BATTESIMO

BAPTISM. – One of the seven Sacraments instituted by Jesus Christ, the first that can be received and which enables one to receive all the others: Sacramentum inana et fundamentum (CIC, can. 737).

I. DOCTRINE OF BAPTISM

OUTLINE:

I. Name and definition

II. Institution

III. Meaning and effects

IV. Constituents and conditions

V. Necessity

VI. Children and adults dying without B

VII. Christian baptism and non-Christian baptism

VIII. Conclusion.

I. NAME AND DEFINITION

B. (from the Greek βαπτισμός, frequentative of βάπτω = I immerse) means ablution, immersion. The term “B.” in Holy Scripture is not reserved exclusively for the Sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ (cf. Mt. 3:7; Mk. 7:4, 8; Lk. 3:3) nor is it the only word chosen to designate it (Eph. 5:26; Tit. 3:5; F. Prat, I, p. 551; Oepke, pp. 527–28, 543).

In the writings of the Holy Fathers, Christ’s B. is indicated and described by various names and circumlocutions. St. Gregory Nazianzen summarizes the varied terminology when he says: “We call it gift, grace, baptism, unction, illumination, robe of incorruptibility, washing of regeneration, seal, and by every other most excellent name. It is called gift because it is given to those who have given nothing before; grace because it is granted to those who were debtors; baptism because sin is buried in the water; unction because it is sacred and royal... illumination because it is splendor; robe because it covers our ignominy; washing because it purifies; seal because it preserves and is a sign of dominion” (In S. Baptisma, oratio 40, 4; PG 36, 362–63; cf. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Procatechesis, 16; PG 33, 360–61; Pseudo-Basil, Hom. 13, 5; PG 31, 434; St. John Chrysostom, Catech. I ad illuminandos, 2; PG 49, 225–26). Among these appellations, those of illumination, seal, and character are particularly noteworthy for the theological thought they imply and the developments to which they would give rise; these terms are already found in the early Fathers (e.g., Justin, I Apol., 6; [testimony to the spread of the term: F. Prat, I, p. 307, note 1]; Shepherd of Hermas, Simil. 8, 2, 4; 9, 16, 17 [F. X. Funk, Patres Apostolici, I, Tübingen 1901, pp. 559, 561, 609, 611]; Abercius, Epitaph, V. 9; St. Ephrem, Hymni de oleo et oliva, 4 [ed. T. J. Lamy, 4 vols., Malines 1882–90, II, p. 805 ff.] etc. Cf. J. Coppens, pp. 313–14).

As the centuries passed, the meaning of the terms gradually crystallized, and although a great variety of expressions continued in use, the classical and technical term to designate the Sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ became that of B. Subsequently, Scholastic theology, instead of seeking new names and circumlocutions, preferred to apply itself to the systematic and profound study of the Sacrament in its various aspects. The fruit of this study was precise and exact definitions. These, according to the canons of the time, reduced to two types: those that reveal especially the “visible components” of the baptismal rite (definitio physica), and those that reveal the “specific element” that differentiates it from other Sacraments (definitio metaphysica). Outside the strictly Scholastic frameworks, the authentic magisterium of the Church proposes to the faithful this definition: “B. is the Sacrament that makes us Christians, that is, followers of Jesus Christ, children of God and members of the Church” (Catechism of Christian Doctrine published by order of Pius X). Cardinal P. Gasparri, with a less concise definition, says: “B. is the Sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ, by means of which the baptized: 1) becomes a member of the mystical body of Jesus Christ, which is the true Church; 2) obtains the remission of original sin and of all actual sins that may be on the soul and of all the punishment due to them; 3) becomes capable of receiving the other Sacraments” (P. Gasparri, Catechism for Adults, 2nd ed., Brescia 1934, p. 130).

The definitions cited agree with the terminology of the Holy Fathers on one essential point: B. is a rite of great richness of content. A richness expressed by the Fathers of the Church through the multiplicity and variety of their terms, and by the theologians through the determination and coordination of concepts.

II. INSTITUTION

It is a truth of faith that the Sacrament of B. was instituted in His Church by Jesus Christ. Although Holy Scripture does not state this in proper terms, the equivalent terms it uses leave no room for doubt.

Jesus, in fact, says to Nicodemus: “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (Jn. 3:5). Here the water is the outward and sensible rite; the intervention of the Holy Spirit indicates its sanctifying effect; their joint action opens the kingdom of heaven and produces in the soul a new life of a higher order than natural life (cf. infra, III, n. 4). The text also teaches in universal terms the necessity of this baptismal rite; equally universal are the terms in which the command to baptize is promulgated: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Mt. 28:18–19); “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mk. 16:15–16). According to these texts, Jesus has thus established in principle the necessity of B. and has ordained its use in His Church.

Therefore the Apostles administered B. from the very day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41). The deacon Philip administers it to the converts in Samaria, and on the road to Gaza to a high official of Ethiopia (Acts 8:36–38). Peter, in answer to the question of his listeners, “What shall we do?”, replies: “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38). B. is also given to persons sent by God in a miraculous way, e.g., to the centurion Cornelius (Acts 10:47) and to Paul (Acts 9:15). Now the Apostles could not have administered B. in such a universally determined and formal manner, “in the name of Jesus,” unless they had received from Him both the command and the doctrine. This doctrine Paul develops further in its most recondite and mystical meanings: there is one B., as there is one Christ (Eph. 4:5); B. imprints the seal of the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 1:21–22); it clothes us in Christ (Gal. 3:27); it mystically causes us to live again the death and resurrection of Jesus (Rom. 6:3–4); etc. (cf. infra, III). B. therefore appears immediately in the teaching and practice of the Apostles as a rite accompanied by doctrine on its efficacy.

The dogma of the institution of B. was defined by the Council of Trent when it declared, under penalty of anathema, that all the Sacraments of the New Law were instituted by Jesus Christ (Sess. VII, can. 1; Denz-U, no. 844). Against the theory of liberal theology and modernism, which would derive Christian B. from the rites of purification in use among various peoples, and also among the Jews, the Church condemned in the decree Lamentabili this proposition: “It was the Christian community that introduced the necessity of B., adopting as a necessary rite and attaching to it the obligations of Christian profession” (Denz-U, no. 2042; cf. no. 2088).

The moment of the institution of Baptism is not indicated to us by Scripture; and the Fathers and theologians hold to different opinions. Some think that Jesus instituted it at the moment when He Himself was baptized in the Jordan (Mt. 3, 13); the water, then, would have received a purifying power (s. Ambrose, In Lc., II, 83; PL 15, 1665; s. John Chrysostom, In Matth. hom. 12, 3; PG 57, 206; s. Thomas, Sum. theol., 3, 9, 66, a. 2; Catechismus Romanus, part 2, ch. 20, n. 19). Others, instead, choose the moment of Jesus’ discourse with Nicodemus (Jn. 3, 1-21); still others the moment when, before ascending into heaven, Jesus gave the Apostles the command to baptize (Mt. 28, 19). Combining the three points of view, one may say with s. Albert the Great (In IVm Sent., dist. III, a. 3) that the Baptism in the Jordan determined the matter of the Sacrament, the command given to the Apostles to baptize expressed its form, the discourse with Nicodemus indicated its end; the blood and water flowing from the side of Jesus on the Cross conferred its power and efficacy (cf. also s. Bonaventure, In IVm Sent., dist. III, part 2, p. 1, a. 1).

III. MEANING AND EFFECTS

Baptism presupposes and cannot be separated from Catholic doctrine on the condition of man in a state of sin, on redemption, and on the manner in which redemption is applied to individuals.

According to Catholic doctrine, Adam was created in a state of justice and holiness, free from evil inclinations, immortal. He sinned and brought ruin upon all his descendants. Now men are born sinners (original sin), subject to the violence of passions to which they cannot resist (Rom. 7, 14-25). They fall and forge ever stronger chains. Sin holds them under its sway as slaves (Rom. 6, 17, 20; Jn. 3, 4; 2 Pt. 2, 19); at present they are subject as subjects to their head (Jn. 12, 31; 14, 30). The devil is the god (ἐνός) “of this age” (2 Cor. 4, 4; 1 Cor. 2, 6; Col. 2, 15).

The power of Satan was shattered by Jesus Christ the Redeemer. But the defeated demon has not abandoned the world. He continues to struggle (1 Pt. 5, 8). His attempt will not cease until the end of the world. Jesus Christ has His apostles; He also has “antichrists,” “who are many” (1 Jn. 2, 18), and they are zealous in supporting the effort of their head who seeks to supplant God, take His place, and be worshipped (1 Jn. 2, 18-22; 2 Thess. 2, 3-12. Cf. A. Charue, in L. Pirot, La Sainte Bible, XII, Paris 1946, pp. 179-85, 530-32; P. De Ambroggi, Le Epistole cattoliche, in S. Garofalo, La Sacra Bibbia, XIV, 1, Turin 1947, pp. 217-19; H. Rahner, pp. 239-73).

This is the situation in which every man finds himself: a sinner because descended from Adam, and, if an adult, a sinner of personal sins; salvation, purification from his faults, and liberation from the dominion of Satan he can find only in Jesus Christ and in Jesus Christ alone (Acts 4, 12). He must choose between Jesus Christ and Satan. He cannot remain neutral: he is either with Christ or against Christ (Lk. 11, 23). With his “yes” he marks the passage from Satan to God.

1. Approach to the Cross of Christ

The central moment of the life of Jesus Christ is the moment of His death. There redemption was accomplished. Jesus Christ saved the world by dying for II. But St. Paul warns us that Jesus Christ did not die alone. To the Corinthians he writes: “The love of Christ impels us, thinking that one died for all [ὅντες πάντες], and therefore all died” (2 Cor. 5, 14) ideally and mystically in Him and with Him. All have died, that is, they have become sinners “in Adam” by the very act of his disobedience, and they become sinners “in fact” at the moment of their natural generation, because then they become actual members of the sinful human family. In a similar way, all are justified “ideally and by right” on Calvary, with the death of Jesus Christ, “in fact and really” at the moment when they come into contact with the death of Jesus Christ (J. Cools, p. 305; F. Prat, pp. 243-44).

Contact with the death of Christ takes place in Baptism. It is the application of the sanctifying power of the Passion to every Christian (C. Spicq, p. 284). Here are two fundamental texts of St. Paul: “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus (εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν) have been baptized into His death? We have therefore been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6, 3-4). “In Him [Christ Jesus] you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive together with Him (συνταφέντες), having forgiven us all our transgressions” (Col. 2, 11-13).

The content of these two texts can be arranged in three concepts: 1) through Baptism the Christian is incorporated into Christ; 2) purified from every fault; 3) regenerated.

2. Incorporation into Christ Jesus

The doctrine expounded in the cited passages is not new in the Pauline epistles.

To the Christians of Corinth St. Paul has already written that just as in the human body there are many members and yet the body is one, “so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit... you are Christ’s body” (1 Cor. 12, 12-13, 27; cf. J. Huby, Première Epître aux Corinthiens [Verbum Salutis, 13], Paris 1946, pp. 288-89). To the Galatians he said that by being baptized into Christ one is clothed with Christ and every difference originating in race, civil condition, or sex falls away: “You are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3, 28). Whether the preposition εἰς in Gal. 3, 27, Rom. 6, 3, and 1 Cor. 12, 13 is interpreted in a quasi-local sense, saying that Christ is like the element, the means in which Baptism immerses us (F. Prat, I, pp. 552-53; J. Bover, Teología de s. Pablo, Madrid 1946, pp. 64-65), or more simply as a relationship of mystical belonging (J. Coppens, s.V. in DBs, I, col. 87), it remains always true that Baptism truly unites with Christ. This assertion is confirmed by many other expressions of St. Paul and of the New Testament in general, in which the Christian life that begins and unfolds in union with Jesus is described (cf. Eph. 2, 5-7; Col. 2, 20; 3, 3; 1 Pt. 3, 21; Phil. 3, 10, etc.). Of particular note are the very frequent expression in St. Paul “in Christ Jesus” (cf. F. Prat, p. 478; M. R. Weijers, In Christo Jesu, in Revue Thomiste, 55 [1947], pp. 499-517; J. Bonsirven, L’Evangile de Paul, Paris 1948, pp. 241-42) and the group of words compounded with the preposition (συν), coined and used to indicate the unfolding of the facts of the Christian life in contact with the facts of the life of Jesus (e.g., συνθάπτειν = to be buried together [with Christ], συνεγείρειν = to be raised together [with Christ], συνζῆν = to live together [with Christ], συμμορφίζεσθαι = to be conformed [to Christ], etc. List in F. Prat, I, p. 21; J. Bonsirven, ibid.).

Il corpo di Cristo è la Chiesa (Eph. 1, 23). Con
il B. si entra a far parte di essa. Per la Chiesa il Salvatore « è andato a morte, per santificarla purificandola nel bagno dell'acqua [per mezzo della parola] »
(Eph. 5, 26; cf. A. Médébielle, in L. Pirot, op. cit.,
p. 67). Secondo Huby, s. Paolo qui dice che, nell'invenzione divina, prima dei fedeli c'è la Chiesa come
società. Il cristiano aderisce al Cristo e diventa erede
di Dio perché entra nella comunità cristiana, che non
può fallire allo scopo per cui fu fondata. I singoli
cristiani possono mancare e rendere infruttuosa la Passione di Cristo, la Chiesa invece, come unità, no.
(J. Huby, Mystiques Paulinienne et Johannique, Parigi
1946, pp. 30-31). Il B. si dimostra quindi un Sacramento di profondo significato sociale. Ricevendolo, le
relazioni con gli altri cristiani cessano di essere soltanto relazioni tra uomo e uomo: diventano relazioni
tra membra di uno stesso corpo. Giustamente lo scisma, che rompe l'unità del corpo di Cristo, ispirò
sempre orrore ai cristiani e fu maledetto come l'eresia (cf. H. de Lubac, Catholicisme, 4a ed., Parigi
1947, pp. 51-52).

Entrando a fare parte del corpo mistico di Cristo
si riceve il dono dello Spirito Santo. Lo Spirito Santo
è lo Spirito di Cristo e chi non lo possiede non è
cristiano (Rom. 8, 9). Lo Spirito Santo insegna a invocare Dio come Padre (Rom. 8, 15-17; Gal. 4, 6),
a giudicare le cose spirituali e soprannaturali (I Cor.
2, 10. 16) e, in genere, a pensare, giudicare, come
pensava, giudicava Gesù Cristo (Phil. 2, 5: F. Mura,
Le Corps Mystique du Christ, 2a ed., I, Parigi 1936,
pp. 198-201; J. Duperray, Il Cristo nella vita cristiana secondo s. Paolo, trad. G. Montali, Riccione
1934, p. 70; L. Cerfaux, La théologie de l'Eglise suivant s. Paul, 2a ed., Parigi 1948, pp. 182-99).

3. Remission of sins

With incorporation into Christ the divine plan regarding the salvation of humanity is realized. The eternal plan of God is to bring all to salvation through Jesus Christ. God created men to be holy and immaculate before him in charity; he predestined them to become his adopted children through Jesus Christ, in whom men find redemption and the remission of sins; he wills that all things be united in Christ so as to be in Christ brought to God (Eph. 1:4–6, 10; J. Huby, *Les Épîtres de la captivité* [Verbum Salutis, 8], Paris 1935, pp. 153–61). This divine plan of salvation embraces all, even the pagans, who, no less than the Jews, are destined to be co-heirs, co-members of the same body (συνσώματα) and sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel (Eph. 3:6).ξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο ντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο ντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο ντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο ντα ξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο ντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο ντα ξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο ντα ξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο ντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο ντα ξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο ντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιο ντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο ντα ξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο ντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο ντα ξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο ντα ξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο ντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο ντα ξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο ντα ξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο ντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο ντα ξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο ντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο ντα ξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο ντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο ντα ξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο ντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο ντα ξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο ντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο ντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο ντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιο νταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιοντα ξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιονταξιο ντα ξιονταξιοντα

Jesus (Rom 6:3–6). In Rom 5:12–21 it is affirmed that the liberation from sin, effected by Jesus Christ, is as real as the sin which men contract in Adam; indeed, if Adam’s sin was great and efficacious, the work of Christ is even greater and more efficacious, because “where sin abounded, grace did more abound” (vv. 15, 17, 20). Before descending into the baptismal font one might have been a fornicator, idolater, adulterer, effeminate, thief, drunkard, and so on: in baptism all this falls away, and one becomes clean, holy, and just (1 Cor 6:9–11). “For those who are in Christ Jesus there is no condemnation” (Rom 8:1). Sin is dead—original sin and actual sin. St Paul makes no restriction or limitation: everything that is sin in the true sense of the word is dead.

The Fathers of the Church extol the purifying power of baptism both in frequent direct affirmations (cf. C. Pesch, no. 399) and in saying that the water of baptism is the tomb of earthly life and the maternal womb of the new celestial life (Clement of Alexandria, *Stromata* IV, 25, 160; Cyril of Jerusalem, *Catecheses mystagogicae* 3, 2–4; PG 33, 1078–80; Pseudo-Dionysius, *De ecclesiastica hierarchia* II, 2, 7; PG 3, 396; Augustine, *Sermon* 119, 4; PL 38, 674; Pseudo-Augustine, *De Symbolo ad catechumenos*: PL 40, 659, etc.). Or else, taking their cue from St Paul (1 Cor 10:2–5, 11), they like to draw a parallel between the historical event of the Hebrews’ exodus from Egypt with the passage through the Red Sea, and the spiritual event of passing from the state of sin through the pool of baptismal water. The historical event that happened to the Hebrews is an image of what happens to the Christian in the baptismal pool: God works for him what He worked for the Hebrews in the crossing of the Red Sea. “Whoever therefore says that baptism does not completely remit sins, let him say that the Egyptians did not truly die in the Red Sea. But if he admits that the Egyptians truly died, he must also admit the full remission of sins in baptism” (St Gregory the Great, *Epistles* XI, 45; PL 77, 1162; cf. J. Daniélou, pp. 402–30). Or again they say that the cross of Christ sanctifies the water and, from common water, makes it sanctifying water (e.g., St Ambrose, *De Mysteriis* 4, 20; PL 16, 394; St Augustine, *Contra Iulianum* VI, 19, 62; PL 44, 861; id., *De Catechizandis rudibus* 20; PL 40, 425, etc.). The same idea—that the cross of Christ sanctifies the water—ancient writers and artists express by representing or speaking of the cross planted in the midst of the Jordan to sanctify the water that generates Christians (H. Rahner, *Griechische Mythen*, pp. 114–17). The Roman liturgy of the consecration of the baptismal font symbolically conveys the same concept by making the priest, who blesses the font, stand upon the water in the form of a Greek letter V (the V indicates the tree of life, the cross that fertilizes the waters), and by immersing a lighted candle into the font while the antiphon is sung: “May the fullness of the Holy Spirit descend into this water,” the candle being a symbol of Jesus Crucified descending into the water and granting it the powerful light of the Spirit and of life (cf. H. Rahner, *ibid.*; for the concept of Jesus Christ as light, M.-J. Lagrange, *Évangile selon s. Jean*, Paris 1925, pp. CLXI–CLXII; F. J. Dölger, *Sol Salutis*, Münster in V. 1925).

The doctrine of baptism as destroyer of sin was especially displeasing to the sixteenth-century Reformers. For them concupiscence, understood as a tendency, is already sin, and consequently baptism, which does not free us from evil inclinations, does not free us from everything that is sin.

On this matter the Church had already spoken directly and explicitly at the Council of Florence. The *Decretum pro Armenis* affirms as an effect of baptism “the forgiveness of all original and actual guilt and also of all the punishment due for them. Therefore no penance is to be imposed on the baptized for sins committed, and if they die before sinning again, they go straight to paradise” (Denz-U, 696). And long before, the Church had spoken indirectly by including among the articles of faith necessary for every Christian to believe that baptism is “for the remission of sins” (Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, Denz-U, 86), “of all sins, both original sin which is contracted and those which are committed voluntarily” (Innocent III, profession of faith prescribed for the Waldensians [Denz-U, 424]; cf. Council of Lyons [Denz-U, 464]; Benedict XII’s constitution *Benedictus Deus* [Denz-U, 539]).

Since this constant teaching had not sufficed to restrain the Protestants, the Church formulated its thought anew at the Council of Trent. Canon 5 of the fifth session lays down that everything that is sin in the strict sense is truly “taken away” by baptism and not merely “not imputed.” In those who have been regenerated in baptism there is nothing left that is an object of wrath.

Immersion in the rite symbolizes death and burial; emerging symbolizes resurrection and life. For Jesus Christ, death, burial, and resurrection were real. Likewise for the Christian, there is a true death and burial of sin, and a true resurrection to new life.

The new life of the baptized is not constituted by the resolve to change one’s conduct. The Christian as such is not the effect of an evolution wrought in his conduct, but of a creation (II Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:10, 13 [κτίζω]; Gal. 6:15), a regeneration: “God saved us through the bath of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, justified by his grace, we might become heirs in hope of eternal life” (Tit. 3:5–7). Thus Paul, at the end of his life, sums up his teaching in a few words. St. John, alluding to the result of this regeneration that makes us children of God, says: “Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed upon us, that we should be called children of God—and we are” (καὶ ἐσμέν: I Jn. 3:1). That we are called children of God is not a mere title or juridical fiction; it is due to our real state (cf. P. De Ambroggi, in S. Garofalo, *La Sacra Bibbia*, XIV, 1, Turin 1947, p. 223). The people once judged boast of being the predilected people par excellence, and are indeed called by St. Paul an “adopted” people (Rom. 9:4); yet in the face of Christians they can no longer be called “son.” Only in Christ are we truly adopted as sons (Gal. 4:5; F. Amiot, *Épître aux Galates* [Verbum Salutis, 14], Paris 1946, pp. 190–91; E. Mersch, *La Théologie du Corps Mystique*, II, 1946, pp. 16–49). In the face of Christians, the former people stand in the position of the son of a slave woman vis-à-vis the son of the free woman in ancient society (Gal. 4:21–31; F. Amiot, *op. cit.*, pp. 200–206; L. Cerfaux, *La théologie de l’Église suivant S. Paul*, 2nd ed., Paris 1948, pp. 127–29). The reason for this difference lies in the fact that the regeneration of Christians proceeds from a heavenly and divine principle, which does not limit its action to an eternal and legal recognition but penetrates to the inmost being and causes to sprout the life for which the title “son of God” is just.

Nicodemus marvels to hear Jesus say that one who is not born ἄνωθεν (anōthen: again, or from above) cannot enter the kingdom of God, and asks how a man can be born when he is old; can he enter his mother’s womb again? Jesus answers: “Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (Jn. 3:5). Whether the ἄνωθεν of V. 3 means “again,” as many examples suggest, or “from above,” as many others contend (cf. J. Coppens, in *DBs*, I, cols. 865–66), or whether John, in writing this word, had both senses in mind, as some still hold (J. Huby, *Mystique Paulinienne et Johannique*, Paris 1946, p. 156), it is certain that Jesus speaks of a true rebirth. This is shown by the terms used and by Nicodemus’s reaction and words (v. GIACOMO, *La Paulinienne et Johannique*, pp. 376–80). The principle of this new life, together with the water, is a heavenly and divine principle, the Spirit (πνεῦμα; J. Coppens, *ibid.*). With even stronger language, St. John in his First Letter calls Christians “born of God,” having within themselves a seed of him (σπέρμα αὐτοῦ: I Jn. 3:9; cf. *ibid.*, 2:29; 3:13; 4:7 and P. De Ambroggi, *op. cit.*, p. 227).

With this rebirth there begins the life that, in its fullness, is possessed by the Father; from the Father it is transmitted, always in its fullness, to the Son, and from the Father and the Son to the Holy Spirit (Jn. 5:26). This life, which is the dominant theme of the entire Gospel of St. John (J. B. Frey, *Le concept de «vie» dans l’évangile de S. Jean*, in *Biblica*, I [1920], pp. 37–58; 211–39), Jesus has the mission to bring to all men, and for this he came into the world (Jn. 10:10). And indeed, all who accept him and his teaching are vivified by him (Jn. 1:12–13) and made “partakers of the divine nature” (II Pt. 1:4).

d) There are, finally, the numerous assertions of the Fathers that speak of a seal (in the passive sense of an impressed image), a distinctive mark received in baptism, indelible, that renders the Christian discernible from one who is not Christian and makes him capable of receiving the other sacraments. Some Fathers see an intimation of this distinctive mark in three texts of St. Paul (Eph. 1:13; 4:30; I Cor. 1:21–22) that speak of a σφραγίς (seal) impressed by the Holy Spirit upon Christians and the apostles (e.g., St. Cyril of Jerusalem, *Catecheses* 17, 35; PG 33, 1010; St. Athanasius, *Epist. I ad Serapionem*, 23; PG 26, 583; St. Basil, *Homilia in S. Baptisma*; PG 31, 431; St. Ambrose, *De Spiritu Sancto*, I, 6, 78; PL 16, 723; St. John Chrysostom, *In II Cor. homilia* 4, 7; *In Eph. homilia* 2, 1; PG 61, 418; 62, 18). St. Basil calls it the distinctive mark that makes known those who are of God. Whoever lacks this mark will not be spared, just as the houses marked with blood were not spared when the destroying angel passed by (*Homilia in S. Baptisma* 1; PG 31, 431).

A fragment of Theodotus, preserved by Clement of Alexandria, speaks of the image of Christ that is impressed upon Christians as the image of the emperor was impressed upon the coin presented to Christ by the tempting Pharisees (Clement of Alexandria, *Excerpta ex scriptis Theodoti*, nos. 83, 86, ed. F. Sagnard [Sources Chrétiennes, 23], Paris 1948, pp. 206–209, 210, 235). St. Ephrem compares it to the imprint left by a ring on wax (in G. S. Assemani, *Bibliotheca Orientalis*, I, 94). Others describe it as a sign that puts demons to flight and points out to angels the souls to be received (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, *Catecheses* 17, 36; PG 33, 1010; St. Gregory Nazianzen, *In S. Baptisma*, orat. 40, 15; PG 36, 378; St. Gregory of Nyssa, *Oratio adversus eos qui Baptismum differunt*; PG 46, 423). Still others insist on the properties peculiar to this seal, calling it holy, spiritual, salutary, impressed on the soul, on the heart, indelible, ineradicable, remaining even in deserters who have passed over to Satan’s camp (Tertullian, *De Baptismo*, 6; *De resurrectione carnis*, 8; *De pudicitia*, 9; St. Cyprian, *Epist.*, 73, 9; St. John Chrysostom, *In II Cor. homil.*, 4, 7; PG 61, 418; etc.; cf. J. B. Franzelin, *De Sacramentis*, 4th ed., Rome 1888, pp. 154 ff.). St. Augustine, in his controversy with the Donatists, often bases his arguments on the existence of an effect of baptism produced by the Holy Spirit, independent and separable from the grace of justification, and one that cannot be lacking in any valid baptism (*De Baptismo*, III, 16, 21; V, 24, 34; PL 43, 148–49, 193). This effect, distinct and separable from sacramental grace, is a distinctive mark, a character of Christians, and is possessed by all the baptized, even heretics (Epist., 173, 3; 185, 23; PL 33, 754, 803); it is a “royal sign,” a “royal character,” the “character imperatoris mei” (Serm., 8, 2; *Contra ep. Parmen.*, 12, 20; *Sermo ad plebem Caes.*, 2, 4; PL 46, 839; 43, 71, 691–92). The reason why even heretics, in baptizing, impress this mark of Christ is that baptism is Christ’s work more than man’s. It is Christ who baptizes in his apostles. The baptism administered by John the Baptist was repeated, whereas the baptism administered by Judas was not repeated: for the Baptist baptized in his own person, whereas in Judas it was Christ who baptized (St. Augustine, *In Io. tract.* 5, 18; 6, 7; PL 35, 1424–28).

In the following centuries all these data were carefully examined and the doctrine of the “character” (so this particular effect of Baptism was called) was developed in its various aspects. A solemn document was issued at the Council of Trent. It was defined that the three sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders impress upon the soul a character, that is, a spiritual and indelible sign, and therefore cannot be repeated (Sess. VII, can. 9; Denz-U, 852). A similar declaration had already been made at the Council of Florence (1439) (Decretum pro Armenis; Denz-U, 695).

These two documents state what the character is (it is a spiritual, indelible sign impressed upon the soul), but do not specify its function. Other documents are more explicit. Pius XII in the encyclical Mystici Corporis of 29 June 1943, and in that Mediator Dei of 20 Nov. 1947, says that the faithful in the Holy Mass “offer” the divine victim together with the celebrating priest (AAS, 35 [1943] pp. 232-33; 39 [1947], pp. 552-55). Only the priest consecrates and performs the unbloody immolation; “by placing, however, the divine victim upon the altar, the priest presents it to God the Father as an oblation to the glory of the Most Holy Trinity and for the good of all souls. To this oblation properly speaking the faithful participate in the manner proper to them and for a twofold reason: namely, because they offer the sacrifice not only through the hands of the priest, but, in a certain way, also together with him, and by this participation the offering made by the people is also directed to the liturgical worship” (encyclical Mediator Dei, ibid.; S. Tromp, Quo sensu in sacrificio Missae offerat Ecclesia, offerant fideles, in Periodica de re morali et canonica, 30 [1941], pp. 265-73). The power to participate, together with the priest, in the offering of the divine victim the faithful have from Baptism: “For by the washing of Baptism, Christians become, in a common title, members of the Mystical Body of Christ the Priest, and, by means of the ‘character’ which is impressed upon their souls, they are deputed to divine worship, thus participating, in a manner befitting their state, in the priesthood of Christ” (encyclical Mediator Dei, ibid.). If therefore we observe that in Jesus Christ we may consider His personal state and His office of priest of the New Law, it must be said: Baptism, inasmuch as it gives the life of grace, renders [us] similar to Jesus considered more according to His state: Jesus is the life, we are vivified by Him. Instead, inasmuch as it impresses the character, it renders [us] similar to Jesus Christ considered rather according to His office (H. Hurter, Theologiae Dogmaticae Compendium, III, Innsbruck 1903, n. 276).

In other words, Jesus Christ is the supreme Head of worship and the principal priest of the Holy Mass, which is the one sacrifice of the New Law. He is also the supreme Head of the Mystical Body in the order of grace which He distributes to all the members. With grace one is in contact with Christ, Head of the order of grace; with the character one is in contact with Christ, supreme Priest. By the character which is impressed in Baptism, one participates in His priesthood to such an extent that one can receive the other sacraments, administer the sacrament of Matrimony, and offer together with the celebrating priest the divine victim in the Holy Mass (cf. Ch. Journet, p. 69; E. Mersch, Morale et Corps Mystique, Louvain 1937, p. 145).

By the hypostatic union the human nature of Jesus Christ was assumed by the divine Word, set apart exclusively for the worship of God, excluded from every profane use, that is, from all that does not pertain to God and His honor and worship. By Baptism, in receiving the character, the Christian is “sanctified by a certain consecration, inasmuch as he is set apart for divine worship, just as inanimate things are said to be consecrated when they are set apart for divine worship” (Sum. Theol., 3a, 9, 63, a. 6 ad II).

Grace and character, although distinct, are intimately united.

It is obvious that divine worship cannot be exercised fittingly unless one is a friend of God, in His grace, and whoever is destined for worship, that is, to procure honor for God, must not offend Him and must be His friend. It is therefore easily understood why the Fathers say that the character is a title for obtaining the custody of the angels: the custody of the Christian is the custody of one who must honor God so that he may not fail in his purpose.

IV. Constituents and Conditions

The history of the liturgy documents that Baptism was not always administered in the same way.

The interpretation of this fact is governed by two principles: 1) The Church has the power to determine the conditions and the manner to be followed in administering the sacraments, but has no power over their “substance” (Council of Trent, sess. XXI, cap. 2: Denz-U, n. 931). 2) The Church has always preserved intact the “substance” of the sacraments, because the infallible assistance of the Holy Spirit preserves her from every error in matters of faith and morals. Consequently, the variations in the rite which history documents have always left intact the essential core of the sacrament. Indeed, they are an excellent means for knowing what the “substance” of each sacrament is.

4. Matter of the Sacrament

Belonging to the essential core of Baptism is an ablution made with natural water (matter of the sacrament), accompanied by words which express the action of baptizing and contain an invocation to the Most Holy Trinity (form of the sacrament).

The New Testament knows only one Christian Baptism: that which is administered with water. Thus is the servant of the queen Candace baptized. The narrative of Acts 8:36-37 is significant: the apostle Philip and this servant of the queen come to a place where there is water “and the eunuch said, ‘See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?’ And Philip said, ‘If you believe with all your heart, you may.’ And he replied, ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’ And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.” In the minds of the two, Baptism requires an ablution with water. The same assertion is found in Acts 10:47. The apostle Peter finds a figure of Baptism in the Old Testament: it is the water which lifted up the ark of Noah (1 Pt. 3:21). St. Paul points to another figure: it is the passage through the Red Sea and the cloud, a figure of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 10:2, 6; cf. J. Huby, Première Epître aux Corinthiens [Verbum Salutis, 13], Paris 1946, pp. 216-18). Jesus Christ Himself speaks of rebirth from water and the Holy Spirit (Jn. 3:5).

The fire of which John the Baptist speaks in Mt. 3:11 and Lk. 3:16 does not refer to the matter of Baptism. There, the fire characterizes the action of the Holy Spirit, of Whose supreme efficacy it is a sign. As fire burns and consumes, so the Holy Spirit, in Whom Jesus Christ will baptize, will consume all impurities and sanctify souls. The Baptist, however, baptizes only in water for repentance. He does not purify souls; he disposes them to purification by arousing compunction and contrition (D. Buzy in L. Pirot, La Sainte Bible, IX, Paris 1946, p. 30). According to P. Van Imschoot, “to baptize in the Holy Spirit and fire” designates the judgment which will be made by the terrible justicer upon Whom the Spirit of God rests and Who will burn with fire the obstinate sinners and bring to final perfection the sanctification of the elect (cf. P. Van Imschoot, Baptême d'eau et Baptême d'Esprit Saint, in Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, 13 [1936], pp. 653-66). The Didache says: “Baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water. If you have not running water, baptize in other water; if you cannot in cold, [baptize] in warm; if you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Didache, 7: F. X. Funk, Patres Apostolici, I, Tübingen 1901, p. 16). The nature of the little work and the assurance with which it speaks presuppose an accepted and fixed usage (cf. G. Van Noort, De Sacramento, 4th ed., Hilversum 1927, n. 175).

In the early days of the Church, some heretics of Gnostic or Manichaean tendency refused to accept baptism with water (cf. Irenaeus, *Adversus haereses*, I, 21, 4: PG 7, 666; St. Augustine, *De haeresibus*, 46: PL 42, 38). The responses given to such doctrines by Tertullian and St. Augustine became famous. Tertullian bases his reply on the word *iχθύς* (fish). He writes against a female advocate of the heresy of Gaius, whom he had previously called a "most venomous viper," and observes that vipers, asps, and cerastes serpents love dry places, "but we, little fishes according to our *iχθύς* Jesus Christ, are born in water. That most monstrous creature, even if not heretical, would have no right to teach, knew perfectly well how to kill little fishes by drawing them out of the water" (*De Baptismo*, 1). St. Augustine, on the other hand, replies with the classic words: "What is baptism? A washing with water in the word [the sacramental form]. Remove the water; it is no longer baptism" (*Io. Ev. tr.* 15, 4: PL 35, 1512). Among the official documents of the Church, particular importance attaches to the decrees of Innocent III (Denz-U, 412), Gregory IX (Denz-U, 447), Innocent IV (Denz-U, 449), the Council of Florence in the *Decretum ad Armenos* (Denz-U, 696), and the Council of Trent (Sess. VII, *de Sacr. Baptismi*, can. 2: Denz-U, 858).

2. **Manner of Baptizing.** — Baptism is a *λουτρόν* (= washing; Eph. 5:26; Tit. 3:5). The water must therefore touch the body and flow over II. Otherwise, there would be no ablution and no baptism.

The ablution may be performed by immersing the candidate in water (*baptism by immersion*), or by pouring water over him (*baptism by infusion*), or by sprinkling him with water (*baptism by aspersion*).

The rite of immersion was common in antiquity (cf. Hippolytus, *The Apostolic Tradition*, 21, ed. B. Botte [Sources Chrétiennes, 11], Paris 1946, pp. 49–51; A. Rücker, *Ritus Baptismi et Missae quem descripsit Theodorus ep. Mopsuestensis in sermonibus catecheticis* [Opuscula et Textus, Series liturgica, 2], Münster 1933, pp. 17–18). The baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch of Queen Candace certainly took place by immersion (Acts 8:38). It must have been by immersion that the baptism referred to in the *Didachē*, 7, by Tertullian, *De Baptismo*, 4, and in the *Recognitiones* of Pseudo-Clement, 32: PG 1, 1329, was administered—namely, baptism in running water, in the sea, or in a river. It was by immersion that baptism was administered in the "baptisteries" built precisely for this purpose (cf. Leclercq, *Baptistère*, in DACL, I, cols. 382–90). This manner of baptizing well symbolizes the death, burial, and resurrection of which St. Paul speaks in Rom. 6:3ff.

Baptism by immersion was not the only manner of baptizing even in antiquity. It is difficult to imagine that the approximately 3,000 people baptized at the first Pentecost in Jerusalem were all baptized by immersion. It is even less likely that the baptism administered by Paul in prison to the jailer of Philippi and his whole household was by immersion (Acts 16:33). The *Didachē* explicitly testifies that baptism may be administered by pouring water three times over the head (*Didachē*, 7). The baptism of the sick could only have been by aspersion or infusion (cf. St. Cyprian, *Epist.*, 69, 12, ed. L. Bayard [Les Belles Lettres], II, Paris 1925, pp. 247–49; Pope Cornelius, in Eusebius, *Historia ecclesiastica*, VI, 43: PG 20, 621; *Responsa Stephani papae*: PG 89, 1027). In theory, there is no difference in validity between baptism conferred by infusion and that conferred by aspersion. In practice, aspersion is dangerous and unused because it is difficult to be certain that a true ablution has taken place. The Latin Church now baptizes by infusion with a triple ablution. For validity, however, a single ablution suffices (St. Gregory the Great, *Epist.* I, 43: PL 77, 498). In the East, baptism by immersion is still in use (cf. M. Jugie, *Theologia dogmatica orientalium*, III, Paris 1930, pp. 68–80).

3. **Form of Baptism.** — In the Latin Church, the minister of baptism, while pouring water over the head of the baptismal candidate, says: "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." In the Greek Church: *βαπτίζεται ὁ δοῦλος κ.τ.λ.* The form clearly refers to Matt. 28:19: "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." If *βαπτίζει εἰς* means to consecrate, through baptism, believers to the Most Holy Trinity (F. Zorell, *Lexicon graecum N. T.*, 2nd ed., Paris 1931, cols. 209–11: *βαπτίζω*; M. Zerwick, *Graecitatis biblicae cognitio quid ad S. Scripturam interpretandam conferat*, Rome 1944, p. 18; cf. also D. Buzy, in Pirot, *op. cit.*, IX, pp. 386–87; J. Coppens, in *DBs*, I, cols. 867–68; 873–74; Oepke, p. 537), then the words of Jesus do not in themselves contain an explicit command to baptize while expressly naming the individual divine persons. It is nevertheless obvious that the Most Holy Trinity is named in the sacred rite performed by divine authority, which purifies and sanctifies souls, consecrates them to the worship of God, and makes them His children, and is efficacious solely because the Most Holy Trinity works in it and through II. In fact, Christian usage understood the words *βαπτίζει εἰς* as imposing the precept to baptize while expressly invoking these three sacred names (*Didachē*, 7; St. Justin, *I Apologia*, 61, etc.).

The necessity of using these three names gave rise to doubts about many baptisms administered by heretics. Whoever did not believe that the Son or the Holy Spirit is God, or that they are distinct persons, was naturally inclined to alter the form of baptism and consequently to invalidate or render the sacrament doubtful. This often created a difficult problem for Catholic bishops, who, when faced with a heretic seeking conversion, had to ascertain how he had been baptized in order to know whether they should rebaptize him or not (cf. the decisions of Damasus I [Denz-U, 82], Innocent I [Denz-U, 97], Pelagius I [Denz-U, 229], Gregory the Great [Denz-U, 249], Zachary [Denz-U, 297a]). Conciliar decisions were issued at Rome in 1215, at Vienne in 1311–12, at Florence in 1430 (*Decretum ad Armenos*), and at Trent in 1547 (Denz-U, nos. 430, 482, 696, 860).

The Acts of the Apostles sometimes describe Christians as "baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 2:38 [ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι]; 10:48 [ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι]; 8:16; 19:5 [εἰς τὸ ὄνομα]). Moreover, there exists the text of a response by Pope Nicholas I (866) in which he would admit the validity of baptism conferred in the name of Jesus Christ. A passage from St. Ambrose (*De Spiritu Sancto*, I, 3: PL 16, 713) and a synod "ad ripas Danubii" of 796 are cited in the same sense (cf. C. Le Clerc, *A propos de la formule de Baptême «in nomine Iesu»*, in *Collectanea Mechlinnensis*, 5 [1931], pp. 313–18 and *Recherches de Théologie ancienne et médiévale*, 4 [1932], Bulletin, no. 1013). Many theologians believed they could conclude from this that in apostolic times baptism was administered not only with the trinitarian form but also with the name of Christ alone. Others extended the validity of baptism conferred with such a form even to post-apostolic times. The majority, however, did not admit the validity of such baptism at any time (cf. *Summa Theologiae*, IIIa, q. 66, a. 6; J. B. Sasse, *Institutiones Theologicae de Sacramentis Ecclesiae*, I, Freiburg im Br. 1897, p. 260).

Currently theologians observe: a) liturgical documents always have the Trinitarian form and none is known that has only the form “in nomine Iesu.” b) The Popes explicitly demand the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity. The only text that presents difficulty—the one by Nicholas I—is not of evident interpretation. c) Likewise, among the Fathers, the meaning of the passage by St Ambrose is debated (cf. O. Faller, Die Taufe in Namen Jesu bei Ambrosius, in 75 Jahre Stella Matutina, 1 [1931], pp. 139-50; B. Marchetta, La materia e la forma del B. nella Chiesa di S. Ambrogio, Roma 1940, p. 141 sqq.; A. d’Alès, De Baptismo et confirmatione, Paris 1927, pp. 54-58; C. Pesch, n. 338). The texts in Acts that speak of Christians baptized “in nomine Iesu” are not considered by exegetes as demonstrative of the existence of a baptism conferred with the form “in nomine Iesu” (J. Coppens, in DBs, I, cols. 873; cf. however M. De Jonghe, pp. 647-53). K. Prümm observes that the form of baptism “in nomine Iesu” can only be a way of indicating Christian baptism. It cannot be thought that the first Christians had to express the entire rite or report the essential form every time they intended to speak of the baptism instituted by Jesus Christ. There must have been a brief expression that identified Christian baptism, distinguishing it from non-Christian baptisms, especially that of John. Precisely the expression “baptism in the name of Jesus” would serve this purpose. The adjective “Christian,” which serves us so well, is not found in St Paul. It was applied to the disciples of Jesus Christ in Antioch by non-Christians, according to E. Peterson, by Roman authorities. The title would have had a political flavor like those of “Caesarians” or “Herodians” (K. Prümm, Christentum, pp. 161-62; Oepke, p. 537; A. Ferrara, Christianus sum, in La Civiltà Cattolica, 1933, II, pp. 552-53; E. Peterson, Christianus, in Miscellanea Giov. Mercati, I [Studi e Testi, 121], Roma 1946, pp. 355-72). It is therefore highly problematic whether the Apostles baptized saying only “in nomine Iesu.” For post-apostolic times, A. d’Alès (op. cit.) does not admit that a valid baptism was conferred with the sole form “in nomine Iesu.” In view of the repeated and clear declarations of the Church, it is beyond doubt that now the Trinitarian invocation is required for the validity of the sacrament (A. De Smet, nn. 828-30).

A group of theologians in early Scholasticism had doubts about the necessity of using the words “I baptize you.” They believed that the sacrament would not be invalidated by saying only: “in the name of the Father, etc.” (A. Landgraf, Die Ansicht der Frühscholastik von der Zugehörigkeit des Baptizo zur Taufform, in Scholastik, 17 [1942], pp. 412-27, 531-55). The doubt ceased to exist from the 13th century. Since then theologians have agreed on the necessity of the words that indicate the action of baptizing [“I baptize you”] (cf. Decretum ad Armenos: Denz-U, 696). In the 17th century, F. Farvacques sought to argue as probable that there was a time when baptism conferred with the sole words “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” was valid. His opinion was rejected by Alexander VIII (Decree of the Holy Office of 7 Dec. 1690: Denz-U, 1347).

4. Minister of Baptism. The minister of baptism is the priest, to whom the office of baptizing pertains. In case of necessity, a layperson or a woman, even a heretic or a pagan, may baptize, provided they observe the Church’s form and intend to do what the Church does (Decretum ad Armenos: Denz-U, 696). St Thomas gives as the reason for this benevolent disposition of Jesus Christ the supreme necessity of baptism. Since without baptism no one can enter Heaven, the Lord, who wills all to be saved, has granted to all human beings the power to baptize (S. Th., III, q. 67, aa. 3-4).

In the 3rd century, baptism conferred by heretics (v. BAPTISM OF HERETICS) presented particular difficulty.

5. Subject of Baptism. Every unbaptized person is capable of receiving baptism. Since Jesus Christ came into the world to save every person, and baptism is the means of realizing the divine plan of salvation, no one can be excluded from this sacrament.

Baptism must be received freely. Whoever is forced by violence to receive it, if inwardly, despite the pressure, does not accept it, is not baptized (cf. Innocent III, epistle Maiores Ecclesiae causas of 1201; Denz-U, 411).

An adult who comes to receive baptism must be repentant of sins and must believe. Faith is always intimately united with baptism, and the Church has never admitted anyone to baptism without prior profession of faith (F. Prat, II, pp. 312-15; J. Bonsirven, L’Évangile de Paul, Paris 1948, pp. 189-91; J. de Ghellinck, Patristique et Moyen Age, I, ibid. 1946, p. 224). Whoever, for whatever reason, though lacking faith, should request and receive baptism, would be validly baptized, but his sins would not be forgiven. They will be remitted when he repents.

A doubt may arise regarding children, who, lacking the use of reason and freedom, do not seem capable of receiving the sacrament that binds them to Christianity.

In fact, the capacity and liceity of infant baptism has been denied for various reasons. By the Pelagians, because they did not admit original sin. Once original sin is denied, and it is affirmed that the child is born in the condition of Adam before the fall, there is no longer any reason why it should receive baptism. It was an error about baptism that depended on an error about original sin and grace. It was condemned at the Council of Carthage in 418 (Denz-U, 102). In the 12th century, Peter of Bruys rejected infant baptism because, he said, salvation requires faith and baptism. Children cannot believe precisely because they are children, and therefore they cannot be saved. It is then useless to baptize them; it is better to wait until they are adults. The strongest opposition to infant baptism arose in the 16th century through the Anabaptists. They rebaptized those who had been baptized as infants. The Anabaptists were not approved either by Calvin (Institution de la religion chrétienne, ed. J. Pannier, III, Paris 1938, pp. 224 ff.) or by the Lutheran confessors of the Augsburg Confession (Confessio Augustana, art. 9, ed. M. Bendiscioli, Como 1943, p. 60). The Church has always opposed all these doctrines (Second Council of Lateran, Fourth Council of Lateran, Council of Vienne, Council of Trent: Denz-U, 367, 430, 482, 868-70; Decretum Lamentabili, prop. 43: Denz-U, 2043). It is a fundamental principle of Christianity that God wills all to be saved, and that the redemption of Christ extends to all. If the child, because it is a child, cannot be baptized, there exists a great multitude of human beings who are sinful because they descend from Adam and are excluded from the benefit of redemption. St Paul, however, teaches that the benefits brought by Christ to the human race are greater than the harm of original sin (Rom 5:12, 21).

The case of infants, when proposed by Peter de Bruys, had already been repeatedly considered and resolved by the Fathers of the Church (cf. Hippolytus, *The Apostolic Tradition*, loc. cit.; Irenaeus, *Adversus haereses*, II, 22, 4: PG 7, 784; Origen, *Commentary on Romans*, 5, 9 [“The Church, having received the tradition from the apostles, also gives baptism to infants”]: PG 14, 1047; St. Augustine, *Epistle* 166, 23: PL 33, 731). The practice of the Church of baptizing infants was one of the principal arguments of St. Augustine for proving the existence of original sin (cf. *De civitate Dei*, XXI, 14; 16: PL 41, 728, 730; *In Ioannis Evangelium Tractatus* 41, 5; 80, 3: PL 35, 1468, 1840). It is true that in antiquity there are also examples of deferring baptism until the ardor of passions had calmed (Tertullian, *De Baptismo*, 18; St. Augustine, *Confessions*, I, 11), but this usage neither denied the possibility nor the liceity of infant baptism, nor was it accepted by the Church. St. Cyprian writes to Fidus—who thought that infants ought not to be baptized until the eighth day after birth—that those present at the Council of Carthage in 253 were unanimous in disapproving the delay and in approving the contrary practice (Epistle 64, 2, ed. L. Bayard, II, Paris 1925, p. 214). St. Augustine cites this passage of St. Cyprian and approves it as conforming to the “firm faith of the Church” (*Epistle* 166, 7: PL 33, 730-31).

The question of deferring baptism was placed in a new light by Erasmus. Erasmus admitted that infants may be baptized, but added that when they have grown up, it is fitting to question them to learn whether they approve what their parents promised in their name, and if they do not approve, they may be considered exempt from the Christian law (cf. *Concilium Tridentinum*, ed. Soc. Goerresiana, V, Actorum pars altera, ed. S. Ehses, p. 838). This viewpoint was rejected by the Church (Council of Trent: Denz-U, 870). It forgets that the promises of the parents are not the cause of the obligations of the baptized. He is bound by natural law to renounce the devil and to observe the law of God; he is bound to receive baptism as he is bound to believe in Jesus Christ. Therefore the Church does no injury to the infant by baptizing him at an age when he cannot dispose of himself; on the contrary, she does him a favor, for she secures for him eternal life and the graces connected with baptism, and imposes no obligation to which he is not already bound either immediately or mediately. Moreover, it is not exact to say that one is bound only to those obligations which one has freely accepted. The ward is bound by the dispositions of his guardians; the child by the laws of his country and by natural law (C. Pesch, n. 450).

The Church, however, does not baptize the children of non-Christians if their parents do not consent. The baptism would be valid even if given against the parents’ will, but since natural law places children under the guardianship of their parents, the Church respects their right and, when they do not consent, does not baptize their children. The Church baptizes the children of non-Christians, even against the parents’ will, when they are in danger of death. Then the child’s right to eternal life prevails over the contrary will of the parents (C. Pesch, nn. 456-61).

V. NECESSITY

Jesus Christ said: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Baptism is the way to spiritual rebirth and is necessary as rebirth itself. Jesus uses a universal negative proposition, *nisi*, so that no case may be excluded. Sending the Apostles into the world, Jesus says: “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; he who does not believe shall be condemned” (Mark 16:16).

Baptism is the normal term of apostolic preaching (Acts 8:38). On the day of Pentecost, when the people ask St. Peter, “What shall we do to be saved?”, St. Peter answers: “Repent and be baptized” (Acts 2:38). When converts by mistake receive only the baptism of John, they are rebaptized with the baptism of Jesus Christ (Acts 18:25; 19:5; cf. 10:48; 16:12-15; 22:11-16). In the minds of the early Christians the necessity of baptism was so deeply rooted that the *Shepherd of Hermas* extended it even to the just of the Old Testament, who were said to have been baptized in limbo so as to be admitted into the kingdom of heaven (Similitudes 9, 16: F. X. Funk, *Patres Apostolici*, I, 2nd ed., Tübingen 1901, p. 608).

Throughout the centuries, the doctrine of the necessity of baptism has been linked with the doctrine of original sin. The two periods of greatest tension were in the 5th century with the Pelagian heresy, and in the 16th century with the doctrine of the Reformers. In these two periods the Church’s most explicit and solemn interventions occurred (Council of Carthage of 418 and Council of Trent: Denz-U, 102, 861).

Theologians observe that the Council of Trent places the necessity of baptism “after the promulgation of the Gospel” (Session VI, chap. 4: Denz-U, 796). The law of baptism, before coming into force, had to be lawfully intimated, as every other law. The solemn and official promulgation was certainly complete at Pentecost, but no document obliges us to admit that Jesus’ proclamation in sending the Apostles into the world, and the events of Pentecost, made known the law of baptism to all men to the extent necessary for it to become immediately effective for individuals throughout the world, or for the means of salvation that scattered peoples might have to lose their efficacy automatically. It is not easy to determine at what time the promulgation became sufficient for all. The Church has not explicitly fixed any date. It is commonly admitted that the sufficient promulgation for all was already accomplished several centuries ago. Some theologians are more lenient and delay it further (cf. G. Van Noort, loc. cit., n. 207; L. Lercher, *Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae*, IV, 3rd ed., Innsbruck 1934, n. 279; A. Michel, *Sacramenta praelibentia*, in *Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique*, XIV, cols. 652-53).

VI. INFANTS AND ADULTS WHO DIE WITHOUT BAPTISM

Some theologians attempted to mitigate the law of baptism in favor of

those who lose their life for Him (Luke 9:24; Matt. 10:39; John 12:25). Repentance for sins is necessary, for without repentance no sin can be forgiven.

Baptism of desire is the act of perfect charity or love of God above all things and of neighbor for the love of God. This act of charity implies the desire for baptism. Whoever truly loves God above all things wishes to do all that God commands and wishes to receive the baptism that God requires of all. In the case that one is ignorant of the law or the existence of baptism, by the very fact that one wills all that God wills, one implicitly wills baptism as well.

The act of perfect charity supplies the place of baptism, because Jesus Christ said: “He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him” (John 14:21-22). Whoever is loved by God in this way is certainly among His friends and cannot be lost. Perfect charity cannot be separated from the grace of God (cf. Council of Trent, Session VI, chap. 4 [Denz-U, 796], and propositions 31, 32, 33 of Michael Baius [Denz-U, nn. 1031-33]).

Martyrdom and baptism of desire do not imprint the character. By revealing to us that in the case of impossibility of receiving baptism, an adult may be saved by an act of perfect charity, God makes us understand that the salvation or damnation of every adult is always connected with his good or bad will. The grace to love God and, in case of necessity, to make an act of perfect charity, God grants to all. Whoever does not heed it and is damned must reproach only himself for his ruin.

VII. B. Christian and B. Non-Christian

The doctrine previously expounded is of fundamental importance in the investigation of the origin of Christian baptism.

All peoples have felt the need to “purify” themselves inwardly. To represent this “purification” through a perceptible religious rite, the most obvious image, suggested even by human psychology itself, is that of a washing. That Christian baptism, considered in the materiality of its rite, may have analogies with ceremonies in use among Jews or even among pagans is therefore not at all strange. But the similarity, in so obvious a symbol, does not in itself prove dependence. A caution is necessary when noting external resemblances: one must, that is, be vigilant so as not to project one’s own mentality onto the rites and to misinterpret them by casting them in a false light.

Internal purification can be conceived in various, different, and even opposing ways. In investigating whether Christian baptism could derive from similar rites of other religions, it is necessary to examine what “type” of purification it symbolizes and what historical information we have about its origin. Christian baptism is a perceptible rite, an ablution that remits sins, brings one into communion with Christ, and confers upon the baptized the divine life of which Jesus possesses the fullness.

The sin that is presupposed and destroyed by this rite is the sin as conceived by those who admit a personal God, offended by sinful action. Whoever does not admit a personal God, who is personally offended by sin, cannot have an idea of what Christian baptism is and cannot invent II.
The baptism instituted by Jesus Christ is efficacious because God acts in it, not because water has the power to cleanse from sins. This is explicitly excluded. Doctrines with a Gnostic or Manichaean background, which consider matter evil and distance it as far as possible from God, cannot have given rise to a baptism like the Christian one, in which God acts through a material element. And if magic is the art of dominating the occult forces of nature and life, Christian baptism, in which God is the principal agent in a rite instituted by Him, has nothing of magic about it (cf. E. Hoedez, *Sacraments et magie*, in *Nouvelle Revue Théologique*, 58 [1931], pp. 481–506; N. Turchi, *Magia*, in *Enc. Ital.*, XXI [1934], p. 893).

In Christian baptism there occurs a true rebirth. Not in the sense that it releases the spark of divine life that lay hidden and imprisoned in man, nor in the sense of a merely moral renewal. The interior principle of divine life granted in baptism is given to one who did not have it in any way, had no right to it, and was altogether unworthy of II. It is not the unleashing of what lies chained within man; it is the gift of what man does not possess and never would have possessed without the infinite liberality of God.

In the doctrine to which baptism belongs, it is explicitly admitted that man is by nature the image of God. Baptism is not the enhancement of this natural likeness: it elevates to an order of likeness and sonship that has no term of comparison except in the sonship of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. Whoever thinks only of a spark of divine life imprisoned in man, whoever lacks the concept of the supernatural in the sense indicated, and has no idea of the mystery of the Holy Trinity, cannot conceive of Christian baptism nor understand II. Christian baptism refers to the death of Christ. The same sources that speak to us of baptism tell us that Jesus Christ is God. Doctrines that reject as repugnant the idea of a God who dies, and cannot conceive of a God who suffers and dies for men, have not been able to conceive of Christian baptism either. It is not preached as the application and contact with a mythical event, lost in the darkness of the ages, but has a precise and very recent reference: the life of a being who had disappeared from the earth less than twenty years before. Many of the living had known him; his enemies were still full of vigor. This very recent figure preached a new doctrine and a new morality: baptism presupposes and synthesizes these. It stands or falls with them. How the surrounding pagan world and Judaism regarded Christian doctrines is shown by two verses of St. Paul: “We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles” (1 Cor 1:23). This stumbling block and this foolishness the Christians relive in themselves. It is not without significance that all paganism united against the religion of the crucified Christ. They felt that Christianity was not one of their own. It is likewise significant that modern research is coming to admit that in the New Testament the profane vocabulary is Greek, but the religious vocabulary has nothing to do with Hellenism (cf. St. Lyonnet, *Hellénisme et christianisme*, in *Biblica*, 26 [1945], p. 116 [reviewing G. Kittel’s *Theologisches Wörterbuch*]). The Apostles were men of their time in all things except in religion (cf. J. Lebreton, *Histoire du dogme de la Trinité*, 1st ed., Paris 1927, pp. 540–47; V. GIACOMO, *Il Battesimo*; J. Coppens, in *DBs*, I, cols. 887–906; K. Prümm, *Christentum*; M.-J. Lagrange, *Les Mystères: L’Orphisme*, Paris 1937; A. J. Festugière, *La Révélation d’Hermès Trismégiste*, I, Paris 1944; all of which contain abundant bibliography).

VIII. Conclusion

In the years in which the Apostles were preaching the theology of baptism that we have set forth, the cult of the emperor, acclaimed as κύριος, was raging in the provinces of the East and spreading into the West (A. Deissmann, *Licht vom Osten*, 4th ed., Tübingen 1933, pp. 299–304).

The title κύριος in itself expressed only the dominion of the king over his subjects, but in the East, where royal power was regarded as a divine power, it had led to apotheoses and often indicated, even where the apotheosis was more formal than real, an extension of dominion that Christians could not accept (cf. L. Cerfaux, *Le titre de Kyrios et la dignité royale de Jésus*, in *Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques*, 25 [1923], pp. 146–47). With baptism a Christian did not renounce the authority of the state (Rom 13:1–5), but made his own the words of St. Paul: “There are many who are called gods, both in heaven and on earth; yet for us there is one God, the Father, and one Lord [κύριος], Jesus Christ, who has the fullness of regal power, in heaven, on earth, and in the abyss” (1 Cor 8:6; Phil 2:11). He is the King of kings, the Lord of lords (Rev 19:16). Through baptism one becomes His (1 Cor 1:12–13).

By becoming Christ’s, one renounces the devil and all that belongs to the devil and enters into the sphere of his action. The liturgy summarized this renunciation in the phrase: “I renounce the pomp of the devil.” The pomp of the devil was the triumphal procession of Satan with all its trappings (cf. H. Rahner, *Pompa diaboli*, p. 246 ff.). The Christian renounced entering into this procession and everything that adorns II. It is a renunciation fraught with struggle, because the devil, prince of this world, contends with God for dominion over private life and public manifestations of society. Baptism marked the passage from the ranks of Satan to those of God. The devil is the prince of death (Heb 2:14; Rom 6:23). Jesus Christ is the prince and author of life (Acts 3:15; Heb 2:10). By passing to Jesus Christ, man “is reborn.” A new life arises and develops, making him holy. The Christian is κύριος [= holy] because united to Jesus Christ. His is a life of intimacy with God and estranged from the world to a degree and in ways hitherto completely unknown (cf. A. J. Festugière, *La Sainteté*, Paris 1942; H. Delehaye, *Sanctus*, in *Analecta Bollandiana*, 28 [1909], pp. 145–200).

The Christian is a child of God. His life must conform to his state. From this fact springs the Christian law, new and different from prevailing customs. The New Testament never presents to Christians, as