Chapter III — On the minister of Baptism, its institution, obligation, and necessity

I. QUESTION I. Of how many kinds is the minister of Baptism? ANSWER. Threefold. First, ordinary by office. Second, extraordinary by delegation. Third, of necessity. The ordinary minister of the solemnity is the bishop, then parish priests, thereafter presbyters. When formerly the bishops solemnly baptized, it was not lawful for presbyters or parish priests to do the same. And even now, if the parish priest be at hand, a priest ought not to baptize without consulting him. A deacon can administer Baptism not by office but by commission. Laymen are ministers of necessity, who baptize without the solemn rite. A layman would sin mortally if, a priest being present, he should baptize, because in a grave matter he would usurp to himself a right proper to the priest. Gravely also would a layman sin if, a deacon being present, he should baptize; because, a priest being absent, this devolves upon the deacon, as the more probable opinion teaches. A layman baptizing without necessity, with the solemn rite, incurs irregularity.

II. QUESTION II. Can one minister by a single aspersion baptize several? ANSWER. They commonly affirm it, because the sense of the form is not changed by using you for thee; and they confirm it by the example of St. Peter, who in one day baptized a great multitude. He nevertheless who without necessity should so baptize would sin, and indeed gravely. It is besides to be observed that such an aspersion must be of a kind that can truly be called a washing, so that the water flow upon the baptized: for one drop or another does not suffice. If two, of whom one lacked a tongue and the other hands, should baptize, the baptism would be null, as St. Thomas teaches, III, q. 46, art. 4, reply 4. If to a boy in danger there were present an excommunicated priest and a midwife, she would be preferred to the excommunicated priest, cut off from the body of the Church. Nor is it an objection that an excommunicated priest can absolve in extreme necessity, because in no case can a layman absolve. No one can baptize himself. Therefore, says St. Thomas, III, q. 66, art. 5, reply 4, Christ willed to be baptized by John. The same man cannot be baptized by several: wherefore the Baptism would not be valid if several should say, We baptize thee, as St. Thomas teaches, III, q. 47, art. 6: because we is not the same as I, but I and thou: and thus the form would be changed.

III. A parish priest sins who, that he may consult the infant's salvation, privately administers Baptism at home, awaiting a godparent, that afterwards he may perform the solemn rite in the church. Since in the Council of Vienne under Clement V it was laid down, in the Clementines, Book 3, title 15, sole chapter, that baptism be conferred not in halls or in chambers, but in churches in which are the sacred fonts deputed to this.

IV. Parents who in extreme necessity baptize their own children do not lose the right of demanding the marriage debt. But outside extreme necessity, if they should baptize their own children, they would lose that right. Baptism conferred by a pagan or a Jew is valid. And this is today the universal doctrine of the Church.

V. QUESTION III. When was Baptism instituted? ANSWER. That Baptism was instituted by Christ the Lord all confess, both Catholics and heretics. Concerning the time of the institution there is dispute. Many contend that Christ instituted Baptism after the resurrection, when he said, Matthew 28: Going therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them, and so forth. The more probable opinion to me is that Christ instituted this sacrament when he himself was baptized in the Jordan, as St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Thomas, and the Roman Catechism itself teach. The law of Baptism began to oblige as soon as it was promulgated after the resurrection: Going therefore, teach ye … baptizing, and so forth. But when it was sufficiently promulgated, so as to oblige all, some assert after Pentecost, others protract it somewhat longer. See Vol. VI, dissertation 5, On Laws, where all these things are explained.

VI. QUESTION IV. What is the necessity of receiving Baptism? ANSWER. A twofold necessity: of means and of precept. Without that which is necessary in the first way, salvation cannot be obtained unless it be had either in fact or in desire. And of this kind are Baptism for all, and Penance for sinners who are adults. That is said to be necessary in the second way which is imposed by a precept, and which cannot knowingly be omitted without sin. Salvation nevertheless can be had without it, either through ignorance or through some other obstacle which hinders the observance. But no ignorance and no impossibility avails in respect of those things which are necessary with the necessity of means. Again a twofold necessity of means is distinguished. One exterior, as is the baptismal washing; and this can be supplied by faith and charity with the desire. The other intrinsic, as is sanctifying grace; and this can be supplied in no way. Unless it be really had, eternal salvation is impossible. The desire likewise is twofold. One implicit, as is the general desire or wish of observing all the precepts of Christ, which cannot be separated from perfect charity. The other is an express desire or wish, which arises from knowledge of the thing, and is required when the thing is necessary with the necessity of means.

VII. Wherefore without baptism either in fact or in desire no one can enter into Paradise. To infants themselves begotten of faithful parents Baptism is necessary in fact, whatever Calvin may prate to the contrary. But to all adults it is necessary either in fact or in desire. And this desire or wish of receiving Baptism in adults must be express, as the more probable opinion teaches.

VIII. QUESTION V. At what time ought Baptism to be received? ANSWER. Many examples of the ancients occur concerning the deferring of Baptism. St. Ambrose before his ordination, St. Paulinus of Nola in his eighteenth year, St. Augustine in his thirty-third, were baptized. Holy men for the sake of humility persevered a long time as catechumens. Others, that they might lead a voluptuous life, deferred Baptism. The reasons why Baptism ought not to be deferred are obvious. What prudent man would wish to procrastinate the loosing of the bonds of his own servitude, or the antidote of his own infirmity?

IX. QUESTION VI. Does the precept of receiving Baptism oblige adults to receive Baptism as soon as they conveniently can? ANSWER. Those things which are necessary with the necessity of means are by a stronger right necessary with the necessity of precept. It is disputed whether according to the present discipline of the Church the precept obliges under grave sin, so that adults are bound to receive Baptism as soon as they conveniently can. Some deny it; but the common and certain opinion affirms it. Wherefore parents gravely offend when without reasonable cause they defer the Baptism of infants, because they expose them to the danger of eternal damnation.

X. The ancient heretics the Anabaptists or Rebaptizers, the Waldenses, and the Cathari asserted that little ones before the use of reason are not to be baptized, whose error Trent condemned, session 7, canons 12 and 13. Those conceived from a brute and human seed are not to be baptized. A monster procreated from a man and a woman, if a person appear, especially in the head, is to be baptized. If there be doubt, let the bishop be consulted. If the doubt persist, he can be baptized with a condition added.

XI. QUESTION VII. Can the infants of unbelievers be baptized, the parents resisting? ANSWER. The discourse is of infants destitute of reason. St. Thomas denies it, to whom theologians commonly subscribe, and this custom of the Church obtains: namely, that the infants of unbelievers, although living under the civil power of Christian princes, are not to be baptized while the parents resist. Benedict XIV in a letter given in the year 1747 to the Archbishop of Tarsus set forth this controversy in full light. The chief reason of our opinion is the custom of the Church and the danger of apostasy to which baptized infants are exposed, the parents resisting. There is added the paternal power, to which infants are subject.

XII. In these days here at Rome it was disputed who come under the name of parents. All affirmed that the father and the grandfather are to be preferred to the mother, because the male line prevails over the female. In the disputation it was asked whether a grandmother ought to be preferred to a mother. A Jewish grandmother, become a Christian, consented that her grandson be baptized. The Jewish mother resisted the baptism of her son. Some contended that the grandmother's consent was to be preferred. Others maintained that one must stand by the mother's dissent. The matter was brought to the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XIV, who in a letter given to the most illustrious William, Assessor of the Holy Office, decreed that the grandmother's consent was to be attended to, and the boy to be baptized, the Jewish mother resisting.

XIII. In proximate danger of death the sons of unbelievers are to be baptized, because then there is no danger of apostasy. In confirmation of this opinion Benedict XIV reports a decree of the Holy Office of the year 1678, and another given in 1701. Similarly to be baptized are the sons of unbelievers who are called exposed, or cast forth — namely, abandoned by their parents — because then injury is done to no one. Likewise the children of unbelievers taken captive by Christian pirates, because they have been drawn out of the parents' power. If one of the unbelieving parents consent, although the other resist, the boy is to be baptized, because consent in favour of religion is to be preferred. Valid also is baptism conferred upon boys whom unbelievers offer to be baptized, not that they may be regenerated to eternal life, but that they may be cured of infirmity, as St. Augustine teaches, Epistle 98 to Boniface. The demented from birth are to be baptized in the faith of the Church, says St. Thomas, III, q. 68, art. 12. Of adults who from a sound mind fall into dementia, the will is to be regarded which they had while they were sound. The sleeping are not to be baptized unless proximate danger of death threaten.