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

NOTE 1. Theologians agree with one another that the proximate matter of Baptism is the actual washing of the body by water. “For this washing itself,” says the Doctor, q. 3, d. 3, n. 2, “together with the words, signifies the effect of Baptism as its proximate sign.” For the words, which take the place of the form in Baptism, are not truly the form of that Sacrament by being joined to motionless water, but by being joined to water as applied under the aspect of the matter of Baptism. If someone were to pronounce the words “I baptize you” over motionless matter, he would do nothing. Thus, when St. Augustine says, “The word is added to the element, and the Sacrament comes to be,” he is not to be understood as though he meant that the word is added to the motionless element of water, but to water as applied to the body; hence he adds: “What power does water have, that it should touch the body and wash the heart?” For water must touch the body by washing in order to acquire the character and power of Baptism. Hence the Doctor there rightly ridicules Gandulph’s explanation, q. 1, ch. in the gloss on the word detrahe, where Gandulph said that one must beware “lest perhaps a donkey drink the Sacrament. For this doubt,” says the Doctor, “is truly asinine, because that washing lasts only in its coming to be; however much water might be drunk or poured here or there, the washing itself would not.” The same Doctor defines washing there, n. 4, as “the contact of freely flowing water that joins and separates between the flesh and another body.” Or, more clearly: washing is the movement of liquid water around a body, which is ordered of itself to washing away dirt. I say “ordered of itself,” for, as the Doctor observes there, n. 2, “it is not necessary that washing be present in the sense in which it is distinguished from movement and includes the movement of the limbs away from the body through the contact of water; rather, the washing of a body by water, said in general, is enough, with another agent doing this. This means nothing other than that this contact of the body by water must be brought about by another cause. Understanding washing and cleansing in this way, washing is the proximate matter, as it were the per se foundation or part of the foundation of this signification; water, however, is the remote matter, which is applied to the body in this washing.”

NOTE 2. Washing is distinguished into two kinds: one active, the other passive. Active washing is the movement of the water itself insofar as it is brought about by the baptizer upon the baptized; passive washing is the movement of the water itself over the baptized, insofar as it successively touches him. For the contact of water in Baptismal washing must be mobile and successive. Water that stands motionless in a vessel is not said to wash that vessel, even though it touches every part of it when the vessel is full of water; for washing, to be true and complete, must take place with motion, as the Subtle Doctor rightly observed, n. 2, saying: “Washing is understood here not merely as when the body is said to be washed by water, as it were formally, but as when a person is said to wash the body with water, properly and actively: for mere contact of the body by motionless water, as when someone rests in a bath surrounded on every side by water—which is, as it were, formal washing—was not instituted as a sign or part of a sign; rather, what was instituted is the washing effectively performed by someone who washes.” From these words Suárez, disp. 20, sect. 2, concludes that the Doctor holds washing to consist rather in action than in passion, or the reception of water by the body of the baptized person, because, he says, the Sacrament is a sacred action of the minister; therefore Baptism, on the side of its proximate matter, will be washing as performed by the minister. Vasquez, by contrast, disp. 111, ch. 2, contends that sacramental washing is formally passive, insofar as it is received in the person being washed; for the Sacrament is a sacred ceremony by which someone is justified, and so it is a passion insofar as it is received in him. He further confirms this opinion by the authority of the Doctor from d. 6, q. 2, n. 4, where he says: “From this a corollary seems to follow: the Sacrament of Baptism is more passive baptism than active, because when active baptizing is multiplied, passive baptizing is not multiplied, nor is Baptism, since the passive is one. This inference seems probable, because the baptized person properly receives the Sacrament; but he properly receives passive washing, not active washing, unless the two are said to be really the same.” Yet I think it more correct to say that the proximate matter of Baptism consists in washing both actively and passively, since the sacred ceremony of Baptism cannot occur apart from that passion, without the action being received in the subject, nor, conversely, can there be passion without action; consequently, both enter into the essential conception of sacramental washing. Whether the formal character of the Sacrament is to be attributed more to action than to passion, or conversely, or belongs equally to both, Suárez rightly says that this question is of little theological importance and no practical use.

NOTE 3. Sacramental washing can take place in three ways: either by immersion of the person to be baptized, by aspersion, or by pouring water upon the baptized person. For when Christ the Lord established washing as the proximate matter of this Sacrament, he did not determine the manner in which it had to be performed. Accordingly, the Church has used these three ways of baptizing at different times, according to circumstances and convenience. At first, Baptism seems to have been conferred by aspersion by the Apostles. In Acts 2, after Peter’s preaching, in which he proved that Christ was the true Messiah, we read: “Those who received his word were baptized, and about three thousand souls were added on that day.” This surely could not have been done by pouring water over each person’s head or immersing each of them—for how could the Apostles and disciples, so few in number, have washed such a multitude in that way between the ninth hour and sunset? Theologians therefore rightly conclude that they baptized them by aspersion, since by one or at least a few sprinklings they could baptize many at once. Later, the custom spread from the Apostles that Baptism should be performed only by threefold immersion. Finally, for a reasonable cause, the Church decreed that Baptism should be conferred by pouring water upon the head or another notable part of the baptized person’s body. The question, then, is whether these three ways of baptizing are sufficient and valid.

These points having been established, four matters¹ remain to be determined in this Question: first, whether a notable part of the body and a notable quantity of water are required for a valid Sacrament; second, whether a washing that would kill the person to be baptized would truly be a valid Sacrament; third, whether the washing must be single or threefold².

First conclusion. — FOR THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM TO BE VALID, A NOTABLE WASHING IS REQUIRED, BOTH WITH RESPECT TO THE PART OF THE BODY AND WITH RESPECT TO THE QUANTITY OF WATER. So the Doctor says in In IV Sent., d. 4, q. 3, where, determining that a child in the mother’s womb cannot be baptized—but that it is otherwise if a principal part of the child appears outside the womb—he says, n. 3: “I answer the question as follows. Either the child is wholly within the mother’s womb, or some part appears outside the womb. In the first case, I say that the child cannot be baptized—not for the earlier reason, that it would be joined to the cause of corruption, but because Baptism is a washing or cleansing in water, and a child in this condition in the womb cannot be washed, since it cannot be touched directly by water in this way. In the second case, if a principal part appears, such as the head, then the child can be baptized on that part, and in this way be baptized simply; for it is not plausible that on the day of Pentecost, when three thousand were baptized, Acts 2, each person’s whole body was washed with water, but rather that they were sprinkled only on the face or water was poured over the head. In this case, if the child were later born, it would not need to be baptized. But if a less principal part appears, namely a hand or foot, that part is to be baptized, because the whole soul is there, although not every sense, as in the head. And if this lesser washing suffices for the child to be simply baptized, should the child later be born alive, he would have to be baptized conditionally, as is taught in the Extravagant On Baptism and Its Effect, ch. De Quibus. For we must believe that God would supply what incapacity prevented; for even if such a child is born dead, he is to be buried in consecrated ground, for the reason given.”

The Angelic Doctor agrees in every respect with the opinion of the Subtle Doctor. In part III, q. 68, a. 11, ad 4, he says: “To the fourth, it must be said that the child’s complete emergence from the womb should be awaited for Baptism, unless death is imminent. But if the head emerges first, in which all the senses are grounded, the child should be baptized when danger is imminent, and should not be baptized again afterward if it happens that the child is born fully. The same seems to be required if any other part emerges when danger is imminent. Nevertheless, since the integrity of life does not reside in any of the external parts as it does in the head”—therefore he is speaking of parts in which life partially resides, and not of others, which are in no way alive—“some think that, because of the doubt, if any other part of the body has been washed, the child should be baptized after complete birth with this form: ‘If you are not baptized, I baptize you.’”

This assertion is proved by the Church’s common practice. For in the Roman Ritual, title On the Sacrament of Baptism, paragraph On the Form, it is prescribed: “Baptism may indeed be performed either by pouring water, immersion, or aspersion; nevertheless, the first and second methods, which are more commonly used, are to be retained according to the custom of the Churches, so that the head of the person to be baptized is washed by threefold pouring or immersion.” These words prescribe a notable part—indeed, the principal part—and likewise a notable quantity of water, in accordance with St. Augustine’s statement in Homily 3, found in ch. 78, On Consecration, d. 4: “After you professed your belief, we immersed your heads three times in the sacred font.” If the child is so weak that he cannot bear washing of the head, the chest or shoulders should be washed. But that Baptism may be conferred on any part, even a very small one, of an infant when danger of death is imminent is taught by the same Ritual, paragraph On the Baptizing of Infants, in these words: “If he has put forth another limb that shows vital movement in it … let him be baptized; and then, if he lives after birth, he is to be baptized conditionally in the manner stated above: ‘If you are not baptized, I baptize you.’”

YOU WILL SAY 1: If Baptism could be conferred on a less principal part, the chief reason would be—as the Doctor says—that the whole soul is there, although not every sense, as in the head. By this, Vasquez seems to mean, in the place cited above, n. 30, that Baptism is valid even on the smallest part because the soul, which contracted original sin, is wholly in that part said to be washed. But this reason is worthless: for the subject of Baptismal washing is not the soul, but the whole person; therefore, etc. — I deny the minor premise. In proof of it, I say that Vasquez wrongly attacks and interprets the Subtle Doctor. For the Doctor does not say that the whole soul is in a less principal part as though the soul were the subject of washing; rather, as Hyquaeus rightly observes in his Commentary, n. 18, he speaks in relation to the head, on which all agree Baptism may be performed because it is a principal part, where the soul’s senses and vital functions are more vigorous, and without which life cannot subsist in a person. This is the difference between a principal and a nonprincipal part, and it is the basis on which the Doctors conclude that Baptism on a principal part is simply Baptism of the person and is valid. To meet, then, the tacit objection that could be made against Baptism on a nonprincipal part, the Doctor says that the whole soul is in a nonprincipal part, although not all the senses that are in the head are there. This is the Doctor’s true meaning, not the one others have supposed, which is shallow and rather childish in this matter. Baptism performed by a drop on a hair or fingernail, which Vasquez contends is true Baptism, is also excluded. For if the Doctors doubt Baptism on a nonprincipal part, even though it is living, and unanimously say it must be repeated conditionally, as the Rituals also write, how much more is a washing on a hair or fingernail excluded from Baptism, since these do not absolutely designate the person and are not his proper parts? So Hyquaeus.

YOU WILL SAY 2: A wound inflicted on any smallest part whatsoever is enough for a person to be called wounded by it; therefore, by equal reasoning, washing performed on any smallest part will suffice for the validity of Baptism, even without necessity. — I distinguish the antecedent: according to an abusive and improper way of speaking, I grant; according to the proper and strict sense of the word, I deny. For there is no wise person who would not laugh at someone saying he had been wounded because a pin had lightly pricked his finger. Therefore the consequent must be denied; for the truth of the matter and form of a Sacrament must not be governed by an improper and abusive way of speaking, but by the proper sense of language and the usage received and approved by the wise.

From this the proof of the second part of the Conclusion is clear: a tiny drop of water is not sufficient for Baptismal washing, since, by common judgment among the wise, a person cannot properly be said to have been washed, bathed, and immersed by it in the moral sense. For Christ the Lord instituted that washing as the proximate matter of this Sacrament, by which a person can properly be said to be washed and bathed; but a person would not be so called on account of the contact of a drop of water with the smallest part of his body, as is clear. Therefore this cannot suffice as the properly understood matter of Baptism. Nevertheless, since some affirm the contrary with Vasquez, I would not refuse to confer Baptism with a small drop of water if manifest necessity pressed and no greater quantity of water were available. For since the matter and efficacy of the Sacrament depend on the will of Christ the Lord, which is not plainly revealed in Scripture, Tradition, or Councils with respect to absolutely every circumstance and difficulty that may arise in administering the Sacraments, it is not irreligious, to avoid the damnation of a soul, to use a remedy that some Doctors in that case judge would be useful and effective, although other Doctors call this into question.

Second conclusion. — IT IS MORE PROBABLE THAT A KILLING WASHING, THAT IS, ONE FROM WHICH DEATH WOULD FOLLOW, IS NOT SUFFICIENT AND VALID FOR THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM. So the Subtle Doctor says in In IV Sent., d. 1, q. 3, n. 3: “Someone thrown from a bridge is not baptized, because this is ordered not to life or washing, but to death.” And in d. 5, q. 3, n. 1, reporting Richard’s opinion that a child thrown in this way was not baptized, he says: “It is also said that someone thrown in this way would not be baptized, because Baptism is a washing ordered to life after washing, whereas that immersion is not so ordered.” Accordingly, in the Reportata, the same question, n. 2, as he considers the same difficulty, he says: “But if an adult is thrown into a river while someone says, ‘I baptize you,’ etc., I think he is not baptized, because the person throwing him does not have the intention of the Church; for the Church’s intention is to wet him in such a way that, while alive, he could be dried again. Or even if he is baptized, I do not doubt that the person throwing him commits mortal sin.” All of this shows that the Doctor leans more toward the negative opinion.

This assertion is therefore proved by the Doctor’s reasoning: God did not institute as the legitimate matter of a Sacrament something that tends to the injury and harm of human nature, nor did he will that spiritual life ordinarily be obtained at the cost and loss of one’s own life; therefore, he does not approve as the legitimate matter of Baptism a washing from which the baptized person’s death would directly follow. The antecedent is proved: God instituted the matter and form of the Sacraments, especially of this Sacrament, which he willed to be common to every sex and age, as better befitted his gentle providence and had the character of ordinary washing. But a killing washing does not belong to God’s gentle providence, nor does it have the character of ordinary washing. For who would say that God gently provides creatures with the means necessary to attain eternal life if these could be used only at the cost of life? Who, likewise, would say that someone washes and bathes another person whom he throws into a river or sea with hands and feet bound and a huge stone tied to his neck? Who would not hiss at someone who, wishing to wash his filthy livestock, submerged them in a pond or another place from which he knew they could not emerge alive, in the ordinary course of events?

NOR IS IT VALID TO REPLY that God did not establish these things to be done in the ordinary course, or in every case, but only in a case of extreme necessity, when there is no other way to administer Baptism. — This reply, I say, does not succeed, since God is not bound by the common law to provide a means that must be applied extraordinarily when some necessity presses. For this reason he did not will Baptism to be applied to an infant in the mother’s womb, as we shall say below, although no other means was available to him. Therefore there is no basis for claiming that God willed a killing washing to be sufficient matter for Baptism in a case of necessity.

It is further confirmed: It is not plausible that God willed to make that washing the matter of a Sacrament to which homicide and mortal sin are necessarily and intrinsically attached by the nature of the minister’s very action. But it is certain that someone commits mortal sin if he submerges a child or adult to be baptized so that the person cannot be brought out alive, because such a throwing would be the direct killing of an innocent person, as the Doctor teaches in the aforesaid d. 5, where he says: “I say that when death is presumed, one must in no way propel or throw him; for one will sin mortally by killing, and everyone is more bound to avoid mortal sin in himself than to seek the salvation of his neighbor, since ordered charity is directed more to oneself.”

Moreover, the washing that is the matter of a Sacrament must consist in the minister’s action and proceed from him. But such submerging and throwing would not proceed proximately from the minister, nor would it be his action, as received in the patient; therefore, it would not be Baptismal washing. The minor premise is established: for the washing that is Baptismal seems to be the washing determined by the form according to the strict signification of the words “I baptize you.” Hence the action must be signified as performed by the minister, that is, as proceeding from him. Consequently, it seems necessary that he himself, either directly or through a connecting instrument, bring either the person to be baptized to the water or the water to the person. But that would not happen under the present supposition; therefore, etc.

YOU WILL SAY 1: If anything would prevent the child from being thrown in this case, it would be that it is not lawful to kill an innocent person. But this is not so clear, since it can happen that the death of an innocent person ought to be considered blameless, indeed praiseworthy. For this reason the death of Samson is excused: as we read in Judges 16, he killed himself, together with the Philistines standing nearby, beneath the ruins and debris of the shaken house; therefore, etc. — I deny the minor premise. In proof of it, I say that Samson’s act is excused for no other reason than that he seems to have done it at the prompting of the divine Spirit, as St. Augustine says in bk. I of The City of God, ch. 21: “Nor is Samson otherwise excused for crushing himself and his enemies beneath the ruin of the house, except because the Spirit, who performed miracles through him, had secretly commanded this.”

YOU WILL SAY 2: Baptism can be valid even though the baptized person’s death follows from it; therefore, a killing washing can be sufficient for Baptism. The antecedent is proved: If a priest, with sincere intention, were immersing a child in the Baptismal font and were suddenly so weakened by illness that, after pronouncing the words of the form, he could not bring the child out, so that the child was suffocated, it is certain that the infant would in that state truly be considered baptized, although deprived of life by that washing; therefore, etc. — I distinguish the antecedent: when the baptized person’s death follows indirectly, let it pass; directly, I deny it. In that case, however, the baptized person’s death would follow only indirectly from the immersion, since the immersion is of itself ordered to easy emergence, and it happens only accidentally that the person does not emerge. The case is otherwise with an immersion that would be directly lethal, namely, one from which easy emergence would not follow by its nature, such as throwing a person into a river or well from which he could not escape unharmed without a miracle.

Third conclusion. — BAPTISM IS VALIDLY CONFERRED IN ANY ONE OF THE THREE WAYS ENUMERATED IN THE THIRD NOTE. This is now common among all Theologians, and is plainly taught in the Roman Ritual, § On the Form of Baptism. It is not plausible that the Catholic Church would supply and approve invalid matter as legitimate in administering a Sacrament of the highest necessity; therefore, etc.

This assertion is proved as follows: every washing by which a person is truly said to have been washed is sufficient for Baptism; but a person is said to have been washed by each of the aforesaid kinds of washing; therefore, etc. St. Cyprian presses this reasoning in Epistle 76, addressed to Magnus. Although he leaves it to others to judge freely whether Baptism conferred by aspersion would be valid, he himself defends the affirmative side: “The breast of the believer is washed in one way, the mind of a person is cleansed in another through the merits of faith in the saving Sacraments, when necessity presses and God grants his forgiveness; divine means of relief bring everything to believers.” By “divine means of relief” he understands a small washing, such as that performed by pouring water, in comparison with washing by immersion.

YOU WILL SAY: Baptism is a sign of Christ’s burial and resurrection, according to the passage in Colossians 10³ and Romans 6: “All of us who were 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.” But this representation of Christ’s death and resurrection can be made only by immersion and emergence; therefore, that alone is a lawful rite of baptizing. — I answer first, with St. Thomas, q. 66, a. 7, ad 2: “The figure of Christ’s burial is represented more expressly in immersion … but in the other ways of baptizing it is represented in another way, though not so expressly. For whatever the manner of washing, the person’s body, or some part of it, is placed under water, just as Christ’s body was placed beneath the earth.” — I answer second, Baptismal washing is ordered only secondarily to signify the burial of Christ the Lord; for primarily and of itself it is ordered to signify the washing of the soul from sin, through which we mystically die to sin and live to God, as St. Ambrose aptly teaches in bk. On the Good of Death, ch. 2. There, distinguishing three kinds of death, he describes the second as follows: “Another is mystical death, when someone dies to sin and lives to God; of this the Apostle says, ‘We have been buried with him through Baptism into death.’” Likewise, St. Augustine writes in Sermon 9, On Time, shortly after its beginning: “When Christians are immersed three times in the saving laver, then the Egyptians”—that is, original sins and actual crimes—“are buried, as it were, in the Red Sea, while the sins of the children of Israel, as they pass through toward the service of God, alone suffer shipwreck.”

YOU WILL SAY 2: That washing alone is sufficient proximate matter for Baptism which the word baptizo directly conveys and signifies. But it does not signify every contact of water with the body, only that which takes place by immersion; therefore, etc. — I distinguish the minor premise: the word baptizo signifies nothing other than immersion according to its grammatical derivation from the Greek language, I grant; according to the usage and practice of the Church, I deny it. For the Church uses it to signify every true washing by water, whether performed by pouring, aspersion, or immersion. This is all the more clearly established by the fact that the Church has nowhere rejected Baptism conferred by pouring or aspersion of water as null and invalid.

Fourth conclusion. — IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO THE VALIDITY AND SUBSTANCE OF THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM WHETHER IT IS PERFORMED BY A SINGLE OR THREEFOLD WASHING. This is common among Catholics, and St. Gregory the Great long ago defined this truth in bk. I, Epistle 41, addressed to Leander, bishop of Hispalis; the Fourth Council of Toledo cites and approves the decree in that letter, canon 5, where it says: “Concerning the Sacrament of Baptism: because in Spain some priests perform a threefold immersion and others a single one, some regard this as a schism, and the unity of faith seems divided … Gregory, of blessed memory, the Pontiff of the Roman Church, who enlightened not only parts of Italy but also taught by his doctrine Churches far away, at the request of the most holy bishop Leander, wrote back to him, among other matters, about this diversity in Spain and what should rather be followed, saying: ‘As for the threefold immersion at Baptism, nothing truer can be answered than what you yourselves have perceived: in one faith, the diverse custom of the holy Church is no hindrance. We, however, by immersing three times, signify the mysteries of the three-day burial, so that when the infant is brought up from the water for the third time, the Resurrection after three days is expressed. If someone thinks it should also be done in honor of the highest Trinity, nothing prevents this either: to baptize by immersing once in the water. Since there is one substance in three subsistences, it cannot in any way be reprehensible to immerse the infant in water for Baptism either three times or once, since the threefold immersion can signify the Persons of the Trinity, and the single immersion the unity of the Divinity. But if until now an infant was immersed three times at Baptism by heretics, I do not think this should be done among you, lest, by counting immersions, they divide the Divinity and boast that they have overcome your custom by their actions.’ The Council immediately adds: ‘Therefore, since a reason has been given by so great a man concerning both rites performed in holy Baptism, and both are held to be right and irreproachable in God’s holy Church, let us, to avoid the scandal of schism or the practice of heretical doctrine, retain a single immersion in Baptism, lest those among us who immerse three times seem to approve the heretics’ assertion by following their custom.’” So says the Council. But it is not plausible that the Holy Pontiff and the Council, gathered from the most distinguished bishops of the Spanish Church, erred in the solemn and essential administration of the Sacraments. Therefore, it must be admitted that either a single or a threefold washing suffices for the valid administration of Baptism.

YOU WILL OBJECT: The Apostolic Canon 50 decrees as follows: “If any bishop or presbyter does not celebrate the threefold immersion of the one mystery, but immerses only once in Baptism, which is given in the Lord’s death, let him be deposed.” Moreover, Pope Pelagius, in his letter to Gaudentius, asserts that threefold immersion was commanded by the Lord: “There are many,” he says, “who assert that they were baptized in the name of Christ alone, with a single immersion. But the Gospel command, given by God himself and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, instructs us to confer holy Baptism on each person in the name of the Trinity and also with three immersions, since the Lord says, ‘Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father,’ etc.” Likewise, Tertullian, bk. On the Soldier’s Crown, ch. 3; Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, n. 15; and Basil, bk. On the Holy Spirit, ch. 27, say that threefold immersion is to be counted among the unwritten traditions. Indeed, Theodoret, bk. IV of The Heretical Fables, ch. “On Eunomius,” says: “He overturned the rite of holy Baptism, handed down from the beginning by the Lord and the Apostles, and openly introduced the opposite law, saying that the one being baptized ought not to be immersed three times or invoke the Trinity, but should be baptized once into Christ’s death.” Moreover, Eunomius seems to have been condemned for this reason by the First Council of Constantinople, canon 7.

I answer that none of these things is against us. The Apostolic Canon is not against us, for there it does not decree that a single immersion is contrary to the Lord’s command, but rather condemns Baptism conferred with invocation of the death of the Lord, as is clear from the reason it gives: “For the Lord does not say,” etc. Pelagius is to be understood in the same way: the Gospel command refers not to threefold immersion but to the invocation of the three Persons, for he adds, “Go, baptize the nations in the name,” etc. Moreover, from the preceding words of his letter it is clear enough that he is speaking of those who, following the heresy of Eunomius, baptized not in the name of the Trinity but, as he says, “There are many who assert that they were baptized in the name of Christ alone, with a single immersion.” Finally, when he later determines that these heretics, on returning to the Church, must be baptized again, he says nothing about threefold immersion, but mentions only the invocation of the Trinity: “You shall baptize those who come to the Catholic faith in the name of the holy Trinity.” — Similarly, I say Eunomius was not condemned specifically for abolishing threefold immersion; nor is this what Theodoret means when he says that Eunomius “overturned the rite handed down by the Lord and the Apostles.” Rather, Eunomius did not use the invocation of the three divine Persons. For, as is reported in ch. 7 of the aforesaid Council of Constantinople and by Epiphanius, Heresy 76, Eunomius did not baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but either only in the name of the dead Christ, or “in the name of the uncreated Father, the created Son, and the sanctifying Spirit, created by the created Son.” The Council therefore rightly judged that those baptized by him had to be baptized again. Thus Eunomius, in removing both threefold immersion and the invocation of the divine Persons, held against both ecclesiastical and divine command: against the Lord’s command, because the invocation of the three divine Persons in Baptism was commanded by Christ; and against ecclesiastical command, because threefold immersion is to be kept as an ecclesiastical tradition. This alone is what the cited Fathers wish to indicate: indeed, from the Church’s beginnings until the time of Gregory the Great, threefold immersion was always customary; Eunomius abolished it, or declared it unnecessary, in order to restrain the error of the Arians, as has already been said.

YOU WILL PRESS: What expressly and distinctly represents the three divine Persons belongs to the essence of Baptism; but that threefold immersion does so. For Tertullian, bk. Against Praxeas, ch. 16, speaking of the command and rite by which Christ ordered the Apostles to baptize, says: “He commanded them to dip into the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, not into one; for we are dipped not once but three times, into each name and each Person.” The particle for indicates that threefold washing is as necessary on the side of the matter as the distinct naming of the divine Persons is on the side of the form. St. John Damascene teaches the same in his letter On the Trisagion, writing: “If one of us were asked why, when we administer Baptism to someone, we immerse him three times, what else should we answer than that we immerse him for each Person?” — I distinguish the major premise: what expressly represents the Trinity on the side of the form, whose role is to signify distinctly, I grant; on the side of the matter, whose role is to represent only confusedly, or less distinctly, I deny. Nor does the particle for mean that the Church then immersed three times because Christ had commanded this, but that it observed the practice because the threefold immersion distinctly signified the three Persons—not in itself, but because one divine Person was spoken of in the Baptismal form at each immersion. This is further confirmed: among other holy Fathers that threefold immersion was performed not to signify the Persons of the Trinity, but Christ’s three-day burial. This is explicitly stated in canon 5 of the Fourth Council of Toledo, where the Fathers say: “We, however, by immersing three times signify the mystery of the three-day burial,” etc.