Title XLII: On Baptism and Its Effect

Latin source headnote: Although a boy has been immersed three times in water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, if it has not been said, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, etc.,” he has not been baptized.

Alexander III.

If someone indeed has immersed a boy three times in water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen, and has not said: “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen,” the boy has not been baptized.

Latin source headnote: If it is probably doubted whether someone has been baptized, he can be baptized with the form expressed here.

The same.

Those concerning whom there is doubt whether they have been baptized are baptized after these words have been set forth: “If you are baptized, I do not baptize you; but, if you have not yet been baptized, I baptize you, etc.”

Latin source headnote: The sacrament of baptism is usefully conferred upon little children although they neither believe nor understand, and original sin is remitted to them. This is what it says as far as § “But.” — (But etc.:) Original sin, which is contracted without consent, is remitted in baptism even to one not consenting, as to little children; it is otherwise concerning actual sin, because, just as it is not committed without consent, so it is not remitted. This is what it says as far as § “But it is still.” Abbas. — (But it is still:) Although original sin is forgiven in baptism to little children, who nevertheless cannot consent, yet in adults who are insane or sleeping, who do not consent to baptism, actual sin is not forgiven, and likewise not even original sin. This is what it says. — (Likewise etc.:) Insane or sleeping persons who have been baptized, if before insanity or sleep they wished to be baptized, receive the character; otherwise it is otherwise; but those coerced receive it causatively. This is what it says as far as the end.

Innocent III, to the Archbishop of Arles.

He will understand that the greater causes of the Church, especially those touching articles of faith, are to be referred to the see of Peter who notes that, when the Lord asked him whom the disciples said that he was, he answered: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” and that the Lord prayed for him that his faith might not fail. You therefore ask us to respond to certain questions that heretics had raised against Catholics. For they assert that baptism is conferred uselessly upon little children, which they strive to prove both by reason and by authority, adducing first and principally that, since, according to the word of James the Apostle, saying in his epistle, “Charity covers a multitude of sins,” and according to that testimony of the Truth in the Gospel concerning the sinful woman who had washed his feet, declaring, “Many sins are forgiven her, because she loved much,” crimes are forgiven only through charity and in charity, sin is not forgiven in baptism to little children, who neither perceive nor consent and do not have charity, which is infused only into those who perceive and consent. And thus baptism does not profit them, because it is not to be conferred upon such persons. In the Gospel also it is read: “He who has believed and has been baptized will be saved; but he who has not believed will be condemned”; whence little children, whether or not they have been baptized, will be condemned, as being unbelievers.

To this, however, we respond in this manner: baptism succeeded circumcision. For far be it from us to fall into that condemned heresy which wrongly affirmed that the law together with the Gospel, and circumcision together with baptism, must be observed, because according to the Apostle, saying to the Galatians: “If you are circumcised, Christ profits you nothing.” Since therefore circumcision was conferred by command of the Lord upon adults as well as little children, lest baptism, which succeeded in its place and nevertheless exists more generally, since both males and females are baptized, should seem to have a lesser effect, it must be conferred upon adults as well as little children. For just as formerly, without any distinction, the Mosaic law proclaimed: “The soul whose flesh of the foreskin has not been circumcised shall perish from his people,” so now the evangelical voice thunders without distinction: “Unless one has been reborn from water and the Holy Spirit, he shall not enter the kingdom of God,” excluding from this generality neither sex nor age. Whence, just as the soul of the circumcised did not perish from his people, so he who has been reborn from water and the Holy Spirit will obtain entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

Nevertheless, it must carefully be noted how much more baptism confers upon Christians today than circumcision once conferred upon the Jews. At the end of the aforesaid authority adduced from the Old Law it was said, “shall perish from his people”; but in the evangelical authority it was added, “shall not enter the kingdom of God”; because, although original guilt was remitted through the mystery of circumcision and the danger of damnation was avoided, nevertheless there was no arrival at the kingdom of heaven, which until the death of Christ was closed to all. But through the sacrament of baptism, made red with the blood of Christ, guilt is remitted, danger is avoided, and the kingdom of heaven is also reached, the gate of which the blood of Christ mercifully reopened to his faithful. For far be it that all little children should perish, so great a multitude of whom dies daily, without the merciful God, who wishes no one to perish, having provided some remedy for their salvation also.

Moreover, from the force of the letter it is sufficiently clear that the aforesaid authorities are to be understood only of adults, who have a multitude of sins, since they cannot be understood of little children, who are held only by original sin. Similarly that other authority is to be resolved: “He who has believed and has been baptized, etc.,” since little children cannot believe, but adults can. And for this reason the whole authority is to be understood here only of adults, and the first clause is not to be referred to some and the second to others; although some concede that little children believe, not through the use but through the habit of faith that they receive in baptism, just as many other words according to common usage are referred not to act but to aptitude.

But what the objectors adduce—that faith or charity and the other virtues are not infused into little children, as persons not consenting—is not conceded absolutely by very many; since on this account a question is recounted among doctors of theology, some asserting that through the virtue of baptism guilt indeed is remitted to little children, but grace is not conferred, while others say that sin both is forgiven and the virtues are infused into those having them as to habit, not as to use, until they reach adult age.

But certain persons believe that from this solution they have found a way to other questions, arguing from the fact that we say original sin is forgiven to little children in baptism that, by a similar reason, sin is also forgiven to adults who are sleeping or insane if they are baptized. For since neither then perceives or consents, they say that the same judgment must be made in similar cases. Here, however, we say that a distinction must be made, because sin is twofold, namely original and actual: original, which is contracted without consent, and actual, which is committed with consent. Original sin, therefore, which is contracted without consent, is by the power of the sacrament remitted without consent; but actual sin, which is contracted with consent, is by no means remitted without consent.

But it is still asked why at least original sin is not forgiven in baptism to the insane and the sleeping, as it is to little children. To this it is to be answered in this manner: the Lord, who made the whole man sound on the Sabbath, does not know a work of imperfection, and for this reason forgives sins not in part but in whole. Furthermore, the punishment of original sin is deprivation of the vision of God; but the punishment of actual sin is the torment of perpetual Gehenna. Whence, if the first were forgiven to someone while the other was not forgiven, such a person would not be deprived of the vision of God on account of original sin forgiven, and would be tormented perpetually in Gehenna on account of the guilt of actual crime. But these things, as incompatible, by no means allow one another; indeed, they are mutually opposed.

Likewise, however, it is asked whether at least the character of the sacrament is impressed in baptism upon such sleeping and insane persons, so that, when awakened from sleep or freed from sickness, they are not to be baptized again. Now there are some who say that the sacraments which obtain their effect of themselves, such as baptism and order and other similar things, are conferred not only upon sleeping and insane persons but even upon the unwilling and contradicting, although not as to the reality, yet as to the character, since not only little children, who do not consent, but also the deceitful, who, although not in mouth, nevertheless dissent in heart, receive the sacrament.

But it is objected against such persons that those who had been immersed unwilling and resisting would at least by reason of the sacrament pertain to ecclesiastical jurisdiction, whence they would reasonably have to be compelled to observe the rule of the Christian faith. But it is contrary to the Christian religion that anyone always unwilling and wholly contradicting should be compelled to receive and observe Christianity. For this reason others distinguish, not absurdly, between one unwilling person and another unwilling person, one coerced person and another coerced person: that he who is violently drawn by terrors and punishments, and, lest he incur loss, receives the sacrament of baptism, such a one indeed, just like him who approaches baptism deceitfully, receives the impressed character of Christianity, and he, as one conditionally willing, although absolutely he does not will, is [nevertheless] to be compelled to the observance of the Christian faith.

In this case that decree of the Council of Toledo is to be understood, where it is said that those who long since were coerced to Christianity, as was done in the times of the most religious prince Sisebut, because it is now established that they have been associated with the divine sacraments, have received the grace of baptism, have been anointed with chrism, and have become participants in the body of the Lord, must also be compelled to hold the faith which they received by necessity, lest the name of the Lord be blasphemed and the faith which they received be held cheap and contemptible.

But he who never consents and wholly contradicts receives neither the reality nor the character of the sacrament, because expressly to contradict is more than not to consent at all; just as neither does he incur the mark of any guilt who, wholly contradicting and protesting, is violently compelled to burn incense to idols. But sleeping and insane persons, if, before they incurred insanity or fell asleep, they persisted in contradiction, because in them the purpose of contradiction is understood to endure, do not receive the character of the sacrament even if they have been immersed thus. But it is otherwise if they formerly existed as catechumens and had the purpose of being baptized; whence the Church has been accustomed to baptize such persons at the point of necessity. Therefore the sacramental operation then impresses the character when it does not find the obstacle of a contrary will standing against it.

Latin source headnote: No one can baptize himself, even when the point of necessity is imminent.

The same, to the Bishop of Metz.

You discharge the obligation of the pastoral office when you ask to be instructed by a response of the Apostolic See concerning doubtful points of law. Indeed, by your letters to us you intimated that a certain Jew, placed at the point of death, since he was among Jews only, immersed himself in water, saying: “I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen.” But now you ask whether the same Jew, persevering in devotion to the Christian faith, ought to be baptized. We, however, respond to your fraternity in this manner: Since there ought to be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord saying to the Apostles, “Go, baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” the aforesaid Jew must be baptized anew by another, so that it may be shown that one is he who is baptized and another he who baptizes.

To signify this also, Christ himself willed to be baptized not by himself but by John; although, if such a man had died immediately, he would at once have flown to the heavenly homeland on account of faith in the sacrament, even if not on account of the sacrament of faith. For in baptism that spiritual generation is celebrated concerning which the Truth says: “You must be born anew, because, unless one has been reborn from water and the Holy Spirit, he shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.” Therefore, just as in carnal generation, by which offspring is born from man and woman, one is he who carnally begets and another is he who is carnally begotten, so also in sacramental generation, by which offspring is reborn from water and the Holy Spirit, one ought to be he who spiritually generates and another he who is spiritually generated. Indeed, whether the exterior body or the interior heart is baptized, it is necessary that in each case paternity and filiation be capable of being found, by which the one baptizing and the one baptized are referred to each other. [But the second, etc. (cf. c. 5, On Bigamists I. 21.) Given at Ferentino, on the fifth day before the Kalends of September, in the ninth year 1206.]

Latin source headnote: Where the word or the element of water is lacking, there is no sacrament of baptism.

The same, to the Bishop of Moros.

Not that you might add knowledge to yourself, as we believe, but that through the oracle of our word you might better instruct the ignorance of your subjects, you asked that an apostolic response be made as to whether those little children are to be held as Christians whom, placed at the point of death, the simplicity of certain persons, on account of a scarcity of water and the absence of a priest, anointed upon the head and breast and between the shoulders by sprinkling saliva in place of baptism. We respond that, since in baptism two things, namely the word and the element, are always required of necessity, according as the Truth says concerning the word, “Going into the whole world, preach the Gospel to every creature, and baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” and the same says concerning the element, “Unless one has been reborn from water and the Holy Spirit, he shall not enter the kingdom of heaven,” you ought not to doubt that those in whom not only both of the aforesaid things but one of them has been omitted do not have true baptism. [Given at Rome, at Saint Peter’s, on the Kalends of March, in the ninth year of our pontificate. 1206.]

Latin source headnote: Greeks ought not to rebaptize those baptized by Latins.

The same, in the General Council.

Although we wish to cherish and honor Greeks returning [in] our days to the obedience of the Apostolic See, sustaining their customs and rites insofar as we can with the Lord, nevertheless we neither wish nor ought to defer to them in those things which generate danger to souls and derogate from ecclesiastical honor. For after the Greek Church, with certain accomplices and supporters of its own, withdrew itself from the obedience of the Apostolic See, the Greeks began to abominate the Latins to such an extent that, among other things which they impiously committed in derogation of them, if at any time Latin priests had celebrated upon their altars, they themselves did not sacrifice upon them before they had washed them, as though polluted by this. The Greeks themselves also presumed with rash daring to rebaptize those baptized by Latins, and even now, as we have received, certain persons do not fear to do this. Wishing therefore to remove so great a scandal from the Church of God, at the persuasion of the sacred council we strictly command that henceforth they not presume such things, conforming themselves as sons of obedience to the sacrosanct Roman Church, their mother, so that there may be one fold and one shepherd. But if anyone presumes anything such, struck by the sword of excommunication, let him be deposed from every ecclesiastical office and benefice.