Export a Citation 
Print View
hide main text 
show main text 
hide table of contents
show table of contents
previous
Question One. Whether the Malice of the Minister Prevent Baptism being Conferred
8. Proceeding thus to the first question [n.7], and argument is made that it does [prevent baptism being conferred]:
Ambrose On the Mysteries (or On Initiating the Uneducated) ch.4 n.23: “The baptism of the perfidious does not cleanse but pollutes.” Which he proves by the authority of Psalm 31.6, “In the flood of many waters they will not approach God,” and it is said of the wicked. He proves it too from Romans 14.23, “Whatever is not of faith is sin” [Gratian, Decretum p.2 cause 1 q.1 ch.50; the proofs are actually from Alger von Luttichs, On the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of the Lord, III ch. 1]
9. Again Gratian, Decretum p.2 causa 1 q.1 ch.49, and it is from Augustine On Baptism, sermo 71 ch.19 n.32, “Those who are separated [sc. from the Catholic Church] can have the form; the virtue cannot be in them, just as sense does not follow the bodily member when it is amputated from the body.”
10. Again, by reason:
A dried-up member [of the body] cannot be cause of pouring life into another member; a bad minister is a dried-up member of the Church, because he is without grace, which is the life of the Church; 
therefore etc 
.28
11. Again, in order for water to be the suitable material of sanctification it is necessary that there be in it some supernatural virtue, and the proof is from Ambrose [On Sacraments I ch.4 n.12; Gratian, Decretum p.3 ‘On Consecration’ d.4 ch.9: “He who passes through this font (for this passage is from sin to life, from guilt to grace, from filth to sanctification) does not die but rises up;” ch.5 n.15, “Not every water heals, but what has the grace of Christ.”]. Therefore , much more is some sanctity or supernatural virtue required in the minister in order that he may baptize; for baptism depends more on the disposition of the minister than on any virtue of the water; therefore etc .
12. Again, Augustine On the Sole Baptism ch.13 n.22, “The glorious martyr Cyprian, who refused to recognize baptism given among heretics or schismatics etc.” From this the argument is as follows [Lombard Sent. IV d.6 ch.2 n.5, who takes it from Ps.-Hugh of St. Victor]: he who errs about some article of faith is, if he die in that error, damned, because “without faith it is impossible to please God,” Hebrews 11.6. Cyprian [Epistle 70.1 nn.1-3; Gratian, Decretum p.2 causa 1 q.1 ch.70] said that true baptism could not be conferred by a bad minister, at least a heretic or schismatic, and he persisted to the end in this opinion, and yet has not been condemned but is a glorious martyr; therefore, this opinion is not erroneous nor against any article of faith. But the truth of the sacraments belongs to the article “holy Catholic Church;” and Decretals V tit.7 ch.9, Gregory IX, ‘About heretics and schismatics’, “All those who do not fear to teach and judge differently from the sacrosanct Roman Church we bind with the chain of perpetual anathema;” therefore this opinion ‘that a heretic baptizes’ is not a truth belonging to any sacrament. But nothing is to be asserted as certain and necessary for the sacrament which is not something true belonging necessarily to the sacrament; therefore etc .
13. On the contrary:
The Master in the text [Sent. IV d.5 ch.1 n.1], and he adduces many authorities.
14. And several are taken from Augustine:
Homily on John tr.5 n.6, “Baptism is such as he is in whose power it is given, and not such as the minister is by whom it is given.”
15. Again, Against Crescontius III ch.6, “If the baptism that is given through a better is not better, in no way is the baptism that is given through a bad [minister] bad, because the same thing is given.”
16. And if these authorities be expounded of someone bad in morals but not of a heretic or schismatic - Augustine says expressly to Orosius [Ps.-Augustine Dialogue of 65 Questions, q.59], “Although the baptism of heretics who baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and the baptism of the Catholic Church are one, yet those who are baptized outside the Church do not take it up for their salvation but for their ruin;” and there follows, “The Church does not rebaptize those who are baptized in the name of the Trinity.”
I. To the Question
17. The truth of the question is plain from many authorities [n.13], because whatever malice the minister is bad with (whether the malice of heresy or schism or morals), provided the unity of the Church be kept, if he intend to do what the Church does and keeps the manner of the Church, he does truly confer baptism; and such baptism truly has its effect in the one baptized, notwithstanding the malice of the minister, unless the malice of the receiver be an obstacle in respect of what he receives from such a minister (which will be discussed in the next question [nn.52-55]).
18. But the truth of this solution has only one demonstrative reason giving the why, namely that thus did it please Christ to institute it, so that the malice of the minister would not impede the sacrament or its effect,
19. But that he did so institute it Augustine gathers from the authority of John the Baptist, John 1.33, “Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, he is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.”
20. But that baptism did have to be thus instituted there are many congruous reasons.
First, because it is reasonable for God to assist with his own practical sign, to cause what is signified, by a determination of his will that precedes every condition of the minister, so that, just as that determination (whereby he bestowed on the sign its being a sure sign) is from him altogether immediately and first, so too his assisting presence, consequent to that determination, to cooperate with the sign is immediately from him.
21. The second congruence is taken from the end, because if baptism could be conferred only by the good, it would not be much of a remedy for the wayfarer, but almost commonly to his loss; for since almost no one can be certain about his own goodness, much more can he not be certain either about the goodness of another; therefore if baptism were to depend on the goodness of the minister, never could anyone be certain that he had truly received baptism - which is unacceptable.
22. And if you object that neither now can he be certain, because he does not know his own disposition - this is not an obstacle, because he can know with as sufficient certitude as certitude requires, namely that he intends to receive baptism, and this on his part suffices.
23. If you say he cannot be certain of the intention of the minister - this is not an obstacle, because it can be assumed with probability that the minister performing such an act intend to do that to which the act is in itself ordered, but certitude could not be thus had about the goodness or sanctity of the minister.
24. Again, there is congruence on the part of the receiver, because it is altogether unjust that another be punished for the iniquity of someone else when that other is communicating in the iniquity of the latter in no way such that it could be imputed to him; but the one who is to be baptized is disposing himself for grace as much as he can; if therefore the malice of the minister were to get in the way, the one to be baptized would be punished for the guilt of another that should in no way be imputed to him.
II. To the Initial Arguments
25. To the first [n.8] I say that either the heretic baptizes a child in the form and intention of the Church, and in this there is no obstacle for the child either as concerns the sacrament or as concerns its effect; or the heretic baptizes an adult, and still he confers the sacrament and effect on him, provided there is no evil movement in the adult (as his consent to the heresy of the baptizer or intention to become his disciple). And about such an adult [sc. one who does consent to the heresy] the authority of Ambrose [n.8] is to be understood, and likewise the authority of Augustine that follows [n.9], because the virtue of the sacrament is life, therefore life does not remain in a cut-off member; for it does not follow that life through his sacrament could be in the receiver, as is plain from the response immediately following [n.26].
26. Hence to the reason [n.10] it must be at once replied that in the whole human body there is one life for all the parts, and it is participated by them in a certain order, because it is first in the heart and second in the other parts according as these are more closely related to the principle of life. And so life cannot there be derived from one part to another unless the part from which it derives is alive with the same life in its own perfect way first. Things are not so in the mystical body that is the Church, because there is not in them [sc. members of the mystical body] numerically one life, nor is it necessary that the member who gives life, as minister, to another be closer to the principle of life in participating life but only in rank of ministering. An example would be if the veins in the body were not formally alive, yet they would be the means of ministering life to the other parts.
27. To the next argument [n.11], the point about sanctification in water was denied above in Ord. d.1 nn.309-326; nor does it seem very probable that the supernatural virtue is generated and corrupted so many times, nor even that after generation in baptismal water it remain while the water remains.
28. To the authority of Ambrose [n.11] - look for it.29, a
a.a [Interpolated text] above. It can be said, as was said in d.1 qq.4-5, nn.300, 315, that there is in the water no virtue that is active according to any absolute form, but there is only the virtue that is the ultimate of power, namely to signify grace efficaciously.
29. To the next about Cyprian [n.12] I say that there are some things there that are simply thus of the substance of the faith, because perhaps all recipients of baptism (some little time after the use of reason) are held explicitly to believe them, as are now the articles about the incarnation (as ‘Christ was born and died’), for which there are special solemnities in the Church, and which the people are able to conceive, because they are about Christ as man. Other things are explicitly requirements of the substance of the faith, to be observed by seniors in the Church (as that God is triune, and things belonging to these sort of spiritual and imaginable things). And this distinction is plain from Augustine On the Trinity 14 ch.1 n.3. Other things there are which are not explicitly to be believed by either the former or the latter, because they have not yet been declared by the Church, of which sort are the many conclusions necessarily included in articles that are believed; but before they have been declared by the Church it is not necessary that one believe them, but one ought to think soberly about them, namely so that a man be ready, for the time when the truth will have been declared, to hold them.
30. I say that in this way the statement ‘baptism is a sacrament of the New Law necessary for salvation’ was immediately of the truth of the Christian faith because it is express in the Gospels. But that it could be conferred by a heretic was not immediately express, indeed was not declared even in the time of Cyprian. For this reason, Augustine labored much on declaring that truth in his books, as is plain in his book On the Sole Baptism ch.5-15, and On Baptism Against the Donatists I [also Against Cresconius I ch.25-34].
31. Hence if Cyprian [n.12] so thought, namely that there is no baptism among heretics, yet because he was ready in his mind to think about it what the Church declared, he erred in nothing - save perhaps by sinning venially, because he too much asserted that for which he had neither authority nor compelling reason. For his reasoning is not valid, namely that what one does not have one cannot give, because he who baptizes does not give grace but gives the sacrament, and he has that in his power because he has [clerical] order. And in this way perhaps Augustine indicated that Cyprian had sinned venially when he adds in the before cited passage [n.12], “While he detested them too much,” he says, “if there was anything that needed purging [in him], it would be taken away by the scythe of his passion.”
32. And in this way can Abbot Joachim be excused, because although he held an erroneous opinion, as is plain in Decretals I tit.1 ch.2 ‘About the Supreme Trinity and the Catholic Faith’ [the Fourth Lateran Council], namely that ‘the Three Persons are not some one thing that neither generates nor is generated, neither spirates nor is spirated’ [cf. Ord. I d.5 n. 1230] - because it is not said that he stubbornly defended it, but that he left all his books to be corrected according to the judgment of the Church.30,31