and teach . . . baptizing"; but St. Leo's words
can easily be explained otherwise, and in another part of the same epistle he
refers to the sanction of regeneration given by Christ when the water of baptism
flowed from His side on the Cross; consequently, before the Resurrection. All
authorities agree that Matthew 28, contains the solemn promulgation of this
sacrament, and St. Leo does not seem to intend more than this. We need not delay
on the arguments of those who declare baptism to have been necessarily
established after Christ's death, because the efficacy of the sacraments is
derived from His Passion. This would prove also that the Holy Eucharist was not
instituted before His death, which is untenable. As to the frequent statement of
the Fathers that the sacraments flowed from the side of Christ upon the Cross,
it is enough to say that beyond the symbolism found therein, their words can be
explained as referring to the death of Christ, as the meritorious cause or
perfection of the sacraments, but not necessarily as their time of institution.

All things considered, we can safely state, therefore, that Christ most probably
instituted baptism before His Passion. For in the first place, as is evident
from John 3 and 4, Christ certainly conferred baptism, at least by the hands of
His Disciples, before His Passion. That this was an essentially different rite
from John the Precursor's baptism seems plain, because the baptism of Christ is
always preferred to that of John, and the latter himself states the reason: "I
baptize with water . . . [Christ] baptizeth with the Holy Ghost" (John 1). In
the baptism given by the Disciples as narrated in these chapters we seem to have
all the requisites of a sacrament of the New Law:

 * the external rite,
 * the institution of Christ, for they baptized by His command and mission, and
 * the conferring of grace, for they bestowed the Holy Ghost (John 1).

In the second place, the Apostles received other sacraments from Christ, before
His Passion, as the Holy Eucharist at the Last Supper, and Holy orders (Council
of Trent, Sess. XXVI, c. i). Now as baptism has always been held as the door of
the Church and the necessary condition for the reception of any other sacrament,
it follows that the Apostles must have received Christian baptism before the
Last Supper. This argument is used by St. Augustine (Epistle 44) and certainly
seems valid. To suppose that the first pastors of the Church received the other
sacraments by dispensation, before they had received baptism, is an opinion with
no foundation in Scripture or Tradition and devoid of verisimilitude. The
Scriptures nowhere state that Christ Himself conferred baptism, but an ancient
tradition (Nicephorus, Hist. eccl, II, iii; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata,
Book III) declares that He baptized the Apostle Peter only, and that the latter
baptized Andrew, James, and John, and they the other Apostles.


MATTER AND FORM OF THE SACRAMENT


MATTER

In all sacraments we treat of the matter and the form. It is also usual to
distinguish the remote matter and the proximate matter. In the case of baptism,
the remote matter is natural and true water. We shall consider this aspect of
the question first.

(a) Remote matter

It is of faith (de fide) that true and natural water is the remote matter of
baptism. In addition to the authorities already cited, we may also mention the
Fourth Council of the Lateran (c. i).

Some of the early Fathers, as Tertullian (On Baptism 1) and St. Augustine (Adv.
Hær., xlvi and lix) enumerate heretics who rejected water entirely as a
constituent of baptism. Such were the Gaians, Manichians, Seleucians, and
Hermians. In the Middle Ages, the Waldensians are said to have held the same
tenet (Ewald, Contra Walden., vi). Some of the sixteenth century reformers,
while accepting water as the ordinary matter of this sacrament, declared that
when water could not be had, any liquid could be used in its place. So Luther
(Tischr., xvii) and Beza (Ep., ii, ad Till.). It was in consequence of this
teaching that certain of the Tridentine canons were framed. Calvin held that the
water used in baptism was simply symbolic of the Blood of Christ (Instit., IV,
xv).

As a rule, however, those sects which believe in baptism at the present time,
recognize water as the necessary matter of the sacrament.

Scripture is so positive in its statements as to the use of true and natural
water for baptism that it is difficult to see why it should ever be called in
question. Not only have we the explicit words of Christ (John 3:5) "Unless a man
be born again of water", etc., but also in the Acts of the Apostles and the
Epistles of St. Paul there are passages that preclude any metaphorical
interpretation. Thus (Acts 10:47) St. Peter says "Can any man forbid water, that
these should not be baptized?" In the eighth chapter of the Acts is narrated the
episode of Philip and the eunuch of Ethiopia, and in verse 36 we read: "They
came to a certain water; and the eunuch said: See, here is water: what doth
hinder me from being baptized?"

Equally positive is the testimony of Christian tradition. Tertullian (On Baptism
1) begins his treatise: "The happy sacrament of our water". Justin Martyr (First
Apology, Chapter 1) describes the ceremony of baptism and declares: Then they
are led by us to where there is water . . . and then they are laved in the
water". St. Augustine positively declares that there is no baptism without water
(Tractate 15 on the Gospel of John).

The remote matter of baptism, then, is water, and this taken in its usual
meaning. Theologians tell us consequently that what men would ordinarily declare
water is valid baptismal material, whether it be water of the sea, or fountain,
or well, or marsh; whether it be clear or turbid; fresh or salty; hot or cold;
colored or uncolored. Water derived from melted ice, snow, or hail is also
valid. If, however, ice, snow, or hail be not melted, they do not come under the
designation water. Dew, sulfur or mineral water, and that which is derived from
steam are also valid matter for this sacrament. As to a mixture of water and
some other material, it is held as proper matter, provided the water certainly
predominates and the mixture would still be called water. Invalid matter is
every liquid that is not usually designated true water. Such are oil, saliva,
wine, tears, milk, sweat, beer, soup, the juice of fruits, and any mixture
containing water which men would no longer call water. When it is doubtful
whether a liquid could really be called water, it is not permissible to use it
for baptism except in case of absolute necessity when no certainly valid matter
can be obtained.

On the other hand, it is never allowable to baptize with an invalid liquid.
There is a response of Pope Gregory IX to the Archbishop of Trondhjem in Norway
where beer (or mead) had been employed for baptism. The pontiff says: "Since
according to the Gospel teaching, a man must be born again of water and the Holy
Ghost, those are not to be considered validly baptized who have been baptized
with beer" (cervisia). It is true that a statement declaring wine to be valid
matter of baptism is attributed to Pope Stephen II, but the document is void of
all authority (Labbe, Conc., VI).

Those who have held that "water" in the Gospel text is to be taken
metaphorically, appeal to the words of the Precursor (Matthew 3), "He shall
baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire". As "fire" must certainly be only a
figure of speech here, so must "water" in the other texts. To this objection, it
may be replied that the Christian Church, or at least the Apostles themselves,
must have understood what was prescribed to be taken literally and what
figuratively. The New Testament and church history prove that they never looked
on fire as a material for baptism, while they certainly did require water.
Outside of the insignificant sects of Seleucians and Hermians, not even heretics
took the word "fire" in this text in its literal meaning. We may remark,
however, that some of the Fathers, as St. John Damascene (Of the Orthodox Faith
IV.9), concede this statement of the Baptist to have a literal fulfillment in
the Pentecostal fiery tongues. They do not refer it, however, literally to
baptism. That water alone is the necessary matter of this sacrament depends of
course on the will of Him Who instituted it, although theologians discover many
reasons why it should have been chosen in preference to other liquids. The most
obvious of these is that water cleanses and purifies more perfectly than the
others, and hence the symbolism is more natural.

(b) Proximate matter

The proximate matter of baptism is the ablution performed with water. The very
word "baptize", as we have seen, means a washing.

Three forms of ablution have prevailed among Christians, and the Church holds
them all to be valid because they fulfill the requisite signification of the
baptismal laving. These forms are immersion, infusion, and aspersion.

The most ancient form usually employed was unquestionably immersion. This is not
only evident from the writings of the Fathers and the early rituals of both the
Latin and Oriental Churches, but it can also be gathered from the Epistles of
St. Paul, who speaks of baptism as a bath (Ephesians 5:26; Romans 6:4; Titus
3:5). In the Latin Church, immersion seems to have prevailed until the twelfth
century. After that time it is found in some places even as late as the
sixteenth century. Infusion and aspersion, however, were growing common in the
thirteenth century and gradually prevailed in the Western Church. The Oriental
Churches have retained immersion, though not always in the sense of plunging the
candidate's entire body below the water. Billuart (De Bapt., I, iii) says that
commonly the catechumen is placed in the font, and then water is poured upon the
head. He cites the authority of Goar for this statement.

Although, as we have said, immersion was the form of baptism that generally
prevailed in the early ages, it must not thereby be inferred that the other
forms of infusion and aspersion were not also employed and held to be valid. In
the case of the sick or dying, immersion was impossible and the sacrament was
then conferred by one of the other forms. This was so well recognized that
infusion or aspersion received the name of the baptism of the sick (baptismus
clinicorum). St. Cyprian (Epistle 75) declares this form to be valid. From the
canons of various early councils we know that candidates for Holy orders who had
been baptized by this method seem to have been regarded as irregular, but this
was on account of the culpable negligence supposed to be manifested in delaying
baptism until sick or dying. That such persons, however, were not to be
rebaptized is an evidence that the Church held their baptism to be valid. It is
also pointed out that the circumstances under which St. Paul (Acts 16) baptized
his jailer and all his household seem to preclude the use of immersion.
Moreover, the acts of the early martyrs frequently refer to baptizing in prisons
where infusion or aspersion was certainly employed.

By the present authorized ritual of the Latin Church, baptism must be performed
by a laving of the head of the candidate. Moralists, however, state that in case
of necessity, the baptism would probably be valid if the water were applied to
any other principal part of the body, as the breast or shoulder. In this case,
however, conditional baptism would have to be administered if the person
survived (St. Alphonsus, no. 107). In like manner they consider as probably
valid the baptism of an infant in its mother's womb, provided the water, by
means of an instrument, would actually flow upon the child. Such baptism is,
however, later to be repeated conditionally, if the child survives its birth
(Lehmkuhl, n. 61).

It is to be noted that it is not sufficient for the water to merely touch the
candidate; it must also flow, otherwise there would seem to be no real ablution.
At best, such a baptism would be considered doubtful. If the water touches only
the hair, the sacrament has probably been validly conferred, though in practice
the safer course must be followed. If only the clothes of the person have
received the aspersion, the baptism is undoubtedly void.

The water to be employed in solemn baptism should also be consecrated for the
purpose, but of this we shall treat in another section of this article. It is
necessary in baptizing to make use of a threefold ablution in conferring this
sacrament, by reason of the prescription of the Roman ritual. This necessarily
refers, however, to the liceity, not to the validity of the ceremony, as St.
Thomas (III.66.8) and other theologians expressly state.

The threefold immersion is unquestionably very ancient in the Church and
apparently of Apostolic origin. It is mentioned by Tertullian (De Corona 3), St.
Basil (On the Holy Spirit 27), St. Jerome (Against the Luciferians 8), and many
other early writers. Its object is, of course, to honor the three Persons of the
Holy Trinity in whose name it is conferred. That this threefold ablution was not
considered necessary to the validity of the sacrament, however, is plain. In the
seventh century the Fourth Council of Toledo (633) approved the use of a single
ablution in baptism, as a protest against the false trinitarian theories of the
Arians, who seem to have given to the threefold immersion a significance which
made it imply three natures in the Holy Trinity. To insist on the unity and
consubstantiality of the three Divine Persons, the Spanish Catholics adopted the
single ablution and this method had the approval of Pope Gregory the Great
(Letters I.43). The Eunomian heretics used only one immersion and their baptism
was held invalid by the First Council of Constantinople (can. vii); but this was
not on account of the single ablution, but apparently because they baptized in
the death of Christ. The authority of this canon is, moreover, doubtful at best.


FORM

The requisite and sole valid form of baptism is: "I baptize thee (or This person
is baptized) in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost."
This was the form given by Christ to His Disciples in the twenty-eighth chapter
of St. Matthew's Gospel, as far, at least, as there is question of the
invocation of the separate Persons of the Trinity and the expression of the
nature of the action performed. For the Latin usage: "I baptize thee", etc., we
have the authority of the Council of Trent (Sess. VII, can. iv) and of the
Council of Florence in the Decree of Union. In addition we have the constant
practice of the whole Western Church. The Latins also recognize as valid the
form used by the Greeks: "This servant of Christ is baptized", etc. The
Florentine decree acknowledges the validity of this form and it is moreover
recognized by the Bull of Leo X, "Accepimus nuper", and of Clement VII,
"Provisionis nostrae." Substantially, the Latin and Greek forms are the same,
and the Latin Church has never rebaptized Orientals on their return to unity.

At one time some Western theologians disputed the Greek form, because they
doubted the validity of the imperative or deprecatory formula: "Let this person
be baptized" (baptizetur). As a matter of fact, however, the Greeks use the
indicative, or enuntiative, formula: "This person is baptized" (baptizetai,
baptizetur). This is unquestionable from their Euchologies, and from the
testimony of Arcudius (apud Cat., tit. ii, cap. i), of Goar (Rit. Græc.
Illust.), of Martène (De Ant. Eccl. Rit., I) and of the theological compendium
of the schismatical Russians (St. Petersburg, 1799). It is true that in the
decree for the Armenians, Pope Eugene IV uses baptizetur, according to the
ordinary version of this decree, but Labbe, in his edition of the Council of
Florence seems to consider it a corrupt reading, for in the margin he prints
baptizatur. It has been suggested by Goar that the resemblance between
baptizetai and baptizetur is responsible for the mistake. The correct
translation is, of course, baptizatur.



In administering this sacrament it is absolutely necessary to use the word
"baptize" or its equivalent (Alex. VIII, Prop. damn., xxvii), otherwise the
ceremony is invalid. This had already been decreed by Alexander III (Cap. Si
quis, I, x, De Bapt.), and it is confirmed by the Florentine decree. It has been
the constant practice of both the Latin and Greek Churches to make use of words
expressing the act performed. St. Thomas (III:66:5) says that since an ablution
may be employed for many purposes, it is necessary that in baptism the meaning
of the ablution be determined by the words of the form. However, the words: "In
the name of the Father", etc., would not be sufficient by themselves to
determine the sacramental nature of the ablution. St. Paul (Colossians 3)
exhorts us to do all things in the name of God, and consequently an ablution
could be performed in the name of the Trinity to obtain restoration of health.
Therefore it is that in the form of this sacrament, the act of baptism must be
expressed, and the matter and form be united to leave no doubt of the meaning of
the ceremony.

In addition to the necessary word "baptize", or its equivalent, it is also
obligatory to mention the separate Persons of the Holy Trinity. This is the
command of Christ to His Disciples, and as the sacrament has its efficacy from
Him Who instituted it, we can not omit anything that He has prescribed. Nothing
is more certain than that this has been the general understanding and practice
of the Church. Tertullian tells us (On Baptism 13): "The law of baptism
(tingendi) has been imposed and the form prescribed: Go, teach the nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost."
St. Justin Martyr (First Apology 1) testifies to the practice in his time. St.
Ambrose (On the Mysteries 4) declares: "Unless a person has been baptized in the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, he can not obtain the
remission of his sins," St. Cyprian (Epistle 72), rejecting the validity of
baptism given in the name of Christ only, affirms that the naming of all the
Persons of the Trinity was commanded by the Lord (in plena et adunata
Trinitate). The same is declared by many other primitive writers, as St. Jerome
(IV, in Matt.), Origen (De Principiis I.2), St. Athanasius (Against the Arians,
Oration 4), St. Augustine (On Baptism 6.25). It is not, of course, absolutely
necessary that the common names Father, Son, and Holy Ghost be used, provided
the Persons be expressed by words that are equivalent or synonymous. But a
distinct naming of the Divine Persons is required and the form: "I baptize thee
in the name of the Holy Trinity", would be of more than doubtful validity.

The singular form "In the name", not "names", is also to be employed, as it
expresses the unity of the Divine nature. When, through ignorance, an
accidental, not substantial, change has been made in the form (as In nomine
patriâ for Patris), the baptism is to be held valid.

The mind of the Church as to the necessity of serving the trinitarian formula in
this sacrament has been clearly shown by her treatment of baptism conferred by
heretics. Any ceremony that did not observe this form has been declared invalid.
The Montanists baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and Montanus and
Priscilla (St. Basil, Epistle 188). As a consequence, the Council of Laodicea
ordered their rebaptism. The Arians at the time of the Council of Nicæa do not
seem to have tampered with the baptismal formula, for that Council does not
order their rebaptism. When, then, St. Athanasius (Against the Arians, Oration
2) and St. Jerome (Against the Luciferians) declare the Arians to have baptized
in the name of the Creator and creatures, they must either refer to their
doctrine or to a later changing of the sacramental form. It is well known that
the latter was the case with the Spanish Arians and that consequently converts
from the sect were rebaptized. The Anomæans, a branch of the Arians, baptized
with the formula: "In the name of the uncreated God and in the name of the
created Son, and in the name of the Sanctifying Spirit, procreated by the
created Son" (Epiphanius, Hær., lxxvii).

Other Arian sects, such as the Eunomians and Aetians, baptized "in the death of
Christ". Converts from Sabellianism were ordered by the First Council of
Constantinople (can. vii) to be rebaptized because the doctrine of Sabellius
that there was but one person in the Trinity had infected their baptismal form.
The two sects sprung from Paul of Samosata, who denied Christ's Divinity,
likewise conferred invalid baptism. They were the Paulianists and Photinians.
Pope Innocent I (Ad. Episc. Maced., vi) declares that these sectaries did not
distinguish the Persons of the Trinity when baptizing. The Council of Nicæa
(canon 19) ordered the rebaptism of Paulianists, and the Council of Arles (can.
xvi and xvii) decreed the same for both Paulianists and Photinians.

There has been a theological controversy over the question as to whether baptism
in the name of Christ only was ever held valid. Certain texts in the New
Testament have given rise to this difficulty. Thus St. Paul (Acts 19) commands
some disciples at Ephesus to be baptized in Christ's name: "They were baptized
in the name of the Lord Jesus." In Acts 10, we read that St. Peter ordered
others to be baptized "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ". Those who were
converted by Philip. (Acts 8) "were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ", and
above all we have the explicit command of the Prince of the Apostles: "Be
baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your
sins (Acts 2).

Owing to these texts some theologians have held that the Apostles baptized in
the name of Christ only. St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, and Albertus Magnus are
invoked as authorities for this opinion, they declaring that the Apostles so
acted by special dispensation. Other writers, as Peter Lombard and Hugh of St.
Victor, hold also that such baptism would be valid, but say nothing of a
dispensation for the Apostles. The most probable opinion, however, seems to be
that the terms "in the name of Jesus", "in the name of Christ", either refer to
baptism in the faith taught by Christ, or are employed to distinguish Christian
baptism from that of John the Precursor. It seems altogether unlikely that
immediately after Christ had solemnly promulgated the trinitarian formula of
baptism, the Apostles themselves would have substituted another. In fact, the
words of St. Paul (Acts 19) imply quite plainly that they did not. For, when
some Christians at Ephesus declared that they had never heard of the Holy Ghost,
the Apostle asks: "In whom then were you baptized?" This text certainly seems to
declare that St. Paul took it for granted that the Ephesians must have heard the
name of the Holy Ghost when the sacramental formula of baptism was pronounced
over them.

The authority of Pope Stephen I has been alleged for the validity of baptism
given in the name of Christ only. St. Cyprian says (Epistle 72) that this
pontiff declared all baptism valid provided it was given in the name of Jesus
Christ. It must be noted that the same explanation applies to Stephen's words as
to the Scriptural texts above given. Moreover, Firmilian, in his letter to St.
Cyprian, implies that Pope Stephen required an explicit mention of the Trinity
in baptism, for he quotes the pontiff as declaring that the sacramental grace is
conferred because a person has been baptized "with the invocation of the names
of the Trinity, Father and Son and Holy Ghost".

A passage that is very difficult of explanation is found in the works of St.
Ambrose (On the Holy Spirit I.3), where he declares that if a person names one
of the Trinity, he names all of them: "If you say Christ, you have designated
God the Father, by whom the Son was anointed, and Him Who was anointed Son, and
the Holy Ghost in whom He was anointed." This passage has been generally
interpreted as referring to the faith of the catechumen, but not to the
baptismal form. More difficult is the explanation of the response of Pope
Nicholas I to the Bulgarians (cap. civ; Labbe, VIII), in which he states that a
person is not to be rebaptized who has already been baptized "in the name of the
Holy Trinity or in the name of Christ only, as we read in the Acts of the
Apostles (for it is one and the same thing, as St. Ambrose has explained)". As
in the passage to which the pope alludes, St. Ambrose was speaking of the faith
of the recipient of baptism, as we have already stated, it has been held
probable that this is also the meaning that Pope Nicholas intended his words to
convey (see another explanation in Pesch, Prælect. Dogm., VI, no. 389). What
seems to confirm this is the same pontiff's reply to the Bulgarians (Resp. 15)
on another occasion when they consulted him on a practical case. They inquired
whether certain persons are to be rebaptized on whom a man, pretending to be a
Greek priest, had conferred baptism? Pope Nicholas replies that the baptism is
to be held valid "if they were baptized, in the name of the supreme and
undivided Trinity". Here the pope does not give baptism in the name of Christ
only as an alternative. Moralists raise the question of the validity of a
baptism in whose administration something else had been added to the prescribed
form as "and in the name of the Blessed Virgin Mary". They reply that such
baptism would be invalid, if the minister intended thereby to attribute the same
efficacy to the added name as to the names of the Three Divine Persons. If,
however, it was done through a mistaken piety only, it would not interfere with
the validity (S. Alph., n. 111).


CONDITIONAL BAPTISM

From the foregoing it is evident that not all baptism administered by heretics
or schismatics is invalid. On the contrary, if the proper matter and form be
used and the one conferring the sacrament really "intends to perform what the
Church performs" the baptism is undoubtedly valid. This is also authoritatively
stated in the decree for the Armenians and the canons of the Council of Trent
already given. The question becomes a practical one when converts to the Faith
have to be dealt with. If there were one authorized mode of baptizing among the
sects, and if the necessity and true significance of the sacrament were
uniformly taught and put in practice among them, there would be little
difficulty as to the status of converts from the sects. But there is no such
unity of teaching and practice among them, and consequently the particular case
of each convert must be examined into when there is question of his reception
into the Church. For not only are there religious denominations in which baptism
is in all probability not validly administered, but there are those also which
have a ritual sufficient indeed for validity, but in practice the likelihood of
their members having received baptism validly is more than doubtful. As a
consequence converts must be dealt with differently. If it be certain that a
convert was validly baptized in heresy, the sacrament is not repeated, but the
ceremonies which had been omitted in such baptism are to be supplied, unless the
bishop, for sufficient reasons, judges that they can be dispensed with. (For the
United States, see the First Council of Baltimore.) If it be uncertain whether
the convert's baptism was valid or not, then he is to be baptized conditionally.
In such cases the ritual is: "If thou art not yet baptized, then I baptize thee
in the name", etc. The First Synod of Westminster, England, directs that adult
converts are to be baptized not publicly but privately with holy water (i.e. not
the consecrated baptismal water) and without the usual ceremonies (Decr. xvi).
Practically, converts in the United States are almost invariably baptized either
absolutely or conditionally, not because the baptism administered by heretics is
held to be invalid, but because it is generally impossible to discover whether
they had ever been properly baptized. Even in cases where a ceremony had
certainly been performed, reasonable doubt of validity will generally remain, on
account of either the intention of the administrator or the mode of
administration. Still each case must be examined into (S. C. Inquis., 20 Nov.,
1878) lest the sacrament be sacrilegiously repeated.

As to the baptism of the various sects, Sabetti (no. 662) states that the
Oriental Churches and the "Old Catholics" generally administer baptism
accurately; the Socinians and Quakers do not baptize at all; the Baptists use
the rite only for adults, and the efficacy of their baptism has been called in
question owing to the separation of the matter and the form, for the latter is
pronounced before the immersion takes place; the Congregationalists, Unitarians
and Universalists deny the necessity of baptism, and hence the presumption is
that they do not administer it accurately; the Methodists and Presbyterians
baptize by aspersion or sprinkling, and it may be reasonably doubted whether the
water has touched the body and flowed upon it; among the Episcopalians many
consider baptism to have no true efficacy and to be merely an empty ceremony,
and consequently there is a well-grounded fear that they are not sufficiently
careful in its administration. To this may be added, that Episcopalians often
baptize by aspersion, and though such a method is undoubtedly valid if properly
employed, yet in practice it is quite possible that the sprinkled water may not
touch the skin. Sabetti also notes that ministers of the same sect do not
everywhere follow a uniform method of baptizing.

The practical method of reconciling heretics with the Church is as follows:-- If
baptism be conferred absolutely, the convert is to make no abjuration or
profession of faith, nor is he to make a confession of his sins and receive
absolution, because the sacrament of regeneration washes away his past offences.
If his baptism is to be conditional, he must first make an abjuration of his
errors, or a profession of faith, then receive the conditional baptism, and
lastly make a sacramental confession followed by conditional absolution. If the
convert's former baptism was judged to be certainly valid, he is only to make
the abjuration or the profession of faith and receive absolution from the
censures he may have incurred (Excerpta Rit. Rom., 1878). The abjuration or
profession of faith here prescribed is the Creed of Pius IV, translated into the
vernacular. In the case of conditional baptism, the confession may precede the
administration of the rite and the conditional absolution be imparted after the
baptism. This is often done as a matter of fact, as the confession is an
excellent preparation for the reception of the sacrament (De Herdt, VI, viii;
Sabetti, no. 725).


REBAPTISM

To complete the consideration of the validity of baptism conferred by heretics,
we must give some account of the celebrated controversy that raged around this
point in the ancient Church. In Africa and Asia Minor the custom had been
introduced in the early part of the third century of rebaptizing all converts
from heresy. As far as can be now ascertained, the practice of rebaptism arose
in Africa owing to decrees of a Synod of Carthage held probably between 218 and
222; while in Asia Minor it seems to have had its origin at the Synod of
Iconium, celebrated between 230 and 235. The controversy on rebaptism is
especially connected with the names of Pope St. Stephen and of St. Cyprian of
Carthage. The latter was the main champion of the practice of rebaptizing. The
pope, however, absolutely condemned the practice, and commanded that heretics on
entering the Church should receive only the imposition of hands in paenitentiam.
In this celebrated controversy it is to noted that Pope Stephen declares that he
is upholding the primitive custom when he declares for the validity of baptism
conferred by heretics.

Cyprian, on the contrary, implicitly admits that antiquity is against his own
practice, but stoutly maintains that it is more in accordance with an
enlightened study of the subject. The tradition against him he declares to be "a
human and unlawful tradition". Neither Cyprian, however, nor his zealous
abettor, Firmilian, could show that rebaptism was older than the century in
which they were living. The contemporaneous but anonymous author of the book "De
Rebaptismate" says that the ordinances of Pope Stephen, forbidding the rebaptism
of converts, are in accordance with antiquity and ecclesiastical tradition, and
are consecrated as an ancient, memorable, and solemn observance of all the
saints and of all the faithful. St. Augustine believes that the custom of not
rebaptizing is an Apostolic tradition, and St. Vincent of Lérins declares that
the Synod of Carthage introduced rebaptism against the Divine Law (canonem),
against the rule of the universal Church, and against the customs and
institutions of the ancients. By Pope Stephen's decision, he continues,
antiquity was retained and novelty was destroyed (retenta est antiquitas,
explosa novitas). It is true that the so-called Apostolic Canons (xlv and xlvi)
speak of the non-validity of baptism conferred by heretics, but Döllinger says
that these canons are comparatively recent, and De Marca points out that St.
Cyprian would have appealed to them had they been in existence before the
controversy. Pope St. Stephen, therefore, upheld a doctrine already ancient in
the third century when he declared against the rebaptism of heretics, and
decided that the sacrament was not to be repeated because its first
administration had been valid, This has been the law of the Church ever since.


NECESSITY OF BAPTISM

Theologians distinguish a twofold necessity, which they call a necessity of
means (medii) and a necessity of precept (præcepti). The first (medii) indicates
a thing to be so necessary that, if lacking (though inculpably), salvation can
not be attained. The second (præcepti) is had when a thing is indeed so
necessary that it may not be omitted voluntarily without sin; yet, ignorance of
the precept or inability to fulfill it, excuses one from its observance.

Baptism is held to be necessary both necessitate medii and præcepti. This
doctrine is grounded on the words of Christ. In John 3, He declares: "Unless a
man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom
of God." Christ makes no exception to this law and it is therefore general in
its application, embracing both adults and infants. It is consequently not
merely a necessity of precept but also a necessity of means.

This is the sense in which it has always been understood by the Church, and the
Council of Trent (Sess, IV, cap, vi) teaches that justification can not be
obtained, since the promulgation of the Gospel, without the washing of
regeneration or the desire thereof (in voto). In the seventh session, it
declares (can. v) anathema upon anyone who says that baptism is not necessary
for salvation. We have rendered votum by "desire" for want of a better word. The
council does not mean by votum a simple desire of receiving baptism or even a
resolution to do so. It means by votum an act of perfect charity or contrition,
including, at least implicitly, the will to do all things necessary for
salvation and thus especially to receive baptism.

The absolute necessity of this sacrament is often insisted on by the Fathers of
the Church, especially when they speak of infant baptism. Thus St. Irenæus
(Against Heresies 2.22): "Christ came to save all who are reborn through Him to
God — infants, children, and youths" (infantes et parvulos et pueros). St.
Augustine (On the Soul, Book III) says "If you wish to be a Catholic, do not
believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the
remission of original sin." A still stronger passage from the same doctor
(Epistle 28) reads:"Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when
they depart this life without the participation of His Sacrament (Baptism), both
opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole Church which hastens to
baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they can not
possibly be vivified in Christ," St. Ambrose (II De Abraham., c. xi) speaking of
the necessity of baptism, says:" No one is excepted, not the infant, not the one
hindered by any necessity."

In the Pelagian controversy we find similarly strong pronouncements on the part
of the Councils of Carthage and Milevis, and of Pope Innocent I. It is owing to
the Church's belief in this necessity of baptism as a means to salvation that,
as was already noted by St. Augustine, she committed the power of baptism in
certain contingencies even to laymen and women. When it is said that baptism is
also necessary, by the necessity of precept (praecepti), it is of course
understood that this applies only to such as are capable of receiving a precept,
viz. adults.

The necessity in this case is shown by the command of Christ to His Apostles
(Matthew 28): "Go and teach all nations, baptizing them", etc. Since the
Apostles are commanded to baptize, the nations are commanded to receive baptism.
The necessity of baptism has been called in question by some of the Reformers or
their immediate forerunners. It was denied by Wyclif, Bucer, and Zwingli.
According to Calvin it is necessary for adults as a precept but not as a means.
Hence he contends that the infants of believing parents are sanctified in the
womb and thus freed from original sin without baptism. The Socinians teach that
baptism is merely an external profession of the Christian faith and a rite which
each one is free to receive or neglect.

An argument against the absolute necessity of baptism has been sought in the
text of Scripture: "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his
blood, you shall not have life in you" (John 6). Here, they say, is a parallel
to the text: "Unless a man be born again of water". Yet everyone admits that the
Eucharist is not necessary as a means but only as a precept. The reply to this
is obvious. In the first instance, Christ addresses His words in the second
person to adults; in the second, He speaks in the third person and without any
distinction whatever.

Another favorite text is that of St. Paul (1 Corinthians 7): "The unbelieving
husband is sanctified by the believing wife; and the unbelieving wife is
sanctified by the believing husband; otherwise your children should be unclean;
but now they are holy." Unfortunately for the strength of this argument, the
context shows that the Apostle in this passage is not treating of regenerating
or sanctifying grace at all, but answering certain questions proposed to him by
the Corinthians concerning the validity of marriages between heathens and
believers. The validity of such marriages is proved from the fact that children
born of them are legitimate, not spurious. As far as the term "sanctified" is
concerned, it can, at most, mean that the believing husband or wife may convert
the unbelieving party and thus become an occasion of their sanctification.

A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor
Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered
sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a
vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere. St. Ambrose may have done so for
the soul of the catechumen Valentinian, but this would be a solitary instance,
and it was done apparently because he believed that the emperor had had the
baptism of desire. The practice of the Church is more correctly shown in the
canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga: "Neither the commemoration of
Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed
for catechumens who have died without the redemption of baptism." The arguments
for a contrary usage sought in the Second Council of Arles (c. xii) and the
Fourth Council of Carthage (c. lxxix) are not to the point, for these councils
speak, not of catechumens, but of penitents who had died suddenly before their
expiation was completed. It is true that some Catholic writers (as Cajetan,
Durandus, Biel, Gerson, Toletus, Klee) have held that infants may be saved by an
act of desire on the part of their parents, which is applied to them by some
external sign, such as prayer or the invocation of the Holy Trinity; but Pius V,
by expunging this opinion, as expressed by Cajetan, from that author's
commentary on St. Thomas, manifested his judgment that such a theory was not
agreeable to the Church's belief.


SUBSTITUTES FOR THE SACRAMENT

The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the
baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the
baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The
latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply
the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the
teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a
physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of
desire or the baptism of blood.


THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE

The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and
every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least
implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism. The Latin word flamen is used because
Flamen is a name for the Holy Ghost, Whose special office it is to move the
heart to love God and to conceive penitence for sin. The "baptism of the Holy
Ghost" is a term employed in the third century by the anonymous author of the
book "De Rebaptismate". The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the
place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is proved from the
words of Christ. After He had declared the necessity of baptism (John 3), He
promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John 14):
"He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will
manifest myself to him." And again: "If any one love me, he will keep my word,
and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode
with him." Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on
account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts
supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins.
This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent. In the fourteenth
session (cap. iv) the council teaches that contrition is sometimes perfected by
charity, and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament of Penance is received.
In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity of
baptism, it says that men can not obtain original justice "except by the washing
of regeneration or its desire" (voto). The same doctrine is taught by Pope
Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), and the contrary propositions are
condemned by Popes Pius V and Gregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd
propositions of Baius.

We have already alluded to the funeral oration pronounced by St. Ambrose over
the Emperor Valentinian II, a catechumen. The doctrine of the baptism of desire
is here clearly set forth. St. Ambrose asks: "Did he not obtain the grace which
he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly he obtained it
because he asked for it." St. Augustine (On Baptism, Against the Donatists,
IV.22) and St. Bernard (Ep. lxxvii, ad H. de S. Victore) likewise discourse in
the same sense concerning the baptism of desire. If it be said that this
doctrine contradicts the universal law of baptism made by Christ (John 3), the
answer is that the lawgiver has made an exception (John 14) in favor of those
who have the baptism of desire. Neither would it be a consequence of this
doctrine that a person justified by the baptism of desire would thereby be
dispensed from seeking after the baptism of water when the latter became a
possibility. For, as has already been explained the baptismus flaminis contains
the votum of receiving the baptismus aquæ. It is true that some of the Fathers
of the Church arraign severely those who content themselves with the desire of
receiving the sacrament of regeneration, but they are speaking of catechumens
who of their own accord delay the reception of baptism from unpraiseworthy
motives. Finally, it is to be noted that only adults are capable of receiving
the baptism of desire.


THE BAPTISM OF BLOOD

The baptism of blood (baptismus sanquinis) is the obtaining of the grace of
justification by suffering martyrdom for the faith of Christ. The term "washing
of blood" (lavacrum sanguinis) is used by Tertullian (On Baptism 16) to
distinguish this species of regeneration from the "washing of water" (lavacrum
aquæ). "We have a second washing", he says "which is one and the same [with the
first], namely the washing of blood." St. Cyprian (Epistle 73) speaks of "the
most glorious and greatest baptism of blood" (sanguinis baptismus). St.
Augustine (City of God 13.7) says: "When any die for the confession of Christ
without having received the washing of regeneration, it avails as much for the
remission of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of
baptism."

The Church grounds her belief in the efficacy of the baptism of blood on the
fact that Christ makes a general statement of the saving power of martyrdom in
the tenth chapter of St. Matthew: "Every one therefore that shall confess me
before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven" (verse
32); and: "He that shall lose his life for me shall find it" (verse 39). It is
pointed out that these texts are so broadly worded as to include even infants,
especially the latter text. That the former text also applies to them, has been
constantly maintained by the Fathers, who declare that if infants can not
confess Christ with the mouth, they can by act. Tertullian (Against the
Valentinians 2) speaks of the infants slaughtered by Herod as martyrs, and this
has been the constant teaching of the Church.

Another evidence of the mind of the Church as to the efficacy of the baptism of
blood is found in the fact that she never prays for martyrs. Her opinion is well
voiced by St. Augustine (Tractate 74 on the Gospel of John): "He does an injury
to a martyr who prays for him." This shows that martyrdom is believed to remit
all sin and all punishment due to sin. Later theologians commonly maintain that
the baptism of blood justifies adult martyrs independently of an act of charity
or perfect contrition, and, as it were, ex opere operato, though, of course,
they must have attrition for past sins. The reason is that if perfect charity,
or contrition, were required in martyrdom, the distinction between the baptism
of blood and the baptism of desire would be a useless one. Moreover, as it must
be conceded that infant martyrs are justified without an act of charity, of
which they are incapable, there is no solid reason for denying the same
privilege to adults. (Cf. Francisco Suárez, De Bapt., disp. xxxix.)


UNBAPTIZED INFANTS

The fate of infants who die without baptism must be briefly considered here. The
Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life
without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded
from the vision of God. This teaching is grounded, as we have seen, on Scripture
and tradition, and the decrees of the Church. Moreover, that those who die in
original sin, without ever having contracted any actual sin, are deprived of the
happiness of heaven is stated explicitly in the Confession of Faith of the
Eastern Emperor Michael Palæologus, which had been proposed to him by Pope
Clement IV in 1267, and which he accepted in the presence of Gregory X at the
Second Council of Lyons in 1274. The same doctrine is found also in the Decree
of Union of the Greeks, in the Bull "Lætentur Caeli" of Pope Eugene IV, in the
Profession of Faith prescribed for the Greeks by Pope Gregory XIII, and in that
authorized for the Orientals by Urban VIII and Benedict XIV. Many Catholic
theologians have declared that infants dying without baptism are excluded from
the beatific vision; but as to the exact state of these souls in the next world
they are not agreed.

In speaking of souls who have failed to attain salvation, these theologians
distinguish the pain of loss (paena damni), or privation of the beatific vision,
and the pain of sense (paena sensus). Though these theologians have thought it
certain that unbaptized infants must endure the pain of loss, they have not been
similarly certain that they are subject to the pain of sense. St. Augustine (Of
Sin and Merit I.16) held that they would not be exempt from the pain of sense,
but at the same time he thought it would be of the mildest form. On the other
hand, St. Gregory Nazianzen (Oration 40) expresses the belief that such infants
would suffer only the pain of loss. Sfondrati (Nod. Prædest., I, i) declares
that while they are certainly excluded from heaven, yet they are not deprived of
natural happiness. This opinion seemed so objectionable to some French bishops
that they asked the judgment of the Holy See upon the matter. Pope Innocent XI
replied that he would have the opinion examined into by a commission of
theologians, but no sentence seems ever to have been passed upon it. Since the
twelfth century, the opinion of the majority of theologians has been that
unbaptized infants are immune from all pain of sense. This was taught by St.
Thomas Aquinas, Scotus, St. Bonaventure, Peter Lombard, and others, and is now
the common teaching in the schools. It accords with the wording of a decree of
Pope Innocent III (III Decr., xlii, 3): "The punishment of original sin is the
deprivation of the vision of God; of actual sin, the eternal pains of hell."
Infants, of course, can not be guilty of actual sin.



Other theologians have urged that, under the law of nature and the Mosaic
dispensation, children could be saved by the act of their parents and that
consequently the same should be even more easy of attainment under the law of
grace, because the power of faith has not been diminished but increased.

Common objections to this theory include the fact that infants are not said to
be deprived of justification in the New Law through any decrease in the power of
faith, but because of the promulgation by Christ of the precept of baptism which
did not exist before the New Dispensation. Nor would this make the case of
infants worse than it was before the Christian Church was instituted. While it
works a hardship for some, it has undoubtedly improved the condition of most.
Supernatural faith is now much more diffused than it was before the coming of
Christ, and more infants are now saved by baptism than were justified formerly
by the active faith of their parents. Moreover, baptism can more readily be
applied to infants than the rite of circumcision, and by the ancient law this
ceremony had to be deferred till the eighth day after birth, while baptism can
be bestowed upon infants immediately after they are born, and in case of
necessity even in their mother's womb. Finally it must be borne in mind that
unbaptized infants, if deprived of heaven, would not be deprived unjustly. The
vision of God is not something to which human beings have a natural claim. It is
a free gift of the Creator who can make what conditions He chooses for imparting
it or withholding it. No injustice is involved when an undue privilege is not
conferred upon a person. Original sin deprived the human race of an unearned
right to heaven. Through the Divine mercy this bar to the enjoyment of God is
removed by baptism; but if baptism be not conferred, original sin remains, and
the unregenerated soul, having no claim on heaven, is not unjustly excluded from
it.

As to the question, whether in addition to freedom from the pain of sense,
unbaptized infants enjoy any positive happiness in the next world, theologians
are not agreed, nor is there any pronouncement of the Church on the subject.
Many, following St. Thomas (De Malo, Q. v, a. 3), declare that these infants are
not saddened by the loss of the beatific vision, either because they have no
knowledge of it, and hence are not sensible of their privation; or because,
knowing it, their will is entirely conformed to God's will and they are
conscious that they have missed an undue privilege through no fault of their
own. In addition to this freedom from regret at the loss of heaven, these
infants may also enjoy some positive happiness. St. Thomas (In II Sent., dist.
XXXIII, Q. ii, a. 5) says: "Although unbaptized infants are separated from God
as far as glory is concerned, yet they are not separated from Him entirely.
Rather are they joined to Him by a participation of natural goods; and so they
may even rejoice in Him by natural consideration and love," Again (a. 2) he
says: "They will rejoice in this, that they will share largely in the divine
goodness and in natural perfections." While the opinion, then, that unbaptized
infants may enjoy a natural knowledge and love of God and rejoice in it, is
perfectly tenable, it has not the certainty that would arise from a unanimous
consent of the Fathers of the Church, or from a favorable pronouncement of
ecclesiastical authority.

We may add here some brief remarks on the discipline of the Church in regard to
unbaptized persons. As baptism is the door of the Church, the unbaptized are
entirely without its pale. As a consequence:

 * Such persons, by the ordinary law of the Church, may not receive Catholic
   funeral rites. The reason of this regulation is given by Pope Innocent III
   (Decr., III, XXVIII, xii): "It has been decreed by the sacred canons that we
   are to have no communion with those who are dead, if we have not communicated
   with them while alive." According to Canon Law (CIC 1183), however,
   catechumens "are to be considered members of the Christian faithful" as
   regard funeral rites. The Plenary Council of Baltimore also decrees (No. 389)
   that the custom of burying the unbaptized relatives of Catholics in the
   family sepulchers may be tolerated.
 * A Catholic may not marry an unbaptized person without dispensation, under
   pain of nullity. This impediment, as far as illiceity is concerned, is
   derived from the natural law, because in such unions the Catholic party and
   the offspring of the marriage would, in most cases, be exposed to the loss of
   faith. The invalidity of such marriage, however, is a consequence only of
   positive law. For, in the beginning of Christianity, unions between the
   baptized and unbaptized were frequent, and they were certainly held valid.
   When, then, circumstances arise where the danger of perversion for the
   Catholic party is removed, the Church dispenses in her law of prohibition,
   but always requires guarantees from the non-Catholic party that there will be
   no interference with the spiritual rights of the partner of the union. (See
   IMPEDIMENTS OF MATRIMONY.)

In general, we may state that the Church claims no authority over unbaptized
persons, as they are entirely without her pale. She makes laws concerning them
only in so far as they hold relations with the subjects of the Church.


EFFECTS OF BAPTISM

This sacrament is the door of the Church of Christ and the entrance into a new
life. We are reborn from the state of slaves of sin into the freedom of the Sons
of God. Baptism incorporates us with Christ's mystical body and makes us
partakers of all the privileges flowing from the redemptive act of the Church's
Divine Founder. We shall now outline the principal effects of baptism.


THE REMISSION OF ALL SIN, ORIGINAL AND ACTUAL

This is clearly contained in the Bible. Thus we read (Acts 2:38): "Be baptized
every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins;
and you shall receive the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you and to your
children and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call."
We read also in the twenty-second chapter of the Acts of the Apostles (verse
16):

> Be baptized, and wash away thy sins." St. Paul in the fifth chapter of his
> Epistle to the Ephesians beautifully represents the whole Church as being
> baptized and purified (5:25 sq.): "Christ loved the Church, and delivered
> Himself up for it: that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the washing of
> water in the word of life: that he might present it to Himself a glorious
> Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be
> holy and without blemish.

The prophecy of Ezekiel (36:25) has also been understood of baptism: "I will
pour upon you clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness
(inquinamentis), where the prophet is unquestionably speaking of moral
defilements.

This is also the solemn teaching of the Church. In the profession of faith
prescribed by Pope Innocent III for the Waldensians in 1210, we read: We believe
that all sins are remitted in baptism, both original sin and those sins which
have been voluntarily committed." The Council of Trent (Sess. V., can. v)
anathematizes whomsoever denies that the grace of Christ which is conferred in
baptism does not remit the guilt of original sin; or asserts that everything
which can truly and properly be called sin is not thereby taken away.

The same is taught by the Fathers. St. Justin Martyr (First Apology 66) declares
that in baptism we are created anew, that is, consequently, free from all stain
of sin. St. Ambrose (On the Mysteries 3) says of baptism: "This is the water in
which the flesh is submerged that all carnal sin may be washed away. Every
transgression is there buried." Tertullian (On Baptism 7) writes: "Baptism is a
carnal act in as much as we are submerged in the water; but the effect is
spiritual, for we are freed from our sins." The words of Origen (In Gen., xiii)
are classic: "If you transgress, you write unto yourself the handwriting
[chirographum] of sin. But, behold, when you have once approached to the cross
of Christ and to the grace of baptism, your handwriting is affixed to the cross
and blotted out in the font of baptism." It is needless to multiply testimonies
from the early ages of the Church. It is a point on which the Fathers are
unanimous, and telling quotations might also be made from St. Cyprian, Clement
of Alexandria, St. Hilary, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Basil, St. Gregory
Nazianzen, and others.


REMISSION OF TEMPORAL PUNISHMENT

Baptism not only washes away sin, it also remits the punishment of sin. This was
the plain teaching of the primitive Church. We read in Clement of Alexandria
(Pædagog., i) of baptism: "It is called a washing because we are washed from our
sins: it is called grace, because by it the punishments which are due to sin are
remitted." St. Jerome (Ep. lxix) writes: "After the pardon (indulgentiam) of
baptism, the severity of the Judge is not to be feared." And St. Augustine (De
Pecc. et Mer., II, xxviii) says plainly: "If immediately [after baptism] there
follows the departure from this life, there will be absolutely nothing that a
man must answer for [quod obnoxium hominem teneat], for he will have been freed
from everything that bound him." In perfect accord with the early doctrine, the
Florentine decree states: "No satisfaction is to be enjoined upon the baptized
for past sins; and if they die before any sin, they will immediately attain to
the kingdom of heaven and to the vision of God." In like manner the Council of
Trent (Sess. V) teaches: "There is no cause of damnation in those who have been
truly buried with Christ by baptism . . . Nothing whatever will delay their
entrance into heaven."


INFUSION OF SUPERNATURAL GRACE, GIFTS, AND VIRTUES

Another effect of baptism is the infusion of sanctifying grace and supernatural
gifts and virtues. It is this sanctifying grace which renders men the adopted
sons of God and confers the right to heavenly glory. The doctrine on this
subject is found in the seventh chapter on justification in the sixth session of
the Council of Trent. Many of the Fathers of the Church also enlarge upon this
subject (as St. Cyprian, St. Jerome, Clement of Alexandria, and others), though
not in the technical language of later ecclesiastical decrees.


CONFERRAL OF THE RIGHT TO SPECIAL GRACES

Theologians likewise teach that baptism gives man the right to those special
graces which are necessary for attaining the end for which the sacrament was
instituted and for enabling him to fulfill the baptismal promises. This doctrine
of the schools, which claims for every sacrament those graces which are peculiar
and diverse according to the end and object of the sacrament, was already
enunciated by Tertullian (On the Resurrection 8). It is treated and developed by
St. Thomas Aquinas (III:62:2). Pope Eugene IV repeats this doctrine in the
decree for the Armenians. In treating of the grace bestowed by baptism, we
presume that the recipient of the sacrament puts no obstacle (obex) in the way
of sacramental grace. In an infant, of course, this would be impossible, and as
a consequence, the infant receives at once all the baptismal grace. It is
otherwise in the case of an adult, for in such a one it is necessary that the
requisite dispositions of the soul be present.

The Council of Trent (Sess. VI, c. vii) states that each one receives grace
according to his disposition and co-operation. We are not to confound an
obstacle (obex) to the sacrament itself with an obstacle to the sacramental
grace. In the first case, there is implied a defect in the matter or form, or a
lack of the requisite intention on the part of minister or recipient, and then
the sacrament would be simply null. But even if all these essential requisites
for constituting the sacrament be present, there can still be an obstacle put in
the way of the sacramental grace, inasmuch as an adult might receive baptism
with improper motives or without real detestation for sin. In that case the
person would indeed be validly baptized, but he would not participate in the
sacramental grace. If, however, at a later time he made amends for the past, the
obstacle would be removed and he would obtain the grace which he had failed to
receive when the sacrament was conferred upon him. In such a case the sacrament
is said to revive and there could be no question of rebaptism.


IMPRESSION OF A CHARACTER ON THE SOUL

Finally, baptism, once validly conferred, can never be repeated. The Fathers
(St. Ambrose, Chrysostom, and others) so understand the words of St. Paul
(Hebrews 6:4), and this has been the constant teaching of the Church both
Eastern and Western from the earliest times. On this account, baptism is said to
impress an ineffaceable character on the soul, which the Tridentine Fathers call
a spiritual and indelible mark. That baptism (as well as Confirmation and Holy
orders) really does imprint such a character, is defined explicitly by the
Council of Trent (Sess. VII, can. ix). St. Cyril (Prologue to the Catechetical
Lectures 17) calls baptism a "holy and indelible seal", and Clement of
Alexandria (Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? 42), "the seal of the
Lord". St. Augustine compares this character or mark imprinted upon the
Christian soul with the character militaris impressed upon soldiers in the
imperial service. St. Thomas treats of the nature of this indelible seal, or
character, in the Summa (III:63:2).

The early leaders of the so-called Reformation held very different doctrines
from those of Christian antiquity on the effects of baptism. Luther (De Captiv.
Bab.) and Calvin (Antid. C. Trid.) held that this sacrament made the baptized
certain of the perpetual grace of adoption. Others declared that the calling to
mind of one's baptism would free him from sins committed after it; others again,
that transgressions of the Divine law, although sins in themselves, would not be
imputed as sins to the baptized person provided he had faith. The decrees of the
Council of Trent, drawn up in opposition to the then prevailing errors, bear
witness to the many strange and novel theories broached by various exponents of
the nascent Protestant theology.


MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT

The Church distinguishes between the ordinary and the extraordinary minister of
baptism. A distinction is also made as to the mode of administration. Solemn
baptism is that which is conferred with all the rites and ceremonies prescribed
by the Church, and private baptism is that which may be administered at any time
or place according to the exigencies of necessity. At one time solemn and public
baptism was conferred in the Latin Church only during the paschal season and
Whitsuntide. The Orientals administered it likewise at the Epiphany.


ORDINARY MINISTER

The ordinary minister of solemn baptism is first the bishop and second the
priest. By delegation, a deacon may confer the sacrament solemnly as an
extraordinary minister.

Bishops are said to be ordinary ministers because they are the successors of the
Apostles who received directly the Divine command: "Go and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Ghost."Priests are also ordinary ministers because by their office and sacred
orders they are pastors of souls and administrators of the sacraments, and hence
the Florentine decree declares: "The minister of this Sacrament is the priest,
to whom it belongs to administer baptism by reason of his office." As, however,
bishops are superior to priests by the Divine law, the solemn administration of
this sacrament was at one time reserved to the bishops, and a priest never
administered this sacrament in the presence of a bishop unless commanded to do
so. How ancient this discipline was, may be seen from Tertullian (On Baptism
17):

> The right to confer baptism belongs to the chief priest who is the bishop,
> then to priests and deacons, but not without the authorization of the bishop.

Ignatius (Epistle to the Smyrnæans 8): "It is not lawful to baptize or celebrate
the agape without the bishop." St. Jerome (Against the Luciferians 9) witnesses
to the same usage in his days: "Without chrism and the command of the bishop,
neither priest nor deacon has the right of conferring baptism."

Deacons are only extraordinary ministers of solemn baptism, as by their office
they are assistants to the priestly order. St. Isidore of Seville (De Eccl,
Off., ii, 25) says: "It is plain that baptism is to be conferred by priests
only, and it is not lawful even for deacons to administer it without permission
of the bishop or priest." That deacons were, however, ministers of this
sacrament by delegation is evident from the quotations adduced. In the service
of ordination of a deacon, the bishop says to the candidate: "It behooves a
deacon to minister at the altar, to baptize and to preach." Philip the deacon is
mentioned in the Bible (Acts 8) as conferring baptism, presumably by delegation
of the Apostles.

It is to be noted that though every priest, in virtue of his ordination is the
ordinary minister of baptism, yet by ecclesiastical decrees he can not use this
power licitly unless he has jurisdiction. Hence the Roman Ritual declares: The
legitimate minister of baptism is the parish priest, or any other priest
delegated by the parish priest or the bishop of the place." The Second Plenary
Council of Baltimore adds: "Priests are deserving of grave reprehension who
rashly baptize infants of another parish or of another diocese." St. Alphonsus
(n. 114) says that parents who bring their children for baptism without
necessity to a priest other than their own pastor, are guilty of sin because
they violate the rights of the parish priest. He adds, however, that other
priests may baptize such children, if they have the permission, whether express,
or tacit, or even reasonably presumed, of the proper pastor. Those who have no
settled place of abode may be baptized by the pastor of any church they choose.


EXTRAORDINARY MINISTER

In case of necessity, baptism can be administered lawfully and validly by any
person whatsoever who observes the essential conditions, whether this person be
a Catholic layman or any other man or woman, heretic or schismatic, infidel or
Jew.

The essential conditions are that the person pour water upon the one to be
baptized, at the same time pronouncing the words: "I baptize thee in the name of
the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." Moreover, he must thereby
intend really to baptize the person, or technically, he must intend to perform
what the Church performs when administering this sacrament.

The Roman Ritual adds that, even in conferring baptism in cases of necessity,
there is an order of preference to be followed as to the minister. This order
is: if a priest be present, he is to be preferred to a deacon, a deacon to a
subdeacon, a cleric to a layman, and a man to a woman, unless modesty should
require (as in cases of childbirth) that no other than the female be the
minister, or again, unless the female should understand better the method of
baptizing. The Ritual also says that the father or mother should not baptize
their own child, except in danger of death when no one else is at hand who could
administer the sacrament. Pastors are also directed by the Ritual to teach the
faithful, and especially midwives, the proper method of baptizing. When such
private baptism is administered, the other ceremonies of the rite are supplied
later by a priest, if the recipient of the sacrament survives.

This right of any person whatsoever to baptize in case of necessity is in accord
with the constant tradition and practice of the Church. Tertullian (On Baptism
7) says, speaking of laymen who have an opportunity to administer baptism: "He
will be guilty of the loss of a soul, if he neglects to confer what he freely
can," St. Jerome (Against the Luciferians 9): "In case of necessity, we know
that it is also allowable for a layman [to baptize]; for as a person receives,
so may he give," The Fourth Council of the Lateran (cap. Firmiter) decrees: "The
Sacrament of Baptism . . . no matter by whom conferred is available to
salvation," St. Isidore of Seville (can. Romanus de cons., iv) declares: "The
Spirit of God administers the grace of baptism, although it be a pagan who does
the baptizing," Pope Nicholas I teaches the Bulgarians (Resp. 104) that baptism
by a Jew or a pagan is valid.

Owing to the fact that women are barred from enjoying any species of
ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the question necessarily arose concerning their
ability to bestow valid baptism. Tertullian (On Baptism 17) strongly opposes the
administration of this sacrament by women, but he does not declare it void. In
like manner, St. Epiphanius (Hær., lxxix) says of females: "Not even the power
of baptizing has been granted to them", but he is speaking of solemn baptism,
which is a function of the priesthood. Similar expressions may be found in the
writings of other Fathers, but only when they are opposing the grotesque
doctrine of some heretics, like the Marcionites, Pepuzians, and Cataphrygians,
who wished to make Christian priestesses of women. The authoritative decision of
the Church, however, is plain. Pope Urban II (c. Super quibus, xxx, 4) writes,
"It is true baptism if a woman in case of necessity baptizes a child in the name
of the Trinity." The Florentine decree for the Armenians says explicitly: "In
case of necessity, not only a priest or a deacon, but even a layman or woman,
nay even a pagan or heretic may confer baptism."

The main reason for this extension of power as to the administration of baptism
is of course that the Church has understood from the beginning that this was the
will of Christ. St. Thomas (III:62:3) says that owing to the absolute necessity
of baptism for the salvation of souls, it is in accordance with the mercy of
God, who wishes all to be saved, that the means of obtaining this sacrament
should be put, as far as possible, within the reach of all; and as for that
reason the matter of the sacrament was made of common water, which can most
easily be had, so in like manner it was only proper that every man should be
made its minister. Finally, it is to be noted that, by the law of the Church,
the person administering baptism, even in cases of necessity, contracts a
spiritual relationship with the child and its parents. This relationship
constitutes an impediment that would make a subsequent marriage with any of them
null and void unless a dispensation were obtained beforehand. See AFFINITY.


RECIPIENT OF BAPTISM

Every living human being, not yet baptized, is the subject of this sacrament.


BAPTISM OF ADULTS

As regards adults there is no difficulty or controversy. Christ's command
excepts no one when He bids the Apostles teach all nations and baptize them.


BAPTISM OF INFANTS

Infant baptism has, however, been the subject of much dispute. The Waldenses and
Cathari and later the Anabaptists, rejected the doctrine that infants are
capable of receiving valid baptism, and some sectarians at the present day hold
the same opinion.

The Catholic Church, however, maintains absolutely that the law of Christ
applies as well to infants as to adults. When the Redeemer declares (John 3)
that it is necessary to be born again of water and the Holy Ghost in order to
enter the Kingdom of God, His words may be justly understood to mean that He
includes all who are capable of having a right to this kingdom. Now, He has
asserted such a right even for those who are not adults, when He says (Matthew
19:14): "Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for the
kingdom of heaven is for such." It has been objected that this latter text does
not refer to infants, inasmuch as Christ says "to come to me". In the parallel
passage in St. Luke (18:15), however, the text reads: "And they brought unto him
also infants, that he might touch them"; and then follow the words cited from
St. Matthew. In the Greek text, the words brephe and prosepheron refer to
infants in arms.

Moreover, St. Paul (Colossians 2) says that baptism in the New Law has taken the
place of circumcision in the Old. It was especially to infants that the rite of
circumcision was applied by Divine precept. If it be said that there is no
example of the baptism of infants to be found in the Bible, we may answer that
infants are included in such phrases as: "She was baptized and her household"
(Acts 16:15); "Himself was baptized, and all his house immediately" (Acts
16:33); "I baptized the household of Stephanus" (1 Corinthians 1:16).

The tradition of Christian antiquity as to the necessity of infant baptism is
clear from the very beginning. We have given many striking quotations on this
subject already, in dealing with the necessity of baptism. A few, therefore,
will suffice here.

 * Origen (in cap. vi, Ep. ad Rom.) declares: "The Church received from the
   Apostles the tradition of giving baptism also to infants".
 * St. Augustine (Serm. xi, De Verb Apost.) says of infant baptism: "This the
   Church always had, always held; this she received from the faith of our
   ancestors; this she perseveringly guards even to the end."
 * St. Cyprian (Epistle 58) writes: "From baptism and from grace . . . must not
   be kept the infant who, because recently born, has committed no sin, except,
   inasmuch as it was born carnally from Adam, it has contracted the contagion
   of the ancient death in its first nativity; and it comes to receive the
   remission of sins more easily on this very account that not its own, but
   another's sins are forgiven it."
 * St. Cyprian's letter to Fidus declares that the Council of Carthage in 253
   reprobated the opinion that the baptism of infants should be delayed until
   the eighth day after birth.
 * The Council of Milevis in 416 anathematizes whosoever says that infants
   lately born are not to be baptized.
 * The Council of Trent solemnly defines the doctrine of infant baptism (Sess.
   VII, can. xiii). It also condemns (can. xiv) the opinion of Erasmus that
   those who had been baptized in infancy, should be left free to ratify or
   reject the baptismal promises after they had become adult.

Theologians also call attention to the fact that as God sincerely wishes all men
to be saved, He does not exclude infants, for whom baptism of either water or
blood is the only means possible. The doctrines also of the universality of
original sin and of the all-comprehending atonement of Christ are stated so
plainly and absolutely in Scripture as to leave no solid reason for denying that
infants are included as well as adults.

To the objection that baptism requires faith, theologians reply that adults must
have faith, but infants receive habitual faith, which is infused into them in
the sacrament of regeneration. As to actual faith, they believe on the faith of
another; as St. Augustine (De Verb. Apost., xiv, xviii) beautifully says: "He
believes by another, who has sinned by another."

As to the obligation imposed by baptism, the infant is obliged to fulfill them
in proportion to its age and capacity, as is the case with all laws. Christ, it
is true, prescribed instruction and actual faith for adults as necessary for
baptism (Matthew 28; Mark 16), but in His general law on the necessity of the
sacrament (John 3) He makes absolutely no restriction as to the subject of
baptism; and consequently while infants are included in the law, they can not be
required to fulfill conditions that are utterly impossible at their age.

While not denying the validity of infant baptism, Tertullian (De Bapt., xviii)
desired that the sacrament be not conferred upon them until they have attained
the use of reason, on account of the danger of profaning their baptism as youths
amid the allurements of pagan vice. In like manner, St. Gregory Nazianzen (Or.
xl, De Bapt.) thought that baptism, unless there was danger of death, should be
deferred until the child was three years old, for then it could hear and respond
at the ceremonies. Such opinions, however, were shared by few, and they contain
no denial of the validity of infant baptism. It is true that the Council of
Neocæsarea (can. vi) declares that an infant can not be baptized in its mother's
womb, but it was teaching only that neither the baptism of the mother nor her
faith is common to her and the infant in her womb, but are acts peculiar to the
mother alone.


BAPTISM OF UNBORN INFANTS

This leads to the baptism of infants in cases of difficult delivery. When the
Roman Ritual declares that a child is not to be baptized while still enclosed
(clausus) in its mother's womb, it supposes that the baptismal water can not
reach the body of the child. When, however, this seems possible, even with the
aid of an instrument, Benedict XIV (Syn. Diaec., vii, 5) declares that midwives
should be instructed to confer conditional baptism. The Ritual further says that
when the water can flow upon the head of the infant the sacrament is to be
administered absolutely; but if it can be poured only on some other part of the
body, baptism is indeed to be conferred, but it must be conditionally repeated
in case the child survives its birth, It is to be noted that in these last two
cases, the rubric of the Ritual supposes that the infant has partly emerged from
the womb. For if the fetus was entirely enclosed, baptism is to be repeated
conditionally in all cases (Lehmkuhl, n, 61).

In case of the death of the mother, the fetus is to be immediately extracted and
baptized, should there be any life in it. Infants have been taken alive from the
womb well after the mother's death. After the Cæsarean incision has been
performed, the fetus may be conditionally baptized before extraction if
possible; if the sacrament is administered after its removal from the womb the
baptism is to be absolute, provided it is certain that life remains. If after
extraction it is doubtful whether it be still alive, it is to be baptized under
the condition: "If thou art alive". Physicians, mothers, and midwives ought to
be reminded of the grave obligation of administering baptism under these
circumstances. It is to be borne in mind that according to the prevailing
opinion among the learned, the fetus is animated by a human soul from the very
beginning of its conception. In cases of delivery where the issue is a mass that
is not certainly animated by human life, it is to be baptized conditionally: "If
thou art a man."


BAPTISM OF INSANE PERSONS

The perpetually insane, who have never had the use of reason, are in the same
category as infants in what relates to the conferring of baptism, and
consequently the sacrament is valid if administered.

If at one time they had been sane, baptism bestowed upon them during their
insanity would be probably invalid unless they had shown a desire for it before
losing their reason. Moralists teach that, in practice, this latter class may
always be baptized conditionally, when it is uncertain whether or not they had
ever asked for baptism (Sabetti, no. 661). In this connection it is to be
remarked that, according to many writers, anyone who has a wish to receive all
things necessary to salvation, has at the same time an implicit desire for
baptism, and that a more specific desire is not absolutely necessary.


FOUNDLINGS

Foundlings are to be baptized conditionally, if there is no means of finding out
whether they have been validly baptized or not. If a note has been left with a
foundling stating that it had already received baptism, the more common opinion
is that it should nevertheless be given conditional baptism, unless
circumstances should make it plain that baptism had undoubtedly been conferred.
O'Kane (no. 214) says that the same rule is to be followed when midwives or
other lay persons have baptized infants in case of necessity.


BAPTISM OF THE CHILDREN OF JEWISH AND INFIDEL PARENTS

The question is also discussed as to whether the infant children of Jews or
infidels may be baptized against the will of their parents. To the general
query, the answer is a decided negative, because such a baptism would violate
the natural rights of parents, and the infant would later be exposed to the
danger of perversion. We say this, of course, only in regard to the liceity of
such a baptism, for if it were actually administered it would undoubtedly be
valid. St. Thomas (III:68:10) is very express in denying the lawfulness of
imparting such baptism, and this has been the constant judgment of the Holy See,
as is evident from various decrees of the Sacred Congregations and of Pope
Benedict XIV (II Bullarii). We say the answer is negative to the general
question, because particular circumstances may require a different response. For
it would undoubtedly be licit to impart such baptism if the children were in
proximate danger of death; or if they had been removed from the parental care
and there was no likelihood of their returning to it; or if they were
perpetually insane; or if one of the parents were to consent to the baptism; or
finally, if, after the death of the father, the paternal grandfather would be
willing, even though the mother objected. If the children were, however, not
infants, but had the use of reason and were sufficiently instructed, they should
be baptized when prudence dictated such a course.



In the celebrated case of the Jewish child, Edgar Mortara, Pius IX indeed
ordered that he should be brought up as a Catholic, even against the will of his
parents, but baptism had already been administered to him some years before when
in danger of death.


BAPTISM OF THE CHILDREN OF PROTESTANT PARENTS

It is not licit to baptize children against the will of their Protestant
parents; for their baptism would violate parental right, expose them to the
danger of perversion, and be contrary to the practice of the Church. Kenrick
also strongly condemns nurses who baptize the children of Protestants unless
they are in danger of death.


BAPTISM WITH THE CONSENT OF NON-CATHOLIC PARENTS

Should a priest baptize the child of non-Catholic parents if they themselves
desire it? He certainly can do so if there is reason to hope that the child will
be brought up a Catholic (First Provincial Council of Baltimore, decr. x). An
even greater security for the Catholic education of such child would be the
promise of one or both parents that they themselves will embrace the Faith.


BAPTISM OF THE DEAD

Concerning baptism for the dead, a curious and difficult passage in St. Paul's
Epistle has given rise to some controversy. The Apostle says: "Otherwise what
shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all?
Why are they then baptized for them?" (1 Corinthians 15:29). There seems to be
no question here of any such absurd custom as conferring baptism on corpses, as
was practiced later by some heretical sects. It has been conjectured that this
otherwise unknown usage of the Corinthians consisted in some living person
receiving a symbolic baptism as representing another who had died with the
desire of becoming a Christian, but had been prevented from realizing his wish
for baptism by an unforeseen death. Those who give this explanation say that St.
Paul merely refers to this custom of the Corinthians as an argumentum ad
hominem, when discussing the resurrection of the dead, without approving the
usage mentioned.

Archbishop MacEvilly in his exposition of the Epistles of St. Paul, holds a
different opinion. He paraphrases St. Paul's text as follows: "Another argument
in favor of the resurrection. If the dead will not arise, what means the
profession of faith in the resurrection of the dead, made at baptism? Why are we
all baptized with a profession of our faith in their resurrection?" The
archbishop comments, as follows:

> It is almost impossible to glean anything like certainty as to the meaning of
> these very abstruse words, from the host of interpretations that have been
> hazarded regarding them (see Calmet's Dissertation on the matter).
> 
> In the first place, every interpretation referring the words 'baptized', or
> 'dead' to either erroneous or evil practices, which men might have employed to
> express their belief in the doctrine of the resurrection, should be rejected;
> as it appears by no means likely that the Apostle would ground an argument,
> even though it were what the logicians call an argumentum ad hominem, on
> either a vicious or erroneous practice.
> 
> Besides, such a system of reasoning would be quite inconclusive. Hence, the
> words should not be referred to either the Clinics, baptized at the hour of
> death, or to the vicarious baptisms in use among the Jews, for their departed
> friends who departed without baptism.
> 
> The interpretation adopted in the paraphrase makes the words refer to the
> Sacrament of Baptism, which all were obliged to approach with faith in the
> resurrection of the dead as a necessary condition. 'Credo in resurrectionem
> mortuorum'. This interpretation — the one adopted by St. Chrysostom — has the
> advantage of giving the words 'baptized' and 'dead' their literal
> signification.
> 
> The only inconvenience in it is that the word resurrection is introduced. But,
> it is understood from the entire context, and is warranted by a reference to
> other passages of Scripture. For, from the Epistle of the Hebrews (6:2) it
> appears that a knowledge of the faith of the resurrection was one of the
> elementary points of instruction required for adult baptism; and hence the
> Scriptures themselves furnish the ground for the introduction of the word.
> 
> There is another probable interpretation, which understands the words
> 'baptism' and 'dead' in a metaphorical sense, and refers them to the
> sufferings which the Apostles and heralds of salvation underwent to preach the
> Gospel to the infidels, dead to grace and spiritual life, with the hope of
> making them sharers in the glory of a happy resurrection. The word 'baptism'
> is employed in this sense in Scripture, even by our divine Redeemer Himself —
> 'I have a baptism wherewith to be baptized', etc. And the word 'dead' is
> employed in several parts of the New Testament to designate those spiritually
> dead to grace and justice. In the Greek, the words 'for the dead', uper ton
> nekron that is, on account of or, in behalf of the dead, would serve to
> confirm, in some degree, this latter interpretation.
> 
> These appear to be the most probable of the interpretations of this passage;
> each, no doubt, has its difficulties. The meaning of the words was known to
> the Corinthians at the time of the Apostle. All that can be known of their
> meaning at this remote period, can not exceed the bounds of probable
> conjecture.
> 
> (loc. cit., chap. xv; cf. also Cornely in Ep. I Cor.)


ADJUNCTS OF BAPTISM


BAPTISTERY

According to the canons of the Church, baptism except in case of necessity is to
be administered in churches (First Provincial Council of Baltimore, Decree 16).
The Roman Ritual says: "Churches in which there is a baptismal font, or where
there is a baptistery close to the church". The term "baptistery" is commonly
used for the space set aside for the conferring of baptism. In like manner the
Greeks use photisterion for the same purpose — a word derived from St. Paul's
designation of baptism as an "illumination".

The words of the Ritual just cited, however, mean by "baptistery", a separate
building constructed for the purpose of administering baptism. Such buildings
have been erected both in the East and West, as at Tyre, Padua, Pisa, Florence,
and other places. In such baptisteries, besides the font, altars were also
built; and here the baptism was conferred. As a rule, however, the church itself
contains a railed-off space containing the baptismal font. Anciently fonts were
attached only to cathedral churches, but at the present day nearly every parish
church has a font. This is the sense of the Baltimore decree above cited. The
Second Plenary Council of Baltimore declared, however, that if missionaries
judge that the great difficulty of bringing an infant to church is a sufficient
reason for baptizing in a private house, then they are to administer the
sacrament with all the prescribed rites.

The ordinary law of the Church is that when private baptism is conferred, the
remaining ceremonies are to be supplied not in the house but in the church
itself. The Ritual also directs that the font be of solid material, so that the
baptismal water may be safely kept in it. A railing is to surround the font, and
a representation of St. John baptizing Christ should adorn it. The cover of the
font usually contains the holy oils used in baptism, and this cover must be
under lock and key, according to the Ritual.


BAPTISMAL WATER

In speaking of the matter of baptism, we stated that true, natural water is all
that is required for its validity. In administering solemn baptism, however the
Church prescribes that the water used should have been consecrated on Holy
Saturday or on the eve of Pentecost. For the liceity (not validity) of the
sacrament, therefore, the priest is obliged to use consecrated water. This
custom is so ancient that we can not discover its origin. It is found in the
most ancient liturgies of the Latin and Greek Churches and is mentioned in the
Apostolic Constitutions (VII, 43). The ceremony of its consecration is striking
and symbolic. After signing the water with the cross, the priest divides it with
his hand and casts it to the four corners of the earth. This signifies the
baptizing of all the nations. Then he breathes upon the water and immerses the
paschal candle in it.

Next he pours into the water, first the oil of catechumens and then the sacred
chrism, and lastly both holy oils together, pronouncing appropriate prayers. But
what if during the year, the supply of consecrated water should be insufficient?
In that case, the Ritual declares that the priest may add common water to what
remains, but only in less quantity. If the consecrated water appears putrid, the
priest must examine whether or not it is really so, for the appearance may be
caused only by the admixture of the sacred oils. If it has really become putrid,
the font is to be renovated and fresh water to be blessed by a form given in the
Ritual. In the United States, the Holy See has sanctioned a short formula for
the consecration of baptismal water (Second Plenary Council of Baltimore).


HOLY OILS

In baptism, the priest uses the oil of catechumens, which is olive oil, and
chrism, the latter being a mixture of balsam and oil. The oils are consecrated
by the bishop on Maundy Thursday. The anointing in baptism is recorded by St.
Justin, St. John Chrysostom, and other ancient Fathers. Pope Innocent I declares
that the chrism is to be applied to the crown of the head, not to the forehead,
for the latter is reserved to bishops. The same may be found in the
Sacramentaries of St. Gregory and St. Gelasius (Martène, I, i). In the Greek
Rite the oil of catechumens is blessed by the priest during the baptismal
ceremony.


SPONSORS

When infants are solemnly baptized, persons assist at the ceremony to make
profession of the faith in the child's name. This practice comes from antiquity
and is witnessed to by Tertullian, St. Basil, St. Augustine, and others. Such
persons are designated sponsores, offerentes, susceptores, fidejussores, and
patrini. The English term is godfather and godmother, or in Anglo-Saxon, gossip.

These sponsors, in default of the child's parents, are obliged to instruct it
concerning faith and morals. One sponsor is sufficient and not more than two are
allowed. In the latter case, one should be male and the other female. The object
of these restrictions is the fact that the sponsor contracts a spiritual
relationship to the child and its parents which would be an impediment to
marriage. Sponsors must themselves be baptized persons having the use of reason
and they must have been designated as sponsors by the priest or parents. During
the baptism they must physically touch the child either personally or by proxy.
They are required, moreover, to have the intention of really assuming the
obligations of godparents. It is desirable that they should have been confirmed,
but this is not absolutely necessary. Certain persons are prohibited from acting
as sponsors. They are: members of religious orders, married persons in respect
to each other, or parents to their children, and in general those who are
objectionable on such grounds as infidelity, heresy, excommunication, or who are
members of condemned secret societies, or public sinners (Sabetti, no. 663).
Sponsors are also used in the solemn baptism of adults. They are never necessary
in private baptism.


BAPTISMAL NAME

From the earliest times names were given in baptism. The priest is directed to
see that obscene, fabulous, and ridiculous names, or those of heathen gods or of
infidel men be not imposed. On the contrary the priest is to recommend the names
of saints. This rubric is not a rigorous precept, but it is an instruction to
the priest to do what he can in the matter. If parents are unreasonably
obstinate, the priest may add a saint's name to the one insisted upon.


BAPTISMAL ROBE

In the primitive Church, a white robe was worn by the newly baptized for a
certain period after the ceremony (St. Ambrose, On the Mysteries 7). As solemn
baptisms usually took place on the eves of Easter or Pentecost, the white
garments became associated with those festivals. Thus, Sabbatum in Albis and
Dominica in Albis received their names from the custom of putting off at that
time the baptismal robe which had been worn since the previous vigil of Easter.
It is thought that the English name for Pentecost — Whitsunday or Whitsuntide,
also derived its appellation from the white garments of the newly baptized. In
our present ritual, a white veil is placed momentarily on the head of the
catechumen as a substitute for the baptismal robe.


CEREMONIES OF BAPTISM

The rites that accompany the baptismal ablution are as ancient as they are
beautiful. The writings of the early Fathers and the antique liturgies show that
most of them are derived from Apostolic times.

The infant is brought to the door of the church by the sponsors, where it is met
by the priest. After the godparents have asked faith from the Church of God in
the child's name, the priest breathes upon its face and exorcises the evil
spirit. St. Augustine (Ep. cxciv, Ad Sixtum) makes use of this Apostolic
practice of exorcising to prove the existence of original sin. Then the infant's
forehead and breast are signed with the cross, the symbol of redemption.

Next follows the imposition of hands, a custom certainly as old as the Apostles.
Some blessed salt is now placed in the mouth of the child. "When salt", says the
Catechism of the Council of Trent "is put into the mouth of person to be
baptized, it evidently imports that, by the doctrine of faith and the gift of
grace, he should be delivered from the corruption of sin, experience a relish
for good works, and be delighted with the food of divine wisdom."

Placing his stole over the child the priest introduces it into the church, and
on the way to the font the sponsors make a profession of faith for the infant.
The priest now touches the ears and nostrils of the child with spittle. The
symbolic meaning is thus explained (Cat. C. Trid.) "His nostrils and ears are
next touched with spittle and he is immediately sent to the baptismal font,
that, as sight was restored to the blind man mentioned in the Gospel, whom the
Lord, after having spread clay over his eyes, commanded to wash them in the
waters of Siloe; so also he may understand that the efficacy of the sacred
ablution is such as to bring light to the mind to discern heavenly truth."

The catechumen now makes the triple renunciation of Satan, his works and his
pomps, and he is anointed with the oil of catechumens on the breast and between
the shoulders: "On the breast, that by the gift of the Holy Ghost, he may cast
off error and ignorance and may receive the true faith, 'for the just man liveth
by faith' (Galatians 3:11); on the shoulders, that by the grace of the Holy
Spirit, he may shake off negligence and torpor and engage in the performance of
good works; 'faith without works is dead' (James 2:26)", says the Catechism.

The infant now, through its sponsors, makes a declaration of faith and asks for
baptism. The priest, having meantime changed his violet stole for a white one,
then administers the threefold ablution, making the sign of the cross three
times with the stream of water he pours on the head of the child, saying at the
same time: "N___, I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of
the Holy Ghost." The sponsors during the ablution either hold the child or at
least touch it. If the baptism be given by immersion, the priest dips the back
part of the head three times into the water in the form of a cross, pronouncing
the sacramental words. The crown of the child's head is now anointed with
chrism, "to give him to understand that from that day he is united as a member
to Christ, his head, and engrafted on His body; and therefore he is called a
Christian from Christ, but Christ from chrism" (Catech.). A white veil is now
put on the infant's head with the words: "Receive this white garment, which
mayest thou carry without stain before the judgment seat of Our Lord Jesus
Christ, that thou mayest have eternal life. Amen." Then a lighted candle is
placed in the catechumen's hand, the priest saying: "Receive this burning light,
and keep thy baptism so as to be without blame. Observe the commandments of God;
that, when Our Lord shall come to His nuptials, thou mayest meet Him together
with all the Saints and mayest have life everlasting, and live for ever and
ever. Amen." The new Christian is then bidden to go in peace.

In the baptism of adults, all the essential ceremonies are the same as for
infants. There are, however, some impressive additions. The priest wears the
cope over his other vestments, and he should be attended by a number of clerics
or at least by two. While the catechumen waits outside the church door, the
priest recites some prayers at the altar. Then he proceeds to the place where
the candidate is, and asks him the questions and performs the exorcisms almost
as prescribed in the ritual for infants. Before administering the blessed salt,
however, he requires the catechumen to make an explicit renunciation of the form
of error to which he had formerly adhered, and he is then signed with the cross
on the brow, ears, eyes, nostrils, mouth, breast, and between the shoulders.
Afterwards, the candidate, on bended knees, recites three several times the
Lord's Prayer, and a cross is made on his forehead, first by the godfather and
then by the priest. After this, taking him by the hand, the priest leads him
into the church, where he adores prostrate and then rising he recites the
Apostles' Creed and the Lord's Prayer. The other ceremonies are practically the
same as for infants. It is to be noted that owing to the difficulty of carrying
out with proper splendor the ritual for baptizing adults, the bishops of the
United States obtained permission from the Holy See to make use of the
ceremonial of infant baptism instead. This general dispensation lasted until
1857, when the ordinary law of the Church went into force. (See COUNCILS OF
BALTIMORE.) Some American dioceses, however, obtained individual permissions to
continue the use of the ritual for infants when administering adult baptism.


METAPHORICAL BAPTISM

The name "baptism" is sometimes applied improperly to other ceremonies.


BAPTISM OF BELLS

This name has been given to the blessing of bells, at least in France, since the
eleventh century. It is derived from the washing of the bell with holy water by
the bishop, before he anoints it with the oil of the infirm without and with
chrism within. A fuming censer is then placed under it. The bishop prays that
these sacramentals of the Church may, at the sound of the bell, put the demons
to flight, protect from storms, and call the faithful to prayer.


BAPTISM OF SHIPS

At least since the time of the Crusades, rituals have contained a blessing for
ships. The priest begs God to bless the vessel and protect those who sail in it,
as He did the ark of Noah, and Peter, when the Apostle was sinking in the sea.
The ship is then sprinkled with holy water.




ABOUT THIS PAGE

APA citation. Fanning, W. (1907). Baptism. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New
York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

MLA citation. Fanning, William. "Baptism." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 2.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm>.

Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by Charles Sweeney,
S.J.

Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor.
Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.

Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address
is webmaster at newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I
greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical
errors and inappropriate ads.

Copyright © 2023 by New Advent LLC. Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

CONTACT US | ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT