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

NOTE 1. Baptism can be administered in two ways: first, solemnly, with all the public rites and ecclesiastical ceremonies customarily employed, when Baptism is publicly conferred by the ministers of the Church; second, without any solemnity, that is, with all ceremonies omitted and only those things employed that are essential to the valid conferral of the Sacrament. Moreover, Baptism can be conferred either in a case of urgent necessity, namely, when danger of death is imminent, or outside a case of necessity, when the person to be baptized is in sound health. Hence two kinds of ministers of the Sacrament can be distinguished: one for solemnity, the other for necessity. Again, among those who administer Baptism solemnly, one may be an ordinary minister, to whom baptizing belongs by his proper office; the other an extraordinary minister, who has this faculty by virtue of his status and delegation. The question, then, is who is a fit minister to confer Baptism solemnly and outside a case of necessity, or without solemnity when necessity is urgent.

NOTE 2. In the administration of the Sacraments, as in many human acts, it is one thing for something to be done validly and another for it to be done licitly. The first concerns the substance of the thing said to be done validly, so that it remains whole and composed of all its parts, without regard to whether the person performing it incurs sin or not. The second concerns the conscience of the person acting, so that the person who carries out the act does not merely perform it as required for it to be whole and perfect in itself, but also performs it in the due manner prescribed by the superior who orders how such a thing is to be done. Here, however, the question concerns both ways of conferring Baptism: whether absolutely all people, whether faithful or unfaithful, are entitled to baptize not only validly but also licitly, both when necessity is urgent and outside a case of necessity.

NOTE 3. Although Lutherans agree with Catholics that any private member of the faithful, even a woman, can baptize in a case of necessity not only validly but also licitly—as Hunnius expressly teaches in his little work On the Sacraments, chapter On Baptism, where he says this is also an article of the Augsburg Confession—the Calvinists nevertheless disagree, along with their heresiarch. In book 1 of the Institutes, chapter 15, although he does not state his view so openly as to make clear whether he speaks only of what is licit or also of what is valid, he acts as though he wished only ministers of the divine Word, pastors of the Church lawfully called, to be able to baptize validly. And if his mind and intention are to be sought from Beza himself, it will be clear that this is so. For in his book Questions and Answers on the Sacraments, question 140, when asked about Baptism administered by private persons not exercising ministry, he replies that it should be considered no more important than whatever a private person might do at will in the name of a king or a republic, or than a play. Yet it is clear enough that what a private person did at will in the name of the king or republic would be null, and not merely illicit, for lack of authority received from it to do so; the same is true of what is merely a play. Hence Beza himself also impudently says, in question 144 of On the Sacraments, that he prefers Baptism conferred by Satan and the devil pretending to be a minister of the divine Word to Baptism conferred by a woman or a private member of the faithful.

First conclusion. — EVERY WAYFARING HUMAN BEING WHO HAS THE USE OF REASON CAN ALWAYS BAPTIZE VALIDLY, AND, IF NECESSITY IS URGENT, CAN ALSO BAPTIZE LICITLY, PRIVATELY AND WITHOUT SOLEMNITY. This is a matter of faith, defined at the Fourth Lateran Council under Innocent III and reported in the chapter Firmiter, where it is decreed: The Sacrament of Baptism, duly conferred by anyone according to the form of the Church, profits both infants and adults for salvation.

The Council of Florence made this definition more explicit and renewed it in the Decree of Eugene, where we read this concerning the minister of Baptism: The minister of this Sacrament is a priest, whose office it is to baptize. In a case of necessity, however, not only a priest or deacon, but also a layman and a woman, indeed even a pagan and a heretic, can baptize, provided that he or she observes the form of the Church and intends to do what the Church does.

We shall speak of the priest and deacon in the next conclusion. Isidore teaches plainly about pagans and unbelievers, as reported in Distinction 1, On Consecration, chapter 23, in these words: The Roman Pontiff judges not the man who baptizes, but the Spirit of God supplies the grace of Baptism, even if the one baptizing is a pagan. Nicholas I teaches the same in his letter To the Bulgarians’ Questions, chapter 104, as reported in the following chapter of the same work, where we read: You say that many in your country were baptized by a certain Jew, and you do not know whether he was a Christian or a pagan; you ask what should be done about them. If indeed they were baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, or only in the name of Christ, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles, it is clear that they are not to be baptized again. As for heretics, what we said in the preceding Disputation already establishes sufficiently that Baptism conferred by heretics is valid.

Moreover, St. Jerome consistently teaches that Baptism conferred by anyone in due form is valid, in his Dialogue Against the Luciferians, chapter 4, as does St. Augustine in book 2 of Against Parmenian, chapter 13, where he says: If some layman, compelled by necessity, has given Baptism to someone at the point of death—as he had learned it must be given when he himself received it—I do not know whether anyone could piously say it should be repeated. If it is done when no necessity compels it, it is an usurpation of another’s office; but if necessity is urgent, it is either no offense or a venial one. Yet even if it is usurped without any necessity, and anyone gives it to anyone, what has been given cannot be said not to have been given, although it can rightly be called illicitly given.

Tertullian had preceded them in book On Baptism, chapter 17. After saying that the office of baptizing belongs equally first to bishops, then to presbyters, and afterward to deacons, but not to laymen, he adds, addressing a layman: Let it be enough, of course, for you to use this in cases of necessity, whenever the condition of place, time, or person compels it. For the steadfastness of one who comes to another’s aid is accepted when the peril of the one at risk is urgent; otherwise he will be guilty of the loss of a person if he refrains from providing what he could freely have provided.

YOU WILL OBJECT 1. Calvin: Only those can baptize validly to whom the Lord Christ granted the faculty of baptizing. But he gave it only to ministers of the divine Word lawfully called, both because, when the Lord Christ commands Baptism to be conferred in Matthew’s final chapter, he addresses only the Apostles and their successors, and because there he joins the preaching of the divine Word to the administration of Baptism, saying, Go, teach all nations. — I answer, granting the major premise and distinguishing the minor: the Lord Christ gave the faculty of baptizing publicly and solemnly only to the Apostles and ministers of the divine Word, I grant; privately and in a case of necessity, I deny. As for the proof, I say that in that passage the Lord Christ did not give the Apostles the simple power to baptize, which they already possessed and exercised before the Passion, when they were not yet priests or bishops; rather, since they were already bishops, he gave them a special command and at the same time conferred on them the primary right to preach the Gospel publicly and solemnly and to administer Baptism.

YOU WILL OBJECT 2. The decree of the Fourth Council of Carthage, chapter 100: A woman, however learned and holy, must not presume to teach men in an assembly or to baptize anyone. Tertullian likewise teaches in several places that Baptism is forbidden to women, especially in book On Veiling Virgins, chapter 9; book On Prescriptions Against Heretics, chapter 42; and book On Baptism, chapter 17, where he says: The audacity of women who have usurped the right to teach does not thereby also gain for them the right to baptize. — I answer that both the Council and Tertullian proscribe and condemn the audacity and presumption of certain women, especially Marcionists, who usurped the office of baptizing even outside a case of necessity—not only privately, but solemnly as well. Hence, in the passage cited above from On Veiling Virgins, he says: A woman is not permitted to speak in the Church, nor to teach, nor to baptize, nor to offer, nor to claim for herself any part in a man’s office, much less in a priestly office.

YOU WILL OBJECT 3. Gregory II, in his letter to Bishop Boniface, reported in On Consecration, Distinction 1, chapter 52, says: Those whom you said were baptized by pagans, if this is so, we command you to baptize again in the name of the Trinity. Moreover, St. Augustine, in book 2 of Against Parmenian’s Letter, chapter 13, doubts whether Baptism can be given by those who have never been Christians, and answers: Nothing should be rashly affirmed about this without the authority of so great a Council as is sufficient for so great a matter. Finally, in Canon 38 of the Council of Elvira, only those who have been baptized are permitted to baptize, and a bigamist is forbidden to baptize in a case of necessity. For it says: Travelers at sea, or those for whom no church is nearby, may baptize a catechumen placed in danger of illness, if they are faithful, have their own baptism intact, and are not bigamists. Therefore not everyone can baptize validly even in a case of necessity. —

I deny the consequence. As for Gregory II, I say he is speaking of people baptized in a pagan rite, not in the rite of the Church, as the Gloss observes on the aforesaid chapter 52, Distinction 4. The Pontiff himself indicates this as well, for he says there: Anyone who has been baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit must not be baptized again. — As for St. Augustine, I say he does not call into doubt whether Baptism conferred by laymen in a case of necessity is valid. Although he does not dare openly to affirm that it is valid if conferred by someone who has not been baptized, he does not absolutely deny it either; indeed, if he were alive now, he would affirm it expressly. For he says it should not be asserted with certainty without the authority of a Council; but we have the clear authority of the Council of Florence affirming it, and so St. Augustine would now defend that truth along with us. — As for the canon of the Council of Elvira, I say that it means only that in a case of necessity someone who is unbaptized and a bigamist ought not to administer Baptism in the presence of a baptized person who is not a bigamist. Otherwise that Baptism would be illicit and administered sinfully, but it would not on that account be invalid.

Second conclusion. — THE ORDINARY MINISTER FOR CONFERRING BAPTISM SOLEMNLY OR PRIVATELY OUTSIDE A CASE OF NECESSITY IS THE PRIEST ALONE, WHETHER A BISHOP OR A PARISH PRIEST; A DELEGATED MINISTER, HOWEVER, CAN BE ANY PRIEST, AND EVEN A DEACON. Tertullian plainly teaches this in book On Baptism, chapter 7, where he says: The supreme priest, who is the bishop, has the power to give Baptism; next come presbyters and deacons, but not without the bishop’s authority, out of respect for the Church. The Council of Florence also declares this truth in the words cited in the preceding conclusion. So does St. Isidore, in book 2 of On the Offices, chapter 24, and it is reported in On Consecration, Distinction 3, chapter 9¹, where he writes: It is established that Baptism is to be administered by priests alone, and that even deacons are not permitted to perform its rite without a bishop or priest, unless the final necessity of illness compels them when these are far away.

Moreover, the Doctor offers an apt reason for this assertion in Distinction 6, question 1, number 3. Having said, It is fitting that among wayfarers only a priest baptize, and it belongs to a priest alone by virtue of his office, he adds: The reason is that by Baptism the baptized person is received into the fellowship of the Church militant. But receiving someone into a fellowship belongs to the president and one who has authority in that fellowship; therefore, the greater someone’s authority in the Church, the more it would belong to him to receive and introduce people into the Church and, consequently, to baptize. Hence it would belong more to a bishop than to a simple priest, if bishops could suffice; but because bishops are few and those to be baptized many, it is ordinarily granted to all priests. This opinion of the Doctor, which asserts that by virtue of office the faculty of baptizing belongs to all priests, is to be understood, as Hyquaeus aptly observes in his commentary on this passage, number 19, with respect to capacity, and in a case of necessity with respect to the effect or office. Or the distribution is to be understood of individual kinds, with respect to those who have authority over their own district by pastoral care, by the parish priest’s grant, or by the bishop’s authority. For in practice this ministry is now assigned only to priests: a bishop who performs it is rare, except as a privilege for some person such as a prince or a noble.

YOU WILL ASK: What order is to be observed among the ministers of the Sacrament of Baptism?

I ANSWER, with the Catechism of the Council of Trent, part II, title On the Minister of Baptism, that there are three ranks among them: first, bishops and priests are to be placed in the first rank, since they have been given this office to exercise by their own right, not by some extraordinary power. For the Lord commanded this to the Apostles: “Go, baptize.” Although bishops, so as not to be compelled to abandon their more important care of teaching the people, have been accustomed to leave the ministry of Baptism to priests. That priests exercise this function by their own right, so that they can administer Baptism even in the bishop’s presence, is clear from the teaching of the Fathers and the practice of the Church. Since they have been instituted to consecrate the Eucharist, which is the Sacrament of peace and unity, it was fitting that they be given the power to administer everything by which each person could necessarily become a partaker of this peace and unity. If the Fathers at times said that priests had not been permitted the right to baptize without the bishop’s leave, this seems to be understood of the Baptism customarily administered with solemn ceremony on certain days of the year. Deacons hold the second rank among the ministers; many decrees of the holy Fathers testify that they are not permitted to administer this Sacrament without the permission of a bishop or priest. The lowest rank belongs to those who, when necessity compels, can baptize without solemn ceremonies; this group includes everyone, even laypeople, male or female, whatever sect they profess. For when necessity compels, this office has also been permitted to Jews, unbelievers, and heretics, provided that they intend to do what the Catholic Church does in this kind of administration. The faithful must not think, however, that this office has been permitted indiscriminately to everyone, as though no order among ministers ought to be established. A woman should not undertake the administration of Baptism if men are present; nor should a layman when a cleric is present, or a cleric in the presence of a priest. Midwives accustomed to baptize are not to be disapproved, however, if they sometimes perform what otherwise seems more properly a man’s office when, in their presence, there is a man wholly unskilled in conferring this Sacrament. The same is decreed in the Roman Ritual, title On Baptism, section On the Minister of Baptism. After determining, Whenever an infant or adult is in danger of death, anyone may baptize without solemnity, in any language, whether a cleric or layman, even if excommunicated, whether faithful or unfaithful, Catholic or heretic, man or woman, provided that the form and intention of the Church are observed, it immediately adds: But if a priest is present, he is to be preferred to a deacon, a deacon to a subdeacon, a cleric to a layman, and a man to a woman—unless, out of modesty, a woman is preferred to a man to baptize an infant not yet fully born, or if the woman knows the form and manner of baptizing better.

Third conclusion. — THE ONE WHO NECESSARILY BAPTIZES MUST BE PERSONALLY DISTINCT FROM THE ONE BAPTIZED, SO THAT NO ONE CAN BAPTIZE HIMSELF. This is common to all, and Innocent III decreed it in his letter to the Bishop of Metz, as reported in the chapter Debitum, On Baptism and Its Effect, where he writes: You have indeed informed us that a certain Jew, when at the point of death and alone among Jews, immersed himself in water, saying: “I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.” He continues: We answer that there must be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is gathered from the words of the Lord, who says to the Apostles, “Go, baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” The aforesaid Jew must therefore be baptized again by someone else, so that it may be shown that the one who is baptized is one person and the one who baptizes another. To signify this, Christ himself wished to be baptized not by himself but by John. Although, if the man had died immediately, he would have flown straightway to his homeland because of his faith in the Sacrament, though not because he had received the Sacrament of faith. For in Baptism that spiritual generation is celebrated of which the Truth says, “You must be born again,” because “unless someone is born again of water and the Spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven.” Therefore, just as in bodily generation, by which offspring are born of man and woman, one person physically begets and another is physically begotten, so in sacramental generation, by which offspring are reborn of water and the Holy Spirit, one person must spiritually beget and another be spiritually begotten. Indeed, whether the body outwardly or the heart inwardly is baptized, both fatherhood and sonship must be found in each case, by which the one baptizing and the one baptized are related to one another. So the holy Pontiff.

The Doctor explains this definition in Distinction 6, question 1, number 2, saying that Pope Innocent adduces together, to confirm this point, a figure, an authority, and a fitting reason. The figure is that Christ, he says, wished to be baptized by John, not by himself, to signify this. The authority is gathered from the words of the Lord saying to the Apostles, “Go, baptize all nations in the name of the Father,” etc., in which he expresses the disciples in the second person and the baptized in the third. The reason suggested there is this: in Baptism that spiritual generation is celebrated of which the Truth says in John 3, “You must be born again.” Therefore, just as in bodily generation one person begets and another is begotten, so in sacramental generation one person must spiritually beget and another be spiritually begotten.

YOU WILL SAY: A priest administers the Sacrament of the Eucharist to himself at Mass; therefore, with still greater reason, someone at the point of death could administer the Sacrament of Baptism to himself. The Doctor denies the consequence in the same place, number 13, and gives the reason for the difference: receiving the Eucharist is not a Sacrament, but sacramental eating or reception; Baptism, however, is a Sacrament.

THEN, OBJECTING AGAINST HIMSELF: A priest at least administers the Sacrament of the Eucharist to himself; therefore, by the same reasoning, he could administer the Sacrament of Baptism to himself. He likewise denies the consequence, because, he says, the administration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist is not a Sacrament, since that Sacrament does not consist in its use; but the administration of the Sacrament of Baptism is the Sacrament of Baptism itself. He gives this reason for the difference: The Sacrament of Baptism consists essentially in its use, not in the water. The Eucharist, however, is something permanent, distinct from the use of the Sacrament. Thus, although someone could be both the minister and recipient of the use of a permanent Sacrament, he cannot do this in a Sacrament that essentially consists in its use.

Fourth conclusion. — SEVERAL PEOPLE CAN BE BAPTIZED TOGETHER BY ONE PERSON LICITLY AND VALIDLY. So says the Doctor in Distinction 6, question 2, number 7, where he says: As to the third member of the division, it is granted that this man, by sprinkling or pouring water on several at once and at the same time pronouncing the form in the plural, saying, “I baptize you,” baptizes them all at once; nevertheless he sins mortally, because he does not observe the form imposed on him by the Church, unless perhaps the necessity were so great that all were in imminent danger of death, and if he baptized each one separately, one of them would die before he had baptized the rest. He adds below: Whether a case of necessity, posited in which several are about to die immediately, would excuse a minister who used the form “I baptize you” from mortal sin is doubtful. Yet this seems reasonable: since it was in the Church’s power to determine this form as the words “I baptize you,” it does not seem that she wished to bind anyone so strictly to that form that the way of salvation would thereby be closed to someone. In the case mentioned, salvation would be closed to one of them if a person could not use the form “I baptize you” without mortal sin; for if it were a mortal sin in that case, no one ought to baptize them in that way, since no one ought to secure another’s salvation by mortally sinning himself. So says the Subtle Doctor, with whom agree Alexander of Hales, St. Bonaventure, and St. Thomas in question 67, article 6, reply to objection 2, where he says that in a case of necessity one could baptize several together with the form I baptize you, for example, if collapse, a sword, or something of the sort threatened, allowing absolutely no delay to baptize everyone individually. This would not change the form of the Church, because the plural is nothing but a doubled singular, especially since Matthew’s final chapter says in the plural, baptizing them, etc.

The reason for this assertion, then, is that in that case nothing required for the validity of the Sacrament is lacking, either on the side of the matter or on the side of the form. For the change in the form from singular to plural, as regards the word you, is required only on the side of the subjects; therefore this change does not invalidate the Sacrament. This can also be confirmed by the action of the Apostles, who, as we read in Acts 2, baptized many thousands of people in one day; for they could not have baptized them one by one.

YOU WILL ASK: Would there be several Baptisms in that case? THE DOCTOR ANSWERS in the same place: It seems so, because there are several people baptized and, consequently, several passive baptisms and thus several actions, and several Baptisms. The Doctor then objects that there is only one form, since the words are pronounced only once. He answers: One may nevertheless more readily grant that there are several Baptisms. In response to the argument, not everything in a thing must be multiplied for that thing to be plural; it is enough that some part of it be multiplied for the whole to be multiplied. Nor is that form simply one, because the word “you” includes within itself the singular, which it doubles several times.

YOU WILL ASK: Can several people also baptize the same person together?

The Doctor answers, number 2, that “several baptizing” can be understood in two ways: either they baptize the same recipient or several recipients. Each case is further subdivided: if the same recipient, either each does the whole act, or one washes and the other speaks the words—for example, if one is mute and only washes, while the other is maimed and speaks the words. The second case is also subdivided: if they baptize several, the recipients may be clearly distinct or not clearly so, as with a monster about which it is uncertain whether it is one person or two. With these points laid down, the Doctor answers that when several baptize together, one speaking the words and the other washing, the Baptism is null. I say, he says in number 5, that if each separately does one thing, and neither does the whole thing by washing and speaking the words together, nothing is done. The only reason is God’s institution: just as he willed there to be one principal agent, so he willed there to be one minister in the complete conferral of the Sacrament. St. Thomas gives nearly the same reason in question 67, article 6, where he says: By the form “We baptize you,” an intention is expressed that several people join in conferring Baptism, which seems contrary to the nature of ministry. For a person baptizes only as a minister of Christ and in his place; hence, just as Christ is one, so there must be one minister to represent Christ. For this reason the Apostle pointedly says in Ephesians 4: One Lord, one faith, one Baptism; and so an intention to the contrary seems to exclude the Sacrament of Baptism. — But if both wash and speak the words at the same time, the Baptism would be valid, because, says the Doctor in number 2, it is not likely that the act of one annuls the act of the other; if what only one of them does would be done, then what each does is done as well when the other does it in the same way. He said pointedly in the same way, that is, while each completes the matter and form simultaneously at the same physical instant. For if one were to administer the matter and form before the other, he alone would baptize validly, and the other’s action would be a true rebaptism. St. Thomas also teaches this in the passage just cited, where he writes: If each were to say, “I baptize you in the name of the Father,” etc., then it is clear that the one who spoke the words first would confer the Sacrament of Baptism. But if they speak the words and immerse or sprinkle the person entirely at the same time, each would baptize insofar as he could; they would not confer two different Sacraments, but Christ, who is the one baptizing inwardly, would confer one Sacrament through both.

YOU WILL SAY 1: One and the same effect cannot proceed from two total causes that are not subordinate. Therefore, if two could baptize together, that Baptism would proceed from two adequate total causes, not subordinate to one another; and so on. — THE DOCTOR ANSWERS, number 3, distinguishing the major premise: an effect cannot proceed from two total causes that effectively produce its form, he grants; from causes that produce the effect only ministerially, he denies. For the effect of Baptism is produced by those two ministers only ministerially: God alone effectively produces sacramental grace.

YOU WILL PRESS: At least each minister brings about the form of Baptism, and in this respect they are two causes, each total. — THE DOCTOR ANSWERS in the same place: If both wash, neither is a total cause of the washing, whether the washing is done by immersion—for then they move the immersed body with one motion caused by the motive power of both; and although either could cause that motion, when they move together neither uses all the motive power he could use, as is apparent when two people carry a single burden² that either could carry alone—or whether it is done by pouring or sprinkling. Although each brings about the water’s flow by pouring³ or sprinkling it, neither brings about the whole flow that results from both pourings or sprinklings.

THE DOCTOR INSISTS IN THE SAME PLACE: Each is a total cause with respect to pronouncing the words, and so, with respect to one part of the exterior effect that is the Sacrament, there would be two total causes; this is impossible for a part of an effect just as it is for the whole. — HE ANSWERS that this scarcely happens: For, he says, it is difficult for the words of one not to be superfluous, so that they are not in themselves part of one Sacrament. To posit two parts of the same kind as parts of one thing that would be complete in itself by having either of them as a part seems superfluous. But it is difficult to determine whose words are superfluous, because by the same reasoning these words and those words are so, and thus either both or neither, since both speak with equal completeness and a similar intention.

Thus the Doctor. He indicates that in that case, if two people were to wash and speak the words together at the same instant, there would be two Sacraments of Baptism, because there would be two complete and perfect sacramental signs. Hence he immediately adds, seek the answer, that is, let the person who prefers the opinion that there are not several Baptisms in such a case seek an answer to the aforesaid objection.

YOU WILL PRESS: The same person cannot be baptized by two numerically distinct Baptisms; therefore in that case there would not be two Baptisms. — I distinguish the antecedent: passively, I grant; actively, I deny. That is, the same person cannot truly receive the twofold effect of baptismal washing, since once original sin has been remitted, it cannot be remitted again, although two people might concur in administering the Sacrament by which that remission is effected. Hence the Doctor concludes in the same place, number 4: The Sacrament of Baptism is baptism no less actively than passively, because the multiplication of baptism actively is not multiplied passively, nor is Baptism, because the passive part is one. This seems probable by the same inference, since the baptized person properly receives the Sacrament; but what he properly receives is passive washing, not active washing, unless one says that they are really the same. — We are not concerned here with the third and fourth members of the aforesaid distinction, since several people can be baptized by several people, or even by one person, validly, as we have just said. The Doctor clearly explains in the same place, number 7, how one should act concerning a monster. He writes: I say that if there is time to discern whether the monster is simply one person or two, a careful inquiry must be made before it is baptized. How? From the parts of the body—for example, whether there are two heads or two backbones—or from the primary indication of the hearts, although that cannot readily be evident while it lives. But even the sign of two heads would not be altogether certain, since it is possible that some small part in the womb was formed throughout except in its upper part, and then parts of the seed would meet in different womb-chambers throughout the lower part, while being distinct in the highest part, where two heads would form, although the rest of the matter would not suffice to form more than one person. In brief, the clearest sign of distinguishing them is by their intellects and wills: if there are two souls, one need not know everything the other knows, or will everything the other wills. Yet it rarely, if ever, happens that there are two souls without two heads or two principal parts of the head, though the converse is not true. If a difference of intellect could be detected in understanding—for example, if some sign showed that the same thing was known and not known—or a difference of wills, as when there was a willing and an unwilling of the same thing, one would without doubt have to hold that there were two souls. But this cannot be judged except in an adult monster, such as one said to have been in France, with two heads, one of which expressed unwillingness toward something the other expressed willingness for: one wished to be restrained and live temperately, while the other wished to indulge and feast; and when one expelled its contents through its own mouth, the other cried out that it was burdened. Having set out these signs of unity or duality of person in a monster, the Doctor establishes this resolution: Of such a monster I say that if certainty can be had and there are parts plainly belonging to distinct persons, each part should be separately drenched, repeating the form in the singular over each. But if certainty cannot be had, at least those parts that principally belong to one person should be baptized with the form in the singular; then the other parts, which do not seem to belong principally to that first person, should be washed with the form to be used for those about whom there is doubt, as laid down in the Extravagant On Baptism and Its Effect, chapter De quibus. But enough about the monster.