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

NOTE 1. According to the Doctor, d. 3, q. 3, n. 2, the matter of the sacraments is spoken of analogically and by a certain proportion: sensible things serving in the celebration of the sacraments bear a relation to matter, which is a part of a physical composite. For, he says, in that whole sensible thing, one element is more principal, as ultimately determining it, and is therefore called form; another is less principal, or determinable, and is called matter. That is, just as in a physical composite matter is in itself indifferent to various forms and is determined by a particular form to constitute some specific composite, so in a sacramental composite that obtains the name and character of matter which is in itself indifferent to various applications and functions, but is determined to signify and effect a sacred reality by the sacramental words and the intention of the minister conferring the sacrament.

NOTE 2. According to the same Doctor in the same place, the matter of sacraments that consist in the use of a sensible thing and in the minister's action, such as baptism, is twofold: proximate and remote. Remote matter is the sensible thing itself, taken as the sign and cause of grace for celebrating the sacrament, such as chrism in confirmation. Proximate matter is the use and application of the sensible thing itself, such as anointing or the application of baptismal matter to the forehead of those being confirmed. We are now asking what the remote matter of baptism is; we shall speak of its proximate matter in the next Question.

NOTE 3. Heretics have erred in various ways concerning the remote matter of the sacraments. The Manichaeans, as St. Augustine attests in Heresy 46, believed and asserted that all elements and bodily things were created by an evil god; they also said that baptism in water contributed nothing to salvation. For this reason they never used water, or anything of that kind, when baptizing their followers. Although the Marcionites held the same belief about the production of bodily things by an evil principle, they nevertheless used water in their baptism because of the command of the Lord Christ, as Theodoret reports in bk. I of Heretical Fables, the chapter on Marcion. The Seleucians and Herminians did not accept baptism in water, wrongly interpreting the words of John the Baptist: I baptize you in water … but he will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire, as St. Augustine reports in Heresy 39. The Jacobites, likewise taking those words of John perversely, did not use water in their baptism. Instead, with a red-hot iron in the form of a cross, they burned the sign of a cross into the foreheads or cheeks of infants, as Sanderus reports in bk. III of On the Visible Monarchy, Heresy 113, and Prateolus under “Jacobites.” There were also certain heretics called Flagellants who wandered in bands through streets and public squares, especially in Germany. Scorning all the world's riches, they boasted that they professed evangelical poverty, and said that baptism by water had ceased in their time and that all who wished to be saved had to be baptized with their own blood and gore by scourging, drawing blood from their bodies through various inflicted wounds, as Bernard of Luxembourg reports, along with all those who have compiled lists of ancient and recent heretics. — Yet, on closer inspection of their errors, none of these seems to have erred so much about the matter of baptism itself as about baptism, which they thought was not necessary for salvation. Those who directly repudiated the necessity of water as the matter of baptism were certain more recent heretics, especially Luther, who, in his Table Talk, that is, his dinner conversations, ch. 17, was asked whether, if water were lacking, one might baptize in milk, wine, or beer. He replied that this should first be left to and reserved for God's judgment; then he added that, if water were lacking, whatever can be called a bath is suitable and sufficient for baptism. Beza also held this erroneous view in Letter 2 to Thomas Thilius: It seems to me that, if water is lacking and someone's baptism cannot and should not be postponed without scandal, I would certainly baptize just as rightly with any other liquid as with water.

Against all these errors, two points must be established here: first, that natural water is the lawful matter of baptism; second, that all and only natural water suffices for it.

First conclusion. — THE REMOTE MATTER OF BAPTISM IS NATURAL WATER. This is expressly defined as a matter of faith in the Councils, especially the Lateran Council under Innocent III, where it is decreed: The sacrament of baptism, which is consecrated by the invocation of God and of the undivided Trinity, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in water, is for children as well as adults, etc. The Council of Florence, in the decree of union under Eugenius IV, says: The matter of this sacrament, baptism, is true and natural water; it makes no difference whether it is cold or warm. Most recently, the Council of Trent, sess. VII, can. 2, On Baptism, declares: If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and therefore twists those words of our Lord Jesus Christ, “Unless someone is born again of water and the Holy Spirit,” into some metaphor, let him be anathema.

But what sounds clearly in the sacred Scriptures, says St. Augustine in bk. III of On Christian Doctrine, ch. 10, should not be referred to something else as though it had been said figuratively. What sounds more clearly than the words of the eunuch to Philip in Acts 8:36: Look, here is water; what prevents me from being baptized? Verse 38 follows: He ordered the chariot to stop, and both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. The words of Peter in Acts 10 clearly indicate the same: Can anyone forbid water, that those who have received the Spirit just as we have should not be baptized? Hence the Apostle says in Titus 3: He saved us through the laver of regeneration. And in Ephesians 5: Cleansing it, the Church, by the laver of water in the word of life. This had indeed been foretold in Ezekiel 36, where God promises the Jews: I will pour clean water upon you, and you will be cleansed from all your impurities.

This truth can be confirmed from the perpetual practice and tradition of the universal Church, and from the constant teaching of all the holy Fathers, who unanimously teach that natural water is the necessary and lawful matter of baptism. Thus St. Clement of Rome, Letter 4; St. Justin, Address to Antoninus Pius; St. Irenaeus, bk. III of Against Heresies, ch. 19; St. Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 10; and all later Fathers. Hence St. Cyprian, in Letters 65 and 76, adduces and examines various oracles of the Old Testament in asserting this truth. St. Jerome, in Letter 83 to Oceanus, recounts various mysteries that God first performed in water, as if already consecrating and dedicating it to baptism.

Tertullian proves this truth most clearly of all, in ch. 3 and following of On Baptism, where he says: “You have, first of all, reason to revere the age of waters, for their substance is ancient; then their dignity, since they are the dwelling of the divine Spirit and are therefore more pleasing than the other elements were at that time. For while all was still dark, without the worship of the stars, shapeless, and the abyss gloomy, the earth unprepared, the heaven crude, liquid alone, always perfect in its material, expansive, simple, pure in itself, offered God a worthy vehicle. Moreover, did not the ordering of the world in some way come about through waters as its directing force, under God? To suspend the heavenly firmament in the middle, he did so by dividing the waters; to lay bare the dry land, he did so by separating the waters. Then, once the world had been ordered through its elements, when inhabitants were to be given to the first waters, they were commanded to bring forth living creatures. The first liquid produced what would live. It should not be surprising, then, if waters know how to give life in baptism: even the work of fashioning humanity was completed with the waters cooperating, from the material of earth, which was not suitable unless moist and fertile, having been tempered with moisture by the waters that were separated before the fourth day and rested in their own station.” In ch. 9, recounting the more famous miracles of God performed in water in both the Old and New Testaments, he writes: “How many, then, are the protections of nature, the privileges of grace, the solemn rites of discipline, figures, preparations, and prayers that have ordered the religious use of water! First, when the people were set free from Egypt, they escaped the power of the king of Egypt by crossing through water, while water destroyed the king himself with all his forces. What figure is clearer for the sacrament of baptism? Nations are freed from the world through water, leaving behind in the water the devil, their former ruler, overwhelmed. Likewise, the defect of bitterness in water is remedied for its usefulness by Moses' wood: that wood was Christ, who by himself remedies the most unhealthy veins of the poisoned and formerly bitter nature—that is, the waters of baptism. This is the water that flowed from the rock that accompanied the people. If the rock was Christ, without doubt we see baptism blessed in Christ, the water. How great is the grace of water with God and his Christ for confirming baptism! Christ is never without water: he too is immersed in water. When he is invited to a wedding, he begins the first signs of his power with water. When he preaches, he invites those who thirst to his everlasting water. When he teaches about the agape, he counts the cup of water offered to a brother among works of love. At a well he recovers his strength; he gladly walks on water, crosses it, and serves water to his disciples. The testimony of baptism continues up to the Passion, when he is given over to the cross: water intervenes, as do Pilate's hands. When he is wounded, water gushes from his side; the soldier's spear knows this,” etc. St. Cyril of Jerusalem says similar things in Catechesis 3.

According to the Doctor, n. 2, there is no other effective reason for this truth than the will of the Lord Christ, made known through the oracles of Scripture. Why was it instituted? he says. There are evident fitting reasons: water is cold, fluid, clear, necessary, and common. All these properties suit the fluid in which baptism must take place: it is for repressing the heat of concupiscence, bending the rigidity of disobedience, illuminating the brightness of faith, and leading into the way of salvation. And this is common to all, just as this Law, of which this sacrament is the beginning, is common to all for salvation.

OBJECTOR 1: The water that flowed from the side of Christ as he hung on the cross was a symbol and pledge of the sacrament, as St. Cyprian teaches in his Sermon On the Passion of Christ; St. Jerome in his Letter to Oceanus; St. Augustine in Tractate 120 on John; and others. But that water was not true, natural, elemental water; it was a kind of phlegmatic humor, because pure and elemental water is not found in mixed bodies such as Christ's body. Therefore baptism should not be conferred absolutely in natural water. — The Doctor replies, n. 7, by denying the minor premise: Innocent III clearly teaches the contrary, he says, in his Letter to the Bishop of Ferrara, found in the Extravagant, On the Celebration of Masses, ch. “In quadam,” etc., where he writes: “Moreover, just as there was true Spirit and true blood, so without doubt there was true water, since Christ is truth and every falsehood is wholly alien to truth. For if it had not been water but phlegm that came from the Savior's side, the one who saw and bore witness to the truth would certainly have said not water but phlegm. Nor would the true sacrament of regeneration have been shown in this, since through the sacrament of baptism we are regenerated not in phlegm but in water. Nor could this provide a true argument that water should be mixed with wine in the sacrament of the Eucharist, if not water but phlegm had flowed from Christ's side with the blood. Nor would the figure that preceded this in the Old Testament have been true, when Moses struck the flinty rock with his staff and water, not phlegm, flowed from it. It remains, therefore, that whatever that water was—whether natural, miraculous, newly created by divine power, or in part resolved from its components—it was without doubt true water, since a composite can naturally be resolved into its components and an elemental thing into its element, just as its flavor is true, like a drop of blood running down to the ground.” These are Innocent's words. By them, the Doctor says, he proves that the water flowing from the Savior's side really was natural water, whether produced by resolution or newly created. He proves this, I say, a priori from the Evangelist's testimony; a posteriori from the matter of the sacrament of baptism; second, from the water to be mixed in the sacrament of the Eucharist; third, from the figure that preceded it in the Old Testament, when Moses struck the rock and water, not phlegm, flowed from it. — This answer is confirmed by the Council of Trent, sess. XXII, ch. 7, which says: The Church commanded priests to mix water with the wine offered in the chalice, both because it is believed that the Lord Christ did so, and because water flowed from his side together with blood, a mystery recalled by this mixture.

OBJECTOR 2: When St. John the Baptist says of the Lord Christ in Matthew 3, He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire, fire metaphorically signifies the Holy Spirit, who visibly descended upon the Apostles on Pentecost and also invisibly enters those baptized with Christ's baptism. This indicates the difference between Christ's baptism and John's: John's was only in water and did not confer the Holy Spirit; Christ's, however, effected the consumption of sin, the illumination of the mind, and the kindling of the heart, so that people might courageously do what pertains to God's glory and salvation. Therefore, by the same reasoning, when the Lord Christ says in John 3, Unless someone is born again of water, etc., he uses water not literally but metaphorically, namely, for the Holy Spirit, insofar as he washes the soul clean of the stain of sin through sanctifying grace, etc. — I answer first that the antecedent can be denied. Many of the holy Fathers understand fire to mean real fire, namely, the sensible fire that descended upon the Apostles in the form of tongues. It was, as it were, a sacrament and a sacred sign of that mystical fire of charity by which the Holy Spirit's descent set the disciples' hearts ablaze. For, as St. Gregory says, when fiery tongues appeared outwardly, hearts were made to burn within. Thus those who had earlier been sluggish through weakness of spirit and faintheartedness, freed from this, boldly proclaimed the glory and divinity of the Lord Christ, as St. Jerome and Bede explain in bk. I of On Luke, ch. 9, and St. Cyril of Jerusalem in Catechesis 3. Or by fire St. John meant the fire of purgatory, as the same Jerome explains on Matthew 3 and Bede in the passage just cited. For this reason, St. Jerome says, the Apostle states in 1 Corinthians 3: Each one's work, of what sort it is, the fire will test, etc.; here the subject is the fire of purgatory. That interpretation is certainly not foreign to the meaning of St. John the Baptist, since he adds there: His winnowing fan is in his hand, and he will cleanse his threshing floor and gather his wheat into his barn; but he will burn the chaff with unquenchable fire. Or, finally, by fire he signified the effect of baptism, namely, that fervent charity with which the children of the nascent Church burned after receiving baptism and confirmation, as St. Chrysostom explains in Homily 11 on Matthew.

OBJECTOR 3: Nicephorus recounts in bk. III, ch. 17, that in the time of Emperor Aurelian a certain Jew, traveling while in distress, was suddenly seized by an illness from which he was thought to be about to die. He asked for baptism, but because the region was dry and water was lacking, he was baptized with sand alone, invoking the name of the Most Holy Trinity, and immediately recovered from his illness, a sign that this baptism had been approved by God. Cedrenus also mentions the story in his Compendium, n. 97. Therefore, when necessity presses, one may use something else instead of water for baptism. — I deny the inference. As to the antecedent, first, the truth of this story is not sufficiently established, since those authors report it differently, and Cedrenus says it happened under Antoninus Pius; thus Baronius, under the year of Our Lord 181, does not give it complete credence. Next, even if it were true, it still would not follow that in a case of necessity something other than true, natural water can be taken as the remote matter of true baptism. For the Church did not approve the Jew's baptism; indeed, it was rejected by Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria—or, as Baronius prefers, of Corinth—who later ordered the Jew to be baptized again. The miracle should therefore not be attributed to the sand sprinkled on him, as if the restoration of the Jew's health were proof that he had truly received baptism. Rather, God, pleased partly by the Jew's devotion and partly by that of the other Christians, wished to restore the Jew to full health so that afterward he might have the opportunity to fulfill his desire by receiving true baptism.

OBJECTOR 4: Pope Stephen, the second or third of that name, was asked by the monks of the British monastery whether, in urgent necessity when water was lacking, baptism conferred in wine was valid. He answered affirmatively. For in his reply, found in volume II of the Councils of Gaul among various answers to various questions, ch. 12, he responds to the inquiry as follows: If anyone baptized an infant in imminent danger entirely in wine because he could not find water, no fault is attributed to him on that account; let the infants remain in that baptism. Therefore something other than water, at least in a case of necessity, can be used for valid baptism. — I deny the inference. As to the antecedent, first, this authority is not altogether certain, since the documents for this reply are not sufficiently certain and authentic. Second, even if it is admitted as a genuine reply, the response merely touches on the point in passing and does not have such firm authority that it deserves credence. In the replies of Roman Pontiffs, one must distinguish what they answer directly to the question put to them from what they often touch on only incidentally, as if in passing and while attending to something else. The first, says Isambert, disputation 2, a. 2, on q. 64, supplies a valid argument founded on the highest authority of the Pontiffs; the second, he says, does not carry so much weight, any more than the reasons that Councils insert into their decrees and definitions. Pope Stephen had been asked not about the validity of this sacrament, but about the sin and penalty that a priest who had baptized in that way would incur. This is clear both from the title and from the fact that he distinguishes two situations for the priest: one in which, with such danger pressing, he had no water at hand, and another in which he had water. In the first case he replies that the priest is free from sin and penalty because, through ignorance, he was uncertain whether wine was sufficient matter for baptism in a case of necessity; in extremity it is better to use a doubtful remedy than none. Thus, with a right conscience, that priest could baptize in that way to do what he could for the infants' salvation. But if he had had water at hand, the Pontiff declares that he had sinned gravely and therefore must be punished severely. Hence he adds: If water was at hand, say that the priest is to be excommunicated and subjected to penance, because he presumed to act against the judgment of Christ. By this he signifies that the question proposed concerned not the validity of baptism, but the fault and penalty of the one baptizing. Hence the words of that reply should be emended as follows: no fault is attributed to him, if the infants baptized in this way remain so.

Second conclusion. — ALL AND ONLY NATURAL WATER IS SUFFICIENT MATTER FOR BAPTISM. This is the common opinion among Catholics, who consider baptism conferred in any water—whether from a river, a spring, or the sea—equally valid and effective. Tertullian signified this long ago in ch. 1 of On Baptism, writing: There is therefore no distinction whether someone is washed in the sea or a pool, a river or a spring, a lake or a channel; nor does it matter whether John dipped some in the Jordan, Peter others in the Tiber, or Philip that eunuch in some chance water along the road: he obtained neither more nor less salvation. Therefore all waters, through the ancient privilege of their origin, receive the sacrament of sanctification when God is invoked; for the Spirit immediately descends from heaven, rests upon the waters, sanctifying them from himself, and, once sanctified, they absorb the power to sanctify. By these words Tertullian signifies that absolutely any elemental water, whatever it may be, suffices for valid baptism, even if it has not been blessed by the Church, because, he says, the Holy Spirit descends upon the water taken for baptism, sanctifying it and conferring the power to sanctify. The reason is certainly clear: when Scripture, the Councils, and the holy Fathers speak of the matter of baptism, they simply call it water, without qualification. But water simply called is nothing other than natural, elemental water, not artificial or excrementitious substances, which are called water only equivocally. Therefore, etc.

From this it may first be inferred that any water suffices for validly conferring baptism, provided it is considered natural and commonly so called. It makes no difference whether the water is cold or warm, from a well, river, or sea, from rain, or melted from snow, hail, or ice; whether it is muddy or clear, dyed with color, or has passed through sulfurous channels or ashes. In general, baptism conferred with any liquid commonly called water is valid, since every such liquid is true natural and elemental water, commonly so called.

SECONDLY, it follows that no baptism is conferred in beer, well-cooked broth, sweat, milk, urine, tears, spittle or saliva, phlegm, rosewater, or water distilled from other herbs. The Subtle Doctor explains all this clearly above, n. 3: I reply that those waters commonly called artificial are certain mixed bodies, and are called waters only equivocally. He proves this first because as a whole species they have some quality unlike elemental water. Second, because they are made by the action of fire, which cooks and resolves; but fire does not seem to have sufficient active power to corrupt or convert any mixed body whatsoever into elemental water. Therefore, he says, it can be conceded universally that those waters called artificial are not suitable matter for baptism, since they are not of the species of elemental water.

IT FOLLOWS THIRD that muddy, sandy, and even impure water also suffices for valid baptism, provided the impurity is not so great that the water ceases to have the nature and condition of natural, elemental water. The Doctor explains this very well in the same place, n. 4, saying: “Impurity in water can be understood in two ways: either through mixture by juxtaposition, as muddy water is called impure; or through a mixture that alters its species, as a mixed humor is said not to be pure water. The first kind of impurity is no impediment, provided it does not deprive the water of its suitability for washing or cleansing. There is no other reason than that this is how it was instituted. Hence water absorbed by flour in dough, or by a sponge while it remains there, or absorbed in thick mud, and so on, is not suitable matter for baptism if such things touch the flesh, because such contact is not washing; rather, washing consists only in contact with flowing water freely joining or separating the skin from another body. As for the second kind, I say that some impurity can exist while the water remains within its species, as would happen if it began to thicken, tending toward the generation of a denser element. This does not prevent it, provided it remains fluid. I say this because baptism cannot be performed in ice, snow, or hail while they are still imperfect or on their way to becoming a mixture, since no washing is possible in them, just as none is possible in something solid. If by that alteration it has already passed outside the species of water, it is altogether not matter for baptism. Some alterations clearly constitute something outside the species of water, such as humors naturally resolved through digestion, like saliva, urine, and the like, in accordance with the passage Extravagant, On Baptism and Its Effect, ‘Non ut apponeres’. For other cases it is not so clear, such as decoctions and mixtures that appear to the senses, where it is not evident that the species has been altered; this is seen in meat broth¹, gruel, and the like, and in beer and mead. For it is not evident that some agent is present there that corrupts the species of water. Yet examining this does not belong to the theologian determining the matter of baptism insofar as it can be known from the Canon of Scripture, nor to the canonist determining the conditions of matter as established by the Church's ordinance. It belongs to the natural philosopher, whose task is to inquire what kind of alteration transfers water out of its species and what does not. If there is doubt about other things and baptism has been performed with them, the three chief principles set out in the solution to the preceding question should be used for dealing with those about whom there is probable doubt.” This is the Doctor's view.

OBJECTOR 1: Artificial water is of the same substance as natural water; therefore it is also included under the name of the water necessary for baptism. The antecedent is proved: wherever there are the same accidents, there is the same substance, since substance is known from its connatural accidents. But elemental and artificial water have the same accidents, namely, moisture, coldness, transparency, and others of this kind; therefore they are of the same substance. — The Doctor denies the antecedent, n. 6: “Although,” he says, “artificial water has some accidents generically common with elemental water, it does not have accidents specifically common to them. Consequently, it agrees generically with water as a liquid, but not according to the specific character of elemental water, and therefore it does not have the same substance as elemental water.”

YOU WILL PRESS: If artificial water were not of the same substance as elemental water, it would follow that it is some kind of mixed body; but that is not so. It is proved: a mixed body is denser than an element; artificial water is more subtle, or at least not denser, than elemental water; consequently it is not a mixed body. — The Doctor denies the minor premise, and answers its proof by saying that although some artificial water may seem more subtle than elemental water because it penetrates more, as is clear of spring water or what they call spirits of wine, this subtlety is not subtlety of simplicity but of active power. For this reason wine is called subtle, indeed more subtle than water; but the subtlety appropriate to elemental water is the subtlety of simplicity, in the way that an element is simpler than a mixed body.

YOU WILL PRESS: Every mixed body consists of elements; consequently every liquid consists of elemental water. But that elemental water could be resolved and extracted from a mixed liquid by the art of boiling and distillation, since miscible things can be separated from a mixture, as Aristotle teaches in bk. I of On Generation, text 38. Therefore someone can apply an active agent to a passive subject to effect such a separation; therefore artificial water can be elemental water separated from a mixture. This is confirmed by the passage in Exodus 7 about the frogs, where the art of demons applied an active agent to a passive subject to produce frogs immediately from river water. Therefore it is equally possible, conversely, for art to apply an active agent to a passive subject so as to separate an element from a mixture, especially since resolution is easier than generation or composition. — The Doctor replies in the same place that it is indeed possible for a good or evil angel to apply certain active agents to a mixed body as a passive subject; “but I say that no art can apply the same active agent—for example, fire—to however many different mixtures and passive subjects, in such a way that the agent immediately resolves them into elemental water. For that same agent cannot have the power to change them without intermediate forms, nor can such different things be corrupted in this way into the same term.” By this the Doctor means that no artificial water can be called natural: art cannot immediately transform an element from a mixed body. For just as it acts by an ordered motion through intermediate forms when producing a mixed body, it must use those same intermediate forms when resolving it. Thus it can happen that a mixed body is not resolved into the same element from which it was made, but into another mixed body, as wood is resolved into ashes.

YOU WILL ASK 1: Is salt dissolved in water suitable matter for baptism? — I answer that this seems more probable, since the same reason appears to apply to salt as to ice, snow, and hail. Just as these are nothing other than water thickened by great cold, so salt is nothing other than seawater condensed by the summer sun; hence, when dissolved, it seems to recover its former watery nature. Nevertheless, since some believe that, just as beer is produced from water and barley as a mixed body, so perhaps the sun's heat brings forth a distinct mixed body from salt water, which when dissolved becomes not water but another liquid, I judge that liquid made by dissolving salt is at least doubtful matter and therefore may be used only in a time of necessity. Note, however, that the dissolution of salt, hail, and other such things must either be supposed to have occurred before the baptizer takes them up, or at least must take place in the baptizer's hand, so that drops flow onto the body of the one being baptized. Otherwise, the baptizer would not apply matter suitable for washing if he merely placed snow or hail on the person's head and it melted from the person's natural warmth; in that case the baptizer would not wash the person, but the person would wash himself, just as if someone placed a water-filled pitcher on his head and broke it, or squeezed a sponge soaked in water.

YOU WILL ASK 2: What elemental water is certainly and properly the matter of the sacrament outside a case of necessity? — I answer that no water should be used other than water blessed on Holy Saturday of Easter or Pentecost, as the Roman Ritual teaches in the title On the Sacrament of Baptism, § On the Matter, in these words: The solemn water for baptism should be blessed that year on Holy Saturday of Easter or on Holy Saturday of Pentecost, and should be carefully kept clear and pure in a clean font. St. Dionysius mentions this blessing in bk. On the Celestial Hierarchy, ch. 2; St. Ambrose in bk. I of On the Sacraments, ch. 5; St. Augustine in Homilies 27 and 50; and Basil in bk. On the Holy Spirit, ch. 2, where he indicates that the blessing and consecration of water is an Apostolic Tradition. This can certainly be confirmed by the Church's greatest care that baptism never be solemnly administered outside a case of necessity without such blessed water. Hence the Roman Ritual rightly advises in the place cited above: If the blessed water has changed so much that it seems no longer adequate, some unblessed water may be added, but in a smaller quantity. If it has become corrupt, or flowed away, or failed in any way, the parish priest should pour fresh water into a thoroughly clean and clear font and bless it with the formula prescribed below. But if it has frozen, care should be taken to thaw it. If it is partly frozen or too cold, a little unblessed natural water may be warmed and mixed with the baptismal water in a vessel prepared for that purpose; when it has been warmed, it may be used for baptism, so that it does not harm the infant.