Baptism in the name of Jesus (III)

III. BAPTISM in the name of Jesus Christ. Many difficulties have been raised Acts xi. 38.with relation to the following words of S. Luke in the Acts of the Apostles. Be baptiz’d every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of Sins. And again, — viii. 16.The Holy Ghost as yet was faln on none of them; only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. It has been a question whether Baptism ever was administred in the name of Jesus Christ only, without making express mention of the other Persons in the Trinity? and whether such Baptism is valid or lawful?

Many of the Fathers, and some Councils, believed that the Apostles sometimes had baptized in the name of Jesus Christ only, and herein, says S. Hilary, we are not to charge them with prevarication, nor condemn the Scriptures, as if they were selfcontradicting, because they enjoin Baptism to be performed in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and nevertheless inform us, that the Apostles baptized in the name of Jesus only. An old Author¹, who wrote against S. Cyprian on the subject of Baptism, believes that Baptism administred in the name of Jesus Christ only is not sufficient without confirmation, wherein the Holy Ghost is received; but then he thinks too, that Baptism in this manner is not to be reiterated as null, for the invocation of the name of Christ ought not to be esteemed unprofitable. S. Ambrose asserts², that tho’ one person only of the Trinity were expressed, the Baptism is perfect. Si unum sermone comprehendas, aut Patrem, aut Filium, aut Spiritum Sanctum, plenum erit Fidei Sacramentum cramentum: For, adds he, whosoever names one Person of the Trinity, means the whole. Quia qui unam dixerit, Trinitatem signavit.

Venerable Bede³, S. Bernard⁴, Pope Nicholas I.⁵ the Councils of Frejus in the year 791, and of Nîmes in 1284. Hugh of S. Victor⁶ the master of Sentences, Peter of Poitiers, Alexander Hales, S. Thomas, and many other Schoolmen, Theophylact, Denys the Carthusian, and Cardinal Hugo, believe without scruple that the Apostles sometimes baptized in the name of Jesus Christ alone, and that this Baptism was good and lawful.

But as this opinion is founded only on a dubious fact, and an obscure Text, it is not at all impossible, but that the Fathers and Doctors, and even the particular Councils above cited, might be mistaken, first as to the fact, and explanation of the Text in S. Luke, and afterwards in the consequence which they drew from it. Besides, it is certain, that the Latin Authors and Councils here produced by us, rested principally upon the authority of S. Ambrose; who to them seemed decisive for the validity of this Baptism. Now it may be shewn, 1. That the Text in the Acts of the Apostles is not any way clear for this opinion. 2. That it is very dubious whether the Apostles ever baptized in the name only of Jesus Christ; and 3. That even S. Ambrose is not favourable to this opinion.

By baptizing in the name of Jesus two things may be signified: either to baptize with invocation of the name of Jesus Christ alone, without making express mention of the other Persons of the Trinity; or to baptize in his name, by his authority, and with the Baptism instituted by him, in expressing the three Persons of the Trinity, as he has clearly and plainly commanded in S. Matth. xxviii. 19Matthew. Since therefore we have a positive and explicit Text, who is it that obliges us to quit it, and follow another which is capable of different senses? Who will believe that the Apostles forsaking the form of Baptism prescribed by Jesus Christ, instituted another quite new without any necessity?

The Text of S. Ambrose is farther liable to some difficulties; for first in several other places⁷ he instructs us, that there is no merit in Baptism without the express invocation of the three Persons in the Trinity, how then could he contradict himself in so evident a manner, by saying, as is pretended, that Baptism confer’d in the name of Jesus Christ alone is good and valid? Besides it is very credible, that S. Ambrose in the passage which is here perplexing to us, followed, as was usual with him, S. Basil. Now S. Basil⁸ has maintained, that in order to the validity of Baptism, the invocation of the three Persons in the Trinity is absolutely necessary; for altho’, says he, the Apostle often makes no mention either of the Father, or of the Holy Spirit, but of the Son only, yet should we not infer from thence that he excludes them: for the invocation of the name of Jesus Christ is a kind of profession of Faith that we believe the Holy Trinity entire, the Father who gave the Unction, the Son who received it, and the Holy Spirit who is himself this Unction. In like manner, adds he, notwithstanding the Scripture in other passages seems to mention only the Holy Spirit, we should not from thence conclude that such Baptism, wherein the Holy Spirit only is invoked, is perfect; for the tradition which we have received should continue inviolable. To separate the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, is a dangerous attempt in him who baptizes, and unprofitable to him who is baptized.

But let us come to the passage of S. Ambrose, and see if he really says what is imputed to him. He asserts, the Baptism of John to have been of no force, because there was no acknowledgment in it, either of Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit; and that Baptism is then only full and compleat, when the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are confessed in it: Plenum autem est si Patrem, & Filium, Spiritumque Sanctum fatearis. He who denies but one Person, destroys the whole Mystery, but he who in words expresses but one of them, without however denying either Father, Son, or Holy Ghost, does not fail to receive the Sacrament of Baptism fully and compleatly. It is visible in all this that S. Ambrose does not speak of the Minister who baptizes, but of his Faith who is baptized. He supposes the Minister of Baptism to have done his duty, but believes that he who denies one of the Persons in the Trinity, at the time of his receiving Baptism, receives not the Grace belonging to it, and that the Sacrament with respect to him is neither full nor perfect; and on the contrary, that tho’ he should expresly mention one only of the Persons, yet if he believes them all as he should do, the Sacrament with regard to him is intire and compleat. He receives the whole effect of it, quia qui unum dixerit Trinitatem signavit. All this relates to him only who has received Baptism.

Finally, the opinion which maintains that Baptism ought necessarily to be confer’d in the name of the whole Trinity; and with the express invocation of the three Persons, and that where one only of the three Persons is called upon it is invalid, the opinion, I say, asserting this is followed by the most learned Divines⁹ who have written on this matter.

1 Cor. xv. 29.IV. Baptism for the Dead. S. Paul in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, endeavours to prove the Resurrection of the Dead; and having given several reasons for it, says, If the dead rise not at all, what shall they do who are baptized for the dead? The question is, what is here meant by this Baptism for the Dead? The first thought which occurs to the mind on this occasion is, that they whom S. Paul wrote to procured themselves to be baptized for their friends and relations who died without having received Baptism, hoping that the Baptism so received for them would be serviceable to them in another Life, in proportion as, after the same manner, the prayers and alms which are offered for the Dead are of use in obliterating such venial Sins, as might not be atoned for by them; and procuring for them a more speedy enjoyment of bliss.

No one pretends to say, that the Apostle here approves this practice, or authorizes these opinions. It is sufficient that there were people who thought and acted according to these principles, this will justify the Apostle’s producing here an argument which we call ad hominem; he does not say, that the Corinthians caused themselves to be baptized for the Dead, but what shall they do who are baptized for the Dead? How will they support this practice? upon what will they found it, if the dead do not rise again, and if the Souls of the departed do not subsist after their decease?

We have nothing more to do than to shew, that there were persons at this time who called themselves Christians, and obliged themselves to be baptized for the Dead, for the service of the Dead, for their relief and advantage. Now we know, that when the first Epistle to the Corinthians was written, that is to say, three and twenty years after the Resurrection of our Saviour, several Hereticks, such as the Simonians, Gnosticks, and Nicolaitans, were in being, who denied the real Resurrection of the Dead, and acknowledged no other, besides that which was received in Baptism, by the sanctifying grace of this Sacrament.

We know farther, that the Marcionites, who appeared some time after, embraced the same principles, denied the Resurrection of the Dead, and what is more particular, received Baptism for the Dead. This we learn from Tertullian¹⁰, when he tells the Marcionites, that they ought not to make use of S. Paul’s Authority for establishing their practice of receiving Baptism for the Dead, and that if the Apostle takes notice of this custom, it is with a design only of proving the Resurrection of the Dead against themselves. Ut tantò magis sisteret carnis resurrectionem, tantò illi qui vani pro mortuis baptizarentur, fide resurrectionis hoc facerent. In another place he confesses¹¹, that in S. Paul’s time there were people who were baptized a second time for the Dead, with hopes that it would be of service to others as to their Resurrection.

S. Chrysostom¹² is more particular in this matter. He says, that among the Marcionites, when any of their Catechumens die, they lay a living person under the bed of the deceased, that advancing near to the dead body, they ask, whether he be not willing to receive Baptism? He who is under the bed answers for him, that he desires earnestly to be baptized; and accordingly he is so instead of the dead person, thus making a piece of mummery of the business, more becoming the theater than so sacred an administration. S. Epiphanius¹³ asserts, that the Marcionites received Baptism not only once, but twice or three times, and as often as they thought proper; that they had themselves baptized in the name of those among them, who died without Baptism, and that S. Paul had these Hereticks in view, while he was confirming the doctrine of the Resurrection in the first Epistle to the Corinthians.

The opinion we have been proposing has been followed by the most learned and eminent Commentators of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, such as Hilary the Deacon, or Ambrosiastes, the Author printed under the name of Anselm, Theophylact, S. Thomas, the common Gloss, Walfridus Strabo, and a very great number of the Moderns. See Bochart’s Dissertation on this matter tom. 2. Geogr. p. 1026. Daniel Grade’s Dissertation on the same subject. Solomon Deiling t. 2. Observat. Sacr. c. 44. and our Dissertation prefixed to S. Paul’s Epistles.

Read this article in its place on the printed pages