Fourth Distinction. Third Part. About the Reception of the Thing and not the Sacrament both in Children and in Adults Receiving Baptism

Single Question. Whether those already Justified are Bound to the Receiving of Baptism

120. Concerning the third member of the division [n.9], which is about those who receive the thing and not the sacrament, I ask whether those already justified are bound to the receiving of baptism.

121. It appears not:

Because it is not read of the Apostles or the Blessed Virgin that they were baptized.

122. Again, those baptized with the baptism of blood are not bound to baptism of water; therefore, neither are those baptized with the baptism of desire bound to it. The consequent is plain per se, because these two baptisms, of blood and of desire, are said equally to supply the baptism of water. The antecedent is manifest, because such a one [sc. a martyr] flies off [to heaven].

123. Again, no one is bound to receive a sacrament in vain, because in the works of God there is nothing in vain [Aristotle, On the Heavens 1.4.271a33]. But baptism received by someone who has been justified is received in vain, since he already has its effect, which is the washing of the soul from sin; for he was already washed before.

124. Again, no one is bound to do injury to the sacrament; but if someone justified were to be baptized he would do this; for it is an injury to the sacrament to make it, as far as concerns oneself, to be a false sign; but this sort of recipient makes it to be a false sign, because it now lacks what it signifies (because in that case it does not bestow grace).

125. On the contrary:

John 3.5 “Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

I. To the Question

126. I reply: after the promulgation of baptism by way of precept, anyone who, in whatever way justified, has not fulfilled that precept (and God has not specifically made dispensation with him so that he not be bound to it), is bound to baptism in desire and, as to a place and time, in effect (if he remains as wayfarer among us), until he can suitably receive it in effect.

127. The fundamental reason for this is that a law when promulgated obliges everyone universally (‘universally promulgated’ I say is that law in whose promulgation there is no exception of person, or exception of anything whatever); such was the precept about receiving baptism. And rationally, because it was fitting that everyone belonging to Christian Law have one sign wherein they might agree with each other and be distinguished from others, as was said in the question about the institution of a sacrament in general [Ord. IV d.1 n.233]. And that sign is the one through which they enter into observance of this Law; for by the reception of it they are ascribed to the Law and made to be of the family of Christ.

128. Another reason could also be assigned, because any wayfarer is bound to be a member of the Church Militant, not only in divine science but also as to knowledge of the other members, as far as concerns himself, because he is bound to communicate with the other members in things that pertain to observance of the Law, and not to scandalize them. But if he not accept the sacrament by which he becomes a member of the Church, he would, according to the judgment of the Church, not be fit for communion with other members and in many acts pertaining to the Church. He would also actively scandalize the other members, because they would have occasion for judging him to be despising the community or despising grace.

129. From this can be formed a third reason, because if he who can, by an easy act, acquire a great grace neglects the act, he seems to be despising the grace, or at least not to be appreciating it as much as it can be appreciated. But he who is not baptized, however he may be otherwise justified, can by an easy act (namely by reception of baptism) easily acquire a grace of this sort, because grace is increased for him who, however perfect, comes, of common law, to baptism; therefore if he neglects it, he seems to be despising grace and giving others occasion of so judging.

II. To the Initial Arguments

130. As to the first argument [n.121] the gloss on John 13.10 [in Nicholas of Lyra, V 225ra], “He who is washed needs not to be washed save his feet,” seems to say that the Apostles were baptized. This is probable because Christ made them priests, conferring on them during the cena the power of confecting the body of Christ, saying, “As often as you do this” [I Corinthians 11.25], and conferring on them after the resurrection the power of absolution, John 20.23, “Whosever sins you remit, they are remitted;” and he conferred on them the office of solemnly baptizing, Matthew 28.19, “Go therefore, baptizing them...” But the order of priesthood presupposes baptism, at least by congruity, Decretals III tit.43 ch.3, Gregory IX, about a non-baptized priest.

131. Nor does there seem to be a necessity for Christ to have made a dispensation in this matter for the Apostles, because there seems no reason for dispensing them, nor was there any consequent necessity for it, since neither would the Apostles be more grateful to God for the fact they had not been baptized, nor would they have been more effective teachers in the Church - rather it seems that they would have been less effective, because a moral master who does not wish to fulfill in deed what he teaches prevails less, according to Gregory On Ezechiel II, homily 9 n.15.

132. Christ also wished to receive baptism in himself, at any rate some baptism (because the baptism of John), before he imposed the law of baptism on others, since in Acts 1.1 it is said, “Jesus began to do and to teach.”

133. One must suppose the like of the Blessed Virgin, unless perhaps she be excepted from the law; and there would have been a reason for dispensation in her case, because perhaps she had in the conception of her Son the fullness of grace which God disposed her to reach [IV d.1 n.381].

134. To the next [n.122] I say that if someone baptized with the baptism of blood is afterwards a wayfarer along with us, he is bound, in affection and according to place and time, to receive the sacrament in fact, that is the baptism of water. But this supposition [sc. that he is afterwards a wayfarer along with us] is very well possible, just as it is read about certain people that they became confessors twice, because for the faith they twice underwent penalties by which however they did not die. But if the baptism of blood be complete (because, having been thus baptized, he dies and does not remain a wayfarer along with us), he is not under obligation to the precept of a wayfarer, and the sacraments have place only for the state of [this] life, as was said above in d.1 nn.246-249.

135. To the next [n.123] I say that no one receives baptism in vain, because grace, if it has not reached its term, is increased there; and if perhaps it has reached its term before, merit is added there by the divine precept being obeyed. Also, it would not be in vain to add meritorious works after fullness of grace (if someone possessed it).

136. To the next [n.124] I say that this person [sc. someone already justified who is baptized] does not injure the sacrament, nor does he make the sign to be false, because: either some grace is conferred there, and then the sign is a true practical sign; or no grace is conferred, if the grace was already perfect before, and then it is a true practical sign, not with respect to grace coming to be present, but with respect to its being present [cf. Ord. Prologue nn.54-55].

137. And if objection is made that at least he does not have with him the thing signified, namely the washing of the soul from sin - I say that the washing is signified, either that it is then coming to be present, or as if it be now present, or that it needs to be present, as far as the side of the sacrament is concerned, namely were something present from which the soul needed to be washed.