Part II: Baptism — Chapter III: Minister; Chapter IV: Recipient

Chapter III: The Minister of Baptism

Chapter IV: The Recipient of Baptism

CHAPTER III THE MINISTER OF BAPTISM Catholic theology makes a distinction between solemn Baptism (baptismus solemnis) andprivate Baptism, which is also called Baptism of necessity (baptismus necessitatis). Any one can administer private Baptism, whereas solemn Baptism requires a specially qualified minister. The ordinary minister (minister ordinarius) of solemn Baptism is the bishop or priest. A deacon may administer the Sacrament solemnly only with the express permission of a bishop or priest, and consequently is called the extraordinary minister (minister extraordinarius) of the Sacrament. 254 SECTION i THE MINISTER OF SOLEMN BAPTISM i. The Ordinary Minister of Solemn Baptism.— Baptism is called solemn when it is administered with all the prescribed ecclesiastical ceremonies. These ceremonies are not essential to the validity of the Sacrament and are omitted when it is conferred privately.1 The ordinary minister of solemn Baptism is any validly ordained priest, who has the requisite ecclesiastical jurisdiction, that is to say, the bishop or any pastor or other priest duly authorized by either bishop or pastor to administer the Sacrament. “The [ordinary] minister of this Sacrament [ Baptism],” says the Decretum pro Armenis, “is the priest, to whose office it belongs to baptize.” 2 a) Our Lord’s official mandate to baptize all nations 3 was addressed to the Apostles and their successors, i. e. the bishops, who, in turn, gave it l On the ceremonies of solemn 2 ” Minister [ordinarius] huius Baptism cfr. Bellarmine, De Bapt., sacramenti est sacerdos, cut ex ofc. 24-27; Chr. Pesch, Praelect. Dog- ficio competit baptizare” (Denmat., Vol. VI, 3rd ed., pp. 212 sqq., zinger-Bannwart, n. 696). Freiburg 1908; N. Gihr, Die hi Sa- 8 Matth. XXVIII, 19. kramente der kath. Kirche, Vol. I, 2nd ed., §39, Freiburg 1902. 255 to others when it became impossible for them to be the sole ministers of the Sacrament. Cf r. I Cor. I, 17 : “Christ hath not sent me to baptize, but to preach the gospel.” 4 St. Peter did not himself baptize Cornelius and his family, but “commanded them to be baptized/’ 5 From which it may be seen that Holy Scripture, to say the least, is not averse to the ministerium ordinarium of the priesthood in respect of Baptism. b) In the early days the solemn administration of Baptism usually took place at Easter or Pentecost, and was regarded as the exclusive prerogative of the bishop.6 When Christianity gradually spread to the rural districts, and the dioceses increased in size, simple priests were permitted to confer Baptism by virtue of their office, and the administration of this Sacrament became a prerogative of the pastors. Tertullian says : ” Of giving Baptismrthe chief priest, who is the bishop, has the right; in the next place the presbyters and deacons, not however, without the bishop’s authority, on account of the honor of the Church.” 7 St. Thomas states the reason for this as follows : ” Just as it belongs to a priest to consecrate the Eucharist, … so it is the proper office of a priest to baptize ; since it seems to belong to one 4 1 Cor. I, 17: * Non enim tnisit me Christus baptizare, sed evang elisor e.* 5” Iussit baptizari” (Acts X, 48). 6 The biographer of St. Ambrose, Paulinus, says of him (De Vita S. Ambros., apud Migne, P. L., XIV, 27 sqq.): * Erat in rebus divinis implendis fortissimus, ut quod soli* tus erat circa baptizandos solus itnplere, quinque postea e pise opt vix itnplerent.* 7 De Bapt., c. 17: * Dandi qui’ dem baptismum habet ius summus sacerdos, qui est e pise opus; dehinc presbyteri et diaconi, non tamen sine episcopi auctoritate propter Ecclesiae honorem.* MINISTER 257 and the same person to produce the whole and to arrange the part in the whole.* 8 2. The Extraordinary Minister of Solemn Baptism. — The extraordinary ministry of the deacon in regard to Baptism comprises two essential elements: (a) the right to administer solemn Baptism, which is never granted to laymen, nor to clerics in minor orders; and (b) the special permission of bishop or pastor, given for an important reason. The right (a) is required to establish the order of the diaconate, while without the latter condition (b) bishops and priests would have no prerogative in matters of Baptism over deacons. With regard to the first-mentioned point the Pontificate Romanum observes : ” It belongs to the deacon to minister at the altar, to baptize, and to preach.” 9 With regard to the last-mentioned point, the Catechism of the Council of Trent says : ” Next to bishops and priests come deacons, for whom, as numerous decrees of the holy Fathers attest, it is not lawful to administer this Sacrament without the leave of the bishop or priest.” 10 The extraordinary character of the prerogative of deacons to confer Baptism is illustrated by 8 Summa TheoU, 3a, qu. 67, art. oportet ministrare ad altare, bop2 : * Sicut ad sacerdotetn pertinet tisare, et praedicare.* consecrate Eucharistiam, … ita ad 10 P. II, c. 2, n. 23 : ” Secunproprium oMcium pertinet baptisare; dum ministrorum locum obtinent diaeiusdem enim videtur esse operari coni, quibus sine episcopi out sacertotum et partem in toto disponere.” dotis concessit non licere hoc sacraCf. Billuart, De Bapt., diss. 2, art. 1. mentum administrate plurima sane9De Ordine Diac: ” Diaconum torum Patrum decreta testantnr”

the example of the deacon Philip, who, as the Acts of the Apostles tell us, baptized the eunuch of Queen Candace 11 and a great number of other men and women in Samaria.12 Nevertheless the Church has always insisted that, apart from cases of urgent necessity, deacons may not confer solemn Baptism except with the permission of a bishop or priest. Thus Pope Gelasius I (d. 496) admonished the bishops of Lucania: “Deacons must not presume to baptize without the permission of a bishop or priest, except in the absence of the aforesaid officials, if there be extreme necessity.” 13 A similar passage occurs in the writings of St. Isidore (d. 636).14 11 Cfr. Acta VIII, 38. 12 Cfr. Acts VIII, 12. 13 Ep. ad Episc. Lucan., n. 7: ” Diaconi absque episcopo vel presbytero baptizare non audeant, nisi praedictis fortasse oMciis longius constitute necessitas extretna compellat.* (Migne, P. L.t LIX, 51). 14 De OMc., II, 25, 9: Constat baptisma so lis sacerdotibus esse tractandum eiusque ministerium nec ipsis diaconis explere esse licitum absque episcopo vel presbytero, nisi his procul absentibus ultima languoris necessitas cogat” (Migne, P. L., LXXXIII, 822).— For a more detailed treatment consult Suarez, De BapU, disp. 23, sect. 2. — On the sponsors (patrini, dvddoxoi) cfr. PesCn, Praelect. Dogmat., Vol. VI, 3rd ed.t pp. 210 sqq. — On the ceremonies of Baptism and their ” parallels ” in the ethnic religions of antiquity see Cabrol, Dictionnaire, s. v. ” Bapteme.” SECTION 2 WHO HAS THE POWER TO CONFER BAPTISM IN In case of urgent necessity any human being, irrespective of sex or faith, can validly baptize. This teaching is based on the fact that Baptism is necessary for salvation.1 It is not a mere question of ecclesiastical discipline but a dogma, and can be rightly understood only in the light of Christ’s implicit command, as interpreted by Tradition. The Fourth Council of the Lateran (121 5) declared: “The Sacrament of Baptism, … properly conferred, no matter by whom (a quocunque rite collatum), is useful for salvation.” 2 The phrase ” a quocunque ” was explained by the Council of Florence (1439) as follows: “In case of necessity, not only a priest or a deacon, but a lay man or woman, nay even a pagan and a heretic, can [validly] baptize, provided only that he observes the form prescribed by the Church and has the intention of doing what the Church does.” 8 To set forth the process of clarification through which this teaching has passed, it will be best to proceed chronologically. 1 V. supra, Ch. II, pp. 238 sqq. vel diaconus, sed etiam laicus vel 2 Caput “Firmiter”: “Sacra- mulier, into etiam paganus et haerementum vero boptismi … a quo- ticus baptizare ilicite} potest, dumcunque rite collatum, proficit ad modo for mam servet Ecclesiae et salutem/’ (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. facere intendat quod facit Ec430). clesia (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. ZDecretum pro Armenis: *In 696). casu necessitatis non solum sacerdos CASES OF EMERGENCY

i. Baptism Administered by Catholic Laymen.— At a very early date it was believed that Catholic laymen (homines laid) could validly baptize in cases of urgent necessity, and that even where no such necessity existed, lay Baptism was valid, though illicit. Tertullian says: “Besides these, even laymen have the right [to baptize] ; for what is equally received can be equally given.” 4 Several centuries later St. Jerome taught : “If necessity urges, we know that even laymen are allowed [to baptize] ; for as one has received, he may also give.” 6 The argument embodied in this citation is, however, inconclusive and misleading. For if it were true that ” what one has received, he may also give,” it would be equally true that “one cannot give what he has not received,” and Baptism would be invalid when administered by nonbaptized persons, which is contrary to the teaching of the Church. Augustine goes into the subject of lay Baptism at considerable length. He says among other things : ” If it is done where no urgent necessity compels, it is a usurpation of another’s [i. e. the priest’s] office. But when necessity urges, it is either no sin at all, or only a venial sin ; but though it is usurped without any necessity, and conferred by no matter whom on no matter whom, what is given cannot be -said to have not been given, though it may truly be said that it is illicitly given.* e De BapU, c. 17: * Alioquin e% laicis ius est; quod enim ex aequo [1. e. indiscriminatim] accipitur, ex aequo dart potest.” 5 Dial. adv. Lucif., n. 9: ” Si necessitas cogit, scimus etiam laicis licet e tbaptigare]; ut enim accepit quis, et dare potest,” (Migne, P. L., XXIII, 165). e Contr. Ep. Partnen., II, 13, 29: “Nulld cogente necessitate si fiat, alieni tnuneris [i. e. sacerdotis] MINISTER 261 The Oriental Fathers were more reserved in regard to this question. St. Basil seems to have regarded lay Baptism as invalid.7 In process of time, however, the Greek Church admitted its validity, though only on condition that the baptizing layman be himself baptized, i. e. a Christian. In this form lay Baptism was incorporated into the canon law of the East. In 1672, a schismatic council held at Jerusalem decreed: “The minister of this [Sacrament] is the priest alone, but, in case of real and urgent necessity, any man [may baptize], provided only he be a Christian believer.” 8 2. Baptism Administered by Heretics. — Tertullian denied that Baptism can be validly conferred by a heretic.9 The question was hotly debated in the famous controversy between St. Cyprian (d. 258) and Pope Stephen I, who finally decided that repenting heretics must not be rebaptized but reconciled through the Sacrament of Penance.10 The First Ecumenical Council (325) forbade the rebaptism of heretics. When the controversy broke out anew, in the time of the Donatist schism, St. Augustine usur patio est. Si autem necessitas urgeat, out nullum out veniale delictum est; sed etsi nulla necessitate usurpetur, et a quolibet cuilibet detur, quod datum fuerit, non potest diet non datum, quamvis recte did possit illicit e datum. (Migne, P. L., LXIII, 71). 7 Ep. ad AmphUoch., I, c. i (A. D. 374). 8Hardouin, Concil., XI, 250: Huius minister sacerdos solus, quin et urgente vert necessitate quivis homo, modo tamen fidelis.” Cfr. Gass, Symbolik der griechischen Kirche, p. 242, Berlin 1872. — On the teaching of other Oriental sects, see Denzinger, Ritus Orientalium, Vol. I, p. 21, Wtirzburg 1863. 9De Bapt., c. 15. 10 “Si quis ergo a quacunque haeresi venient ad nos, nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum est, ut manus Wis imponatur in poenitentiam.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 46). 262 BAPTISM vigorously defended the Nicene teaching. Lastly, the Council of Trent defined : ” If any one saith that the Baptism which is given by heretics, … is not a true Baptism, let him be anathema.” 11 3. Baptism Administered by Unbelievers. — It is more difficult to understand how unbelievers (pagans, Jews, Mohammedans, etc.) can validly baptize, and hence we need not wonder that this point was long contested. The false inference drawn from the argument used to defend the validity of Baptism when administered by laymen,12 vis.: that no one can give what he does not himself possess, proved a serious obstacle to the correct understanding of the Sacrament and its administration. Even St. Augustine was puzzled.18 Here, again, it was the Holy See which gave the final decision. St. Isidore observes: “The Roman Pontiff does not judge the man who baptizes, but [holds that] the Holy Ghost supplies the grace of Baptism, even though it be a pagan who baptizes.” 14 The Council of Compiegne (757) confirmed the validity of a heretical Baptism with express reference to a decision of Pope Sergius (687-701). Nicholas I (d. 867) decided a case of conscience brought before him in the same sense. The Decretum pro Armenis renSess. VII, De Bapt., can. 4: “Si quis dixerit, baptismum qui etiam datur ab haereticis, … non esse verum baptisma, anathema sit.’ Cfr. J. Ernst, Die Ketsertaufangelegenheit in der altchristlichen Kirche nach Cyprian, Mainz 1901. 12 V. supra, No. 1. 18 Cfr. Ep. ad Parmen., II, 13: ” Haec quidem alia quaestio, utrum et ab his qui numquam fuerunt Christian*, baptismus possit dari; nec tamen inde aliquid aMrmandum est sine auctoritate tanti concUii, quantum tantae rei suMcit” UDe OMc., II, 25, 9: ” Romanus Pontifex non hominem iudicat qui baptizat, sed Spiritum Dei subministrare gratiam baptismi, licet paganus sit qui baptizat.” MINISTER 263 affirmed the doctrine, and thus it has remained up to the present day. It may be noted that the power of unbelievers to baptize was virtually included in the ancient Christian maxim that ” Baptism can be given by any one,” and that the doctrine only needed to be worked out. 4. Baptism Administered by Women. — The validity of Baptism administered by women came to be recognized last of all and rather late. Tertullian15 and Epiphanius16 vigorously denounced certain women who claimed the right to baptize. It should be noted, however, that these women (Quintilla, the Colly ridians, etc.) posed as priestesses, and presumed not only to baptize in cases of necessity, but to administer solemn Baptism.17 Probably the invectives of Tertullian, Epiphanius, and later writers were directed more against the presumption and disobedience of which these women were guilty than against the validity of Baptism administered by women in general. In view of St. Paul’s command that women should keep silence in the churches, 18 it is not likely that Baptism was often administered by women in the primitive Church. To-day midwives give it quite frequently in cases of necessity. The first clear decision on the matter was issued in the eleventh century by Pope Urban II.10 In principle, Urban’s teaching was already contained in the ancient prac15 De Bapt., c. 17. l9Decret. Grat., causa 30, qu. 3, 16 Haer., 79, n. 3. C 4: “Super quibus consuluit nos 17 Cfr. De Augustinis, De Re So- tua dilectio, hoc videtur nobis ex cramentaria, 2nd ed., Vol. I, pp. 393 sententia respondendum, ut et bapsq. tismus sit, si insiante necessitate 18 1 Cor. XIV, 34: * Mulieres in femina puerum in nomine Trinitatis ecclesiis taceant* baptisaverit”

tice of lay Baptism,20 because there is no hierarchic distinction between lay men and women. But it was not defined dogmatically until 1439, when the Decretum pro Armenis21 recognized Baptism given by women as valid and permitted it in cases of urgent necessity. The dogma is convincingly demonstrated by St. Thomas in the third part of the Summa.22 20 V. supra, No. i. Section the student may profitably 21 V, supra, p. 259, note 3. consult P. Schanz, Die Lehre von 22 Summa Thiol,, 3a, qu. 67, art. den hi. Sakramenten der hath. 4. — On the whole argument of this Kirche, fi8, Freiburg 1893.

CHAPTER IV THE RECIPIENT OF BAPTISM SECTION I THE REQUISITES OF VALID RECEPTION The requisites of valid reception in the case of Baptism are mainly three: (i) The recipient must be a human being, (2) He must be in the wayfaring state (status viae), and (3) He must not have been previously baptized. 1. The Recipient Must be a Human Being. — Baptism was instituted for the purpose of blotting out original sin, and therefore its effects are limited to the descendants of Adam. The baptismal mandate (Matth. XXVIII, 19; Mark XVI, 1 5 ) is intended only for the human race. A brute beast is as incapable’ of receiving Baptism as a pure spirit, and hence the story of the “baptized lion” in the so-called Acta Pauli is sufficient to brand that document as spurious.1 The general rule is that every living being born of a human female can receive BaplCfr. Holzhey, Die Theklo-Akten, ihre Verbreitung und Beurteilung in der Kirche, Munich 1905. 26s tism. In case of doubt whether the recipient is a human being, the Sacrament should be administered conditionally.2 2. The Recipient Must be in the Wayfaring State. — Since Christ instituted His Sacraments for this world, not for the next, it is selfevident that they can be received only in statu viae. This applies particularly to Baptism. It is a somewhat difficult question to decide, however, just where in a given case the wayfaring state begins and where it ends. (a) The terminus a quo, generally speaking, is the moment of birth. ” He who has never been born cannot be born again,” says St. Augustine.8 Consequently a child hidden in the maternal womb is incapable of receiving Baptism, and to baptize the mother in its stead would obviously be invalid. This explains the custom of treating still-born children as unbaptized and refusing them ecclesiastical burial. Quite another question is this: Is it necessary for a foetus to be fully developed in order to be capable of Baptism, or does the wayfaring state begin at the moment when the soul is infused into the body? As the human foetus is a person independent of the mother, its existence plainly begins with the infusion of the intellectual soul. Hence it is reasonable and customary to baptize the foetus in case of premature birth as well as a full-grown child not yet brought to light when 2 On abnormalities, see Capell- 8 De Pecc. Mer. et Remiss., II, mann, Pastoralmedizin, i6th ed., pp. 27, 43: Qui natus non fuerit, 124 sqq.; A. J. Schulte, On the Ad- renasci non potest ministration of Baptism, pp. 14 sq., Phila. 191 5.

RECIPIENT 267 there is danger of death, and to rebaptize conditionally only when it has been impossible to reach the head.4 b) The status viae ends with death. To baptize a corpse would be both illicit and invalid; Benedict XIV has expressly forbidden it. It belongs to competent medical authority to decide whether or not in a given case death has set in. There is a curious passage in St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, which has been cited in favor of baptizing the dead and therefore requires a word of explanation. The Apostle says : ” Otherwise what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? Why are they then baptized for them?” 5 This passage is obscure and anything but relevant to the point. If the Corinthians were accustomed to baptize living persons in place of the dead, St. Paul surely did not mean to approve the practice, but merely cited it as an argumentum ad hominem to prove the dogma of the resurrection. In that hypothesis there would be question of baptizing not the dead, but living substitutes for the benefit of the dead.6 Most likely, however, the text refers to a symbolic intercession, consisting of works of penance voluntarily assumed by living relatives or friends for the spiritual benefit of the departed.7 3. The Recipient Must be Unbaptized. — This requisite follows logically from the unity of Baptism and the fact that it cannot be repeated.8 4 Cfr. J. E. Pruner, Lehrbuch der Pastoraltheologie, Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 151 sqq., Paderborn 1904. 5 1 Cor. XV, 29: ” Alioquin quid facient qui baptizantur pro mortuis ivirhp rtap vetcpuv), si omnino mortut non resurguntf Ut quid et baptizantur pro Mis (pairrl^ovrai virhp aitrM ? ” 6 Cfr. on this obscure Pauline text Al. Schefer, Erklarung der beiden Brief e an die Korinther, pp. 321 sqq., Minister 1903. 7 Cfr. the new Westminster Ver-’ sion, i. k. /., and MacRory’s commentary, pp. 238 sqq. 8 On the intention of the baptizandus as a requisite of validity v. supra, pp. 196 sqq. SECTION i. The Validity of Infant Baptism. — In regard to the Baptism of infants, and in general of those who have not yet reached the use of reason (paedobaptismus) , there arises a twofold question: (i) Can infants validly receive the Sacrament? and (2) Should it be administered to children before they have attained the years of discretion? a) In the first three centuries of the Christian era the Church tolerated, without, however, in any way approving, the practice of delaying Baptism to an advanced age, sometimes even to the hour of death.9 In 1439, the Council of Florence forbade the postponement of Baptism even for forty or eighty days. Since the Tridentine Council it is a strict ecclesiastical precept that infants must be baptized as soon as possible after birth. The chief opponents of infant Baptism are the Anabap*tists (or re-baptizers : avd) in Germany; the Antipedobaptists (avre, ?rats, fSawriZw) in England, a name which is now commonly shortened into Baptists ; and the Mennonites.10 9 Cfr. Cone, Trident, Sess. VII, ” who use immersion, are specially De Bapt., can. 12. (Denzinger- careful in the application of the matBannwart, n. 868). ter and form and there is little room 10 ” The Baptists,” says Fr. Hunt- for doubt as to the validity of their er (Outlines, Vol. Ill, p. 118), Baptisms; it is, therefore, the more

INFANT b) The Second Council of Mileve (416) anathematized all “who deny that new-born infants should be baptized immediately after birth.” 11 The Tridentine Council declared: “If anyone saith that little children, because they have not actual faith, are not, after having received Baptism, to be reckoned among the faithful, and that for this cause they are to be rebaptized when they have attained to years of discretion, or that it is better that the Baptism of such be omitted than that, while not believing by their own act, they should be baptized in the faith alone of the Church, let him be anathema.” 12 Hence it is an article of faith that the Baptism of infants is valid, because it incorporates them into the body of the Church, and may not be repeated after they have attained the use of reason.13 2. The Dogma Proved From Revelation. — As the validity of infant Baptism is neither posiunfortunate that they refuse to administer the Sacrament to infants.” — On the Mennonites see N. A. Weber in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. X, page 190. — On Baptism among modern Protestants generally, consult A. Seeberg, Die Taufe im Neuen Testament, 1905; Rendtorff, Die Taufe im Vrchristentum im Lichte der neueren Forschungen, 1905; Roberts, Christian Baptism, Its Significance and its Subjects, London 1905. 11 Can. 2 : ” Quicunque parvulos recentes ab uteris matrum baptisandos negat, … anathema sit” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 102). i2Sess. VII, De Bapt., can. 13: “Si quis dixerit, parvulos eo quod actum credendi non habent suscepto baptismo inter fideles computandos non esse ac propterea, quum ad annos discretionis pervenerint, esse rebaptisandos, aut praestare omitti eorum baptisma quam eos non actu proprio credentes baptisori in sola fide Ecclesiae, anathema sit.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 869). is Cfr. the Catholic teaching on original sin, as explained in PohlePreuss, God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural, pp. 232 sqq. tively asserted nor practically exemplified in Holy Writ, it is impossible to demonstrate this dogma conclusively from Scripture. It can, however, be so convincingly proved from Tradition that the great mass of Protestants prefer to contradict their own system by tacitly admitting the Catholic principle of Tradition, rather than surrender the ancient and universal practice of infant Baptism.14 a) Though, as we have already remarked, infant Baptism cannot be demonstrated from the Bible, the Catholic dogma of its validity, far from being unscriptural, is in perfect conformity with the spirit of God’s written Revelation. In the first place, when, as was frequently the case (cfr. Acts XVI, 15; 1 Cor. I, 16), whole families were baptized, it is likely that sometimes there were little children among them. The Catholic dogma, moreover, fully agrees with the Scriptural teaching on the nature and necessity of Baptism. From our Lord’s dictum that the kingdom of heaven is for little children, and His solemn declaration that ” unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” 15 we may legitimately conclude that infants not only may but must be ” born again,” i. e. baptized. It 14 Thu9 the catechism, which forms part of the Book of Common Prayer of the Anglican Church, explains that faith is required of persons to be baptized, and that infants who have no faith are baptized because their godparents promise that they shall have the faith hereafter, a promise which they themselves are in due time bound to perform. How this view secures the requisite faith in case the child die before reaching the years of discretion, observes Fr. Hunter (Outlines, Vol. Ill, p. 221), “is not explained, nor is it made clear whether Baptism may be valid in. the absence of godparents; and many other similar doubts may be raised as to the meaning.” isMatth. XIX, 14; John III, $. INFANT should be noted, too, that the Jewish rite of circumcision, which was preeminently the type of Christian Baptism,16 would have foreshadowed that Sacrament but very imperfectly, to say the least, if the children of the New Testament were deprived of the means of obtaining forgiveness of original sin, — a privilege which was granted to the children of the Old Testament Jews. b) Tradition was already crystallized at the time of St. Augustine, who triumphantly opposed the practice of infant Baptism to the Pelagian denial of original sin.17 Hence we can limit the Patristic argument to the pre-Augustinian period. Augustine himself states the belief and practice of that period as follows: “The infants are brought to church, and if they cannot go there on their own feet, they run with the feet of others… . Let no one among you, therefore, murmur strange doctrines. This the Church has always had, this she has always held; this she received from the faith of the ancients; this she preserves tenaciously to the end.” 18 St. Cyprian (d. 258), speaking in his own name and in that of his fellow-bishops at the Council of Carthage (253), said to Fidus : ” No one agrees with you in your opinion as to what should be done, but we all, on the 16 V. supra, pp. 22 sqq. 17 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural, p. 253. 18 Serm., 176, n. 2: ” Et ipsi Iparvuli) portantur ad ecclesiam, et si pedibus illuc currere non possunt, alienis pedibus currunt… . Nemo ergo vobis susurret alienas doctrinas. Hoc Ecclesia semper habuit, semper tenuit; hoc a maiorum fide accepit; hoc usque in finem perseveranter custodit.” (Migne, P. L., XXXVIII, 950). 272 BAPTISM contrary, judge that to no one born of man was the mercy and the grace of God to be denied.,, 19 St. Augustine explains this utterance as follows : ” The Blessed Cyprian, not forming any new decree, but maintaining the assured faith of the Church, in order to correct those who held that an infant should not be baptized before the eighth day, gives it as his own judgment and that of his fellowbishops, that a child can be validly baptized as soon as born.* 20 In the East, at about the same time, Origen says: The Church hath received it as a tradition from the Apostles that infants, too, ought to be baptized.” 21 Long before either St. Cyprian or Origen, St. Irenaeus of Lyons (b. about 140) wrote: “Christ came to save all through Himself, — all, I say, who through Him are born again in God: infants and little children and boys and young men and old men.” 22 Recent discoveries in the Roman catacombs prove that infant Baptism was common in the primitive Church. Thus a certain Murtius Verinus placed on the tomb of his children the inscription: ” Verina received [Baptism] at the age of ten months, Fiorina at the age of twelve months.” Above another tomb we read : ” Here 19 Ep. 64, n. 2, ed. Hartel, II, 718: “In hoc quod tu putabas esse faciendum nemo consentit, sed universi potius iudicavimus nulli hominum nolo misericordiam Dei et gratiam denegandam. 20 Ep. 166 ad Hier., n. 23: * Beatus Cyprianus, non aliquod decretum condens novum, sed Ecclesiae fidem firmissimam servans, ad corrigendum eos qui putabant ante octavum diem nativitatis non esse parvulum baptisandum, … mox natum rite baptizari posse cum suis episcopis censuit.* (Migne, P. L., XXXIII, 731). 21 In Ep. ad Rom.t V, n. 9 (Migne, P. G., XIV, 1047). 22 Adv. Hoer., II, 22, 4: * Omnes venit {Christus] per semetipsum salvare, omnes inquam, qui per ipsum renascuntur in Deum: infantes et parvulos et pueros et iuvenes et seniores.” (Migne, P. G.t VII, 784). Cfr. A. Seitz, Die Heilsnotwendigkeit der Kirche nach der altchristlichen Literatur bis sur Zeit des hi. Augustinus, pp. 298 sqq., Freiburg 1903. INFANT rests Achillia, a newly-baptized [infant] ; she was one year and five months old, died February 23rd.” 28 3. A Dogmatic Corollary. — The dogma of the validity of infant Baptism imposes on those who have been baptized in infancy the strict duty of keeping the baptismal yow made for them by their sponsors. Erasmus” demand that baptized children should be left free to ratify that vow or to repudiate it when they attain to the years of discretion, was rejected by the Tridentine Council with the declaration : “If any one saith that those who have been thus baptized when children, are to be asked when they have grown up, whether they will ratify what their sponsors promised in their names when they were baptized, and that, in case they answer that they will not, they are to be left to their own will, … let him be anathema.”24 To admit the contention of Erasmus, which is unblushingly put into practice by modern Rationalists, is like unfurling the banner of revolution within the sacred precincts of the Church. 23Cfr. A. Weber, Die romischen 24 Sess. VII, De Bapt., can. 14: Katakomben, 3rd ed., p. 60, Ratis- “Si quis dixerit, huiusmodi parvubon 1906. — On the subject of in- los baptizatos, quum adoleverint, infant Baptism the student may prof- terrogandos esse, an ratum habere itably consult Cardinal Bellarmine, velint, quod patrini eorum nomine, De Baptismo, c. 8-1 1; Risi, De Bap- dum baptisarentur, polliciti sunt, et tismo Parvulorum in Primitiva Ec- ubi se nolle responderint, suo esse clesia, Rome 1870; W. Wall, His- arbitrio relinquendos, … anathema tory of Infant Baptism, 2 vols., Lon- sit/’ (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 870). don 1900. To allow a baptized child, when he attains the use of reason, to choose freely between the true and a false religion, to decide whether he will keep the holy law of God or repudiate it at pleasure, betrays rank indifferentism. One sometimes hears the objection: “How can a promise given without my knowledge and consent by some other person, bind my conscience, so long as I have not expressly recognized and accepted the duty it imposes ? ” We answer that the baptismal vow derives its binding force not from the circumstance that it is made by the sponsors in the name of the baptized child, but from the fact that Baptism, by its very nature as well as by a positive divine ordinance, initiates the recipient into the Catholic religion and, by virtue of the baptismal character which it imprints on the soul, constitutes him a subject of Christ and the Church. By Baptism a man is, as it were, born into the society of the faithful and thereby immediately subjected to the law of Christ, just as the children of the Israelites became subject to the Mosaic law by circumcision. As man by the fact of being born a rational being, is bound to observe the moral law* of nature and the positive laws of his country, no matter whether he approves of them or not, so, through the fact of his being born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he is incorporated into the Church and becomes subject to her laws. And as one need not ratify his physical birth by an act of formal and express approval, so a Christian has no right to make his supernatural rebirth conditional upon his subsequent consent. The customary renewal of the baptismal vow at solemn first Communion has for its object, not to permit the children to decide whether they will or will not ratify the promise made for them by their sponsors, but to give them an opINFANT portunity of freely promising to do what they are bound to do in any event. Readings : — The Scholastic commentators on Peter Lombard’s Liber Sententiarum, IV, dist. 3, and on St. Thomas, *Summa Theol, 3a, qu. 66; especially Billuart, Tract, de Baptismo (ed. Lequette, Vol. VI, pp. 253 sqq.).— Bellarmine, De Sacramento Baptismi {Opera Omnia, ed. J. Fevre, Vol. Ill, pp. 513 sqq., Paris 1870).— *Tournely, De Baptismo (in Migne, Curs. Theol. Complete Vol. XXI).— Bertieri, De Sacramentis in Genere, Baptismo et Confirmation, Vienna 1774.— Zimmermann, De Baptismi Origine eiusque Usu Hodierno, 1815. — Hofling, Das Sakrament der Taufe, 2 vols., 1846, 1848.— M. J. Ryan, De Doctrina S. Ioannis circa Baptismum, Rochester 1908.— * J. Corblet, Histoire Dogmatique, Liturgique et Archeologique du Sacrement de Bapteme, 2 vols., Paris 1881.— Fanning, s. v. * Baptism/’ in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II.— P. Drew, s. v. *Baptism,” in the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. I. Cfr. also the treatises on Baptism in the following works: ♦Probst, Sakramente und Sakramentalien in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, Tubingen 1872; De Augustinis, De Re Sacramentaria, Vol. I, 2nd ed., Rome 1899 ; P. Schanz, Die Lehre von den hi Sakramenten der kath. Kirche, § 14 sqq., Freiburg 1893 ; L. Billot, De Ecclesiae Sacramentis, Vol. I, 4th ed., Rome 1907; Oswald, Die dogmatische Lehre von den hi. Sakramenten, Vol. I, 5th ed., Miinster 1894 ; Chr. Pesch, Praelectiones Dogmaticae, Vol. VI, 3rd ed., Freiburg 1908; Tepe, Institutiones Theologicae, Vol. IV, Paris 1896; J. B. Sasse, De Sacramentis Ecclesiae, Vol. I, Freiburg 1897; P. Einig, Tractatus de Sacramentis, Treves 1900; *Heinrich-Gutberlet, Dogmatische Theologie, Vol. IX, Mainz 1901 ; Nik. Gihr, Die hi. Sakramente der kath. Kirche, Vol. I, 2nd ed., Freiburg 1902; Cabrol, Dictionnaire d’ Archeologie Chretienne et de Litur~ gie, s. v. ” Bapteme” Paris 1903 sqq. ; Fr. Dolger, Der Exorzismus im altchristlichen Tauf ritual. Eine religionsgeschichtliche Studie, Paderborn 1909; W. Koch, Die Taufe im Neuen Testament, Minister 1910; S. J. Hunter, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, Vol. Ill, pp. 214-233, London 1894; Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology, Vol. II, pp. 378-392, 2nd ed., London 1901 ; W. Humphrey, The One Mediator, pp. 81 sqq., London 1890; A. Devine, The Sacraments Explained, pp. 134 sqq., 3rd ed., London 1905.