✝ Catholic Treasury Network
Home ›Tracts›The Sacraments in General, Baptism, and Confirmation›Baptism, Chapter I §2: Matter and Form
Joseph PohleThe Sacraments in General, Baptism, and ConfirmationChapter 6

Baptism, Chapter I §2: Matter and Form

§2. Matter and Form

According to Catholic teaching the remote matter of Baptism is natural water; its proximate matter is the act of external washing; while the sacramental form is contained in the words: “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

1. Natural Water the Remote Matter of Baptism

By natural water (aqua naturalis) is meant a liquid compound of hydrogen and oxygen in the proportion of two to one. This definition excludes artificial compounds such as eau de Cologne, as well as water in other than liquid form, e.g. steam or ice.1 That natural water is indispensable for the validity of Baptism has been clearly defined by the Tridentine Council: “If any one saith that true and natural water is not of necessity for Baptism, … let him be anathema.”2 This declaration excludes the figurative use of the term “water,” as employed by the later Socinians, and denies Luther’s assertion that any liquid that can be used to bathe in, is valid matter for Baptism.3

a) The Old Testament types clearly point to natural water as the element of the future Sacrament of Baptism. Such types are, e.g., the deluge,4 the passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea,5 the stream of water which Moses drew from the rock in the desert, etc. The prophetical “fons patens” in the passage quoted from Zacharias6 obviously refers to the baptismal font of the New Law. John and the disciples baptized with ordinary water. Jesus Christ descended into the river Jordan to receive Baptism. Wherever the New Testament mentions the Sacrament of regeneration, it invariably speaks of water. Cfr. John III, 5: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.” When Philip and the eunuch of Queen Candace “came to a certain water,” the latter exclaimed: “See, here is water: what doth hinder me from being baptized?”7

The Baptism “of fire and the Holy Ghost,” of which the Precursor speaks, does not denote an outward rite but refers to the spiritual effect of the Sacrament administered in the name of Christ.8

b) The Catholic Church has always conscientiously adhered, both in theory and practice, to the use of natural water as the only valid element of Baptism.

Tertullian exclaims: “O happy Sacrament of our water, by which, cleansed of the faults of pristine blindness, we are made free unto eternal life!”9

St. Augustine says: “What is the Baptism of Christ? A bath in the word. Take away the water, and there is no Baptism; take away the word, and there is no Baptism.”10

The Fathers of the Church were familiar with the ceremony of blessing the baptismal font.11

St. Cyprian writes: “Therefore it behooves water to be first cleansed and sanctified by a priest, in order that by his Baptism he may be able to wash away the sins of him who is baptized.”12

St. Gregory of Nyssa says: “The sanctified water cleanses and illumines a man.”13

It was because of her firm conviction that water is the necessary element of Baptism that the Church condemned the practice of baptizing with oil, introduced by the Gnostic sect of the Marcosians, or with fire, as affected by the Jacobites and Cathari in the Middle Ages, or with beer, as attempted by certain Norwegians.14

c) Speculative theology has discovered a variety of reasons showing the fitness of water to serve as the element of Baptism. We will mention only a few.

α) Baptism, being a Sacrament instituted for the forgiveness of sins, requires an element which symbolizes both the dissolution and removal of moral filth and the healing of the soul. Now water is not only the ordinary and most effective means of cleansing, but it is likewise a medicine and a preservative of health. Pindar’s saw ἄριστον μὲν ὕδωρ embodies the universal conviction of mankind. Water, moreover, is by nature cool and refreshing, and consequently well adapted to serve as a symbol of grace, which extinguishes the fire of concupiscence. It was quite natural, therefore, for the Jews to employ water as an element of purification in their religious ceremonies,15 and for the Gentiles to use it in their mystic ablutions.16 Such usages clearly speak for the Catholic doctrine.17

β) As the Sacrament of “regeneration” — whence the term “neophytes” for those recently baptized — Baptism furthermore requires an element that serves an important purpose in organic nature. Water is indispensable for the growth of plants and animals. Gen. I, 2: “And the spirit of God moved [the Hebrew text has ‘brooded’] over the waters.” The fact that the foetus of mammals, birds, and reptiles is enclosed in a “water bag” (amnion), led some of the Fathers, e.g. St. Chrysostom, to compare the baptismal font with the womb.18 Then there are creatures that can live only in water, and since Baptism, being “the first and most necessary Sacrament,” is as indispensable to the supernatural life of the soul as water is to the natural life of fish, Tertullian appropriately compares the faithful to “little fishes,” who are born in water and move in it as their vital element.19

The fact that no natural element is so easily available as water also points to the necessity of Baptism for salvation.

2. Washing with Water the Proximate Matter of Baptism

Baptism is administered by means of washing, i.e. applying the water to the subject. This application must be a true ablution (ablutio vera), i.e. it must involve a contact that is both physical and successive. In other words, the baptismal water must actually touch the body and flow over it.

This twofold contact can be effected by immersion, effusion, and aspersion. The validity of the present practice of effusion has been indirectly defined against the schismatic Greeks by the Council of Trent: “If any one saith that in the Roman Church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the Sacrament of Baptism, let him be anathema!”20

a) The very name baptismus (derived from βάπτω, to immerse), as well as St. Paul’s use of the term “laver of water,”21 indicate that Baptism was originally accomplished by immersion.

However, since the Baptism of the three thousand converts on Pentecost Day,22 and that of the keeper of the prison and his family by Paul and Silas,23 can hardly be supposed to have taken place by immersion, it is likely that already in the Apostolic age Baptism was sometimes conferred by effusion or aspersion.

b) That washing with water is the materia proxima of Baptism cannot be proved from Sacred Scripture, but it can be convincingly demonstrated from Tradition.

Tertullian describes Baptism as “a sprinkling with any kind of water.”24

St. Augustine declares that Baptism has the power of forgiving sins even if the water “merely sprinkles the child ever so slightly.”25

A convincing proof for the antiquity of Baptism by effusion is furnished by the so-called “baptismus clinicorum” (κλίνη, bed), which was always administered in that way.26 When a certain Magnus professed to have scruples of conscience regarding this mode of administering the Sacrament, St. Cyprian assured him that it was perfectly valid.27

Baptism by effusion was regarded as equally valid with Baptism by immersion long before the time of St. Cyprian. The famous Didache (Doctrina XII Apostolorum), rediscovered in 1883 and ascribed to the time of the Emperor Nerva (d. 98), says: “Baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, in running water; but if thou hast no running water, baptize in other water, and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm. But if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”28

c) A few observations on the history of the various methods of administering Baptism may prove useful.

α) During the first twelve centuries Baptism was generally administered by immersion. Three times in succession the candidate was plunged entirely in water by the baptizing bishop or priest, assisted by deacons, or, in the case of adult females, by deaconesses. Numerous ancient baptisteries (fontes sacri, κολυμβήθραι) in various parts of the western world attest the antiquity of this custom. The Greeks (Russians, Bulgarians, etc.) have retained Baptism by immersion, though they no longer practice it in its pure form, but dip the child in warm water up to the neck and then pour water over his head. Despite the complaint of Marcus Eugenicus of Ephesus, the Orientals at the Council of Florence (1439) raised no objection to the Latin mode of baptizing, though today they regard it as invalid.29

Baptism by immersion was still the rule in Western Christendom at the time of St. Thomas, for he says in the third part of the Summa: “Although it is safer to baptize by immersion, because this is the more ordinary fashion, yet Baptism can be conferred by sprinkling or also by pouring …”30

In Spain, which had been overrun by the Arian Visigoths, a single immersion was substituted for the three formerly employed, in order to illustrate Catholic belief in the unity of the Godhead in three Persons. St. Martin of Bracara (d. 580) decried this practice as Sabellian,31 but it was approved by Pope Gregory the Great (d. 604) and formally prescribed by the Fourth Council of Toledo (632).

β) Baptism by effusion gradually came into use in the thirteenth century, and finally replaced Baptism by immersion entirely in the West. St. Charles Borromeo still prescribed the ancient form of trine immersion for the churches of the Ambrosian rite, and this form continued to be widely used in Europe up to the sixteenth century. The reasons for the universal adoption of the change probably were the difficulties arising in cold countries and in regard to the immersion of women. When Europe had become entirely Christian, and there were no longer any adult pagans, the institute of deaconesses ceased to exist.

The method of baptizing by aspersion has never acquired practical importance, and the discussion of its validity is therefore purely academic.32

3. The Sacramental Form, or the Formula of Baptism

The form of Baptism consists in the words accompanying the ablution. There are two essential parts: (1) the verbal designation of the baptismal act, and (2) the express invocation of the three Persons of the Most Holy Trinity.

The Decretum pro Armenis of Eugene IV says: “The form is: ‘I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,’ … because when the act is expressed, which is performed by the minister with the invocation of the Holy Trinity, the Sacrament is accomplished.”33

a) The necessity of a baptismal formula is indicated by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Ephesians: ”… Cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life.”34

The words of our Lord: ”… baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,”35 have always been understood by the Church not merely as a command to baptize, but as embodying the formula of Baptism. This is the unanimous teaching of Tradition. Tertullian writes: “The law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: ‘Go,’ He saith, ‘teach the nations,’ etc.”36 St. Cyprian says: “Christ Himself commanded the nations to be baptized in the full and undivided Trinity.”37 St. Ambrose instructs his catechumens that “Unless a man is baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, he cannot receive remission of his sins nor the gift of spiritual grace.”38 St. Augustine asks: “Who is there who does not know that there is no Baptism of Christ, if the words of the Gospel, in which consists the outward visible sign, are lacking?”39 St. Basil denies the validity of Baptism if conferred merely “in the name of the Lord,” because, he says, “as we believe in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, so, too, we are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”40 St. Chrysostom, in his explanation of Eph. V, 26, observes: “In the laver of water he cleanses him from his impurity. In the word, he says. In what word? In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”41

b) In connection with this subject theologians are wont to discuss two incidental problems, viz.: What was the meaning of Baptism “in the name of Jesus,” of which we read in the Acts of the Apostles? and: In how far may the prescribed baptismal formula be altered without affecting the validity of the Sacrament?

α) Did the Apostles baptize validly when they baptized “in the name of Jesus”?42 Opinions differ on this question. Peter Lombard says: “He who baptizes in the name of Christ, baptizes in the name of the Trinity, which is thereby understood;” but he cautiously adds: “It is, however, safer to name the Three Persons expressly.”43 The majority of theologians dissent from this view. They hold that the Apostles employed the formula “In the name of Jesus” by virtue of an extraordinary privilege. St. Thomas says: “It was by a special revelation from Christ that in the primitive Church the Apostles baptized in the name of Christ, in order that the name of Christ, which was hateful to Jews and Gentiles, might become an object of veneration, in that the Holy Ghost was given in Baptism at the invocation of that name.”44 Since the Tridentine Council the more general opinion45 is that Baptism in the name of Jesus, in contradistinction to the “Baptism of penance” which the Precursor administered,46 received its name not from the external rite but from its institution by Christ; in other words that in baptizing in the name of Christ the Apostles meant to baptize by His authority. This is not a new theory, but was held by many of the early Fathers.47

Though the Roman Catechism48 attempts to justify the view that “there was a time when, by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, the Apostles baptized in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ only,” we do not deem it prudent, without stringent proofs, to admit such a radical distinction between the baptismal practice of Apostolic and that of post-Apostolic times. It is true that Pope Nicholas I (d. 867) seems to have admitted the validity of Baptism in the name of Christ,49 but his letter to the Bulgarians, in which he expresses this opinion, is not an ex cathedra decision;50 and even if it were, the fact would prove nothing, because in the case of the Bulgarians the question at issue was not the formula of Baptism but the qualifications required in the minister.51

β) Alterations in the formula of Baptism may or may not affect its substance. Substantial changes render the Sacrament invalid; purely accidental changes do not. It would be a substantial change, for instance, to omit all reference to the act performed, or to neglect to invoke the Three Persons of the Trinity. Hence we may distinguish three groups of formulas: (1) such as are certainly invalid, (2) such as are undoubtedly valid, and (3) such as are doubtful.

(1) Alexander III decided that it would render Baptism invalid to omit the words: “I baptize thee,” and simply to say: “In the name of the Father,” etc.52 As all Three Divine Persons must be expressly mentioned, it would likewise be invalid to baptize “in the name of the Most Holy Trinity.” The Montanist formula: “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of Montanus and Priscilla,” was plainly invalid. But even when all Three Persons are expressly named, Baptism would still be invalid if the minister would introduce a phrase embodying an anti-Trinitarian heresy,53 e.g., “I baptize thee in the names of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”54

(2) Any baptismal formula that meets the two requirements mentioned, is valid, even though it show accidental variations from the approved text, as does, for instance, the Greek formula: βαπτίζεται ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ Θεοῦ (ὁ δεῖνας) εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, the validity of which is expressly admitted in the Decretum pro Armenis.55 Valid, though illicit, are all those formulas in which some non-essential word or phrase is either added to or omitted from the prescribed text; e.g.: “Baptizo (abluo, tingo) te in nomine,” etc., or: “Baptizo te credentem in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, ut habeas vitam aeternam.” Alterations made in ignorance of the language employed, and without heretical intent, do not render Baptism invalid, provided that, according to popular estimation, the objective meaning of the formula is preserved. This was decided by Pope Zachary in a case submitted to him by St. Boniface, where an ignorant cleric had mispronounced the usual formula as follows: “Ego te baptizo in nomine patria et filia et spiritu sancta.”56 The Slavic formula: “Ja te krstim” (krstim derived from krstiti = make Christian; Krst = Christ) was approved by the Holy See in 1894, on the ground that the verb krsti also means to wash off.57 This can hardly be said to apply to our English word “christen.”

(3) Doubtful, though presumably valid, are those formulas in which it is difficult to decide whether the alterations that have been introduced relate to essential or to purely accidental portions, as, e.g.: “I baptize thee in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost.” The formula: “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy Ghost,” was considered doubtful by St. Alphonsus, but on Jan. 13, 1882, the Congregation of the Holy Office decided that the use of this formula does not render Baptism invalid, because the heresy of Tritheism is not necessarily implied therein.

Footnotes

  1. Cfr. the Catechismus Romanus, P. II, c. 2, n. 19. ↩

  2. Conc. Trident., Sess. VII, De Bapt., can. 2: “Si quis dixerit, aquam veram et naturalem non esse de necessitate baptismi, … anathema sit.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 858). ↩

  3. ”… quidquid balnei loco esse possit, illud aptum esse ad baptizandum.” The passage occurs in his Table Talk. Cfr. Pallavicini, Hist. Conc. Trident., IX, 7. ↩

  4. 1 Pet. III, 20 sqq. ↩

  5. 1 Cor. X, 2 sqq. ↩

  6. Zach. XIII, 1 (see above, v08-11, note 8). ↩

  7. Acts VIII, 36: “Ecce aqua, quid prohibet me baptizari?” Cfr. Acts X, 47; Eph. V, 26. ↩

  8. Cfr. Ansaldi, O.P., De Baptismate in Spiritu Sancto et Igni, Milan 1752. ↩

  9. Tertullian, De Bapt., c. 1, n. 1: “Felix sacramentum aquae nostrae, qua abluti delictis pristinae caecitatis in vitam aeternam liberamur!” ↩

  10. St. Augustine, Tract. in Ioan., 80, n. 3: “Quid est baptismus Christi? Lavacrum aquae in verbo. Tolle aquam, non est baptismus; tolle verbum, non est baptismus.” ↩

  11. On the antiquity of this ceremony consult Probst, Sakramente und Sakramentalien in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, pp. 74 sqq., Tübingen 1872. ↩

  12. St. Cyprian, Ep., 70, 1: “Oportet ergo mundari et sanctificari aquam prius a sacerdote, ut possit baptismo suo peccata hominis, qui baptizatur, abluere.” On certain exaggerated notions current in Patristic days with regard to the efficacy of the water “sanctified” for Baptism, see Pourrat, La Théologie Sacramentaire, pp. 47 sqq., Paris 1910 (English tr., pp. 56 sq.). ↩

  13. St. Gregory of Nyssa, Or. de Bapt. Christi: “τὸ καθαγιαζόμενον ὕδωρ καθαίρει καὶ φωτίζει τὸν ἄνθρωπον.” ↩

  14. Cfr. the letter addressed by Pope Gregory IX to the bishops of Norway, in Raynald, Annales Eccles. ad annum 1241, n. 42. ↩

  15. Cfr. Numb. VIII, 7. ↩

  16. Cfr. Tertullian, De Bapt., c. 5. ↩

  17. On Baptism in pre-Christian times and among non-Christian nations, consult Oswald, Die dogmatische Lehre von den hl. Sakramenten, 5th ed., § 1. ↩

  18. See above, v08-05, Article 2. ↩

  19. Tertullian, De Bapt., c. 1: “Sed nos pisculi secundum ἰχθύν nostrum Iesum Christum in aqua nascimur, nec aliter quam in aqua permanendo salvi sumus.” ↩

  20. Conc. Trident., Sess. VII, De Bapt., can. 3: “Si quis dixerit, in Ecclesia Romana, quae omnium ecclesiarum mater est et magistra, non esse veram de baptismi sacramento doctrinam, anathema sit.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 859). ↩

  21. Eph. V, 26: τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατος. ↩

  22. Acts II, 41. ↩

  23. Acts XVI, 33. ↩

  24. Tertullian, De Bapt., c. 6: “una aspergio cuiuslibet aquae.” ↩

  25. St. Augustine, Tract. in Ioan., 80, n. 3: “Hoc verbum fidei tantum valet in Ecclesia Dei, ut per ipsum … tingentem etiam tantillum mundet infantem.” ↩

  26. Cfr. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., VI, 43; Martène, De Antiquis Ecclesiae Ritibus, I, 304. ↩

  27. St. Cyprian, Ep., 69, n. 12, ed. Hartel, II, 761: “Nec quemquam movere debet quod aspergi vel perfundi videntur aegri, quum gratiam dominicam consequantur, quando Scriptura sancta per Ezechielem prophetam dicat: ‘Aspergam super vos aquam mundam.’ Unde apparet, aspersionem quoque aquae instar salutaris lavacri obtinere.” ↩

  28. Doctrina XII Apost., c. 7, ed. Funk, p. 23, Tübingen 1887; English tr. by Kirsopp Lake, The Apostolic Fathers in the Loeb Classical Library, pp. 320 sq., London 1912. On a painting in the catacombs which illustrates this passage cfr. De Rossi, Roma Sotterranea, Vol. I, p. 334, Rome 1867. Rogers (Baptism and Christian Archaeology, London 1903) is evidently mistaken when he asserts that immersion is the oldest form of Baptism. Cfr. Ermoni, Le Baptême dans l’Église Primitive, Paris 1904. ↩

  29. Cfr. Denzinger, Rit. Orient., Vol. I, p. 235, 287, Würzburg 1863; Goar, Euchologium s. Rituale Graecorum, in bapt. off. not. 24, Paris 1647. ↩

  30. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 66, art. 7: “Quamvis tutius sit baptizare per modum immersionis, quia hoc habet communior usus, potest tamen fieri baptismus per modum aspersionis vel etiam per modum infusionis.” ↩

  31. Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, p. 659, St. Louis 1908. ↩

  32. For further information on the various ways of baptizing and their history the student may consult the treatise on “Die Entstehung der heutigen Taufform,” in Funk’s Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen, Vol. I, pp. 478 sqq., Paderborn 1897; also A. Staerk, Der Taufritus in der griechisch-russischen Kirche, sein apostolischer Ursprung und seine Entwicklung, Freiburg 1903. ↩

  33. Decretum pro Armenis: “Forma autem est: ‘Ego te baptizo in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti’ …; quoniam si exprimitur actus, qui per ipsum exercetur ministrum cum SS. Trinitatis invocatione, perficitur sacramentum.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 696). ↩

  34. Eph. V, 26: ”… mundans lavacro aquae in verbo vitae.” ↩

  35. Matth. XXVIII, 19: ”… baptizantes eos in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti.” ↩

  36. Tertullian, De Bapt., c. 13: “Lex tingendi imposita est et forma praescripta: Ite, inquit, docete nationes, etc.” ↩

  37. St. Cyprian, Ep. 73 ad Iubai., n. 18, ed. Hartel, II, 791: “Ipse Christus gentes baptizari iubet in plena et adunata Trinitate.” ↩

  38. St. Ambrose, De Myst., c. 4, n. 20: “Nisi baptizatus fuerit in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, remissionem non potest accipere peccatorum nec spiritualis gratiae munus haurire.” ↩

  39. St. Augustine, De Bapt., VI, 25, 47: “Quis nesciat non esse baptismum Christi, si verba evangelica, quibus symbolum constat, illic defuerint?” ↩

  40. St. Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, c. 12. ↩

  41. St. Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Eph., 20. Cfr. St. John Damascene, De Fide Orth., IV. ↩

  42. Cfr. Gal. III, 27; Acts II, 38; VIII, 12, 16; XIX, 5. ↩

  43. Peter Lombard, Sent., IV, dist. 3: “Qui ergo baptizat in nomine Christi, baptizat in nomine Trinitatis, quae ibi intelligitur. Tutius est tamen, tres personas ibi nominare.” ↩

  44. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 66, art. 6: “Dicendum quod ex speciali Christi revelatione Apostoli in primitiva Ecclesia in nomine Christi baptizabant, ut nomen Christi, quod erat odiosum Iudaeis et gentibus, honorabile redderetur per hoc, quod ad eius invocationem Spiritus Sanctus dabatur in baptismo.” This opinion is shared by St. Bede, Albertus Magnus, St. Bonaventure, Scotus, Cajetan, Toletus, Orsi, et al. ↩

  45. Among those who espouse this teaching are Melchior Cano, Dom. Soto, Cardinal Bellarmine, Suarez, Vasquez, Tournely, and nearly all modern theologians. ↩

  46. Cfr. Acts XIX, 1 sqq. ↩

  47. Among others, St. Cyprian (Ep. 73 ad Iubai., n. 17, ed. Hartel, II, 791), St. Augustine (Contra Maxim., II, 39, 4), St. Fulgentius (ad Fabian., fragm. 37), Origen (In Ep. ad Rom., l. 5; Migne, P.G., XIV, 1039), St. Basil (De Spiritu S., c. 12), St. Chrysostom (Hom. in 2 Cor., n. 13). ↩

  48. Catechismus Romanus, P. II, c. 2, n. 8 sq. ↩

  49. “A quodam Iudaeo … multos in patria vestra baptizatos asseritis et quid de iis sit agendum consulitis. Hi profecto, si in nomine S. Trinitatis vel tantum in Christi nomine … baptizati sunt, constat eos non esse denuo baptizandos.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 335). ↩

  50. See Hergenröther’s Antijanus, p. 55, Freiburg 1869. ↩

  51. For further information on this subject cfr. Cano, De Locis Theol., VI, 8; Orsi, De Baptismo in Nomine Iesu, Florence 1743; Heitmüller, Im Namen Jesu, 1905; H. Koch, Die Tauflehre des Liber de Rebaptismate, Braunsberg 1907; J. Tixeront, Apologetical Studies, St. Louis 1917, pp. 34 sqq. ↩

  52. Alexander III, C. “Si quis,” 1 Extrav., De Bapt.: “Si quis puerum ter in aqua merserit in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, … et non dixerit: ‘Ego te baptizo,’ puer non est baptizatus.” ↩

  53. Tritheism, Arianism, etc. ↩

  54. “Baptizo te in nominibus Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti.” ↩

  55. “Non tamen negamus, quin et per illa verba: ‘Baptizatur talis servus Christi in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti,’ verum perficiatur sacramentum.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 696). Cfr. Goar, Euchol., p. 355; Probst, Sakramente und Sakramentalien in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, pp. 148 sqq., Tübingen 1872. ↩

  56. Cfr. Mansi, Conc., t. XII, p. 855. ↩

  57. See the Innsbruck Zeitschrift für kath. Theologie, 1901, p. 318. ↩