Baptism of Blood//Baptism of Desire:
[Besides the Baptisms of Moses, John,
and Jesus], I know also a fourth Baptism, that by martyrdom and blood, by which
Christ Himself was baptized. This one is far more august than the others, since
is cannot be defiled by later stains. (Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration on the
Holy Lights 39.17, A.D. 381, The Faith of the Early Fathers, 3 vols.
[trans. William A. Jurgens; Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1979],
2:36)
That the place of Baptism is sometimes
supplied by suffering is supported by a substantial argument which the same
Blessed Cyprian draws from the circumstance of the thief, to whom, although not
baptized, it was said: “today you shall be with Me in paradise.” Considering
this over and over again, I find that not only suffering for the name of Christ
can supply for that which is lacking by way of Baptism, but even faith and
conversion of heart if, perhaps because of the circumstances of the time,
recourse cannot be had to the celebration of the Mystery of Baptism.
(Augustine, Baptism 4.22.29, A.D. 400, The Faith of the Early Fathers, 3
vols. [trans. William A. Jurgens; Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press,
1979], 3:67)
In the Corrections 2, 44
Augustine regrets having used the good thief as an example in this instance:
for he now recalls that we have no certainty at all that the thief was not in
fact baptized. Augustine’s regret, of course, is solely over the example used;
for he has no doubts at all about the efficacy of so-called Baptism of blood.
(Ibid., 69 n. 11)
When we offer as objection to these
arguments the countless multitude of infants, who, except for original sin,
under which all men alike are born into the condemnation of the first man, have
as yet no will, no propre actions, and who, not without a judgment of God, are
cut off and are to be carried away before any experience of this life gives
them a discernment of good and evil, so that some, through rebirth, are
enrolled among the heirs of the heavenly kingdom, while others, without
Baptism, pass over among the debtors of eternal death: such are lost, they say,
and such are saved, according to what the divine knowledge foresees they would
have done in their adult years, if they had been preserved in a responsible
age (si ad activam servarentu aetatem)! (Prosper of Aquitaine,
Letter to Augustine of Hippo 225.5, c. A.D. 428-29, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, 3 vols. [trans. William A. Jurgens; Collegeville, Minn.: The
Liturgical Press, 1979], 3:189)
Baptism
of Desire//Eucharist of Desire
Let each one think what he likes
contrary to any of Cyprian’s opinions but let no one hold any opinion contrary
to the manifest belief of the apostle. . . . A reason must be sought and given
why souls, if they are newly created for each one being born, are damned if the
infants die without Christ’s Sacrament. That they are damned if they so depart
the body is the testimony both of Holy Scripture and of Holy Church.
(Augustine, Letter to Sicilian Layman Hilary 66.8.24-25, A.D. 414, The Faith
of the Early Fathers, 3 vols. [trans. William A. Jurgens; Collegeville,
Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1979], 3:9)
The state of infants who die without
Baptism has long been one of the knottier problems of theology. If there were
not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of “unless a
man be born again et reliqua” is to be taken absolutely, it would be
easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious
exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the
tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found to constant as
to constitute revelation. The Church has always admitted Baptism of desire as a
rescuing factor, when the desire is a personal and conscious one on the part of
the one desiring Baptism for himself, as in the case of a catechumen.
Some loose thinkers are content to
apply Baptism of desire to an infant, who is incapable of knowing and desiring.
That being pointed out, they will posit the desire in parents on behalf of
children; but if in fact the parents do not desire or if they positively reject
Baptism for their infant child, is the infant then to be damned because of the
parents’ ignorance or malice? Many today are content to ignore the problem as
if it did not exist, or to treat it as a ridiculous scruple. We hear them quote
the Scriptures, that God desires all men to be saved, as if that had any
application here! Let us turn back to the notion of Baptism of desire, and I
think we will find a solution apart from the generous but questionable notion
of limbo, without condemning these infants outright as Augustine reluctantly
does, and without doing violence either to Scripture or Tradition.
Saint Thomas notes that the Eucharist
is absolutely necessary for salvation. If a man has never received the
Eucharist, he cannot be saved. But Thomas then adds these distinctions; that if
one is dying and has never received the Eucharist, his positive desire for it
will suffice (the precise parallel of Baptism of desire); or in the case of
infants or ignorant savages, the desire on their behalf on the part of the
Church herself will suffice. If this latter is true in regard to the Eucharist,
why not in regard to Baptism? Tradition already admits Thomas’ first
Eucharistic distinction in regard also to Baptism: a desire on the part of the
individual himself. Why not, then, his second distinction in regard also to
invincibly ignorant, a desire supplied by the desire of the Church herself?
This obviates the necessary objection to a desire supplied by parents: they may
not have such a desire. The Church always desires the welfare of mankind and it
is impossible that she should not desire it. (Ibid., 14-15 n. 31)