Scotus Academicus, Tomus decimus: De Baptismo, De Poenitentia, De Extrema Unctione

“Happy is the sacrament of our water,” says Tertullian at the beginning of bk. On Baptism, “because, when our former blindness has been washed away, we are set free for eternal life.” This is not the only wondrous effect of baptism. St. Chrysostom aptly touches on ten others in his homily to the Neophytes, writing: See how those who a little while ago were held captive now enjoy the brightness of freedom; those who wandered in exile are citizens of the Church; those who were in the confusion of sin now stand in the lot of righteousness. For they are not only free but holy; not only holy but righteous; not only righteous but children; not only children but heirs; not only heirs but brothers of Christ; not only brothers of Christ but coheirs; not only coheirs but members; not only members but a temple; not only a temple but instruments of the Spirit. You see how many gifts baptism bestows here, yet some suppose heavenly grace to consist only in the remission of sins. We, however, have counted ten honors. You will find other similar prerogatives of baptism, certainly no less remarkable, scattered through the other holy Fathers, especially St. Augustine, who commends baptism with an astonishing abundance of honorific titles. Above all he praises it as the spiritual person’s regeneration and resurrection. For he says in Serm. 163, On the Season: The human race will rise again after death at the consummation of the age; now it rises again in baptism. Then the people of God will be awakened after sleep; now they are awakened after unbelief. Then they will be freed from mortal condition; now they are freed from ignorance and blindness. Then they will be reborn for eternity; now they are reborn for salvation. — But since all those wondrous effects of baptism are chiefly appendages of sanctifying grace divinely infused through baptism, and of the character impressed through it, both of which have already been discussed at length in the preceding Disputation, we judge that we should not repeat what has been done by explaining all those effects, since their explanation seems to pertain more to the preacher than to the scholastic theologian. Accordingly, two matters in particular are proposed for discussion here: first, whether baptism truly erases absolutely all sins, pays the punishment due for them, and confers equal grace on all the baptized; second, what ceremonies are to be observed in its solemn administration.

NOTE 1. Calvin’s opinion that sins are not truly washed away through baptism but merely covered over is erroneous and heretical, since he judges original sin to be nothing other than concupiscence, which persists even in the reborn; although, he says, it is no longer charged to them unto destruction and damnation. Moreover, in bk. 4 of the Institutes, ch. 15, he says: “From this sacrament (baptism), just as from the others, we obtain nothing except insofar as we receive it by faith. If faith is lacking, it will serve as testimony to our ingratitude, by which we shall be brought to account before God because we were unbelieving toward the promise given there. But insofar as it is a symbol of our confession, by it we must testify that our confidence is in God’s mercy, and our purity in the remission of sins, which has been won for us through Jesus Christ, and that we enter the Church of God, so that in one accord of faith and charity we may live united with all the faithful.” By these words he signifies that baptism, like the other sacraments, has no efficacy with respect to the remission of sins, which he attributes solely to the merit of faith. Nor does he hold that the power of faith is wholly present to wash away all sins, since he judges them to persist in the baptized—not only in their appendages, such as the calamities and hardships of this life, but also in the defect of those sins, even if their foulness is not apparent, because they are covered and veiled, as by a royal cloak, by the merits of Christ the Lord, apprehended through faith and applied to us.

NOTE 2. Punishments to be undergone on account of sin, whether one’s own or another’s, are of two kinds: some are eternal, while others are temporal. Eternal punishments are the never-ending torments of hell, by which the reprobate, both angels and human beings, are to be tortured. Temporal punishments are those that come to an end, such as the hardships of this present life, the fire of purgatory, or the torment to be endured after death on account of lesser offenses. Moreover, punishments in this present life are either incurred apart from one’s will or voluntarily assumed. I call punishments incurred, or inflicted, those that are appendages of a nature wounded by sin, such as mortality, illnesses, hunger, and so on. By assumed punishments I mean all those voluntarily undertaken by a repentant person—fasts and other bodily exercises of this sort, against nature’s appetite and inclination—in order to make satisfaction to God who has been offended. The question, then, is whether all such punishments are dissolved through baptism together with sins.

NOTE 3. All theologians agree that sanctifying grace is truly conferred through baptism by the work performed, just as through the other sacraments, in a subject who places no obstacle to receiving it. They also agree that equal grace is conferred upon subjects equally disposed, at least under the ordinary law. Whether God disposes otherwise under the extraordinary law must be determined in the present Question. Moreover, this inequality of grace may be considered either on the part of God who produces it, on the part of Christ who merits it, or on the part of the person who receives it.

First conclusion. — THROUGH BAPTISM ALL SINS WHATSOEVER, BOTH ORIGINAL AND ACTUAL, WHETHER MORTAL OR VENIAL, ARE TRULY WASHED AWAY. This is a matter of faith, as

Is gathered from all those scriptural passages in which the power of remitting sins is attributed to baptism. Thus Acts 2: Let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins, etc. The same is handed down in the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Creeds: I confess one baptism for the remission of sins. It is defined in various councils, especially the Fourth Council of Carthage, ch. 1, where among the articles of faith that a bishop being consecrated must profess, this is to be asked of him: Whether in baptism all sins are remitted, that is, both the original sin contracted and those sins that have been voluntarily committed. And at Florence, in the decree of union, where it treats of the effect of baptism, it says: The effect of this sacrament is the remission of every fault, etc. To show that by “fault” it also means actual venial sin, it adds: Therefore no satisfaction is to be enjoined upon the baptized for past sins; rather, those who die before committing any fault at all immediately attain the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God. But if venial sins too were not blotted out through baptism, it would follow that neither would the punishment due to them be remitted, nor would the baptized person reach the kingdom of heaven at once without satisfaction, since, as we read in Revelation 21, nothing defiled or doing abomination will enter the heavenly city of Jerusalem.

The Council of Trent plainly defines the same truth, sess. IV, in its decree on original sin, where in n. 3 it says: If anyone denies that through the grace of Jesus Christ the Lord, which is conferred in baptism, the debt of original sin is remitted, or even asserts that not everything that has the true and proper character of sin is taken away, but says instead that it is merely scraped away or not imputed, let him be anathema. It then gives this reason for the definition: For in the reborn God hates nothing, since there is no condemnation for those who have truly been buried with Christ through baptism into death. They do not walk according to the flesh, but, having put off the old man and put on the new man, who was created according to God, they have been made innocent, immaculate, pure, blameless, and beloved by God—heirs indeed of God, and coheirs with Christ—so that absolutely nothing holds them back from entering heaven.

The holy Apostle teaches the very same thing plainly in Ephesians 5, where he says: Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her, to sanctify her, cleansing her by the washing of water in the word of life, so that he might present her to himself as a glorious Church, having no spot or wrinkle or anything of this kind, but being holy and immaculate. But how would the Church be immaculate and holy if her baptized children were merely whitewashed tombs, filled inside with the pus and tormentor of sin? The same is taught in 1 Corinthians, ch. 6: Do not, he says, be deceived: neither fornicators, nor those who serve idols, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor men who lie with males, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will possess the kingdom of God; and such indeed were some of you, etc. He adds the efficacy of baptism, which blotted all these things out: But you have been washed, he says, etc. From these words one gathers the truth of faith defined by the councils, namely, that sins both original and actual—that is, those committed before baptism, for these are what Paul is discussing—are blotted out through baptism alone.

The holy Fathers teach the same truth: Pope Martialis, in his Letter to the people of Toulouse, ch. 1: For you are members of Christ, and an immaculate body, in no respect defiled or stained with filth, etc. He adds the reason: For thus you have been sanctified and cleansed by the water of regeneration, etc. Cyprian, on the washing of the feet: From the hidden and most secret gift of the Holy Spirit flows the stream of this grace, washing those whom the inherited stain had infected, so that neither actual nor original stain leaves any trace of itself after that removal, etc. Lactantius, bk. 7, ch. 5: When a human being, purified by the heavenly bath, lays aside infancy together with every stain of his former life, and receives an increase of divine vigor, he becomes a perfect and complete human being. Rheticius of Autun, cited by Augustine, bk. 1 of Against Julian, ch. 3: No one is unaware that this is the chief indulgence in the Church, in which we lay down the whole burden of the ancient crime and erase the former sins of our ignorance, etc. He is speaking of baptism. Jerome, bk. Against Rufinus, ch. 6, and Letter 83 to Oceanus, ch. 2: All adulteries and the filth of public prostitution, impiety toward God, parricide, incest against parents, and the transformed nature of both sexes in extraordinary pleasures are cleansed by Christ’s font, etc. All crimes have been pardoned in baptism, and after the Judge’s indulgence no severity need be feared, since the Apostle says: “And such indeed were some of you; but you have been washed, but you have been sanctified, but you have been justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God”; all sins have been forgiven, etc. St. Ambrose eloquently develops this power of baptism at length in Sermon 131. We select only a few passages: What is that water which consumes flames¹, yet is not itself consumed by sinners, but consumes the fires of Gehenna? When it is poured into people through baptism, it both remains in them and quenches the heat of Tartarus. And a little later: It is no wonder that hell is opened in the sacrament of baptism, since heaven too is then unlocked. For these elements are opened so that freedom and grace may come to Christ’s bath. Freedom is given to those who are to rise again, grace to those who are to reign. The former are rescued from punishment; the latter are taken up into glory, etc. And in bk. 3 of On Those Who Are Initiated, after saying much in praise of the power of baptismal water, he concludes: It is water, then, in which the flesh is plunged, so that every sin is washed away and every vice buried there, etc. St. Augustine teaches the same, especially throughout all the works he wrote against the Pelagians, and most particularly in bk. 1 of To Boniface, against the two letters of the Pelagians, ch. 13. There he reports the Pelagians’ slander against Catholics: that they said baptism does not grant the forgiveness of all sins, nor take away crimes, but scrapes them off, so that the roots of all sins remain in the evil flesh. In response to this slander St. Augustine says: Who but an unbeliever makes this claim against the Pelagians? For we say that baptism grants the forgiveness of all sins and takes away crimes; it does not scrape them off so that the roots of all sins remain in the evil flesh, like hairs shaved from the head from which sins grow again to be cut off—for I have also found them using this image in their slander, as though this were what we believed and said.

YOU WILL SAY: Concupiscence remains in the baptized; but the Apostle calls it sin in Romans 6 and 8; therefore not every sin is taken away through baptism. St. Augustine answers this objection of the heretics in the same place: “I believe they are mistaken, or are trying to deceive others, about this concupiscence of the flesh, with which even a baptized person must struggle in a devout spirit, even if he is making the most diligent progress and is led by the Spirit of God. Yet even if this is called sin, it is called so not because it is sin, but because it was made by sin, just as a hand-made work is called someone’s hand, because a hand made it. Sins, however, are those things that are unlawfully done, said, or thought according to the concupiscence of the flesh or ignorance, and which, once committed, still hold people liable if they are not remitted. And this very concupiscence of the flesh is remitted in baptism in such a way that, although it has been drawn from those being born, it does no harm to those being reborn.” The Council of Trent teaches the same excellently in the place cited above, where it says: This holy Synod confesses and holds that concupiscence, or the tinder of sin, remains in the baptized. Since it has been left for the struggle, it cannot harm those who do not consent, but bravely resist it through the grace of Christ Jesus; indeed, whoever has fought lawfully will be crowned. The holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood this concupiscence, which the Apostle sometimes calls sin, to be called sin because it truly and properly is sin in the reborn, but because it is from sin and inclines to sin. But if anyone holds the contrary, let him be anathema.

YOU WILL OBJECT: St. Augustine, bk. 1 of On Marriage and Concupiscence, using the likeness of a wild olive grafted onto an olive tree, and understanding sin by the former and justice and grace by the latter, says: Because the sin was so great, he says, that there was a great change of nature for the worse, it made the whole human race a wild olive, so that, just as we now see among trees, if divine grace converts any of it into an olive, the defect of the first birth—which was original sin, transmitted and carried over from carnal concupiscence—is remitted, covered over, and not imputed; yet a wild olive grows from it unless it too is reborn as an olive by the same grace, etc. And in ch. 33: Blessed, then, is the olive tree whose iniquities have been remitted and whose sins have been covered; blessed is the one to whom the Lord has not imputed sin, but it has been remitted and covered, and is not imputed until the full change into eternal immortality takes place. It has a certain hidden power by which a bitter wild olive is sown, unless there too the same cultivation by God remits, covers, and does not impute it, etc. By these words St. Augustine teaches that original sin is remitted through baptism in such a way that it is merely covered and not imputed; therefore he judges that sins are not truly washed away by the power of baptism. I deny the inference, for in the same place, from ch. 25 through ch. 33, St. Augustine plainly teaches that sins are truly remitted through baptism with respect to the debt, although they remain with respect to the corrupted inclination, which is concupiscence and the tinder of sin, because it arises from sin and entices to sin. Hence, when he says that sin is covered and not imputed—that is, remitted—he either takes and understands the terms remission, covering, and non-imputation of sins to refer to concupiscence itself, which is not imputed to the olive tree made sweet by Christ’s cultivation through baptismal grace: for that concupiscence, however much it arises from sin and inclines to sin, is not imputed unto damnation to an unbaptized person who does not consent to its perverse and disordered movements; or, if he understands the words “remission, covering, and non-imputation of sins” as referring to the debt of sin, he uses them in the same way as they are used in Psalm 31: Blessed are those whose iniquities have been remitted, and whose sins have been covered, etc.; Blessed is the man to whom the Lord has not imputed sin, etc. There, to be covered and not imputed mean the same as for sin to be remitted through pardon. “Do not understand ‘sins have been covered,’” says St. Augustine in his exposition of that Psalm, “as if sin were covered over and were there, alive,” etc. Other interpreters teach the same: sins are covered in such a way that they no longer exist. For they are covered by charity, justice, and the other virtues, as by a first white and immaculate robe that removes the foulness of sin; for, as the Apostle says, charity covers a multitude of sins. Origen explains it this way in his commentary on Romans 4; Ambrose, On Noah’s Ark, ch. 31; Gregory, Homily 4 on Ezekiel. Therefore, not to be imputed is the same as to be blotted out: sin is imputed as long as it exists, just as St. Paul often says that good works and faith are reckoned as righteousness, and that a wage is imputed as a reward. So St. Bernard, Sermon 1: On the Annunciation: “What has indeed been done, when God does not impute it, will be as though it had never been.”, etc. That is, it has been blotted out, healed, and cleansed through pardon and remission, as is said of sins erased through baptism.

Second conclusion. — THROUGH BAPTISM EVERY ETERNAL PUNISHMENT IS REMOVED, AS IS EVERY TEMPORAL PUNISHMENT VOLUNTARILY ASSUMED AS SATISFACTION, BUT NOT THAT WHICH IS INCURRED THROUGH BIRTH. This is the common opinion, and the Master of the Sentences teaches it

In In IV Sent., d. 4, where he sets out this conclusion in full so plainly that it is worth transcribing his words here. “It is often asked concerning those who, already sanctified by the Spirit, approach baptism with faith and charity: what does baptism confer upon them? For it seems to do them no good, since they have already been justified through faith and contrition, their sins having been remitted. To this one may properly reply that they have indeed been justified through faith and contrition—that is, cleansed from the stain of sin and freed from the debt of eternal punishment—yet they are still bound by temporal satisfaction, by which penitents are bound in the Church. But when they receive baptism, they are cleansed also from any sins they may have contracted in the interval after conversion, freed from external satisfaction, and receive an increase of assisting grace and every virtue, so that they can then truly be called a new person. The tinder of sin is also further weakened in them. Therefore St. Augustine says in Homily 74 on John that the faith which makes people faithful is given or nourished in the waters of baptism: it is sometimes given to one who does not have it, and it is given to one who already has it so that he may have it more fully. The same is to be understood of the other gifts. Therefore, whoever approaches clean becomes cleaner there, and whoever has anything receives more there. Ambrose shows that all external satisfaction is remitted there, commenting on Romans 11: ‘The gifts and calling of God are without repentance,’ and saying: ‘God’s grace in baptism does not require a groan, lamentation, or any work, but freely pardons everything.’ This must be understood of external groaning or lamentation, for no adult is renewed without interior sorrow; but the external satisfactions and afflictions—that is, the stains of penitents—are remitted there. Baptism therefore confers much even upon one already justified through faith: for one approaching baptism is like a branch carried by a dove into the ark; before, he was within by God’s judgment, but now he is within also by the Church’s judgment. Since sin is blotted out in baptism and external satisfaction is not imputed, one may ask why the penalty to which we have been consigned on account of sin is not taken away. The holy men teach that this happens because, if people were freed from punishment through baptism, they would think that punishment itself was baptism’s reward rather than the eternal kingdom. Therefore, though the debt of sin is removed, temporal punishment nevertheless remains, to provide material for faith and struggle, and an occasion for victory—for no one would conquer without fighting, nor would one fight if baptism made one immortal.”

The Seraphic Doctor also explains and confirms this truth clearly, d. 4, pt. 1, a. 1, q. 2. Having said that baptism removes every eternal punishment due to sins and temporal satisfaction, but not every punishment incurred, because God has not ordained it so, he adds the reason: “It was fitting that he leave such penalties to us in keeping with justice; this was to manifest the justice of divine judgment, to demonstrate the fruit of Christ’s Passion, and to advance the merit of free choice. To manifest the justice of divine judgment: so that the sentence he had pronounced concerning the death of Adam and his descendants would remain unaltered; hence no one escapes it. To show the fruit of Christ’s Passion: for if the Lord were to heal nature and the tinder of sin, a son would be born free from fault and would not need to be reborn through Christ. Therefore, so that all may know their need of his Passion, the sacrament has been given its power from the Passion; or it was ordained for this purpose: to remit personal punishments, not natural ones, because a remedy regards the person, not nature, etc. To increase the merit of free choice: such penalties promote us toward the good in many ways. They are given for the sake of humility: ‘The arrows of the Lord wage war against me, whose indignation,’ etc.; to instill fear: ‘The terrors of the Lord wage war against me.’ Solely for self-knowledge: ‘Affliction alone will give understanding,’ etc.; to spur us toward the good: ‘Rise and depart, for you have no rest here.’ As an example of not sinning: ‘I will set forth my example from my youth.’ For the exercise of virtues: ‘These are the nations that the Lord left behind to instruct Israel.’ So that they may be a sign of the adoption of sons: ‘If you are without discipline,’ etc. They are also left so that no one might take this as a reward in return, lest people come to baptism on this account. For if immortality were granted there, more would come for that reason than for grace, and faith would then have no merit, since human reason would have the proof of it.” Although the grace conferred through baptism does not wholly take away or remove incurred or innate punishments, nevertheless it diminishes them, and concupiscence most of all. St. Augustine teaches in bk. 1 of On Marriage and Concupiscence, ch. 25, that it diminishes more and more from day to day: “Although its debt has already been removed,” he says, “concupiscence nevertheless remains until all our infirmity is healed, as the renewal of the inner person progresses from day to day, when the outer person will have put on incorruption. For it does not remain as a substance, like some body or spirit, but is an affection of an evil quality, like sickness.” And a little later: “Yet this concupiscence is diminished daily in those who progress and practice continence, and all the more as old age approaches.”

The Subtle Doctor teaches the same, d. 1, q. 7, n. 1. Having said that in all the baptized grace is not remitted equally, nor is the same amount of sin diminished, he explains how this diminution of the tinder of sin, or of concupiscence, takes place. He writes: “Because the tinder of sin,” he says, “is in the flesh, or in some bodily power, it cannot be formally diminished by grace, which is in the soul, since there is no formal opposition between it and grace, as they are not apt to be in the same subject. But the tinder of sin is said to be diminished with respect to the effect it customarily causes in the soul, namely sin: as grace increases, the tinder of sin has less efficacy for inclining one to sin.” He explains this by the example of a small stone tied to an eagle’s wings: “For,” he says, “if the eagle’s power of movement increased, although the stone’s weight did not diminish (since opposites are not present, nor do they exist in the same subject), nevertheless the stone’s weight is diminished with respect to its effect: the greater the strength in the wing, the less the stone impedes ascent or flight.”

Third conclusion. — BY ITS OWN POWER, UNDER THE ORDINARY LAW, BAPTISM CONFERS EQUAL GRACE UPON SUBJECTS EQUALLY DISPOSED, BUT UNEQUAL GRACE UPON SUBJECTS UNEQUALLY PREPARED; NEVERTHELESS, UNDER THE EXTRAORDINARY LAW IT IS POSSIBLE FOR UNEQUAL GRACE TO BE CONFERRED IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THIS SACRAMENT UPON SUBJECTS EQUALLY PREPARED.

The first part of this conclusion remains sufficiently proved from the preceding Disputation, where we expressly proved that the sacraments confer unequal grace upon subjects unequally prepared. It is also most certain from the Council of Trent, sess. VI, ch. 7, where, speaking of the righteousness for which baptism is the instrumental cause, it says: Which, he says, the Holy Spirit distributes to each as he wills, and according to each person’s own disposition and cooperation.

Reason also supports this: for a sacrament confers grace by the work performed, like a natural cause, which certainly produces a more perfect effect the more perfectly disposed it finds its subject. And it was surely fitting that Christ the Lord institute the sacraments in such a way that one who approaches with greater fervor and more perfect devotion receives more grace than one who approaches the sacrament with a slack disposition. For this gives people an incentive to dispose themselves properly for receiving the sacrament, as they consider that greater grace is conferred by the work performed according to each person’s own disposition. For just as a stone and glass, though equally distant from the sun, receive unequal light—the glass receiving more than the stone—the cause of this greater illumination is the subject’s greater capacity, even though the sun is equally the efficient cause of that greater illumination.

The second part, together with the first, is excellently explained and proved by the Doctor in In IV Sent., d. 4, q. 7. Having supposed that three causes concur in baptismal grace—namely, God as efficient cause, Christ’s Passion as meritorious cause, and the recipient as material or passive cause—and having said that the equality or inequality of grace may be considered on the part of any of these, he first explains that, even if under the ordinary law God confers equal grace through baptism upon those equally disposed, “nevertheless, he says, because God predestined different elect persons to different degrees of glory, and did so before determining this sign to confer this or that amount of grace, and because greater grace may reasonably be conferred upon one ordained to greater glory, God can, in determining the truth or certainty of this sign, arrange to confer upon one recipient precisely the grace required for the sign’s certainty, and a greater grace upon another whom he predestined to greater glory. But that further degree will not be conferred by the power of baptism; rather, it will be given through a special divine benevolence. For this reason it may be said that, on the part of the principal cause, the effect regularly is simply equal, since it is given by the power of baptism; for it is assumed that, under the common law, the first grace is not given in greater measure without some difference beyond the principal cause.” By these words the Doctor asserts that, beyond the common effect of grace conferred upon all the baptized by the power of baptism under the ordinary law, God can confer greater grace upon someone through a special will and special benevolence toward that person. This excess would not indeed come from baptism’s power as the ordinary instrument for producing grace, but from God’s benevolence, which can also cause that effect by the work performed through a sacrament specially taken up for this purpose, although God could produce it independently of a sacrament. Therefore the Doctor does not say that, as a matter of fact, greater baptismal grace is given to one predestined to greater glory, as Sotus falsely attributes to him, d. 6, single q., a. 6; he speaks only of what is possible, and in this he seems to agree with Alensis, pt. 4, q. 21, memb. 3, and St. Bonaventure, d. 4, pt. 2, a. 2, q. 3. “As for the meritorious cause,” the Doctor says, n. 4, “one may say that this meritorious cause can work more efficaciously toward grace in one way than in another: either because it is offered more particularly for one person, as regards the intentions of the one offering it, than for another; or because, as regards its execution, it is offered in effect for one and not for another, except in divine foreknowledge. In the first way, Christ is commonly held to know all that God knows by the knowledge of vision and, consequently, to know all the elect and the degree of glory to which they were elected. He could therefore offer his Passion more fully for those predestined to greater glory, especially since he offered himself for the human race so that divine predestination might be fulfilled in them. In the second way, Christ’s Passion cooperates more efficaciously for us, who are under the Law of the Gospel, than for the Fathers under the Law of Moses, because a service rendered for the sake of a greater good to be rewarded is more acceptable than a benefit foreseen. In this second way, there is an inequality among those receiving grace through circumcision and baptism, because the meritorious cause was applied unequally to them, and perhaps also among those baptized before and after the Passion. If, however, there is an inequality of grace among some baptized now in the first way—that is, because of a special offering in Christ’s will—it is uncertain whether this actually occurs, though its possibility has been shown.” In these words the Doctor explains how the grace conferred in baptism can be unequal on the part of the one offering or on the part of the thing offered. On the part of the one offering, namely Christ the Lord, who seems to have offered his Passion differently for the reprobate and for the predestined: for the former he offered it as regards sufficiency, but for the latter also as regards efficacy, since he knew who they were—those to be saved on account of final righteousness or condemned on account of final impenitence. On the part of the thing offered, there too could be an inequality of grace, because the Passion of Christ the Lord was applied differently to the Fathers under the law of nature and the written law than it is applied to the faithful under the Law of the Gospel. Hence the grace conferred through circumcision was different, and far less than that conferred through baptism, because Christ’s Passion was applied unequally. Moreover, the Doctor does not determine whether in fact greater grace is conferred under the Law of the Gospel upon one baptized person than another by reason of the one offering it or the thing offered, as Sotus and some others wrongly claim; he speaks only of what is possible, as Scholasticus notes very well. As regards the recipient of baptism, the Doctor says, n. 5, that those baptized are either infants or adults: “Comparing one infant with another, since they have no movement of their own, they have no inequality on their own part with respect to the grace they receive. Yet one infant’s parents may have greater devotion than another’s toward their own child; or this may be so of others ministering at or assisting in the baptism. On account of their merits, God can confer greater grace upon one infant than another, but this is not by the power of baptism, but by merit. In this way perhaps the prayers of St. Nicholas’s parents merited greater grace for him, which, even while he was an infant, was the beginning of so remarkable an effect that for two days each week he was content with only a single feeding. In this respect it is more desirable for a child to be baptized by a good priest than by a bad one, because the prayers of a good priest, of which he says many before and after baptism, are more readily heard and are of greater benefit to the one for whom they are offered than the prayers of a bad priest. But if those baptized are adults, since through their own movement they can be unequally disposed, and since grace is conferred in the sacrament in proportion to the recipient’s disposition, an unequal effect follows. If you compare an infant with an adult, ordinarily the infant has no merit, whereas an adult, however slight his will may be, seems to have personal merit so long as he consents to receive the sacrament and places no obstacle; and to that extent he is more disposed than an infant, and so on. But suppose an adult sins venially throughout the whole time of baptism; he seems then to be in some way ill-disposed, while an infant has no ill-disposition at all; therefore in that case the infant will receive greater grace. I answer: venial sin does not prevent grace from being infused, nor prevent a meritorious act from occurring at the same time. Yet because the soul cannot be equally and perfectly intent upon several acts at once, a good act accompanied by a venial sin is less intense, and therefore less meritorious, than it would be without any venial sin. For the present question it follows that, if an adult does not place the obstacle of mortal sin and consents to receive baptism, he has a certain disposing movement that an infant lacks, notwithstanding that he has a venial sin at the same time.” This last statement of the Doctor signifies that there is no inequality of baptismal grace on the part of the recipient if the recipient is not an adult, except perhaps extrinsically—for instance, through the intercession of the parents, sponsors, or minister, whose faith and merits could obtain greater grace for the baptized infant, not by merit of condignity but by merit of congruity, as Scholasticus notes very well. For no mere creature can merit grace of condignity for another. The Doctor himself also asserts this in d. 4, q. 2, n. 4, where, responding to the second argument, he says: “As a matter of fact, grace is given to no one except through some meritorious cause that merited his first union with God, and this meritorious cause is Christ. But besides this cause, no other intrinsic cause in the recipient that is united to God before he receives grace needs to be posited.”

The term ceremony, says Valerius Maximus, bk. 1, ch. 11, is derived from Cere, a town in Etruria: after Rome had been captured by the Gauls, the Vestal Virgins, to whom the care of adorning and preserving the images had been entrusted, divided the burden and duty among themselves and carried them there. When the inhabitants of that town had received them kindly, the Romans, in gratitude and memory of this favor, after their liberty was restored, decreed that every worship paid to the gods should be called a ceremony, from the name of that hospitality. As for the truth of the matter, a ceremony is an external circumstance instituted to conduce to the religious worship of God and to adorn sacrifices, so that the worship owed to God may be rendered with greater solemnity. — Luther, however, in On Pious Ceremonies, denies that any ceremonies other than those mentioned in Scripture are to be used in the administration of baptism. Calvin teaches the same in bk. 3 of the Institutes, no. 19, where he writes most impudently, and no less impiously: “As regards the outward sign, would that Christ’s genuine institution had prevailed as much as it ought to restrain human audacity! For, as though it were a contemptible thing to be baptized with water at Christ’s command, a blessing—or rather an incantation—was invented, which polluted the true consecration of the water. A candle was later added, together with chrism; and insufflation seemed to open the door to baptism. Although I am not unaware how ancient is the origin of this adventitious medley, it is nevertheless lawful for me and for all the godly to reject whatever men have dared to add to Christ’s institution. When Satan saw that his impostures had been received almost effortlessly, through the foolish credulity of the world, from the very beginnings of the Gospel, he rushed on to cruder mockeries: hence spittle and similar trifles were introduced openly, with unrestrained license, to the disgrace of baptism. By these examples let us learn that nothing is holier, better, or safer than to be content with the authority of Christ alone. How much better, then, would it have been, leaving aside theatrical pomp that dazzles the eyes and dulls the minds of simple people, whenever someone was to be baptized, to present him to the assembly of the faithful and offer him to God, with the whole Church as witness, looking on and praying over him; to recite the confession of faith by which the catechumen is to be instructed; to explain the promises contained in baptism; to baptize the catechumen in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; and finally to dismiss him with prayers and thanksgiving? Thus nothing helpful to the matter would be omitted, and that one ceremony, which came from God as its author, unobscured by any foreign filth, would shine forth most clearly. As for whether the person being dipped is immersed wholly, and whether this is done three times or once, or whether he is sprinkled with water merely poured over him, it matters very little; but he laments that the Church leaves this free according to the diversity of regions. Yet even the very word ‘baptize’ means to dip, and it is clear that the rite of emerging was observed by the ancient Church.” But the Council of Trent thus disposes of the obstinacy of this impudent heresiarch, sess. VII, can. 13: If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, customarily used in the solemn administration of the Sacraments, may either be despised, or omitted at the ministers’ whim without sin, or changed into other new rites by any pastor of the Church whatsoever, let him be anathema. It is therefore part of religion and duty here to examine, under three distinct sections, the ceremonies customarily observed in the solemn administration of baptism.

§ I. — ON THE CEREMONIES THAT PRECEDE BAPTISM, CONSIDERED AS TO ITS SUBSTANCE. — In ancient times various observances were required of an adult who sought baptism. First, he was brought by one of the faithful who knew him to the prelates and ministers of the Church, so that his name, as well as that of the person bringing him, might be recorded as sponsor, as St. Dionysius relates in On the Hierarchy, chapter on baptism. Then the person to be baptized was entrusted and handed over to the care and vigilance of the one appointed to rear and catechize catechumens, so that he might be taught by him the mysteries and laws of the Christian religion, according to the saying of Christ the Lord: Teach all nations, baptizing them. At that time they were called catechumens, from the Greek word ἀπὸ τοῦ κατηχισμὸν, which means to instruct by the living voice. Hence they were also called hearers or auditors, as Tertullian observes in On Penance, ch. 6: “Let no one flatter himself because he is counted among the beginners among the hearers, as though he were thereby permitted to sin with impunity. Is Christ one for those who have been dipped, and another for hearers? Is their hope different, their reward different, their fear of judgment different, or their need for penance different? That washing is the seal of faith, and faith begins and is commended by the faith of penance. We are not washed in order that we may cease sinning, but because we have already ceased, since we have already been known in our heart: for this is the first dipping of a hearer, an unbroken fear.” By these words he also signifies that catechumens ought to do penance, so that they might be made fit for the grace of baptism. He states this clearly also in ch. 20: “One who is about to enter baptism ought to pray with frequent prayers, fasts, kneelings, and vigils.” Once they had been sufficiently instructed and formed in the mysteries and practices of the Christian religion, they were called the applicants, as Blessed Pacian notes in his sermon On Baptism, because they sought baptism together. Tertullian alludes to this in the passage just cited: “Hearers ought to await dipping, not presume upon it; for he who desires it prays, while he who presumes is proud.” The decree of the Council of Agde also concerns this, ch. 13, where we read: “It was also agreed that by all the Churches, on one day—that is, eight days before the Lord’s Resurrection—the Creed should be preached publicly in the Church to the applicants.” They were also called the elect, as is clear from the Roman Order and the Sacramentary of St. Gregory, because after the examinations they were chosen for baptism.

Moreover, six examinations were held before baptism during Lent, as Alcuin and Amalarius teach in On the Divine Offices. The first examination began on the Wednesday of the third Sunday; it was repeated frequently, so that it might be investigated again and again whether, after renouncing Satan, the sacred words of the faith they had professed had been firmly fixed in their hearts. Finally, according to the Roman Order, a seventh examination took place on the vigil of Easter, when the preceding six examinations were repeated, especially for little children recently born who had not been present at the earlier ones, as is clear from the Roman Order and Amalarius, bk. 1 of On the Divine Offices, ch. 13. Therefore Rabanus, bk. 1 of On the Instruction of Clerics, ch. 27 and following, lists all the ceremonies of baptism together.

To comply with him, we judge it fitting to review distinctly and in detail all those ceremonies as they are now performed according to the order of the Ritual. First, the godfathers and godmothers present the person to be baptized to the priest. Tertullian mentions this custom in On Baptism and therefore calls them sponsors and sureties. Dionysius does likewise in On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 2: “The priests,” he says, “assign the baptized person to his sponsor.” And in ch. 7 he says: “It came into the minds of our divine leaders”—that is, the Apostles—“and seemed good to them that infants should be received in this holy manner: that, just as natural parents hand over a child to some learned guide in divine things, and the child thereafter lives under him as under a divine father and guardian of holy salvation, so should this be done.” They are called sponsors either because they received the newly baptized person into their care and instruction, or because they held and wiped him as he emerged from the sacred font. Hence, when adults were formerly baptized and immersed naked over their whole bodies, only women received women and men received men. Later, however, it became permissible for a man to receive a female infant and for a woman to receive a male infant, as Nicholas I says in his letter to the Bishop of Salona, where he writes: “You ask whether a woman who has lifted from the sacred font a man’s son, born of another woman, may afterwards be joined to that same man. We decree that they may be joined for this reason: according to the sacred canons, no religious person ought to put away a spouse except with the consent of both.”

At times three sponsors were admitted to signify the mystery of the most holy Trinity. So says Waldensis, vol. 3, title 5, ch. 49. Later, however, so that the unity of the divine nature and of baptism might be expressed, the Council of Metz, ch. 12, decreed: “Let not two or more, but one person, receive infants from the baptismal font; for there is one God and one baptism.” The Council of Trent likewise established this in sess. XXIV, ch. 2, where, wishing to guard against the impediment of spiritual kinship, it decreed: “That only one person, either a man or a woman, according to the institutions of the sacred canons, or at most one man and one woman, receive the baptized person from baptism,” etc. A godfather, moreover, must be an adult and himself baptized, so that he may fulfill the office of godfather. That office chiefly consists in presenting the person to be baptized to the priest, making a profession of faith on his behalf, and pledging that he will live piously and religiously. Hence St. Augustine says in Sermon 163, On the Season: “All men and women who have spiritually received children from the sacred font should know that they have become sureties for them before God, and therefore should always show them the care of true charity.” Thus, as Amalarius relates in bk. 1 of On the Ecclesiastical Offices, ch. 2, for eight days the newly baptized were led to the church under the guidance of their father and mother, for other works of Christian piety. This care was not confined to that period; thereafter, whenever necessary, sponsors were to watch over the salvation of those baptized.

Furthermore, sponsors give names to the person to be baptized, as was done at circumcision among the Jews, as is clear from the example of Christ the Lord, Luke 2: “When the eight days were completed for the circumcision of the child, his name was called Jesus.” Sometimes adults retained their own names at baptism, as is clear in the cases of Saints Ambrose and Augustine; at other times, and usually, they changed them. Hence Dionysius of Alexandria, as quoted by Eusebius, bk. 7 of the History, ch. 12, says, speaking of St. John the Apostle, that many Gentiles, because of the exceptional love they bore him, their zeal, with which they burned to invite him, and their desire to be loved by the Lord in the same way, begged that John’s name be given to them at baptism.

After the name has been given, the person to be baptized renounces the devil in his own person if he is an adult; if he is not yet capable of reason, he does so through his godfather and godmother. Tertullian mentions this renunciation in several places, especially in On the Crown, ch. 3: “As we are about to enter the water, there, under the hand of the prelate, we profess that we renounce the devil, his pomp, and his angels.” As the Interpreter of St. Dionysius’s Ecclesiastical Hierarchy testifies, this renunciation was made facing west and repeated three times: “Having placed the person to be baptized facing west,” he says, “and himself turned toward the same quarter, the priest orders him to blow three times at Satan and also to profess his renunciation.” Blessed Gregory also mentions this insufflation in the Sacramentary. This agrees with our custom, by which the priest breathes three times upon the face of the person to be baptized, saying, “Come out of him, Satan.” To this pertains the statement of St. Cyril of Jerusalem in Catechesis 1: “The breath of the saints and the invocation of the name of God burn the demons like a flame and put them to flight.” St. Augustine also mentions it in On Marriage and Concupiscence, ch. 18, writing of Julian, who denied that those being born were under the devil and needed to be brought to Christ to be rescued from the power of demons: “And so,” says St. Augustine, “he accuses the Church spread throughout the whole world, in which everywhere all infants to be baptized are breathed upon for no other reason than that the prince of this world may be driven out from them, since he must possess vessels of wrath when they are born from Adam unless they are reborn in Christ.” And in ch. 29, answering Pelagians who said it was a Manichaean error to claim that human beings were corrupted and evil by their origin, he writes: “He is not a complete Manichaean, as this man is, who defends original evil; rather, he is a complete Pelagian, who does not believe in original evil. For it was not from the time when the pestilential doctrine of Manichaeus began that infants to be baptized began to be exorcised and breathed upon in the Church of God, so that by these very mysteries it might be shown that they are transferred into the kingdom of Christ only after being rescued from the power of darkness.” Exorcism, says St. Isidore in bk. 2 of On the Ecclesiastical Offices, ch. 20, “is a word of rebuke directed against an unclean spirit, spoken over the possessed or over catechumens, by which the devil’s most wicked power and ancient malice are expelled and driven away from them.” Josephus, bk. 8 of Jewish Antiquities, testifies that exorcism originated with Solomon. St. Epiphanius, Heresy 30, asserts that Jewish exorcists used the name tetragrammaton, by whose power they drove out demons. That the Jews were accustomed to exorcise the possessed is suggested by Christ the Lord in Matthew 12, where, when the Jews said to him, “You cast out demons by Beelzebub, the prince of demons,” he replied, “If I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out?” etc. It is also clear from Acts 19: “Some itinerant Jewish exorcists attempted to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits,” etc. The Church, however, does not derive the rite of exorcism from the Jews, but from the example of Christ the Lord, who rebuked the epileptic in Matthew 7, and the demon went out of him. He conferred this power on the faithful, and especially on ministers appointed by the Church for this office, when he said in Mark 16: “These signs will follow those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons,” etc.

After the insufflation and exorcism—or, as some Churches do, shortly before both—the minister of baptism makes the sign of the cross on the forehead and breast of the person to be baptized. St. Dionysius the Areopagite mentions this ceremony in the places cited above: “He will place his hand upon his head,” he says, “and, signing him, will give him to the priests, that they may designate the man as his sponsor.” Tertullian in On the Crown and St. Augustine in bk. 1 of On the Creed, ch. 1, also attest to it: “The holy mother Church received you in her womb through the most sacred sign of the cross.” The sign of the cross is made on both the forehead and breast, as St. Gregory relates in the Sacramentary, so that the person may be protected on every side, and may know that he is destined to bear the cross and to love it with his whole heart as the mystical ladder to heaven.

Afterwards the priest blesses salt and puts a little salt into the infant’s mouth, “so that,” says Alcuin, “the putrid and fleeting sins of the baptized may be cleansed by the divine salt of wisdom.” Hence Origen, Homily 6 on Ezekiel: “Whoever is reborn in Christ must be salted with salt.” And St. Augustine, bk. 1 of the Confessions, ch. 11: “I was already marked with his sign and seasoned with his salt.” The Fathers instituted, says Isidore in bk. 1 of On the Offices, ch. 20, that salt be given to catechumens as a mystery, “so that by tasting it they may receive the seasoning of wisdom and not lose the savor of Christ.” Ivo of Chartres adds in his sermon On the Sacrament of the Neophytes: “Blessed salt is placed in the child’s mouth as a figure of wisdom, so that, seasoned with salt, he may be free of the source of iniquity.”

Then the priest puts some of the spittle from his mouth into the infant’s right ear, saying: “Ephphatha, which means ‘Be opened.’” Finally, he touches the nostrils, saying, “for a fragrance of sweetness,” and again the left ear, saying, “Be put to flight, devil.” This is prescribed in the Sacramentary of St. Gregory and the Roman Order. The origin of this ceremony seems to have been drawn from Mark 7, where Christ the Lord, wishing to heal a deaf and mute man, “put his fingers into his ears, and, spitting, touched his tongue; and looking up to heaven, he groaned and said to him, ‘Ephphatha,’ which is, ‘Be opened.’” Hence St. Ambrose, addressing catechumens in On Initiation, says: “Open your ears, and receive, by the gift of the Sacraments, the good fragrance of eternal life breathed into you, which we have signified to you when, celebrating the mysteries of opening, we say ‘Ephphatha,’ which means ‘Be opened.’” Hugo of St. Victor, bk. 1 of On the Sacraments, ch. 8, says that the ears and nostrils are touched and anointed with spittle to signify that, through Adam’s sin, man became deaf to divine things and no longer savors what belongs to God, but through baptism receives spiritual hearing and smell again.

After the demon has been driven from the person to be baptized by exorcism and the other sacred rites, the faith of the Apostles’ Creed is delivered to him, says Alcuin, “so that the empty house, abandoned by its former inhabitant, may be adorned with faith, and a dwelling may be prepared for God.” Hence St. Augustine, bk. 8 of the Confessions, ch. 2, relates that the rhetorician Victorinus publicly professed his faith before the people in the Roman forum; the applicants were also accustomed to do this. Tertullian seems to allude to it in On the Crown, ch. 3, when he says: “You answer something more than the Lord prescribed in the Gospel.”

After this the priest leads the catechumen into the church, touching the garments with which he is covered and saying, “Enter”; moreover, he asks him by name: “Do you renounce Satan?” St. Peter seems to recall this ceremony in his First Epistle, ch. 3, in these words: “He saved us by baptism, not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but the appeal to God of a good conscience,” as St. Cyril interprets it in bk. 6 on John.

Then the priest anoints the infant’s breast and shoulders with the oil of the catechumens. “The breast is anointed,” says Alcuin, “so that the devil’s entrance may be barred by the sign of the holy Cross; the shoulders, too, are signed so that he may be protected on every side.” Or, as Rabanus says in bk. 1 of On the Instruction of Clerics, ch. 27: “His breast is anointed with consecrated oil, with invocation of the most holy Trinity, so that his mind may be strengthened; he is anointed with the same oil between the shoulders so that he may be protected on every side and strengthened by God’s grace to perform good works.” Among the Greeks, the person to be baptized was anointed over his whole body, as St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis 2, Chrysostom, Homily 6 on the Epistle to the Colossians, and Blessed Severus of Alexandria in The Rites of Baptism relate. St. Ambrose in On Those Who Are Initiated, ch. 6, and Isidore in bk. 2 of On the Divine Offices, ch. 8, indicate, however, that in the Latin Church only the head and breast were customarily anointed. “It was also a custom of the ancient Church for the priest to anoint the baptized person with chrism on the crown,” as Amalarius Fortunatus, Bishop of Trier, teaches in On the Ecclesiastical Offices, ch. 27. After teaching that the neophyte should be anointed immediately after baptism, he adds: “As it is read in the pontifical records, Sylvester instituted that the neophyte be anointed with chrism on the head by a priest….” He then writes: “This anointing may be performed by a priest even when a bishop is present, although only a bishop can give the baptized the Holy Spirit through the imposition of hands, anointing with chrism not on the crown but on the forehead.” On this point he cites the history of Philip the deacon, who could not confer the Holy Spirit on the Samaritans he had baptized because he was neither an apostle nor a bishop. Hence Peter and John had to be sent for this office, Acts 8.

After this the priest asks the person to be baptized: “Do you believe in God?” He answers: “I believe.” Tertullian mentions this ceremony and profession of faith in On the Spectacles, ch. 4, where he says: “Having entered the water, we profess the Christian faith in the words of its law.” In ancient times a solemn oath was also customarily added to this profession, to propagate this faith even unto death, as Tertullian observes in To the Martyrs and On the Crown, ch. 11. When these things have been completed, baptism is administered.

§ II. — On the accompanying ceremonies, especially concerning place and time. — It is certain that the Apostles baptized at every time and in every place where a suitable opportunity arose. For after St. Peter’s first preaching, they did not judge that the Jews who had converted to the faith and sought the means necessary for salvation should be baptized at some other time or place; rather, those who received his word were baptized, and about three thousand souls were added on that day. Nor did Philip seek a particular time or day to baptize the eunuch, nor Peter when he baptized Cornelius and his whole household. It was not apostolic prudence to defer for long a present and ready harvest, lest it be scattered everywhere by Gentiles or Jews like raging beasts.

Moreover, those to be baptized needed no time in which to learn the mysteries of the faith, since the Holy Spirit taught them everything concerning the mysteries of the Christian religion and faith. Furthermore, a great multitude of people came for baptism, and since there were few ministers to baptize them, it was fitting that baptism not be postponed to another time. But when the Church began to spread throughout the world and more ministers had been appointed who could confer baptism, a common custom of the Church, derived from Apostolic Tradition, took hold: no one was to be solemnly baptized outside the seasons of Easter and Pentecost. Tertullian testifies to this especially in On Baptism, ch. 19, where he writes: “Easter provides the more solemn day for baptism, since then the Lord’s Passion, in which we are dipped, has been accomplished. Nor will it be interpreted incongruously as a figure that, when the Lord was about to celebrate his last Passover, he sent his disciples to make preparations and pointed out the place for celebrating the Passover by the sign of water, saying, ‘You will find a man carrying water.’ From then on Pentecost offers the broadest opportunity for arranging washings, when both the Lord’s Resurrection was celebrated repeatedly, and the grace of the Holy Spirit was consecrated, and the hope of the Lord’s coming was intimated, etc.” That the celebration of baptism was forbidden on the other festivals is clear from the Councils of Girona, ch. 4, Compiègne, ch. 3, and Worms, ch. 11. St. Leo gives this reason for the observance in Letter 4, To the Bishops Established Throughout Sicily, ch. 3, speaking of Easter: “That day and that season have been chosen for the generation of human children and their adoption as children of God, in order that by the likeness and form of the mystery, what is done in the members may correspond to what was done in the Head: in the rule of baptism, death intervenes through the killing of sin, the threefold immersion imitates the three-day burial, and the rising from the waters is like rising from the tomb. The very character of the action therefore teaches that this is the proper day for the general celebration of grace: the day on which both the power of the gift and the form of the action arose. The sacred solemnity of Pentecost is added to this observance because of the coming of the Holy Spirit. It depends on the point of the Paschal feast, and while other feasts belong to other days, this one always falls on the day distinguished by the Lord’s Resurrection, stretching out, as it were, the hand of assisting grace and inviting those whom illness, a long journey, or the difficulty of sailing kept away from Easter day to obtain, despite whatever necessities hindered them, the fulfillment of their desire through the gift of the Holy Spirit.” In ch. 4 he adds: “We prove that we defend this not from our own persuasion but observe it on Apostolic authority by following the very suitable example of Blessed Peter the Apostle, who on the day when the promised coming of the Holy Spirit filled the number of all believers consecrated by the washing of baptism the three thousand people converted by his preaching.” Rabanus, bk. 2, ch. 38, testifies that this custom endured until the times of Emperors Charles and Louis. Hence the prayers and chants that we solemnly use for this rite on the Paschal days also recall the ceremony of baptizing at that time. This is indicated by the responsory I saw water; the hymn To the Lamb’s Supper we hasten; the introit for Monday, The Lord brought you into a land flowing with milk and honey; the introit for Tuesday, He gave them to drink of the water of wisdom; and that day’s Collect, O God, who always multiply your Church with new offspring; the introit for Wednesday, Come, blessed of my Father; the introit for Thursday, They all alike praised your powerful hand, O Lord, etc., and that day’s Collect and Secret; the introit for Friday, The Lord led them out in hope, and that day’s Secret; the introit for Saturday, The Lord led out his people; and the introit for the eighth-day Sunday, Like newborn infants.

The reason why this custom was abolished may be surmised from Socrates, bk. 5 of the Ecclesiastical History, ch. 29, where he relates that many in Thessaly died without baptism because it had become customary to baptize only on Easter days. It is likely that the same negligence, whether on the part of parents or parish priests, also changed the practice for the entire season of Pentecost, as Pamelius observes on ch. 19 of Tertullian’s On Baptism. In an urgent necessity, however, it was permitted to baptize at any time without solemnity, as Tertullian observes in the same place: “Otherwise every day belongs to the Lord; every hour and every time is suitable for baptism. If solemnity is at issue, it makes no difference to grace.” The Council of Girona also signifies this in ch. 5, where it decrees: “This has been established concerning the baptism of catechumens: at the solemnity of Easter or Pentecost, the more they come to be baptized, the greater the celebration; on the other solemnities only the sick should be baptized, to whom it is fitting that baptism not be denied at any time.” St. Leo also establishes the same in Letter 4, ch. 6: “Those pressed by the necessity of death, sickness, siege, persecution, or shipwreck ought to be baptized at any time.”

As for the place, it is certain that the Apostles and their disciples baptized in waters at hand. For we read in Acts 8 that Philip baptized the eunuch in water that he had found nearby. And in chapter 16 Lydia the seller of purple was baptized beside a river. And in the life of St. Marcellus the Pope, on whose feast day we write these things, we read that St. Cyriacus built a font in his own house, which St. Marcellus consecrated, and where he frequently baptized. But when the Christian religion had spread throughout the world and had gained a little respite from frequent persecutions, baptisteries began to be built in cities, in the porticoes of churches. Hence Cyril of Jerusalem, addressing those about to be baptized, says: You have already been around the Portico of the royal palace, etc. After this, baptisteries were erected in churches; for Gregory of Tours reports that Clovis, king of the Franks, was baptized in a church, in book II of the History of the Franks.

In ancient times baptism was usually conferred by three immersions and as many emersions, so that by the infant’s being brought up from the waters a third time, the Resurrection after three days might be signified, as Gregory says, in book I of the Epistles. Nevertheless, baptism was also valid either by sprinkling or even by a single immersion, as the Fourth Council of Toledo decrees in chapter 5, in these words: To avoid the scandal of schism or the use of heretical doctrine, we keep the single immersion of baptism.

✳ “John the Deacon (who flourished in the year 814, author of several treatises, especially the life of St. Gregory the Great; in his letter to Senarius, which the most illustrious Mabillon published in his account of his Italian journey), answering questions put to him by the aforementioned Senarius concerning the ceremonies usually observed in baptism, especially that of adults, after first stating that all men are infected by original sin, from which they cannot be freed except by the grace of the Savior, adds: ‘There is therefore no doubt that before anyone is reborn in Christ, he is held bound by the devil’s power. Unless he is first stripped of its snares, renouncing them by a steadfast profession amid the very first rudiments of faith, he does not approach the grace of the saving bath. And so he must first enter the support of the catechumens. For catechesis in Greek means instruction. Through the ministry of the Church he is instructed by the blessing of the one laying on his hand, so that he may understand who he is and who he is to become: that is, that from the condemned he may become holy, from unjust appear just, and at last become a son from a slave; so that he who was lost in the first parent, restored by the benefit of the second, may prove himself heir to his father’s inheritance. Having been breathed upon, then, he is exorcised, so that once the devil has been driven out, an entrance may be prepared for Christ our God; and, rescued from the power of darkness, he may be transferred into the kingdom of the glory of God’s love; so that he who was once Satan’s vessel may now become the Savior’s dwelling. He is breathed upon because the ancient deserter deserves such disgrace. He is exorcised, that is, adjured to depart and withdraw, recognizing the advent of him whose image, raised up in the happiness of Paradise, he had cast down by wicked persuasion. The catechumen now receives blessed salt, in which this is signified: just as all flesh is preserved by salt, so the mind, wet and fluid with the waves of the world, is seasoned by the salt of wisdom and the preaching of God’s word, so that, thoroughly purged of the moisture of corruption, it may by the sweetness of divine salt attain the solidity of stability and permanence. This, then, is the work of the frequent imposition of hands, the reverence for the Trinity, and the Creator’s blessing invoked three times over his head. Next, as he makes some progress and advancement, the one who had been breathed upon and renounced the devil’s snares and pomp is now deemed worthy to receive the words of the Creed handed down by the Apostles: so that he who shortly before was called only a catechumen may now also be called a candidate or an elect. Conceived in the womb of Mother Church, he already begins to live, even though the time of sacred birth has not yet run its course. Then take place those rites which ecclesiastical custom calls scrutinies. For we search their hearts through faith, to see whether after renouncing the devil they have fixed the sacred words in their minds, whether they have acknowledged the grace of the Redeemer to come, and whether they profess that they believe in God the Father Almighty. And when their answers make clear that this is so, since it is written, “With the heart one believes unto righteousness, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation,” their ears are touched with the oil of sanctification, and their nostrils too. Their ears are touched because through them faith enters into the understanding, as the Apostle says: “Faith comes through hearing, and hearing through the word of God”; so that their ears, instructed as if by a wall of sanctification, admit nothing harmful, nothing that might turn them back. When their nostrils are touched, they are surely admonished to persevere in God’s service and commandments for as long as they draw the breath of this life through them. Hence that holy man said: “The Lord lives, who has taken away my judgment, and the Almighty, who has brought my soul to bitterness; for as long as breath remains in me and the spirit of God is in my nostrils, my lips shall not speak wickedness, nor shall my tongue meditate deceit.” A further thing is signified by the anointing of the nostrils: since that oil has been blessed in the name of the Savior, the inner senses are drawn by an ineffable sweetness to his spiritual fragrance, so that, delighted, they sing: “Your name is oil poured out; we shall run after the fragrance of your perfumes.” Thus fortified by this mystery, the sense of smell can admit nothing worldly that delights, nothing that could unsettle the mind. Next their breasts, the seat and dwelling of the heart, are anointed with the oil of consecration, so that with a firm conscience and pure heart they may understand that they must promise to follow Christ’s commandments, having now left the devil behind. They are also ordered to walk barefoot, so that, having put aside dead and carnal garments, they may know that they are beginning their journey along a road on which nothing rough or harmful can be found. Thus the Church, with prudent care, established this solicitude through the succession of ages, although the ancient page does not show these practices. Therefore, when the elect or catechumen has advanced in faith by means of these spiritual vehicles, then he must also be washed in the unique baptism and consecrated; in this sacrament the baptized person is perfected by three immersions. And rightly so. For he who approaches to be baptized in the name of the Trinity ought indeed to signify that very Trinity by a threefold immersion, and to acknowledge himself a debtor to its benefits, since on the third day it rose from the dead for him. Then, having received other garments, his head is anointed with the unction of sacred chrism, so that the baptized person may understand that the mystery of kingship and priesthood is within him. For priests and princes were anointed with chrism’s oil: the former to offer sacrifices, the latter to rule peoples. To express more fully the image of priesthood, the head of the one reborn is adorned with the beauty of linen; for the priests of that time always adorned their heads with a certain mystical veil. All who are reborn are clothed in white garments for the ministry of the Church rising again, just as the Lord and Savior was transfigured on the mountain before certain disciples and prophets, so that it was said: “His face shone like the sun, and his garments became white as snow.” By this he prefigured, as has been said, the splendor of the Church that will rise again, of which it is also written: “Who is this that ascends, made white?” They therefore wear white garments so that, whereas the cloth of ancient error had darkened the infancy of their first birth, the apparel of glory in their second generation may bring them forth clothed; so that the new man may come to the table of the heavenly Bridegroom surrounded by a wedding garment. And lest this seem to have been omitted, we state beforehand that all these things are also done for little children, who at the beginning of their age understand nothing. You should therefore know that when they are presented by their parents or by others, those who had been condemned by another’s error must be saved through another’s profession. Accordingly, you add this question: why is only the bishop permitted to consecrate the sacred chrism, a privilege that does not seem to have been granted to a priest? And rightly so: for the bishop holds the rank of the supreme Pontiff, while the priest is known to hold the place of the second priesthood. Every pontiff is a priest, but not every priest can be called a pontiff. For in the Old Testament, to pass over other matters, they differed even in the manner of their garments: the priests used four certain mystical vestments, which seemed to be common to them and the pontiff; but the pontiff used four others, which priests were entirely forbidden to wear. It is also added that only the pontiff had access once a year to the Holy of Holies. Hence, among the new people, the bishop obtained the power to ordain priests. Therefore the power of blessing and anointing is rightly, in a certain way, preserved by apostolic tradition for him who is known to hold the beginning of the ecclesiastical orders. Nor should this be passed over: the consecration of the priesthood does not receive the same words of blessing that the summit of the pontificate is accustomed to hear. For if nothing special were reserved to the bishop, the ranks would seem indistinguishable, and there would be no need for a different name if the same blessing consecrated them. Nor should it trouble anyone that necessity sometimes assumes a certain force for itself, as when (as is now said to happen in Africa) priests make the sacred chrism—something that would rightly cause concern if the pontifical authority had not granted this permission. Hence it is clear that even now the pontiffs in a certain way do what the higher order has established may be done by priests in such a great necessity of circumstances. You also wish to know which heretics the Catholic Church does not baptize when they return to it. I shall sum up the answer briefly, to the best of my ability: those who come are to be baptized if it is not established that they, too, received the mystery in the name of the Trinity. For if anyone confesses the Father alone, denying the Son and the Holy Spirit, he must certainly be baptized; or if he confesses the Son but denies the Father or the Holy Spirit, he must without doubt receive the sacrament of baptism; or if, while denying the Holy Spirit, he confesses the Father and the Son, he likewise must be cleansed in the mystical font, as we have recalled, according to that rule of the Lord who says: “Go, baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” But if someone has received the name of the Trinity while in some way making a distinction of inequality, as those did who followed the three at that time, they can certainly be baptized because they followed that rule of the Lord, although they seem to have erred. Such people, therefore, should rather be taught than baptized, and incorporated into the womb of Mother Church by the ensuing blessing of the bishop, so that through charity, by which God and neighbor are truly loved, they may recognize what they lacked and what has been completed in them. As for the Pelagians, Eutychians, and Nestorians, everything is well known and widely available; when you have read the book On Heresies, you will be able to examine these matters more fully.’” ✳

§ III. — ON THE CEREMONIES THAT FOLLOW THE SUBSTANCE OF BAPTISM. — The Priest embraced and kissed the baptized person who had emerged from the sacred font, as is gathered from Cyprian’s Epistle 59 to Bishop Fidus, who contended that infants should not be baptized before eight days, since no one could kiss them without disgust because of the customary filth contracted from the womb. To him St. Cyprian and his fellow bishops, who had assembled in the Council at number 66, write as follows: “You said that the trace of an infant in the first days after birth is not clean, and that each of us would still shudder to kiss it. We do not think this ought to be an impediment to the bestowal of heavenly grace; for it is written, ‘All things are clean to the clean.’ Nor ought any of us to shudder at what God has deigned to make. For even if an infant is still fresh from birth, it is not such that anyone ought to shrink from kissing him when grace is bestowed and peace made; for in kissing an infant, each of us, according to his religion, ought to consider those very fresh hands of God, which we in a certain way kiss in a human being just formed and newly born, when we embrace what God has made.”

After the kiss, the Priest anoints the baptized person on the crown of the head; this anointing is mentioned by St. Ambrose in book On Initiation, chapter 10, and also in book II of On the Sacraments, chapter 7; it is cited in On Consecration, distinction 1, chapter 189, where he addresses the newly baptized person as follows: “You emerged, you came to the Priest. What did he say to you? ‘May God,’ he says, ‘the almighty Father, who regenerated you from water and the Holy Spirit, and granted you your sins, himself anoint you unto eternal life.’ See where you have been anointed: ‘unto eternal life,’ he says.” He gives the reason for this ceremony in book III, chapter 1: “You received the mystery, that is, the unguent upon your head. Why upon the head? Because the spiritual sense is in the head.” And below, in chapter 2, he adds: “There follows the spiritual seal, which you heard read today, because after the font what remains is for perfection to take place, when the Holy Spirit is poured out at the Priest’s invocation.” Rabanus gives a third reason in book I of On the Instruction of Clerics, chapter 28: “After,” he says, “the baptized person has ascended from the font, he is immediately signed on the head by the Priest with sacred chrism, prayer following at the same time, so that he may become a sharer in Christ’s kingdom and may be called a Christian by Christ.” Finally Alcuin adds a fourth reason, chapter 19: “Then the head is anointed with sacred chrism, so that he may understand that he bears the dignity of the diadem of the Kingdom and Priesthood,” etc.

The anointed head is wrapped in a cloth or linen veil for eight days, as Amalarius says in book I, chapter 29, as a sign “that just as oil did not fail from their heads for eight days, so may charity never fail from our minds.”

After baptism, says Rabanus in book I, chapter 29, “a white garment is given to the Christian, signifying Christian innocence and purity, which he must preserve unstained, after the old stains have been washed away, by the zeal of holy conduct, to be presented before the tribunal of Christ. All those who are reborn are clothed in white garments, as a sign of the mystery of the Church rising again. The baptized therefore wear white garments, so that, whereas the cloth of ancient error had darkened the appearance of their first birth, the apparel of glory in their second generation may bring them forth clothed. For after the sacred anointing his head is covered with a mystical veil, so that he may understand that he possesses the dignity of the diadem of the Kingdom and Priesthood.” St. Dionysius the Areopagite also mentions this custom in On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, treating On Baptism: “The Priests,” he says, “sign him (the baptized person) with the guide of his approach, and together with him clothe him in a garment fitting the purity of the baptized; and thus clothed, they lead him back to the Pontiff.” Hence Lactantius sings in his poem On the Resurrection of the Lord:

The white-clad host emerges from the shining waves.

To this Pontius Paulinus harmonizes, thus describing baptism:

Thence the Priest, parent-like, leads from the sacred font
Infants, snow-white in body, heart, and dress.
He surrounds the lambs, still new, at festive altars.
He bathes their pure mouths with life-giving food.
Then the elder crowd rejoices with its companion band,
And the flock bleats Alleluia in new choirs.

This white garment was worn for eight days, and was not removed except on the Saturday before the following Sunday after the feast of Easter; indeed, St. Augustine indicates that it was customarily put off only on Easter’s eighth day, in Sermon 197, On the Season—the sermon for that Sunday—where he says: “Today’s celebration brings the Paschal solemnity to a close, and therefore today the Neophytes’ clothing is changed, yet so that the whiteness laid aside from their clothing may always be kept in the heart.”

Victor of Utica tells a remarkable deed concerning this matter in book III of On the Persecution of the Arian Vandals: it concerns Muritta, a Carthaginian Deacon, who, having baptized a certain man named Elpidophorus, kept the sabana, that is, the white linen cloths in which he had covered him as he rose from the sacred font. But when that Elpidophorus later fell away from the faith, and the judge—or rather tyrant—(who was forcing Catholics to renounce the faith), delegated by King Hunneric, had summoned Muritta to the tribunal and condemned him, steadfast in the faith, to punishment, Muritta, foreseeing this, had brought that white garment with him. As soon as he heard the sentence of death pronounced against him, he immediately spread it out in public and, with noble courage worthy of a martyr, thrust it before the eyes of that tyrant and cried out in these words: “These are the linen cloths, Elpidophorus, servant of error, that will accuse you when the Majesty of the Judge comes, because my careful keeping of them bears witness to your destruction, to plunge you into the abyss of the sulfurous pit. They had borne you spotless as you rose from the font; they will pursue you more fiercely when you are seized to possess the blazing Gehenna, because you have put on a curse like a garment, tearing it apart, and you have lost the sacrament of true baptism and faith. What will you do, wretch, when the servants of the Master of the house gather the invited guests to the royal banquet, and the King sees you, once called, terribly unworthy, stripped of the wedding robe, and says to you: ‘Friend, how did you come here without a wedding garment?’ I do not see what I bestowed; I do not recognize what I gave. You have lost the soldier’s cloak, which I wove for ten months in the fabric of the Virgin’s limbs, and the drops of the cross, which I spread out, cleansing water and adorning it with the purple of my Blood. My eyes do not see it; I do not see the character of the Trinity. Such a person cannot be present at my feasts. Bind him hand and foot with his own cords, since he himself freely chose to separate from his Catholic brothers.” — ✳ “This white tunic was not only a sign of the whiteness and innocence of the soul, but also represented sanctifying grace and other heavenly gifts, granted in the baptism of Christ in view of his merits; these joined the baptized person to Christ, as a member to its head, and urged him to conform his conduct to the ways and holiness of Christ the Lord, so that every Christian might represent Christ in all his actions and words. Hence the Apostle, in Romans 13, exhorts Christians newly baptized to cast off the works of darkness and to walk “not in reveling and wantonness, not in strife and rivalry, but put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in its desires.” More distinctly, and more nearly directed to our purpose, he aims at this in Galatians III, 27, when he says: “All you who have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ.” Perhaps by these words the Apostle alludes to the custom of the pagans, who used to wear the garments of their gods in their sacred rites. Thus those initiated in the rites of Isis wore the garment of that goddess; for they opened the doors of the temple, unrolled secret books, washed with water, were led to the shrines, and were first clothed in twelve robes, then in the painted garment of the goddess herself. Much the same rites were also customary in the rites of Mithras. Since this practice prevailed everywhere, it is no wonder if the Apostle exhorts the Romans to put on Jesus Christ himself and says that in baptism we, newly born, also put him on. For among the pagans this too was customary: the very womb in which infants were carried was clothed with the garment of some divinity, so that the pregnant mother might be well and bring forth her child successfully, and the child, as if already consecrated to a divinity, might come forth into the air, under good auspices and with good omens. On this subject there is a notable passage in Tertullian, chapter 39, certainly worthy of insertion here: “For to what human being will an unclean spirit not cling, lying in wait to snare souls from the very gate of birth, whether invited by that whole superstition of childbirth? Thus all are born as attendants of idolatry, while the very wombs, still adorned with fillets made for idols, proclaim themselves candidates for a twofold service to demons,” as though pregnant women had promised themselves an easier birth if they were covered and clothed with the garments of their idols and their divinities. “But,” says Tertullian in the same place, “Christians are holy from birth, by seed, example, and upbringing, but also by the sacrament of baptism, in which they are consecrated to Christ, put on his righteousness—indeed, Christ himself in his entirety.” Yet I think it more probable that the Apostle spoke in this way alluding to the priests of the Old Law, who performed sacred rites in the temple while entirely clothed in new garments. For Christians newly baptized are inaugurated not only as priests but also as kings, as St. Peter clearly teaches in his First Epistle, chapter 2, verse 9, addressing Christians who had recently been baptized: “You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood,” etc. By these words he signifies that in baptism men become both kings and priests and are inaugurated with Christ’s Blood as with a sacred anointing. Hence St. John says of Christ in Revelation 1, verse 6: “He loved us and washed us from our sins in his Blood, and made us a kingdom and priests for his God and Father”; for newly baptized persons are clothed in Christ’s Blood as in sacred purple, and adorned with priestly and royal dignity, destined to reign with Christ himself forever.” ✳

After the white garment had been received, the Priest would hand the baptized person a burning candle. St. Cyril of Jerusalem mentions this ceremony in his Catechesis, where he says to the baptized: “Wedding lamps have been given to you.” Hence Ivo of Chartres, in his Sermon On the Sacrament of the Neophytes, says: “At last a burning candle is placed in the baptized person’s hands, so that he may be taught to fulfill the Gospel saying: ‘Let your light shine before men.’” Honorius agrees with him in The Gem of the Soul, book III: “Soon,” he says, “they customarily give a light to those raised from the font, so that with the shining lamps of their works they may meet the Bridegroom as he comes.” Moreover, for seven days the newly baptized went to church with this burning lamp and their white garments, and used to attend the churches, as Alcuin reports in his letter to Charlemagne. Rhenanus also testifies that this custom took hold in the churches of the West: giving wine and milk to the newly baptized; he proves it by the authority of St. Jerome in his book Against the Luciferians. Tertullian, however, says in book On the Crown of the Soldier that in Africa it was customary to give milk and honey to the baptized: “From there,” he says, “we taste beforehand the harmony of milk and honey.” St. Jerome also mentions this ceremony in the same place.

It was also customary in ancient times to administer the sacrament of the Eucharist immediately after the ceremonies of baptism had been completed, as Tertullian testifies in book IV of Against Marcion, where he says: “Nor does he admit them joined together elsewhere for the sacrament of baptism and the Eucharist.” ✳ “It was administered not only to adults but also to little children, as Hugh of Saint Victor teaches in book II of On the Sacraments, Ceremonies, and Ecclesiastical Observances, chapter 20: If he is in such a state of health, he says of the newly baptized person, he ought to receive the sacraments of unity, that is, the Body and Blood of Christ. The same sacrament must be administered to newly born children by the priest’s finger, since they can naturally suck. Augustine, To Boniface: Against the heresy of the Pelagians, little children believe in the Church of the Savior through others, just as through others they incurred the sins that are remitted in baptism; and do you not consider that those who lack the Body and Blood of Christ can have life, when the Lord himself says: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood,” etc.? Therefore, if it can be done without danger, in accordance with the Church’s original institution the sacrament of the Eucharist in the species of Blood is to be given to children; hence their ignorance, while still retaining the form but not the reality, gives them wine in place of blood. I would consider this entirely superfluous if it could be omitted without scandal to the simple. But if there is danger in handling Christ’s Blood or administering it to children, it seems preferable to abstain. Let not the words of Augustine quoted above frighten you; elsewhere, as if determining their meaning, he says: No one should in any way doubt that each of the faithful becomes a partaker of the Lord’s Body and Blood when in baptism he becomes a member of Christ’s Body; nor is he separated from sharing in that bread, even if, before eating that bread and drinking the cup, he departs from this world, established in the unity of Christ’s Body. What formerly prevailed in Gaul, that wine was given to the newly baptized, continued even in our own age in the Church of Dordrecht, as William Lindanus reports in book IV of the Panoplia, chapter 25. — Wine mixed with milk was also given to the baptized. St. Jerome mentions this custom while explaining, in his commentary on Isaiah, chapter 53, the passage inviting us to buy wine and milk: Wisdom mixed wine in her cup and called all the foolish of the age, those without the wisdom of the world, to drink; and not only wine but also milk, which signifies the innocence of little children. This custom and type is still observed in the churches of the West, so that wine and milk are given to those reborn in Christ. Of this milk Paul said, “I gave you milk to drink, not solid food,” and Peter, “Like newborn infants, desire rational milk.” Hence Moses too, understanding wine and milk in Christ’s Passion, bears witness in mystical language: “His eyes are bright with wine, and his teeth white with milk.” — Tertullian also testifies in the cited place that the sacrament of Confirmation used to be administered to the baptized: “Thereafter,” he says in the same place, chapter 8, “a hand is laid on through blessing, calling upon and inviting the Holy Spirit.” Many of the ancients also mention this custom. St. Cyprian, in his Letter to Jubaianus, says: “This is still done among us: those baptized in the Church are presented to the Church’s leaders, and through our prayer, the imposition of hands, and the Holy Spirit they receive him and are marked with the divine seal.” He says the same in Epistle 70. Likewise St. Jerome, in Against the Luciferians: “If you ask at this point why someone baptized in the Church does not receive the Holy Spirit except through the hands of the Bishop—although we do not maintain that he is conferred in true baptism—learn that this observance descends from the authority that after the Lord’s Ascension the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles.” Hence Pope Melchiades, in his Letter to the Bishops of Spain: “These two sacraments are so joined that they can in no way be separated from each other unless death intervenes; and one cannot rightly be completed without the other. For if death intervenes, one can save without the other, but the other cannot.” Finally, the most ancient of them all, Blessed Pope Clement I, says: “All must hasten without delay to be reborn to God,” and then to be sealed by the Bishop, “that is, to receive the sevenfold grace of the Holy Spirit; for otherwise one cannot be a perfect Christian if one remains in this state through carelessness or choice rather than necessity. This we received from Blessed Peter, and the other Apostles taught it.”

At last the bells are rung as a sign of the rejoicing Church, because a man has been born and numbered among her children. Hence Tertullian says in chapter 20 of book On Baptism: “So someone will say that we too ought to fast after the bath. And who forbids it, except the necessity of joy and the exultation of salvation?”

Accordingly, near the end of his book he addresses the baptized with exultation in this way: “Therefore, blessed ones, whom God’s grace awaits: when you ascend from that most holy bath of new birth and first open your hands with your brothers at your mother’s side, ask the Father, ask the Lord for special gifts, as he supplies distributions of graces,” etc. And St. Augustine, in Sermon 67, On Easter Sunday, says: “This day has dawned more brightly, on which the Lord has gathered a new people by the spirit of regeneration, and flooded the minds of each with joy and exultation.”

From all these things it is clear that the sacred ceremonies customarily observed even now in the administration of baptism are not some novel invention, as heretics wickedly prate, but have been consecrated by the whole course of antiquity and practiced from the very beginning of the Church’s birth.