Summary Of Baptism In The Thirteenth Century.

By these and similar means the Romanists at this time, sought to maintain the credit of infant baptism, which was greatly opposed; to which end tended also the words of Aquinas, which are as follows: “The proper administrator of baptism shall be a priest, whose province it is by virtue of his office, to baptize; but in cases of necessity, not only a chaplain, but also a layman, or a woman, yea, even a heathen or a heretic may baptize, if he only observes the form of the church, and purposes to do what the church does. But if a person, from necessity, is baptized by such an one, he indeed receives the sacrament, so that he need not be baptized again; but he does not receive the grace of baptism, because he is considered as not having been baptized aright.” Thom. Aquin. de Art., Fid., chap. 14, in Bapt. Hist., p. 725.

In the same direction tends what is adduced in Cent. Magd., XIII., chap. 6, fol. 242, from the above mentioned synodal book of the bishops of Nemansa: “But,” say they, “if a child, in case of 290 necessity, has been baptized by a layman, according to the form prescribed, we command, that said child, if it survives, be brought as soon as possible to the priest, who shall diligently examine how it was baptized; and if he find that the form prescribed was not observed aright, he shall baptize the child (again), according to the form of the church. But if he doubt whether it was rightly baptized, or not, since perhaps the baptizer did not properly consider the words which he spoke in baptism, or because the bystanders were not agreed in this, or because there is no certainty whether it was baptized or not, the priest shall baptize it with these words: ‘If thou art baptized, I baptize thee not again; but if thou art not baptized, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’ In such doubtful cases, however, one witness is sufficient when more can not be had.” Bapt. Hist., p. 728.

Who does not see that the Roman church, when infant baptism was contradicted, endeavored by these and similar absurdities, to make it appear to the common people as though infant baptism were absolutely necessary to salvation, yea, so necessary that rather than neglect it for want of a priest, even women, yea, heathen and heretics whom they otherwise were accustomed to burn, might baptize the infants if they only observed the form of baptism employed by the church. Oh strange theology! Merely to maintain the error of infant baptism, many other errors were maintained.