|
Objection 1: It seems that trine immersion is essential to
Baptism. For Augustine says in a sermon on the Symbol, addressed
to the Neophytes: "Rightly were you dipped three times, since you
were baptized in the name of the Trinity. Rightly were you dipped
three times, because you were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ,
Who on the third day rose again from the dead. For that thrice
repeated immersion reproduces the burial of the Lord by which you were
buried with Christ in Baptism." Now both seem to be essential to
Baptism, namely, that in Baptism the Trinity of Persons should be
signified, and that we should be conformed to Christ's burial.
Therefore it seems that trine immersion is essential to Baptism.
Objection 2: Further, the sacraments derive their efficacy from
Christ's mandate. But trine immersion was commanded by Christ: for
Pope Pelagius II wrote to Bishop Gaudentius: "The Gospel
precept given by our Lord God Himself, our Saviour Jesus Christ,
admonishes us to confer the sacrament of Baptism to each one in the
name of the Trinity and also with trine immersion." Therefore, just
as it is essential to Baptism to call on the name of the Trinity, so
is it essential to baptize by trine immersion.
Objection 3: Further, if trine immersion be not essential to
Baptism, it follows that the sacrament of Baptism is conferred at the
first immersion; so that if a second or third immersion be added, it
seems that Baptism is conferred a second or third time. which is
absurd. Therefore one immersion does not suffice for the sacrament of
Baptism, and trine immersion is essential thereto.
On the contrary, Gregory wrote to the Bishop Leander: "It cannot
be in any way reprehensible to baptize an infant with either a trine or
a single immersion: since the Trinity can be represented in the three
immersions, and the unity of the Godhead in one immersion."
I answer that As stated above (Article 7, ad 1), washing with
water is of itself required for Baptism, being essential to the
sacrament: whereas the mode of washing is accidental to the sacrament.
Consequently, as Gregory in the words above quoted explains, both
single and trine immersion are lawful considered in themselves; since
one immersion signifies the oneness of Christ's death and of the
Godhead; while trine immersion signifies the three days of Christ's
burial, and also the Trinity of Persons.
But for various reasons, according as the Church has ordained, one
mode has been in practice, at one time, the other at another time.
For since from the very earliest days of the Church some have had
false notions concerning the Trinity, holding that Christ is a mere
man, and that He is not called the "Son of God" or "God" except
by reason of His merit, which was chiefly in His death; for this
reason they did not baptize in the name of the Trinity, but in memory
of Christ's death, and with one immersion. And this was condemned
in the early Church. Wherefore in the Apostolic Canons (xlix) we
read: "If any priest or bishop confer baptism not with the trine
immersion in the one administration, but with one immersion, which
baptism is said to be conferred by some in the death of the Lord, let
him be deposed": for our Lord did not say, "Baptize ye in My
death," but "In the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost."
Later on, however, there arose the error of certain schismatics and
heretics who rebaptized: as Augustine (Super. Joan., cf. De
Haeres. lxix) relates of the Donatists. Wherefore, in detestation
of their error, only one immersion was ordered to be made, by the
(fourth) council of Toledo, in the acts of which we read: "In
order to avoid the scandal of schism or the practice of heretical
teaching let us hold to the single baptismal immersion."
But now that this motive has ceased, trine immersion is universally
observed in Baptism: and consequently anyone baptizing otherwise would
sin gravely, through not following the ritual of the Church. It
would, however, be valid Baptism.
Reply to Objection 1: The Trinity acts as principal agent in
Baptism. Now the likeness of the agent enters into the effect, in
regard to the form and not in regard to the matter. Wherefore the
Trinity is signified in Baptism by the words of the form. Nor is it
essential for the Trinity to be signified by the manner in which the
matter is used; although this is done to make the signification
clearer.
In like manner Christ's death is sufficiently represented in the one
immersion. And the three days of His burial were not necessary for
our salvation, because even if He had been buried or dead for one
day, this would have been enough to consummate our redemption: yet
those three days were ordained unto the manifestation of the reality of
His death, as stated above (Question 53, Article 2). It is
therefore clear that neither on the part of the Trinity, nor on the
part of Christ's Passion, is the trine immersion essential to the
sacrament.
Reply to Objection 2: Pope Pelagius understood the trine immersion
to be ordained by Christ in its equivalent; in the sense that Christ
commanded Baptism to be conferred "in the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Nor can we argue from the form
to the use of the matter, as stated above (ad 1).
Reply to Objection 3: As stated above (Question 64, Article
8), the intention is essential to Baptism. Consequently, one
Baptism results from the intention of the Church's minister, who
intends to confer one Baptism by a trine immersion. Wherefore Jerome
says on Eph. 4:5,6: "Though the Baptism," i.e. the
immersion, "be thrice repeated, on account of the mystery of the
Trinity, yet it is reputed as one Baptism."
If, however, the intention were to confer one Baptism at each
immersion together with the repetition of the words of the form, it
would be a sin, in itself, because it would be a repetition of
Baptism.
|
|