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

NOTE 1. Theologians commonly distinguish three kinds of baptism: of water, of desire, and of blood. Baptism of water is that which is conferred in natural water with the explicit invocation of the Most Holy Trinity. Baptism of blood is martyrdom; baptism of desire is contrition with the purpose of receiving baptism by water. These two are called baptisms because, just as we are washed by baptism with water, so the martyr is drenched with his own blood and the penitent watered with his own tears. — The Lord Christ signified baptism of blood in Mark 10, when, addressing the sons of Zebedee, he said: Can you drink the cup that I am to drink, and be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized? St. Cyprian commends this baptism in his Letter to Jubaianus. Speaking of catechumens who underwent martyrdom, he says that they are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism, since they are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood; of this the Lord also said that he was to be baptized with another baptism. Those baptized in his own blood and sanctified by his Passion are brought to perfection, and the same Lord declares in the Gospel that they attain the grace of the divine promise, when he speaks to the thief who believed and confessed him in the very Passion, and promises that he will be with him in Paradise. The holy Fathers also commend baptism of desire many times, especially St. Augustine, bk. IV of On Baptism, ch. 21, where he says: I do not hesitate to prefer a Catholic catechumen burning with divine love to a baptized heretic; indeed, within the Catholic Church itself we prefer a good catechumen to a bad baptized person. Yet we do no injury to the sacrament of baptism, with which the latter has already been imbued and the former not yet, nor do we think the sacrament of baptism should be preferred to a catechumen, when we find a catechumen more faithful and better than some baptized person. For the centurion Cornelius, not yet baptized, was better than Simon Magus, who had been baptized: Cornelius was filled with the Holy Spirit even before baptism, while Simon was filled with an unclean spirit even after baptism.

NOTE 2. Although the holy Fathers call baptism of blood and of desire sacraments—as is clear from the holy Cyprian and Augustine just cited—they do not in truth claim for them the dignity and definition of a sacrament. For neither martyrdom nor contrition is a certain and sensible sign divinely instituted to signify and confer grace effectively, as has already been said of martyrdom when treating the number of the sacraments; we shall speak of contrition in the next disputation. They are called sacraments because of the analogy they have with baptism by water, especially with respect to its effect, which they are said to supply. The truth of baptism of desire is quite clear in Sacred Scripture from all those oracles in which God promises pardon and grace to the repentant sinner who asks for divine mercy. Thus Ezekiel 18: When the wicked man turns away from his wickedness, he shall give life to his soul. Likewise, in Acts 10:22, Cornelius the centurion, not yet baptized with water, is called a just man and one who fears God. And there the Holy Spirit fell upon the contrite Gentiles, who had not yet been baptized. Hence St. Peter says: Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have? For this reason St. Ambrose says in his Funeral Oration for the younger Emperor Valentinian, a catechumen who was killed before he had been baptized: He received the grace of baptism, which he had asked for. This is most firmly established by the Council of Trent, sess. VI, ch. 4, where, speaking of justification through baptism, it says that justification is a transfer from the state in which a person is born a child of the first Adam into the state of grace and adoption as children of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our Savior; this transfer, after the Gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or its desire. By desire it means contrition, which in urgent necessity suffices to obtain the grace of baptism; for this is how the Lord Christ's words are interpreted: Unless someone is born again, etc. St. Bernard therefore rightly observed in Letter 77 that when the Lord Christ said in Mark 16, Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, he did not repeat, But whoever is not baptized; he said only, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. He thereby intimated that faith alone, sometimes burning with charity, suffices for salvation. St. Augustine teaches this very well in bk. IV of On Baptism, ch. 24. After saying that faith formed by charity sometimes justifies outside the sacrament, and proving it by the examples of the good thief and Cornelius the centurion, he adds in ch. 25: All these things show that the sacrament of baptism is one thing and conversion of heart another; but a person's salvation is completed by both. If one of them is lacking, we should not therefore think that the other must be lacking too: for the former can exist without the latter in an infant, and the latter without the former could exist in the thief, God supplying in either case what had not been lacking by choice, etc. Thus the only remaining difficulty concerns baptism of blood. Therefore…

NOTE 3. Baptism of blood, or martyrdom, by its meaning is the same as testimony given to God or Christ by death; in truth, however, it is a death violently inflicted on a person who does not resist, for the faith of Christ or for true virtue. These words set out four conditions necessary for perfect martyrdom. The first is that it be a death inflicted: for complete and perfect martyrdom requires that a person truly lay down his life for the faith or religion, so that death actually follows, or at least would naturally follow unless life were divinely preserved, as it was for the three boys in the Babylonian furnace, for St. John the Evangelist when he was put into a cauldron of boiling oil, and for many others whom the Church counts among the martyrs. Indeed, when death is prevented by God, this increases the character of martyrdom: it makes clear to everyone that God approves the cause of the one who suffers. Thus accepting death is as effective a testimony of faith as if death itself had followed. Therefore the Subtle Doctor, In IV Sent., d. 1, q. 6, n. 1, does not hesitate to assert that someone can become a martyr more than once. He says: A person baptized with the baptism of blood, if afterward he is a wayfarer among us, is bound in affection, and according to place and time, to receive in fact the sacrament, that is, baptism of water. What is supposed here is quite possible, as we read of some who became confessors twice: they endured punishments for the faith twice, but did not die from them. — The second condition is that the death be inflicted violently. For even if someone died for God's glory and the salvation of his brothers, he would not on that account be considered a perfect martyr. Hence those who lay down their lives for their brothers, whether while serving the plague-stricken or in a just war, are not properly called martyrs. Thus in the Martyrology on February 28 we find written: Commemoration of the holy priests, deacons, and other lesser clerics who, when a most savage plague was raging in the time of Valentinian, gladly met death while ministering to the sick; the devout faith of the pious is accustomed to venerate them as martyrs. They are called as it were martyrs of heaven, though they are not such: they died for their brothers, but death was not violently inflicted on them for their brothers. To die is one thing; to suffer death for one's brothers is another, and the latter seems to be required, according to the Church's common understanding, for martyrdom properly so called. — The third condition is that death be inflicted in hatred of the faith or of true virtue. For, as St. Augustine says on Psalm 38: It is not the punishment but the cause that makes a martyr. Hence in Letter 50, to Boniface, he says: Those are true martyrs of whom the Lord says, “Blessed are those who suffer persecution for justice's sake.” Therefore those who suffer for iniquity and for the wicked division of Christian unity are not martyrs; those who suffer persecution for justice are true martyrs. I said, or of true virtue, because the Church venerates as true martyrs not only those who undergo death for confessing the true faith, but also those who die because of some other violence. Thus Thomas of Canterbury is numbered among the martyrs, killed for defending the liberty of the Church, as are many virgins killed for guarding chastity. — The fourth and final condition of true martyrdom is that death be inflicted on a person who does not resist. Hence the familiar saying: A martyr does not fight but suffers. He must be conformed to the Lord Christ, who bore witness to the truth not by contradicting but by suffering: when he suffered, he did not threaten; like a sheep led to slaughter, and like a lamb silent before its shearer, he did not speak or open his mouth. Hence soldiers who bravely fall in a war undertaken to defend the faith and religion, though they deserve very great merit, are not to be considered true martyrs: soldiers ordinarily fight in the hope of escaping death, and even of killing the attacker, since the end of battle is victory. Accordingly, they suffer death more from necessity than from choice.

With these points established, two principal matters remain to be determined in this Question: first, whether baptism of water is one in number, so that it cannot in any way be repeated; second, whether baptism of blood truly has the power to erase every sin and justify a person.

First conclusion. — BAPTISM IS SO ONE IN NUMBER THAT, ONCE VALIDLY CONFERRED, IT CAN IN NO WAY BE REPEATED. This is defined as a matter of faith in all those Councils that strictly prohibit rebaptizing those who have been duly baptized by heretics; it is stated expressly in the Council of Trent, sess. VII, can. 11: If anyone says that a baptism duly conferred must be repeated for one who, among unbelievers, has denied the faith of Christ when he returns to penance, let him be anathema.

Some prove this truth from Ephesians 1: One Lord, one faith, one baptism. St. Leo does so in Letter 37, ch. 1: We know that the crime is expiable whenever, in keeping with the institutions of heretics condemned by the holy Fathers, someone is compelled to undergo twice the laver bestowed once for regeneration; this is contrary to the apostolic teaching, which proclaims for us one Godhead in the Trinity, one confession in faith, and one sacrament in baptism. Hence in Letter 79, ch. 7, he writes: We proclaim that this rule, as you know, is to be observed by all the Churches: the laver once begun must not be violated by any repetition, since the Apostle says, “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” Yet one might reply that the unity of baptism of which the Apostle speaks is specific, not numerical, just as St. Augustine explains the unity of faith in bk. XIII of On the Trinity, ch. 2: The faith of believers is said to be one in the same way as the will of those who will the same thing is one: even in those who will that same thing, each person's own will is evident to him, while another's remains hidden, though he wills the same. Hence, with the Doctor, it is enough to assert that no argument a priori can be offered for this truth other than the very will of Christ, who instituted baptism so that, once validly conferred on the same person, it could in no way be repeated. Yet fitting reasons a posteriori support this, and the Doctor considers them in In IV Sent., d. 6, q. 7, n. 3, where he says: I say that the reason baptism is not repeatable is its divine institution, for which there is no prior cause except his will. Nevertheless, this institution is reasonable, both because of the disease against which it is principally instituted—for this remedy is instituted chiefly against original sin, which is unique—and because of its principal end, since it grants full remission of punishment and guilt. If a person could often receive such full remission of both, there would be a great incentive to sin. For that which is instituted as a remedy for those who fall again, namely penance, is not without a great penalty to be paid for sin. Third, through this sacrament, since it is the beginning and gate by which one enters the Christian Law, a person is enrolled in Christ's family and becomes a member of him and of the Church militant. Someone who has entered a college may, if he offends after entering, be reconciled to the college and its head; but he does not enter the college frequently.

By these words the Doctor means that no reason a priori can be assigned for why baptism, once conferred, is not repeatable except the divine will, which so established and ordered it. Nevertheless, some fitting reasons a posteriori can be assigned for this divine ordinance. The first is drawn from original sin, for the cleansing of which baptism was instituted principally. Since this disease, once healed, does not return, its remedy should not be repeated either. The second may be drawn from its effect, namely, the full remission of sin. Once a person has obtained this, it was fitting that it not be offered again, lest it provide an occasion for sinning more often, if a sinner could obtain full forgiveness of his sins without any effort on his part at all. Hence St. Paul also says in Hebrews 6: For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, who also tasted the heavenly gift and became partakers of the Holy Spirit, who nonetheless tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then fell away, to be renewed again to penance. According to the common opinion of interpreters, he thereby signifies that the full remission of sins once received through baptism cannot be obtained again without satisfaction on the sinner's part, although it can be obtained through frequent and laborious penance. The third reason, finally, is that through baptism a person is enrolled in Christ's family and becomes a member of his body. Thus, if someone enrolled in the society of a kingdom offends, he can indeed be reconciled to its head and members, but this does not mean he is inserted into it again: by sinning he does not lose the rights of the kingdom or the city, but merely becomes liable under its laws. So too, one baptized who offends God can be reconciled through penance, but cannot become a Christian again, since he is already presumed to be one.

Others prove the same truth from the fact that the sacrament of baptism imprints an indelible character, and thus cannot be repeated. The Council of Florence uses this reason in the decree of Eugenius, where, speaking of the sacraments of the New Law, it says: Among these sacraments are three—baptism, confirmation, and order—because they imprint on the soul an indelible character, that is, a certain spiritual sign distinguishing it from others; hence they are not repeated in the same person. The Council of Trent agrees, sess. VII, can. 7: If anyone says that a character is not imprinted on the soul in the three sacraments, namely baptism, confirmation, and order … and hence they cannot be repeated, let him be anathema. Some claim the Doctor rejects this reason, but he does not: he assumes it to be true in q. 9. In q. 7, n. 2, he says only that the argument does not proceed from what is better known, since it is more evident that a sacrament cannot be repeated than that it imprints a character: For from the beginning, from the time baptism was instituted, it was manifest that it was not permitted to repeat it; but that a character is imprinted is not known from its original institution, from all of Scripture, or even from many authorities of the Saints. Therefore no more effective reason can be offered for asserting this truth than the constant and universal practice of the Church, which has always taught that baptism is not repeatable. St. Clement of Rome is an early witness to this tradition, bk. VI of the Constitutions, ch. 15: In the same way, all those things are contained in the one baptism, which is delivered into the Lord's death … The baptism of the impious is not received, nor should that administered outside the holy ones be made void by another baptism: for as there is one God, one Christ, and one Paraclete, so there is one baptism given in his name. A little later he says: Those who attempt to baptize again people already initiated by baptism crucify the Lord, kill him again, mock divine things, make light of holy things, insult the Holy Spirit, regard the holy blood as common, and sin against him who sent, suffered, and bore witness. Canon 47 of the Apostles agrees: If a bishop or presbyter rebaptizes someone who truly had baptism, or does not baptize one polluted by the impious—that is, one baptized by heretics who do not preserve the true form of baptism—let him be deposed as one who mocks the cross and death of the Lord. Why is this? Because baptism represents Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, as the Apostle testifies in Romans 6:3–5: Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized in Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? For we were buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ rose from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall also be so in the likeness of his resurrection. Thus, just as Christ died for our sins only once and rose only once, so we, buried with him once through baptism and rising through it, cannot be buried again, lest we signify that Christ can die and be buried again. This is the best fitting reason for the will of the one who instituted it.

The Doctor objects in the same place: Baptism is not a more excellent sacrament than the Eucharist and penance; but these are repeated often; therefore baptism too can be repeated. — The Doctor replies, n. 3, that the comparison with the Eucharist holds only in this respect: just as the same host cannot be consecrated several times, so the same person cannot be baptized several times. I say in answer to the argument that the utterance of the words by which the Eucharist is consecrated is not the sacrament but the sacramental consecration, and it is not permitted to repeat it over the same matter; if it is repeated a second time, nothing is done, because it has already been done.… Although the same person could receive Communion or the Eucharist frequently, the words of Eucharistic consecration cannot frequently be spoken over the same matter; nor is the Eucharist to be repeated in the sense that some matter of this sacrament receives its form twice. Therefore, by analogy, it is not permitted to pronounce the words of the form of baptism several times over the same person.

Second conclusion. — BAPTISM OF BLOOD TRULY HAS THE POWER TO SUPPLY THE PLACE OF BAPTISM OF WATER BY THE WORK PERFORMED. This is the more common and truer opinion, and…

It is proved first from all those passages of Scripture in which the Lord Christ promises eternal life to one who loses temporal life for God's glory. Thus Matthew 16: Whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. Or, as Mark has it in ch. 8: Whoever loses his life for my sake and the Gospel will save it. Hence in Matthew 10 the same Lord Christ testifies: Whoever confesses me before men, I too will confess before my Father who is in heaven. These statements are no less general than Christ's threat: Unless someone is born of water, etc. St. Augustine therefore reasons in bk. On the City of God, ch. 2: it is as certain that a perfect martyr obtains grace and remission of all sins through his passion, on the basis of Christ's testimony, Whoever confesses me, etc., as it is certain that no one can be saved without baptism, on the basis of the words, Unless someone is born again, etc. But the latter is certain; therefore so is the former. That martyrdom produces this effect as it were by the work performed is proved by the Church's judgment. St. Augustine says in bk. III of On Free Choice, ch. 23: Not without reason does the Church also commend those infants, received in honor among the martyrs, who were killed when King Herod was seeking to kill the Lord Jesus Christ. Hence in the Collect for the feast of the Holy Innocents the Church sings of them: O God, whose praise the innocent martyrs confessed on this day, not by speaking but by dying. And in the hymn: Hail, flowers of the martyrs, whom Christ's persecutor cut down at life's very threshold, like a whirlwind of newly opening roses.

It is no answer to say that the Church venerates only those martyrs who had first been cleansed of original sin by circumcision. I say that this answer is wholly useless, both because St. Augustine, in bk. On the Creed for Catechumens, ch. 4, states generally of these infants that they were cleansed of original sin through martyrdom: Those who died were by nature children of wrath, like the rest; but what did grace grant them except to rescue them from the power of darkness? Christ granted them to die for Christ; he granted that they be washed from original sin in their own blood. They were born for death, but immediately he restored them to life. St. Leo agrees in Sermon 1, On the Epiphany, ch. 3: The impious king removes them from the world; Christ inserts them into heaven. To those for whom he had not yet paid the redemption of his blood, he already granted the dignity of martyrdom. Who could doubt that many of them had not yet been justified from original sin? For the offspring of unbelievers mingled with the Jews in various ways, and many were not yet eight days old, and thus had not been circumcised. Furthermore, even if they had all been justified beforehand, why would the Church specially venerate them as saints more than other infants who die in grace, if they received no special grace or holiness on account of the death inflicted on them? They are not honored for circumcision but for enduring death for Christ. — The same applies to the Holy Innocents and to other children, if they happen to be killed for the faith of Christ or for true virtue. What special feature could be conceived in these that would not apply to the others? Hence St. Leo says in Sermon 2 on Epiphany: Thus Christ, so that no time of his might be without a miracle, silently exercised the power of the Word before he could use his tongue; as if he already said, “Let the little children come to me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven,” he crowned infants with a new glory and preserved the first beginnings of children from their very beginnings, so that it might be learned that no human being is incapable of the divine sacrament, since even that age is suited to the glory of martyrdom. The holy Fathers likewise assert this efficacy of martyrdom, as supplying the place of baptism by water, for adults. Cyprian says in the preface to his exhortation to the martyrs: We, who by the Lord's permission first gave baptism to believers, should also prepare each one for another baptism, instructing and teaching that this is a baptism greater in grace, higher in power, more precious in honor: a baptism in which angels baptize, a baptism in which God and Christ rejoice; a baptism after which no one sins again; a baptism that brings the growth of our faith to completion; a baptism that immediately joins us to God as we depart from the world. Likewise, distinguishing the three baptisms of water, desire, and blood, St. Ambrose says in Psalm 118, Octonary 3, around the middle: There is one baptism that the Church administers here through water and the Holy Spirit, with which catechumens must be baptized. There is another baptism of which the Lord Jesus says, “I have a baptism to be baptized with,” though he had already been baptized in the Jordan; this is the baptism of the Passion, by which each person is also cleansed in his own blood. St. Bernard expressly proves the same from the authorities already cited, in Letter 77 to Master Hugh of St. Victor, where he calls those who assert the contrary inventors of new assertions and assertors of inventions. He says: I am with difficulty torn away from these two doves—I mean Augustine and Ambrose. With them, I say, I confess either to err or to think rightly, myself believing that a person can be saved by faith alone, with the desire to receive the sacrament.

YOU WILL SAY 1: St. Cyprian and the Fathers of the African Council had previously decreed in one of their councils that those who had fallen away should not be admitted to peace until they had done penance for a long time, unless danger from illness pressed; when a new persecution was pressing, they decreed in another council that peace should be granted to all who had done penance, so that they might be stronger for the battle of martyrdom. This is clear from their Letter 54 in Cyprian's collection, addressed to Pope Cornelius. It says in n. 16: Let no one say, “He who takes away martyrdom is baptized in his own blood; nor is peace from a bishop necessary to him who will have the peace of the Church and will receive a greater reward from the Lord's favor.” It is as if they said that martyrdom does not suffice for those who have fallen unless they receive peace and absolution of sins from a bishop. — I answer that the Fathers speak there only of the case in which those who had fallen could receive the benefit of absolution before undergoing martyrdom. For, they say there, this omission is judged a kind of presumption and contempt for absolution on the part of those who fell; on the part of the prelates it is a certain slothful negligence and cruel harshness, which will be laid to our charge on the day of judgment, because we were unwilling to care for the sheep entrusted and committed to us either in peace or to arm them for battle. From this it follows that the Fathers do not hold that these people fail to obtain pardon for lack of martyrdom, but for lack of prior disposition; for St. Cyprian, as cited above at ample length, sufficiently indicates that martyrdom is beneficial.

YOU WILL SAY 2: The Council of Braga, can. 35, prohibits offering the Mass for catechumens who die without baptism; therefore it considers that neither martyrdom nor contrition benefits them. — I DENY this: the Council speaks only of those catechumens who die through grave negligence or contempt for baptism. It would be pointless to pray for them, since contempt for so great a remedy makes them unworthy of pardon. This is the Council's intention, as can be inferred from its decree in the preceding canon that no commemoration should be made in the sacrifice of the Mass for those who died in a state of mortal sin.

YOU WILL SAY 3: Although the martyrdom completed by an adult seems able to remit sins, the same is not true of children or those asleep, since it is not an act of any virtue, charity, fortitude, or religion: for an act of virtue must be free and elicited by a free will, conditions that neither infants nor those asleep possess; nor is it a sacrament, as will be clear below. — I answer that martyrdom, precisely as such, is nothing other than an actual death accepted for God's glory; as such, it is abstracted from whether it is an act of virtue or not. In its particular instances and with regard to the subject, it can be distinguished in two ways: insofar as adults endure it voluntarily, it is an act of the virtue of charity or fortitude, etc.; insofar as it occurs in infants, the insane, or those asleep, it is simply an act endured for God's glory according to his ordinance. God willed justifying grace, or an increase of it, to be joined to both kinds, as the Church testifies concerning the Innocents in their prayer and in the office of their feast: O God, whose praise the innocent martyrs confessed on this day, not by speaking but by dying, etc.

INSTABIS: This answer counts against St. Bernard. In the Letter 77 cited above, after saying that at the approach of death a person can be saved through faith and the desire to receive baptism, even if he cannot actually receive it, he adds: See also whether perhaps the Savior intended this when he said, “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved”: carefully and vigilantly he did not repeat “but whoever is not baptized,” but only “whoever,” he says, “does not believe will be condemned”—plainly intimating that faith alone sometimes suffices for salvation, and that without it nothing suffices. Therefore, although it is granted that martyrdom can supply the place of baptism, punishment itself does not do so, but faith; for without it, what is martyrdom but punishment? — I deny the antecedent. St. Bernard speaks there only of adults and those with the use of reason, who, I grant, must consent to martyrdom, not undergo it unwillingly. This consent must be elicited both by faith and by charity. For St. Bernard, in his Sermon On the Holy Innocents, divides all martyrs into three classes. In the first he places those who complete martyrdom by will and outward deed. In the second he places those who achieved martyrdom by will alone, such as St. Martin and the Seraphic Father Francis, for whom not the will lacked martyrdom, but martyrdom lacked the will. In the third he orders those who are martyrs by outward deed alone. The martyrdom of the first and second orders must be an act of virtue, otherwise it would be fruitless; the latter kind need not be. Bernard speaks of the former in the Letter cited, not the latter, since he himself declares that the Innocents were true martyrs by deed alone.

YOU WILL PRESS: This answer is contrary to the Apostle's teaching in 1 Corinthians 13: If I hand over my body so that I burn, but do not have charity, it profits me nothing. Therefore martyrdom has no efficacy unless it comes from an act of charity; consequently those incapable of eliciting such an act will also be incapable of receiving the grace conferred through martyrdom. — I deny the antecedent, since St. Paul was speaking of himself as an adult, and therefore as someone able to determine himself freely to martyrdom. I grant that an adult living in mortal sin, who neither desired martyrdom nor determined himself to it, would not be saved if he were killed in his sleep out of hatred for Christ: since mortal sin is committed by one's own will, it cannot be erased without one's own movement of the will. Or I distinguish: martyrdom without antecedent and accompanying charity is of no benefit to one who can have either antecedent or consequent charity, I grant; it is of no benefit to one who can have neither, being incapable of freedom and reason, or to one who did not have antecedent charity but has accompanying charity, I deny. It is impossible for a faithful adult to will to shed his life for Christ and in fact expose himself to death without having charity. I said faithful, because if a heretic were killed for one article of the faith while believing another, he should not be called a martyr, since he would not be united to Christ in any way either through charity or through infused faith. I said for Christ, because if he died for vainglory or for a motive other than Christ, he would not be a martyr.

YOU WILL SAY 4: If martyrdom confers first grace, it does so either before death, at the instant of death, or after death. Not the first: because, since death is of the formal character of martyrdom, it would follow that martyrdom confers grace before it exists and is thus more efficacious than the sacraments; also, operation follows being, so martyrdom must first be complete¹ before it produces grace; finally, many have fallen away from the faith and grace even at the very instant of death in their torments, and thus have not attained the grace of martyrdom, from which no one falls away, since it is the final disposition for glory. Nor the second, nor the third: for the instant of death is the first instant in which a person no longer exists, and is therefore outside the state of a wayfarer and, consequently, outside the state of salvation. Therefore, etc. — The Doctors commonly reply, with Verga and Isambert, that first grace or its increase is conferred through martyrdom when the martyr, having received a mortal wound and being held in torments, reaches a state in which no power of secondary causes can preserve his life or restore his former health, whether he then dies or by a miracle preserves his life and recovers his health. The Church's practice of venerating as martyrs those who, after receiving a grievous wound for Christ, did not fall away from the faith, although they survived the torments and blows inflicted on them, confirms this. It is no objection that, physically, they could still sin freely and thus fall away from the grace of martyrdom; for, they say, their will is so morally anticipated that it will never fail in charity. I answer that, since God is the most discerning searcher of hearts, he infuses grace into adults when the martyr's will, through a free act, determines itself to undergo torments and death steadfastly for Christ. If death does not follow, this is not due to any defect in the martyr, who has already voluntarily determined himself to undergo it, but to the persecutor, who desists from the torments and blows he began. For then the martyr truly lays down his life for Christ and confesses him before men.

YOU WILL PRESS: It follows from this that anyone who truly desires martyrdom and determines himself to undergo it, if a persecutor were present, may truly be called a martyr and obtain the grace of martyrdom, even if he never suffers any torments. The consequent is false; therefore so is the antecedent. — I deny the inference, because desiring martyrdom is one thing, and determining oneself to it when the occasion is actually present is another. The Apostles had resolved to die for Christ when they said, “Let us also go, and die with him”; yet when the Jews sought Christ, all the Apostles left him and fled. Hence I judge that the so-called martyrdom of the will does not produce grace formally insofar as it is martyrdom, but insofar as it is the most excellent act of charity, by which a person loves God even to the point of holding his own life in contempt.

YOU WILL PRESS: An external act adds no goodness to an interior act; therefore, if the will to undergo martyrdom does not produce grace, neither will martyrdom itself. — I distinguish: an external act that is not commanded, intended, and ordered in itself to an effect, let it pass; otherwise, I deny. Baptism and the other sacraments, since they are ordered in themselves to grace, produce something, for example a character and grace by the work performed, which an interior act or the will alone does not produce. Martyrdom, however, or the proof of the will through torments, is ordered in itself to grace. Hence Christ says: Whoever confesses me—not only before God by the will, but also before men through enduring torments—I too will confess before my Father.

YOU WILL ASK: Is baptism of blood more worthy than baptism of water?

The Seraphic Doctor, In IV Sent., d. 4, part 2, a. 2, q. 2, replies that the preeminence of dignity in these baptisms is seen by considering their effects. The effect of each, baptism of blood and of water, consists both in freeing from evil and in directing toward good; in both respects they stand as surpassing and surpassed. A greater effect, or efficacy, in freeing from evil can be either extensive or intensive. If extensive, baptism of water surpasses it, because it frees more people and from more diseases, since it frees from mortal and venial sin. Baptism of blood frees few, and frees only from venial sin, not mortal sin, because it presupposes charity; otherwise it would have no power for salvation. Similarly, greater direction toward good can be considered in two ways, either extensively or intensively. If extensively, baptism of water excels because it gives freely given grace, namely, character, and grace that makes one pleasing to God, which disposes one for glory and essential reward. Baptism of blood does not confer grace that makes one pleasing to God but brings it to completion; nor does it confer a character by which the soul is distinguished and prepared for grace. In both these respects baptism of blood surpasses intensively just as it is surpassed extensively. For it frees more efficaciously and better from the evil of guilt and punishment, because it cuts off all of it both in potency and in act. Likewise it directs more efficaciously toward good, because it immediately leads to glory, and one baptized with this baptism obtains a more perfect and glorious palm of victory.