In order that baptism may be performed in a proper as well as in a valid manner, observe

"1. Water from the baptismal font should be applied, and this obligation is certainly important for a solemn baptism.

"2. Braunman maintains the same concerning baptism, privately administered: and hence the minister called for such an emergency, must take with him a little flask of water from the sacred font, or order it to be obtained.

"3. Yet urgent necessity is excepted, or in case baptism must be administered by a midwife, &c.

"4. The water of the sacred font should be kept clean : and therefore too much chrism ought not to be mixed, nor should it be spoiled in any other way: and hence a child infected with a contagious disease ought not to be baptized over the font, but away from the font, with water taken from the font.

"5. If the water in the font is frozen, or too cold, it may be warmed with the hands, or mixed (but in a greater quantity,) with common warm water.

"6. If the water of the sacred font has been so much diminished that a failure may be apprehended, other common water may be mixed with it, yet in a smaller quantity. If it has been corrupted, or in some other way become defective, let fresh water be poured into the font when properly cleansed, and let it be blessed, &c." (No. 4.)

The proximate matter of baptism is the application of the remote matter, viz., natural water, or the corporeal ablution itself. This ablution may be performed in a threefold manner; 1, by immersion; 2, by sprinkling; and 3, by pouring out, or pouring in, or pouring on. Any one of these three modes is sufficient to constitute the sacrament valid. A threefold immersion, or sprinkling, &c., is not essential to the validity of the sacrament; but the latter is enjoined, and any one baptizing in any other manner would commit a grievous offence in not observing the rite of the Church in an important thing. (No. 5.)

In order necessarily to constitute a sacrament, the ablution should be "generally such that the minister may be truly said to wash the person to be baptized; so that he may be morally regarded as washed or cleansed: concerning which the following things are requisite:

"1. That the ablution be performed by a minister, or by the intervention of his agency; for otherwise he could not truly say, I baptize thee; and hence if upon seeing some one falling, or thrown by another person into a river, or washed with water in some other way, he pronounces the words of the form, it will be no sacrament.

"The same seems rather probable if he is baptized with snow or ice, applied indeed by the minister, but dissolved only after the application through the heat of the body of the person to be baptized. Yet it is not necessary that the min ister should immediately touch the water, or the person to be baptized and hence in some places water is poured on the head of the candidate for baptism, by means of a shell; in such a manner also the minister may consult his own safety against a contagious disease, v. g., in time of pestilence.

"2. It is requisite that the ablution be successive, so that it be performed with some motion of the successive contact of the water around the body: whether this successive contact arises from the application of water to the body, (as is done in baptism by effusion,) or from the application of the body to the water, as in baptism by immersion.

"Hence the baptism would be invalid if the person to be baptized should be held motionless in water that is not agi. tated also if only a few drops of water that has not been stirred remain on his forehead without any local motion.

"3. It must be the ablution of the body itself by the immediate or physical contact of the water with the body: yet it is not necessary that it wash off the filth. Hence the baptism is not valid, if the water touches only the clothes: as may easily happen in baptism by sprinkling.

"If the water touches only the hair, nails, the pelles secundinæ or the galea nativitatis, the baptism is very uncertain; hence they admonish that care must sedulously be taken, that when persons who have much hair are brought forward for baptism, that the skin be rubbed with the water, lest the ablution be performed only on the hair. It should likewise be enjoined upon midwives, that when they baptize in a case of necessity, they first break the secondary skin, in order that the water may immediately touch the body.

4. The ablution should be performed on so considerable a part of the body, and with such a quantity of water, that

the man may in consequence be morally denominated washed or cleansed. Hence it is rather probable that one or two drops of water are not sufficient for baptism: yet because some teach that it is enough if it only flows, in case of necessity this may serve it would be however on condition that if he survives he must be rebaptized. For greater security, that quantity of water should always be applied (if it is at hand) which is certainly sufficient for baptism: and hence it is better to exceed a little in the quantity than to be deficient." (No. 6.)

As for the part of the body in which the ablution should take place, according to the practice of the church, the head is to be washed as the principal abode of the soul, and the part in which all the senses are strongest; but it is not necessary that the whole head should be washed, but a considerable part of it, or according to the practice of the church, the top. The Roman ritual has decided in certain cases as follows.

"If an infant has put forth its head from the womb of the mother, and the danger of death is imminent, let it be baptized on the head; neither must it afterwards be baptized a second time, if it comes forth alive. But if it has put forth another member which gives indication of vital motion, it may be baptized on it, if danger threatens; and then if it survives when born, it must on that condition be rebaptized: but if thus baptized it afterwards comes forth from the womb dead, it ought to be buried in consecrated ground.

"What if the infant baptized in this case of necessity, v. g., in the hand, afterwards puts forth its head?

"Ans. Without delay it must on this condition be rebaptized on the head, if the danger continues: but otherwise its entire egression from the womb must be waited for. The same is to be observed, if in a danger of this kind the baptism may be rendered considerably more certain: v. g. an infant before baptized only on the toes, ought now if the danger is still urgent, to be conditionally baptized on the feet themselves.

"But what if there appears no sign of life in the part protruding from the womb?

"Ans. It may be baptized on that part on the condition, if thou art alive; for it has been found in the experience of

midwives, that, although no sign of life may appear in the part thus protruding, yet it may afterwards be found to be alive. If, however, says our manual, no sign of life has afterwards appeared, it may not be buried in consecrated ground." (No. 7.)

"Is baptism validly conferred by a fatal ablution?

"Ans. It may be fatal in a twofold manner : one by reason of the matter, as when an infant is baptized in boiling or in poisoned water: and such ablution is sufficient for the validity of baptism; because it certainly remains a true moral ablution, &c. The one is called fatal in itself, or by reason of the action, as when any one throws a boy into a well or a river without hope of emerging. This action is certainly unlawful, &c. But it is controverted whether it is sufficient to constitute valid baptism, if the form is pronounced together with the intention of baptizing." The case is then argued pro and con at considerable length. Suarez, Wiggers, Neesen, Pauwels, Van Roy, Boudart, &c., maintain the affirmative; and Scotus and the Scotists, Daelman, Peringuè, &c., the negative. (No. 8.)

"What is the legitimate form of baptism?

"Among the Latins it is this: I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. That this is the legitimate one is plain from the Council of Florence in the decree for the instruction of the Armenians; from the Council of Trent, sess. 7. can. 4; from the Roman ritual, &c., and from the most certain practice of the whole Western or Latin Church. But this form is gathered from Matt. xxviii. baptizing them in the name, &c.

"Among the Greeks the form is this: Let this servant, or (as others now say,) this servant of Christ is baptized

in the name, &c. This also is legitimate and sufficient as is plain from Eugenius, iv. in the same decree of the Council of Florence for each expresses the action of baptizing (the Latins' in the act signified, the Greeks' in the act exercised,) and the explicit invocation of the most holy Trinity. It is evident also from the practice of the Church in not baptizing Greeks, although some Greek schismatics have dared to baptize those who had been baptized by Latins. Greeks use this form, in order to avoid and refute among their own people, the error of the ancients, who attributed

The

the virtue of baptism to the persons baptizing as the principal cause, and said with the Corinthian schismatics: I am of Paul, I am of Cephas, &c.

"Which of these two forms is to be preferred?

“Ans. Each is to be observed respectively in its own Church, and this under grievous sin, as Pauwels observes. Further, both are to be approved as respectively proper, and absolutely sufficient. The form of the Latins, however, is more perspicuous, and corresponds better with the words of Christ: Baptizing them in the name of the Father, &c. (No. 9.) As for the essentials of the form of Baptism it is necessary that in it the person to be baptized is expressed, either by the particle thee, or by his proper name, or in some other way. The act of baptizing must also be expressed; and although the baptism would be valid in saying, I wash, 1 sprinkle, &c., yet the words I baptize are to be retained. If the particle in is omitted, according to Daelman the Sacrament becomes null and void, so also if the minister should say in the names, instead of in the name; but if the minister should say in the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son, &c., Sylvius, Van Roy, and Billuart think that it is valid, because this multiplication does not imply a diversity of virtue and essence: however, Boudart, Pauwels, Neesen and Daelman more properly say the contrary: because although a diversity may not then be implied, identity is certainly not signified. Baptism conferred under these forms is not valid: I baptize thee in the name of the most Holy Trinity, or in the name of the three divine Persons, or in the name of the one and triune God, or in the name of the first, and of the second, and of the third Person, or in the name of the Omnipotent, of the Wise and of the Good." "Does the conjunction and belong to the essential form? "Ans. Some say it does: because, if it be taken away, the distinction of the Persons is not sufficiently expressed. The contrary, however, seems more probable to many; because it is sufficiently understood. The case would be different, however, if it should be omitted in the sense of Sabellius, in signifying that these three names designate the same Person, endowed with three faculties," &c., (No. 10.) Baptism in the name of Christ only is never valid, (No. 11.)