The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman - Laurence Sterne [336]
ANSWER
The council is of the opinion that the question has many difficulties first to be removed. The theologians have on one side established a principle that baptism, which is a spiritual birth, supposes a prior birth; we must be born into the world to be reborn in Jesus Christ, according to their doctrine. St. Thomas, part 3. question 88, article 11. follows this doctrine as the established fact: we cannot (says that holy doctor) baptize children which are enclosed in their mothers’ wombs. By this St. Thomas means these children are not born, and therefore cannot be reckoned amongst other men: from whence he concludes that they cannot be the object of an external action, to receive thereby the sacraments necessary to salvation.… The rituals ordain in practice what theologians have regulated upon those heads and they unanimously prohibit the baptizing of children which are enclosed in their mothers’ wombs, if no part of their bodies appears. The concurrence of the theologians and the rituals, which are the rules of the dioceses, seems to establish an authority necessary to answer the present question; however, the council of conscience, considering on the one hand, that the reasoning of the theologians is entirely founded upon their desire of conformity, and that the prohibition of the rituals supposes that children so enclosed cannot be baptized in their mothers’ wombs, which is against the present supposition; and on the other hand, considering that the same theologians teach that the Sacraments which Jesus Christ has established, as the easy, but necessary means of sanctifying man, may be hazarded; and besides, supposing that children enclosed in their mothers’ wombs are capable of salvation, as they are liable to damnation;—upon these considerations and having an eye to the memorial, wherein it is assured, that a certain method is found out, of baptizing children thus enclosed, without harm to the mother, the council imagines that the means proposed may be made use of, in the belief that God has not left this kind of children without any succor, and supposing, according to the representation, that the means there proposed are proper to procure them baptism; nevertheless, as by authorizing the proposed practice, a rule universally established must be changed, the council believes that the memorialist should make application to his bishop, whose province it is to judge of the utility and danger of the method proposed, and as (under the direction of the bishop) the council thinks that recourse should be had to the Pope, in whom the right of explaining the laws of the church, and of derogating therefrom, where they cannot be executed, is invested; and, however wise and useful the manner of baptism here proposed may be, the council cannot give their approbation to it, without the concurrence of these two authorities. The memorialist is, at least, advised to apply to his bishop, and to inform him of the present decision, that in case the prelate should coincide with the reasons whereupon the doctors undersigned have founded their opinions, he may be authorized in cases of necessity, when too much time may be lost to ask permission, and have it granted, for following the method proposed, so advantageous to the child’s salvation. The council has nothing further to add, than, that notwithstanding they believe this method may be pursued, nevertheless believe, that in case the children in question should come into the world, contrary to the expectation of those who have used this method, it would be necessary to baptize them conditionally; and this is conformable to all