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

NOTE 1. Heretics erred in various ways in ancient times concerning the legitimate form of baptism. For in the very beginnings of the nascent Church some baptized “in the name of three unoriginated principles,” or “three Sons,” or “three Paracletes,” as may be gathered from Canon 48, otherwise 49, of the Apostles, where it is decreed: “If any bishop or presbyter, contrary to the Lord’s command, baptizes not in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, but of three unoriginated principles, or three Sons, or three Paracletes, let him be deposed.” Eusebius also relates, bk. 4, ch. 11, from St. Irenaeus, bk. 1, ch. 8, concerning the Valentinians and a certain Marcus, whom he says was versed in magical arts, that “some of them construct a bridal chamber and celebrate a certain impious kind of initiation. As though by certain secret incantations and words, not so much sacred as execrable, they consecrate the one who is brought in, and say that what they do is a spiritual marriage, after the pattern, so to speak, of the heavenly pairings.” Bringing them to water and “baptizing them,” they pronounce these words over them: “In the name of the unknown Father of all, and in the Mother, the truth of all, and in him who descended in Jesus.” Others, however, speak Hebrew names over those whom they initiate, in terrifying fashion, to strike fear into their hearers. The Paulianists, Photinians, Montanists, and Cataphrygians did not baptize with invocation of the Holy Trinity, in which they did not believe; hence the Council of Nicaea, can. 19, and that of Laodicea, can. 8, order that they be rebaptized. Some Arians baptized in the name of the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit, as though there were certain grades in the Trinity. They would not baptize in the name of the Son, however, lest they be compelled to confess him as God, but said “through the Son,” as through an instrument. St. Epiphanius also testifies, in Heresy 76, that the Aetians, like the Eunomians, used this form in baptizing: “in the name of the uncreated God, and of the sanctifying Holy Spirit, and of the Spirit begotten by the begotten Son.”

NOTE 2. Although the heretics of this age do not seem, in practice, to err concerning the form of baptism, since when baptizing they always use this form, or one equivalent to it: “I baptize you in the name of the Father, etc.”—for which reason the Church regards the baptism they confer as ratified and valid—nevertheless, if you attend to their doctrine, you will perceive that on this article, as on many others, they deviate considerably from Catholic truth. For Luther, in his book On the Babylonian Captivity, chapter “On Baptism,” writes that the customary form should indeed be used, yet baptism is valid however it may be conferred in words, and it suffices if it is administered “in the name of the Lord”; indeed, even if it is not given in the name of the Lord, it is enough provided that the baptized person receives it “in the name of the Lord.” Zwingli, in On True and False Religion, chapter “On Baptism,” near the end, permits the customary form to be used in baptizing, but adds that a definite verbal form is not necessary in baptism. Brentius, in his Catechism, chapter “On Baptism,” teaches that baptism would be legitimate if the minister, after the catechumen has recited the confession of faith, were to say: “I have now heard from you the confession of your faith, that you believe in God the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Into this confession, then, I immerse you in water, so that by this sign you may know with certainty that you have been incorporated into Christ.” He nevertheless admonishes that the Church’s form must be observed.

NOTE 3. According to the Doctor, In I Sent., d. 3, q. 2, n. 5, something is said to be necessary in the confecting and administering of the sacraments in two ways. “First,” he says, it is necessary absolutely, on the part of the sacrament, in the sense that without it there would be no sacrament. “Second,” something is said to be necessary in some respect, namely on the minister’s part, without which the minister cannot avoid sin while dispensing the sacrament. The question, then, is which words are so necessary to the form of baptism that, if they are not spoken, there would be no sacrament, and which are necessary only in such a way that they may indeed be omitted without loss of the sacrament’s substance, but not without grave sin on the part of the one baptizing. We shall answer this question in the following subsidiary questions, after first assigning the legitimate form of baptism.

Single conclusion. — THIS IS THE FITTING AND LEGITIMATE FORM OF BAPTISM: I BAPTIZE YOU IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, AND OF THE SON, AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. Thus it was determined in the Lateran Council, ch. Firmiter, and the Council of Florence in the decree of Eugenius. Council of Trent, sess. VII, On Baptism, ch. 4. This is gathered from Matthew, ch. 28, where Christ the Lord commands the Apostles to teach all nations, “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” For although he does not expressly command there that they pronounce these words while baptizing, the Church’s perpetual Tradition establishes that Christ the Lord’s command must be understood in this way. This is evident not only from the Apostolic Canon cited above, but from the Church’s continual practice. For we read in the ancient Roman Order: “Then the Pontiff takes the infant and says, ‘I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’” Hence Alexander III, as cited in ch. 1, On Baptism and Its Effect, decretals, book V: “If anyone immerses a child three times in water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Amen, and does not say, ‘I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,’ the child has not been baptized.”

The holy Fathers teach the same truth, especially St. Augustine in many places, but above all bk. 3 of On Baptism, ch. 10, where he says: “The baptism of Christ, consecrated by the words of the Gospel, is holy both when administered by adulterers and when administered to adulterers.” Hence he concludes in ch. 15: “Therefore, if Marcion consecrated baptism with the Gospel words, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the sacrament was whole, even though his faith under those same words—since he thought something other than what Catholic truth teaches—was not whole, but tainted with fabulous falsehoods.”

It is also urged by reason: that form is fitting and legitimate by which everything that belongs to baptism is signified; but the form stated above is of this kind. It is proved: four things are distinguished in baptism: first, the sacramental act itself; second, the person receiving it; third, the principal cause; fourth, the minister. But these four are expressed by this form: for the pronoun (I) signifies the minister; you, the person receiving; the verb (baptize), the sacramental act; while the remaining words express the principal cause, namely the most holy Trinity. Therefore, etc.

YOU WILL SAY 1: When Christ, at the end of Mark, conferred on the disciples the power to cast out demons in these words, “In my name they will cast out demons,” he did not command them, while expelling demons, to say, “Demon, I cast you out in the name of Christ.” And when, at Luke 22, he consecrated the Apostles as priests and gave them power to confect his most sacred body, he did not command them to say while consecrating, “I do this in remembrance of Christ.” Therefore, by the same reasoning, when he said, “Teach, baptizing,” etc., he commanded nothing other than that the Apostles teach and baptize in the faith and power of the most holy Trinity. — I distinguish the consequent: that follows from the words of Sacred Scripture if they are taken by themselves alone and separately from Tradition; let that pass. If they are taken together with perpetual Tradition, from which the sense of Christ the Lord’s command must be received, I deny it. For it is established by the Church’s practice and the authority of the holy Fathers that these words are to be used while baptizing.

YOU WILL PRESS: If this had been the Church’s continual practice, it would have been known in every age; but that is not so. For Peter, Bishop of Clermont, reports that in his time this custom prevailed in his diocese: those who baptized in a case of necessity, omitting the ceremonies, did not say “I baptize you,” or anything equivalent, but only, while pouring water (which he there calls undeiare), said “in the name of the Father,” etc. Bishop Peter, doubtful about the validity of such baptism, consulted by letter Maurice, Bishop of Paris, and Stephen, Abbot of Saint-Euverte at Orléans. The bishop’s opinion was that the baptism was invalid, whereas the abbot’s opinion was that it was legitimate. Moreover¹ three letters are inserted in the third volume of the Library of the Fathers. Therefore, at that time it was not established that this form was in practice throughout the universal Church. — I deny the minor premise. For if it had not been known, from the universal Tradition and practice of the Church, that baptism is to be conferred in this way, the Bishop of Clermont would not have been doubtful about the validity of such baptism. Moreover, Maurice would not have written so confidently in his response that this form was received from Scripture and the holy Fathers. “We have,” he says, “from the authority of the divine Scriptures and the testimony of the holy Fathers, how the form of baptism ought to be handed down and received, namely in this way: ‘I baptize you in the name of the Father,’ etc. The force of the words is so great that nothing ought to be changed or innovated; unless all these words are spoken together by anyone, and in any language, we do not believe that it is baptism.” Nor are the reasons by which Stephen tries to uphold his assertion of any weight. His first reason, expressed in these words, is not sound: “I have not yet read ‘baptizing them’ and saying ‘I baptize you in the name of the Father,’ etc.” For this reason relies only on negative testimony; an argument from negative testimony has no weight when what is opposed to it rests on positive and affirmative testimony, namely the Church’s Tradition and the teaching of the holy Fathers. Nor does his second reason press very strongly. He merely repeats that St. Innocent I and St. Augustine say in several places, which he cites there, when discussing the baptism of heretics, that it is valid “provided they were baptized with express invocation of the three persons of the most holy Trinity”; yet they never mention the clause “I baptize you.” For, to begin with, the passage from St. Augustine’s On the One Baptism, which Stephen cites later, proves that “baptism is perfected and consecrated by the words of the Gospel, and that if they are omitted there is no baptism.” But, according to the understanding of the universal Church, those words are not only “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” but also “I baptize you.” Hence both St. Augustine and the other Fathers, when discussing the baptism of heretics, mention only the express invocation of the three persons in God, because many heretics erred only concerning the divine Trinity and did not omit the words “I baptize you” while baptizing: they knew that Christ had willed these words to be used to express the action of baptism and the minister who baptizes. Since, then, no difficulty or doubt concerning these words was known, it was unnecessary for the holy Fathers to mention them. To give a full and clear account of each particular of this baptismal form, it is fitting to examine them in subsidiary questions.

YOU WILL ASK 1: Whether this pronoun, I, must necessarily be spoken in the form of baptism?

The Doctor answers that, for baptism’s validity, it is not absolutely required that the minister be expressed: “For it is not absolutely necessary,” he says, “that the minister be expressed by some word, nor the pronoun of any person, because it is not in Christ’s words.” Matthew, final chapter. Moreover, when this pronoun is omitted, the substantial sense of the form remains intact. For that consists in signifying a washing as performed by the baptizer upon the one being baptized, with express naming or invocation of the three divine persons. But the pronoun I is not necessary for this, because the verb baptize, being in the first person indicative, implicitly includes that pronoun: baptize is the same as I baptize.

YOU WILL ASK 2: Must the verb baptize necessarily be spoken in the active voice in the form of baptism for it to be valid?

I answer that this is not necessary, since the baptism of the Greeks has been approved by the Church, although they do not use this verb in the active voice but only in the passive. For it was thus defined in Eugenius’s decree at the end of the Council of Florence. Speaking of baptism, after saying, “The matter of this sacrament is true and natural water, and it makes no difference whether it is cold or warm; the form, however, is, ‘I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,’” he adds: “Yet we do not deny that true baptism is also effected by these words: ‘Let such a servant of Christ be baptized in the name of the Father,’ etc.” He gives the reason: “Since the principal cause from which baptism has its power is the holy Trinity, while the instrumental cause is the minister, who externally confers the sacrament, it suffices if the act is expressed, through which the sacrament is effected by the minister exercising it, with invocation of the Holy Trinity.” The Doctor had taught the same truth earlier, in the place cited above, nn. 3 and 7, where he writes: “As to the form necessary on the part of the sacrament, it is clear that this [the ordinary form of the Latin Church] is not such in every word, from what has been said: the Greeks truly baptized, yet not under the same form.”

The Doctor explains in the same place, n. 5, why the Greek Church used this form in the passive voice rather than the active, saying that it was done because of certain Corinthians who boasted that they had been baptized by the Apostles, and therefore thought themselves superior to others who had received baptism from disciples. “The Apostle touches on the cause,” says the Doctor, “in 1 Corinthians 1: ‘I mean that each of you says, “I am of Paul,”’ etc. For they boasted about the ministers who baptized, as though baptism were attributed to them; he rebukes them and this contention of theirs, saying, ‘Is Christ divided?’ And because of this a schism arose among them. To remove this schism, it was ordained among them that the minister should not be expressed in his own person, nor the act in the indicative mood, but in the optative; for then the minister is not signified as the author of baptism, but only as the minister desiring and praying for the effect of baptism to be conferred by God. Nor would the recipient be expressed in the second person, but in the third, as though he did not precisely receive what he receives from a form of words addressed to him. Nevertheless, it would have been better for the recipient to be expressed by something other than ‘servant of Christ,’ namely by his proper name. For it is not now a servant of Christ who is being baptized, but one is baptized in order to become a servant of Christ, speaking of that spiritual service by which a Christian is a servant of Christ.”

St. John Chrysostom teaches that this vice really existed among some Corinthians in St. Paul’s time, in Homily 1 on 1 Corinthians, ch. 1, and also in Homily 3, examining the words “or were you baptized in my name?” He says: “He did not say, ‘Did Paul baptize?’ For he baptized many. But that was not what was being asked: by whom they had been baptized, but in whose name they had been baptized; for this too was a cause of schism, that they were called after those who baptized,” etc. Although he does not imply by these words that they had fallen into that error, he says below that there was a danger of it: “For if heresy arose when those who baptized were lowly, insignificant men of no reputation, if I, who preached baptism, had baptized many, it would have been likely that people would gather and be called not only by my name, but also attribute baptism to me,” etc.

St. Augustine teaches the same in bk. On the One Baptism, ch. 5, where, speaking of the Corinthians who said, “I am of Paul,” etc., he says: “Although they did this not under the names of the impure but of saints, nevertheless they were creating impious schisms: this was their detestable vice,” etc. And in ch. 11 he writes: “Nor do I think that those Corinthians whom he rebukes for splitting into schisms truly believed what they said, ‘I am of Paul’; for this was false. Nevertheless, they had baptism, from whose truth they should correct this falsehood, hearing from Paul himself: ‘Was Paul crucified for you, or were you baptized in the name of Paul?’” etc.

But, once this cause has ceased, is it now lawful for Greek Catholics still to use this form?

The Doctor answers, n. 6: “Concerning this form, one may say that for as long as it was tolerated by the Roman Church, it was lawful for them; and for the time for which it was instituted, it was reasonable while the aforementioned cause lasted. But once that cause ceased, the common form could reasonably have been imposed on them. Either, then, the Roman Church prohibited this form for them, and in that case they sin by keeping it (though no chapter expressly mentioning them is found); or, if it permitted or allowed it, it seems lawful for them to continue this form. And if, while such permission or license stands, they have ordained in their particular councils that this form be observed among them, it seems that their minister is bound to observe it. Just as, while this permission stands, the Church has determined that triple immersion is to be observed, so it must be done, and it is a precept binding the minister to observe the manner of his own Church.”

There is, however, controversy among theologians about how the word baptizetur, used in the Greeks’ form, is to be understood: whether imperatively, as St. Thomas holds, or as a petition, as the Subtle Doctor takes it. The latter is certainly more fitting if we attend to the reason given above for which the Greeks do not express the minister’s person: namely, lest he glory in himself and lest baptism be understood to derive any power from him, as from a principal cause. For the imperative mood signifies the minister’s authority, whereas the petitionary mood does not do so, but rather signifies the authority of the principal cause from which the sacrament has its efficacy, although it is ministerially conferred by the one administering it. Moreover, if this verb were taken imperatively, the command would be directed either to the minister’s person or to the sacrament’s effect. The first cannot be said, because no one properly commands himself. Nor can the second, because an effect that proceeds from a higher cause does not properly fall under the command of an inferior, especially when it is not grounded in the power of communicated jurisdiction, as is the effect of penance, which proceeds from the power of the keys. Therefore it is more fitting that this verb be taken as a petition. Nevertheless, one may say that this verb, as now used by the Greeks in the form of baptism, is neither imperative nor petitionary, but indicative. For the Greeks say while baptizing: “The servant of God, or the handmaid of God, is baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” as Arcadius rightly observes in bk. On Baptism, ch. 7, from the Greek Euchologion.

YOU WILL ASK 3: Must the person being baptized be expressed in the form of baptism by the pronoun you or by something else equivalent to it?

The Doctor affirms this in the same place, n. 7. After saying that for baptism’s validity it is not necessary that the minister’s person be expressed, he adds: “I say that the other two, namely the act and the recipient, must be expressed, but not in a determinate way, in the same manner in which they are expressed by these words—namely the act by a verb in the indicative mood and the recipient by a second-person pronoun. Rather, the act may be expressed by a verb in another mood and the recipient by a word in another person, as the Greeks express them. The reason why these two must be expressed in one way or another is taken from Matthew, final chapter: ‘Baptizing them,’ etc., where the act and the recipient are expressed.” These are the Doctor’s words, by which he means that the person being baptized must be expressed because Christ the Lord sufficiently indicated this when he said, “Baptizing them,” etc.: the act of baptizing and the one receiving baptism must be expressed in the conferral of baptism. — This is confirmed by analogy: for this reason the person to be absolved must be expressed in the form of penance, by saying “I absolve you”; absolution would not be valid under the formula “I absolve” or “absolution is given in the name of the Father,” etc. For when Christ the Lord instituted the sacrament of penance in John 20, he said, “Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them.” By analogy, then, the person to be baptized must be expressed, since Christ the Lord indicated that the person to be baptized is expressed when he said, “baptizing them,” etc. Add that baptism takes its denomination, determination, or individuation chiefly from the one baptized. Therefore, for the act exercised by the minister to be expressed as an individual act, it is necessary that the person being baptized be expressed in the words.

YOU WILL SAY: The Council of Florence, in Eugenius’s decree, asserts that in baptism, if the act exercised by the minister is expressed together with invocation of the most holy Trinity, the sacrament is effected; there it makes no mention of the person being baptized. Therefore its expression is not necessary. — I deny the consequence. As to the antecedent, I say first that, since the decree requires the act of baptism to be expressed as it is exercised here and now, it at least implicitly connotes the person being baptized, since baptism cannot be performed without a subject capable of it. Second, it is no wonder that Eugenius did not mention the person to be baptized, because there was no controversy with the Greeks concerning the expression of the recipient of baptism, since the Greeks also express that person, saying, “The servant or handmaid of Christ is baptized.”

I said, however, that this pronoun you may be supplied by something equivalent, for example if someone said, “I baptize Peter, or you are baptized by me” as the Greeks say, “The servant of Christ is baptized.” For by this or some similar manner of speaking, the person to be baptized is sufficiently apparent and signified.

YOU WILL ASK 4: Is the particle in necessary to the form of baptism?

I answer that it is not necessary to the essence of the sacramental form, since the same sense would remain if it were omitted. For one who signifies that he does something in another’s name means the same as if he said that he does it in that person’s name. Grammarians know that the absolute ablative has the same meaning as an ablative marked by the preposition in.

YOU WILL ASK 5: What does the particle “name” signify, and is it absolutely necessary to the form of baptism?

I answer first that this particle signifies either the unity of the divine essence subsisting in the three divine persons, as the holy Fathers teach, especially St. Ambrose, bk. 2 of On the Sacraments, ch. 7: “He commanded us to be baptized in one name, that is, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. I would not wonder that he said ‘one name,’ where there is one substance, one divinity, one majesty.” And St. Augustine, bk. 3 of Against Maximinus, ch. 22: “In the name, not in the names; for these three are one, and these three are one God.” Hence the Roman Catechism, chapter On Baptism: “What is plainly declared by the fact that he said ‘in the name,’ not ‘in the names,’ is the one nature and divinity of the Trinity. For here ‘name’ does not refer to the persons, but to the divine substance, power, and authority, which are one and the same, signified in the three divine persons.”

A theological argument supports this explanation: for it is no less necessary to the form of baptism that the unity of essence in God be expressed than that the Trinity of persons be expressed, since both are equally required for the Catholic faith. Moreover, the unity of essence is signified by the particle name. Therefore, etc.

There are, nevertheless, those who think that “in the name” means “in the authority, power, majesty, and might”; in this sense Psalm 19 says: “Some trust in chariots, and some in horses, but we shall call upon the name of the Lord.” And Psalm 53: “O God, save me by your name, and judge me by your might.” Christ the Lord often uses the same manner of speaking in the Gospel, for example when he says: “In my name they will cast out demons,” and “the Spirit, the Paraclete, whom the Father will send in my name,” etc.

I answer second that the particle name is necessary in such a way that if anyone omitted it, saying “I baptize you in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” or changed the singular number to the plural and said “in the names of the Father and the Son,” etc., it would not be considered baptism, as is gathered from St. Jerome, who, explaining “one baptism” in Ephesians 4, says: “We do not baptize in the names of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, but in one name, which is understood to be God.” And from St. Augustine, bk. 3 of Against Maximinus, ch. 22, cited by us just above. Reason also supports this, as we have just touched on: since the form of baptism is a profession of the Christian faith, it must signify the unity of essence of the three divine persons; the word name in the singular rightly signifies the unity of essence of the three persons in God. Hence the Apostle says in Ephesians 3²: “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.”

YOU WILL ASK 6: Must the three divine persons be expressed in the form of baptism under the distinct names of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, so that baptism would be invalid if conferred in the name of the Begetter, the Begotten, and the One Proceeding from Both?

The Doctor affirms this, d. 1, q. 2, n. 9, where he says: “Concerning names that signify properties, and not persons, such as Begetter, etc., I say that the form is not preserved in them. For Christ willed the persons to be called by the names of the persons; and reasonably so, in accordance with what was touched on in the first book, d. 2: just as a certain name signifying the divine essence under its proper aspect was given to the Jews, which they called God’s name Tetragrammaton, so Christ gave the Church names signifying the persons under their proper aspects. Even if he did not give them for this reason, nevertheless it is probable that in some invocation the name of a person has an efficacy that the name of that person’s property does not have. For if one asks something of someone for the love of John, it would be obtained sooner than if, in place of the proper name, a name indicating the property of the supposit were put.” By these words the Doctor means that baptism is invalid if conferred under names other than those of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For baptism is the sacrament of faith by which the faithful are initiated, invoking and professing God as one in essence and three in persons. Therefore it was fitting that this be done through names that distinctly signify the persons themselves, just as under the Old Law it was customary to invoke and profess God under the aspect of one essence—which alone each person then needed explicitly to believe—by the name Tetragrammaton, which signifies God under the aspect of his proper essence. Hence, since baptism is also the most universal sacrament, to be received by all, it had to be administered under names more common and frequently used both in Scripture and in the Creeds, namely only the names of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which are known to every one of the faithful. The names “Begetter,” “Begotten,” etc., however, are not known to everyone, but only to theologians. Alensis, In IV Sent., p. 4, q. 8, memb. 3, a. 3, the Seraphic Doctor, d. 3, and St. Thomas, III, q. 66, a. 5, ad 7, uphold the same opinion.

YOU WILL SAY: Those names, “Begetter,” etc., are equivalent to the names “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”; therefore baptism conferred under such terms would be valid. — The Doctor denies the antecedent, n. 15, where, responding to this argument proposed by himself, he says: “As to the point concerning ‘Begetter,’ etc., one must say that Augustine, bk. 5 of On the Trinity, ch. 7, understands ‘begetter’ and ‘Father’ to be the same insofar as each is said in relation to another, or imports the property of the same person; but they are not the same with respect to the first concept signified by each. For ‘Father’ signifies primarily and in itself the supposit in the divine nature; the other signifies primarily and in itself a property. The force of a proper name and the force of a name of a property are not the same in an invocation of a person for some effect.” These are the Doctor’s words, by which he means that these words, “Begetter,” etc., do not designate the divine persons as divine persons—that is, under the aspect of subsisting—but by way of the origin of one from another. — From this it follows that baptism is also invalid if conferred only in the name of the Trinity, “because,” the Doctor says, n. 9, “when instituting baptism, Christ the Lord willed that the divine persons of the Trinity be explained distinctly; but in the name ‘Trinity’ they are signified only implicitly, and therefore baptism conferred on this basis would not be valid.” Nor would it help to put the name “Jesus Christ” in place of “Son,” because the second person is not sufficiently expressed. It is otherwise if “Paraclete” is added to the word “Spirit,” because that change is only of an epithet, not of substance: “Spirit” signifies a person. Again, baptism conferred “in the name of the first, second, and third person” is invalid, for these do not sufficiently explain the mystery of the Trinity according to the personal properties, nor the emanation of one person from another. The same holds if it is conferred “in the name of the Omnipotent, the Wise, and the Good,” which are not proper names of the individual persons, but only appropriated to them.

YOU WILL ASK 7: Would baptism conferred in the name of Christ alone be valid?

I answer that it seems more probable that it was lawful at some time to baptize in this way, as Alensis, In IV Sent., p. 4, q. 8, memb. 3, a. 3; St. Thomas, III, q. 66, a. 6; St. Bonaventure, d. 3, pt. 1, a. 2, q. 2; and the Subtle Doctor, there, q. 2, n. 9, teach with the Master. There he writes: “Concerning the fifth point, namely the name of Christ: it is clear that at some time it was lawful to baptize in this way, Acts 2, 10, On Cornelius, and 19. But whether someone would be baptized now if baptism were administered in this way is doubtful. It seems that one who baptizes thus would sin mortally; indeed, he would not baptize at all. He proves this as follows: no inferior can revoke the law of a superior, either absolutely or for a time. But the law concerning baptizing in this common form, ‘In the name of the Father,’ etc., was promulgated by Christ, Matthew, final chapter. Therefore no one else can revoke it for a time for which Christ did not revoke it. Although he dispensed from that law for the time of the primitive Church, because there was reason for the dispensation, namely that the name of Christ might be spread abroad, nevertheless, once that reason ceased, he did not dispense from it. Therefore no inferior can in any way be released from that law for the later period.”

The holy Fathers support this teaching and assertion, especially St. Ambrose, bk. 1 of On the Holy Spirit, ch. 3, where he says: “Just as one who is blessed in Christ is blessed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, because the name is one and the power is one, so too, wherever some divine operation of the Father, or of the Son, or of the Spirit is indicated, it is referred not only to the Holy Spirit, but also to the Father and the Son; nor is it referred only to the Father, but also to the Son and the Holy Spirit.” Finally, “the Ethiopian eunuch of Queen Candace, baptized in Christ, received the full mystery.” And below: “Let us now consider whether, just as we read that the sacrament of baptism is complete in the name of Christ, so too, when it is named in the Holy Spirit, nothing is lacking to the fullness of the mystery.” In support of his answer he adds: “Let us follow reason: for whoever names this one has signified the Trinity. If you say ‘Christ,’ you have signified both God the Father, by whom the Son was anointed, and the Son himself, who was anointed, and the Holy Spirit, by whom he was anointed.” A little later: “Hence Scripture indicates that authority is joined to reason, and that we can rightly baptize also in the Spirit, when the Lord says, ‘You will be baptized in the Holy Spirit.’ And elsewhere the Apostle says, ‘For we were all baptized into one body in one Spirit.’” Theophylact also taught the same, in his commentary on the final chapter of Luke, in response to the question, “How are we to understand baptism taking place in the name of Christ alone, especially since we are taught elsewhere to baptize in the name of the Father,” etc. He answers: “The name of Christ contains within itself the Father who anoints, the anointing Spirit, and the Son who is anointed.” — Further, I say that Nicholas I, in his Response to the Bulgarians, ch. 104, relying on the authority of Scripture and St. Ambrose, dared to assert that baptism in the name of Christ alone is valid even in fact. His words are cited in ch. 24, On Consecration, d. 4: “You say that many in your country were baptized by a certain Jew, whether Christian or pagan you do not know, and you ask what should be done about them. Certainly, if they were baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity (that is, explicitly, as baptism is usually understood in the decretals and by the Fathers to be given in the name of the Trinity) or only in the name of Christ, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles—and, as St. Ambrose explains, these are one and the same—it is clear that they are not to be baptized again.”

Moreover, this truth seems to rest on clear passages of Scripture. For Peter’s discourse in Acts 2 is directed to exalting his name; and in Acts 3 and 4: “There is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved,” etc. In Acts 8: “Philip opened his mouth and, beginning from this Scripture, preached Jesus to him,” etc. “Look, here is water; what prevents me from being baptized?” Philip said: “If you believe with your whole heart, you may.” He answered: “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God,” etc. “And he baptized him.” Earlier it is said of Philip that he preached Christ to the Samaritans: “and men and women were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” The instruction and speech of Peter to Cornelius and his household also bear on this. Acts 1, 50³, which ends as follows: “To him all the Prophets bear witness, that all who believe in him receive remission of sins through his name,” etc. And when the Holy Spirit had fallen upon them at this, Peter ordered them to be baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ.” — Many passages in Paul’s letters also indicate baptism given “in the name of Jesus” and the attainment of salvation through him, which I omit for brevity. Hence it follows that this manner and form of baptizing accords with the teaching and preaching of the Apostles that preceded baptism, as is also clear from Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 1: “I thank God that I baptized none of you … lest anyone say that you were baptized in my name,” etc. And later, concerning teaching and preaching: “We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles,” etc.

Reason also supports this: at the beginning of the nascent Church it was fitting among the Jews that baptism for the remission of sins be given under the name of Christ, since they denied the necessity of redemption and of the Redeemer, placing salvation in the Law alone. Among the Gentiles, too, there was no lack of a similar fittingness, because they believed on account of the miracles that were performed in Christ’s name (as with Simon Magus, Acts 8); and therefore it was also fitting that they be baptized in the name of the one in whom they believed. Thus baptism could be conferred under that form by dispensation, without any error in the form, either practical or speculative. That it was in fact done in this way seems to be gathered from Scripture’s manner of speaking and the authority of the holy Doctors of the Church.

Nevertheless, the contrary opinion, which many defend with our Arnachanus, is not improbable. For they consider that all the passages of Scripture in which the Apostles seem to be said to have baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus should be understood to mean that they baptized by the authority and power of Jesus Christ—that is, with the baptism instituted by Christ the Lord, by which the baptism of Christ would be distinguished from the baptism of John. This answer is confirmed by Acts 19. For when the Apostle found certain disciples at Ephesus, he said to them: “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They said to him: “We have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” He said: “Into what, then, were you baptized?” They answered: “Into John’s baptism.” They say that the Apostle’s question would have been wholly strange and entirely beside the point if baptism at that time had customarily been conferred under a form other than in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. For the Apostle thought that they could not have been baptized with the baptism of Christ without having knowledge of the Holy Spirit, in whose name, as well as that of the Father and the Son, they would have been baptized.

I admit, however, that one can answer this basis of their argument by saying that the Apostle was astonished that they had heard nothing about the Holy Spirit because, being adults, they could not have been baptized earlier without first being instructed in the principal mysteries of the faith, and consequently knowing that there are three persons in God. For the mystery of the divine Trinity is the first and chief of all the mysteries of faith.

Nor does the Apostolic Canon 19 stand in the way: “If any presbyter or bishop does not celebrate the threefold immersion of the one Mystery, but immerses once in baptism (as some command it to be given into the death of the Lord), let him be deposed. For the Lord did not say to us, ‘Baptize into my death,’ but, ‘Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’” I say that this does not stand in the way, because in that canon it seems that only the error of certain heretics is condemned: they baptized with a single immersion, and into the death of Christ, in order to exclude the Trinity of persons and the divinity of Christ the Lord. The Bonosians and Cataphrygians defended this error. Gregory writes about them to Bishop Quirinius in Iberia, bk. 9, ep. 61, and it is cited in On Consecration, d. 4, ch. 81: “These heretics, who are not baptized at all in the name of the Trinity, such as the Bonosians and Cataphrygians (for the former do not believe in Christ the Lord, and the latter perversely believe the Holy Spirit to be a certain wicked man, Montanus; and there are many others like them), when they come to the holy Church are baptized, because what they received while in error was not baptism, since they were not baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity.”

Whatever the truth may be concerning either opinion, nothing certain can be defined about it, since on both sides there appear to be not improbable conjectures,

I answer, secondly, with the Doctor in the same place, that it is certain that at the present time baptism may in no way be conferred in the name of Christ alone. “For,” the Doctor says, “it seems that one who baptizes thus would sin mortally. The first proof is this: no inferior can revoke the law of a superior, either absolutely or for a time. But the law of baptizing in this common form, ‘In the name of the Father and of the Son,’ etc., was promulgated by Christ, Matthew, final chapter. Therefore no one else can revoke it for a period during which Christ did not revoke it.” The Doctor adds: “Although he dispensed from that law for the time of the primitive Church, because there was reason for the dispensation, namely that the name of Christ might be spread abroad, nevertheless, once that reason ceased, he did not dispense from it. Therefore no inferior can in any way be released from that law for that later period. The second argument is proved similarly: a form commonly handed down always remains the form, unless the one who instituted the form makes some dispensation for a certain time. But the form was given by dispensation only for the period for which there was a reason for dispensing—that is, in the primitive Church, so that the name of Christ might be spread abroad. Therefore, once the time of that dispensation has ceased, only that form remains which was the form by institution.” In conclusion he asks: “What, then? I do not dare to say that one baptized today in the name of Christ would be baptized, but neither do I dare to say that he would not be baptized, because I do not read where that dispensation was revoked. In this case, therefore, I judge it doubtful whether such a person has been baptized.”

That baptism conferred in the name of Christ would now be invalid is gathered from the letter of Pope Pelagius to Bishop Gaudentius, cited in d. 1 of On Consecration, ch. 81, in these words: “There are many who claim to baptize only in the name of Christ, and with a single immersion. But the Gospel precept, given by God himself and our Lord and Savior Jesus, admonishes us to confer holy baptism on each person in the name of the Trinity and with three immersions, as the Lord says to his disciples: ‘Go, baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’”

This is confirmed by ch. 83 of the same distinction, which is Pope Zacharias’s letter to Bishop Boniface, beginning Sacris luminibus. In it the Pontiff writes: “It is known that the decree and judgment of the English synod was most firmly prescribed and carefully demonstrated: whoever had been immersed without invocation of the Trinity would not have the sacrament of regeneration. This is entirely true, because if anyone is washed in the font of baptism without invocation of the Trinity, he is not a perfect Christian unless he has been baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The priests also wished this to be observed in the aforesaid synod: that the baptism could not be true if anyone did not name even one person of the Trinity in baptism. This is certainly true, because whoever has not confessed one person of the Holy Trinity cannot be a perfect Christian. For whoever confesses the Father and the Son, if he has not also confessed the Holy Spirit, has neither the Father nor the Son; and whoever has confessed the Father and the Holy Spirit, but has not confessed the Son, has neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit, but is empty of divine grace.”

Nor does it matter that Nicholas asserts baptism in the name of Christ alone to be valid, which he confirms by the authority of St. Dionysius. For I answer that Nicholas said this only in passing, not expressly; he had not been asked whether baptism was valid by reason of its form, but only whether the fact that the minister was a Jew stood in the way of baptism’s validity. “You say,” he writes, “that many were baptized by a certain Jew, whether Christian or pagan you do not know,” etc. I answer that baptism is valid whether the minister was Christian or pagan, provided that he used the legitimate form. The legitimate form was not in question there. Rather, taking the occasion, Nicholas explains his opinion, which he held about it as a particular Doctor: namely, that this form is valid, “I baptize you in the name of Christ,” guided by the authority of Scripture and of St. Ambrose, whom he cites.

It could easily have happened that Nicholas had not seen the responses of Pelagius and Zacharias, since at that time the decrees of councils and pontiffs had not yet been collected and arranged in Canon Law; or, if he had known them, perhaps he thought they should be explained differently from the way the universal Church now understands them: either as referring to an implicit invocation of the Trinity, against heretics who baptized into the death of the Lord with a single immersion in order to exclude the Trinity and the divinity of Christ; or as referring to an explicit invocation, against those who named one person while positively excluding the others and holding error concerning them.