On a Twofold Exhaustive Definition of Baptism

1. From what has been said from distinction 3 up to here, a single idea [or definition] of baptism can be collected, which expresses all the things that are simply necessary for the idea of baptism; for if the relation of sign (which baptism imports [d.3 n.10]) is posited to be founded on the washing as on the total foundation, having however a relation to the words and the other things concomitant [d.3 n.17], the following sort of idea can be assigned of baptism itself:

2. “Baptism is the washing of a man a wayfarer, actually or virtually consenting, or never by use of free choice dissenting, carried out in flowing elemental water by another who is at the same doing the washing and speaking certain words (words designating the act and the receiver with invocation of the Trinity), and intending both in the washing and in the speaking to do what Christ instituted should be done or that the Christian Church intends to do.”

3. Now the particulars of this idea are plain as follows:

‘Washing’ in distinction 3 question 3 [nn.98-105] (I do not say ‘pouring’ or ‘aspersion’ nor ‘immersion’), and this neither thrice nor once because whatever way suffices for the truth of the sacrament; but the minister is bound to keep the manner of the Church in which he baptizes.

4. ‘Of a man’ according to his whole body or the principal part of it, or any other part in case of necessity; this is plain in distinction 4 [nn.50-52].

5. ‘In some way consenting’ is plain from the same distinction [d.4 nn.63-82]. And perhaps, according to the common opinion, habitual consent is not sufficient without virtual consent. Likewise, that he who does not have use of reason is simply capable of the sacrament without having any disposition; and yet that he who does have use of reason and does not have the disposition is in no way capable of it does not seem probable, because no simply necessarily required disposition seems to be altogether required and not required because of the use and non-use of reason.

6. ‘Carried out in water etc.’, this is plain in distinction 3 question 3 [nn.101-113].

7. And by the fact it is called ‘elemental’ water is excluded every mixed liquid that is equivocally called water (as rose water).

8. And by the fact it is called ‘flowing’ water is excluded congealed water (if it remains water), or any sort of water mixed by addition of gross bodies so that it cannot wash anything.

9. ‘Carried out by another’, this is plain in distinction 6 [nn.63-82], and likewise the things that follow, ‘washing and speaking at the same time’.

10. And as to what is added ‘certain words etc.’, that appears in distinction 3 question 2 [nn.41-81].

11. And what is added at the end, ‘in one having the intention etc.’ is plain in distinction 6 [nn.160-167].

12. And thus we have both the receiver and the necessary conditions in the receiver, because a man a wayfarer in some way consenting; we have also the conferrer and the conditions necessary on his part, namely that he be someone washing and speaking words, and this at the same time, and with due intention. We also have the matter, which is the washing in elemental water. We have the form, because we have certain words expressing the act and the receiver with invocation of the Trinity. We have what pertains to the formal idea of baptism, namely that by divine institution it efficaciously signifies. We have the correlative, because we have the washing of the soul from sin.

13. And if it be posited that the relation, which baptism imports, is not founded on the washing as on total foundation but on the washing and the words as on one foundation instituted for signifying one effect [d.3 n.16], then this sort of idea of baptism can be reckoned complete:

“Baptism is the sacrament of washing the soul from sin, consisting in the washing of a man a wayfarer in some way consenting, or never by use of free choice dissenting, carried out in flowing elemental water, with speaking of words designating, with invocation of the Trinity, the act and the receiver, by another who is as minister at the same time washing and speaking the words, and intending to do what the Christian Church does.”

14. And then there is the same exposition of the particulars of this idea as there were also of the first [nn.2-11], save that in this one [n.13] is put first what pertains to the formal idea of baptism, when it is said to be a ‘sacrament’ and when the correlative of it is said to be ‘of washing’, and after that the things that belong to the foundation, when it is said ‘consisting in etc.’

15. Nor is there a difference save that the total foundation of the relation is not posited in both ways the same principally, because posited either through the instituted washing alone or through both, namely the washing and the words, as one integrated sign - instituted indeed principally for signifying the principal thing that this sign signifies, so that the soul may be washed from sin, and this by God three and one, in whose name baptism is done.

To whom be glory for ages of ages. Amen.