comparison summa/english/TP_iii.html @ 64:11682db9b870

from auto-split
author ht
date Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:43:02 +0000
parents
children
comparison
equal deleted inserted replaced
63:4665e252e26e 64:11682db9b870
1 <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" id="TP.iii" class="div2">
2 <a href="summa.TP_Q59_A6.html"></a>
3 <a href="summa.TP_Q60.html"></a>
4 <h2 id="TP.iii-p0.1">TREATISE ON THE SACRAMENTS (QQ[60]-90)</h2>
5 <div id="TP_Q60" class="div3">
6 <a href="summa.TP.iii.html"></a>
7 <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A1.html"></a>
8 <h3 id="TP_Q60-p0.1">WHAT IS A SACRAMENT? (EIGHT ARTICLES)</h3>
9 <p id="TP_Q60-p1"></p>
10 <p id="TP_Q60-p2"> After considering those things that concern the mystery of the incarnate Word, we must consider the sacraments of the Church
11 which derive their efficacy from the Word incarnate Himself. First we shall consider the sacraments in general; secondly,
12 we shall consider specially each sacrament.
13 </p>
14 <p id="TP_Q60-p3"> Concerning the first our consideration will be fivefold: (1) What is a sacrament? (2) Of the necessity of the sacraments;
15 (3) of the effects of the sacraments; (4) Of their cause; (5) Of their number.
16 </p>
17 <p id="TP_Q60-p4"> Under the first heading there are eight points of inquiry:</p>
18 <p id="TP_Q60-p5"> (1) Whether a sacrament is a kind of sign?</p>
19 <p id="TP_Q60-p6"> (2) Whether every sign of a sacred thing is a sacrament?</p>
20 <p id="TP_Q60-p7"> (3) Whether a sacrament is a sign of one thing only, or of several?</p>
21 <p id="TP_Q60-p8"> (4) Whether a sacrament is a sign that is something sensible?</p>
22 <p id="TP_Q60-p9"> (5) Whether some determinate sensible thing is required for a sacrament?</p>
23 <p id="TP_Q60-p10"> (6) Whether signification expressed by words is necessary for a sacrament?</p>
24 <p id="TP_Q60-p11"> (7) Whether determinate words are required?</p>
25 <p id="TP_Q60-p12"> (8) Whether anything may be added to or subtracted from these words?</p>
26 <div id="TP_Q60_A1" class="div4">
27 <a href="summa.TP_Q60.html"></a>
28 <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A2.html"></a>
29 <h4 id="TP_Q60_A1-p0.1">Whether a sacrament is a kind of sign?</h4>
30 <p id="TP_Q60_A1-p1"></p>
31 <p id="TP_Q60_A1-p2">
32 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that a sacrament is not a kind of sign. For sacrament appears to be derived from "sacring" [sacrando]; just as medicament,
33 from "medicando" [healing]. But this seems to be of the nature of a cause rather than of a sign. Therefore a sacrament is
34 a kind of cause rather than a kind of sign.
35 </p>
36 <p id="TP_Q60_A1-p3">
37 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, sacrament seems to signify something hidden, according to
38 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q60_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Tob.12.7" target="asv"> Tob. 12:7</a>: "It is good to hide the secret [sacramentum] of a king"; and
39 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q60_A1-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Eph.3.9" target="asv"> Eph. 3:9</a>: "What is the dispensation of the mystery [sacramenti] which hath been hidden from eternity in God." But that which is hidden,
40 seems foreign to the nature of a sign; for "a sign is that which conveys something else to the mind, besides the species which
41 it impresses on
42 the senses," as Augustine explains (De Doctr. Christ. ii). Therefore it seems that a sacrament is not a kind of sign.
43 </p>
44 <p id="TP_Q60_A1-p4">
45 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, an oath is sometimes called a sacrament: for it is written in the Decretals (Caus. xxii, qu. 5): "Children who have
46 not attained the use of reason must not be obliged to swear: and whoever has foresworn himself once, must no more be a witness,
47 nor be allowed to take a sacrament," i.e. an oath. But an oath is not a kind of sign, therefore it seems that a sacrament
48 is not a kind of sign.
49 </p>
50 <p id="TP_Q60_A1-p5">
51 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x): "The visible sacrifice is the sacrament, i.e. the sacred sign, of the invisible sacrifice."
52 </p>
53 <p id="TP_Q60_A1-p6">
54 <b>I answer that,</b> All things that are ordained to one, even in different ways, can be denominated from it: thus, from health which is in an
55 animal, not only is the animal said to be healthy through being the subject of health: but medicine also is said to be healthy
56 through producing health; diet through preserving it; and urine, through being a sign of health. Consequently, a thing may
57 be called a "sacrament," either from having a certain hidden sanctity, and in this sense a
58 sacrament is a "sacred secret"; or from having some relationship to this sanctity, which relationship may be that of a cause,
59 or of a sign or of any other relation. But now we are speaking of sacraments in a special sense, as implying the habitude
60 of sign: and in this way a sacrament is a kind of sign.
61 </p>
62 <p id="TP_Q60_A1-p7">
63 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Because medicine is an efficient cause of health, consequently whatever things are denominated from medicine are to be referred
64 to some first active cause: so that a medicament implies a certain causality. But sanctity from which a sacrament is denominated,
65 is not there taken as an efficient cause, but rather as a formal or a final cause. Therefore it does not follow that a sacrament
66 need always imply causality.
67 </p>
68 <p id="TP_Q60_A1-p8">
69 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This argument considers sacrament in the sense of a "sacred secret." Now not only God's but also the king's, secret, is said
70 to be sacred and to be a sacrament: because according to the ancients, whatever it was unlawful to lay violent hands on was
71 said to be holy or sacrosanct, such as the city walls, and persons of high rank. Consequently those secrets, whether Divine
72 or human, which it is unlawful to violate by making them known to anybody
73 whatever, are called "sacred secrets or sacraments."
74 </p>
75 <p id="TP_Q60_A1-p9">
76 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Even an oath has a certain relation to sacred things, in so far as it consists in calling a sacred thing to witness. And
77 in this sense it is called a sacrament: not in the sense in which we speak of sacraments now; the word "sacrament" being thus
78 used not equivocally but analogically, i.e. by reason of a different relation to the one thing, viz. something sacred.
79 </p>
80 <p id="TP_Q60_A1-p10"></p>
81 <p id="TP_Q60_A1-p11"></p>
82 <a href="summa.TP_Q60.html"></a>
83 <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A2.html"></a>
84 </div>
85 <div id="TP_Q60_A2" class="div4">
86 <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A1.html"></a>
87 <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A3.html"></a>
88 <h4 id="TP_Q60_A2-p0.1">Whether every sign of a holy thing is a sacrament?</h4>
89 <p id="TP_Q60_A2-p1"></p>
90 <p id="TP_Q60_A2-p2">
91 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that not every sign of a sacred thing is a sacrament. For all sensible creatures are signs of sacred things; according
92 to
93 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q60_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.1.20" target="asv">Rom. 1:20</a>: "The invisible things of God are clearly seen being understood by the things that are made." And yet all sensible things
94 cannot be called sacraments. Therefore not every sign of a sacred thing is a sacrament.
95 </p>
96 <p id="TP_Q60_A2-p3">
97 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, whatever was done under the Old Law was a figure of Christ Who is the "Holy of Holies" (
98 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q60_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Dan.9.24" target="asv">Dan. 9:24</a>), according to
99 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q60_A2-p3.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.10.11" target="asv">1 Cor. 10:11</a>: "All (these) things happened to them in figure"; and
100 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q60_A2-p3.3" href="./asv.html#Col.2.17" target="asv"> Col. 2:17</a>: "Which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is Christ's." And yet not all that was done by the Fathers of the Old
101 Testament, not even all the ceremonies of the Law, were sacraments, but only in certain special
102 cases, as stated in the
103 <a id="TP_Q60_A2-p3.4" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q101_A4.html">FS, Q[101], A[4]</a>. Therefore it seems that not every sign of a sacred thing is a sacrament.
104 </p>
105 <p id="TP_Q60_A2-p4">
106 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, even in the New Testament many things are done in sign of some sacred thing; yet they are not called sacraments;
107 such as sprinkling with holy water, the consecration of an altar, and such like. Therefore not every sign of a sacred thing
108 is a sacrament.
109 </p>
110 <p id="TP_Q60_A2-p5">
111 <b>On the contrary,</b> A definition is convertible with the thing defined. Now some define a sacrament as being "the sign of a sacred thing"; moreover,
112 this is clear from the passage quoted above
113 <a id="TP_Q60_A2-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q60_A1.html">(A[1])</a> from Augustine. Therefore it seems that every sign of a sacred thing is a sacrament.
114 </p>
115 <p id="TP_Q60_A2-p6">
116 <b>I answer that,</b> Signs are given to men, to whom it is proper to discover the unknown by means of the known. Consequently a sacrament properly
117 so called is that which is the sign of some sacred thing pertaining to man; so that properly speaking a sacrament, as considered
118 by us now, is defined as being the "sign of a holy thing so far as it makes men holy."
119 </p>
120 <p id="TP_Q60_A2-p7">
121 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Sensible creatures signify something holy, viz. Divine wisdom and goodness inasmuch as these are holy in themselves; but
122 not inasmuch as we are made holy by them. Therefore they cannot be called sacraments as we understand sacraments now.
123 </p>
124 <p id="TP_Q60_A2-p8">
125 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Some things pertaining to the Old Testament signified the holiness of Christ considered as holy in Himself. Others signified
126 His holiness considered as the cause of our holiness; thus the sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb signified Christ's Sacrifice
127 whereby we are made holy: and such like are properly styled sacraments of the Old Law.
128 </p>
129 <p id="TP_Q60_A2-p9">
130 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Names are given to things considered in reference to their end and state of completeness. Now a disposition is not an end,
131 whereas perfection is. Consequently things that signify disposition to holiness are not called sacraments, and with regard
132 to these the objection is verified: only those are called sacraments which signify the perfection of holiness in man.
133 </p>
134 <p id="TP_Q60_A2-p10"></p>
135 <p id="TP_Q60_A2-p11"></p>
136 <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A1.html"></a>
137 <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A3.html"></a>
138 </div>
139 <div id="TP_Q60_A3" class="div4">
140 <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A2.html"></a>
141 <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A4.html"></a>
142 <h4 id="TP_Q60_A3-p0.1">Whether a sacrament is a sign of one thing only?</h4>
143 <p id="TP_Q60_A3-p1"></p>
144 <p id="TP_Q60_A3-p2">
145 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that a sacrament is a sign of one thing only. For that which signifies many things is an ambiguous sign, and consequently
146 occasions deception: this is clearly seen in equivocal words. But all deception should be removed from the Christian religion,
147 according to
148 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q60_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Col.2.8" target="asv"> Col. 2:8</a>: "Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceit." Therefore it seems that a sacrament is not a sign of several
149 things.
150 </p>
151 <p id="TP_Q60_A3-p3">
152 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, as stated above
153 <a id="TP_Q60_A3-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q60_A2.html">(A[2])</a>, a sacrament signifies a holy thing in so far as it makes man holy. But there is only one cause of man's holiness, viz. the
154 blood of Christ; according to
155 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q60_A3-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.13.12" target="asv"> Heb. 13:12</a>: "Jesus, that He might sanctify the people by His own blood, suffered without the gate." Therefore it seems that a sacrament
156 does not signify several things.
157 </p>
158 <p id="TP_Q60_A3-p4">
159 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it has been said above (A[2], ad 3) that a sacrament signifies properly the very end of sanctification. Now the
160 end of sanctification is eternal life, according to
161 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q60_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.22" target="asv"> Rom. 6:22</a>: "You have your fruit unto sanctification, and the end life everlasting." Therefore it seems that the sacraments signify
162 one thing only, viz. eternal life.
163 </p>
164 <p id="TP_Q60_A3-p5">
165 <b>On the contrary,</b> In the Sacrament of the Altar, two things are signified, viz. Christ's true body, and Christ's mystical body; as Augustine
166 says (Liber Sent. Prosper.).
167 </p>
168 <p id="TP_Q60_A3-p6">
169 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
170 <a id="TP_Q60_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q60_A2.html">(A[2])</a> a sacrament properly speaking is that which is ordained to signify our sanctification. In which three things may be considered;
171 viz. the very cause of our sanctification, which is Christ's passion; the form of our sanctification, which is grace and the
172 virtues; and the ultimate end of our sanctification, which is eternal life. And all these are signified by the sacraments.
173 Consequently a sacrament is a sign
174 that is both a reminder of the past, i.e. the passion of Christ; and an indication of that which is effected in us by Christ's
175 passion, i.e. grace; and a prognostic, that is, a foretelling of future glory.
176 </p>
177 <p id="TP_Q60_A3-p7">
178 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Then is a sign ambiguous and the occasion of deception, when it signifies many things not ordained to one another. But when
179 it signifies many things inasmuch as, through being mutually ordained, they form one thing, then the sign is not ambiguous
180 but certain: thus this word "man" signifies the soul and body inasmuch as together they form the human nature. In this way
181 a sacrament signifies the three things aforesaid, inasmuch as by being in a certain
182 order they are one thing.
183 </p>
184 <p id="TP_Q60_A3-p8">
185 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Since a sacrament signifies that which sanctifies, it must needs signify the effect, which is implied in the sanctifying
186 cause as such.
187 </p>
188 <p id="TP_Q60_A3-p9">
189 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> It is enough for a sacrament that it signify that perfection which consists in the form, nor is it necessary that it should
190 signify only that perfection which is the end.
191 </p>
192 <p id="TP_Q60_A3-p10"></p>
193 <p id="TP_Q60_A3-p11"></p>
194 <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A2.html"></a>
195 <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A4.html"></a>
196 </div>
197 <div id="TP_Q60_A4" class="div4">
198 <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A3.html"></a>
199 <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A5.html"></a>
200 <h4 id="TP_Q60_A4-p0.1">Whether a sacrament is always something sensible?</h4>
201 <p id="TP_Q60_A4-p1"></p>
202 <p id="TP_Q60_A4-p2">
203 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that a sacrament is not always something sensible. Because, according to the Philosopher (Prior. Anal. ii), every
204 effect is a sign of its cause. But just as there are some sensible effects, so are there some intelligible effects; thus science
205 is the effect of a demonstration. Therefore not every sign is sensible. Now all that is required for a sacrament is something
206 that is a sign of some sacred thing, inasmuch as thereby man is sanctified, as stated
207 above
208 <a id="TP_Q60_A4-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q60_A2.html">(A[2])</a>. Therefore something sensible is not required for a sacrament.
209 </p>
210 <p id="TP_Q60_A4-p3">
211 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, sacraments belong to the kingdom of God and the Divine worship. But sensible things do not seem to belong to the
212 Divine worship: for we are told (
213 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q60_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#John.4.24" target="asv">Jn. 4:24</a>) that "God is a spirit; and they that adore Him, must adore Him in spirit and in truth"; and (
214 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q60_A4-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.14.17" target="asv">Rom. 14:17</a>) that "the kingdom of God is not meat and drink." Therefore sensible things are not required for the sacraments.
215 </p>
216 <p id="TP_Q60_A4-p4">
217 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further. Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. ii) that "sensible things are goods of least account, since without them man can live
218 aright." But the sacraments are necessary for man's salvation, as we shall show farther on (
219 <a id="TP_Q60_A4-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q61_A1.html">Q[61], A[1]</a>): so that man cannot live aright without them. Therefore sensible things are not required for the sacraments.
220 </p>
221 <p id="TP_Q60_A4-p5">
222 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (Tract. lxxx super Joan.): "The word is added to the element and this becomes a sacrament"; and he is speaking
223 there of water which is a sensible element. Therefore sensible things are required for the sacraments.
224 </p>
225 <p id="TP_Q60_A4-p6">
226 <b>I answer that,</b> Divine wisdom provides for each thing according to its mode; hence it is written (
227 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q60_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.8.1" target="asv">Wis. 8:1</a>) that "she . . . ordereth all things sweetly": wherefore also we are told (
228 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q60_A4-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.25.15" target="asv">Mat. 25:15</a>) that she "gave to everyone according to his proper ability." Now it is part of man's nature to acquire knowledge of the
229 intelligible from the sensible. But a sign is that by means of which one attains to the knowledge of something else.
230 Consequently, since the sacred things which are signified by the sacraments, are the spiritual and intelligible goods by means
231 of which man is sanctified, it follows that the sacramental signs consist in sensible things: just as in the Divine Scriptures
232 spiritual things are set before us under the guise of things sensible. And hence it is that sensible things are required for
233 the sacraments; as Dionysius also proves in his book on the heavenly hierarchy (Coel. Hier. i).
234 </p>
235 <p id="TP_Q60_A4-p7">
236 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The name and definition of a thing is taken principally from that which belongs to a thing primarily and essentially: and
237 not from that which belongs to it through something else. Now a sensible effect being the primary and direct object of man's
238 knowledge (since all our knowledge springs from the senses) by its very nature leads to the knowledge of something else: whereas
239 intelligible effects are not such as to be able to lead us to the knowledge of
240 something else, except in so far as they are manifested by some other thing, i.e. by certain sensibles. It is for this reason
241 that the name sign is given primarily and principally to things which are offered to the senses; hence Augustine says (De
242 Doctr. Christ. ii) that a sign "is that which conveys something else to the mind, besides the species which it impresses on
243 the senses." But intelligible effects do not partake of the nature of a sign except in so far as they are pointed out by
244 certain signs. And in this way, too, certain things which are not sensible are termed sacraments as it were, in so far as
245 they are signified by certain sensible things, of which we shall treat further on (
246 <a id="TP_Q60_A4-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q63_A1.html">Q[63], A[1]</a>, ad 2; A[3], ad 2;
247 <a id="TP_Q60_A4-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q73_A6.html"> Q[73], A[6]</a>;
248 <a id="TP_Q60_A4-p7.3" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q74_A1.html"> Q[74], A[1]</a>, ad 3).
249 </p>
250 <p id="TP_Q60_A4-p8">
251 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Sensible things considered in their own nature do not belong to the worship or kingdom of God: but considered only as signs
252 of spiritual things in which the kingdom of God consists.
253 </p>
254 <p id="TP_Q60_A4-p9">
255 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Augustine speaks there of sensible things, considered in their nature; but not as employed to signify spiritual things, which
256 are the highest goods.
257 </p>
258 <p id="TP_Q60_A4-p10"></p>
259 <p id="TP_Q60_A4-p11"></p>
260 <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A3.html"></a>
261 <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A5.html"></a>
262 </div>
263 <div id="TP_Q60_A5" class="div4">
264 <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A4.html"></a>
265 <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A6.html"></a>
266 <h4 id="TP_Q60_A5-p0.1">Whether determinate things are required for a sacrament?</h4>
267 <p id="TP_Q60_A5-p1"></p>
268 <p id="TP_Q60_A5-p2">
269 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that determinate things are not required for a sacrament. For sensible things are required in sacraments for the
270 purpose of signification, as stated above
271 <a id="TP_Q60_A5-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q60_A4.html">(A[4])</a>. But nothing hinders the same thing being signified by divers sensible things: thus in Holy Scripture God is signified metaphorically,
272 sometimes by a stone (
273 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q60_A5-p2.2" href="./asv.html#iiKgdms.22.2" target="asv">2 Kings 22:2</a>;
274 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q60_A5-p2.3" href="./asv.html#Zech.3.9" target="asv">Zech. 3:9</a>;
275 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q60_A5-p2.4" href="./asv.html#iCor.10.4" target="asv">1 Cor. 10:4</a>;
276 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q60_A5-p2.5" href="./asv.html#Rev.4.3" target="asv"> Apoc. 4:3</a>);
277 sometimes by a lion (
278 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q60_A5-p2.6" href="./asv.html#Isa.31.4" target="asv">Is. 31:4</a>;
279 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q60_A5-p2.7" href="./asv.html#Rev.5.5" target="asv"> Apoc. 5:5</a>); sometimes by the sun (
280 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q60_A5-p2.8" href="./asv.html#Isa.60.19" target="asv">Is. 60:19,20</a>;
281 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q60_A5-p2.9" href="./asv.html#Mal.4.2" target="asv"> Mal. 4:2</a>), or by something similar. Therefore it seems that divers things can be suitable to the same sacrament. Therefore determinate
282 things are not required for the sacraments.
283 </p>
284 <p id="TP_Q60_A5-p3">
285 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the health of the soul is more necessary than that of the body. But in bodily medicines, which are ordained to the
286 health of the body, one thing can be substituted for another which happens to be wanting. Therefore much more in the sacraments,
287 which are spiritual remedies ordained to the health of the soul, can one thing be substituted for another when this happens
288 to be lacking.
289 </p>
290 <p id="TP_Q60_A5-p4">
291 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is not fitting that the salvation of men be restricted by the Divine Law: still less by the Law of Christ, Who
292 came to save all. But in the state of the Law of nature determinate things were not required in the sacraments, but were put
293 to that use through a vow, as appears from
294 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q60_A5-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.28" target="asv">Gn. 28</a>, where Jacob vowed that he would offer to God tithes and peace-offerings. Therefore it seems that man should not have been
295 restricted, especially under the New Law,
296 to the use of any determinate thing in the sacraments.
297 </p>
298 <p id="TP_Q60_A5-p5">
299 <b>On the contrary,</b> our Lord said (
300 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q60_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.3.5" target="asv">Jn. 3:5</a>): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
301 </p>
302 <p id="TP_Q60_A5-p6">
303 <b>I answer that,</b> In the use of the sacraments two things may be considered, namely, the worship of God, and the sanctification of man: the
304 former of which pertains to man as referred to God, and the latter pertains to God in reference to man. Now it is not for
305 anyone to determine that which is in the power of another, but only that which is in his own power. Since, therefore, the
306 sanctification of man is in the power of God Who sanctifies, it is not for man to decide what
307 things should be used for his sanctification, but this should be determined by Divine institution. Therefore in the sacraments
308 of the New Law, by which man is sanctified according to
309 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q60_A5-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.6.11" target="asv">1 Cor. 6:11, </a> "You are washed, you are sanctified," we must use those things which are determined by Divine institution.
310 </p>
311 <p id="TP_Q60_A5-p7">
312 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Though the same thing can be signified by divers signs, yet to determine which sign must be used belongs to the signifier.
313 Now it is God Who signifies spiritual things to us by means of the sensible things in the sacraments, and of similitudes in
314 the Scriptures. And consequently, just as the Holy Ghost decides by what similitudes spiritual things are to be signified
315 in certain passages of Scripture, so also must it be determined by Divine institution
316 what things are to be employed for the purpose of signification in this or that sacrament.
317 </p>
318 <p id="TP_Q60_A5-p8">
319 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Sensible things are endowed with natural powers conducive to the health of the body: and therefore if two of them have the
320 same virtue, it matters not which we use. Yet they are ordained unto sanctification not through any power that they possess
321 naturally, but only in virtue of the Divine institution. And therefore it was necessary that God should determine the sensible
322 things to be employed in the sacraments.
323 </p>
324 <p id="TP_Q60_A5-p9">
325 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix), diverse sacraments suit different times; just as different times are signified by
326 different parts of the verb, viz. present, past, and future. Consequently, just as under the state of the Law of nature man
327 was moved by inward instinct and without any outward law, to worship God, so also the sensible things to be employed in the
328 worship of God were determined by inward instinct. But later on it became necessary
329 for a law to be given (to man) from without: both because the Law of nature had become obscured by man's sins; and in order
330 to signify more expressly the grace of Christ, by which the human race is sanctified. And hence the need for those things
331 to be determinate, of which men have to make use in the sacraments. Nor is the way of salvation narrowed thereby: because
332 the things which need to be used in the sacraments, are either in everyone's possession or can be had with little trouble.
333 </p>
334 <p id="TP_Q60_A5-p10"></p>
335 <p id="TP_Q60_A5-p11"></p>
336 <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A4.html"></a>
337 <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A6.html"></a>
338 </div>
339 <div id="TP_Q60_A6" class="div4">
340 <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A5.html"></a>
341 <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A7.html"></a>
342 <h4 id="TP_Q60_A6-p0.1">Whether words are required for the signification of the sacraments?</h4>
343 <p id="TP_Q60_A6-p1"></p>
344 <p id="TP_Q60_A6-p2">
345 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that words are not required for the signification of the sacraments. For Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix): "What
346 else is a corporeal sacrament but a kind of visible word?" Wherefore to add words to the sensible things in the sacraments
347 seems to be the same as to add words to words. But this is superfluous. Therefore words are not required besides the sensible
348 things in the sacraments .
349 </p>
350 <p id="TP_Q60_A6-p3">
351 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a sacrament is some one thing, but it does not seem possible to make one thing of those that belong to different
352 genera. Since, therefore, sensible things and words are of different genera, for sensible things are the product of nature,
353 but words, of reason; it seems that in the sacraments, words are not required besides sensible things.
354 </p>
355 <p id="TP_Q60_A6-p4">
356 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the sacraments of the New Law succeed those of the Old Law: since "the former were instituted when the latter were
357 abolished," as Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix). But no form of words was required in the sacraments of the Old Law. Therefore
358 neither is it required in those of the New Law.
359 </p>
360 <p id="TP_Q60_A6-p5">
361 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
362 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q60_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.5.25" target="asv">Eph. 5:25,26</a>): "Christ loved the Church, and delivered Himself up for it; that He might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water
363 in the word of life." And Augustine says (Tract. xxx in Joan.): "The word is added to the element, and this becomes a sacrament."
364 </p>
365 <p id="TP_Q60_A6-p6">
366 <b>I answer that,</b> The sacraments, as stated above (
367 <a id="TP_Q60_A6-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q60_A2.html">AA[2]</a>,3), are employed as signs for man's sanctification. Consequently they can be considered in three ways: and in each way it
368 is fitting for words to be added to the sensible signs. For in the first place they can be considered in regard to the cause
369 of sanctification, which is the Word incarnate: to Whom the sacraments have a certain conformity, in that the word is joined
370 to the sensible sign, just
371 as in the mystery of the Incarnation the Word of God is united to sensible flesh.
372 </p>
373 <p id="TP_Q60_A6-p7"> Secondly, sacraments may be considered on the part of man who is sanctified, and who is composed of soul and body: to whom
374 the sacramental remedy is adjusted, since it touches the body through the sensible element, and the soul through faith in
375 the words. Hence Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan.) on
376 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q60_A6-p7.1" href="./asv.html#John.15.3" target="asv"> Jn. 15:3, </a> "Now you are clean by reason of the word," etc.: "Whence hath water this so great virtue, to touch the body and wash the
377 heart, but by the word doing
378 it, not because it is spoken, but because it is believed?"
379 </p>
380 <p id="TP_Q60_A6-p8"> Thirdly, a sacrament may be considered on the part of the sacramental signification. Now Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ.
381 ii) that "words are the principal signs used by men"; because words can be formed in various ways for the purpose of signifying
382 various mental concepts, so that we are able to express our thoughts with greater distinctness by means of words. And therefore
383 in order to insure the perfection of sacramental signification it was necessary to determine the
384 signification of the sensible things by means of certain words. For water may signify both a cleansing by reason of its humidity,
385 and refreshment by reason of its being cool: but when we say, "I baptize thee," it is clear that we use water in baptism in
386 order to signify a spiritual cleansing.
387 </p>
388 <p id="TP_Q60_A6-p9">
389 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The sensible elements of the sacraments are called words by way of a certain likeness, in so far as they partake of a certain
390 significative power, which resides principally in the very words, as stated above. Consequently it is not a superfluous repetition
391 to add words to the visible element in the sacraments; because one determines the other, as stated above.
392 </p>
393 <p id="TP_Q60_A6-p10">
394 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although words and other sensible things are not in the same genus, considered in their natures, yet have they something
395 in common as to the thing signified by them: which is more perfectly done in words than in other things. Wherefore in the
396 sacraments, words and things, like form and matter, combine in the formation of one thing, in so far as the signification
397 of things is completed by means of words, as above stated. And under words are comprised
398 also sensible actions, such as cleansing and anointing and such like: because they have a like signification with the things.
399 </p>
400 <p id="TP_Q60_A6-p11">
401 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix), the sacraments of things present should be different from sacraments of things to
402 come. Now the sacraments of the Old Law foretold the coming of Christ. Consequently they did not signify Christ so clearly
403 as the sacraments of the New Law, which flow from Christ Himself, and have a certain likeness to Him, as stated above. Nevertheless
404 in the Old Law, certain words were used in things pertaining to the worship of
405 God, both by the priests, who were the ministers of those sacraments, according to
406 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q60_A6-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Num.6.23" target="asv"> Num. 6:23,24</a>: "Thus shall you bless the children of Israel, and you shall say to them: The Lord bless thee," etc.; and by those who made
407 use of those sacraments, according to
408 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q60_A6-p11.2" href="./asv.html#Deut.26.3" target="asv"> Dt. 26:3</a>: "I profess this day before the Lord thy God," etc.
409 </p>
410 <p id="TP_Q60_A6-p12"></p>
411 <p id="TP_Q60_A6-p13"></p>
412 <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A5.html"></a>
413 <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A7.html"></a>
414 </div>
415 <div id="TP_Q60_A7" class="div4">
416 <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A6.html"></a>
417 <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A8.html"></a>
418 <h4 id="TP_Q60_A7-p0.1">Whether determinate words are required in the sacraments?</h4>
419 <p id="TP_Q60_A7-p1"></p>
420 <p id="TP_Q60_A7-p2">
421 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that determinate words are not required in the sacraments. For as the Philosopher says (Peri Herm. i), "words are
422 not the same for all." But salvation, which is sought through the sacraments, is the same for all. Therefore determinate words
423 are not required in the sacraments.
424 </p>
425 <p id="TP_Q60_A7-p3">
426 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, words are required in the sacraments forasmuch as they are the principal means of signification, as stated above
427
428 <a id="TP_Q60_A7-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q60_A6.html">(A[6])</a>. But it happens that various words mean the same. Therefore determinate words are not required in the sacraments.
429 </p>
430 <p id="TP_Q60_A7-p4">
431 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, corruption of anything changes its species. But some corrupt the pronunciation of words, and yet it is not credible
432 that the sacramental effect is hindered thereby; else unlettered men and stammerers, in conferring sacraments, would frequently
433 do so invalidly. Therefore it seems that determinate words are not required in the sacraments.
434 </p>
435 <p id="TP_Q60_A7-p5">
436 <b>On the contrary,</b> our Lord used determinate words in consecrating the sacrament of the Eucharist, when He said (
437 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q60_A7-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.26.26" target="asv">Mat. 26:26</a>): "This is My Body." Likewise He commanded His disciples to baptize under a form of determinate words, saying (
438 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q60_A7-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.28.19" target="asv">Mat. 28:19</a>): "Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
439 </p>
440 <p id="TP_Q60_A7-p6">
441 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (A[6], ad 2), in the sacraments the words are as the form, and sensible things are as the matter. Now in
442 all things composed of matter and form, the determining principle is on the part of the form, which is as it were the end
443 and terminus of the matter. Consequently for the being of a thing the need of a determinate form is prior to the need of determinate
444 matter: for determinate matter is needed that it may be adapted to the determinate
445 form. Since, therefore, in the sacraments determinate sensible things are required, which are as the sacramental matter, much
446 more is there need in them of a determinate form of words.
447 </p>
448 <p id="TP_Q60_A7-p7">
449 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As Augustine says (Tract. lxxx super Joan.), the word operates in the sacraments "not because it is spoken," i.e. not by
450 the outward sound of the voice, "but because it is believed" in accordance with the sense of the words which is held by faith.
451 And this sense is indeed the same for all, though the same words as to their sound be not used by all. Consequently no matter
452 in what language this sense is expressed, the sacrament is complete.
453 </p>
454 <p id="TP_Q60_A7-p8">
455 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although it happens in every language that various words signify the same thing, yet one of those words is that which those
456 who speak that language use principally and more commonly to signify that particular thing: and this is the word which should
457 be used for the sacramental signification. So also among sensible things, that one is used for the sacramental signification
458 which is most commonly employed for the action by which the sacramental effect
459 is signified: thus water is most commonly used by men for bodily cleansing, by which the spiritual cleansing is signified:
460 and therefore water is employed as the matter of baptism.
461 </p>
462 <p id="TP_Q60_A7-p9">
463 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> If he who corrupts the pronunciation of the sacramental words---does so on purpose, he does not seem to intend to do what
464 the Church intends: and thus the sacrament seems to be defective. But if he do this through error or a slip of the tongue,
465 and if he so far mispronounce the words as to deprive them of sense, the sacrament seems to be defective. This would be the
466 case especially if the mispronunciation be in the beginning of a word, for instance,
467 if one were to say "in nomine matris" instead of "in nomine Patris." If, however, the sense of the words be not entirely lost
468 by this mispronunciation, the sacrament is complete. This would be the case principally if the end of a word be mispronounced;
469 for instance, if one were to say "patrias et filias." For although the words thus mispronounced have no appointed meaning,
470 yet we allow them an accommodated meaning corresponding to the usual forms of speech. And so, although the sensible sound
471 is changed, yet the sense remains the same.
472 </p>
473 <p id="TP_Q60_A7-p10"> What has been said about the various mispronunciations of words, either at the beginning or at the end, holds forasmuch as
474 with us a change at the beginning of a word changes the meaning, whereas a change at the end generally speaking does not effect
475 such a change: whereas with the Greeks the sense is changed also in the beginning of words in the conjugation of verbs.
476 </p>
477 <p id="TP_Q60_A7-p11"> Nevertheless the principle point to observe is the extent of the corruption entailed by mispronunciation: for in either case
478 it may be so little that it does not alter the sense of the words; or so great that it destroys it. But it is easier for the
479 one to happen on the part of the beginning of the words, and the other at the end.
480 </p>
481 <p id="TP_Q60_A7-p12"></p>
482 <p id="TP_Q60_A7-p13"></p>
483 <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A6.html"></a>
484 <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A8.html"></a>
485 </div>
486 <div id="TP_Q60_A8" class="div4">
487 <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A7.html"></a>
488 <a href="summa.TP_Q61.html"></a>
489 <h4 id="TP_Q60_A8-p0.1">Whether it is lawful to add anything to the words in which the sacramental form consists?</h4>
490 <p id="TP_Q60_A8-p1"></p>
491 <p id="TP_Q60_A8-p2">
492 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that it is not lawful to add anything to the words in which the sacramental form consists. For these sacramental
493 words are not of less importance than are the words of Holy Scripture. But it is not lawful to add anything to, or to take
494 anything from, the words of Holy Scripture: for it is written (
495 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q60_A8-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.4.2" target="asv">Dt. 4:2</a>): "You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it"; and (
496 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q60_A8-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Rev.22.18" target="asv">Apoc. 22:18,19</a>): "I testify to
497 everyone that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: if any man shall add to these things, God shall add to him the
498 plagues written in this book. And if any man shall take away . . . God shall take away his part out of the book of life."
499 Therefore it seems that neither is it lawful to add anything to, or to take anything from, the sacramental forms.
500 </p>
501 <p id="TP_Q60_A8-p3">
502 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in the sacraments words are by way of form, as stated above (A[6], ad 2; A[7]). But any addition or subtraction
503 in forms changes the species, as also in numbers (Metaph. viii). Therefore it seems that if anything be added to or subtracted
504 from a sacramental form, it will not be the same sacrament.
505 </p>
506 <p id="TP_Q60_A8-p4">
507 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, just as the sacramental form demands a certain number of words, so does it require that these words should be pronounced
508 in a certain order and without interruption. If therefore, the sacrament is not rendered invalid by addition or subtraction
509 of words, in like manner it seems that neither is it, if the words be pronounced in a different order or with interruptions.
510 </p>
511 <p id="TP_Q60_A8-p5">
512 <b>On the contrary,</b> Certain words are inserted by some in the sacramental forms, which are not inserted by others: thus the Latins baptize under
513 this form: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"; whereas the Greeks use the following
514 form: "The servant of God, N . . . is baptized in the name of the Father," etc. Yet both confer the sacrament validly. Therefore
515 it is lawful to add something to, or to take something from, the
516 sacramental forms.
517 </p>
518 <p id="TP_Q60_A8-p6">
519 <b>I answer that,</b> With regard to all the variations that may occur in the sacramental forms, two points seem to call for our attention. one
520 is on the part of the person who says the words, and whose intention is essential to the sacrament, as will be explained further
521 on (
522 <a id="TP_Q60_A8-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q64_A8.html">Q[64], A[8]</a> ). Wherefore if he intends by such addition or suppression to perform a rite other from that which is recognized by the Church,
523 it seems that the sacrament is invalid:
524 because he seems not to intend to do what the Church does.
525 </p>
526 <p id="TP_Q60_A8-p7"> The other point to be considered is the meaning of the words. For since in the sacraments, the words produce an effect according
527 to the sense which they convey, as stated above (A[7], ad 1), we must see whether the change of words destroys the essential
528 sense of the words: because then the sacrament is clearly rendered invalid. Now it is clear, if any substantial part of the
529 sacramental form be suppressed, that the essential sense of the words is destroyed; and consequently the
530 sacrament is invalid. Wherefore Didymus says (De Spir. Sanct. ii): "If anyone attempt to baptize in such a way as to omit
531 one of the aforesaid names," i.e. of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, "his baptism will be invalid." But if that which is
532 omitted be not a substantial part of the form, such an omission does not destroy the essential sense of the words, nor consequently
533 the validity of the sacrament. Thus in the form of the Eucharist---"For this is My Body," the omission of the word "for"
534 does not destroy the essential sense of the words, nor consequently cause the sacrament to be invalid; although perhaps he
535 who makes the omission may sin from negligence or contempt.
536 </p>
537 <p id="TP_Q60_A8-p8"> Again, it is possible to add something that destroys the essential sense of the words: for instance, if one were to say:
538 "I baptize thee in the name of the Father Who is greater, and of the Son Who is less," with which form the Arians baptized:
539 and consequently such an addition makes the sacrament invalid. But if the addition be such as not to destroy the essential
540 sense, the sacrament is not rendered invalid. Nor does it matter whether this addition be made at the beginning, in
541 the middle, or at the end: For instance, if one were to say, "I baptize thee in the name of the Father Almighty, and of the
542 only Begotten Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete," the baptism would be valid; and in like manner if one were to say,
543 "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"; and may the Blessed Virgin succour thee,
544 the baptism would be valid.
545 </p>
546 <p id="TP_Q60_A8-p9"> Perhaps, however, if one were to say, "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and
547 of the Blessed Virgin Mary," the baptism would be void; because it is written (
548 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q60_A8-p9.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.1.13" target="asv">1 Cor. 1:13</a>): "Was Paul crucified for you or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" But this is true if the intention be to baptize
549 in the name of the Blessed Virgin as in the name of the Trinity, by which baptism is consecrated: for such a sense would be
550 contrary to faith, and
551 would therefore render the sacrament invalid: whereas if the addition, "and in the name of the Blessed Virgin" be understood,
552 not as if the name of the Blessed Virgin effected anything in baptism, but as intimating that her intercession may help the
553 person baptized to preserve the baptismal grace, then the sacrament is not rendered void.
554 </p>
555 <p id="TP_Q60_A8-p10">
556 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> It is not lawful to add anything to the words of Holy Scripture as regards the sense; but many words are added by Doctors
557 by way of explanation of the Holy Scriptures. Nevertheless, it is not lawful to add even words to Holy Scripture as though
558 such words were a part thereof, for this would amount to forgery. It would amount to the same if anyone were to pretend that
559 something is essential to a sacramental form, which is not so.
560 </p>
561 <p id="TP_Q60_A8-p11">
562 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Words belong to a sacramental form by reason of the sense signified by them. Consequently any addition or suppression of
563 words which does not add to or take from the essential sense, does not destroy the essence of the sacrament.
564 </p>
565 <p id="TP_Q60_A8-p12">
566 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> If the words are interrupted to such an extent that the intention of the speaker is interrupted, the sacramental sense is
567 destroyed, and consequently, the validity of the sacrament. But this is not the case if the interruption of the speaker is
568 so slight, that his intention and the sense of the words is not interrupted.
569 </p>
570 <p id="TP_Q60_A8-p13"> The same is to be said of a change in the order of the words. Because if this destroys the sense of the words, the sacrament
571 is invalidated: as happens when a negation is made to precede or follow a word. But if the order is so changed that the sense
572 of the words does not vary, the sacrament is not invalidated, according to the Philosopher's dictum: "Nouns and verbs mean
573 the same though they be transposed" (Peri Herm. x).
574 </p>
575 <p id="TP_Q60_A8-p14"></p>
576 <p id="TP_Q60_A8-p15"></p>
577 <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A7.html"></a>
578 <a href="summa.TP_Q61.html"></a>
579 </div>
580 <a href="summa.TP.iii.html"></a>
581 <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A1.html"></a>
582 </div>
583 <div id="TP_Q61" class="div3">
584 <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A8.html"></a>
585 <a href="summa.TP_Q61_A1.html"></a>
586 <h3 id="TP_Q61-p0.1">OF THE NECESSITY OF THE SACRAMENTS (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3>
587 <p id="TP_Q61-p1"></p>
588 <p id="TP_Q61-p2"> We must now consider the necessity of the sacraments; concerning which there are four points of inquiry:</p>
589 <p id="TP_Q61-p3"> (1) Whether sacraments are necessary for man's salvation?</p>
590 <p id="TP_Q61-p4"> (2) Whether they were necessary in the state that preceded sin?</p>
591 <p id="TP_Q61-p5"> (3) Whether they were necessary in the state after sin and before Christ?</p>
592 <p id="TP_Q61-p6"> (4) Whether they were necessary after Christ's coming?</p>
593 <div id="TP_Q61_A1" class="div4">
594 <a href="summa.TP_Q61.html"></a>
595 <a href="summa.TP_Q61_A2.html"></a>
596 <h4 id="TP_Q61_A1-p0.1">Whether sacraments are necessary for man's salvation? </h4>
597 <p id="TP_Q61_A1-p1"></p>
598 <p id="TP_Q61_A1-p2">
599 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that sacraments are not necessary for man's salvation. For the Apostle says (
600 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q61_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.4.8" target="asv">1 Tim. 4:8</a>): "Bodily exercise is profitable to little." But the use of sacraments pertains to bodily exercise; because sacraments are
601 perfected in the signification of sensible things and words, as stated above (
602 <a id="TP_Q61_A1-p2.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q60_A6.html">Q[60], A[6]</a>). Therefore sacraments are not necessary for the salvation of man.
603 </p>
604 <p id="TP_Q61_A1-p3">
605 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Apostle was told (
606 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q61_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.12.9" target="asv">2 Cor. 12:9</a>): "My grace is sufficient for thee." But it would not suffice if sacraments were necessary for salvation. Therefore sacraments
607 are not necessary for man's salvation.
608 </p>
609 <p id="TP_Q61_A1-p4">
610 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, given a sufficient cause, nothing more seems to be required for the effect. But Christ's Passion is the sufficient
611 cause of our salvation; for the Apostle says (
612 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q61_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.10" target="asv">Rom. 5:10</a>): "If, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son: much more, being reconciled, shall we be
613 saved by His life." Therefore sacraments are not necessary for man's salvation.
614 </p>
615 <p id="TP_Q61_A1-p5">
616 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix): "It is impossible to keep men together in one religious denomination, whether true or
617 false, except they be united by means of visible signs or sacraments." But it is necessary for salvation that men be united
618 together in the name of the one true religion. Therefore sacraments are necessary for man's salvation.
619 </p>
620 <p id="TP_Q61_A1-p6">
621 <b>I answer that,</b> Sacraments are necessary unto man's salvation for three reasons. The first is taken from the condition of human nature which
622 is such that it has to be led by things corporeal and sensible to things spiritual and intelligible. Now it belongs to Divine
623 providence to provide for each one according as its condition requires. Divine wisdom, therefore, fittingly provides man with
624 means of salvation, in the shape of corporeal and sensible signs that are called
625 sacraments.
626 </p>
627 <p id="TP_Q61_A1-p7"> The second reason is taken from the state of man who in sinning subjected himself by his affections to corporeal things.
628 Now the healing remedy should be given to a man so as to reach the part affected by disease. Consequently it was fitting that
629 God should provide man with a spiritual medicine by means of certain corporeal signs; for if man were offered spiritual things
630 without a veil, his mind being taken up with the material world would be unable to apply itself to them.
631 </p>
632 <p id="TP_Q61_A1-p8"> The third reason is taken from the fact that man is prone to direct his activity chiefly towards material things. Lest, therefore,
633 it should be too hard for man to be drawn away entirely from bodily actions, bodily exercise was offered to him in the sacraments,
634 by which he might be trained to avoid superstitious practices, consisting in the worship of demons, and all manner of harmful
635 action, consisting in sinful deeds.
636 </p>
637 <p id="TP_Q61_A1-p9"> It follows, therefore, that through the institution of the sacraments man, consistently with his nature, is instructed through
638 sensible things; he is humbled, through confessing that he is subject to corporeal things, seeing that he receives assistance
639 through them: and he is even preserved from bodily hurt, by the healthy exercise of the sacraments.
640 </p>
641 <p id="TP_Q61_A1-p10">
642 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Bodily exercise, as such, is not very profitable: but exercise taken in the use of the sacraments is not merely bodily, but
643 to a certain extent spiritual, viz. in its signification and in its causality.
644 </p>
645 <p id="TP_Q61_A1-p11">
646 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> God's grace is a sufficient cause of man's salvation. But God gives grace to man in a way which is suitable to him. Hence
647 it is that man needs the sacraments that he may obtain grace.
648 </p>
649 <p id="TP_Q61_A1-p12">
650 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Christ's Passion is a sufficient cause of man's salvation. But it does not follow that the sacraments are not also necessary
651 for that purpose: because they obtain their effect through the power of Christ's Passion; and Christ's Passion is, so to say,
652 applied to man through the sacraments according to the Apostle (
653 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q61_A1-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.3" target="asv">Rom. 6:3</a>): "All we who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death."
654 </p>
655 <p id="TP_Q61_A1-p13"></p>
656 <p id="TP_Q61_A1-p14"></p>
657 <a href="summa.TP_Q61.html"></a>
658 <a href="summa.TP_Q61_A2.html"></a>
659 </div>
660 <div id="TP_Q61_A2" class="div4">
661 <a href="summa.TP_Q61_A1.html"></a>
662 <a href="summa.TP_Q61_A3.html"></a>
663 <h4 id="TP_Q61_A2-p0.1">Whether before sin sacraments were necessary to man?</h4>
664 <p id="TP_Q61_A2-p1"></p>
665 <p id="TP_Q61_A2-p2">
666 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that before sin sacraments were necessary to man. For, as stated above (A[1], ad 2) man needs sacraments that he
667 may obtain grace. But man needed grace even in the state of innocence, as we stated in the
668 <a id="TP_Q61_A2-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q95_A4.html">FP, Q[95], A[4]</a> (cf.
669 <a id="TP_Q61_A2-p2.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q109_A2.html">FS, Q[109], A[2]</a>;
670 <a id="TP_Q61_A2-p2.3" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q114_A2.html">FS, Q[114], A[2]</a>). Therefore sacraments were necessary in that state also.
671 </p>
672 <p id="TP_Q61_A2-p3">
673 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, sacraments are suitable to man by reason of the conditions of human nature, as stated above
674 <a id="TP_Q61_A2-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q61_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. But man's nature is the same before and after sin. Therefore it seems that before sin, man needed the sacraments.
675 </p>
676 <p id="TP_Q61_A2-p4">
677 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, matrimony is a sacrament, according to
678 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q61_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.5.32" target="asv"> Eph. 5:32</a>: "This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the Church." But matrimony was instituted before sin, as may be
679 seen in
680 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q61_A2-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Gen.2" target="asv">Gn. 2</a>. Therefore sacraments were necessary to man before sin.
681 </p>
682 <p id="TP_Q61_A2-p5">
683 <b>On the contrary,</b> None but the sick need remedies, according to
684 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q61_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.9.12" target="asv"> Mat. 9:12</a>: "They that are in health need not a physician." Now the sacraments are spiritual remedies for the healing of wounds inflicted
685 by sin. Therefore they were not necessary before sin.
686 </p>
687 <p id="TP_Q61_A2-p6">
688 <b>I answer that,</b> Sacraments were not necessary in the state of innocence. This can be proved from the rectitude of that state, in which the
689 higher (parts of man) ruled the lower, and nowise depended on them: for just as the mind was subject to God, so were the lower
690 powers of the soul subject to the mind, and the body to the soul. And it would be contrary to this order if the soul were
691 perfected either in knowledge or in grace, by anything corporeal; which happens in the
692 sacraments. Therefore in the state of innocence man needed no sacraments, whether as remedies against sin or as means of perfecting
693 the soul.
694 </p>
695 <p id="TP_Q61_A2-p7">
696 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> In the state of innocence man needed grace: not so that he needed to obtain grace by means of sensible signs, but in a spiritual
697 and invisible manner.
698 </p>
699 <p id="TP_Q61_A2-p8">
700 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Man's nature is the same before and after sin, but the state of his nature is not the same. Because after sin, the soul,
701 even in its higher part, needs to receive something from corporeal things in order that it may be perfected: whereas man had
702 no need of this in that state.
703 </p>
704 <p id="TP_Q61_A2-p9">
705 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Matrimony was instituted in the state of innocence, not as a sacrament, but as a function of nature. Consequently, however,
706 it foreshadowed something in relation to Christ and the Church: just as everything else foreshadowed Christ.
707 </p>
708 <p id="TP_Q61_A2-p10"></p>
709 <p id="TP_Q61_A2-p11"></p>
710 <a href="summa.TP_Q61_A1.html"></a>
711 <a href="summa.TP_Q61_A3.html"></a>
712 </div>
713 <div id="TP_Q61_A3" class="div4">
714 <a href="summa.TP_Q61_A2.html"></a>
715 <a href="summa.TP_Q61_A4.html"></a>
716 <h4 id="TP_Q61_A3-p0.1">Whether there should have been sacraments after sin, before Christ?</h4>
717 <p id="TP_Q61_A3-p1"></p>
718 <p id="TP_Q61_A3-p2">
719 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that there should have been no sacraments after sin, before Christ. For it has been stated that the Passion of Christ
720 is applied to men through the sacraments: so that Christ's Passion is compared to the sacraments as cause to effect. But effect
721 does not precede cause. Therefore there should have been no sacraments before Christ's coming.
722 </p>
723 <p id="TP_Q61_A3-p3">
724 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, sacraments should be suitable to the state of the human race, as Augustine declares (Contra Faust. xix). But the
725 state of the human race underwent no change after sin until it was repaired by Christ. Neither, therefore, should the sacraments
726 have been changed, so that besides the sacraments of the natural law, others should be instituted in the law of Moses.
727 </p>
728 <p id="TP_Q61_A3-p4">
729 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the nearer a thing approaches to that which is perfect, the more like it should it be. Now the perfection of human
730 salvation was accomplished by Christ; to Whom the sacraments of the Old Law were nearer than those that preceded the Law.
731 Therefore they should have borne a greater likeness to the sacraments of Christ. And yet the contrary is the case, since it
732 was foretold that the priesthood of Christ would be "according to the order of Melchisedech,
733 and not . . . according to the order of Aaron" (
734 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q61_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.7.11" target="asv">Heb. 7:11</a>). Therefore sacraments were unsuitably instituted before Christ.
735 </p>
736 <p id="TP_Q61_A3-p5">
737 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix) that "the first sacraments which the Law commanded to be solemnized and observed were
738 announcements of Christ's future coming." But it was necessary for man's salvation that Christ's coming should be announced
739 beforehand. Therefore it was necessary that some sacraments should be instituted before Christ.
740 </p>
741 <p id="TP_Q61_A3-p6">
742 <b>I answer that,</b> Sacraments are necessary for man's salvation, in so far as they are sensible signs of invisible things whereby man is made
743 holy. Now after sin no man can be made holy save through Christ, "Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith
744 in His blood, to the showing of His justice . . . that He Himself may be just, and the justifier of him who is of the faith
745 of Jesus Christ" (
746 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q61_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.3.25" target="asv">Rom. 3:25,26</a>). Therefore before Christ's coming
747 there was need for some visible signs whereby man might testify to his faith in the future coming of a Saviour. And these
748 signs are called sacraments. It is therefore clear that some sacraments were necessary before Christ's coming.
749 </p>
750 <p id="TP_Q61_A3-p7">
751 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Christ's Passion is the final cause of the old sacraments: for they were instituted in order to foreshadow it. Now the final
752 cause precedes not in time, but in the intention of the agent. Consequently, there is no reason against the existence of sacraments
753 before Christ's Passion.
754 </p>
755 <p id="TP_Q61_A3-p8">
756 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The state of the human race after sin and before Christ can be considered from two points of view. First, from that of faith:
757 and thus it was always one and the same: since men were made righteous, through faith in the future coming of Christ. Secondly,
758 according as sin was more or less intense, and knowledge concerning Christ more or less explicit. For as time went on sin
759 gained a greater hold on man, so much so that it clouded man's reason, the
760 consequence being that the precepts of the natural law were insufficient to make man live aright, and it became necessary
761 to have a written code of fixed laws, and together with these certain sacraments of faith. For it was necessary, as time went
762 on, that the knowledge of faith should be more and more unfolded, since, as Gregory says (Hom. vi in Ezech.): "With the advance
763 of time there was an advance in the knowledge of Divine things." Consequently in the old Law there was also a need for
764 certain fixed sacraments significative of man's faith in the future coming of Christ: which sacraments are compared to those
765 that preceded the Law, as something determinate to that which is indeterminate: inasmuch as before the Law it was not laid
766 down precisely of what sacraments men were to make use: whereas this was prescribed by the Law; and this was necessary both
767 on account of the overclouding of the natural law, and for the clearer signification of faith.
768 </p>
769 <p id="TP_Q61_A3-p9">
770 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The sacrament of Melchisedech which preceded the Law is more like the Sacrament of the New Law in its matter: in so far as
771 "he offered bread and wine" (
772 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q61_A3-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.14.18" target="asv">Gn. 14:18</a>), just as bread and wine are offered in the sacrifice of the New Testament. Nevertheless the sacraments of the Mosaic Law
773 are more like the thing signified by the sacrament, i.e. the Passion of Christ: as clearly appears in the Paschal Lamb and
774 such like. The reason of
775 this was lest, if the sacraments retained the same appearance, it might seem to be the continuation of one and the same sacrament,
776 where there was no interruption of time.
777 </p>
778 <p id="TP_Q61_A3-p10"></p>
779 <p id="TP_Q61_A3-p11"></p>
780 <a href="summa.TP_Q61_A2.html"></a>
781 <a href="summa.TP_Q61_A4.html"></a>
782 </div>
783 <div id="TP_Q61_A4" class="div4">
784 <a href="summa.TP_Q61_A3.html"></a>
785 <a href="summa.TP_Q62.html"></a>
786 <h4 id="TP_Q61_A4-p0.1">Whether there was need for any sacraments after Christ came?</h4>
787 <p id="TP_Q61_A4-p1"></p>
788 <p id="TP_Q61_A4-p2">
789 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that there was no need for any sacraments after Christ came. For the figure should cease with the advent of the
790 truth. But "grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (
791 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q61_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.17" target="asv">Jn. 1:17</a>). Since, therefore, the sacraments are signs or figures of the truth, it seems that there was no need for any sacraments
792 after Christ's Passion.
793 </p>
794 <p id="TP_Q61_A4-p3">
795 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the sacraments consist in certain elements, as stated above (
796 <a id="TP_Q61_A4-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q60_A4.html">Q[60], A[4]</a>). But the Apostle says (
797 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q61_A4-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Gal.4.3" target="asv">Gal. 4:3,4</a>) that "when we were children we were serving under the elements of the world": but that now "when the fulness of time" has
798 "come," we are no longer children. Therefore it seems that we should not serve God under the elements of this world, by making
799 use of corporeal sacraments.
800 </p>
801 <p id="TP_Q61_A4-p4">
802 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, according to
803 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q61_A4-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Jas.1.17" target="asv"> James 1:17 </a>with God "there is no change, nor shadow of alteration." But it seems to argue some change in the Divine will that God should
804 give man certain sacraments for his sanctification now during the time of grace, and other sacraments before Christ's coming.
805 Therefore it seems that other sacraments should not have been instituted after Christ.
806 </p>
807 <p id="TP_Q61_A4-p5">
808 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix) that the sacraments of the Old Law "were abolished because they were fulfilled; and others
809 were instituted, fewer in number, but more efficacious, more profitable, and of easier accomplishment."
810 </p>
811 <p id="TP_Q61_A4-p6">
812 <b>I answer that,</b> As the ancient Fathers were saved through faith in Christ's future coming, so are we saved through faith in Christ's past
813 birth and Passion. Now the sacraments are signs in protestation of the faith whereby man is justified; and signs should vary
814 according as they signify the future, the past, or the present; for as Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix), "the same thing
815 is variously pronounced as to be done and as having been done: for instance the word
816 'passurus' [going to suffer] differs from 'passus' [having suffered]." Therefore the sacraments of the New Law, that signify
817 Christ in relation to the past, must needs differ from those of the Old Law, that foreshadowed the future.
818 </p>
819 <p id="TP_Q61_A4-p7">
820 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v), the state of the New Law. is between the state of the Old Law, whose figures are fulfilled
821 in the New, and the state of glory, in which all truth will be openly and perfectly revealed. Wherefore then there will be
822 no sacraments. But now, so long as we know "through a glass in a dark manner," (
823 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q61_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.13.12" target="asv">1 Cor. 13:12</a>) we need sensible signs in order to reach spiritual things: and this is the province of the
824 sacraments.
825 </p>
826 <p id="TP_Q61_A4-p8">
827 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The Apostle calls the sacraments of the Old Law "weak and needy elements" (
828 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q61_A4-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.4.9" target="asv">Gal. 4:9</a>) because they neither contained nor caused grace. Hence the Apostle says that those who used these sacraments served God
829 "under the elements of this world": for the very reason that these sacraments were nothing else than the elements of this
830 world. But our sacraments both contain and cause grace: consequently the comparison does not hold.
831 </p>
832 <p id="TP_Q61_A4-p9">
833 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Just as the head of the house is not proved to have a changeable mind, through issuing various commands to his household
834 at various seasons, ordering things differently in winter and summer; so it does not follow that there is any change in God,
835 because He instituted sacraments of one kind after Christ's coming, and of another kind at the time of the Law. because the
836 latter were suitable as foreshadowing grace; the former as signifying the presence of
837 grace,
838 </p>
839 <p id="TP_Q61_A4-p10"></p>
840 <p id="TP_Q61_A4-p11"></p>
841 <a href="summa.TP_Q61_A3.html"></a>
842 <a href="summa.TP_Q62.html"></a>
843 </div>
844 <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A8.html"></a>
845 <a href="summa.TP_Q61_A1.html"></a>
846 </div>
847 <div id="TP_Q62" class="div3">
848 <a href="summa.TP_Q61_A4.html"></a>
849 <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A1.html"></a>
850 <h3 id="TP_Q62-p0.1">OF THE SACRAMENTS' PRINCIPAL EFFECT, WHICH IS GRACE (SIX ARTICLES)</h3>
851 <p id="TP_Q62-p1"></p>
852 <p id="TP_Q62-p2"> We have now to consider the effect of the sacraments. First of their principal effect, which is grace; secondly, of their
853 secondary effect, which is a character. Concerning the first there are six points of inquiry:
854 </p>
855 <p id="TP_Q62-p3"> (1) Whether the sacraments of the New Law are the cause of grace?</p>
856 <p id="TP_Q62-p4"> (2) Whether sacramental grace confers anything in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts?</p>
857 <p id="TP_Q62-p5"> (3) Whether the sacraments contain grace?</p>
858 <p id="TP_Q62-p6"> (4) Whether there is any power in them for the causing of grace?</p>
859 <p id="TP_Q62-p7"> (5) Whether the sacraments derive this power from Christ's Passion?</p>
860 <p id="TP_Q62-p8"> (6) Whether the sacraments of the Old Law caused grace?</p>
861 <div id="TP_Q62_A1" class="div4">
862 <a href="summa.TP_Q62.html"></a>
863 <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A2.html"></a>
864 <h4 id="TP_Q62_A1-p0.1">Whether the sacraments are the cause of grace?</h4>
865 <p id="TP_Q62_A1-p1"></p>
866 <p id="TP_Q62_A1-p2">
867 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the sacraments are not the cause of grace. For it seems that the same thing is not both sign and cause: since
868 the nature of sign appears to be more in keeping with an effect. But a sacrament is a sign of grace. Therefore it is not its
869 cause.
870 </p>
871 <p id="TP_Q62_A1-p3">
872 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, nothing corporeal can act on a spiritual thing: since "the agent is more excellent than the patient," as Augustine
873 says (Gen. ad lit. xii). But the subject of grace is the human mind, which is something spiritual. Therefore the sacraments
874 cannot cause grace.
875 </p>
876 <p id="TP_Q62_A1-p4">
877 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, what is proper to God should not be ascribed to a creature. But it is proper to God to cause grace, according to
878 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q62_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.83.12" target="asv"> Ps. 83:12</a>: "The Lord will give grace and glory." Since, therefore, the sacraments consist in certain words and created things, it seems
879 that they cannot cause grace.
880 </p>
881 <p id="TP_Q62_A1-p5">
882 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan.) that the baptismal water "touches the body and cleanses the heart." But the heart is
883 not cleansed save through grace. Therefore it causes grace: and for like reason so do the other sacraments of the Church.
884 </p>
885 <p id="TP_Q62_A1-p6">
886 <b>I answer that,</b> We must needs say that in some way the sacraments of the New Law cause grace. For it is evident that through the sacraments
887 of the New Law man is incorporated with Christ: thus the Apostle says of Baptism (
888 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q62_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.3.27" target="asv">Gal. 3:27</a>): "As many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ." And man is made a member of Christ through grace alone.
889 </p>
890 <p id="TP_Q62_A1-p7"> Some, however, say that they are the cause of grace not by their own operation, but in so far as God causes grace in the
891 soul when the sacraments are employed. And they give as an example a man who on presenting a leaden coin, receives, by the
892 king's command, a hundred pounds: not as though the leaden coin, by any operation of its own, caused him to be given that
893 sum of money; this being the effect of the mere will of the king. Hence Bernard says in a sermon on the Lord's
894 Supper: "Just as a canon is invested by means of a book, an abbot by means of a crozier, a bishop by means of a ring, so by
895 the various sacraments various kinds of grace are conferred." But if we examine the question properly, we shall see that according
896 to the above mode the sacraments are mere signs. For the leaden coin is nothing but a sign of the king's command that this
897 man should receive money. In like manner the book is a sign of the conferring of a canonry. Hence, according to this
898 opinion the sacraments of the New Law would be mere signs of grace; whereas we have it on the authority of many saints that
899 the sacraments of the New Law not only signify, but also cause grace.
900 </p>
901 <p id="TP_Q62_A1-p8"> We must therefore say otherwise, that an efficient cause is twofold, principal and instrumental. The principal cause works
902 by the power of its form, to which form the effect is likened; just as fire by its own heat makes something hot. In this way
903 none but God can cause grace: since grace is nothing else than a participated likeness of the Divine Nature, according to
904
905 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q62_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#iiPet.1.4" target="asv">2 Pet. 1:4</a>: "He hath given us most great and precious promises; that we may be [Vulg.: 'you
906 may be made'] partakers of the Divine Nature." But the instrumental cause works not by the power of its form, but only by
907 the motion whereby it is moved by the principal agent: so that the effect is not likened to the instrument but to the principal
908 agent: for instance, the couch is not like the axe, but like the art which is in the craftsman's mind. And it is thus that
909 the sacraments of the New Law cause grace: for they are instituted by God to be employed for the purpose of conferring grace.
910 Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix): "All these things," viz. pertaining to the sacraments, "are done and pass away,
911 but the power," viz. of God, "which works by them, remains ever." Now that is, properly speaking, an instrument by which someone
912 works: wherefore it is written (
913 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q62_A1-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Titus.3.5" target="asv">Titus 3:5</a>): "He saved us by the laver of regeneration."
914 </p>
915 <p id="TP_Q62_A1-p9">
916 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The principal cause cannot properly be called a sign of its effect, even though the latter be hidden and the cause itself
917 sensible and manifest. But an instrumental cause, if manifest, can be called a sign of a hidden effect, for this reason, that
918 it is not merely a cause but also in a measure an effect in so far as it is moved by the principal agent. And in this sense
919 the sacraments of the New Law are both cause and signs. Hence, too, is it that, to
920 use the common expression, "they effect what they signify." From this it is clear that they perfectly fulfil the conditions
921 of a sacrament; being ordained to something sacred, not only as a sign, but also as a cause.
922 </p>
923 <p id="TP_Q62_A1-p10">
924 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> An instrument has a twofold action; one is instrumental, in respect of which it works not by its own power but by the power
925 of the principal agent: the other is its proper action, which belongs to it in respect of its proper form: thus it belongs
926 to an axe to cut asunder by reason of its sharpness, but to make a couch, in so far as it is the instrument of an art. But
927 it does not accomplish the instrumental action save by exercising its proper action:
928 for it is by cutting that it makes a couch. In like manner the corporeal sacraments by their operation, which they exercise
929 on the body that they touch, accomplish through the Divine institution an instrumental operation on the soul; for example,
930 the water of baptism, in respect of its proper power, cleanses the body, and thereby, inasmuch as it is the instrument of
931 the Divine power, cleanses the soul: since from soul and body one thing is made. And thus it is that Augustine says (Gen.
932 ad lit.
933 xii) that it "touches the body and cleanses the heart."
934 </p>
935 <p id="TP_Q62_A1-p11">
936 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This argument considers that which causes grace as principal agent; for this belongs to God alone, as stated above.
937 </p>
938 <p id="TP_Q62_A1-p12"></p>
939 <p id="TP_Q62_A1-p13"></p>
940 <a href="summa.TP_Q62.html"></a>
941 <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A2.html"></a>
942 </div>
943 <div id="TP_Q62_A2" class="div4">
944 <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A1.html"></a>
945 <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A3.html"></a>
946 <h4 id="TP_Q62_A2-p0.1">Whether sacramental grace confers anything in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts?</h4>
947 <p id="TP_Q62_A2-p1"></p>
948 <p id="TP_Q62_A2-p2">
949 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that sacramental grace confers nothing in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts. For the grace of the virtues
950 and gifts perfects the soul sufficiently, both in its essence and in its powers; as is clear from what was said in the
951 <a id="TP_Q62_A2-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q110_A3.html">FS, Q[110], AA[3]</a>,4. But grace is ordained to the perfecting of the soul. Therefore sacramental grace cannot confer anything in addition to
952 the grace of the virtues and gifts.
953 </p>
954 <p id="TP_Q62_A2-p3">
955 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the soul's defects are caused by sin. But all sins are sufficiently removed by the grace of the virtues and gifts:
956 because there is no sin that is not contrary to some virtue. Since, therefore, sacramental grace is ordained to the removal
957 of the soul's defects, it cannot confer anything in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts.
958 </p>
959 <p id="TP_Q62_A2-p4">
960 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, every addition or subtraction of form varies the species (Metaph. viii). If, therefore, sacramental grace confers
961 anything in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts, it follows that it is called grace equivocally: and so we are
962 none the wiser when it is said that the sacraments cause grace.
963 </p>
964 <p id="TP_Q62_A2-p5">
965 <b>On the contrary,</b> If sacramental grace confers nothing in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts, it is useless to confer the sacraments
966 on those who have the virtues and gifts. But there is nothing useless in God's works. Therefore it seems that sacramental
967 grace confers something in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts.
968 </p>
969 <p id="TP_Q62_A2-p6">
970 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated in the
971 <a id="TP_Q62_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q110_A3.html">FS, Q[110], AA[3]</a>,4, grace, considered in itself, perfects the essence of the soul, in so far as it is a certain participated likeness of the
972 Divine Nature. And just as the soul's powers flow from its essence, so from grace there flow certain perfections into the
973 powers of the soul, which are called virtues and gifts, whereby the powers are perfected in reference to their actions. Now
974 the sacraments are ordained
975 unto certain special effects which are necessary in the Christian life: thus Baptism is ordained unto a certain spiritual
976 regeneration, by which man dies to vice and becomes a member of Christ: which effect is something special in addition to the
977 actions of the soul's powers: and the same holds true of the other sacraments. Consequently just as the virtues and gifts
978 confer, in addition to grace commonly so called, a certain special perfection ordained to the powers' proper actions, so does
979 sacramental grace confer, over and above grace commonly so called, and in addition to the virtues and gifts, a certain Divine
980 assistance in obtaining the end of the sacrament. It is thus that sacramental grace confers something in addition to the grace
981 of the virtues and gifts.
982 </p>
983 <p id="TP_Q62_A2-p7">
984 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The grace of the virtues and gifts perfects the essence and powers of the soul sufficiently as regards ordinary conduct:
985 but as regards certain special effects which are necessary in a Christian life, sacramental grace is needed.
986 </p>
987 <p id="TP_Q62_A2-p8">
988 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Vices and sins are sufficiently removed by virtues and gifts, as to present and future time. in so far as they prevent man
989 from sinning. But in regard to past sins, the acts of which are transitory whereas their guilt remains, man is provided with
990 a special remedy in the sacraments.
991 </p>
992 <p id="TP_Q62_A2-p9">
993 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Sacramental grace is compared to grace commonly so called, as species to genus. Wherefore just as it is not equivocal to
994 use the term "animal" in its generic sense, and as applied to a man, so neither is it equivocal to speak of grace commonly
995 so called and of sacramental grace.
996 </p>
997 <p id="TP_Q62_A2-p10"></p>
998 <p id="TP_Q62_A2-p11"></p>
999 <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A1.html"></a>
1000 <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A3.html"></a>
1001 </div>
1002 <div id="TP_Q62_A3" class="div4">
1003 <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A2.html"></a>
1004 <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A4.html"></a>
1005 <h4 id="TP_Q62_A3-p0.1">Whether the sacraments of the New Law contain grace?</h4>
1006 <p id="TP_Q62_A3-p1"></p>
1007 <p id="TP_Q62_A3-p2">
1008 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain grace. For it seems that what is contained is in the container.
1009 But grace is not in the sacraments; neither as in a subject, because the subject of grace is not a body but a spirit; nor
1010 as in a vessel, for according to Phys. iv, "a vessel is a movable place," and an accident cannot be in a place. Therefore
1011 it seems that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain grace.
1012 </p>
1013 <p id="TP_Q62_A3-p3">
1014 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, sacraments are instituted as means whereby men may obtain grace. But since grace is an accident it cannot pass from
1015 one subject to another. Therefore it would be of no account if grace were in the sacraments.
1016 </p>
1017 <p id="TP_Q62_A3-p4">
1018 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a spiritual thing is not contained by a corporeal, even if it be therein; for the soul is not contained by the body;
1019 rather does it contain the body. Since, therefore, grace is something spiritual, it seems that it cannot be contained in a
1020 corporeal sacrament.
1021 </p>
1022 <p id="TP_Q62_A3-p5">
1023 <b>On the contrary,</b> Hugh of S. Victor says (De Sacram. i) that "a sacrament, through its being sanctified, contains an invisible grace."
1024 </p>
1025 <p id="TP_Q62_A3-p6">
1026 <b>I answer that,</b> A thing is said to be in another in various ways; in two of which grace is said to be in the sacraments. First, as in its
1027 sign; for a sacrament is a sign of grace. Secondly, as in its cause; for, as stated above
1028 <a id="TP_Q62_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q62_A1.html">(A[1])</a> a sacrament of the New Law is an instrumental cause of grace. Wherefore grace is in a sacrament of the New Law, not as to
1029 its specific likeness, as an effect in its univocal cause; nor as to some proper and permanent
1030 form proportioned to such an effect, as effects in non-univocal causes, for instance, as things generated are in the sun;
1031 but as to a certain instrumental power transient and incomplete in its natural being, as will be explained later on
1032 <a id="TP_Q62_A3-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q62_A4.html">(A[4])</a>.
1033 </p>
1034 <p id="TP_Q62_A3-p7">
1035 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Grace is said to be in a sacrament not as in its subject; nor as in a vessel considered as a place, but understood as the
1036 instrument of some work to be done, according to
1037 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q62_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Ezek.9.1" target="asv"> Ezech. 9:1</a>: "Everyone hath a destroying vessel [Douay: 'weapon'] in his hand."
1038 </p>
1039 <p id="TP_Q62_A3-p8">
1040 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although an accident does not pass from one subject to another, nevertheless in a fashion it does pass from its cause into
1041 its subject through the instrument; not so that it be in each of these in the same way, but in each according to its respective
1042 nature.
1043 </p>
1044 <p id="TP_Q62_A3-p9">
1045 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> If a spiritual thing exist perfectly in something, it contains it and is not contained by it. But, in a sacrament, grace
1046 has a passing and incomplete mode of being: and consequently it is not unfitting to say that the sacraments contain grace.
1047 </p>
1048 <p id="TP_Q62_A3-p10"></p>
1049 <p id="TP_Q62_A3-p11"></p>
1050 <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A2.html"></a>
1051 <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A4.html"></a>
1052 </div>
1053 <div id="TP_Q62_A4" class="div4">
1054 <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A3.html"></a>
1055 <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A5.html"></a>
1056 <h4 id="TP_Q62_A4-p0.1">Whether there be in the sacraments a power of causing grace?</h4>
1057 <p id="TP_Q62_A4-p1"></p>
1058 <p id="TP_Q62_A4-p2">
1059 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that there is not in the sacraments a power of causing grace. For the power of causing grace is a spiritual power.
1060 But a spiritual power cannot be in a body; neither as proper to it, because power flows from a thing's essence and consequently
1061 cannot transcend it; nor as derived from something else, because that which is received into anything follows the mode of
1062 the recipient. Therefore in the sacraments there is no power of causing grace.
1063 </p>
1064 <p id="TP_Q62_A4-p3">
1065 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, whatever exists is reducible to some kind of being and some degree of good. But there is no assignable kind of being
1066 to which such a power can belong; as anyone may see by running. through them all. Nor is it reducible to some degree of good;
1067 for neither is it one of the goods of least account, since sacraments are necessary for salvation: nor is it an intermediate
1068 good, such as are the powers of the soul, which are natural powers; nor is it one of
1069 the greater goods, for it is neither grace nor a virtue of the mind. Therefore it seems that in the sacraments there is no
1070 power of causing grace.
1071 </p>
1072 <p id="TP_Q62_A4-p4">
1073 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if there be such a power in the sacraments, its presence there must be due to nothing less than a creative act of
1074 God. But it seems unbecoming that so excellent a being created by God should cease to exist as soon as the sacrament is complete.
1075 Therefore it seems that in the sacraments there is no power for causing grace.
1076 </p>
1077 <p id="TP_Q62_A4-p5">
1078 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the same thing cannot be in several. But several things concur in the completion of a sacrament, namely, words and
1079 things: while in one sacrament there can be but one power. Therefore it seems that there is no power of causing grace in the
1080 sacraments.
1081 </p>
1082 <p id="TP_Q62_A4-p6">
1083 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan.): "Whence hath water so great power, that it touches the body and cleanses the heart?"
1084 And Bede says that "Our Lord conferred a power of regeneration on the waters by the contact of His most pure body."
1085 </p>
1086 <p id="TP_Q62_A4-p7">
1087 <b>I answer that,</b> Those who hold that the sacraments do not cause grace save by a certain coincidence, deny the sacraments any power that is
1088 itself productive of the sacramental effect, and hold that the Divine power assists the sacraments and produces their effect.
1089 But if we hold that a sacrament is an instrumental cause of grace, we must needs allow that there is in the sacraments a certain
1090 instrumental power of bringing about the sacramental effects. Now such power is
1091 proportionate to the instrument: and consequently it stands in comparison to the complete and perfect power of anything, as
1092 the instrument to the principal agent. For an instrument, as stated above
1093 <a id="TP_Q62_A4-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q62_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, does not work save as moved by the principal agent, which works of itself. And therefore the power of the principal agent
1094 exists in nature completely and perfectly: whereas the instrumental power has a being that passes from one thing into another,
1095 and is incomplete;
1096 just as motion is an imperfect act passing from agent to patient.
1097 </p>
1098 <p id="TP_Q62_A4-p8">
1099 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> A spiritual power cannot be in a corporeal subject, after the manner of a permanent and complete power, as the argument proves.
1100 But there is nothing to hinder an instrumental spiritual power from being in a body; in so far as a body can be moved by a
1101 particular spiritual substance so as to produce a particular spiritual effect; thus in the very voice which is perceived by
1102 the senses there is a certain spiritual power, inasmuch as it proceeds from a
1103 mental concept, of arousing the mind of the hearer. It is in this way that a spiritual power is in the sacraments, inasmuch
1104 as they are ordained by God unto the production of a spiritual effect.
1105 </p>
1106 <p id="TP_Q62_A4-p9">
1107 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Just as motion, through being an imperfect act, is not properly in a genus, but is reducible to a genus of perfect act, for
1108 instance, alteration to the genus of quality: so, instrumental power, properly speaking, is not in any genus, but is reducible
1109 to a genus and species of perfect act.
1110 </p>
1111 <p id="TP_Q62_A4-p10">
1112 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Just as an instrumental power accrues to an instrument through its being moved by the principal agent, so does a sacrament
1113 receive spiritual power from Christ's blessing and from the action of the minister in applying it to a sacramental use. Hence
1114 Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (St. Maximus of Turin, Serm. xii): "Nor should you marvel, if we say that water,
1115 a corporeal substance, achieves the cleansing of the soul. It does indeed, and
1116 penetrates every secret hiding-place of the conscience. For subtle and clear as it is, the blessing of Christ makes it yet
1117 more subtle, so that it permeates into the very principles of life and searches the inner-most recesses of the heart."
1118 </p>
1119 <p id="TP_Q62_A4-p11">
1120 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Just as the one same power of the principal agent is instrumentally in all the instruments that are ordained unto the production
1121 of an effect, forasmuch as they are one as being so ordained: so also the one same sacramental power is in both words and
1122 things, forasmuch as words and things combine to form one sacrament.
1123 </p>
1124 <p id="TP_Q62_A4-p12"></p>
1125 <p id="TP_Q62_A4-p13"></p>
1126 <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A3.html"></a>
1127 <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A5.html"></a>
1128 </div>
1129 <div id="TP_Q62_A5" class="div4">
1130 <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A4.html"></a>
1131 <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A6.html"></a>
1132 <h4 id="TP_Q62_A5-p0.1">Whether the sacraments of the New Law derive their power from Christ's Passion?</h4>
1133 <p id="TP_Q62_A5-p1"></p>
1134 <p id="TP_Q62_A5-p2">
1135 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the sacraments of the New Law do not derive their power from Christ's Passion. For the power of the sacraments
1136 is in the causing of grace which is the principle of spiritual life in the soul. But as Augustine says (Tract. xix in Joan.):
1137 "The Word, as He was in the beginning with God, quickens souls; as He was made flesh, quickens bodies." Since, therefore,
1138 Christ's Passion pertains to the Word as made flesh, it seems that it cannot cause the
1139 power of the sacraments.
1140 </p>
1141 <p id="TP_Q62_A5-p3">
1142 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the power of the sacraments seems to depend on faith. for as Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan.), the Divine Word
1143 perfects the sacrament "not because it is spoken, but because it is believed." But our faith regards not only Christ's Passion,
1144 but also the other mysteries of His humanity, and in a yet higher measure, His Godhead. Therefore it seems that the power
1145 of the sacraments is not due specially to Christ's Passion.
1146 </p>
1147 <p id="TP_Q62_A5-p4">
1148 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the sacraments are ordained unto man's justification, according to
1149 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q62_A5-p4.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.6.11" target="asv">1 Cor. 6:11</a>: "You are washed . . . you are justified." Now justification is ascribed to the Resurrection, according to
1150 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q62_A5-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.4.25" target="asv"> Rom. 4:25</a>: "(Who) rose again for our justification." Therefore it seems that the sacraments derive their power from Christ's Resurrection
1151 rather than from His Passion.
1152 </p>
1153 <p id="TP_Q62_A5-p5">
1154 <b>On the contrary,</b> on
1155 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q62_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.14" target="asv"> Rom. 5:14</a>: "After the similitude of the transgression of Adam," etc., the gloss says: "From the side of Christ asleep on the Cross
1156 flowed the sacraments which brought salvation to the Church." Consequently, it seems that the sacraments derive their power
1157 from Christ's Passion.
1158 </p>
1159 <p id="TP_Q62_A5-p6">
1160 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
1161 <a id="TP_Q62_A5-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q62_A1.html">(A[1])</a> a sacrament in causing grace works after the manner of an instrument. Now an instrument is twofold. the one, separate, as
1162 a stick, for instance; the other, united, as a hand. Moreover, the separate instrument is moved by means of the united instrument,
1163 as a stick by the hand. Now the principal efficient cause of grace is God Himself, in comparison with Whom Christ's humanity
1164 is as a united instrument, whereas
1165 the sacrament is as a separate instrument. Consequently, the saving power must needs be derived by the sacraments from Christ's
1166 Godhead through His humanity.
1167 </p>
1168 <p id="TP_Q62_A5-p7"> Now sacramental grace seems to be ordained principally to two things: namely, to take away the defects consequent on past
1169 sins, in so far as they are transitory in act, but endure in guilt; and, further, to perfect the soul in things pertaining
1170 to Divine Worship in regard to the Christian Religion. But it is manifest from what has been stated above (
1171 <a id="TP_Q62_A5-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q48_A1.html">Q[48], AA[1]</a>,2,6;
1172 <a id="TP_Q62_A5-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q49_A1.html"> Q[49], AA[1]</a>,3) that Christ delivered us from our sins
1173 principally through His Passion, not only by way of efficiency and merit, but also by way of satisfaction. Likewise by His
1174 Passion He inaugurated the Rites of the Christian Religion by offering "Himself---an oblation and a sacrifice to God" (
1175 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q62_A5-p7.3" href="./asv.html#Eph.5.2" target="asv">Eph. 5:2</a>). Wherefore it is manifest that the sacraments of the Church derive their power specially from Christ's Passion, the virtue
1176 of which is in a manner united to us by our receiving the sacraments. It was in sign of this that from
1177 the side of Christ hanging on the Cross there flowed water and blood, the former of which belongs to Baptism, the latter to
1178 the Eucharist, which are the principal sacraments.
1179 </p>
1180 <p id="TP_Q62_A5-p8">
1181 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The Word, forasmuch as He was in the beginning with God, quickens souls as principal agent; but His flesh, and the mysteries
1182 accomplished therein, are as instrumental causes in the process of giving life to the soul: while in giving life to the body
1183 they act not only as instrumental causes, but also to a certain extent as exemplars, as we stated above (
1184 <a id="TP_Q62_A5-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q56_A1.html">Q[56], A[1]</a>, ad 3).
1185 </p>
1186 <p id="TP_Q62_A5-p9">
1187 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Christ dwells in us "by faith" (
1188 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q62_A5-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.3.17" target="asv">Eph. 3:17</a>). Consequently, by faith Christ's power is united to us. Now the power of blotting out sin belongs in a special way to His
1189 Passion. And therefore men are delivered from sin especially by faith in His Passion, according to
1190 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q62_A5-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.3.25" target="asv">Rom. 3:25</a>: "Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation through faith in His Blood." Therefore the power of the sacraments which is
1191 ordained unto the remission of sins is
1192 derived principally from faith in Christ's Passion.
1193 </p>
1194 <p id="TP_Q62_A5-p10">
1195 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Justification is ascribed to the Resurrection by reason of the term "whither," which is newness of life through grace. But
1196 it is ascribed to the Passion by reason of the term "whence," i.e. in regard to the forgiveness of sin.
1197 </p>
1198 <p id="TP_Q62_A5-p11"></p>
1199 <p id="TP_Q62_A5-p12"></p>
1200 <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A4.html"></a>
1201 <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A6.html"></a>
1202 </div>
1203 <div id="TP_Q62_A6" class="div4">
1204 <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A5.html"></a>
1205 <a href="summa.TP_Q63.html"></a>
1206 <h4 id="TP_Q62_A6-p0.1">Whether the sacraments of the Old Law caused grace?</h4>
1207 <p id="TP_Q62_A6-p1"></p>
1208 <p id="TP_Q62_A6-p2">
1209 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the sacraments of the Old Law caused grace. For, as stated above (A[5], ad 2) the sacraments of the New Law
1210 derive their efficacy from faith in Christ's Passion. But there was faith in Christ's Passion under the Old Law, as well as
1211 under the New, since we have "the same spirit of faith" (
1212 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q62_A6-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.4.13" target="asv">2 Cor. 4:13</a>). Therefore just as the sacraments of the New Law confer grace, so did the sacraments of the Old Law.
1213 </p>
1214 <p id="TP_Q62_A6-p3">
1215 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, there is no sanctification save by grace. But men were sanctified by the sacraments of the Old Law: for it is written
1216 (
1217 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q62_A6-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.8.31" target="asv">Lev. 8:31</a>): "And when he," i.e. Moses, "had sanctified them," i.e. Aaron and his sons, "in their vestments," etc. Therefore it seems
1218 that the sacraments of the Old Law conferred grace.
1219 </p>
1220 <p id="TP_Q62_A6-p4">
1221 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Bede says in a homily on the Circumcision: "Under the Law circumcision provided the same health-giving balm against
1222 the wound of original sin, as baptism in the time of revealed grace." But Baptism confers grace now. Therefore circumcision
1223 conferred grace; and in like manner, the other sacraments of the Law; for just as Baptism is the door of the sacraments of
1224 the New Law, so was circumcision the door of the sacraments of the Old Law: hence the
1225 Apostle says (
1226 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q62_A6-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.5.3" target="asv">Gal. 5:3</a>): "I testify to every man circumcising himself, that he is a debtor to the whole law."
1227 </p>
1228 <p id="TP_Q62_A6-p5">
1229 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
1230 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q62_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.4.9" target="asv">Gal. 4:9</a>): "Turn you again to the weak and needy elements?" i.e. "to the Law," says the gloss, "which is called weak, because it does
1231 not justify perfectly." But grace justifies perfectly. Therefore the sacraments of the old Law did not confer grace.
1232 </p>
1233 <p id="TP_Q62_A6-p6">
1234 <b>I answer that,</b> It cannot be said that the sacraments of the Old Law conferred sanctifying grace of themselves, i.e. by their own power:
1235 since thus Christ's Passion would not have been necessary, according to
1236 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q62_A6-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.2.21" target="asv">Gal. 2:21</a>: "If justice be by the Law, then Christ died in vain."
1237 </p>
1238 <p id="TP_Q62_A6-p7"> But neither can it be said that they derived the power of conferring sanctifying grace from Christ's Passion. For as it was
1239 stated above (A[5] ), the power of Christ's Passion is united to us by faith and the sacraments, but in different ways; because
1240 the link that comes from faith is produced by an act of the soul; whereas the link that comes from the sacraments, is produced
1241 by making use of exterior things. Now nothing hinders that which is subsequent in point of time, from
1242 causing movement, even before it exists in reality, in so far as it pre-exists in an act of the soul: thus the end, which
1243 is subsequent in point of time, moves the agent in so far as it is apprehended and desired by him. On the other hand, what
1244 does not yet actually exist, does not cause movement if we consider the use of exterior things. Consequently, the efficient
1245 cause cannot in point of time come into existence after causing movement, as does the final cause. It is therefore clear that
1246 the
1247 sacraments of the New Law do reasonably derive the power of justification from Christ's Passion, which is the cause of man's
1248 righteousness; whereas the sacraments of the Old Law did not.
1249 </p>
1250 <p id="TP_Q62_A6-p8"> Nevertheless the Fathers of old were justified by faith in Christ's Passion, just as we are. And the sacraments of the old
1251 Law were a kind of protestation of that faith, inasmuch as they signified Christ's Passion and its effects. It is therefore
1252 manifest that the sacraments of the Old Law were not endowed with any power by which they conduced to the bestowal of justifying
1253 grace: and they merely signified faith by which men were justified.
1254 </p>
1255 <p id="TP_Q62_A6-p9">
1256 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The Fathers of old had faith in the future Passion of Christ, which, inasmuch as it was apprehended by the mind, was able
1257 to justify them. But we have faith in the past Passion of Christ, which is able to justify, also by the real use of sacramental
1258 things as stated above.
1259 </p>
1260 <p id="TP_Q62_A6-p10">
1261 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> That sanctification was but a figure: for they were said to be sanctified forasmuch as they gave themselves up to the Divine
1262 worship according to the rite of the Old Law, which was wholly ordained to the foreshadowing of Christ's Passion.
1263 </p>
1264 <p id="TP_Q62_A6-p11">
1265 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> There have been many opinions about Circumcision. For, according to some, Circumcision conferred no grace, but only remitted
1266 sin. But this is impossible; because man is not justified from sin save by grace, according to
1267 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q62_A6-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.3.24" target="asv"> Rom. 3:24</a>: "Being justified freely by His grace."
1268 </p>
1269 <p id="TP_Q62_A6-p12"> Wherefore others said that by Circumcision grace is conferred, as to the privative effects of sin, but not as to its positive
1270 effects. But this also appears to be false, because by Circumcision, children received the faculty of obtaining glory, which
1271 is the ultimate positive effect of grace. Moreover, as regards the order of the formal cause, positive effects are naturally
1272 prior to privative effects, though according to the order of the material cause, the reverse is the case:
1273 for a form does not exclude privation save by informing the subject.
1274 </p>
1275 <p id="TP_Q62_A6-p13"> Hence others say that Circumcision conferred grace also as regards a certain positive effect, i.e. by making man worthy of
1276 eternal life, but not so as to repress concupiscence which makes man prone to sin. And so at one time it seemed to me. But
1277 if the matter be considered carefully, this too appears to be untrue; because the very least grace is sufficient to resist
1278 any degree of concupiscence, and to merit eternal life.
1279 </p>
1280 <p id="TP_Q62_A6-p14"> And therefore it seems better to say that Circumcision was a sign of justifying faith: wherefore the Apostle says (
1281 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q62_A6-p14.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.4.11" target="asv">Rom. 4:11</a>) that Abraham "received the sign of Circumcision, a seal of the justice of faith." Consequently grace was conferred in Circumcision
1282 in so far as it was a sign of Christ's future Passion, as will be made clear further on (
1283 <a id="TP_Q62_A6-p14.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q70_A4.html">Q[70], A[4]</a>).
1284 </p>
1285 <p id="TP_Q62_A6-p15"></p>
1286 <p id="TP_Q62_A6-p16"></p>
1287 <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A5.html"></a>
1288 <a href="summa.TP_Q63.html"></a>
1289 </div>
1290 <a href="summa.TP_Q61_A4.html"></a>
1291 <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A1.html"></a>
1292 </div>
1293 <div id="TP_Q63" class="div3">
1294 <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A6.html"></a>
1295 <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A1.html"></a>
1296 <h3 id="TP_Q63-p0.1">OF THE OTHER EFFECT OF THE SACRAMENTS, WHICH IS A CHARACTER (SIX ARTICLES)</h3>
1297 <p id="TP_Q63-p1"></p>
1298 <p id="TP_Q63-p2"> We have now to consider the other effect of the sacraments, which is a character: and concerning this there are six points
1299 of inquiry:
1300 </p>
1301 <p id="TP_Q63-p3"> (1) Whether by the sacraments a character is produced in the soul?</p>
1302 <p id="TP_Q63-p4"> (2) What is this character?</p>
1303 <p id="TP_Q63-p5"> (3) Of whom is this character?</p>
1304 <p id="TP_Q63-p6"> (4) What is its subject?</p>
1305 <p id="TP_Q63-p7"> (5) Is it indelible?</p>
1306 <p id="TP_Q63-p8"> (6) Whether every sacrament imprints a character?</p>
1307 <div id="TP_Q63_A1" class="div4">
1308 <a href="summa.TP_Q63.html"></a>
1309 <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A2.html"></a>
1310 <h4 id="TP_Q63_A1-p0.1">Whether a sacrament imprints a character on the soul?</h4>
1311 <p id="TP_Q63_A1-p1"></p>
1312 <p id="TP_Q63_A1-p2">
1313 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that a sacrament does not imprint a character on the soul. For the word "character" seems to signify some kind of
1314 distinctive sign. But Christ's members are distinguished from others by eternal predestination, which does not imply anything
1315 in the predestined, but only in God predestinating, as we have stated in the
1316 <a id="TP_Q63_A1-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q23_A2.html">FP, Q[23], A[2]</a>. For it is written (
1317 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q63_A1-p2.2" href="./asv.html#iiTim.2.19" target="asv">2 Tim. 2:19</a>): "The sure foundation of God standeth firm,
1318 having this seal: The Lord knoweth who are His." Therefore the sacraments do not imprint a character on the soul.
1319 </p>
1320 <p id="TP_Q63_A1-p3">
1321 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a character is a distinctive sign. Now a sign, as Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. ii) "is that which conveys something
1322 else to the mind, besides the species which it impresses on the senses." But nothing in the soul can impress a species on
1323 the senses. Therefore it seems that no character is imprinted on the soul by the sacraments.
1324 </p>
1325 <p id="TP_Q63_A1-p4">
1326 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, just as the believer is distinguished from the unbeliever by the sacraments of the New Law, so was it under the
1327 Old Law. But the sacraments of the Old Law did not imprint a character; whence they are called "justices of the flesh" (
1328 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q63_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.9.10" target="asv">Heb. 9:10</a>) by the Apostle. Therefore neither seemingly do the sacraments of the New Law.
1329 </p>
1330 <p id="TP_Q63_A1-p5">
1331 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
1332 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q63_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.1.21" target="asv">2 Cor. 1:21,22</a>): "He . . . that hath anointed us is God; Who also hath sealed us, and given the pledge of the spirit in our hearts." But
1333 a character means nothing else than a kind of sealing. Therefore it seems that by the sacraments God imprints His character
1334 on us.
1335 </p>
1336 <p id="TP_Q63_A1-p6">
1337 <b>I answer that,</b> As is clear from what has been already stated (
1338 <a id="TP_Q63_A1-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q62_A5.html">Q[62], A[5]</a>) the sacraments of the New Law are ordained for a twofold purpose; namely, for a remedy against sins; and for the perfecting
1339 of the soul in things pertaining to the Divine worship according to the rite of the Christian life. Now whenever anyone is
1340 deputed to some definite purpose he is wont to receive some outward sign thereof; thus in olden times soldiers who enlisted
1341 in the
1342 ranks used to be marked with certain characters on the body, through being deputed to a bodily service. Since, therefore,
1343 by the sacraments men are deputed to a spiritual service pertaining to the worship of God, it follows that by their means
1344 the faithful receive a certain spiritual character. Wherefore Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii): "If a deserter from the
1345 battle, through dread of the mark of enlistment on his body, throws himself on the emperor's clemency, and having besought
1346 and
1347 received mercy, return to the fight; is that character renewed, when the man has been set free and reprimanded? is it not
1348 rather acknowledged and approved? Are the Christian sacraments, by any chance, of a nature less lasting than this bodily mark?"
1349 </p>
1350 <p id="TP_Q63_A1-p7">
1351 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The faithful of Christ are destined to the reward of the glory that is to come, by the seal of Divine Predestination. But
1352 they are deputed to acts becoming the Church that is now, by a certain spiritual seal that is set on them, and is called a
1353 character.
1354 </p>
1355 <p id="TP_Q63_A1-p8">
1356 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The character imprinted on the soul is a kind of sign in so far as it is imprinted by a sensible sacrament: since we know
1357 that a certain one has received the baptismal character, through his being cleansed by the sensible water. Nevertheless from
1358 a kind of likeness, anything that assimilates one thing to another, or discriminates one thing from another, even though it
1359 be not sensible, can be called a character or a seal; thus the Apostle calls Christ
1360 "the figure" or {charakter} "of the substance of the Father" (
1361 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q63_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.1.3" target="asv">Heb. 1:3</a>).
1362 </p>
1363 <p id="TP_Q63_A1-p9">
1364 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As stated above (
1365 <a id="TP_Q63_A1-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q62_A6.html">Q[62], A[6]</a>) the sacraments of the Old Law had not in themselves any spiritual power of producing a spiritual effect. Consequently in
1366 those sacraments there was no need of a spiritual character, and bodily circumcision sufficed, which the Apostle calls "a
1367 seal" (
1368 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q63_A1-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.4.11" target="asv">Rom. 4:11</a>).
1369 </p>
1370 <p id="TP_Q63_A1-p10"></p>
1371 <p id="TP_Q63_A1-p11"></p>
1372 <a href="summa.TP_Q63.html"></a>
1373 <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A2.html"></a>
1374 </div>
1375 <div id="TP_Q63_A2" class="div4">
1376 <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A1.html"></a>
1377 <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A3.html"></a>
1378 <h4 id="TP_Q63_A2-p0.1">Whether a character is a spiritual power?</h4>
1379 <p id="TP_Q63_A2-p1"></p>
1380 <p id="TP_Q63_A2-p2">
1381 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that a character is not a spiritual power. For "character" seems to be the same thing as "figure"; hence (
1382 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q63_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.1.3" target="asv">Heb. 1:3</a>), where we read "figure of His substance, "for "figure" the Greek has {charakter}. Now "figure" is in the fourth species
1383 of quality, and thus differs from power which is in the second species. Therefore character is not a spiritual power.
1384 </p>
1385 <p id="TP_Q63_A2-p3">
1386 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. ii): "The Divine Beatitude admits him that seeks happiness to a share in Itself, and
1387 grants this share to him by conferring on him Its light as a kind of seal." Consequently, it seems that a character is a kind
1388 of light. Now light belongs rather to the third species of quality. Therefore a character is not a power, since this seems
1389 to belong to the second species.
1390 </p>
1391 <p id="TP_Q63_A2-p4">
1392 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, character is defined by some thus: "A character is a holy sign of the communion of faith and of the holy ordination
1393 conferred by a hierarch." Now a sign is in the genus of "relation," not of "power." Therefore a character is not a spiritual
1394 power.
1395 </p>
1396 <p id="TP_Q63_A2-p5">
1397 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, a power is in the nature of a cause and principle (Metaph. v). But a "sign" which is set down in the definition
1398 of a character is rather in the nature of an effect. Therefore a character is not a spiritual power.
1399 </p>
1400 <p id="TP_Q63_A2-p6">
1401 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Philosopher says (Ethic. ii): "There are three things in the soul, power, habit, and passion." Now a character is not
1402 a passion: since a passion passes quickly, whereas a character is indelible, as will be made clear further on
1403 <a id="TP_Q63_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q63_A5.html">(A[5])</a>. In like manner it is not a habit: because no habit is indifferent to acting well or ill: whereas a character is indifferent
1404 to either, since some use it well, some ill. Now this cannot occur with
1405 a habit: because no one abuses a habit of virtue, or uses well an evil habit. It remains, therefore, that a character is a
1406 power.
1407 </p>
1408 <p id="TP_Q63_A2-p7">
1409 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
1410 <a id="TP_Q63_A2-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q63_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, the sacraments of the New Law produce a character, in so far as by them we are deputed to the worship of God according to
1411 the rite of the Christian religion. Wherefore Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. ii), after saying that God "by a kind of sign grants
1412 a share of Himself to those that approach Him," adds "by making them Godlike and communicators of Divine gifts." Now the worship
1413 of God consists either in receiving
1414 Divine gifts, or in bestowing them on others. And for both these purposes some power is needed; for to bestow something on
1415 others, active power is necessary; and in order to receive, we need a passive power. Consequently, a character signifies a
1416 certain spiritual power ordained unto things pertaining to the Divine worship.
1417 </p>
1418 <p id="TP_Q63_A2-p8"> But it must be observed that this spiritual power is instrumental: as we have stated above (
1419 <a id="TP_Q63_A2-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q62_A4.html">Q[62], A[4]</a>) of the virtue which is in the sacraments. For to have a sacramental character belongs to God's ministers: and a minister
1420 is a kind of instrument, as the Philosopher says (Polit. i). Consequently, just as the virtue which is in the sacraments is
1421 not of itself in a genus, but is reducible to a genus, for the reason that it is of a transitory and
1422 incomplete nature: so also a character is not properly in a genus or species, but is reducible to the second species of quality.
1423 </p>
1424 <p id="TP_Q63_A2-p9">
1425 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Configuration is a certain boundary of quantity. Wherefore, properly speaking, it is only in corporeal things; and of spiritual
1426 things is said metaphorically. Now that which decides the genus or species of a thing must needs be predicated of it properly.
1427 Consequently, a character cannot be in the fourth species of quality, although some have held this to be the case.
1428 </p>
1429 <p id="TP_Q63_A2-p10">
1430 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The third species of quality contains only sensible passions or sensible qualities. Now a character is not a sensible light.
1431 Consequently, it is not in the third species of quality as some have maintained.
1432 </p>
1433 <p id="TP_Q63_A2-p11">
1434 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The relation signified by the word "sign" must needs have some foundation. Now the relation signified by this sign which
1435 is a character, cannot be founded immediately on the essence of the soul: because then it would belong to every soul naturally.
1436 Consequently, there must be something in the soul on which such a relation is founded. And it is in this that a character
1437 essentially consists. Therefore it need not be in the genus "relation" as some have
1438 held.
1439 </p>
1440 <p id="TP_Q63_A2-p12">
1441 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> A character is in the nature of a sign in comparison to the sensible sacrament by which it is imprinted. But considered in
1442 itself, it is in the nature of a principle, in the way already explained.
1443 </p>
1444 <p id="TP_Q63_A2-p13"></p>
1445 <p id="TP_Q63_A2-p14"></p>
1446 <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A1.html"></a>
1447 <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A3.html"></a>
1448 </div>
1449 <div id="TP_Q63_A3" class="div4">
1450 <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A2.html"></a>
1451 <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A4.html"></a>
1452 <h4 id="TP_Q63_A3-p0.1">Whether the sacramental character is the character of Christ?</h4>
1453 <p id="TP_Q63_A3-p1"></p>
1454 <p id="TP_Q63_A3-p2">
1455 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the sacramental character is not the character of Christ. For it is written (
1456 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q63_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.4.30" target="asv">Eph. 4:30</a>): "Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby you are sealed." But a character consists essentially in some. thing that seals.
1457 Therefore the sacramental character should be attributed to the Holy Ghost rather than to Christ.
1458 </p>
1459 <p id="TP_Q63_A3-p3">
1460 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a character has the nature of a sign. And it is a sign of the grace that is conferred by the sacrament. Now grace
1461 is poured forth into the soul by the whole Trinity; wherefore it is written (
1462 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q63_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.83.12" target="asv">Ps. 83:12</a>): "The Lord will give grace and glory." Therefore it seems that the sacramental character should not be attributed specially
1463 to Christ.
1464 </p>
1465 <p id="TP_Q63_A3-p4">
1466 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a man is marked with a character that he may be distinguishable from others. But the saints are distinguishable
1467 from others by charity, which, as Augustine says (De Trin. xv), "alone separates the children of the Kingdom from the children
1468 of perdition": wherefore also the children of perdition are said to have "the character of the beast" (
1469 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q63_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Rev.13.16" target="asv">Apoc. 13:16,17</a>). But charity is not attributed to Christ, but rather to the Holy Ghost
1470 according to
1471 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q63_A3-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.5" target="asv"> Rom. 5:5</a>: "The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost, Who is given to us"; or even to the Father, according
1472 to
1473 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q63_A3-p4.3" href="./asv.html#iiCor.13.13" target="asv">2 Cor. 13:13</a>: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the charity of God." Therefore it seems that the sacramental character should not
1474 be attributed to Christ.
1475 </p>
1476 <p id="TP_Q63_A3-p5">
1477 <b>On the contrary,</b> Some define character thus: "A character is a distinctive mark printed in a man's rational soul by the eternal Character,
1478 whereby the created trinity is sealed with the likeness of the creating and re-creating Trinity, and distinguishing him from
1479 those who are not so enlikened, according to the state of faith." But the eternal Character is Christ Himself, according to
1480 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q63_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.1.3" target="asv"> Heb. 1:3</a>: "Who being the brightness of His glory and the figure," or
1481 character, "of His substance." It seems, therefore, that the character should properly be attributed to Christ.
1482 </p>
1483 <p id="TP_Q63_A3-p6">
1484 <b>I answer that,</b> As has been made clear above
1485 <a id="TP_Q63_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q63_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, a character is properly a kind of seal, whereby something is marked, as being ordained to some particular end: thus a coin
1486 is marked for use in exchange of goods, and soldiers are marked with a character as being deputed to military service. Now
1487 the faithful are deputed to a twofold end. First and principally to the enjoyment of glory. And for this purpose they are
1488 marked with the seal of grace
1489 according to
1490 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q63_A3-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Ezek.9.4" target="asv"> Ezech. 9:4</a>: "Mark Thou upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and mourn"; and
1491 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q63_A3-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Rev.7.3" target="asv"> Apoc. 7:3</a>: "Hurt not the earth, nor the sea, nor the trees, till we sign the servants of our God in their foreheads."
1492 </p>
1493 <p id="TP_Q63_A3-p7"> Secondly, each of the faithful is deputed to receive, or to bestow on others, things pertaining to the worship of God. And
1494 this, properly speaking, is the purpose of the sacramental character. Now the whole rite of the Christian religion is derived
1495 from Christ's priesthood. Consequently, it is clear that the sacramental character is specially the character of Christ, to
1496 Whose character the faithful are likened by reason of the sacramental characters, which are nothing else than
1497 certain participations of Christ's Priesthood, flowing from Christ Himself.
1498 </p>
1499 <p id="TP_Q63_A3-p8">
1500 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The Apostle speaks there of that sealing by which a man is assigned to future glory, and which is effected by grace. Now
1501 grace is attributed to the Holy Ghost, inasmuch as it is through love that God gives us something gratis, which is the very
1502 nature of grace: while the Holy Ghost is love. Wherefore it is written (
1503 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q63_A3-p8.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.12.4" target="asv">1 Cor. 12:4</a>): "There are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit."
1504 </p>
1505 <p id="TP_Q63_A3-p9">
1506 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The sacramental character is a thing as regards the exterior sacrament, and a sacrament in regard to the ultimate effect.
1507 Consequently, something can be attributed to a character in two ways. First, if the character be considered as a sacrament:
1508 and thus it is a sign of the invisible grace which is conferred in the sacrament. Secondly, if it be considered as a character.
1509 And thus it is a sign conferring on a man a likeness to some principal person in
1510 whom is vested the authority over that to which he is assigned: thus soldiers who are assigned to military service, are marked
1511 with their leader's sign, by which they are, in a fashion, likened to him. And in this way those who are deputed to the Christian
1512 worship, of which Christ is the author, receive a character by which they are likened to Christ. Consequently, properly speaking,
1513 this is Christ's character.
1514 </p>
1515 <p id="TP_Q63_A3-p10">
1516 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> A character distinguishes one from another, in relation to some particular end, to which he, who receives the character is
1517 ordained: as has been stated concerning the military character
1518 <a id="TP_Q63_A3-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q63_A1.html">(A[1])</a> by which a soldier of the king is distinguished from the enemy's soldier in relation to the battle. In like manner the character
1519 of the faithful is that by which the faithful of Christ are distinguished from the servants of the devil,
1520 either in relation to eternal life, or in relation to the worship of the Church that now is. Of these the former is the result
1521 of charity and grace, as the objection runs; while the latter results from the sacramental character. Wherefore the "character
1522 of the beast" may be understood by opposition, to mean either the obstinate malice for which some are assigned to eternal
1523 punishment, or the profession of an unlawful form of worship.
1524 </p>
1525 <p id="TP_Q63_A3-p11"></p>
1526 <p id="TP_Q63_A3-p12"></p>
1527 <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A2.html"></a>
1528 <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A4.html"></a>
1529 </div>
1530 <div id="TP_Q63_A4" class="div4">
1531 <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A3.html"></a>
1532 <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A5.html"></a>
1533 <h4 id="TP_Q63_A4-p0.1">Whether the character be subjected in the powers of the soul?</h4>
1534 <p id="TP_Q63_A4-p1"></p>
1535 <p id="TP_Q63_A4-p2">
1536 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the character is not subjected in the powers of the soul. For a character is said to be a disposition to grace.
1537 But grace is subjected in the essence of the soul as we have stated in the
1538 <a id="TP_Q63_A4-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q110_A4.html">FS, Q[110], A[4]</a>. Therefore it seems that the character is in the essence of the soul and not in the powers.
1539 </p>
1540 <p id="TP_Q63_A4-p3">
1541 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a power of the soul does not seem to be the subject of anything save habit and disposition. But a character, as
1542 stated above
1543 <a id="TP_Q63_A4-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q63_A2.html">(A[2])</a>, is neither habit nor disposition, but rather a power: the subject of which is nothing else than the essence of the soul.
1544 Therefore it seems that the character is not subjected in a power of the soul, but rather in its essence.
1545 </p>
1546 <p id="TP_Q63_A4-p4">
1547 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the powers of the soul are divided into those of knowledge and those of appetite. But it cannot be said that a character
1548 is only in a cognitive power, nor, again, only in an appetitive power: since it is neither ordained to knowledge only, nor
1549 to desire only. Likewise, neither can it be said to be in both, because the same accident cannot be in several subjects. Therefore
1550 it seems that a character is not subjected in a power of the soul, but rather in
1551 the essence.
1552 </p>
1553 <p id="TP_Q63_A4-p5">
1554 <b>On the contrary,</b> A character, according to its definition given above
1555 <a id="TP_Q63_A4-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q63_A3.html">(A[3])</a>, is imprinted in the rational soul "by way of an image." But the image of the Trinity in the soul is seen in the powers.
1556 Therefore a character is in the powers of the soul.
1557 </p>
1558 <p id="TP_Q63_A4-p6">
1559 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
1560 <a id="TP_Q63_A4-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q63_A3.html">(A[3])</a>, a character is a kind of seal by which the soul is marked, so that it may receive, or bestow on others, things pertaining
1561 to Divine worship. Now the Divine worship consists in certain actions: and the powers of the soul are properly ordained to
1562 actions, just as the essence is ordained to existence. Therefore a character is subjected not in the essence of the soul,
1563 but in its power.
1564 </p>
1565 <p id="TP_Q63_A4-p7">
1566 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The subject is ascribed to an. accident in respect of that to which the accident disposes it proximately, but not in respect
1567 of that to which it disposes it remotely or indirectly. Now a character disposes the soul directly and proximately to the
1568 fulfilling of things pertaining to Divine worship: and because such cannot be accomplished suitably without the help of grace,
1569 since, according to
1570 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q63_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#John.4.24" target="asv"> Jn. 4:24, </a> "they that adore" God "must
1571 adore Him in spirit and in truth," consequently, the Divine bounty bestows grace on those who receive the character, so that
1572 they may accomplish worthily the service to which they are deputed. Therefore the subject should be ascribed to a character
1573 in respect of those actions that pertain to the Divine worship, rather than in respect of grace.
1574 </p>
1575 <p id="TP_Q63_A4-p8">
1576 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The subject of the natural power, which flows from the principles of the essence. Now a character is not a power of this
1577 kind. but a spiritual power coming from without. Wherefore, just as the essence of the soul, from which man has his natural
1578 life, is perfected by grace from which the soul derives spiritual life; so the natural power of the soul is perfected by a
1579 spiritual power, which is a character. For habit and disposition belong to a power of
1580 the soul, since they are ordained to actions of which the powers are the principles. And in like manner whatever is ordained
1581 to action, should be attributed to a power.
1582 </p>
1583 <p id="TP_Q63_A4-p9">
1584 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As stated above, a character is ordained unto things pertaining to the Divine worship; which is a protestation of faith expressed
1585 by exterior signs. Consequently, a character needs to be in the soul's cognitive power, where also is faith.
1586 </p>
1587 <p id="TP_Q63_A4-p10"></p>
1588 <p id="TP_Q63_A4-p11"></p>
1589 <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A3.html"></a>
1590 <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A5.html"></a>
1591 </div>
1592 <div id="TP_Q63_A5" class="div4">
1593 <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A4.html"></a>
1594 <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A6.html"></a>
1595 <h4 id="TP_Q63_A5-p0.1">Whether a character can be blotted out from the soul?</h4>
1596 <p id="TP_Q63_A5-p1"></p>
1597 <p id="TP_Q63_A5-p2">
1598 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that a character can be blotted out from the soul. Because the more perfect an accident is, the more firmly does
1599 it adhere to its subject. But grace is more perfect than a character; because a character is ordained unto grace as to a further
1600 end. Now grace is lost through sin. Much more, therefore, is a character so lost.
1601 </p>
1602 <p id="TP_Q63_A5-p3">
1603 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, by a character a man is deputed to the Divine worship, as stated above (
1604 <a id="TP_Q63_A5-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q63_A3.html">AA[3]</a>,4). But some pass from the worship of God to a contrary worship by apostasy from the faith. It seems, therefore, that such
1605 lose the sacramental character.
1606 </p>
1607 <p id="TP_Q63_A5-p4">
1608 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, when the end ceases, the means to the end should cease also: thus after the resurrection there will be no marriage,
1609 because begetting will cease, which is the purpose of marriage. Now the exterior worship to which a character is ordained,
1610 will not endure in heaven, where there will be no shadows, but all will be truth without a veil. Therefore the sacramental
1611 character does not last in the soul for ever: and consequently it can be blotted out.
1612 </p>
1613 <p id="TP_Q63_A5-p5">
1614 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii): "The Christian sacraments are not less lasting than the bodily mark" of military service.
1615 But the character of military service is not repeated, but is "recognized and approved" in the man who obtains the emperor's
1616 forgiveness after offending him. Therefore neither can the sacramental character be blotted out.
1617 </p>
1618 <p id="TP_Q63_A5-p6">
1619 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
1620 <a id="TP_Q63_A5-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q63_A3.html">(A[3])</a>, in a sacramental character Christ's faithful have a share in His Priesthood; in the sense that as Christ has the full power
1621 of a spiritual priesthood, so His faithful are likened to Him by sharing a certain spiritual power with regard to the sacraments
1622 and to things pertaining to the Divine worship. For this reason it is unbecoming that Christ should have a character: but
1623 His Priesthood is compared to a
1624 character, as that which is complete and perfect is compared to some participation of itself. Now Christ's Priesthood is eternal,
1625 according to
1626 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q63_A5-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.109.4" target="asv"> Ps. 109:4</a>: "Thou art a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech." Consequently, every sanctification wrought by His
1627 Priesthood, is perpetual, enduring as long as the thing sanctified endures. This is clear even in inanimate things; for the
1628 consecration of a church or an altar lasts for ever unless they be destroyed.
1629 Since, therefore, the subject of a character is the soul as to its intellective part, where faith resides, as stated above
1630 (A[4], ad 3); it is clear that, the intellect being perpetual and incorruptible, a character cannot be blotted out from the
1631 soul.
1632 </p>
1633 <p id="TP_Q63_A5-p7">
1634 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Both grace and character are in the soul, but in different ways. For grace is in the soul, as a form having complete existence
1635 therein: whereas a character is in the soul, as an instrumental power, as stated above
1636 <a id="TP_Q63_A5-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q63_A2.html">(A[2])</a>. Now a complete form is in its subject according to the condition of the subject. And since the soul as long as it is a wayfarer
1637 is changeable in respect of the free-will, it results that grace is in the soul
1638 in a changeable manner. But an instrumental power follows rather the condition of the principal agent: and consequently a
1639 character exists in the soul in an indelible manner, not from any perfection of its own, but from the perfection of Christ's
1640 Priesthood, from which the character flows like an instrumental power.
1641 </p>
1642 <p id="TP_Q63_A5-p8">
1643 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii), "even apostates are not deprived of their baptism, for when they repent and return
1644 to the fold they do not receive it again; whence we conclude that it cannot be lost." The reason of this is that a character
1645 is an instrumental power, as stated above (ad 1), and the nature of an instrument as such is to be moved by another, but not
1646 to move itself; this belongs to the will. Consequently, however much the will be
1647 moved in the contrary direction, the character is not removed, by reason of the immobility of the principal mover.
1648 </p>
1649 <p id="TP_Q63_A5-p9">
1650 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although external worship does not last after this life, yet its end remains. Consequently, after this life the character
1651 remains, both in the good as adding to their glory, and in the wicked as increasing their shame: just as the character of
1652 the military service remains in the soldiers after the victory, as the boast of the conquerors, and the disgrace of the conquered.
1653 </p>
1654 <p id="TP_Q63_A5-p10"></p>
1655 <p id="TP_Q63_A5-p11"></p>
1656 <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A4.html"></a>
1657 <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A6.html"></a>
1658 </div>
1659 <div id="TP_Q63_A6" class="div4">
1660 <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A5.html"></a>
1661 <a href="summa.TP_Q64.html"></a>
1662 <h4 id="TP_Q63_A6-p0.1">Whether a character is imprinted by each sacrament of the New Law?</h4>
1663 <p id="TP_Q63_A6-p1"></p>
1664 <p id="TP_Q63_A6-p2">
1665 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that a character is imprinted by all the sacraments of the New Law: because each sacrament of the New Law makes
1666 man a participator in Christ's Priesthood. But the sacramental character is nothing but a participation in Christ's Priesthood,
1667 as already stated (
1668 <a id="TP_Q63_A6-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q63_A3.html">AA[3]</a>,5). Therefore it seems that a character is imprinted by each sacrament of the New Law.
1669 </p>
1670 <p id="TP_Q63_A6-p3">
1671 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a character may be compared to the soul in which it is, as a consecration to that which is consecrated. But by each
1672 sacrament of the New Law man becomes the recipient of sanctifying grace, as stated above (
1673 <a id="TP_Q63_A6-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q62_A1.html">Q[62], A[1]</a>). Therefore it seems that a character is imprinted by each sacrament of the New Law.
1674 </p>
1675 <p id="TP_Q63_A6-p4">
1676 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a character is both a reality and a sacrament. But in each sacrament of the New Law, there is something which is
1677 only a reality, and something which is only a sacrament, and something which is both reality and sacrament. Therefore a character
1678 is imprinted by each sacrament of the New Law.
1679 </p>
1680 <p id="TP_Q63_A6-p5">
1681 <b>On the contrary,</b> Those sacraments in which a character is imprinted, are not reiterated, because a character is indelible, as stated above
1682
1683 <a id="TP_Q63_A6-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q63_A5.html">(A[5])</a>: whereas some sacraments are reiterated, for instance, penance and matrimony. Therefore not all the sacraments imprint a
1684 character.
1685 </p>
1686 <p id="TP_Q63_A6-p6">
1687 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
1688 <a id="TP_Q63_A6-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q62_A1.html">Q[62], AA[1]</a>,5), the sacraments of the New Law are ordained for a twofold purpose, namely, as a remedy for sin, and for the Divine worship.
1689 Now all the sacraments, from the fact that they confer grace, have this in common, that they afford a remedy against sin:
1690 whereas not all the sacraments are directly ordained to the Divine worship. Thus it is clear that penance, whereby man is
1691 delivered from sin, does not afford
1692 man any advance in the Divine worship, but restores him to his former state.
1693 </p>
1694 <p id="TP_Q63_A6-p7"> Now a sacrament may belong to the Divine worship in three ways: first in regard to the thing done; secondly, in regard to
1695 the agent; thirdly, in regard to the recipient. In regard to the thing done, the Eucharist belongs to the Divine worship,
1696 for the Divine worship consists principally therein, so far as it is the sacrifice of the Church. And by this same sacrament
1697 a character is not imprinted on man; because it does not ordain man to any further sacramental action or benefit
1698 received, since rather is it "the end and consummation of all the sacraments," as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii). But it
1699 contains within itself Christ, in Whom there is not the character, but the very plenitude of the Priesthood.
1700 </p>
1701 <p id="TP_Q63_A6-p8"> But it is the sacrament of order that pertains to the sacramental agents: for it is by this sacrament that men are deputed
1702 to confer sacraments on others: while the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the recipients, since it confers on man the power
1703 to receive the other sacraments of the Church; whence it is called the "door of the sacraments." In a way Confirmation also
1704 is ordained for the same purpose, as we shall explain in its proper place (
1705 <a id="TP_Q63_A6-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q65_A3.html">Q[65],
1706 A[3]
1707 </a>). Consequently, these three sacraments imprint a character, namely, Baptism, Confirmation, and order.
1708 </p>
1709 <p id="TP_Q63_A6-p9">
1710 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Every sacrament makes man of the a participator in Christ's Priesthood, from the fact that it confers on him some effect
1711 thereof. But every sacrament does not depute a man to do or receive something pertaining to the worship of the priesthood
1712 of Christ: while it is just this that is required for a sacrament to imprint a character.
1713 </p>
1714 <p id="TP_Q63_A6-p10">
1715 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Man is sanctified by each of the sacraments, since sanctity means immunity from sin, which is the effect of grace. But in
1716 a special way some sacraments, which imprint a character, bestow on man a certain consecration, thus deputing him to the Divine
1717 worship: just as inanimate things are said to be consecrated forasmuch as they are deputed to Divine worship.
1718 </p>
1719 <p id="TP_Q63_A6-p11">
1720 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although a character is a reality and a sacrament, it does not follow that whatever is a reality and a sacrament, is also
1721 a character. With regard to the other sacraments we shall explain further on what is the reality and what is the sacrament.
1722 </p>
1723 <p id="TP_Q63_A6-p12"></p>
1724 <p id="TP_Q63_A6-p13"></p>
1725 <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A5.html"></a>
1726 <a href="summa.TP_Q64.html"></a>
1727 </div>
1728 <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A6.html"></a>
1729 <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A1.html"></a>
1730 </div>
1731 <div id="TP_Q64" class="div3">
1732 <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A6.html"></a>
1733 <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A1.html"></a>
1734 <h3 id="TP_Q64-p0.1">OF THE CAUSES OF THE SACRAMENTS (TEN ARTICLES)</h3>
1735 <p id="TP_Q64-p1"></p>
1736 <p id="TP_Q64-p2"> In the next place we have to consider the causes of the sacraments, both as to authorship and as to ministration. Concerning
1737 which there are ten points of inquiry:
1738 </p>
1739 <p id="TP_Q64-p3"> (1) Whether God alone works inwardly in the sacraments?</p>
1740 <p id="TP_Q64-p4"> (2) Whether the institution of the sacraments is from God alone?</p>
1741 <p id="TP_Q64-p5"> (3) Of the power which Christ exercised over the sacraments;</p>
1742 <p id="TP_Q64-p6"> (4) Whether He could transmit that power to others?</p>
1743 <p id="TP_Q64-p7"> (5) Whether the wicked can have the power of administering the sacraments?</p>
1744 <p id="TP_Q64-p8"> (6) Whether the wicked sin in administering the sacraments?</p>
1745 <p id="TP_Q64-p9"> (7) Whether the angels can be ministers of the sacraments?</p>
1746 <p id="TP_Q64-p10"> (8) Whether the minister's intention is necessary in the sacraments?</p>
1747 <p id="TP_Q64-p11"> (9) Whether right faith is required therein; so that it be impossible for an unbeliever to confer a sacrament?</p>
1748 <p id="TP_Q64-p12"> (10) Whether a right intention is required therein?</p>
1749 <div id="TP_Q64_A1" class="div4">
1750 <a href="summa.TP_Q64.html"></a>
1751 <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A2.html"></a>
1752 <h4 id="TP_Q64_A1-p0.1">Whether God alone, or the minister also, works inwardly unto the sacramental effect?</h4>
1753 <p id="TP_Q64_A1-p1"></p>
1754 <p id="TP_Q64_A1-p2">
1755 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that not God alone, but also the minister, works inwardly unto the sacramental effect. For the inward sacramental
1756 effect is to cleanse man from sin and enlighten him by grace. But it belongs to the ministers of the Church "to cleanse, enlighten
1757 and perfect," as Dionysius explains (Coel. Hier. v). Therefore it seems that the sacramental effect is the work not only of
1758 God, but also of the ministers of the Church.
1759 </p>
1760 <p id="TP_Q64_A1-p3">
1761 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, certain prayers are offered up in conferring the sacraments. But the prayers of the righteous are more acceptable
1762 to God than those of any other, according to
1763 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q64_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#John.9.31" target="asv"> Jn. 9:31</a>: "If a man be a server of God, and doth His will, him He heareth." Therefore it stems that a man obtains a greater sacramental
1764 effect if he receive it from a good minister. Consequently, the interior effect is partly the work of the minister and not
1765 of God
1766 alone.
1767 </p>
1768 <p id="TP_Q64_A1-p4">
1769 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, man is of greater account than an inanimate thing. But an inanimate thing contributes something to the interior
1770 effect: since "water touches the body and cleanses the soul," as Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan.). Therefore the interior
1771 sacramental effect is partly the work of man and not of God alone.
1772 </p>
1773 <p id="TP_Q64_A1-p5">
1774 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
1775 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q64_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.33" target="asv">Rom. 8:33</a>): "God that justifieth." Since, then, the inward effect of all the sacraments is justification, it seems that God alone works
1776 the interior sacramental effect.
1777 </p>
1778 <p id="TP_Q64_A1-p6">
1779 <b>I answer that,</b> There are two ways of producing an effect; first, as a principal agent; secondly, as an instrument. In the former way the
1780 interior sacramental effect is the work of God alone: first, because God alone can enter the soul wherein the sacramental
1781 effect takes place; and no agent can operate immediately where it is not: secondly, because grace which is an interior sacramental
1782 effect is from God alone, as we have established in the
1783 <a id="TP_Q64_A1-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q112_A1.html">FS,
1784 Q[112], A[1]
1785 </a>; while the character which is the interior effect of certain sacraments, is an instrumental power which flows from the principal
1786 agent, which is God. In the second way, however, the interior sacramental effect can be the work of man, in so far as he works
1787 as a minister. For a minister is of the nature of an instrument, since the action of both is applied to something extrinsic,
1788 while the interior effect is produced through the power of the principal agent, which is God.
1789 </p>
1790 <p id="TP_Q64_A1-p7">
1791 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Cleansing in so far as it is attributed to the ministers of the Church is not a washing from sin: deacons are said to "cleanse,"
1792 inasmuch as they remove the unclean from the body of the faithful, or prepare them by their pious admonitions for the reception
1793 of the sacraments. In like manner also priests are said to "enlighten" God's people, not indeed by giving them grace, but
1794 by conferring on them the sacraments of grace; as Dionysius explains (Coel.
1795 Hier. v).
1796 </p>
1797 <p id="TP_Q64_A1-p8">
1798 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The prayers which are said in giving the sacraments, are offered to God, not on the part of the individual, but on the part
1799 of the whole Church, whose prayers are acceptable to God, according to
1800 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q64_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.18.19" target="asv">Mat. 18:19</a>: "If two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning anything whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by My Father."
1801 Nor is there any reason why the devotion of a just man should not contribute to this effect. But that which is the
1802 sacramental effect is not impetrated by the prayer of the Church or of the minister, but through the merit of Christ's Passion,
1803 the power of which operates in the sacraments, as stated above (
1804 <a id="TP_Q64_A1-p8.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q62_A5.html">Q[62], A[5]</a>). Wherefore the sacramental effect is made no better by a better minister. And yet something in addition may be impetrated
1805 for the receiver of the sacrament through the devotion of the minister: but this is not the work of the minister, but the
1806 work of God Who hears the
1807 minister's prayer.
1808 </p>
1809 <p id="TP_Q64_A1-p9">
1810 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Inanimate things do not produce the sacramental effect, except instrumentally, as stated above. In like manner neither do
1811 men produce the sacramental effect, except ministerially, as also stated above.
1812 </p>
1813 <p id="TP_Q64_A1-p10"></p>
1814 <p id="TP_Q64_A1-p11"></p>
1815 <a href="summa.TP_Q64.html"></a>
1816 <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A2.html"></a>
1817 </div>
1818 <div id="TP_Q64_A2" class="div4">
1819 <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A1.html"></a>
1820 <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A3.html"></a>
1821 <h4 id="TP_Q64_A2-p0.1">Whether the sacraments are instituted by God alone?</h4>
1822 <p id="TP_Q64_A2-p1"></p>
1823 <p id="TP_Q64_A2-p2">
1824 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the sacraments are not instituted by God alone. For those things which God has instituted are delivered to
1825 us in Holy Scripture. But in the sacraments certain things are done which are nowhere mentioned in Holy Scripture; for instance,
1826 the chrism with which men are confirmed, the oil with which priests are anointed, and many others, both words and actions,
1827 which we employ in the sacraments. Therefore the sacraments were not instituted by God
1828 alone.
1829 </p>
1830 <p id="TP_Q64_A2-p3">
1831 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a sacrament is a kind of sign. Now sensible things have their own natural signification. Nor can it be said that
1832 God takes pleasure in certain significations and not in others; because He approves of all that He made. Moreover, it seems
1833 to be peculiar to the demons to be enticed to something by means of signs; for Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxi): "The demons
1834 are enticed . . . by means of creatures, which were created not by them but by God, by
1835 various means of attraction according to their various natures, not as an animal is enticed by food, but as a spirit is drawn
1836 by a sign." It seems, therefore, that there is no need for the sacraments to be instituted by God.
1837 </p>
1838 <p id="TP_Q64_A2-p4">
1839 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the apostles were God's vicegerents on earth: hence the Apostle says (
1840 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q64_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.2.10" target="asv">2 Cor. 2:10</a>): "For what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ," i.e. as
1841 though Christ Himself had pardoned. Therefore it seems that the apostles and their successors can institute new sacraments.
1842 </p>
1843 <p id="TP_Q64_A2-p5">
1844 <b>On the contrary,</b> The institutor of anything is he who gives it strength and power: as in the case of those who institute laws. But the power
1845 of a sacrament is from God alone, as we have shown above
1846 <a id="TP_Q64_A2-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q64_A1.html">(A[1];</a> Q[62], A[1]). Therefore God alone can institute a sacrament.
1847 </p>
1848 <p id="TP_Q64_A2-p6">
1849 <b>I answer that,</b> As appears from what has been said above
1850 <a id="TP_Q64_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q64_A1.html">(A[1];</a> Q[62], A[1]), the sacraments are instrumental causes of spiritual effects. Now an instrument has its power from the principal
1851 agent. But an agent in respect of a sacrament is twofold; viz. he who institutes the sacraments, and he who makes use of the
1852 sacrament instituted, by applying it for the production of the effect. Now the power of a sacrament cannot be from him who
1853 makes use of
1854 the sacrament: because he works but as a minister. Consequently, it follows that the power of the sacrament is from the institutor
1855 of the sacrament. Since, therefore, the power of the sacrament is from God alone, it follows that God alone can institute
1856 the sacraments.
1857 </p>
1858 <p id="TP_Q64_A2-p7">
1859 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Human institutions observed in the sacraments are not essential to the sacrament; but belong to the solemnity which is added
1860 to the sacraments in order to arouse devotion and reverence in the recipients. But those things that are essential to the
1861 sacrament, are instituted by Christ Himself, Who is God and man. And though they are not all handed down by the Scriptures,
1862 yet the Church holds them from the intimate tradition of the apostles, according to
1863 the saying of the Apostle (
1864 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q64_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.11.34" target="asv">1 Cor. 11:34</a>): "The rest I will set in order when I come."
1865 </p>
1866 <p id="TP_Q64_A2-p8">
1867 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> From their very nature sensible things have a certain aptitude for the signifying of spiritual effects: but this aptitude
1868 is fixed by the Divine institution to some special signification. This is what Hugh of St. Victor means by saying (De Sacram.
1869 i) that "a sacrament owes its signification to its institution." Yet God chooses certain things rather than others for sacramental
1870 signification, not as though His choice were restricted to them, but in
1871 order that their signification be more suitable to them.
1872 </p>
1873 <p id="TP_Q64_A2-p9">
1874 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The apostles and their successors are God's vicars in governing the Church which is built on faith and the sacraments of
1875 faith. Wherefore, just as they may not institute another Church, so neither may they deliver another faith, nor institute
1876 other sacraments: on the contrary, the Church is said to be built up with the sacraments "which flowed from the side of Christ
1877 while hanging on the Cross."
1878 </p>
1879 <p id="TP_Q64_A2-p10"></p>
1880 <p id="TP_Q64_A2-p11"></p>
1881 <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A1.html"></a>
1882 <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A3.html"></a>
1883 </div>
1884 <div id="TP_Q64_A3" class="div4">
1885 <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A2.html"></a>
1886 <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A4.html"></a>
1887 <h4 id="TP_Q64_A3-p0.1">Whether Christ as man had the power of producing the inward sacramental effect?</h4>
1888 <p id="TP_Q64_A3-p1"></p>
1889 <p id="TP_Q64_A3-p2">
1890 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that Christ as man had the power of producing the interior sacramental effect. For John the Baptist said (
1891 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q64_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.33" target="asv">Jn. 1:33</a>): "He, Who sent me to baptize in water, said to me: He upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon
1892 Him, He it is that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost." But to baptize with the Holy Ghost is to confer inwardly the grace of the
1893 Holy Ghost. And the Holy Ghost descended upon Christ as man, not as God:
1894 for thus He Himself gives the Holy Ghost. Therefore it seems that Christ, as man, had the power of producing the inward sacramental
1895 effect.
1896 </p>
1897 <p id="TP_Q64_A3-p3">
1898 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, our Lord said (
1899 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q64_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.9.6" target="asv">Mat. 9:6</a>): "That you may know that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins." But forgiveness of sins is an inward sacramental
1900 effect. Therefore it seems that Christ as man produces the inward sacramental effect.
1901 </p>
1902 <p id="TP_Q64_A3-p4">
1903 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the institution of the sacraments belongs to him who acts as principal agent in producing the inward sacramental
1904 effect. Now it is clear that Christ instituted the sacraments. Therefore it is He that produces the inward sacramental effect.
1905 </p>
1906 <p id="TP_Q64_A3-p5">
1907 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, no one can confer the sacramental effect without conferring the sacrament, except he produce the sacramental effect
1908 by his own power. But Christ conferred the sacramental effect without conferring the sacrament; as in the case of Magdalen
1909 to whom He said: "Thy sins are forgiven Thee" (
1910 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q64_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.7.48" target="asv">Lk. 7:48</a>). Therefore it seems that Christ, as man, produces the inward sacramental effect.
1911 </p>
1912 <p id="TP_Q64_A3-p6">
1913 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, the principal agent in causing the inward effect is that in virtue of which the sacrament operates. But the sacraments
1914 derive their power from Christ's Passion and through the invocation of His Name; according to
1915 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q64_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.1.13" target="asv">1 Cor. 1:13</a>: "Was Paul then crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" Therefore Christ, as man, produces the inward
1916 sacramental effect.
1917 </p>
1918 <p id="TP_Q64_A3-p7">
1919 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine (Isidore, Etym. vi) says: "The Divine power in the sacraments works inwardly in producing their salutary effect."
1920 Now the Divine power is Christ's as God, not as man. Therefore Christ produces the inward sacramental effect, not as man but
1921 as God.
1922 </p>
1923 <p id="TP_Q64_A3-p8">
1924 <b>I answer that,</b> Christ produces the inward sacramental effect, both as God and as man, but not in the same way. For, as God, He works in
1925 the sacraments by authority: but, as man, His operation conduces to the inward sacramental effects meritoriously and efficiently,
1926 but instrumentally. For it has been stated (
1927 <a id="TP_Q64_A3-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q48_A1.html">Q[48], AA[1]</a>,6;
1928 <a id="TP_Q64_A3-p8.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q49_A1.html"> Q[49], A[1]</a>) that Christ's Passion which belongs to Him in respect of His human nature, is the cause
1929 of justification, both meritoriously and efficiently, not as the principal cause thereof, or by His own authority, but as
1930 an instrument, in so far as His humanity is the instrument of His Godhead, as stated above (
1931 <a id="TP_Q64_A3-p8.3" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q13_A2.html">Q[13], AA[2]</a>,3;
1932 <a id="TP_Q64_A3-p8.4" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q19_A1.html"> Q[19], A[1]</a>).
1933 </p>
1934 <p id="TP_Q64_A3-p9"> Nevertheless, since it is an instrument united to the Godhead in unity of Person, it has a certain headship and efficiency
1935 in regard to extrinsic instruments, which are the ministers of the Church and the sacraments themselves, as has been explained
1936 above
1937 <a id="TP_Q64_A3-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q64_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. Consequently, just as Christ, as God, has power of "authority" over the sacraments, so, as man, He has the power of ministry
1938 in chief, or power of "excellence." And this consists in four things.
1939 First in this, that the merit and power of His Passion operates in the sacraments, as stated above (Q[62], A[5]). And because
1940 the power of the Passion is communicated to us by faith, according to
1941 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q64_A3-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.3.25" target="asv"> Rom. 3:25</a>: "Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation through faith in His blood," which faith we proclaim by calling on the name
1942 of Christ: therefore, secondly, Christ's power of excellence over the sacraments consists in this, that they are sanctified
1943 by the invocation of His
1944 name. And because the sacraments derive their power from their institution, hence, thirdly, the excellence of Christ's power
1945 consists in this, that He, Who gave them their power, could institute the sacraments. And since cause does not depend on effect,
1946 but rather conversely, it belongs to the excellence of Christ's power, that He could bestow the sacramental effect without
1947 conferring the exterior sacrament. Thus it is clear how to solve the objections; for the arguments on either side are true
1948 to a certain extent, as explained above.
1949 </p>
1950 <p id="TP_Q64_A3-p10"></p>
1951 <p id="TP_Q64_A3-p11"></p>
1952 <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A2.html"></a>
1953 <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A4.html"></a>
1954 </div>
1955 <div id="TP_Q64_A4" class="div4">
1956 <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A3.html"></a>
1957 <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A5.html"></a>
1958 <h4 id="TP_Q64_A4-p0.1">Whether Christ could communicate to ministers the power which He had in the sacraments?</h4>
1959 <p id="TP_Q64_A4-p1"></p>
1960 <p id="TP_Q64_A4-p2">
1961 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that Christ could not communicate to ministers the power which He had in the sacraments. For as Augustine argues
1962 against Maximin, "if He could, but would not, He was jealous of His power." But jealousy was far from Christ Who had the fulness
1963 of charity. Since, therefore, Christ did not communicate His power to ministers, it seems that He could not.
1964 </p>
1965 <p id="TP_Q64_A4-p3">
1966 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, on
1967 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q64_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#John.14.12" target="asv"> Jn. 14:12</a>: "Greater than these shall he do," Augustine says (Tract. lxxii): "I affirm this to be altogether greater," namely, for a
1968 man from being ungodly to be made righteous, "than to create heaven and earth." But Christ could not communicate to His disciples
1969 the power of creating heaven and earth: neither, therefore, could He give them the power of making the ungodly to be righteous.
1970 Since, therefore, the justification of
1971 the ungodly is effected by the power that Christ has in the sacraments, it seems that He could not communicate that power
1972 to ministers.
1973 </p>
1974 <p id="TP_Q64_A4-p4">
1975 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it belongs to Christ as Head of the Church that grace should flow from Him to others, according to
1976 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q64_A4-p4.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.16" target="asv"> Jn. 1:16</a>: "Of His fulness we all have received." But this could not be communicated to others; since then the Church would be deformed,
1977 having many heads. Therefore it seems that Christ could not communicate His power to ministers.
1978 </p>
1979 <p id="TP_Q64_A4-p5">
1980 <b>On the contrary,</b> on
1981 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q64_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.31" target="asv"> Jn. 1:31</a>: "I knew Him not," Augustine says (Tract. v) that "he did not know that our Lord having the authority of baptizing . . .
1982 would keep it to Himself." But John would not have been in ignorance of this, if such a power were incommunicable. Therefore
1983 Christ could communicate His power to ministers.
1984 </p>
1985 <p id="TP_Q64_A4-p6">
1986 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
1987 <a id="TP_Q64_A4-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q64_A3.html">(A[3])</a>, Christ had a twofold power in the sacraments. one was the power of "authority," which belongs to Him as God: and this power
1988 He could not communicate to any creature; just as neither could He communicate the Divine Essence. The other was the power
1989 of "excellence," which belongs to Him as man. This power He could communicate to ministers; namely, by giving them such a
1990 fulness of grace---that their merits would
1991 conduce to the sacramental effect---that by the invocation of their names, the sacraments would be sanctified---and that they
1992 themselves might institute sacraments, and by their mere will confer the sacramental effect without observing the sacramental
1993 rite. For a united instrument, the more powerful it is, is all the more able to lend its power to the separated instrument;
1994 as the hand can to a stick.
1995 </p>
1996 <p id="TP_Q64_A4-p7">
1997 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> It was not through jealousy that Christ refrained from communicating to ministers His power of excellence, but for the good
1998 of the faithful; lest they should put their trust in men, and lest there should be various kinds of sacraments, giving rise
1999 to division in the Church; as may be seen in those who said: "I am of Paul, I am of Apollo, and I of Cephas" (
2000 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q64_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.1.12" target="asv">1 Cor. 1:12</a>).
2001 </p>
2002 <p id="TP_Q64_A4-p8">
2003 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This objection is true of the power of authority, which belongs to Christ as God. At the same time the power of excellence
2004 can be called authority in comparison to other ministers. Whence on
2005 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q64_A4-p8.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.1.13" target="asv">1 Cor. 1:13</a>: "Is Christ divided?" the gloss says that "He could give power of authority in baptizing, to those to whom He gave the power
2006 of administering it."
2007 </p>
2008 <p id="TP_Q64_A4-p9">
2009 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> It was in order to avoid the incongruity of many heads in the Church, that Christ was unwilling to communicate to ministers
2010 His power of excellence. If, however, He had done so, He would have been Head in chief; the others in subjection to Him.
2011 </p>
2012 <p id="TP_Q64_A4-p10"></p>
2013 <p id="TP_Q64_A4-p11"></p>
2014 <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A3.html"></a>
2015 <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A5.html"></a>
2016 </div>
2017 <div id="TP_Q64_A5" class="div4">
2018 <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A4.html"></a>
2019 <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A6.html"></a>
2020 <h4 id="TP_Q64_A5-p0.1">Whether the sacraments can be conferred by evil ministers?</h4>
2021 <p id="TP_Q64_A5-p1"></p>
2022 <p id="TP_Q64_A5-p2">
2023 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the sacraments cannot be conferred by evil ministers. For the sacraments of the New Law are ordained for the
2024 purpose of cleansing from sin and for the bestowal of grace. Now evil men, being themselves unclean, cannot cleanse others
2025 from sin, according to
2026 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q64_A5-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Sir.34.4" target="asv">Ecclus. 34:4</a>: "Who [Vulg.: 'What'] can be made clean by the unclean?" Moreover, since they have not grace, it seems that they cannot give
2027 grace, for "no one gives what he has not." It seems,
2028 therefore, that the sacraments cannot be conferred by wicked men.
2029 </p>
2030 <p id="TP_Q64_A5-p3">
2031 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, all the power of the sacraments is derived from Christ, as stated above
2032 <a id="TP_Q64_A5-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q64_A3.html">(A[3];</a> Q[62], A[5]). But evil men are cut off from Christ: because they have not charity, by which the members are united to their
2033 Head, according to
2034 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q64_A5-p3.2" href="./asv.html#iJohn.4.16" target="asv">1 Jn. 4:16</a>: "He that abideth in charity, abideth in God, and God in him." Therefore it seems that the sacraments cannot be conferred
2035 by evil men.
2036 </p>
2037 <p id="TP_Q64_A5-p4">
2038 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if anything is wanting that is required for the sacraments, the sacrament is invalid; for instance, if the required
2039 matter or form be wanting. But the minister required for a sacrament is one who is without the stain of sin, according to
2040 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q64_A5-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.21.17" target="asv"> Lev. 21:17,18</a>: "Whosoever of thy seed throughout their families, hath a blemish, he shall not offer bread to his God, neither shall he
2041 approach to minister to Him." Therefore it seems that if the
2042 minister be wicked, the sacrament has no effect.
2043 </p>
2044 <p id="TP_Q64_A5-p5">
2045 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says on
2046 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q64_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.33" target="asv"> Jn. 1:33</a>: "He upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit," etc. (Tract. v in Joan.), that "John did not know that our Lord, having the authority
2047 of baptizing, would keep it to Himself, but that the ministry would certainly pass to both good and evil men . . . What is
2048 a bad minister to thee, where the Lord is good?"
2049 </p>
2050 <p id="TP_Q64_A5-p6">
2051 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
2052 <a id="TP_Q64_A5-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q64_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, the ministers of the Church work instrumentally in the sacraments, because, in a way, a minister is of the nature of an
2053 instrument. But, as stated above (Q[62], AA[1],4), an instrument acts not by reason of its own form, but by the power of the
2054 one who moves it. Consequently, whatever form or power an instrument has in addition to that which it has as an instrument,
2055 is accidental to it: for instance, that a
2056 physician's body, which is the instrument of his soul, wherein is his medical art, be healthy or sickly; or that a pipe, through
2057 which water passes, be of silver or lead. Therefore the ministers of the Church can confer the sacraments, though they be
2058 wicked.
2059 </p>
2060 <p id="TP_Q64_A5-p7">
2061 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The ministers of the Church do not by their own power cleanse from sin those who approach the sacraments, nor do they confer
2062 grace on them: it is Christ Who does this by His own power while He employs them as instruments. Consequently, those who approach
2063 the sacraments receive an effect whereby they are enlikened not to the ministers but to Christ.
2064 </p>
2065 <p id="TP_Q64_A5-p8">
2066 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Christ's members are united to their Head by charity, so that they may receive life from Him; for as it is written (
2067 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q64_A5-p8.1" href="./asv.html#iJohn.3.14" target="asv">1 Jn. 3:14</a>): "He that loveth not abideth in death." Now it is possible for a man to work with a lifeless instrument, and separated from
2068 him as to bodily union, provided it be united to him by some sort of motion: for a workman works in one way with his hand,
2069 in another with his axe. Consequently, it is thus that
2070 Christ works in the sacraments, both by wicked men as lifeless instruments, and by good men as living instruments.
2071 </p>
2072 <p id="TP_Q64_A5-p9">
2073 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> A thing is required in a sacrament in two ways. First, as being essential to it: and if this be wanting, the sacrament is
2074 invalid; for instance, if the due form or matter be wanting. Secondly, a thing is required for a sacrament, by reason of a
2075 certain fitness. And in this way good ministers are required for a sacrament.
2076 </p>
2077 <p id="TP_Q64_A5-p10"></p>
2078 <p id="TP_Q64_A5-p11"></p>
2079 <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A4.html"></a>
2080 <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A6.html"></a>
2081 </div>
2082 <div id="TP_Q64_A6" class="div4">
2083 <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A5.html"></a>
2084 <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A7.html"></a>
2085 <h4 id="TP_Q64_A6-p0.1">Whether wicked men sin in administering the sacraments?</h4>
2086 <p id="TP_Q64_A6-p1"></p>
2087 <p id="TP_Q64_A6-p2">
2088 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that wicked men do not sin in administering the sacraments. For just as men serve God in the sacraments, so do they
2089 serve Him in works of charity; whence it is written (
2090 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q64_A6-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.13.16" target="asv">Heb. 13:16</a>): "Do not forget to do good and to impart, for by such sacrifices God's favor is obtained." But the wicked do not sin in
2091 serving God by works of charity: indeed, they should be persuaded to do so, according to
2092 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q64_A6-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Dan.4.24" target="asv"> Dan. 4:24</a>: "Let my
2093 counsel be acceptable" to the king; "Redeem thou thy sins with alms." Therefore it seems that wicked men do not sin in administering
2094 the sacraments.
2095 </p>
2096 <p id="TP_Q64_A6-p3">
2097 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, whoever co-operates with another in his sin, is also guilty of sin, according to
2098 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q64_A6-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.1.32" target="asv"> Rom. 1:32</a>: "He is [Vulg.: 'They are'] worthy of death; not only he that commits the sin, but also he who consents to them that do them."
2099 But if wicked ministers sin in administering sacraments, those who receive sacraments from them, co-operate in their sin.
2100 Therefore they would sin also; which seems unreasonable.
2101 </p>
2102 <p id="TP_Q64_A6-p4">
2103 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it seems that no one should act when in doubt, for thus man would be driven to despair, as being unable to avoid
2104 sin. But if the wicked were to sin in administering sacraments, they would be in a state of perplexity: since sometimes they
2105 would sin also if they did not administer sacraments; for instance, when by reason of their office it is their bounden duty
2106 to do so; for it is written (
2107 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q64_A6-p4.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.9.16" target="asv">1 Cor. 9:16</a>): "For a necessity lieth upon
2108 me: Woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel." Sometimes also on account of some danger; for instance, if a child in danger
2109 of death be brought to a sinner for baptism. Therefore it seems that the wicked do not sin in administering the sacraments.
2110 </p>
2111 <p id="TP_Q64_A6-p5">
2112 <b>On the contrary,</b> Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. i) that "it is wrong for the wicked even to touch the symbols," i.e. the sacramental signs. And
2113 he says in the epistle to Demophilus: "It seems presumptuous for such a man," i.e. a sinner, "to lay hands on priestly things;
2114 he is neither afraid nor ashamed, all unworthy that he is, to take part in Divine things, with the thought that God does not
2115 see what he sees in himself: he thinks, by false pretenses, to cheat Him Whom he
2116 calls his Father; he dares to utter, in the person of Christ, words polluted by his infamy, I will not call them prayers,
2117 over the Divine symbols."
2118 </p>
2119 <p id="TP_Q64_A6-p6">
2120 <b>I answer that,</b> A sinful action consists in this, that a man "fails to act as he ought to," as the Philosopher explains (Ethic. ii). Now
2121 it has been said (A[5], ad 3) that it is fitting for the ministers of sacraments to be righteous; because ministers should
2122 be like unto their Lord, according to
2123 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q64_A6-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.19.2" target="asv"> Lev. 19:2</a>: "Be ye holy, because I . . . am holy"; and
2124 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q64_A6-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Sir.10.2" target="asv"> Ecclus. 10:2</a>: "As the judge of the people is himself, so also are his ministers."
2125 Consequently, there can be no doubt that the wicked sin by exercising the ministry of God and the Church, by conferring the
2126 sacraments. And since this sin pertains to irreverence towards God and the contamination of holy things, as far as the man
2127 who sins is concerned, although holy things in themselves cannot be contaminated; it follows that such a sin is mortal in
2128 its genus.
2129 </p>
2130 <p id="TP_Q64_A6-p7">
2131 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Works of charity are not made holy by some process of consecration, but they belong to the holiness of righteousness, as
2132 being in a way parts of righteousness. Consequently, when a man shows himself as a minister of God, by doing works of charity,
2133 if he be righteous, he will be made yet holier; but if he be a sinner, he is thereby disposed to holiness. On the other hand,
2134 the sacraments are holy in themselves owing to their mystical consecration.
2135 Wherefore the holiness of righteousness is required in the minister, that he may be suitable for his ministry: for which reason
2136 he acts unbecomingly and sins, if while in a state of sin he attempts to fulfil that ministry.
2137 </p>
2138 <p id="TP_Q64_A6-p8">
2139 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> He who approaches a sacrament, receives it from a minister of the Church, not because he is such and such a man, but because
2140 he is a minister of the Church. Consequently, as long as the latter is tolerated in the ministry, he that receives a sacrament
2141 from him, does not communicate in his sin, but communicates with the Church from. whom he has his ministry. But if the Church,
2142 by degrading, excommunicating, or suspending him, does not tolerate him in
2143 the ministry, he that receives a sacrament from him sins, because he communicates in his sin.
2144 </p>
2145 <p id="TP_Q64_A6-p9">
2146 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> A man who is in mortal sin is not perplexed simply, if by reason of his office it be his bounden duty to minister sacraments;
2147 because he can repent of his sin and so minister lawfully. But there is nothing unreasonable in his being perplexed, if we
2148 suppose that he wishes to remain in sin.
2149 </p>
2150 <p id="TP_Q64_A6-p10"> However, in a case of necessity when even a lay person might baptize, he would not sin in baptizing. For it is clear that
2151 then he does not exercise the ministry of the Church, but comes to the aid of one who is in need of his services. It is not
2152 so with the other sacraments, which are not so necessary as baptism, as we shall show further on (
2153 <a id="TP_Q64_A6-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q65_A3.html">Q[65], AA[3]</a>,4;
2154 <a id="TP_Q64_A6-p10.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q62_A3.html"> Q[62], A[3]</a>).
2155 </p>
2156 <p id="TP_Q64_A6-p11"></p>
2157 <p id="TP_Q64_A6-p12"></p>
2158 <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A5.html"></a>
2159 <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A7.html"></a>
2160 </div>
2161 <div id="TP_Q64_A7" class="div4">
2162 <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A6.html"></a>
2163 <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A8.html"></a>
2164 <h4 id="TP_Q64_A7-p0.1">Whether angels can administer sacraments?</h4>
2165 <p id="TP_Q64_A7-p1"></p>
2166 <p id="TP_Q64_A7-p2">
2167 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that angels can administer sacraments. Because a higher minister can do whatever the lower can; thus a priest can
2168 do whatever a deacon can: but not conversely. But angels are higher ministers in the hierarchical order than any men whatsoever,
2169 as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. ix). Therefore, since men can be ministers of sacraments, it seems that much more can angels
2170 be.
2171 </p>
2172 <p id="TP_Q64_A7-p3">
2173 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in heaven holy men are likened to the angels (
2174 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q64_A7-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.22.30" target="asv">Mat. 22:30</a>). But some holy men, when in heaven, can be ministers of the sacraments; since the sacramental character is indelible, as
2175 stated above (
2176 <a id="TP_Q64_A7-p3.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q63_A5.html">Q[63], A[5]</a>). Therefore it seems that angels too can be ministers of sacraments.
2177 </p>
2178 <p id="TP_Q64_A7-p4">
2179 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as stated above (
2180 <a id="TP_Q64_A7-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q8_A7.html">Q[8], A[7]</a>), the devil is head of the wicked, and the wicked are his members. But sacraments can be administered by the wicked. Therefore
2181 it seems that they can be administered even by demons.
2182 </p>
2183 <p id="TP_Q64_A7-p5">
2184 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
2185 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q64_A7-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.5.1" target="asv">Heb. 5:1</a>): "Every high priest taken from among men, is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God." But angels whether good
2186 or bad are not taken from among men. Therefore they are not ordained ministers in the things that appertain to God, i.e. in
2187 the sacraments.
2188 </p>
2189 <p id="TP_Q64_A7-p6">
2190 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
2191 <a id="TP_Q64_A7-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q64_A3.html">(A[3];</a> Q[62], A[5]), the whole power of the sacraments flows from Christ's Passion, which belongs to Him as man. And Him in their
2192 very nature men, not angels, resemble; indeed, in respect of His Passion, He is described as being "a little lower than the
2193 angels" (
2194 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q64_A7-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.2.9" target="asv">Heb. 2:9</a>). Consequently, it belongs to men, but not to angels, to dispense the sacraments and to take part in their administration.
2195 </p>
2196 <p id="TP_Q64_A7-p7"> But it must be observed that as God did not bind His power to the sacraments, so as to be unable to bestow the sacramental
2197 effect without conferring the sacrament; so neither did He bind His power to the ministers of the Church so as to be unable
2198 to give angels power to administer the sacraments. And since good angels are messengers of truth; if any sacramental rite
2199 were performed by good angels, it should be considered valid, because it ought to be evident that this is being
2200 done by the will of God: for instance, certain churches are said to have been consecrated by the ministry of the angels [*See
2201 Acta S.S., September 29]. But if demons, who are "lying spirits," were to perform a sacramental rite, it should be pronounced
2202 as invalid.
2203 </p>
2204 <p id="TP_Q64_A7-p8">
2205 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> What men do in a less perfect manner, i.e. by sensible sacraments, which are proportionate to their nature, angels also do,
2206 as ministers of a higher degree, in a more perfect manner, i.e. invisibly---by cleansing, enlightening, and perfecting.
2207 </p>
2208 <p id="TP_Q64_A7-p9">
2209 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The saints in heaven resemble the angels as to their share of glory, but not as to the conditions of their nature: and consequently
2210 not in regard to the sacraments.
2211 </p>
2212 <p id="TP_Q64_A7-p10">
2213 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Wicked men do not owe their power of conferring sacraments to their being members of the devil. Consequently, it does not
2214 follow that "a fortiori" the devil, their head, can do so.
2215 </p>
2216 <p id="TP_Q64_A7-p11"></p>
2217 <p id="TP_Q64_A7-p12"></p>
2218 <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A6.html"></a>
2219 <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A8.html"></a>
2220 </div>
2221 <div id="TP_Q64_A8" class="div4">
2222 <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A7.html"></a>
2223 <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A9.html"></a>
2224 <h4 id="TP_Q64_A8-p0.1">Whether the minister's intention is required for the validity of a sacrament?</h4>
2225 <p id="TP_Q64_A8-p1"></p>
2226 <p id="TP_Q64_A8-p2">
2227 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the minister's intention is not required for the validity of a sacrament. For the minister of a sacrament works
2228 instrumentally. But the perfection of an action does not depend on the intention of the instrument, but on that of the principal
2229 agent. Therefore the minister's intention is not necessary for the perfecting of a sacrament.
2230 </p>
2231 <p id="TP_Q64_A8-p3">
2232 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, one man's intention cannot be known to another. Therefore if the minister's intention were required for the validity
2233 of a sacrament, he who approaches a sacrament could not know whether he has received the sacrament. Consequently he could
2234 have no certainty in regard to salvation; the more that some sacraments are necessary for salvation, as we shall state further
2235 on (
2236 <a id="TP_Q64_A8-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q65_A4.html">Q[65], A[4]</a>).
2237 </p>
2238 <p id="TP_Q64_A8-p4">
2239 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a man's intention cannot bear on that to which he does not attend. But sometimes ministers of sacraments do not
2240 attend to what they say or do, through thinking of something else. Therefore in this respect the sacrament would be invalid
2241 through want of intention.
2242 </p>
2243 <p id="TP_Q64_A8-p5">
2244 <b>On the contrary,</b> What is unintentional happens by chance. But this cannot be said of the sacramental operation. Therefore the sacraments require
2245 the intention of the minister.
2246 </p>
2247 <p id="TP_Q64_A8-p6">
2248 <b>I answer that,</b> When a thing is indifferent to many uses, it must needs be determined to one, if that one has to be effected. Now those things
2249 which are done in the sacraments, can be done with various intent; for instance, washing with water, which is done in baptism,
2250 may be ordained to bodily cleanliness, to the health of the body, to amusement, and many other similar things. Consequently,
2251 it needs to be determined to one purpose, i.e. the sacramental effect, by the
2252 intention of him who washes. And this intention is expressed by the words which are pronounced in the sacraments; for instance
2253 the words, "I baptize thee in the name of the Father," etc.
2254 </p>
2255 <p id="TP_Q64_A8-p7">
2256 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> An inanimate instrument has no intention regarding the effect; but instead of the intention there is the motion whereby it
2257 is moved by the principal agent. But an animate instrument, such as a minister, is not only moved, but in a sense moves itself,
2258 in so far as by his will he moves his bodily members to act. Consequently, his intention is required, whereby he subjects
2259 himself to the principal agent; that is, it is necessary that he intend to do that
2260 which Christ and the Church do.
2261 </p>
2262 <p id="TP_Q64_A8-p8">
2263 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> On this point there are two opinions. For some hold that the mental intention of the minister is necessary; in the absence
2264 of which the sacrament is invalid: and that this defect in the case of children who have not the intention of approaching
2265 the sacrament, is made good by Christ, Who baptizes inwardly: whereas in adults, who have that intention, this defect is made
2266 good by their faith and devotion.
2267 </p>
2268 <p id="TP_Q64_A8-p9"> This might be true enough of the ultimate effect, i.e. justification from sins; but as to that effect which is both real
2269 and sacramental, viz. the character, it does not appear possible for it to be made good by the devotion of the recipient,
2270 since a character is never imprinted save by a sacrament.
2271 </p>
2272 <p id="TP_Q64_A8-p10"> Consequently, others with better reason hold that the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the whole Church, whose
2273 minister he is; while in the words uttered by him, the intention of the Church is expressed; and that this suffices for the
2274 validity of the sacrament, except the contrary be expressed on the part either of the minister or of the recipient of the
2275 sacrament.
2276 </p>
2277 <p id="TP_Q64_A8-p11">
2278 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although he who thinks of something else, has no actual intention, yet he has habitual intention, which suffices for the
2279 validity of the sacrament; for instance if, when a priest goes to baptize someone, he intends to do to him what the Church
2280 does. Wherefore if subsequently during the exercise of the act his mind be distracted by other matters, the sacrament is valid
2281 in virtue of his original intention. Nevertheless, the minister of a sacrament
2282 should take great care to have actual intention. But this is not entirely in man's power, because when a man wishes to be
2283 very intent on something, he begins unintentionally to think of other things, according to
2284 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q64_A8-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.39.18" target="asv"> Ps. 39:18</a>: "My heart hath forsaken me."
2285 </p>
2286 <p id="TP_Q64_A8-p12"></p>
2287 <p id="TP_Q64_A8-p13"></p>
2288 <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A7.html"></a>
2289 <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A9.html"></a>
2290 </div>
2291 <div id="TP_Q64_A9" class="div4">
2292 <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A8.html"></a>
2293 <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A10.html"></a>
2294 <h4 id="TP_Q64_A9-p0.1">Whether faith is required of necessity in the minister of a sacrament?</h4>
2295 <p id="TP_Q64_A9-p1"></p>
2296 <p id="TP_Q64_A9-p2">
2297 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that faith is required of necessity in the minister of a sacrament. For, as stated above
2298 <a id="TP_Q64_A9-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q64_A8.html">(A[8])</a>, the intention of the minister is necessary for the validity of a sacrament. But "faith directs in intention" as Augustine
2299 says against Julian (In Psalm xxxi, cf. Contra Julian iv). Therefore, if the minister is without the true faith, the sacrament
2300 is invalid.
2301 </p>
2302 <p id="TP_Q64_A9-p3">
2303 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, if a minister of the Church has not the true faith, it seems that he is a heretic. But heretics, seemingly, cannot
2304 confer sacraments. For Cyprian says in an epistle against heretics (lxxiii): "Everything whatsoever heretics do, is carnal,
2305 void and counterfeit, so that nothing that they do should receive our approval." And Pope Leo says in his epistle to Leo Augustus
2306 (clvi): "It is a matter of notoriety that the light of all the heavenly sacraments is
2307 extinguished in the see of Alexandria, by an act of dire and senseless cruelty. The sacrifice is no longer offered, the chrism
2308 is no longer consecrated, all the mysteries of religion have fled at the touch of the parricide hands of ungodly men." Therefore
2309 a sacrament requires of necessity that the minister should have the true faith.
2310 </p>
2311 <p id="TP_Q64_A9-p4">
2312 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, those who have not the true faith seem to be separated from the Church by excommunication: for it is written in
2313 the second canonical epistle of John (10): "If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the
2314 house, nor say to him; God speed you": and (
2315 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q64_A9-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Titus.3.10" target="asv">Titus 3:10</a>): "A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition avoid." But it seems that an excommunicate cannot confer
2316 a sacrament of the
2317 Church: since he is separated from the Church, to whose ministry the dispensation of the sacraments belongs. Therefore a sacrament
2318 requires of necessity that the minister should have the true faith.
2319 </p>
2320 <p id="TP_Q64_A9-p5">
2321 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says against the Donatist Petilian: "Remember that the evil lives of wicked men are not prejudicial to God's sacraments,
2322 by rendering them either invalid or less holy."
2323 </p>
2324 <p id="TP_Q64_A9-p6">
2325 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
2326 <a id="TP_Q64_A9-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q64_A5.html">(A[5])</a>, since the minister works instrumentally in the sacraments, he acts not by his own but by Christ's power. Now just as charity
2327 belongs to a man's own power so also does faith. Wherefore, just as the validity of a sacrament does not require that the
2328 minister should have charity, and even sinners can confer sacraments, as stated above
2329 <a id="TP_Q64_A9-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q64_A5.html">(A[5])</a>; so neither is it necessary that he should have
2330 faith, and even an unbeliever can confer a true sacrament, provided that the other essentials be there.
2331 </p>
2332 <p id="TP_Q64_A9-p7">
2333 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> It may happen that a man's faith is defective in regard to something else, and not in regard to the reality of the sacrament
2334 which he confers: for instance, he may believe that it is unlawful to swear in any case whatever, and yet he may believe that
2335 baptism is an efficient cause of salvation. And thus such unbelief does not hinder the intention of conferring the sacrament.
2336 But if his faith be defective in regard to the very sacrament that he confers,
2337 although he believe that no inward effect is caused by the thing done outwardly, yet he does know that the Catholic Church
2338 intends to confer a sacrament by that which is outwardly done. Wherefore, his unbelief notwithstanding, he can intend to do
2339 what the Church does, albeit he esteem it to be nothing. And such an intention suffices for a sacrament: because as stated
2340 above (A[8], ad 2) the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the Church by whose faith any defect in the minister's
2341 faith
2342 is made good.
2343 </p>
2344 <p id="TP_Q64_A9-p8">
2345 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Some heretics in conferring sacraments do not observe the form prescribed by the Church: and these confer neither the sacrament
2346 nor the reality of the sacrament. But some do observe the form prescribed by the Church: and these confer indeed the sacrament
2347 but not the reality. I say this in the supposition that they are outwardly cut off from the Church; because from the very
2348 fact that anyone receives the sacraments from them, he sins; and consequently
2349 is hindered from receiving the effect of the sacrament. Wherefore Augustine (Fulgentius, De Fide ad Pet.) says: "Be well assured
2350 and have no doubt whatever that those who are baptized outside the Church, unless they come back to the Church, will reap
2351 disaster from their Baptism." In this sense Pope Leo says that "the light of the sacraments was extinguished in the Church
2352 of Alexandria"; viz. in regard to the reality of the sacrament, not as to the sacrament itself.
2353 </p>
2354 <p id="TP_Q64_A9-p9"> Cyprian, however, thought that heretics do not confer even the sacrament: but in this respect we do not follow his opinion.
2355 Hence Augustine says (De unico Baptismo xiii): "Though the martyr Cyprian refused to recognize Baptism conferred by heretics
2356 or schismatics, yet so great are his merits, culminating in the crown of martyrdom, that the light of his charity dispels
2357 the darkness of his fault, and if anything needed pruning, the sickle of his passion cut it off."
2358 </p>
2359 <p id="TP_Q64_A9-p10">
2360 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The power of administering the sacraments belongs to the spiritual character which is indelible, as explained above (
2361 <a id="TP_Q64_A9-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q63_A3.html">Q[63], A[3]</a> ). Consequently, if a man be suspended by the Church, or excommunicated or degraded, he does not lose the power of conferring
2362 sacraments, but the permission to use this power. Wherefore he does indeed confer the sacrament, but he sins in so doing.
2363 He also sins that receives a sacrament from such a
2364 man: so that he does not receive the reality of the sacrament, unless ignorance excuses him.
2365 </p>
2366 <p id="TP_Q64_A9-p11"></p>
2367 <p id="TP_Q64_A9-p12"></p>
2368 <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A8.html"></a>
2369 <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A10.html"></a>
2370 </div>
2371 <div id="TP_Q64_A10" class="div4">
2372 <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A9.html"></a>
2373 <a href="summa.TP_Q65.html"></a>
2374 <h4 id="TP_Q64_A10-p0.1">Whether the validity of a sacrament requires a good intention in the minister?</h4>
2375 <p id="TP_Q64_A10-p1"></p>
2376 <p id="TP_Q64_A10-p2">
2377 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the validity of a sacrament requires a good intention in the minister. For the minister's intention should
2378 be in conformity with the Church's intention, as explained above (A[8], ad 1). But the intention of the Church is always good.
2379 Therefore the validity of a sacrament requires of necessity a good intention in the minister.
2380 </p>
2381 <p id="TP_Q64_A10-p3">
2382 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a perverse intention seems worse than a playful one. But a playful intention destroys a sacrament: for instance,
2383 if someone were to baptize anybody not seriously but in fun. Much more, therefore, does a perverse intention destroy a sacrament:
2384 for instance, if somebody were to baptize a man in order to kill him afterwards.
2385 </p>
2386 <p id="TP_Q64_A10-p4">
2387 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a perverse intention vitiates the whole work, according to
2388 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q64_A10-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.11.34" target="asv"> Lk. 11:34</a>: "If thy eye be evil, thy" whole "body will be darksome." But the sacraments of Christ cannot be contaminated by evil men;
2389 as Augustine says against Petilian (Cont. Litt. Petil ii). Therefore it seems that, if the minister's intention is perverse,
2390 the sacrament is invalid.
2391 </p>
2392 <p id="TP_Q64_A10-p5">
2393 <b>On the contrary,</b> A perverse intention belongs to the wickedness of the minister. But the wickedness of the minister does not annul the sacrament:
2394 neither, therefore, does his perverse intention.
2395 </p>
2396 <p id="TP_Q64_A10-p6">
2397 <b>I answer that,</b> The minister's intention may be perverted in two ways. First in regard to the sacrament: for instance, when a man does not
2398 intend to confer a sacrament, but to make a mockery of it. Such a perverse intention takes away the truth of the sacrament,
2399 especially if it be manifested outwardly.
2400 </p>
2401 <p id="TP_Q64_A10-p7"> Secondly, the minister's intention may be perverted as to something that follows the sacrament: for instance, a priest may
2402 intend to baptize a woman so as to be able to abuse her; or to consecrate the Body of Christ, so as to use it for sorcery.
2403 And because that which comes first does not depend on that which follows, consequently such a perverse intention does not
2404 annul the sacrament; but the minister himself sins grievously in having such an intention.
2405 </p>
2406 <p id="TP_Q64_A10-p8">
2407 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The Church has a good intention both as to the validity of the sacrament and as to the use thereof: but it is the former
2408 intention that perfects the sacrament, while the latter conduces to the meritorious effect. Consequently, the minister who
2409 conforms his intention to the Church as to the former rectitude, but not as to the latter, perfects the sacrament indeed,
2410 but gains no merit for himself.
2411 </p>
2412 <p id="TP_Q64_A10-p9">
2413 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The intention of mimicry or fun excludes the first kind of right intention, necessary for the validity of a sacrament. Consequently,
2414 there is no comparison.
2415 </p>
2416 <p id="TP_Q64_A10-p10">
2417 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> A perverse intention perverts the action of the one who has such an intention, not the action of another. Consequently, the
2418 perverse intention of the minister perverts the sacrament in so far as it is his action: not in so far as it is the action
2419 of Christ, Whose minister he is. It is just as if the servant [minister] of some man were to carry alms to the poor with a
2420 wicked intention, whereas his master had commanded him with a good intention to do
2421 so.
2422 </p>
2423 <p id="TP_Q64_A10-p11"></p>
2424 <p id="TP_Q64_A10-p12"></p>
2425 <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A9.html"></a>
2426 <a href="summa.TP_Q65.html"></a>
2427 </div>
2428 <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A6.html"></a>
2429 <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A1.html"></a>
2430 </div>
2431 <div id="TP_Q65" class="div3">
2432 <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A10.html"></a>
2433 <a href="summa.TP_Q65_A1.html"></a>
2434 <h3 id="TP_Q65-p0.1">OF THE NUMBER OF THE SACRAMENTS (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3>
2435 <p id="TP_Q65-p1"></p>
2436 <p id="TP_Q65-p2"> We have now to consider the number of the sacraments: and concerning this there are four points of inquiry:</p>
2437 <p id="TP_Q65-p3"> (1) Whether there are seven sacraments?</p>
2438 <p id="TP_Q65-p4"> (2) The order of the sacraments among themselves;</p>
2439 <p id="TP_Q65-p5"> (3) Their mutual comparison;</p>
2440 <p id="TP_Q65-p6"> (4) Whether all the sacraments are necessary for salvation?</p>
2441 <div id="TP_Q65_A1" class="div4">
2442 <a href="summa.TP_Q65.html"></a>
2443 <a href="summa.TP_Q65_A2.html"></a>
2444 <h4 id="TP_Q65_A1-p0.1">Whether there should be seven sacraments?</h4>
2445 <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p1"></p>
2446 <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p2">
2447 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that there ought not to be seven sacraments. For the sacraments derive their efficacy from the Divine power, and
2448 the power of Christ's Passion. But the Divine power is one, and Christ's Passion is one; since "by one oblation He hath perfected
2449 for ever them that are sanctified" (
2450 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q65_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.10.14" target="asv">Heb. 10:14</a>). Therefore there should be but one sacrament.
2451 </p>
2452 <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p3">
2453 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a sacrament is intended as a remedy for the defect caused by sin. Now this is twofold, punishment and guilt. Therefore
2454 two sacraments would be enough.
2455 </p>
2456 <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p4">
2457 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, sacraments belong to the actions of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, as Dionysius explains (Eccl. Hier. v). But, as
2458 he says, there are three actions of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, namely, "to cleanse, to enlighten, to perfect." Therefore
2459 there should be no more than three sacraments.
2460 </p>
2461 <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p5">
2462 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix) that the "sacraments" of the New Law are "less numerous" than those of the Old
2463 Law. But in the Old Law there was no sacrament corresponding to Confirmation and Extreme Unction. Therefore these should not
2464 be counted among the sacraments of the New Law.
2465 </p>
2466 <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p6">
2467 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, lust is not more grievous than other sins, as we have made clear in the
2468 <a id="TP_Q65_A1-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q74_A5.html">FS, Q[74], A[5]</a>;
2469 <a id="TP_Q65_A1-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q154_A3.html">SS, Q[154], A[3]</a>. But there is no sacrament instituted as a remedy for other sins. Therefore neither should matrimony be instituted as a remedy
2470 for lust.
2471 </p>
2472 <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p7">
2473 <b>Objection 6:</b> On the other hand, It seems that there should be more than seven sacraments. For sacraments are a kind of sacred sign. But
2474 in the Church there are many sanctifications by sensible signs, such as Holy Water the Consecration of Altars, and such like.
2475 Therefore there are more than seven sacraments.
2476 </p>
2477 <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p8">
2478 <b>Objection 7:</b> Further, Hugh of St. Victor (De Sacram. i) says that the sacraments of the Old Law were oblations, tithes and sacrifices.
2479 But the Sacrifice of the Church is one sacrament, called the Eucharist. Therefore oblations also and tithes should be called
2480 sacraments.
2481 </p>
2482 <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p9">
2483 <b>Objection 8:</b> Further, there are three kinds of sin, original, mortal and venial. Now Baptism is intended as a remedy against original
2484 sin, and Penance against mortal sin. Therefore besides the seven sacraments, there should be another against venial sin.
2485 </p>
2486 <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p10">
2487 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
2488 <a id="TP_Q65_A1-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q62_A5.html">Q[62], A[5]</a>;
2489 <a id="TP_Q65_A1-p10.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q63_A1.html"> Q[63], A[1]</a>), the sacraments of the Church were instituted for a twofold purpose: namely, in order to perfect man in things pertaining
2490 to the worship of God according to the religion of Christian life, and to be a remedy against the defects caused by sin. And
2491 in either way it is becoming that there should be seven sacraments.
2492 </p>
2493 <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p11"> For spiritual life has a certain conformity with the life of the body: just as other corporeal things have a certain likeness
2494 to things spiritual. Now a man attains perfection in the corporeal life in two ways: first, in regard to his own person; secondly,
2495 in regard to the whole community of the society in which he lives, for man is by nature a social animal. With regard to himself
2496 man is perfected in the life of the body, in two ways; first, directly [per se], i.e. by acquiring
2497 some vital perfection; secondly, indirectly [per accidens], i.e. by the removal of hindrances to life, such as ailments, or
2498 the like. Now the life of the body is perfected "directly," in three ways. First, by generation whereby a man begins to be
2499 and to live: and corresponding to this in the spiritual life there is Baptism, which is a spiritual regeneration, according
2500 to
2501 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q65_A1-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Titus.3.5" target="asv"> Titus 3:5</a>: "By the laver of regeneration," etc. Secondly, by growth whereby a man is brought to perfect
2502 size and strength: and corresponding to this in the spiritual life there is Confirmation, in which the Holy Ghost is given
2503 to strengthen us. Wherefore the disciples who were already baptized were bidden thus: "Stay you in the city till you be endued
2504 with power from on high" (
2505 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q65_A1-p11.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.24.49" target="asv">Lk. 24:49</a>). Thirdly, by nourishment, whereby life and strength are preserved to man; and corresponding to this in the spiritual life
2506 there is the Eucharist. Wherefore it is said (
2507 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q65_A1-p11.3" href="./asv.html#John.6.54" target="asv">Jn.
2508 6:54
2509 </a>): "Except you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you."
2510 </p>
2511 <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p12"> And this would be enough for man if he had an impassible life, both corporally and spiritually; but since man is liable at
2512 times to both corporal and spiritual infirmity, i.e. sin, hence man needs a cure from his infirmity; which cure is twofold.
2513 one is the healing, that restores health: and corresponding to this in the spiritual life there is Penance, according to
2514 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q65_A1-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.40.5" target="asv"> Ps. 40:5</a>: "Heal my soul, for I have sinned against Thee." The other is the restoration of
2515 former vigor by means of suitable diet and exercise: and corresponding to this in the spiritual life there is Extreme Unction,
2516 which removes the remainder of sin, and prepares man for final glory. Wherefore it is written (
2517 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q65_A1-p12.2" href="./asv.html#Jas.5.15" target="asv">James 5:15</a>): "And if he be in sins they shall be forgiven him."
2518 </p>
2519 <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p13"> In regard to the whole community, man is perfected in two ways. First, by receiving power to rule the community and to exercise
2520 public acts: and corresponding to this in the spiritual life there is the sacrament of order, according to the saying of
2521 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q65_A1-p13.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.7.27" target="asv"> Heb. 7:27, </a> that priests offer sacrifices not for themselves only, but also for the people. Secondly in regard to natural propagation.
2522 This is accomplished by Matrimony both in the corporal and in the spiritual
2523 life: since it is not only a sacrament but also a function of nature.
2524 </p>
2525 <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p14"> We may likewise gather the number of the sacraments from their being instituted as a remedy against the defect caused by
2526 sin. For Baptism is intended as a remedy against the absence of spiritual life; Confirmation, against the infirmity of soul
2527 found in those of recent birth; the Eucharist, against the soul's proneness to sin; Penance, against actual sin committed
2528 after baptism; Extreme Unction, against the remainders of sins---of those sins, namely, which are not sufficiently
2529 removed by Penance, whether through negligence or through ignorance; order, against divisions in the community; Matrimony,
2530 as a remedy against concupiscence in the individual, and against the decrease in numbers that results from death.
2531 </p>
2532 <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p15"> Some, again, gather the number of sacraments from a certain adaptation to the virtues and to the defects and penal effects
2533 resulting from sin. They say that Baptism corresponds to Faith, and is ordained as a remedy against original sin; Extreme
2534 Unction, to Hope, being ordained against venial sin; the Eucharist, to Charity, being ordained against the penal effect which
2535 is malice. order, to Prudence, being ordained against ignorance; Penance to Justice, being ordained against
2536 mortal sin; Matrimony, to Temperance, being ordained against concupiscence; Confirmation, to Fortitude, being ordained against
2537 infirmity.
2538 </p>
2539 <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p16">
2540 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The same principal agent uses various instruments unto various effects, in accordance with the thing to be done. In the same
2541 way the Divine power and the Passion of Christ work in us through the various sacraments as through various instruments.
2542 </p>
2543 <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p17">
2544 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Guilt and punishment are diversified both according to species, inasmuch as there are various species of guilt and punishment,
2545 and according to men's various states and habitudes. And in this respect it was necessary to have a number of sacraments,
2546 as explained above.
2547 </p>
2548 <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p18">
2549 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> In hierarchical actions we must consider the agents, the recipients and the actions. The agents are the ministers of the
2550 Church; and to these the sacrament of order belongs. The recipients are those who approach the sacraments: and these are brought
2551 into being by Matrimony. The actions are "cleansing," "enlightening," and "perfecting." Mere cleansing, however, cannot be
2552 a sacrament of the New Law, which confers grace: yet it belongs to certain
2553 sacramentals, i.e. catechism and exorcism. But cleansing coupled with enlightening, according to Dionysius, belongs to Baptism;
2554 and, for him who falls back into sin, they belong secondarily to Penance and Extreme Unction. And perfecting, as regards power,
2555 which is, as it were, a formal perfection, belongs to Confirmation: while, as regards the attainment of the end, it belongs
2556 to the Eucharist.
2557 </p>
2558 <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p19">
2559 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> In the sacrament of Confirmation we receive the fulness of the Holy Ghost in order to be strengthened; while in Extreme Unction
2560 man is prepared for the immediate attainment of glory; and neither of these two purposes was becoming to the Old Testament.
2561 Consequently, nothing in the old Law could correspond to these sacraments. Nevertheless, the sacraments of the old Law were
2562 more numerous, on account of the various kinds of sacrifices and
2563 ceremonies.
2564 </p>
2565 <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p20">
2566 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> There was need for a special sacrament to be applied as a remedy against venereal concupiscence: first because by this concupiscence,
2567 not only the person but also the nature is defiled: secondly, by reason of its vehemence whereby it clouds the reason.
2568 </p>
2569 <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p21">
2570 <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> Holy Water and other consecrated things are not called sacraments, because they do not produce the sacramental effect, which
2571 is the receiving of grace. They are, however, a kind of disposition to the sacraments: either by removing obstacles. thus
2572 holy water is ordained against the snares of the demons, and against venial sins: or by making things suitable for the conferring
2573 of a sacrament; thus the altar and vessels are consecrated through reverence
2574 for the Eucharist.
2575 </p>
2576 <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p22">
2577 <b>Reply to Objection 7:</b> Oblations and tithes, both the Law of nature and in the Law of Moses, ere ordained not only for the sustenance of the ministers
2578 and the poor, but also figuratively; and consequently they were sacraments. But now they remain no longer as figures, and
2579 therefore they are not sacraments.
2580 </p>
2581 <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p23">
2582 <b>Reply to Objection 8:</b> The infusion of grace is not necessary for the blotting out of venial sin. Wherefore, since grace is infused in each of the
2583 sacraments of the New Law, none of them was instituted directly against venial sin. This is taken away by certain sacramentals,
2584 for instance, Holy Water and such like. Some, however, hold that Extreme Unction is ordained against venial sin. But of this
2585 we shall speak in its proper place (
2586 <a id="TP_Q65_A1-p23.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q30_A1.html">XP, Q[30],
2587 A[1]
2588 </a>).
2589 </p>
2590 <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p24"></p>
2591 <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p25"></p>
2592 <a href="summa.TP_Q65.html"></a>
2593 <a href="summa.TP_Q65_A2.html"></a>
2594 </div>
2595 <div id="TP_Q65_A2" class="div4">
2596 <a href="summa.TP_Q65_A1.html"></a>
2597 <a href="summa.TP_Q65_A3.html"></a>
2598 <h4 id="TP_Q65_A2-p0.1">Whether the order of the sacraments, as given above, is becoming?</h4>
2599 <p id="TP_Q65_A2-p1"></p>
2600 <p id="TP_Q65_A2-p2">
2601 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the order of the sacraments as given above is unbecoming. For according to the Apostle (
2602 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q65_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.46" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:46</a>), "that was . . . first . . . which is natural, afterwards that which is spiritual." But man is begotten through Matrimony
2603 by a first and natural generation; while in Baptism he is regenerated as by a second and spiritual generation. Therefore Matrimony
2604 should precede Baptism.
2605 </p>
2606 <p id="TP_Q65_A2-p3">
2607 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, through the sacrament of order man receives the power of agent in sacramental actions. But the agent precedes his
2608 action. Therefore order should precede Baptism and the other sacraments.
2609 </p>
2610 <p id="TP_Q65_A2-p4">
2611 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the Eucharist is a spiritual food; while Confirmation is compared to growth. But food causes, and consequently precedes,
2612 growth. Therefore the Eucharist precedes Confirmation.
2613 </p>
2614 <p id="TP_Q65_A2-p5">
2615 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, Penance prepares man for the Eucharist. But a disposition precedes perfection. Therefore Penance should precede
2616 the Eucharist.
2617 </p>
2618 <p id="TP_Q65_A2-p6">
2619 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, that which is nearer the last end comes after other things. But, of all the sacraments, Extreme Unction is nearest
2620 to the last end which is Happiness. Therefore it should be placed last among the sacraments.
2621 </p>
2622 <p id="TP_Q65_A2-p7">
2623 <b>On the contrary,</b> The order of the sacraments, as given above, is commonly adopted by all.
2624 </p>
2625 <p id="TP_Q65_A2-p8">
2626 <b>I answer that,</b> The reason of the order among the sacraments appears from what has been said above
2627 <a id="TP_Q65_A2-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q65_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. For just as unity precedes multitude, so those sacraments which are intended for the perfection of the individual, naturally
2628 precede those which are intended for the perfection of the multitude; and consequently the last place among the sacraments
2629 is given to order and Matrimony, which are intended for the perfection of the multitude: while
2630 Matrimony is placed after order, because it has less participation in the nature of the spiritual life, to which the sacraments
2631 are ordained. Moreover, among things ordained to the perfection of the individual, those naturally come first which are ordained
2632 directly to the perfection of the spiritual life, and afterwards, those which are ordained thereto indirectly, viz. by removing
2633 some supervening accidental cause of harm; such are Penance and Extreme Unction: while, of these, Extreme Unction
2634 is naturally placed last, for it preserves the healing which was begun by Penance.
2635 </p>
2636 <p id="TP_Q65_A2-p9"> Of the remaining three, it is clear that Baptism which is a spiritual regeneration, comes first; then Confirmation, which
2637 is ordained to the formal perfection of power; and after these the Eucharist which is ordained to final perfection.
2638 </p>
2639 <p id="TP_Q65_A2-p10">
2640 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Matrimony as ordained to natural life is a function of nature. But in so far as it has something spiritual it is a sacrament.
2641 And because it has the least amount of spirituality it is placed last.
2642 </p>
2643 <p id="TP_Q65_A2-p11">
2644 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> For a thing to be an agent it must first of all be perfect in itself. Wherefore those sacraments by which a man is perfected
2645 in himself, are placed before the sacrament of order, in which a man is made a perfecter of others.
2646 </p>
2647 <p id="TP_Q65_A2-p12">
2648 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Nourishment both precedes growth, as its cause; and follows it, as maintaining the perfection of size and power in man. Consequently,
2649 the Eucharist can be placed before Confirmation, as Dionysius places it (Eccl. Hier. iii, iv), and can be placed after it,
2650 as the Master does (iv, 2,8).
2651 </p>
2652 <p id="TP_Q65_A2-p13">
2653 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> This argument would hold if Penance were required of necessity as a preparation to the Eucharist. But this is not true: for
2654 if anyone be without mortal sin, he does not need Penance in order to receive the Eucharist. Thus it is clear that Penance
2655 is an accidental preparation to the Eucharist, that is to say, sin being supposed. Wherefore it is written in the last chapter
2656 of the second Book of Paralipomenon (cf.
2657 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q65_A2-p13.1" href="./asv.html#iiChr.33.18" target="asv">2 Paral 33:18</a>):
2658 "Thou, O Lord of the righteous, didst not impose penance on righteous men." [*The words quoted are from the apocryphal Prayer
2659 of Manasses, which, before the Council of Trent, was to be found inserted in some Latin copies of the Bible.]
2660 </p>
2661 <p id="TP_Q65_A2-p14">
2662 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> Extreme Unction, for this very reason, is given the last place among those sacraments which are ordained to the perfection
2663 of the individual.
2664 </p>
2665 <p id="TP_Q65_A2-p15"></p>
2666 <p id="TP_Q65_A2-p16"></p>
2667 <a href="summa.TP_Q65_A1.html"></a>
2668 <a href="summa.TP_Q65_A3.html"></a>
2669 </div>
2670 <div id="TP_Q65_A3" class="div4">
2671 <a href="summa.TP_Q65_A2.html"></a>
2672 <a href="summa.TP_Q65_A4.html"></a>
2673 <h4 id="TP_Q65_A3-p0.1">Whether the Eucharist is the greatest of the sacraments?</h4>
2674 <p id="TP_Q65_A3-p1"></p>
2675 <p id="TP_Q65_A3-p2">
2676 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the Eucharist is not the principal of the sacraments. For the common good is of more account than the good
2677 of the individual (1 Ethic. ii). But Matrimony is ordained to the common good of the human race by means of generation: whereas
2678 the sacrament of the Eucharist is ordained to the private good of the recipient. Therefore it is not the greatest of the sacraments.
2679 </p>
2680 <p id="TP_Q65_A3-p3">
2681 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, those sacraments, seemingly, are greater, which are conferred by a greater minister. But the sacraments of Confirmation
2682 and order are conferred by a bishop only, who is a greater minister than a mere minister such as a priest, by whom the sacraments
2683 of the Eucharist is conferred. Therefore those sacraments are greater.
2684 </p>
2685 <p id="TP_Q65_A3-p4">
2686 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, those sacraments are greater that have the greater power. But some of the sacraments imprint a character, viz. Baptism,
2687 Confirmation and order; whereas the Eucharist does not. Therefore those sacraments are greater.
2688 </p>
2689 <p id="TP_Q65_A3-p5">
2690 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, that seems to be greater, on which others depend without its depending on them. But the Eucharist depends on Baptism:
2691 since no one can receive the Eucharist except he has been baptized. Therefore Baptism is greater than the Eucharist.
2692 </p>
2693 <p id="TP_Q65_A3-p6">
2694 <b>On the contrary,</b> Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii) that "No one receives hierarchical perfection save by the most God-like Eucharist." Therefore
2695 this sacrament is greater than all the others and perfects them.
2696 </p>
2697 <p id="TP_Q65_A3-p7">
2698 <b>I answer that,</b> Absolutely speaking, the sacrament of the Eucharist is the greatest of all the sacraments: and this may be shown in three
2699 ways. First of all because it contains Christ Himself substantially: whereas the other sacraments contain a certain instrumental
2700 power which is a share of Christ's power, as we have shown above (
2701 <a id="TP_Q65_A3-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q62_A4.html">Q[62], A[4]</a>, ad 3, A[5] ). Now that which is essentially such is always of more account than that which is such by
2702 participation.
2703 </p>
2704 <p id="TP_Q65_A3-p8"> Secondly, this is made clear by considering the relation of the sacraments to one another. For all the other sacraments seem
2705 to be ordained to this one as to their end. For it is manifest that the sacrament of order is ordained to the consecration
2706 of the Eucharist: and the sacrament of Baptism to the reception of the Eucharist: while a man is perfected by Confirmation,
2707 so as not to fear to abstain from this sacrament. By Penance and Extreme Unction man is prepared to receive the
2708 Body of Christ worthily. And Matrimony at least in its signification, touches this sacrament; in so far as it signifies the
2709 union of Christ with the Church, of which union the Eucharist is a figure: hence the Apostle says (
2710 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q65_A3-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.5.32" target="asv">Eph. 5:32</a>): "This is a great sacrament: but I speak in Christ and in the Church."
2711 </p>
2712 <p id="TP_Q65_A3-p9"> Thirdly, this is made clear by considering the rites of the sacraments. For nearly all the sacraments terminate in the Eucharist,
2713 as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii): thus those who have been ordained receive Holy Communion, as also do those who have been
2714 baptized, if they be adults.
2715 </p>
2716 <p id="TP_Q65_A3-p10"> The remaining sacraments may be compared to one another in several ways. For on the ground of necessity, Baptism is the greatest
2717 of the sacraments; while from the point of view of perfection, order comes first; while Confirmation holds a middle place.
2718 The sacraments of Penance and Extreme Unction are on a degree inferior to those mentioned above; because, as stated above
2719
2720 <a id="TP_Q65_A3-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q65_A2.html">(A[2])</a>, they are ordained to the Christian life, not directly, but accidentally, as
2721 it were, that is to say, as remedies against supervening defects. And among these, Extreme Unction is compared to Penance,
2722 as Confirmation to Baptism; in such a way, that Penance is more necessary, whereas Extreme Unction is more perfect.
2723 </p>
2724 <p id="TP_Q65_A3-p11">
2725 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Matrimony is ordained to the common good as regards the body. But the common spiritual good of the whole Church is contained
2726 substantially in the sacrament itself of the Eucharist.
2727 </p>
2728 <p id="TP_Q65_A3-p12">
2729 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> By order and Confirmation the faithful of Christ are deputed to certain special duties; and this can be done by the prince
2730 alone. Consequently the conferring of these sacraments belongs exclusively to a bishop, who is, as it were, a prince in the
2731 Church. But a man is not deputed to any duty by the sacrament of the Eucharist, rather is this sacrament the end of all duties,
2732 as stated above.
2733 </p>
2734 <p id="TP_Q65_A3-p13">
2735 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The sacramental character, as stated above (
2736 <a id="TP_Q65_A3-p13.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q63_A3.html">Q[63], A[3]</a>), is a kind of participation in Christ's priesthood. Wherefore the sacrament that unites man to Christ Himself, is greater
2737 than a sacrament that imprints Christ's character.
2738 </p>
2739 <p id="TP_Q65_A3-p14">
2740 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> This argument proceeds on the ground of necessity. For thus Baptism, being of the greatest necessity, is the greatest of
2741 the sacraments, just as order and Confirmation have a certain excellence considered in their administration; and Matrimony
2742 by reason of its signification. For there is no reason why a thing should not be greater from a certain point of view which
2743 is not greater absolutely speaking.
2744 </p>
2745 <p id="TP_Q65_A3-p15"></p>
2746 <p id="TP_Q65_A3-p16"></p>
2747 <a href="summa.TP_Q65_A2.html"></a>
2748 <a href="summa.TP_Q65_A4.html"></a>
2749 </div>
2750 <div id="TP_Q65_A4" class="div4">
2751 <a href="summa.TP_Q65_A3.html"></a>
2752 <a href="summa.TP_Q66.html"></a>
2753 <h4 id="TP_Q65_A4-p0.1">Whether all the sacraments are necessary for salvation?</h4>
2754 <p id="TP_Q65_A4-p1"></p>
2755 <p id="TP_Q65_A4-p2">
2756 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that all the sacraments are necessary for salvation. For what is not necessary seems to be superfluous. But no sacrament
2757 is superfluous, because "God does nothing without a purpose" (De Coelo et Mundo i). Therefore all the sacraments are necessary
2758 for salvation.
2759 </p>
2760 <p id="TP_Q65_A4-p3">
2761 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, just as it is said of Baptism (
2762 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q65_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#John.3.5" target="asv">Jn. 3:5</a>): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter in to the kingdom of God," so of the Eucharist
2763 is it said (
2764 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q65_A4-p3.2" href="./asv.html#John.6.54" target="asv">Jn. 6:54</a>): "Except you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink of His blood, you shall not have life in you." Therefore, just
2765 as Baptism is a necessary sacrament, so is the Eucharist.
2766 </p>
2767 <p id="TP_Q65_A4-p4">
2768 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a man can be saved without the sacrament of Baptism, provided that some unavoidable obstacle, and not his contempt
2769 for religion, debar him from the sacrament, as we shall state further on (
2770 <a id="TP_Q65_A4-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q68_A2.html">Q[68], A[2]</a>). But contempt of religion in any sacrament is a hindrance to salvation. Therefore, in like manner, all the sacraments are
2771 necessary for salvation.
2772 </p>
2773 <p id="TP_Q65_A4-p5">
2774 <b>On the contrary,</b> Children are saved by Baptism alone without the other sacraments.
2775 </p>
2776 <p id="TP_Q65_A4-p6">
2777 <b>I answer that,</b> Necessity of end, of which we speak now, is twofold. First, a thing may be necessary so that without it the end cannot be
2778 attained; thus food is necessary for human life. And this is simple necessity of end. Secondly, a thing is said to be necessary,
2779 if, without it, the end cannot be attained so becomingly: thus a horse is necessary for a journey. But this is not simple
2780 necessity of end.
2781 </p>
2782 <p id="TP_Q65_A4-p7"> In the first way, three sacraments are necessary for salvation. Two of them are necessary to the individual; Baptism, simply
2783 and absolutely; Penance, in the case of mortal sin committed after Baptism; while the sacrament of order is necessary to the
2784 Church, since "where there is no governor the people shall fall" (
2785 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q65_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.11.14" target="asv">Prov. 11:14</a>).
2786 </p>
2787 <p id="TP_Q65_A4-p8"> But in the second way the other sacraments are necessary. For in a sense Confirmation perfects Baptism; Extreme Unction perfects
2788 Penance; while Matrimony, by multiplying them, preserves the numbers in the Church.
2789 </p>
2790 <p id="TP_Q65_A4-p9">
2791 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> For a thing not to be superfluous it is enough if it be necessary either in the first or the second way. It is thus that
2792 the sacraments are necessary, as stated above.
2793 </p>
2794 <p id="TP_Q65_A4-p10">
2795 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> These words of our Lord are to be understood of spiritual, and not of merely sacramental, eating, as Augustine explains (Tract.
2796 xxvi super Joan.).
2797 </p>
2798 <p id="TP_Q65_A4-p11">
2799 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although contempt of any of the sacraments is a hindrance to salvation, yet it does not amount to contempt of the sacrament,
2800 if anyone does not trouble to receive a sacrament that is not necessary for salvation. Else those who do not receive orders,
2801 and those who do not contract Matrimony, would be guilty of contempt of those sacraments.
2802 </p>
2803 <p id="TP_Q65_A4-p12"></p>
2804 <p id="TP_Q65_A4-p13"></p>
2805 <a href="summa.TP_Q65_A3.html"></a>
2806 <a href="summa.TP_Q66.html"></a>
2807 </div>
2808 <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A10.html"></a>
2809 <a href="summa.TP_Q65_A1.html"></a>
2810 </div>
2811 <div id="TP_Q66" class="div3">
2812 <a href="summa.TP_Q65_A4.html"></a>
2813 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A1.html"></a>
2814 <h3 id="TP_Q66-p0.1">OF THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM (TWELVE ARTICLES)</h3>
2815 <p id="TP_Q66-p1"></p>
2816 <p id="TP_Q66-p2"> We have now to consider each sacrament specially: (1) Baptism; (2) Confirmation; (3) the Eucharist; (4) Penance; (5) Extreme
2817 Unction; (6) Order; (7) Matrimony.
2818 </p>
2819 <p id="TP_Q66-p3"> Concerning the first, our consideration will be twofold: (1) of Baptism itself; (2) of things preparatory to Baptism.</p>
2820 <p id="TP_Q66-p4"> Concerning the first, four points arise for our consideration: (1) Things pertaining to the sacrament of Baptism; (2) The
2821 minister of this sacrament; (3) The recipients of this sacrament; (4) The effect of this sacrament.
2822 </p>
2823 <p id="TP_Q66-p5"> Concerning the first there are twelve points of inquiry:</p>
2824 <p id="TP_Q66-p6"> (1) What is Baptism? Is it a washing?</p>
2825 <p id="TP_Q66-p7"> (2) Of the institution of this sacrament;</p>
2826 <p id="TP_Q66-p8"> (3) Whether water be the proper matter of this sacrament?</p>
2827 <p id="TP_Q66-p9"> (4) Whether plain water be required?</p>
2828 <p id="TP_Q66-p10"> (5) Whether this be a suitable form of this sacrament: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
2829 the Holy Ghost"?
2830 </p>
2831 <p id="TP_Q66-p11"> (6) Whether one could baptize with this form: "I baptize thee in the name of Christ?"</p>
2832 <p id="TP_Q66-p12"> (7) Whether immersion is necessary for Baptism?</p>
2833 <p id="TP_Q66-p13"> (8) Whether trine immersion is necessary?</p>
2834 <p id="TP_Q66-p14"> (9) Whether Baptism can be reiterated?</p>
2835 <p id="TP_Q66-p15"> (10) Of the Baptismal rite;</p>
2836 <p id="TP_Q66-p16"> (11) Of the various kinds of Baptism;</p>
2837 <p id="TP_Q66-p17"> (12) Of the comparison between various Baptisms.</p>
2838 <div id="TP_Q66_A1" class="div4">
2839 <a href="summa.TP_Q66.html"></a>
2840 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A2.html"></a>
2841 <h4 id="TP_Q66_A1-p0.1">Whether Baptism is the mere washing?</h4>
2842 <p id="TP_Q66_A1-p1"></p>
2843 <p id="TP_Q66_A1-p2">
2844 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that Baptism is not the mere washing. For the washing of the body is something transitory: but Baptism is something
2845 permanent. Therefore Baptism is not the mere washing; but rather is it "the regeneration, the seal, the safeguarding, the
2846 enlightenment," as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv).
2847 </p>
2848 <p id="TP_Q66_A1-p3">
2849 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Hugh of St. Victor says (De Sacram. ii) that "Baptism is water sanctified by God's word for the blotting out of
2850 sins." But the washing itself is not water, but a certain use of water.
2851 </p>
2852 <p id="TP_Q66_A1-p4">
2853 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Augustine says (Tract. lxxx super Joan.): "The word is added to the element, and this becomes a sacrament." Now,
2854 the element is the water. Therefore Baptism is the water and not the washing.
2855 </p>
2856 <p id="TP_Q66_A1-p5">
2857 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
2858 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Sir.34.30" target="asv">Ecclus. 34:30</a>): "He that washeth himself [baptizatur] after touching the dead, if he touch him again, what does his washing avail?" It
2859 seems, therefore, that Baptism is the washing or bathing.
2860 </p>
2861 <p id="TP_Q66_A1-p6">
2862 <b>I answer that,</b> In the sacrament of Baptism, three things may be considered: namely, that which is "sacrament only"; that which is "reality
2863 and sacrament"; and that which is "reality only." That which is sacrament only, is something visible and outward; the sign,
2864 namely, of the inward effect: for such is the very nature of a sacrament. And this outward something that can be perceived
2865 by the sense is both the water itself and its use, which is the washing. Hence some have
2866 thought that the water itself is the sacrament: which seems to be the meaning of the passage quoted from Hugh of St. Victor.
2867 For in the general definition of a sacrament he says that it is "a material element": and in defining Baptism he says it is
2868 "water."
2869 </p>
2870 <p id="TP_Q66_A1-p7"> But this is not true. For since the sacraments of the New Law effect a certain sanctification, there the sacrament is completed
2871 where the sanctification is completed. Now, the sanctification is not completed in water; but a certain sanctifying instrumental
2872 virtue, not permanent but transient, passes from the water, in which it is, into man who is the subject of true sanctification.
2873 Consequently the sacrament is not completed in the very water, but in applying the water to man,
2874 i.e. in the washing. Hence the Master (iv, 3) says that "Baptism is the outward washing of the body done together with the
2875 prescribed form of words."
2876 </p>
2877 <p id="TP_Q66_A1-p8"> The Baptismal character is both reality and sacrament: because it is something real signified by the outward washing; and
2878 a sacramental sign of the inward justification: and this last is the reality only, in this sacrament---namely, the reality
2879 signified and not signifying.
2880 </p>
2881 <p id="TP_Q66_A1-p9">
2882 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> That which is both sacrament and reality---i.e. the character---and that which is reality only---i.e. the inward justification---remain:
2883 the character remains and is indelible, as stated above (
2884 <a id="TP_Q66_A1-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q63_A5.html">Q[63], A[5]</a>); the justification remains, but can be lost. Consequently Damascene defined Baptism, not as to that which is done outwardly,
2885 and is the sacrament only; but as to that which is inward. Hence he sets down two things as
2886 pertaining to the character---namely, "seal" and "safeguarding"; inasmuch as the character which is called a seal, so far
2887 as itself is concerned, safeguards the soul in good. He also sets down two things as pertaining to the ultimate reality of
2888 the sacrament---namely, "regeneration" which refers to the fact that man by being baptized begins the new life of righteousness;
2889 and "enlightenment," which refers especially to faith, by which man receives spiritual life, according to Habac 2
2890 (
2891 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A1-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.10.38" target="asv">Heb. 10:38</a>; cf.
2892 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A1-p9.3" href="./asv.html#Acts.2.4" target="asv"> Habac 2:4</a>): "But (My) just man liveth by faith"; and Baptism is a sort of protestation of faith; whence it is called the "Sacrament
2893 of Faith." Likewise Dionysius defined Baptism by its relation to the other sacraments, saying (Eccl. Hier. ii) that it is
2894 "the principle that forms the habits of the soul for the reception of those most holy words and sacraments"; and again by
2895 its relation to heavenly glory, which is the universal end of
2896 all the sacraments, when he adds, "preparing the way for us, whereby we mount to the repose of the heavenly kingdom"; and
2897 again as to the beginning of spiritual life, when he adds, "the conferring of our most sacred and Godlike regeneration."
2898 </p>
2899 <p id="TP_Q66_A1-p10">
2900 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As already stated, the opinion of Hugh of St. Victor on this question is not to be followed. Nevertheless the saying that
2901 "Baptism is water" may be verified in so far as water is the material principle of Baptism: and thus there would be "causal
2902 predication."
2903 </p>
2904 <p id="TP_Q66_A1-p11">
2905 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> When the words are added, the element becomes a sacrament, not in the element itself, but in man, to whom the element is
2906 applied, by being used in washing him. Indeed, this is signified by those very words which are added to the element, when
2907 we say: "I baptize thee," etc.
2908 </p>
2909 <p id="TP_Q66_A1-p12"></p>
2910 <p id="TP_Q66_A1-p13"></p>
2911 <a href="summa.TP_Q66.html"></a>
2912 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A2.html"></a>
2913 </div>
2914 <div id="TP_Q66_A2" class="div4">
2915 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A1.html"></a>
2916 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A3.html"></a>
2917 <h4 id="TP_Q66_A2-p0.1">Whether Baptism was instituted after Christ's Passion? </h4>
2918 <p id="TP_Q66_A2-p1"></p>
2919 <p id="TP_Q66_A2-p2">
2920 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that Baptism was instituted after Christ's Passion. For the cause precedes the effect. Now Christ's Passion operates
2921 in the sacraments of the New Law. Therefore Christ's Passion precedes the institution of the sacraments of the New Law: especially
2922 the sacrament of Baptism since the Apostle says (
2923 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.3" target="asv">Rom. 6:3</a>): "All we, who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death," etc.
2924 </p>
2925 <p id="TP_Q66_A2-p3">
2926 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the sacraments of the New Law derive their efficacy from the mandate of Christ. But Christ gave the disciples the
2927 mandate of Baptism after His Passion and Resurrection, when He said: "Going, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name
2928 of the Father," etc. (
2929 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.28.19" target="asv">Mat. 28:19</a>). Therefore it seems that Baptism was instituted after Christ's Passion.
2930 </p>
2931 <p id="TP_Q66_A2-p4">
2932 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Baptism is a necessary sacrament, as stated above (
2933 <a id="TP_Q66_A2-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q65_A4.html">Q[65] , A[4]</a>): wherefore, seemingly, it must have been binding on man as soon as it was instituted. But before Christ's Passion men were
2934 not bound to be baptized: for Circumcision was still in force, which was supplanted by Baptism. Therefore it seems that Baptism
2935 was not instituted before Christ's Passion.
2936 </p>
2937 <p id="TP_Q66_A2-p5">
2938 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (Append. Serm., clxxxv): "As soon as Christ was plunged into the waters, the waters
2939 washed away the sins of all." But this was before Christ's Passion. Therefore Baptism was instituted before Christ's Passion.
2940 </p>
2941 <p id="TP_Q66_A2-p6">
2942 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
2943 <a id="TP_Q66_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q62_A1.html">Q[62], A[1]</a>), sacraments derive from their institution the power of conferring grace. Wherefore it seems that a sacrament is then instituted,
2944 when it receives the power of producing its effect. Now Baptism received this power when Christ was baptized. Consequently
2945 Baptism was truly instituted then, if we consider it as a sacrament. But the obligation of receiving this sacrament was proclaimed
2946 to mankind after the
2947 Passion and Resurrection. First, because Christ's Passion put an end to the figurative sacraments, which were supplanted by
2948 Baptism and the other sacraments of the New Law. Secondly, because by Baptism man is "made conformable" to Christ's Passion
2949 and Resurrection, in so far as he dies to sin and begins to live anew unto righteousness. Consequently it behooved Christ
2950 to suffer and to rise again, before proclaiming to man his obligation of conforming himself to Christ's Death and
2951 Resurrection.
2952 </p>
2953 <p id="TP_Q66_A2-p7">
2954 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Even before Christ's Passion, Baptism, inasmuch as it foreshadowed it, derived its efficacy therefrom; but not in the same
2955 way as the sacraments of the Old Law. For these were mere figures: whereas Baptism derived the power of justifying from Christ
2956 Himself, to Whose power the Passion itself owed its saving virtue.
2957 </p>
2958 <p id="TP_Q66_A2-p8">
2959 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> It was not meet that men should be restricted to a number of figures by Christ, Who came to fulfil and replace the figure
2960 by His reality. Therefore before His Passion He did not make Baptism obligatory as soon as it was instituted; but wished men
2961 to become accustomed to its use; especially in regard to the Jews, to whom all things were figurative, as Augustine says (Contra
2962 Faust. iv). But after His Passion and Resurrection He made Baptism obligatory,
2963 not only on the Jews, but also on the Gentiles, when He gave the commandment: "Going, teach ye all nations."
2964 </p>
2965 <p id="TP_Q66_A2-p9">
2966 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Sacraments are not obligatory except when we are commanded to receive them. And this was not before the Passion, as stated
2967 above. For our Lord's words to Nicodemus (
2968 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A2-p9.1" href="./asv.html#John.3.5" target="asv">Jn. 3:5</a>), "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, seem to refer to the
2969 future rather than to the present."
2970 </p>
2971 <p id="TP_Q66_A2-p10"></p>
2972 <p id="TP_Q66_A2-p11"></p>
2973 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A1.html"></a>
2974 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A3.html"></a>
2975 </div>
2976 <div id="TP_Q66_A3" class="div4">
2977 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A2.html"></a>
2978 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A4.html"></a>
2979 <h4 id="TP_Q66_A3-p0.1">Whether water is the proper matter of Baptism?</h4>
2980 <p id="TP_Q66_A3-p1"></p>
2981 <p id="TP_Q66_A3-p2">
2982 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that water is not the proper matter of Baptism. For Baptism, according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v) and Damascene
2983 (De Fide Orth. iv), has a power of enlightening. But enlightenment is a special characteristic of fire. Therefore Baptism
2984 should be conferred with fire rather than with water: and all the more since John the Baptist said when foretelling Christ's
2985 Baptism (
2986 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.3.11" target="asv">Mat. 3:11</a>): "He shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and
2987 fire."
2988 </p>
2989 <p id="TP_Q66_A3-p3">
2990 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the washing away of sins is signified in Baptism. But many other things besides water are employed in washing, such
2991 as wine, oil, and such like. Therefore Baptism can be conferred with these also; and consequently water is not the proper
2992 matter of Baptism.
2993 </p>
2994 <p id="TP_Q66_A3-p4">
2995 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the sacraments of the Church flowed from the side of Christ hanging on the cross, as stated above (
2996 <a id="TP_Q66_A3-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q62_A5.html">Q[62], A[5]</a>). But not only water flowed therefrom, but also blood. Therefore it seems that Baptism can also be conferred with blood.
2997 And this seems to be more in keeping with the effect of Baptism, because it is written (
2998 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A3-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Rev.1.5" target="asv">Apoc. 1:5</a>): "(Who) washed us from our sins in His own blood."
2999 </p>
3000 <p id="TP_Q66_A3-p5">
3001 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, as Augustine (cf. Master of the Sentences, iv, 3) and Bede (Exposit. in Luc. iii, 21) say, Christ, by "the touch
3002 of His most pure flesh, endowed the waters with a regenerating and cleansing virtue." But all waters are not connected with
3003 the waters of the Jordan which Christ touched with His flesh. Consequently it seems that Baptism cannot be conferred with
3004 any water; and therefore water, as such, is not the proper matter of Baptism.
3005 </p>
3006 <p id="TP_Q66_A3-p6">
3007 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, if water, as such, were the proper matter of Baptism, there would be no need to do anything to the water before
3008 using it for Baptism. But in solemn Baptism the water which is used for baptizing, is exorcized and blessed. Therefore it
3009 seems that water, as such, is not the proper matter of Baptism.
3010 </p>
3011 <p id="TP_Q66_A3-p7">
3012 <b>On the contrary,</b> our Lord said (
3013 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#John.3.5" target="asv">Jn. 3:5</a>): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
3014 </p>
3015 <p id="TP_Q66_A3-p8">
3016 <b>I answer that,</b> By Divine institution water is the proper matter of Baptism; and with reason. First, by reason of the very nature of Baptism,
3017 which is a regeneration unto spiritual life. And this answers to the nature of water in a special degree; wherefore seeds,
3018 from which all living things, viz. plants and animals are generated, are moist and akin to water. For this reason certain
3019 philosophers held that water is the first principle of all things.
3020 </p>
3021 <p id="TP_Q66_A3-p9"> Secondly, in regard to the effects of Baptism, to which the properties of water correspond. For by reason of its moistness
3022 it cleanses; and hence it fittingly signifies and causes the cleansing from sins. By reason of its coolness it tempers superfluous
3023 heat: wherefore it fittingly mitigates the concupiscence of the fomes. By reason of its transparency, it is susceptive of
3024 light; hence its adaptability to Baptism as the "sacrament of Faith."
3025 </p>
3026 <p id="TP_Q66_A3-p10"> Thirdly, because it is suitable for the signification of the mysteries of Christ, by which we are justified. For, as Chrysostom
3027 says (Hom. xxv in Joan.) on
3028 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A3-p10.1" href="./asv.html#John.3.5" target="asv"> Jn. 3:5, </a> "Unless a man be born again," etc., "When we dip our heads under the water as in a kind of tomb our old man is buried, and
3029 being submerged is hidden below, and thence he rises again renewed."
3030 </p>
3031 <p id="TP_Q66_A3-p11"> Fourthly, because by being so universal and abundant, it is a matter suitable to our need of this sacrament: for it can easily
3032 be obtained everywhere.
3033 </p>
3034 <p id="TP_Q66_A3-p12">
3035 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Fire enlightens actively. But he who is baptized does not become an enlightener, but is enlightened by faith, which "cometh
3036 by hearing" (
3037 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A3-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.10.17" target="asv">Rom. 10:17</a>). Consequently water is more suitable, than fire, for Baptism.
3038 </p>
3039 <p id="TP_Q66_A3-p13"> But when we find it said: "He shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire," we may understand fire, as Jerome says (In Matth.
3040 ii), to mean the Holy Ghost, Who appeared above the disciples under the form of fiery tongues (
3041 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A3-p13.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.2.3" target="asv">Acts 2:3</a>). Or we may understand it to mean tribulation, as Chrysostom says (Hom. iii in Matth.): because tribulation washes away sin,
3042 and tempers concupiscence. Or again, as Hilary says (Super Matth. ii) that "when we have been baptized in
3043 the Holy Ghost," we still have to be "perfected by the fire of the judgment."
3044 </p>
3045 <p id="TP_Q66_A3-p14">
3046 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Wine and oil are not so commonly used for washing, as water. Neither do they wash so efficiently: for whatever is washed
3047 with them, contracts a certain smell therefrom; which is not the case if water be used. Moreover, they are not so universal
3048 or so abundant as water.
3049 </p>
3050 <p id="TP_Q66_A3-p15">
3051 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Water flowed from Christ's side to wash us; blood, to redeem us. Wherefore blood belongs to the sacrament of the Eucharist,
3052 while water belongs to the sacrament of Baptism. Yet this latter sacrament derives its cleansing virtue from the power of
3053 Christ's blood.
3054 </p>
3055 <p id="TP_Q66_A3-p16">
3056 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Christ's power flowed into all waters, by reason of, not connection of place, but likeness of species, as Augustine says
3057 in a sermon on the Epiphany (Append. Serm. cxxxv): "The blessing that flowed from the Saviour's Baptism, like a mystic river,
3058 swelled the course of every stream, and filled the channels of every spring."
3059 </p>
3060 <p id="TP_Q66_A3-p17">
3061 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> The blessing of the water is not essential to Baptism, but belongs to a certain solemnity, whereby the devotion of the faithful
3062 is aroused, and the cunning of the devil hindered from impeding the baptismal effect.
3063 </p>
3064 <p id="TP_Q66_A3-p18"></p>
3065 <p id="TP_Q66_A3-p19"></p>
3066 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A2.html"></a>
3067 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A4.html"></a>
3068 </div>
3069 <div id="TP_Q66_A4" class="div4">
3070 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A3.html"></a>
3071 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A5.html"></a>
3072 <h4 id="TP_Q66_A4-p0.1">Whether plain water is necessary for Baptism?</h4>
3073 <p id="TP_Q66_A4-p1"></p>
3074 <p id="TP_Q66_A4-p2">
3075 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that plain water is not necessary for Baptism. For the water which we have is not plain water; as appears especially
3076 in sea-water, in which there is a considerable proportion of the earthly element, as the Philosopher shows (Meteor. ii). Yet
3077 this water may be used for Baptism. Therefore plain and pure water is not necessary for Baptism.
3078 </p>
3079 <p id="TP_Q66_A4-p3">
3080 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in the solemn celebration of Baptism, chrism is poured into the water. But this seems to take away the purity and
3081 plainness of the water. Therefore pure and plain water is not necessary for Baptism.
3082 </p>
3083 <p id="TP_Q66_A4-p4">
3084 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the water that flowed from the side of Christ hanging on the cross was a figure of Baptism, as stated above (A[3],
3085 ad 3). But that water, seemingly, was not pure, because the elements do not exist actually in a mixed body, such as Christ's.
3086 Therefore it seems that pure or plain water is not necessary for Baptism.
3087 </p>
3088 <p id="TP_Q66_A4-p5">
3089 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, lye does not seem to be pure water, for it has the properties of heating and drying, which are contrary to those
3090 of water. Nevertheless it seems that lye can be used for Baptism; for the water of the Baths can be so used, which has filtered
3091 through a sulphurous vein, just as lye percolates through ashes. Therefore it seems that plain water is not necessary for
3092 Baptism.
3093 </p>
3094 <p id="TP_Q66_A4-p6">
3095 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, rose-water is distilled from roses, just as chemical waters are distilled from certain bodies. But seemingly, such
3096 like waters may be used in Baptism; just as rain-water, which is distilled from vapors. Since, therefore, such waters are
3097 not pure and plain water, it seems that pure and plain water is not necessary for Baptism.
3098 </p>
3099 <p id="TP_Q66_A4-p7">
3100 <b>On the contrary,</b> The proper matter of Baptism is water, as stated above
3101 <a id="TP_Q66_A4-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q66_A3.html">(A[3])</a>. But plain water alone has the nature of water. Therefore pure plain water is necessary for Baptism.
3102 </p>
3103 <p id="TP_Q66_A4-p8">
3104 <b>I answer that,</b> Water may cease to be pure or plain water in two ways: first, by being mixed with another body; secondly, by alteration.
3105 And each of these may happen in a twofold manner; artificially and naturally. Now art fails in the operation of nature: because
3106 nature gives the substantial form, which art cannot give; for whatever form is given by art is accidental; except perchance
3107 when art applies a proper agent to its proper matter, as fire to a combustible; in which
3108 manner animals are produced from certain things by way of putrefaction.
3109 </p>
3110 <p id="TP_Q66_A4-p9"> Whatever artificial change, then, takes place in the water, whether by mixture or by alteration, the water's nature is not
3111 changed. Consequently such water can be used for Baptism: unless perhaps such a small quantity of water be mixed artificially
3112 with a body that the compound is something other than water; thus mud is earth rather than water, and diluted wine is wine
3113 rather than water.
3114 </p>
3115 <p id="TP_Q66_A4-p10"> But if the change be natural, sometimes it destroys the nature of the water; and this is when by a natural process water
3116 enters into the substance of a mixed body: thus water changed into the juice of the grape is wine, wherefore it has not the
3117 nature of water. Sometimes, however, there may be a natural change of the water, without destruction of species: and this,
3118 both by alteration, as we may see in the case of water heated by the sun; and by mixture, as when the water of a
3119 river has become muddy by being mixed with particles of earth.
3120 </p>
3121 <p id="TP_Q66_A4-p11"> We must therefore say that any water may be used for Baptism, no matter how much it may be changed, as long as the species
3122 of water is not destroyed; but if the species of water be destroyed, it cannot be used for Baptism.
3123 </p>
3124 <p id="TP_Q66_A4-p12">
3125 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The change in sea-water and in other waters which we have to hand, is not so great as to destroy the species of water. And
3126 therefore such waters may be used for Baptism.
3127 </p>
3128 <p id="TP_Q66_A4-p13">
3129 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Chrism does not destroy the nature of the water by being mixed with it: just as neither is water changed wherein meat and
3130 the like are boiled: except the substance boiled be so dissolved that the liquor be of a nature foreign to water; in this
3131 we may be guided by the specific gravity [spissitudine]. If, however, from the liquor thus thickened plain water be strained,
3132 it can be used for Baptism: just as water strained from mud, although mud cannot be
3133 used for baptizing.
3134 </p>
3135 <p id="TP_Q66_A4-p14">
3136 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The water which flowed from the side of Christ hanging on the cross, was not the phlegmatic humor, as some have supposed.
3137 For a liquid of this kind cannot be used for Baptism, as neither can the blood of an animal, or wine, or any liquid extracted
3138 from plants. It was pure water gushing forth miraculously like the blood from a dead body, to prove the reality of our Lord's
3139 body, and confute the error of the Manichees: water, which is one of the four
3140 elements, showing Christ's body to be composed of the four elements; blood, proving that it was composed of the four humors.
3141 </p>
3142 <p id="TP_Q66_A4-p15">
3143 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Baptism may be conferred with lye and the waters of Sulphur Baths: because such like waters are not incorporated, artificially
3144 or naturally, with certain mixed bodies, and suffer only a certain alteration by passing through certain bodies.
3145 </p>
3146 <p id="TP_Q66_A4-p16">
3147 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> Rose-water is a liquid distilled from roses: consequently it cannot be used for Baptism. For the same reason chemical waters
3148 cannot be used, as neither can wine. Nor does the comparison hold with rain-water, which for the most part is formed by the
3149 condensing of vapors, themselves formed from water, and contains a minimum of the liquid matter from mixed bodies; which liquid
3150 matter by the force of nature, which is stronger than art, is transformed in
3151 this process of condensation into real water, a result which cannot be produced artificially. Consequently rain-water retains
3152 no properties of any mixed body; which cannot be said of rose-water or chemical waters.
3153 </p>
3154 <p id="TP_Q66_A4-p17"></p>
3155 <p id="TP_Q66_A4-p18"></p>
3156 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A3.html"></a>
3157 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A5.html"></a>
3158 </div>
3159 <div id="TP_Q66_A5" class="div4">
3160 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A4.html"></a>
3161 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A6.html"></a>
3162 <h4 id="TP_Q66_A5-p0.1">Whether this be a suitable form of Baptism: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"?</h4>
3163 <p id="TP_Q66_A5-p1"></p>
3164 <p id="TP_Q66_A5-p2">
3165 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that this is not a suitable form of Baptism: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
3166 Holy Ghost." For action should be ascribed to the principal agent rather than to the minister. Now the minister of a sacrament
3167 acts as an instrument, as stated above (
3168 <a id="TP_Q66_A5-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q64_A1.html">Q[64], A[1]</a>); while the principal agent in Baptism is Christ, according to
3169 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A5-p2.2" href="./asv.html#John.1.33" target="asv"> Jn. 1:33, </a> "He upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit
3170 descending and remaining upon Him, He it is that baptizeth." It is therefore unbecoming for the minister to say, "I baptize
3171 thee": the more so that "Ego" [I] is understood in the word "baptizo" [I baptize], so that it seems redundant.
3172 </p>
3173 <p id="TP_Q66_A5-p3">
3174 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, there is no need for a man who does an action, to make mention of the action done; thus he who teaches, need not
3175 say, "I teach you." Now our Lord gave at the same time the precepts both of baptizing and of teaching, when He said (
3176 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A5-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.28.19" target="asv">Mat. 28:19</a>): "Going, teach ye all nations," etc. Therefore there is no need in the form of Baptism to mention the action of baptizing.
3177 </p>
3178 <p id="TP_Q66_A5-p4">
3179 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the person baptized sometimes does not understand the words; for instance, if he be deaf, or a child. But it is
3180 useless to address such a one; according to
3181 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A5-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Sir.32.6" target="asv"> Ecclus. 32:6</a>: "Where there is no hearing, pour not out words." Therefore it is unfitting to address the person baptized with these words:
3182 "I baptize thee."
3183 </p>
3184 <p id="TP_Q66_A5-p5">
3185 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, it may happen that several are baptized by several at the same time; thus the apostles on one day baptized three
3186 thousand, and on another, five thousand (
3187 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.2" target="asv">Acts 2</a>,
3188 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A5-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Acts.4" target="asv">4</a>). Therefore the form of Baptism should not be limited to the singular number in the words, "I baptize thee": but one should
3189 be able to say, "We baptize you."
3190 </p>
3191 <p id="TP_Q66_A5-p6">
3192 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, Baptism derives its power from Christ's Passion. But Baptism is sanctified by the form. Therefore it seems that
3193 Christ's Passion should be mentioned in the form of Baptism.
3194 </p>
3195 <p id="TP_Q66_A5-p7">
3196 <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, a name signifies a thing's property. But there are three Personal Properties of the Divine Persons, as stated in
3197 the
3198 <a id="TP_Q66_A5-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q32_A3.html">FP, Q[32], A[3]</a>. Therefore we should not say, "in the name," but "in the names of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
3199 </p>
3200 <p id="TP_Q66_A5-p8">
3201 <b>Objection 7:</b> Further, the Person of the Father is designated not only by the name Father, but also by that of "Unbegotten and Begetter";
3202 and the Son by those of "Word," "Image," and "Begotten"; and the Holy Ghost by those of "Gift," "Love," and the "Proceeding
3203 One." Therefore it seems that Baptism is valid if conferred in these names.
3204 </p>
3205 <p id="TP_Q66_A5-p9">
3206 <b>On the contrary,</b> our Lord said (
3207 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A5-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.28.19" target="asv">Mat. 28:19</a>): "Going . . . teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
3208 </p>
3209 <p id="TP_Q66_A5-p10">
3210 <b>I answer that,</b> Baptism receives its consecration from its form, according to
3211 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A5-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.5.26" target="asv"> Eph. 5:26</a>: "Cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life." And Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo iv) that "Baptism is consecrated
3212 by the words of the Gospel." Consequently the cause of Baptism needs to be expressed in the baptismal form. Now this cause
3213 is twofold; the principal cause from which it derives its virtue, and this is the Blessed Trinity; and the
3214 instrumental cause, viz. the minister who confers the sacrament outwardly. Wherefore both causes should be expressed in the
3215 form of Baptism. Now the minister is designated by the words, "I baptize thee"; and the principal cause in the words, "in
3216 the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Therefore this is the suitable form of Baptism: "I baptize
3217 thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
3218 </p>
3219 <p id="TP_Q66_A5-p11">
3220 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Action is attributed to an instrument as to the immediate agent; but to the principal agent inasmuch as the instrument acts
3221 in virtue thereof. Consequently it is fitting that in the baptismal form the minister should be mentioned as performing the
3222 act of baptizing, in the words, "I baptize thee"; indeed, our Lord attributed to the ministers the act of baptizing, when
3223 He said: "Baptizing them," etc. But the principal cause is indicated as conferring
3224 the sacrament by His own power, in the words, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost": for Christ
3225 does not baptize without the Father and the Holy Ghost.
3226 </p>
3227 <p id="TP_Q66_A5-p12"> The Greeks, however, do not attribute the act of baptizing to the minister, in order to avoid the error of those who in the
3228 past ascribed the baptismal power to the baptizers, saying (
3229 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A5-p12.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.1.12" target="asv">1 Cor. 1:12</a>): "I am of Paul . . . and I of Cephas." Wherefore they use the form: "May the servant of Christ, N . . ., be baptized, in
3230 the name of the Father," etc. And since the action performed by the minister is expressed with the invocation of the Trinity,
3231 the sacrament is
3232 validly conferred. As to the addition of "Ego" in our form, it is not essential; but it is added in order to lay greater stress
3233 on the intention.
3234 </p>
3235 <p id="TP_Q66_A5-p13">
3236 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Since a man may be washed with water for several reasons, the purpose for which it is done must be expressed by the words
3237 of the form. And this is not done by saying: "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"; because we
3238 are bound to do all things in that Name (
3239 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A5-p13.1" href="./asv.html#Col.3.17" target="asv">Col. 3:17</a>). Wherefore unless the act of baptizing be expressed, either as we do, or as the Greeks do, the sacrament is not valid; according
3240 to the
3241 decretal of Alexander III: "If anyone dip a child thrice in the water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
3242 Holy Ghost, Amen, without saying, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen, the
3243 child is not baptized."
3244 </p>
3245 <p id="TP_Q66_A5-p14">
3246 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The words which are uttered in the sacramental forms, are said not merely for the purpose of signification, but also for
3247 the purpose of efficiency, inasmuch as they derive efficacy from that Word, by Whom "all things were made." Consequently they
3248 are becomingly addressed not only to men, but also to insensible creatures; for instance, when we say: "I exorcize thee, creature
3249 salt" (Roman Ritual).
3250 </p>
3251 <p id="TP_Q66_A5-p15">
3252 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Several cannot baptize one at the same time: because an action is multiplied according to the number of the agents, if it
3253 be done perfectly by each. So that if two were to combine, of whom one were mute, and unable to utter the words, and the other
3254 were without hands, and unable to perform the action, they could not both baptize at the same time, one saying the words and
3255 the other performing the action.
3256 </p>
3257 <p id="TP_Q66_A5-p16"> On the other hand, in a case of necessity, several could be baptized at the same time; for no single one of them would receive
3258 more than one baptism. But it would be necessary, in that case, to say: "I baptize ye." Nor would this be a change of form,
3259 because "ye" is the same as "thee and thee." Whereas "we" does not mean "I and I," but "I and thou"; so that this would be
3260 a change of form.
3261 </p>
3262 <p id="TP_Q66_A5-p17"> Likewise it would be a change of form to say, "I baptize myself": consequently no one can baptize himself. For this reason
3263 did Christ choose to be baptized by John (Extra, De Baptismo et ejus effectu, cap. Debitum).
3264 </p>
3265 <p id="TP_Q66_A5-p18">
3266 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> Although Christ's Passion is the principal cause as compared to the minister, yet it is an instrumental cause as compared
3267 to the Blessed Trinity. For this reason the Trinity is mentioned rather than Christ's Passion.
3268 </p>
3269 <p id="TP_Q66_A5-p19">
3270 <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> Although there are three personal names of the three Persons, there is but one essential name. Now the Divine power which
3271 works in Baptism, pertains to the Essence; and therefore we say, "in the name," and not, "in the names."
3272 </p>
3273 <p id="TP_Q66_A5-p20">
3274 <b>Reply to Objection 7:</b> Just as water is used in Baptism, because it is more commonly employed in washing, so for the purpose of designating the
3275 three Persons, in the form of Baptism, those names are chosen, which are generally used, in a particular language, to signify
3276 the Persons. Nor is the sacrament valid if conferred in any other names.
3277 </p>
3278 <p id="TP_Q66_A5-p21"></p>
3279 <p id="TP_Q66_A5-p22"></p>
3280 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A4.html"></a>
3281 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A6.html"></a>
3282 </div>
3283 <div id="TP_Q66_A6" class="div4">
3284 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A5.html"></a>
3285 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A7.html"></a>
3286 <h4 id="TP_Q66_A6-p0.1">Whether Baptism can be conferred in the name of Christ?</h4>
3287 <p id="TP_Q66_A6-p1"></p>
3288 <p id="TP_Q66_A6-p2">
3289 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that Baptism can be conferred in the name of Christ. For just as there is "one Faith," so is there "one Baptism"
3290 (
3291 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A6-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.4.5" target="asv">Eph. 4:5</a>). But it is related (
3292 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A6-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Acts.8.12" target="asv">Acts 8:12</a>) that "in the name of Jesus Christ they were baptized, both men and women." Therefore now also can Baptism be conferred in
3293 the name of Christ.
3294 </p>
3295 <p id="TP_Q66_A6-p3">
3296 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Ambrose says (De Spir. Sanct. i): "If you mention Christ, you designate both the Father by Whom He was anointed,
3297 and the Son Himself, Who was anointed, and the Holy Ghost with Whom He was anointed." But Baptism can be conferred in the
3298 name of the Trinity: therefore also in the name of Christ.
3299 </p>
3300 <p id="TP_Q66_A6-p4">
3301 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Pope Nicholas I, answering questions put to him by the Bulgars, said: "Those who have been baptized in the name
3302 of the Trinity, or only in the name of Christ, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles (it is all the same, as Blessed Ambrose
3303 saith), must not be rebaptized." But they would be baptized again if they had not been validly baptized with that form. Therefore
3304 Baptism can be celebrated in the name of Christ by using this form: "I baptize thee in
3305 the name of Christ."
3306 </p>
3307 <p id="TP_Q66_A6-p5">
3308 <b>On the contrary,</b> Pope Pelagius II wrote to the Bishop Gaudentius: "If any people living in your Worship's neighborhood, avow that they have
3309 been baptized in the name of the Lord only, without any hesitation baptize them again in the name of the Blessed Trinity,
3310 when they come in quest of the Catholic Faith." Didymus, too, says (De Spir. Sanct.): "If indeed there be such a one with
3311 a mind so foreign to faith as to baptize while omitting one of the aforesaid names," viz. of
3312 the three Persons, "he baptizes invalidly."
3313 </p>
3314 <p id="TP_Q66_A6-p6">
3315 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
3316 <a id="TP_Q66_A6-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q64_A3.html">Q[64], A[3]</a>), the sacraments derive their efficacy from Christ's institution. Consequently, if any of those things be omitted which Christ
3317 instituted in regard to a sacrament, it is invalid; save by special dispensation of Him Who did not bind His power to the
3318 sacraments. Now Christ commanded the sacrament of Baptism to be given with the invocation of the Trinity. And consequently
3319 whatever is lacking to the full
3320 invocation of the Trinity, destroys the integrity of Baptism.
3321 </p>
3322 <p id="TP_Q66_A6-p7"> Nor does it matter that in the name of one Person another is implied, as the name of the Son is implied in that of the Father,
3323 or that he who mentions the name of only one Person may believe aright in the Three; because just as a sacrament requires
3324 sensible matter, so does it require a sensible form. Hence, for the validity of the sacrament it is not enough to imply or
3325 to believe in the Trinity, unless the Trinity be expressed in sensible words. For this reason at Christ's
3326 Baptism, wherein was the source of the sanctification of our Baptism, the Trinity was present in sensible signs: viz. the
3327 Father in the voice, the Son in the human nature, the Holy Ghost in the dove.
3328 </p>
3329 <p id="TP_Q66_A6-p8">
3330 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> It was by a special revelation from Christ that in the primitive Church the apostles baptized in the name of Christ; in order
3331 that the name of Christ, which was hateful to Jews and Gentiles, might become an object of veneration, in that the Holy Ghost
3332 was given in Baptism at the invocation of that Name.
3333 </p>
3334 <p id="TP_Q66_A6-p9">
3335 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Ambrose here gives this reason why exception could, without inconsistency, be allowed in the primitive Church; namely, because
3336 the whole Trinity is implied in the name of Christ, and therefore the form prescribed by Christ in the Gospel was observed
3337 in its integrity, at least implicitly.
3338 </p>
3339 <p id="TP_Q66_A6-p10">
3340 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Pope Nicolas confirms his words by quoting the two authorities given in the preceding objections: wherefore the answer to
3341 this is clear from the two solutions given above.
3342 </p>
3343 <p id="TP_Q66_A6-p11"></p>
3344 <p id="TP_Q66_A6-p12"></p>
3345 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A5.html"></a>
3346 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A7.html"></a>
3347 </div>
3348 <div id="TP_Q66_A7" class="div4">
3349 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A6.html"></a>
3350 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A8.html"></a>
3351 <h4 id="TP_Q66_A7-p0.1">Whether immersion in water is necessary for Baptism?</h4>
3352 <p id="TP_Q66_A7-p1"></p>
3353 <p id="TP_Q66_A7-p2">
3354 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that immersion in water is necessary for Baptism. Because it is written (
3355 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A7-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.4.5" target="asv">Eph. 4:5</a>): "One faith, one baptism." But in many parts of the world the ordinary way of baptizing is by immersion. Therefore it seems
3356 that there can be no Baptism without immersion.
3357 </p>
3358 <p id="TP_Q66_A7-p3">
3359 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Apostle says (
3360 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A7-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.3" target="asv">Rom. 6:3,4</a>): "All we who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death: for we are buried together with Him, by Baptism into
3361 death." But this is done by immersion: for Chrysostom says on
3362 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A7-p3.2" href="./asv.html#John.3.5" target="asv"> Jn. 3:5</a>: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost," etc.: "When we dip our heads under the water as in a kind of tomb,
3363 our old man is buried, and being submerged, is hidden below, and
3364 thence he rises again renewed." Therefore it seems that immersion is essential to Baptism.
3365 </p>
3366 <p id="TP_Q66_A7-p4">
3367 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if Baptism is valid without total immersion of the body, it would follow that it would be equally sufficient to
3368 pour water over any part of the body. But this seems unreasonable; since original sin, to remedy which is the principal purpose
3369 of Baptism, is not in only one part of the body. Therefore it seems that immersion is necessary for Baptism, and that mere
3370 sprinkling is not enough.
3371 </p>
3372 <p id="TP_Q66_A7-p5">
3373 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
3374 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A7-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.10.22" target="asv">Heb. 10:22</a>): "Let us draw near with a true heart in fulness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies
3375 washed with clean water."
3376 </p>
3377 <p id="TP_Q66_A7-p6">
3378 <b>I answer that,</b> In the sacrament of Baptism water is put to the use of a washing of the body, whereby to signify the inward washing away
3379 of sins. Now washing may be done with water not only by immersion, but also by sprinkling or pouring. And, therefore, although
3380 it is safer to baptize by immersion, because this is the more ordinary fashion, yet Baptism can be conferred by sprinkling
3381 or also by pouring, according to
3382 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A7-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Ezek.36.25" target="asv"> Ezech. 36:25</a>: "I will pour upon you
3383 clean water," as also the Blessed Lawrence is related to have baptized. And this especially in cases of urgency: either because
3384 there is a great number to be baptized, as was clearly the case in
3385 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A7-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Acts.2" target="asv">Acts 2</a> and 4, where we read that on one day three thousand believed, and on another five thousand: or through there being but a
3386 small supply of water, or through feebleness of the minister, who cannot hold up the candidate for Baptism; or through feebleness
3387 of the candidate, whose life might be
3388 endangered by immersion. We must therefore conclude that immersion is not necessary for Baptism.
3389 </p>
3390 <p id="TP_Q66_A7-p7">
3391 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> What is accidental to a thing does not diversify its essence. Now bodily washing with water is essential to Baptism: wherefore
3392 Baptism is called a "laver," according to
3393 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A7-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.5.26" target="asv"> Eph. 5:26</a>: "Cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life." But that the washing be done this or that way, is accidental to
3394 Baptism. And consequently such diversity does not destroy the oneness of Baptism.
3395 </p>
3396 <p id="TP_Q66_A7-p8">
3397 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Christ's burial is more clearly represented by immersion: wherefore this manner of baptizing is more frequently in use and
3398 more commendable. Yet in the other ways of baptizing it is represented after a fashion, albeit not so clearly; for no matter
3399 how the washing is done, the body of a man, or some part thereof, is put under water, just as Christ's body was put under
3400 the earth.
3401 </p>
3402 <p id="TP_Q66_A7-p9">
3403 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The principal part of the body, especially in relation to the exterior members, is the head, wherein all the senses, both
3404 interior and exterior, flourish. And therefore, if the whole body cannot be covered with water, because of the scarcity of
3405 water, or because of some other reason, it is necessary to pour water over the head, in which the principle of animal life
3406 is made manifest.
3407 </p>
3408 <p id="TP_Q66_A7-p10"> And although original sin is transmitted through the members that serve for procreation, yet those members are not to be
3409 sprinkled in preference to the head, because by Baptism the transmission of original sin to the offspring by the act of procreation
3410 is not deleted, but the soul is freed from the stain and debt of sin which it has contracted. Consequently that part of the
3411 body should be washed in preference, in which the works of the soul are made manifest.
3412 </p>
3413 <p id="TP_Q66_A7-p11"> Nevertheless in the Old Law the remedy against original sin was affixed to the member of procreation; because He through
3414 Whom original sin was to be removed, was yet to be born of the seed of Abraham, whose faith was signified by circumcision
3415 according to
3416 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A7-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.4.11" target="asv"> Rom. 4:11.</a>
3417 </p>
3418 <p id="TP_Q66_A7-p12"></p>
3419 <p id="TP_Q66_A7-p13"></p>
3420 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A6.html"></a>
3421 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A8.html"></a>
3422 </div>
3423 <div id="TP_Q66_A8" class="div4">
3424 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A7.html"></a>
3425 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A9.html"></a>
3426 <h4 id="TP_Q66_A8-p0.1">Whether trine immersion is essential to Baptism?</h4>
3427 <p id="TP_Q66_A8-p1"></p>
3428 <p id="TP_Q66_A8-p2">
3429 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that trine immersion is essential to Baptism. For Augustine says in a sermon on the Symbol, addressed to the Neophytes:
3430 "Rightly were you dipped three times, since you were baptized in the name of the Trinity. Rightly were you dipped three times,
3431 because you were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, Who on the third day rose again from the dead. For that thrice repeated
3432 immersion reproduces the burial of the Lord by which you were buried with Christ
3433 in Baptism." Now both seem to be essential to Baptism, namely, that in Baptism the Trinity of Persons should be signified,
3434 and that we should be conformed to Christ's burial. Therefore it seems that trine immersion is essential to Baptism.
3435 </p>
3436 <p id="TP_Q66_A8-p3">
3437 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the sacraments derive their efficacy from Christ's mandate. But trine immersion was commanded by Christ: for Pope
3438 Pelagius II wrote to Bishop Gaudentius: "The Gospel precept given by our Lord God Himself, our Saviour Jesus Christ, admonishes
3439 us to confer the sacrament of Baptism to each one in the name of the Trinity and also with trine immersion." Therefore, just
3440 as it is essential to Baptism to call on the name of the Trinity, so is it essential to
3441 baptize by trine immersion.
3442 </p>
3443 <p id="TP_Q66_A8-p4">
3444 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if trine immersion be not essential to Baptism, it follows that the sacrament of Baptism is conferred at the first
3445 immersion; so that if a second or third immersion be added, it seems that Baptism is conferred a second or third time. which
3446 is absurd. Therefore one immersion does not suffice for the sacrament of Baptism, and trine immersion is essential thereto.
3447 </p>
3448 <p id="TP_Q66_A8-p5">
3449 <b>On the contrary,</b> Gregory wrote to the Bishop Leander: "It cannot be in any way reprehensible to baptize an infant with either a trine or a
3450 single immersion: since the Trinity can be represented in the three immersions, and the unity of the Godhead in one immersion."
3451 </p>
3452 <p id="TP_Q66_A8-p6"> I answer that As stated above (A[7], ad 1), washing with water is of itself required for Baptism, being essential to the
3453 sacrament: whereas the mode of washing is accidental to the sacrament. Consequently, as Gregory in the words above quoted
3454 explains, both single and trine immersion are lawful considered in themselves; since one immersion signifies the oneness of
3455 Christ's death and of the Godhead; while trine immersion signifies the three days of Christ's burial, and also the
3456 Trinity of Persons.
3457 </p>
3458 <p id="TP_Q66_A8-p7"> But for various reasons, according as the Church has ordained, one mode has been in practice, at one time, the other at another
3459 time. For since from the very earliest days of the Church some have had false notions concerning the Trinity, holding that
3460 Christ is a mere man, and that He is not called the "Son of God" or "God" except by reason of His merit, which was chiefly
3461 in His death; for this reason they did not baptize in the name of the Trinity, but in memory of Christ's
3462 death, and with one immersion. And this was condemned in the early Church. Wherefore in the Apostolic Canons (xlix) we read:
3463 "If any priest or bishop confer baptism not with the trine immersion in the one administration, but with one immersion, which
3464 baptism is said to be conferred by some in the death of the Lord, let him be deposed": for our Lord did not say, "Baptize
3465 ye in My death," but "In the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
3466 </p>
3467 <p id="TP_Q66_A8-p8"> Later on, however, there arose the error of certain schismatics and heretics who rebaptized: as Augustine (Super. Joan.,
3468 cf. De Haeres. lxix) relates of the Donatists. Wherefore, in detestation of their error, only one immersion was ordered to
3469 be made, by the (fourth) council of Toledo, in the acts of which we read: "In order to avoid the scandal of schism or the
3470 practice of heretical teaching let us hold to the single baptismal immersion."
3471 </p>
3472 <p id="TP_Q66_A8-p9"> But now that this motive has ceased, trine immersion is universally observed in Baptism: and consequently anyone baptizing
3473 otherwise would sin gravely, through not following the ritual of the Church. It would, however, be valid Baptism.
3474 </p>
3475 <p id="TP_Q66_A8-p10">
3476 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The Trinity acts as principal agent in Baptism. Now the likeness of the agent enters into the effect, in regard to the form
3477 and not in regard to the matter. Wherefore the Trinity is signified in Baptism by the words of the form. Nor is it essential
3478 for the Trinity to be signified by the manner in which the matter is used; although this is done to make the signification
3479 clearer.
3480 </p>
3481 <p id="TP_Q66_A8-p11"> In like manner Christ's death is sufficiently represented in the one immersion. And the three days of His burial were not
3482 necessary for our salvation, because even if He had been buried or dead for one day, this would have been enough to consummate
3483 our redemption: yet those three days were ordained unto the manifestation of the reality of His death, as stated above (
3484 <a id="TP_Q66_A8-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q53_A2.html">Q[53], A[2]</a>). It is therefore clear that neither on the part of the Trinity, nor on the
3485 part of Christ's Passion, is the trine immersion essential to the sacrament.
3486 </p>
3487 <p id="TP_Q66_A8-p12">
3488 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Pope Pelagius understood the trine immersion to be ordained by Christ in its equivalent; in the sense that Christ commanded
3489 Baptism to be conferred "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Nor can we argue from the form
3490 to the use of the matter, as stated above (ad 1).
3491 </p>
3492 <p id="TP_Q66_A8-p13">
3493 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As stated above (
3494 <a id="TP_Q66_A8-p13.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q64_A8.html">Q[64], A[8]</a>), the intention is essential to Baptism. Consequently, one Baptism results from the intention of the Church's minister, who
3495 intends to confer one Baptism by a trine immersion. Wherefore Jerome says on
3496 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A8-p13.2" href="./asv.html#Eph.4.5" target="asv"> Eph. 4:5,6</a>: "Though the Baptism," i.e. the immersion, "be thrice repeated, on account of the mystery of the Trinity, yet it is reputed
3497 as one Baptism."
3498 </p>
3499 <p id="TP_Q66_A8-p14"> If, however, the intention were to confer one Baptism at each immersion together with the repetition of the words of the
3500 form, it would be a sin, in itself, because it would be a repetition of Baptism.
3501 </p>
3502 <p id="TP_Q66_A8-p15"></p>
3503 <p id="TP_Q66_A8-p16"></p>
3504 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A7.html"></a>
3505 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A9.html"></a>
3506 </div>
3507 <div id="TP_Q66_A9" class="div4">
3508 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A8.html"></a>
3509 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A10.html"></a>
3510 <h4 id="TP_Q66_A9-p0.1">Whether Baptism may be reiterated?</h4>
3511 <p id="TP_Q66_A9-p1"></p>
3512 <p id="TP_Q66_A9-p2">
3513 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that Baptism may be reiterated. For Baptism was instituted, seemingly, in order to wash away sins. But sins are
3514 reiterated. Therefore much more should Baptism be reiterated: because Christ's mercy surpasses man's guilt.
3515 </p>
3516 <p id="TP_Q66_A9-p3">
3517 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, John the Baptist received special commendation from Christ, Who said of him (
3518 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A9-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.11.11" target="asv">Mat. 11:11</a>): "There hath not risen among them that are born of women, a greater than John the Baptist." But those whom John had baptized
3519 were baptized again, according to
3520 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A9-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Acts.19.1" target="asv"> Acts 19:1-7</a>, where it is stated that Paul rebaptized those who had received the Baptism of John. Much more, therefore, should those be
3521 rebaptized, who have been
3522 baptized by heretics or sinners.
3523 </p>
3524 <p id="TP_Q66_A9-p4">
3525 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it was decreed in the Council of Nicaea (Can. xix) that if "any of the Paulianists or Cataphrygians should be converted
3526 to the Catholic Church, they were to be baptized": and this seemingly should be said in regard to other heretics. Therefore
3527 those whom the heretics have baptized, should be baptized again.
3528 </p>
3529 <p id="TP_Q66_A9-p5">
3530 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, Baptism is necessary for salvation. But sometimes there is a doubt about the baptism of those who really have been
3531 baptized. Therefore it seems that they should be baptized again.
3532 </p>
3533 <p id="TP_Q66_A9-p6">
3534 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, the Eucharist is a more perfect sacrament than Baptism, as stated above (
3535 <a id="TP_Q66_A9-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q65_A3.html">Q[65], A[3]</a>). But the sacrament of the Eucharist is reiterated. Much more reason, therefore, is there for Baptism to be reiterated.
3536 </p>
3537 <p id="TP_Q66_A9-p7">
3538 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written, (
3539 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A9-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.4.5" target="asv">Eph. 4:5</a>): "One faith, one Baptism."
3540 </p>
3541 <p id="TP_Q66_A9-p8">
3542 <b>I answer that,</b> Baptism cannot be reiterated.
3543 </p>
3544 <p id="TP_Q66_A9-p9"> First, because Baptism is a spiritual regeneration; inasmuch as a man dies to the old life, and begins to lead the new life.
3545 Whence it is written (
3546 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A9-p9.1" href="./asv.html#John.3.5" target="asv">Jn. 3:5</a>): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, He cannot see [Vulg.: 'enter into'] the kingdom of God." Now one
3547 man can be begotten but once. Wherefore Baptism cannot be reiterated, just as neither can carnal generation. Hence Augustine
3548 says on
3549 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A9-p9.2" href="./asv.html#John.3.4" target="asv"> Jn. 3:4</a>: "'Can he enter a
3550 second time into his mother's womb and be born again': So thou," says he, "must understand the birth of the Spirit, as Nicodemus
3551 understood the birth of the flesh . . . . As there is no return to the womb, so neither is there to Baptism."
3552 </p>
3553 <p id="TP_Q66_A9-p10"> Secondly, because "we are baptized in Christ's death," by which we die unto sin and rise again unto "newness of life" (cf.
3554 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A9-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.3" target="asv"> Rom. 6:3,4</a>). Now "Christ died" but "once" (
3555 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A9-p10.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.10" target="asv">Rom. 6:10</a>). Wherefore neither should Baptism be reiterated. For this reason (
3556 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A9-p10.3" href="./asv.html#Heb.6.6" target="asv">Heb. 6:6</a>) is it said against some who wished to be baptized again: "Crucifying again to themselves the Son of God"; on which the gloss
3557 observes: "Christ's one death hallowed the
3558 one Baptism."
3559 </p>
3560 <p id="TP_Q66_A9-p11"> Thirdly, because Baptism imprints a character, which is indelible, and is conferred with a certain consecration. Wherefore,
3561 just as other consecrations are not reiterated in the Church, so neither is Baptism. This is the view expressed by Augustine,
3562 who says (Contra Epist. Parmen. ii) that "the military character is not renewed": and that "the sacrament of Christ is not
3563 less enduring than this bodily mark, since we see that not even apostates are deprived of Baptism, since when
3564 they repent and return they are not baptized anew."
3565 </p>
3566 <p id="TP_Q66_A9-p12"> Fourthly, because Baptism is conferred principally as a remedy against original sin. Wherefore, just as original sin is not
3567 renewed, so neither is Baptism reiterated, for as it is written (
3568 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A9-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.18" target="asv">Rom. 5:18</a>), "as by the offense of one, unto all men to condemnation, so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification of
3569 life."
3570 </p>
3571 <p id="TP_Q66_A9-p13">
3572 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Baptism derives its efficacy from Christ's Passion, as stated above (A[2], ad 1). Wherefore, just as subsequent sins do not
3573 cancel the virtue of Christ's Passion, so neither do they cancel Baptism, so as to call for its repetition. on the other hand
3574 the sin which hindered the effect of Baptism is blotted out on being submitted to Penance.
3575 </p>
3576 <p id="TP_Q66_A9-p14">
3577 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Augustine says on
3578 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A9-p14.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.33" target="asv"> Jn. 1:33</a>: "'And I knew Him not': Behold; after John had baptized, Baptism was administered; after a murderer has baptized, it is not
3579 administered: because John gave his own Baptism; the murderer, Christ's; for that sacrament is so sacred, that not even a
3580 murderer's administration contaminates it."
3581 </p>
3582 <p id="TP_Q66_A9-p15">
3583 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The Paulianists and Cataphrygians used not to baptize in the name of the Trinity. Wherefore Gregory, writing to the Bishop
3584 Quiricus, says: "Those heretics who are not baptized in the name of the Trinity, such as the Bonosians and Cataphrygians"
3585 (who were of the same mind as the Paulianists), "since the former believe not that Christ is God" (holding Him to be a mere
3586 man), "while the latter," i.e. the Cataphrygians, "are so perverse as to deem a mere
3587 man," viz. Montanus, "to be the Holy Ghost: all these are baptized when they come to holy Church, for the baptism which they
3588 received while in that state of error was no Baptism at all, not being conferred in the name of the Trinity." On the other
3589 hand, as set down in De Eccles. Dogm. xxii: "Those heretics who have been baptized in the confession of the name of the Trinity
3590 are to be received as already baptized when they come to the Catholic Faith."
3591 </p>
3592 <p id="TP_Q66_A9-p16">
3593 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> According to the Decretal of Alexander III: "Those about whose Baptism there is a doubt are to be baptized with these words
3594 prefixed to the form: 'If thou art baptized, I do not rebaptize thee; but if thou art not baptized, I baptize thee,' etc.:
3595 for that does not appear to be repeated, which is not known to have been done."
3596 </p>
3597 <p id="TP_Q66_A9-p17">
3598 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> Both sacraments, viz. Baptism and the Eucharist, are a representation of our Lord's death and Passion, but not in the same
3599 way. For Baptism is a commemoration of Christ's death in so far as man dies with Christ, that he may be born again into a
3600 new life. But the Eucharist is a commemoration of Christ's death, in so far as the suffering Christ Himself is offered to
3601 us as the Paschal banquet, according to
3602 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A9-p17.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.5.7" target="asv">1 Cor. 5:7,8</a>: "Christ our pasch is sacrificed;
3603 therefore let us feast." And forasmuch as man is born once, whereas he eats many times, so is Baptism given once, but the
3604 Eucharist frequently.
3605 </p>
3606 <p id="TP_Q66_A9-p18"></p>
3607 <p id="TP_Q66_A9-p19"></p>
3608 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A8.html"></a>
3609 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A10.html"></a>
3610 </div>
3611 <div id="TP_Q66_A10" class="div4">
3612 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A9.html"></a>
3613 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A11.html"></a>
3614 <h4 id="TP_Q66_A10-p0.1">Whether the Church observes a suitable rite in baptizing?</h4>
3615 <p id="TP_Q66_A10-p1"></p>
3616 <p id="TP_Q66_A10-p2">
3617 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the Church observes an unsuitable rite in baptizing. For as Chrysostom (Chromatius, in
3618 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A10-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.3.15" target="asv"> Matth. 3:15</a>) says: "The waters of Baptism would never avail to purge the sins of them that believe, had they not been hallowed by the
3619 touch of our Lord's body." Now this took place at Christ's Baptism, which is commemorated in the Feast of the Epiphany. Therefore
3620 solemn Baptism should be celebrated at the Feast of the Epiphany rather than
3621 on the eves of Easter and Whitsunday.
3622 </p>
3623 <p id="TP_Q66_A10-p3">
3624 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it seems that several matters should not be used in the same sacrament. But water is used for washing in Baptism.
3625 Therefore it is unfitting that the person baptized should be anointed thrice with holy oil first on the breast, and then between
3626 the shoulders, and a third time with chrism on the top of the head.
3627 </p>
3628 <p id="TP_Q66_A10-p4">
3629 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, "in Christ Jesus . . . there is neither male nor female" (
3630 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A10-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.3.23" target="asv">Gal. 3:23</a>) . . . "neither Barbarian nor Scythian" (
3631 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A10-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Col.3.11" target="asv">Col. 3:11</a>), nor, in like manner, any other such like distinctions. Much less, therefore can a difference of clothing have any efficacy
3632 in the Faith of Christ. It is consequently unfitting to bestow a white garment on those who have been baptized.
3633 </p>
3634 <p id="TP_Q66_A10-p5">
3635 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, Baptism can be celebrated without such like ceremonies. Therefore it seems that those mentioned above are superfluous;
3636 and consequently that they are unsuitably inserted by the Church in the baptismal rite.
3637 </p>
3638 <p id="TP_Q66_A10-p6">
3639 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Church is ruled by the Holy Ghost, Who does nothing inordinate.
3640 </p>
3641 <p id="TP_Q66_A10-p7">
3642 <b>I answer that,</b> In the sacrament of Baptism something is done which is essential to the sacrament, and something which belongs to a certain
3643 solemnity of the sacrament. Essential indeed, to the sacrament are both the form which designates the principal cause of the
3644 sacrament; and the minister who is the instrumental cause; and the use of the matter, namely, washing with water, which designates
3645 the principal sacramental effect. But all the other things which the Church
3646 observes in the baptismal rite, belong rather to a certain solemnity of the sacrament.
3647 </p>
3648 <p id="TP_Q66_A10-p8"> And these, indeed, are used in conjunction with the sacrament for three reasons. First, in order to arouse the devotion of
3649 the faithful, and their reverence for the sacrament. For if there were nothing done but a mere washing with water, without
3650 any solemnity, some might easily think it to be an ordinary washing.
3651 </p>
3652 <p id="TP_Q66_A10-p9"> Secondly, for the instruction of the faithful. Because simple and unlettered folk need to be taught by some sensible signs,
3653 for instance, pictures and the like. And in this way by means of the sacramental ceremonies they are either instructed, or
3654 urged to seek the signification of such like sensible signs. And consequently, since, besides the principal sacramental effect,
3655 other things should be known about Baptism, it was fitting that these also should be represented by some
3656 outward signs.
3657 </p>
3658 <p id="TP_Q66_A10-p10"> Thirdly, because the power of the devil is restrained, by prayers, blessings, and the like, from hindering the sacramental
3659 effect.
3660 </p>
3661 <p id="TP_Q66_A10-p11">
3662 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Christ was baptized on the Epiphany with the Baptism of John, as stated above (
3663 <a id="TP_Q66_A10-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q39_A2.html">Q[39], A[2]</a>), with which baptism, indeed, the faithful are not baptized, rather are they baptized with Christ's Baptism. This has its
3664 efficacy from the Passion of Christ, according to
3665 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A10-p11.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.3" target="asv"> Rom. 6:3</a>: "We who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death"; and in the Holy Ghost, according to
3666 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A10-p11.3" href="./asv.html#John.3.5" target="asv"> Jn. 3:5</a>:
3667 "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost." Therefore it is that solemn Baptism is held in the Church, both
3668 on Easter Eve, when we commemorate our Lord's burial and resurrection; for which reason our Lord gave His disciples the commandment
3669 concerning Baptism as related by Matthew (28:19): and on Whitsun-eve, when the celebration of the Feast of the Holy Ghost
3670 begins; for which reason the apostles are said to have baptized three thousand on the very day of Pentecost when they had
3671 received the Holy Ghost.
3672 </p>
3673 <p id="TP_Q66_A10-p12">
3674 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The use of water in Baptism is part of the substance of the sacrament; but the use of oil or chrism is part of the solemnity.
3675 For the candidate is first of all anointed with Holy oil on the breast and between the shoulders, as "one who wrestles for
3676 God," to use Ambrose's expression (De Sacram. i): thus are prize-fighters wont to besmear themselves with oil. Or, as Innocent
3677 III says in a decretal on the Holy Unction: "The candidate is anointed on the
3678 breast, in order to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, to cast off error and ignorance, and to acknowledge the true faith,
3679 since 'the just man liveth by faith'; while he is anointed between the shoulders, that he may be clothed with the grace of
3680 the Holy Ghost, lay aside indifference and sloth, and become active in good works; so that the sacrament of faith may purify
3681 the thoughts of his heart, and strengthen his shoulders for the burden of labor." But after Baptism, as Rabanus says (De
3682 Sacram. iii), "he is forthwith anointed on the head by the priest with Holy Chrism, who proceeds at once to offer up a prayer
3683 that the neophyte may have a share in Christ's kingdom, and be called a Christian after Christ." Or, as Ambrose says (De Sacram.
3684 iii), his head is anointed, because "the senses of a wise man are in his head" (
3685 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A10-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Eccl.2.14" target="asv">Eccl 2:14</a>): to wit, that he may "be ready to satisfy everyone that asketh" him to give "a reason of his faith" (cf.
3686 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A10-p12.2" href="./asv.html#iPet.3.15" target="asv">1 Pet.
3687 3:15
3688 </a>; Innocent III, Decretal on Holy Unction).
3689 </p>
3690 <p id="TP_Q66_A10-p13">
3691 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This white garment is given, not as though it were unlawful for the neophyte to use others: but as a sign of the glorious
3692 resurrection, unto which men are born again by Baptism; and in order to designate the purity of life, to which he will be
3693 bound after being baptized, according to
3694 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A10-p13.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.4" target="asv"> Rom. 6:4</a>: "That we may walk in newness of life."
3695 </p>
3696 <p id="TP_Q66_A10-p14">
3697 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Although those things that belong to the solemnity of a sacrament are not essential to it, yet are they not superfluous,
3698 since they pertain to the sacrament's wellbeing, as stated above.
3699 </p>
3700 <p id="TP_Q66_A10-p15"></p>
3701 <p id="TP_Q66_A10-p16"></p>
3702 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A9.html"></a>
3703 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A11.html"></a>
3704 </div>
3705 <div id="TP_Q66_A11" class="div4">
3706 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A10.html"></a>
3707 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A12.html"></a>
3708 <h4 id="TP_Q66_A11-p0.1">Whether three kinds of Baptism are fittingly described---viz. Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit?</h4>
3709 <p id="TP_Q66_A11-p1"></p>
3710 <p id="TP_Q66_A11-p2">
3711 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the three kinds of Baptism are not fittingly described as Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit, i.e.
3712 of the Holy Ghost. Because the Apostle says (
3713 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A11-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.4.5" target="asv">Eph. 4:5</a>): "One Faith, one Baptism." Now there is but one Faith. Therefore there should not be three Baptisms.
3714 </p>
3715 <p id="TP_Q66_A11-p3">
3716 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Baptism is a sacrament, as we have made clear above (
3717 <a id="TP_Q66_A11-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q65_A1.html">Q[65], A[1]</a>). Now none but Baptism of Water is a sacrament. Therefore we should not reckon two other Baptisms.
3718 </p>
3719 <p id="TP_Q66_A11-p4">
3720 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv) distinguishes several other kinds of Baptism. Therefore we should admit more than three
3721 Baptisms.
3722 </p>
3723 <p id="TP_Q66_A11-p5">
3724 <b>On the contrary,</b> on
3725 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A11-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.6.2" target="asv"> Heb. 6:2, </a> "Of the doctrine of Baptisms," the gloss says: "He uses the plural, because there is Baptism of Water, of Repentance, and
3726 of Blood."
3727 </p>
3728 <p id="TP_Q66_A11-p6">
3729 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
3730 <a id="TP_Q66_A11-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q62_A5.html">Q[62], A[5]</a>), Baptism of Water has its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy
3731 Ghost, as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it
3732 depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in
3733 so far as he is conformed to Christ by
3734 suffering for Him. Hence it is written (
3735 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A11-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Rev.7.14" target="asv">Apoc. 7:14</a>): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood
3736 of the Lamb." In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism
3737 of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God
3738 and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance.
3739 Of this it is written (
3740 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A11-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Isa.4.4" target="asv">Is. 4:4</a>): "If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the
3741 midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning." Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is
3742 called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo Parvulorum iv): "The
3743 Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason from the thief to whom, though
3744 not baptized, it was said: 'Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise' that suffering can take the place of Baptism. Having
3745 weighed this in my mind again and again, I perceive that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply for what was
3746 lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if perchance on account of the stress of the times the celebration
3747 of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable."
3748 </p>
3749 <p id="TP_Q66_A11-p7">
3750 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from
3751 the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.
3752 </p>
3753 <p id="TP_Q66_A11-p8">
3754 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As stated above (
3755 <a id="TP_Q66_A11-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q60_A1.html">Q[60], A[1]</a>), a sacrament is a kind of sign. The other two, however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign,
3756 but in the baptismal effect. Consequently they are not sacraments.
3757 </p>
3758 <p id="TP_Q66_A11-p9">
3759 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Damascene enumerates certain figurative Baptisms. For instance, "the Deluge" was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of the
3760 salvation of the faithful in the Church; since then "a few . . . souls were saved in the ark [Vulg.: 'by water']," according
3761 to
3762 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A11-p9.1" href="./asv.html#iPet.3.20" target="asv">1 Pet. 3:20.</a> He also mentions "the crossing of the Red Sea": which was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of our delivery from the bondage
3763 of sin; hence the Apostle says (
3764 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A11-p9.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.10.2" target="asv">1
3765 Cor. 10:2
3766 </a>) that "all . . . were baptized in the cloud and in the sea." And again he mentions "the various washings which were customary
3767 under the Old Law," which were figures of our Baptism, as to the cleansing from sins: also "the Baptism of John," which prepared
3768 the way for our Baptism.
3769 </p>
3770 <p id="TP_Q66_A11-p10"></p>
3771 <p id="TP_Q66_A11-p11"></p>
3772 <p id="TP_Q66_A11-p12"></p>
3773 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A10.html"></a>
3774 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A12.html"></a>
3775 </div>
3776 <div id="TP_Q66_A12" class="div4">
3777 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A11.html"></a>
3778 <a href="summa.TP_Q67.html"></a>
3779 <h4 id="TP_Q66_A12-p0.1">Whether the Baptism of Blood is the most excellent of these?</h4>
3780 <p id="TP_Q66_A12-p1"></p>
3781 <p id="TP_Q66_A12-p2">
3782 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the Baptism of Blood is not the most excellent of these three. For the Baptism of Water impresses a character;
3783 which the Baptism of Blood cannot do. Therefore the Baptism of Blood is not more excellent than the Baptism of Water.
3784 </p>
3785 <p id="TP_Q66_A12-p3">
3786 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Baptism of Blood is of no avail without the Baptism of the Spirit, which is by charity; for it is written (
3787 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A12-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.13.3" target="asv">1 Cor. 13:3</a>): "If I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." But the Baptism of the Spirit
3788 avails without the Baptism of Blood; for not only the martyrs are saved. Therefore the Baptism of Blood is not the most excellent.
3789 </p>
3790 <p id="TP_Q66_A12-p4">
3791 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, just as the Baptism of Water derives its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which, as stated above
3792 <a id="TP_Q66_A12-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q66_A11.html">(A[11])</a>, the Baptism of Blood corresponds, so Christ's Passion derives its efficacy from the Holy Ghost, according to
3793 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A12-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.9.14" target="asv"> Heb. 9:14</a>: "The Blood of Christ, Who by the Holy Ghost offered Himself unspotted unto God, shall cleanse our conscience from dead works,"
3794 etc. Therefore the Baptism of the Spirit is more
3795 excellent than the Baptism of Blood. Therefore the Baptism of Blood is not the most excellent.
3796 </p>
3797 <p id="TP_Q66_A12-p5">
3798 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine (Ad Fortunatum) speaking of the comparison between Baptisms says: "The newly baptized confesses his faith in the
3799 presence of the priest: the martyr in the presence of the persecutor. The former is sprinkled with water, after he has confessed;
3800 the latter with his blood. The former receives the Holy Ghost by the imposition of the bishop's hands; the latter is made
3801 the temple of the Holy Ghost."
3802 </p>
3803 <p id="TP_Q66_A12-p6">
3804 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
3805 <a id="TP_Q66_A12-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q66_A11.html">(A[11])</a>, the shedding of blood for Christ's sake, and the inward operation of the Holy Ghost, are called baptisms, in so far as they
3806 produce the effect of the Baptism of Water. Now the Baptism of Water derives its efficacy from Christ's Passion and from the
3807 Holy Ghost, as already stated
3808 <a id="TP_Q66_A12-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q66_A11.html">(A[11])</a>. These two causes act in each of these three Baptisms; most excellently, however, in the Baptism
3809 of Blood. For Christ's Passion acts in the Baptism of Water by way of a figurative representation; in the Baptism of the Spirit
3810 or of Repentance, by way of desire. but in the Baptism of Blood, by way of imitating the (Divine) act. In like manner, too,
3811 the power of the Holy Ghost acts in the Baptism of Water through a certain hidden power. in the Baptism of Repentance by moving
3812 the heart; but in the Baptism of Blood by the highest degree of fervor of dilection and love, according to
3813 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A12-p6.3" href="./asv.html#John.15.13" target="asv">
3814 Jn. 15:13
3815 </a>: "Greater love than this no man hath that a man lay down his life for his friends."
3816 </p>
3817 <p id="TP_Q66_A12-p7">
3818 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> A character is both reality and a sacrament. And we do not say that the Baptism of Blood is more excellent, considering the
3819 nature of a sacrament; but considering the sacramental effect.
3820 </p>
3821 <p id="TP_Q66_A12-p8">
3822 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The shedding of blood is not in the nature of a Baptism if it be without charity. Hence it is clear that the Baptism of Blood
3823 includes the Baptism of the Spirit, but not conversely. And from this it is proved to be more perfect.
3824 </p>
3825 <p id="TP_Q66_A12-p9">
3826 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The Baptism owes its pre-eminence not only to Christ's Passion, but also to the Holy Ghost, as stated above.
3827 </p>
3828 <p id="TP_Q66_A12-p10"></p>
3829 <p id="TP_Q66_A12-p11"></p>
3830 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A11.html"></a>
3831 <a href="summa.TP_Q67.html"></a>
3832 </div>
3833 <a href="summa.TP_Q65_A4.html"></a>
3834 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A1.html"></a>
3835 </div>
3836 <div id="TP_Q67" class="div3">
3837 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A12.html"></a>
3838 <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A1.html"></a>
3839 <h3 id="TP_Q67-p0.1">OF THE MINISTERS BY WHOM THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM IS CONFERRED (EIGHT ARTICLES)</h3>
3840 <p id="TP_Q67-p1"></p>
3841 <p id="TP_Q67-p2"> We have now to consider the ministers by whom the sacrament of Baptism is conferred. And concerning this there are eight
3842 points of inquiry:
3843 </p>
3844 <p id="TP_Q67-p3"> (1) Whether it belongs to a deacon to baptize?</p>
3845 <p id="TP_Q67-p4"> (2) Whether this belongs to a priest, or to a bishop only?</p>
3846 <p id="TP_Q67-p5"> (3) Whether a layman can confer the sacrament of Baptism?</p>
3847 <p id="TP_Q67-p6"> (4) Whether a woman can do this?</p>
3848 <p id="TP_Q67-p7"> (5) Whether an unbaptized person can baptize?</p>
3849 <p id="TP_Q67-p8"> (6) Whether several can at the same time baptize one and the same person?</p>
3850 <p id="TP_Q67-p9"> (7) Whether it is essential that someone should raise the person baptized from the sacred font?</p>
3851 <p id="TP_Q67-p10"> (8) Whether he who raises someone from the sacred font is bound to instruct him?</p>
3852 <div id="TP_Q67_A1" class="div4">
3853 <a href="summa.TP_Q67.html"></a>
3854 <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A2.html"></a>
3855 <h4 id="TP_Q67_A1-p0.1">Whether it is part of a deacon's duty to baptize?</h4>
3856 <p id="TP_Q67_A1-p1"></p>
3857 <p id="TP_Q67_A1-p2">
3858 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that it is part of a deacon's duty to baptize. Because the duties of preaching and of baptizing were enjoined by
3859 our Lord at the same time, according to
3860 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q67_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.28.19" target="asv"> Mat. 28:19</a>: "Going . . . teach ye all nations, baptizing them," etc. But it is part of a deacon's duty to preach the gospel. Therefore
3861 it seems that it is also part of a deacon's duty to baptize.
3862 </p>
3863 <p id="TP_Q67_A1-p3">
3864 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v) to "cleanse" is part of the deacon's duty. But cleansing from sins is effected
3865 specially by Baptism, according to
3866 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q67_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.5.26" target="asv"> Eph. 5:26</a>: "Cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life." Therefore it seems that it belongs to a deacon to baptize.
3867 </p>
3868 <p id="TP_Q67_A1-p4">
3869 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is told of Blessed Laurence, who was a deacon, that he baptized many. Therefore it seems that it belongs to deacons
3870 to baptize.
3871 </p>
3872 <p id="TP_Q67_A1-p5">
3873 <b>On the contrary,</b> Pope Gelasius I says (the passage is to be found in the Decrees, dist. 93): "We order the deacons to keep within their own
3874 province"; and further on: "Without bishop or priest they must not dare to baptize, except in cases of extreme urgency, when
3875 the aforesaid are a long way off."
3876 </p>
3877 <p id="TP_Q67_A1-p6">
3878 <b>I answer that,</b> Just as the properties and duties of the heavenly orders are gathered from their names, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. vi),
3879 so can we gather, from the names of the ecclesiastical orders, what belongs to each order. Now "deacons" are so called from
3880 being "ministers"; because, to wit, it is not in the deacon's province to be the chief and official celebrant in conferring
3881 a sacrament, but to minister to others, his elders, in the sacramental dispensations. And
3882 so it does not belong to a deacon to confer the sacrament of Baptism officially as it were; but to assist and serve his elders
3883 in the bestowal of this and other sacraments. Hence Isidore says (Epist. ad Ludifred.): "It is a deacon's duty to assist and
3884 serve the priests, in all the rites of Christ's sacraments, viz. those of Baptism, of the Chrism, of the Paten and Chalice."
3885 </p>
3886 <p id="TP_Q67_A1-p7">
3887 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> It is the deacon's duty to read the Gospel in church, and to preach it as one catechizing; hence Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier.
3888 v) that a deacon's office involves power over the unclean among whom he includes the catechumens. But to teach, i.e. to expound
3889 the Gospel, is the proper office of a bishop, whose action is "to perfect," as Dionysius teaches (Eccl. Hier. v); and "to
3890 perfect" is the same as "to teach." Consequently, it does not follow that the
3891 office of baptizing belongs to deacons.
3892 </p>
3893 <p id="TP_Q67_A1-p8">
3894 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. ii), Baptism has a power not only of "cleansing" but also of "enlightening." Consequently,
3895 it is outside the province of the deacon whose duty it is to cleanse only: viz. either by driving away the unclean, or by
3896 preparing them for the reception of a sacrament.
3897 </p>
3898 <p id="TP_Q67_A1-p9">
3899 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Because Baptism is a necessary sacrament, deacons are allowed to baptize in cases of urgency when their elders are not at
3900 hand; as appears from the authority of Gelasius quoted above. And it was thus that Blessed Laurence, being but a deacon, baptized.
3901 </p>
3902 <p id="TP_Q67_A1-p10"></p>
3903 <p id="TP_Q67_A1-p11"></p>
3904 <a href="summa.TP_Q67.html"></a>
3905 <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A2.html"></a>
3906 </div>
3907 <div id="TP_Q67_A2" class="div4">
3908 <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A1.html"></a>
3909 <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A3.html"></a>
3910 <h4 id="TP_Q67_A2-p0.1">Whether to baptize is part of the priestly office, or proper to that of bishops?</h4>
3911 <p id="TP_Q67_A2-p1"></p>
3912 <p id="TP_Q67_A2-p2">
3913 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that to baptize is not part of the priestly office, but proper to that of bishops. Because, as stated above (A[1],
3914 OBJ[1]), the duties of teaching and baptizing are enjoined in the same precept (
3915 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q67_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.28.19" target="asv">Mat. 28:19</a>). But to teach, which is "to perfect," belongs to the office of bishop, as Dionysius declares (Eccl. Hier. v, vi). Therefore
3916 to baptize also belongs to the episcopal office.
3917 </p>
3918 <p id="TP_Q67_A2-p3">
3919 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, by Baptism a man is admitted to the body of the Christian people: and to do this seems consistent with no other
3920 than the princely office. Now the bishops hold the position of princes in the Church, as the gloss observes on
3921 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q67_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.10.1" target="asv"> Lk. 10:1</a>: indeed, they even take the place of the apostles, of whom it is written (
3922 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q67_A2-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.44.17" target="asv">Ps. 44:17</a>): "Thou shalt make them princes over all the earth." Therefore it seems that to baptize belongs
3923 exclusively to the office of bishops.
3924 </p>
3925 <p id="TP_Q67_A2-p4">
3926 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Isidore says (Epist. ad Ludifred.) that "it belongs to the bishop to consecrate churches, to anoint altars, to consecrate
3927 [conficere] the chrism; he it is that confers the ecclesiastical orders, and blesses the consecrated virgins." But the sacrament
3928 of Baptism is greater than all these. Therefore much more reason is there why to baptize should belong exclusively to the
3929 episcopal office.
3930 </p>
3931 <p id="TP_Q67_A2-p5">
3932 <b>On the contrary,</b> Isidore says (De Officiis. ii): "It is certain that Baptism was entrusted to priests alone."
3933 </p>
3934 <p id="TP_Q67_A2-p6">
3935 <b>I answer that,</b> Priests are consecrated for the purpose of celebrating the sacrament of Christ's Body, as stated above (
3936 <a id="TP_Q67_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q65_A3.html">Q[65], A[3]</a>). Now that is the sacrament of ecclesiastical unity, according to the Apostle (
3937 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q67_A2-p6.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.10.17" target="asv">1 Cor. 10:17</a>): "We, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread and one chalice." Moreover, by Baptism a man becomes
3938 a participator in ecclesiastical unity, wherefore also he receives the right to
3939 approach our Lord's Table. Consequently, just as it belongs to a priest to consecrate the Eucharist, which is the principal
3940 purpose of the priesthood, so it is the proper office of a priest to baptize: since it seems to belong to one and the same,
3941 to produce the whole and to dispose the part in the whole.
3942 </p>
3943 <p id="TP_Q67_A2-p7">
3944 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Our Lord enjoined on the apostles, whose place is taken by the bishops, both duties, namely, of teaching and of baptizing,
3945 but in different ways. Because Christ committed to them the duty of teaching, that they might exercise it themselves as being
3946 the most important duty of all: wherefore the apostles themselves said (
3947 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q67_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.6.2" target="asv">Acts 6:2</a>): "It is not reason that we should leave the word of God and serve tables." On the other hand, He
3948 entrusted the apostles with the office of baptizing, to be exercised vicariously; wherefore the Apostle says (
3949 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q67_A2-p7.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.1.17" target="asv">1 Cor. 1:17</a>): "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel." And the reason for this was that the merit and wisdom of the
3950 minister have no bearing on the baptismal effect, as they have in teaching, as may be seen from what we have stated above
3951 (Q[64], A[1], ad 2;
3952 <a id="TP_Q67_A2-p7.3" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q67_A5.html">AA[5]</a>,9). A proof of this is found also in the fact that our Lord
3953 Himself did not baptize, but His disciples, as John relates (4:2). Nor does it follow from this that bishops cannot baptize;
3954 since what a lower power can do, that can also a higher power. Wherefore also the Apostle says (
3955 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q67_A2-p7.4" href="./asv.html#iCor.1.14" target="asv">1 Cor. 1:14</a>,
3956 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q67_A2-p7.5" href="./asv.html#iCor.1.16" target="asv">16</a>) that he had baptized some.
3957 </p>
3958 <p id="TP_Q67_A2-p8">
3959 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In every commonwealth minor affairs are entrusted to lower officials, while greater affairs are restricted to higher officials;
3960 according to
3961 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q67_A2-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.18.22" target="asv"> Ex. 18:22</a>: "When any great matter soever shall fall out, let them refer it to thee, and let them judge the lesser matters only." Consequently
3962 it belongs to the lower officials of the state to decide matters concerning the lower orders; while to the highest it belongs
3963 to set in order those
3964 matters that regard the higher orders of the state. Now by Baptism a man attains only to the lowest rank among the Christian
3965 people: and consequently it belongs to the lesser officials of the Church
3966 </p>
3967 <p id="TP_Q67_A2-p9"> to baptize, namely, the priests, who hold the place of the seventy-two disciples of Christ, as the gloss says in the passage
3968 quoted from
3969 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q67_A2-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.10" target="asv">Luke 10</a>.
3970 </p>
3971 <p id="TP_Q67_A2-p10">
3972 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As stated above (
3973 <a id="TP_Q67_A2-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q65_A3.html">Q[65], A[3]</a>), the sacrament of Baptism holds the first place in the order of necessity; but in the order of perfection there are other
3974 greater sacraments which are reserved to bishops.
3975 </p>
3976 <p id="TP_Q67_A2-p11"></p>
3977 <p id="TP_Q67_A2-p12"></p>
3978 <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A1.html"></a>
3979 <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A3.html"></a>
3980 </div>
3981 <div id="TP_Q67_A3" class="div4">
3982 <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A2.html"></a>
3983 <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A4.html"></a>
3984 <h4 id="TP_Q67_A3-p0.1">Whether a layman can baptize?</h4>
3985 <p id="TP_Q67_A3-p1"></p>
3986 <p id="TP_Q67_A3-p2">
3987 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that a layman cannot baptize. Because, as stated above
3988 <a id="TP_Q67_A3-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q67_A2.html">(A[2])</a>, to baptize belongs properly to the priestly order. But those things which belong to an order cannot be entrusted to one
3989 that is not ordained. Therefore it seems that a layman, who has no orders, cannot baptize.
3990 </p>
3991 <p id="TP_Q67_A3-p3">
3992 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is a greater thing to baptize, than to perform the other sacramental rites of Baptism, such as to catechize,
3993 to exorcize, and to bless the baptismal water. But these things cannot be done by laymen, but only by priests. Therefore it
3994 seems that much less can laymen baptize.
3995 </p>
3996 <p id="TP_Q67_A3-p4">
3997 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, just as Baptism is a necessary sacrament, so is Penance. But a layman cannot absolve in the tribunal of Penance.
3998 Neither, therefore, can he baptize.
3999 </p>
4000 <p id="TP_Q67_A3-p5">
4001 <b>On the contrary,</b> Pope Gelasius I and Isidore say that "it is often permissible for Christian laymen to baptize, in cases of urgent necessity."
4002 </p>
4003 <p id="TP_Q67_A3-p6">
4004 <b>I answer that,</b> It is due to the mercy of Him "Who will have all men to be saved" (
4005 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q67_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.2.4" target="asv">1 Tim. 2:4</a>) that in those things which are necessary for salvation, man can easily find the remedy. Now the most necessary among all
4006 the sacraments is Baptism, which is man's regeneration unto spiritual life: since for children there is no substitute, while
4007 adults cannot otherwise than by Baptism receive a full remission both of guilt and of its punishment. Consequently,
4008 lest man should have to go without so necessary a remedy, it was ordained, both that the matter of Baptism should be something
4009 common that is easily obtainable by all, i.e. water; and that the minister of Baptism should be anyone, even not in orders,
4010 lest from lack of being baptized, man should suffer loss of his salvation.
4011 </p>
4012 <p id="TP_Q67_A3-p7">
4013 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> To baptize belongs to the priestly order by reason of a certain appropriateness and solemnity; but this is not essential
4014 to the sacrament. Consequently, if a layman were to baptize even outside a case of urgency; he would sin, yet he would confer
4015 the sacrament; nor would the person thus baptized have to be baptized again.
4016 </p>
4017 <p id="TP_Q67_A3-p8">
4018 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> These sacramental rites of Baptism belong to the solemnity of, and are not essential to, Baptism. And therefore they neither
4019 should nor can be done by a layman, but only by a priest, whose office it is to baptize solemnly.
4020 </p>
4021 <p id="TP_Q67_A3-p9">
4022 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As stated above (
4023 <a id="TP_Q67_A3-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q65_A3.html">Q[65], AA[3]</a>,4), Penance is not so necessary as Baptism; since contrition can supply the defect of the priestly absolution which does
4024 not free from the whole punishment, nor again is it given to children. Therefore the comparison with Baptism does not stand,
4025 because its effect cannot be supplied by anything else.
4026 </p>
4027 <p id="TP_Q67_A3-p10"></p>
4028 <p id="TP_Q67_A3-p11"></p>
4029 <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A2.html"></a>
4030 <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A4.html"></a>
4031 </div>
4032 <div id="TP_Q67_A4" class="div4">
4033 <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A3.html"></a>
4034 <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A5.html"></a>
4035 <h4 id="TP_Q67_A4-p0.1">Whether a woman can baptize?</h4>
4036 <p id="TP_Q67_A4-p1"></p>
4037 <p id="TP_Q67_A4-p2">
4038 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that a woman cannot baptize. For we read in the acts of the Council of Carthage (iv): "However learned and holy
4039 a woman may be, she must not presume to teach men in the church, or to baptize." But in no case is a woman allowed to teach
4040 in church, according to
4041 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q67_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.14.35" target="asv">1 Cor. 14:35</a>: "It is a shame for a woman to speak in the church." Therefore it seems that neither is a woman in any circumstances permitted
4042 to baptize.
4043 </p>
4044 <p id="TP_Q67_A4-p3">
4045 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, to baptize belongs to those having authority. wherefore baptism should be conferred by priests having charge of
4046 souls. But women are not qualified for this; according to
4047 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q67_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.2.12" target="asv">1 Tim. 2:12</a>: "I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over man, but to be subject to him [Vulg.: 'but to be in silence']."
4048 Therefore a woman cannot baptize.
4049 </p>
4050 <p id="TP_Q67_A4-p4">
4051 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, in the spiritual regeneration water seems to hold the place of the mother's womb, as Augustine says on
4052 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q67_A4-p4.1" href="./asv.html#John.3.4" target="asv"> Jn. 3:4, </a> "Can" a man "enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born again?" While he who baptizes seems to hold rather the
4053 position of father. But this is unfitting for a woman. Therefore a woman cannot baptize.
4054 </p>
4055 <p id="TP_Q67_A4-p5">
4056 <b>On the contrary,</b> Pope Urban II says (Decreta xxx): "In reply to the questions asked by your beatitude, we consider that the following answer
4057 should be given: that the baptism is valid when, in cases of necessity, a woman baptizes a child in the name of the Trinity."
4058 </p>
4059 <p id="TP_Q67_A4-p6">
4060 <b>I answer that,</b> Christ is the chief Baptizer, according to
4061 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q67_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.33" target="asv"> Jn. 1:33</a>: "He upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, He it is that baptizeth." For it is written in
4062
4063 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q67_A4-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Col.3" target="asv">Col. 3</a> (cf.
4064 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q67_A4-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Gal.3.28" target="asv"> Gal. 3:28</a>), that in Christ there is neither male nor female. Consequently, just as a layman can baptize, as Christ's minister, so can
4065 a woman.
4066 </p>
4067 <p id="TP_Q67_A4-p7"> But since "the head of the woman is the man," and "the head of . . . man, is Christ" (
4068 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q67_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.11.3" target="asv">1 Cor. 11:3</a>), a woman should not baptize if a man be available for the purpose; just as neither should a layman in the presence of a
4069 cleric, nor a cleric in the presence of a priest. The last, however, can baptize in the presence of a bishop, because it is
4070 part of the priestly office.
4071 </p>
4072 <p id="TP_Q67_A4-p8">
4073 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Just as a woman is not suffered to teach in public, but is allowed to instruct and admonish privately; so she is not permitted
4074 to baptize publicly and solemnly, and yet she can baptize in a case of urgency.
4075 </p>
4076 <p id="TP_Q67_A4-p9">
4077 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> When Baptism is celebrated solemnly and with due form, it should be conferred by a priest having charge of souls, or by one
4078 representing him. But this is not required in cases of urgency, when a woman may baptize.
4079 </p>
4080 <p id="TP_Q67_A4-p10">
4081 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> In carnal generation male and female co-operate according to the power of their proper nature; wherefore the female cannot
4082 be the active, but only the passive, principle of generation. But in spiritual generation they do not act, either of them,
4083 by their proper power, but only instrumentally by the power of Christ. Consequently, on the same grounds either man or woman
4084 can baptize in a case of urgency.
4085 </p>
4086 <p id="TP_Q67_A4-p11"> If, however, a woman were to baptize without any urgency for so doing. there would be no need of rebaptism: as we have said
4087 in regard to laymen (A[3], ad 1). But the baptizer herself would sin, as also those who took part with her therein, either
4088 by receiving Baptism from her, or by bringing someone to her to be baptized.
4089 </p>
4090 <p id="TP_Q67_A4-p12"></p>
4091 <p id="TP_Q67_A4-p13"></p>
4092 <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A3.html"></a>
4093 <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A5.html"></a>
4094 </div>
4095 <div id="TP_Q67_A5" class="div4">
4096 <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A4.html"></a>
4097 <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A6.html"></a>
4098 <h4 id="TP_Q67_A5-p0.1">Whether one that is not baptized can confer the sacrament of Baptism?</h4>
4099 <p id="TP_Q67_A5-p1"></p>
4100 <p id="TP_Q67_A5-p2">
4101 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that one that is not baptized cannot confer the sacrament of Baptism. For "none gives what he has not." But a non-baptized
4102 person has not the sacrament of Baptism. Therefore he cannot give it.
4103 </p>
4104 <p id="TP_Q67_A5-p3">
4105 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a man confers the sacrament of Baptism inasmuch as he is a minister of the Church. But one that is not baptized,
4106 belongs nowise to the Church, i.e. neither really nor sacramentally. Therefore he cannot confer the sacrament of Baptism.
4107 </p>
4108 <p id="TP_Q67_A5-p4">
4109 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is more to confer a sacrament than to receive it. But one that is not baptized, cannot receive the other sacraments.
4110 Much less, therefore, can he confer any sacrament.
4111 </p>
4112 <p id="TP_Q67_A5-p5">
4113 <b>On the contrary,</b> Isidore says: "The Roman Pontiff does not consider it to be the man who baptizes, but that the Holy Ghost confers the grace
4114 of Baptism, though he that baptizes be a pagan." But he who is baptized, is not called a pagan. Therefore he who is not baptized
4115 can confer the sacrament of Baptism.
4116 </p>
4117 <p id="TP_Q67_A5-p6">
4118 <b>I answer that,</b> Augustine left this question without deciding it. For he says (Contra Ep. Parmen. ii): "This is indeed another question,
4119 whether even those can baptize who were never Christians; nor should anything be rashly asserted hereupon, without the authority
4120 of a sacred council such as suffices for so great a matter." But afterwards it was decided by the Church that the unbaptized,
4121 whether Jews or pagans, can confer the sacrament of Baptism, provided they baptize in
4122 the form of the Church. Wherefore Pope Nicolas I replies to the questions propounded by the Bulgars: "You say that many in
4123 your country have been baptized by someone, whether Christian or pagan you know not. If these were baptized in the name of
4124 the Trinity, they must not be rebaptized." But if the form of the Church be not observed, the sacrament of Baptism is not
4125 conferred. And thus is to be explained what Gregory II [*Gregory III] writes to Bishop Boniface: "Those whom you assert to
4126 have
4127 been baptized by pagans," namely, with a form not recognized by the Church, "we command you to rebaptize in the name of the
4128 Trinity." And the reason of this is that, just as on the part of the matter, as far as the essentials of the sacrament are
4129 concerned, any water will suffice, so, on the part of the minister, any man is competent. Consequently, an unbaptized person
4130 can baptize in a case of urgency. So that two unbaptized persons may baptize one another, one baptizing the other and being
4131 afterwards baptized by him: and each would receive not only the sacrament but also the reality of the sacrament. But if this
4132 were done outside a case of urgency, each would sin grievously, both the baptizer and the baptized, and thus the baptismal
4133 effect would be frustrated, although the sacrament itself would not be invalidated.
4134 </p>
4135 <p id="TP_Q67_A5-p7">
4136 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The man who baptizes offers but his outward ministration; whereas Christ it is Who baptizes inwardly, Who can use all men
4137 to whatever purpose He wills. Consequently, the unbaptized can baptize: because, as Pope Nicolas I says, "the Baptism is not
4138 theirs," i.e. the baptizers', "but His," i.e. Christ's.
4139 </p>
4140 <p id="TP_Q67_A5-p8">
4141 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> He who is not baptized, though he belongs not to the Church either in reality or sacramentally, can nevertheless belong to
4142 her in intention and by similarity of action, namely, in so far as he intends to do what the Church does, and in baptizing
4143 observes the Church's form, and thus acts as the minister of Christ, Who did not confine His power to those that are baptized,
4144 as neither did He to the sacraments.
4145 </p>
4146 <p id="TP_Q67_A5-p9">
4147 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The other sacraments are not so necessary as Baptism. And therefore it is allowable that an unbaptized person should baptize
4148 rather than that he should receive other sacraments.
4149 </p>
4150 <p id="TP_Q67_A5-p10"></p>
4151 <p id="TP_Q67_A5-p11"></p>
4152 <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A4.html"></a>
4153 <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A6.html"></a>
4154 </div>
4155 <div id="TP_Q67_A6" class="div4">
4156 <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A5.html"></a>
4157 <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A7.html"></a>
4158 <h4 id="TP_Q67_A6-p0.1">Whether several can baptize at the same time?</h4>
4159 <p id="TP_Q67_A6-p1"></p>
4160 <p id="TP_Q67_A6-p2">
4161 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that several can baptize at the same time. For unity is contained in multitude, but not "vice versa." Wherefore
4162 it seems that many can do whatever one can but not "vice versa": thus many draw a ship which one could draw. But one man can
4163 baptize. Therefore several, too, can baptize one at the same time.
4164 </p>
4165 <p id="TP_Q67_A6-p3">
4166 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is more difficult for one agent to act on many things, than for many to act at the same time on one. But one
4167 man can baptize several at the same time. Much more, therefore, can many baptize one at the same time.
4168 </p>
4169 <p id="TP_Q67_A6-p4">
4170 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Baptism is a sacrament of the greatest necessity. Now in certain cases it seems necessary for several to baptize
4171 one at the same time; for instance, suppose a child to be in danger of death, and two persons present, one of whom is dumb,
4172 and the other without hands or arms; for then the mutilated person would have to pronounce the words, and the dumb person
4173 would have to perform the act of baptizing. Therefore it seems that several can baptize one at
4174 the same time.
4175 </p>
4176 <p id="TP_Q67_A6-p5">
4177 <b>On the contrary,</b> Where there is one agent there is one action. If, therefore, several were to baptize one, it seems to follow that there would
4178 be several baptisms: and this is contrary to
4179 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q67_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.4.5" target="asv"> Eph. 4:5</a>: "one Faith, one Baptism."
4180 </p>
4181 <p id="TP_Q67_A6-p6">
4182 <b>I answer that,</b> The Sacrament of Baptism derives its power principally from its form, which the Apostle calls "the word of life" (
4183 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q67_A6-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.5.26" target="asv">Eph. 5:26</a>). Consequently, if several were to baptize one at the same time, we must consider what form they would use. For were they
4184 to say: "We baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," some maintain that the sacrament
4185 of Baptism would not be conferred, because the form of the Church would
4186 not be observed, i.e. "I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." But this reasoning
4187 is disproved by the form observed in the Greek Church. For they might say: "The servant of God, N . . ., is baptized in the
4188 name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," under which form the Greeks receive the sacrament of Baptism: and
4189 yet this form differs far more from the form that we use, than does this: "We baptize thee."
4190 </p>
4191 <p id="TP_Q67_A6-p7"> The point to be observed, however, is this, that by this form, "We baptize thee," the intention expressed is that several
4192 concur in conferring one Baptism: and this seems contrary to the notion of a minister; for a man does not baptize save as
4193 a minister of Christ, and as standing in His place; wherefore just as there is one Christ, so should there be one minister
4194 to represent Christ. Hence the Apostle says pointedly (
4195 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q67_A6-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.4.5" target="asv">Eph. 4:5</a>): "one Lord, one Faith, one
4196 Baptism." Consequently, an intention which is in opposition to this seems to annul the sacrament of Baptism.
4197 </p>
4198 <p id="TP_Q67_A6-p8"> On the other hand, if each were to say: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost,"
4199 each would signify his intention as though he were conferring Baptism independently of the other. This might occur in the
4200 case where both were striving to baptize someone; and then it is clear that whichever pronounced the words first would confer
4201 the sacrament of Baptism; while the other, however great his right to baptize, if he presume to utter the words,
4202 would be liable to be punished as a rebaptizer. If, however, they were to pronounce the words absolutely at the same time,
4203 and dipped or sprinkled the man together, they should be punished for baptizing in an improper manner, but not for rebaptizing:
4204 because each would intend to baptize an unbaptized person, and each, so far as he is concerned, would baptize. Nor would they
4205 confer several sacraments: but the one Christ baptizing inwardly would confer one sacrament by means of both together.
4206 </p>
4207 <p id="TP_Q67_A6-p9">
4208 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This argument avails in those agents that act by their own power. But men do not baptize by their own, but by Christ's power,
4209 Who, since He is one, perfects His work by means of one minister.
4210 </p>
4211 <p id="TP_Q67_A6-p10">
4212 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In a case of necessity one could baptize several at the same time under this form: "I baptize ye": for instance, if they
4213 were threatened by a falling house, or by the sword or something of the kind, so as not to allow of the delay involved by
4214 baptizing them singly. Nor would this cause a change in the Church's form, since the plural is nothing but the singular doubled:
4215 especially as we find the plural expressed in
4216 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q67_A6-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.28.19" target="asv"> Mat. 28:19</a>:
4217 "Baptizing them," etc. Nor is there parity between the baptizer and the baptized; since Christ, the baptizer in chief, is
4218 one: while many are made one in Christ by Baptism.
4219 </p>
4220 <p id="TP_Q67_A6-p11">
4221 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As stated above (
4222 <a id="TP_Q67_A6-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q66_A1.html">Q[66], A[1]</a>), the integrity of Baptism consists in the form of words and the use of the matter. Consequently, neither he who only pronounces
4223 the words, baptizes, nor he who dips. Where fore if one pronounces the words and the other dips, no form of words can be fitting.
4224 For neither could he say: "I baptize thee": since he dips not, and therefore baptizes not. Nor could they say: "We baptize
4225 thee": since
4226 neither baptizes. For if of two men, one write one part of a book, and the other write the other, it would not be a proper
4227 form of speech to say: "We wrote this book," but the figure of synecdoche in which the whole is put for the part.
4228 </p>
4229 <p id="TP_Q67_A6-p12"></p>
4230 <p id="TP_Q67_A6-p13"></p>
4231 <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A5.html"></a>
4232 <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A7.html"></a>
4233 </div>
4234 <div id="TP_Q67_A7" class="div4">
4235 <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A6.html"></a>
4236 <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A8.html"></a>
4237 <h4 id="TP_Q67_A7-p0.1">Whether in Baptism it is necessary for someone to raise the baptized from the sacred font?</h4>
4238 <p id="TP_Q67_A7-p1"></p>
4239 <p id="TP_Q67_A7-p2">
4240 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that in Baptism it is not necessary for someone to raise the baptized from the sacred font. For our Baptism is consecrated
4241 by Christ's Baptism and is conformed thereto. But Christ when baptized was not raised by anyone from the font, but according
4242 to
4243 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q67_A7-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.3.16" target="asv"> Mat. 3:16, </a> "Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water." Therefore it seems that neither when others are baptized should
4244 anyone raise the baptized from the sacred font.
4245 </p>
4246 <p id="TP_Q67_A7-p3">
4247 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Baptism is a spiritual regeneration, as stated above
4248 <a id="TP_Q67_A7-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q67_A3.html">(A[3])</a>. But in carnal generation nothing else is required but the active principle, i.e. the father, and the passive principle,
4249 i.e. the mother. Since, then, in Baptism he that baptizes takes the place of the father, while the very water of Baptism takes
4250 the place of the mother, as Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (cxxxv); it seems that there is no further need for
4251 someone to raise the baptized from the sacred font.
4252 </p>
4253 <p id="TP_Q67_A7-p4">
4254 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, nothing ridiculous should be observed in the sacraments of the Church. But it seems ridiculous that after being
4255 baptized, adults who can stand up of themselves and leave the sacred font, should be held up by another. Therefore there seems
4256 no need for anyone, especially in the Baptism of adults, to raise the baptized from the sacred font.
4257 </p>
4258 <p id="TP_Q67_A7-p5">
4259 <b>On the contrary,</b> Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. ii) that "the priests taking the baptized hand him over to his sponsor and guide."
4260 </p>
4261 <p id="TP_Q67_A7-p6">
4262 <b>I answer that,</b> The spiritual regeneration, which takes place in Baptism, is in a certain manner likened to carnal generation: wherefore
4263 it is written (
4264 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q67_A7-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iPet.2.2" target="asv">1 Pet. 2:2</a>): "As new-born babes, endowed with reason desire milk [Vulg.: 'desire reasonable milk'] without guile." Now, in carnal generation
4265 the new-born child needs nourishment and guidance: wherefore, in spiritual generation also, someone is needed to undertake
4266 the office of nurse and tutor by forming
4267 and instructing one who is yet a novice in the Faith, concerning things pertaining to Christian faith and mode of life, which
4268 the clergy have not the leisure to do through being busy with watching over the people generally: because little children
4269 and novices need more than ordinary care. Consequently someone is needed to receive the baptized from the sacred font as though
4270 for the purpose of instructing and guiding them. It is to this that Dionysius refers (Eccl. Hier. xi) saying: "It occurred
4271 to our heavenly guides," i.e. the Apostles, "and they decided, that infants should be taken charge of thus: that the parents
4272 of the child should hand it over to some instructor versed in holy things, who would thenceforth take charge of the child,
4273 and be to it a spiritual father and a guide in the road of salvation."
4274 </p>
4275 <p id="TP_Q67_A7-p7">
4276 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Christ was baptized not that He might be regenerated, but that He might regenerate others: wherefore after His Baptism He
4277 needed no tutor like other children.
4278 </p>
4279 <p id="TP_Q67_A7-p8">
4280 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In carnal generation nothing is essential besides a father and a mother: yet to ease the latter in her travail, there is
4281 need for a midwife; and for the child to be suitably brought up there is need for a nurse and a tutor: while their place is
4282 taken in Baptism by him who raises the child from the sacred font. Consequently this is not essential to the sacrament, and
4283 in a case of necessity one alone can baptize with water.
4284 </p>
4285 <p id="TP_Q67_A7-p9">
4286 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> It is not on account of bodily weakness that the baptized is raised from the sacred font by the godparent, but on account
4287 of spiritual weakness, as stated above.
4288 </p>
4289 <p id="TP_Q67_A7-p10"></p>
4290 <p id="TP_Q67_A7-p11"></p>
4291 <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A6.html"></a>
4292 <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A8.html"></a>
4293 </div>
4294 <div id="TP_Q67_A8" class="div4">
4295 <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A7.html"></a>
4296 <a href="summa.TP_Q68.html"></a>
4297 <h4 id="TP_Q67_A8-p0.1">Whether he who raises anyone from the sacred font is bound to instruct him?</h4>
4298 <p id="TP_Q67_A8-p1"></p>
4299 <p id="TP_Q67_A8-p2">
4300 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that he who raises anyone from the sacred font is not bound to instruct him. For none but those who are themselves
4301 instructed can give instruction. But even the uneducated and ill-instructed are allowed to raise people from the sacred font.
4302 Therefore he who raises a baptized person from the font is not bound to instruct him.
4303 </p>
4304 <p id="TP_Q67_A8-p3">
4305 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a son is instructed by his father better than by a stranger: for, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. viii), a son receives
4306 from his father, "being, food, and education." If, therefore, godparents are bound to instruct their godchildren, it would
4307 be fitting for the carnal father, rather than another, to be the godparent of his own child. And yet this seems to be forbidden,
4308 as may be seen in the Decretals (xxx, qu. 1, Cap. Pervenit and Dictum est).
4309 </p>
4310 <p id="TP_Q67_A8-p4">
4311 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is better for several to instruct than for one only. If, therefore, godparents are bound to instruct their godchildren,
4312 it would be better to have several godparents than only one. Yet this is forbidden in a decree of Pope Leo, who says: "A child
4313 should not have more than one godparent, be this a man or a woman."
4314 </p>
4315 <p id="TP_Q67_A8-p5">
4316 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says in a sermon for Easter (clxviii): "In the first place I admonish you, both men and women, who have raised
4317 children in Baptism, that ye stand before God as sureties for those whom you have been seen to raise from the sacred font."
4318 </p>
4319 <p id="TP_Q67_A8-p6">
4320 <b>I answer that,</b> Every man is bound to fulfil those duties which he has undertaken to perform. Now it has been stated above
4321 <a id="TP_Q67_A8-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q67_A7.html">(A[7])</a> that godparents take upon themselves the duties of a tutor. Consequently they are bound to watch over their godchildren when
4322 there is need for them to do so: for instance when and where children are brought up among unbelievers. But if they are brought
4323 up among Catholic Christians, the godparents may well be excused from
4324 this responsibility, since it may be presumed that the children will be carefully instructed by their parents. If, however,
4325 they perceive in any way that the contrary is the case, they would be bound, as far as they are able, to see to the spiritual
4326 welfare of their godchildren.
4327 </p>
4328 <p id="TP_Q67_A8-p7">
4329 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Where the danger is imminent, the godparent, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. vii), should be someone "versed in holy things."
4330 But where the danger is not imminent, by reason of the children being brought up among Catholics, anyone is admitted to this
4331 position, because the things pertaining to the Christian rule of life and faith are known openly by all. Nevertheless an unbaptized
4332 person cannot be a godparent, as was decreed in the Council of Mainz,
4333 although an unbaptized person: because the person baptizing is essential to the sacrament, wherefore as the godparent is not,
4334 as stated above (A[7], ad 2).
4335 </p>
4336 <p id="TP_Q67_A8-p8">
4337 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Just as spiritual generation is distinct from carnal generation, so is spiritual education distinct from that of the body;
4338 according to
4339 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q67_A8-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.12.9" target="asv"> Heb. 12:9</a>: "Moreover we have had fathers of our flesh for instructors, and we reverenced them: shall we not much more obey the Father
4340 of Spirits, and live?" Therefore the spiritual father should be distinct from the carnal father, unless necessity demanded
4341 otherwise.
4342 </p>
4343 <p id="TP_Q67_A8-p9">
4344 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Education would be full of confusion if there were more than one head instructor. Wherefore there should be one principal
4345 sponsor in Baptism: but others can be allowed as assistants.
4346 </p>
4347 <p id="TP_Q67_A8-p10"></p>
4348 <p id="TP_Q67_A8-p11"></p>
4349 <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A7.html"></a>
4350 <a href="summa.TP_Q68.html"></a>
4351 </div>
4352 <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A12.html"></a>
4353 <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A1.html"></a>
4354 </div>
4355 <div id="TP_Q68" class="div3">
4356 <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A8.html"></a>
4357 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A1.html"></a>
4358 <h3 id="TP_Q68-p0.1">OF THOSE WHO RECEIVE BAPTISM (TWELVE ARTICLES)</h3>
4359 <p id="TP_Q68-p1"></p>
4360 <p id="TP_Q68-p2"> We have now to consider those who receive Baptism; concerning which there are twelve points of inquiry:</p>
4361 <p id="TP_Q68-p3"> (1) Whether all are bound to receive Baptism?</p>
4362 <p id="TP_Q68-p4"> (2) Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?</p>
4363 <p id="TP_Q68-p5"> (3) Whether Baptism should be deferred?</p>
4364 <p id="TP_Q68-p6"> (4) Whether sinners should be baptized?</p>
4365 <p id="TP_Q68-p7"> (5) Whether works of satisfaction should be enjoined on sinners that have been baptized?</p>
4366 <p id="TP_Q68-p8"> (6) Whether Confession of sins is necessary?</p>
4367 <p id="TP_Q68-p9"> (7) Whether an intention is required on the part of the one baptized?</p>
4368 <p id="TP_Q68-p10"> (8) Whether faith is necessary?</p>
4369 <p id="TP_Q68-p11"> (9) Whether infants should be baptized?</p>
4370 <p id="TP_Q68-p12"> (10) Whether the children of Jews should be baptized against the will of their parents?</p>
4371 <p id="TP_Q68-p13"> (11) Whether anyone should be baptized in the mother's womb?</p>
4372 <p id="TP_Q68-p14"> (12) Whether madmen and imbeciles should be baptized?</p>
4373 <div id="TP_Q68_A1" class="div4">
4374 <a href="summa.TP_Q68.html"></a>
4375 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A2.html"></a>
4376 <h4 id="TP_Q68_A1-p0.1">Whether all are bound to receive Baptism?</h4>
4377 <p id="TP_Q68_A1-p1"></p>
4378 <p id="TP_Q68_A1-p2">
4379 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that not all are bound to receive Baptism. For Christ did not narrow man's road to salvation. But before Christ's
4380 coming men could be saved without Baptism: therefore also after Christ's coming.
4381 </p>
4382 <p id="TP_Q68_A1-p3">
4383 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Baptism seems to have been instituted principally as a remedy for original sin. Now, since a man who is baptized
4384 is without original sin, it seems that he cannot transmit it to his children. Therefore it seems that the children of those
4385 who have been baptized, should not themselves be baptized.
4386 </p>
4387 <p id="TP_Q68_A1-p4">
4388 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Baptism is given in order that a man may, through grace, be cleansed from sin. But those who are sanctified in the
4389 womb, obtain this without Baptism. Therefore they are not bound to receive Baptism.
4390 </p>
4391 <p id="TP_Q68_A1-p5">
4392 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
4393 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.3.5" target="asv">Jn. 3:5</a>): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Again it is stated in
4394 De Eccl. Dogm. xli, that "we believe the way of salvation to be open to those only who are baptized."
4395 </p>
4396 <p id="TP_Q68_A1-p6">
4397 <b>I answer that,</b> Men are bound to that without which they cannot obtain salvation. Now it is manifest that no one can obtain salvation but
4398 through Christ; wherefore the Apostle says (
4399 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.18" target="asv">Rom. 5:18</a>): "As by the offense of one unto all men unto condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all men unto justification
4400 of life." But for this end is Baptism conferred on a man, that being regenerated thereby, he may be incorporated in Christ,
4401 by becoming His
4402 member: wherefore it is written (
4403 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A1-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Gal.3.27" target="asv">Gal. 3:27</a>): "As many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ." Consequently it is manifest that all are bound to
4404 be baptized: and that without Baptism there is no salvation for men.
4405 </p>
4406 <p id="TP_Q68_A1-p7">
4407 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> At no time, not even before the coming of Christ, could men be saved unless they became members of Christ: because, as it
4408 is written (
4409 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.4.12" target="asv">Acts 4:12</a>), "there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved." But before Christ's coming, men were incorporated
4410 in Christ by faith in His future coming: of which faith circumcision was the "seal," as the Apostle calls it (
4411 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A1-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.4.11" target="asv">Rom. 4:11</a>): whereas before
4412 circumcision was instituted, men were incorporated in Christ by "faith alone," as Gregory says (Moral. iv), together with
4413 the offering of sacrifices, by means of which the Fathers of old made profession of their faith. Again, since Christ's coming,
4414 men are incorporated in Christ by faith; according to
4415 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A1-p7.3" href="./asv.html#Eph.3.17" target="asv"> Eph. 3:17</a>: "That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts." But faith in a thing already present is manifested by a sign different
4416 from that by which it was manifested when
4417 that thing was yet in the future: just as we use other parts of the verb, to signify the present, the past, and the future.
4418 Consequently although the sacrament itself of Baptism was not always necessary for salvation, yet faith, of which Baptism
4419 is the sacrament, was always necessary.
4420 </p>
4421 <p id="TP_Q68_A1-p8">
4422 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As we have stated in the
4423 <a id="TP_Q68_A1-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q81_A3.html">FS, Q[81], A[3]</a>, ad 2, those who are baptized are renewed in spirit by Baptism, while their body remains subject to the oldness of sin, according
4424 to
4425 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A1-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.10" target="asv"> Rom. 8:10</a>: "The body, indeed, is dead because of sin, but the spirit liveth because of justification." Wherefore Augustine (Contra
4426 Julian. vi) proves that "not everything that is in man is baptized." Now it is manifest that in carnal
4427 generation man does not beget in respect of his soul, but in respect of his body. Consequently the children of those who are
4428 baptized are born with original sin; wherefore they need to be baptized.
4429 </p>
4430 <p id="TP_Q68_A1-p9">
4431 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Those who are sanctified in the womb, receive indeed grace which cleanses them from original sin, but they do not therefore
4432 receive the character, by which they are conformed to Christ. Consequently, if any were to be sanctified in the womb now,
4433 they would need to be baptized, in order to be conformed to Christ's other members by receiving the character.
4434 </p>
4435 <p id="TP_Q68_A1-p10"></p>
4436 <p id="TP_Q68_A1-p11"></p>
4437 <a href="summa.TP_Q68.html"></a>
4438 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A2.html"></a>
4439 </div>
4440 <div id="TP_Q68_A2" class="div4">
4441 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A1.html"></a>
4442 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A3.html"></a>
4443 <h4 id="TP_Q68_A2-p0.1">Whether a man can be saved without Baptism? </h4>
4444 <p id="TP_Q68_A2-p1"></p>
4445 <p id="TP_Q68_A2-p2">
4446 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For our Lord said (
4447 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.3.5" target="asv">Jn. 3:5</a>): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." But those alone are saved
4448 who enter God's kingdom. Therefore none can be saved without Baptism, by which a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost.
4449 </p>
4450 <p id="TP_Q68_A2-p3">
4451 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in the book De Eccl. Dogm. xli, it is written: "We believe that no catechumen, though he die in his good works,
4452 will have eternal life, except he suffer martyrdom, which contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism." But if it were
4453 possible for anyone to be saved without Baptism, this would be the case specially with catechumens who are credited with good
4454 works, for they seem to have the "faith that worketh by charity" (
4455 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.5.6" target="asv">Gal.
4456 5:6
4457 </a>). Therefore it seems that none can be saved without Baptism.
4458 </p>
4459 <p id="TP_Q68_A2-p4">
4460 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as stated above
4461 <a id="TP_Q68_A2-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q68_A1.html">(A[1];</a> Q[65], A[4]), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary "without which something cannot
4462 be" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.
4463 </p>
4464 <p id="TP_Q68_A2-p5">
4465 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that "some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and
4466 to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without
4467 the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit." Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible
4468 sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism,
4469 by means of the invisible sanctification.
4470 </p>
4471 <p id="TP_Q68_A2-p6">
4472 <b>I answer that,</b> The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with
4473 those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to
4474 those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since
4475 neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can
4476 salvation be obtained.
4477 </p>
4478 <p id="TP_Q68_A2-p7"> Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes
4479 to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation
4480 without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh
4481 by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose
4482 says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace
4483 he prayed for."
4484 </p>
4485 <p id="TP_Q68_A2-p8">
4486 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As it is written (
4487 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A2-p8.1" href="./asv.html#iKgs.16.7" target="asv">1 Kings 16:7</a>), "man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart." Now a man who desires to be "born again of water
4488 and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (
4489 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A2-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.2.29" target="asv">Rom. 2:29</a>) that "the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God."
4490 </p>
4491 <p id="TP_Q68_A2-p9">
4492 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given
4493 when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom "contains all the sacramental
4494 virtue of Baptism," i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the
4495 desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which
4496 cannot be without "faith that worketh by charity"), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life,
4497 but would suffer punishment for his past sins, "but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" as is stated
4498 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A2-p9.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.3.15" target="asv">1 Cor. 3:15.</a>
4499 </p>
4500 <p id="TP_Q68_A2-p10">
4501 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism
4502 of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in
4503 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A2-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.57" target="asv">Ps. 57</a>).
4504 </p>
4505 <p id="TP_Q68_A2-p11"></p>
4506 <p id="TP_Q68_A2-p12"></p>
4507 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A1.html"></a>
4508 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A3.html"></a>
4509 </div>
4510 <div id="TP_Q68_A3" class="div4">
4511 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A2.html"></a>
4512 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A4.html"></a>
4513 <h4 id="TP_Q68_A3-p0.1">Whether Baptism should be deferred?</h4>
4514 <p id="TP_Q68_A3-p1"></p>
4515 <p id="TP_Q68_A3-p2">
4516 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that Baptism should be deferred. For Pope Leo says (Epist. xvi): "Two seasons," i.e. Easter and Whitsuntide, "are
4517 fixed by the Roman Pontiff for the celebration of Baptism. Wherefore we admonish your Beatitude not to add any other days
4518 to this custom." Therefore it seems that Baptism should be conferred not at once, but delayed until the aforesaid seasons.
4519 </p>
4520 <p id="TP_Q68_A3-p3">
4521 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, we read in the decrees of the Council of Agde (Can. xxxiv): "If Jews whose bad faith often "returns to the vomit,"
4522 wish to submit to the Law of the Catholic Church, let them for eight months enter the porch of the church with the catechumens;
4523 and if they are found to come in good faith then at last they may deserve the grace of Baptism." Therefore men should not
4524 be baptized at once, and Baptism should be deferred for a certain fixed time.
4525 </p>
4526 <p id="TP_Q68_A3-p4">
4527 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as we read in
4528 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.27.9" target="asv"> Is. 27:9, </a> "this is all the fruit, that the sin . . . should be taken away." Now sin seems to be taken away, or at any rate lessened,
4529 if Baptism be deferred. First, because those who sin after Baptism, sin more grievously, according to
4530 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A3-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.10.29" target="asv"> Heb. 10:29</a>: "How much more, do you think, he deserveth worse punishments, who hath . . . esteemed the blood of the testament," i.e.
4531 Baptism, "unclean, by which he
4532 was sanctified?" Secondly, because Baptism takes away past, but not future, sins: wherefore the more it is deferred, the more
4533 sins it takes away. Therefore it seems that Baptism should be deferred for a long time.
4534 </p>
4535 <p id="TP_Q68_A3-p5">
4536 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
4537 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Sir.5.8" target="asv">Ecclus. 5:8</a>): "Delay not to be converted to the Lord, and defer it not from day to day." But the perfect conversion to God is of those
4538 who are regenerated in Christ by Baptism. Therefore Baptism should not be deferred from day to day.
4539 </p>
4540 <p id="TP_Q68_A3-p6">
4541 <b>I answer that,</b> In this matter we must make a distinction and see whether those who are to be baptized are children or adults. For if they
4542 be children, Baptism should not be deferred. First, because in them we do not look for better instruction or fuller conversion.
4543 Secondly, because of the danger of death, for no other remedy is available for them besides the sacrament of Baptism.
4544 </p>
4545 <p id="TP_Q68_A3-p7"> On the other hand, adults have a remedy in the mere desire for Baptism, as stated above
4546 <a id="TP_Q68_A3-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q68_A2.html">(A[2])</a>. And therefore Baptism should not be conferred on adults as soon as they are converted, but it should be deferred until some
4547 fixed time. First, as a safeguard to the Church, lest she be deceived through baptizing those who come to her under false
4548 pretenses, according to
4549 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A3-p7.2" href="./asv.html#iJohn.4.1" target="asv">1 Jn. 4:1</a>: "Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, if they be
4550 of God." And those who approach Baptism are put to this test, when their faith and morals are subjected to proof for a space
4551 of time. Secondly, this is needful as being useful for those who are baptized; for they require a certain space of time in
4552 order to be fully instructed in the faith, and to be drilled in those things that pertain to the Christian mode of life. Thirdly,
4553 a certain reverence for the sacrament demands a delay whereby men are admitted to Baptism at the principal festivities,
4554 viz. of Easter and Pentecost, the result being that they receive the sacrament with greater devotion.
4555 </p>
4556 <p id="TP_Q68_A3-p8"> There are, however, two reasons for forgoing this delay. First, when those who are to be baptized appear to be perfectly
4557 instructed in the faith and ready for Baptism; thus, Philip baptized the Eunuch at once (
4558 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A3-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.8" target="asv">Acts 8</a>); and Peter, Cornelius and those who were with him (
4559 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A3-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Acts.10" target="asv">Acts 10</a>). Secondly, by reason of sickness or some kind of danger of death. Wherefore Pope Leo says (Epist. xvi): "Those who are threatened
4560 by death, sickness, siege, persecution, or shipwreck, should be baptized at
4561 any time." Yet if a man is forestalled by death, so as to have no time to receive the sacrament, while he awaits the season
4562 appointed by the Church, he is saved, yet "so as by fire," as stated above (A[2], ad 2). Nevertheless he sins if he defer
4563 being baptized beyond the time appointed by the Church, except this be for an unavoidable cause and with the permission of
4564 the authorities of the Church. But even this sin, with his other sins, can be washed away by his subsequent contrition, which
4565 takes the place of Baptism, as stated above (
4566 <a id="TP_Q68_A3-p8.3" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q66_A11.html">Q[66], A[11]</a>).
4567 </p>
4568 <p id="TP_Q68_A3-p9">
4569 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This decree of Pope Leo, concerning the celebration of Baptism at two seasons, is to be understood "with the exception of
4570 the danger of death" (which is always to be feared in children) as stated above.
4571 </p>
4572 <p id="TP_Q68_A3-p10">
4573 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This decree concerning the Jews was for a safeguard to the Church, lest they corrupt the faith of simple people, if they
4574 be not fully converted. Nevertheless, as the same passage reads further on, "if within the appointed time they are threatened
4575 with danger of sickness, they should be baptized."
4576 </p>
4577 <p id="TP_Q68_A3-p11">
4578 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Baptism, by the grace which it bestows, removes not only past sins, but hinders the commission of future sins. Now this is
4579 the point to be considered---that men may not sin: it is a secondary consideration that their sins be less grievous, or that
4580 their sins be washed away, according to
4581 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A3-p11.1" href="./asv.html#iJohn.2.1" target="asv">1 Jn. 2:1,2</a>: "My little children, these things I write to you, that you may not sin. But if any man sin, we have an advocate with the
4582 Father,
4583 Jesus Christ the just; and He is the propitiation for our sins."
4584 </p>
4585 <p id="TP_Q68_A3-p12"></p>
4586 <p id="TP_Q68_A3-p13"></p>
4587 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A2.html"></a>
4588 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A4.html"></a>
4589 </div>
4590 <div id="TP_Q68_A4" class="div4">
4591 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A3.html"></a>
4592 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A5.html"></a>
4593 <h4 id="TP_Q68_A4-p0.1">Whether sinners should be baptized?</h4>
4594 <p id="TP_Q68_A4-p1"></p>
4595 <p id="TP_Q68_A4-p2">
4596 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that sinners should be baptized. For it is written (
4597 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Zech.13.1" target="asv">Zech. 13:1</a>): "In that day there shall be a fountain open to the House of David, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem: for the washing
4598 of the sinner and of the unclean woman": and this is to be understood of the fountain of Baptism. Therefore it seems that
4599 the sacrament of Baptism should be offered even to sinners.
4600 </p>
4601 <p id="TP_Q68_A4-p3">
4602 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, our Lord said (
4603 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.9.12" target="asv">Mat. 9:12</a>): "They that are in health need not a physician, but they that are ill." But they that are ill are sinners. Therefore since
4604 Baptism is the remedy of Christ the physician of our souls, it seems that this sacrament should be offered to sinners.
4605 </p>
4606 <p id="TP_Q68_A4-p4">
4607 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, no assistance should be withdrawn from sinners. But sinners who have been baptized derive spiritual assistance from
4608 the very character of Baptism, since it is a disposition to grace. Therefore it seems that the sacrament of Baptism should
4609 be offered to sinners.
4610 </p>
4611 <p id="TP_Q68_A4-p5">
4612 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (Serm. clxix): "He Who created thee without thee, will not justify thee without thee." But since a sinner's
4613 will is ill-disposed, he does not co-operate with God. Therefore it is useless to employ Baptism as a means of justification.
4614 </p>
4615 <p id="TP_Q68_A4-p6">
4616 <b>I answer that,</b> A man may be said to be a sinner in two ways. First, on account of the stain and the debt of punishment incurred in the past:
4617 and on sinners in this sense the sacrament of Baptism should be conferred, since it is instituted specially for this purpose,
4618 that by it the uncleanness of sin may be washed away, according to
4619 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.5.26" target="asv"> Eph. 5:26</a>: "Cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life."
4620 </p>
4621 <p id="TP_Q68_A4-p7"> Secondly, a man may be called a sinner because he wills to sin and purposes to remain in sin: and on sinners in this sense
4622 the sacrament of Baptism should not be conferred. First, indeed, because by Baptism men are incorporated in Christ, according
4623 to
4624 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.3.27" target="asv"> Gal. 3:27</a>: "As many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ." Now so long as a man wills to sin, he cannot be united
4625 to Christ, according to
4626 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A4-p7.2" href="./asv.html#iiCor.6.14" target="asv">2 Cor. 6:14</a>: "What
4627 participation hath justice with injustice?" Wherefore Augustine says in his book on Penance (Serm. cccli) that "no man who
4628 has the use of free-will can begin the new life, except he repent of his former life." Secondly, because there should be nothing
4629 useless in the works of Christ and of the Church. Now that is useless which does not reach the end to which it is ordained;
4630 and, on the other hand, no one having the will to sin can, at the same time, be cleansed from sin, which is the purpose of
4631 Baptism; for this would be to combine two contradictory things. Thirdly, because there should be no falsehood in the sacramental
4632 signs. Now a sign is false if it does not correspond with the thing signified. But the very fact that a man presents himself
4633 to be cleansed by Baptism, signifies that he prepares himself for the inward cleansing: while this cannot be the case with
4634 one who purposes to remain in sin. Therefore it is manifest that on such a man the sacrament of Baptism is not to be
4635 conferred.
4636 </p>
4637 <p id="TP_Q68_A4-p8">
4638 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The words quoted are to be understood of those sinners whose will is set on renouncing sin.
4639 </p>
4640 <p id="TP_Q68_A4-p9">
4641 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The physician of souls, i.e. Christ, works in two ways. First, inwardly, by Himself: and thus He prepares man's will so that
4642 it wills good and hates evil. Secondly, He works through ministers, by the outward application of the sacraments: and in this
4643 way His work consists in perfecting what was begun outwardly. Therefore the sacrament of Baptism is not to be conferred save
4644 on those in whom there appears some sign of their interior conversion: just as
4645 neither is bodily medicine given to a sick man, unless he show some sign of life.
4646 </p>
4647 <p id="TP_Q68_A4-p10">
4648 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Baptism is the sacrament of faith. Now dead faith does not suffice for salvation; nor is it the foundation, but living faith
4649 alone, "that worketh by charity" (
4650 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A4-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.5.6" target="asv">Gal. 5:6</a>), as Augustine says (De Fide et oper.). Neither, therefore, can the sacrament of Baptism give salvation to a man whose will
4651 is set on sinning, and hence expels the form of faith. Moreover, the impression of the baptismal character cannot dispose
4652 a man for grace as
4653 long as he retains the will to sin; for "God compels no man to be virtuous," as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii).
4654 </p>
4655 <p id="TP_Q68_A4-p11"></p>
4656 <p id="TP_Q68_A4-p12"></p>
4657 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A3.html"></a>
4658 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A5.html"></a>
4659 </div>
4660 <div id="TP_Q68_A5" class="div4">
4661 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A4.html"></a>
4662 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A6.html"></a>
4663 <h4 id="TP_Q68_A5-p0.1">Whether works of satisfaction should be enjoined on sinners that have been baptized?</h4>
4664 <p id="TP_Q68_A5-p1"></p>
4665 <p id="TP_Q68_A5-p2">
4666 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that works of satisfaction should be enjoined on sinners that have been baptized. For God's justice seems to demand
4667 that a man should be punished for every sin of his, according to
4668 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A5-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Eccl.12.14" target="asv"> Eccles. 12:14</a>: "All things that are done, God will bring into judgment." But works of satisfaction are enjoined on sinners in punishment
4669 of past sins. Therefore it seems that works of satisfaction should be enjoined on sinners that have been baptized.
4670 </p>
4671 <p id="TP_Q68_A5-p3">
4672 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, by means of works of satisfaction sinners recently converted are drilled into righteousness, and are made to avoid
4673 the occasions of sin: "for satisfaction consists in extirpating the causes of vice, and closing the doors to sin" (De Eccl.
4674 Dogm. iv). But this is most necessary in the case of those who have been baptized recently. Therefore it seems that works
4675 of satisfaction should be enjoined on sinners.
4676 </p>
4677 <p id="TP_Q68_A5-p4">
4678 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, man owes satisfaction to God not less than to his neighbor. But if those who were recently baptized have injured
4679 their neighbor, they should be told to make reparation to God by works of penance.
4680 </p>
4681 <p id="TP_Q68_A5-p5">
4682 <b>On the contrary,</b> Ambrose commenting on
4683 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.11.29" target="asv"> Rom. 11:29</a>: "The gifts and the calling of God are without repentance," says: "The grace of God requires neither sighs nor groans in
4684 Baptism, nor indeed any work at all, but faith alone; and remits all, gratis."
4685 </p>
4686 <p id="TP_Q68_A5-p6">
4687 <b>I answer that,</b> As the Apostle says (
4688 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A5-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.3" target="asv">Rom. 6:3,4</a>), "all we who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death: for we are buried together with Him, by Baptism unto
4689 death"; which is to say that by Baptism man is incorporated in the very death of Christ. Now it is manifest from what has
4690 been said above (
4691 <a id="TP_Q68_A5-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q48_A2.html">Q[48], AA[2]</a>,4;
4692 <a id="TP_Q68_A5-p6.3" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q49_A3.html"> Q[49], A[3]</a>) that Christ's death satisfied sufficiently for sins, "not for ours
4693 only, but also for those of the whole world," according to
4694 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A5-p6.4" href="./asv.html#iJohn.2.2" target="asv">1 Jn. 2:2.</a> Consequently no kind of satisfaction should be enjoined on one who is being baptized, for any sins whatever: and this would
4695 be to dishonor the Passion and death of Christ, as being insufficient for the plenary satisfaction for the sins of those who
4696 were to be baptized.
4697 </p>
4698 <p id="TP_Q68_A5-p7">
4699 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As Augustine says in his book on Infant Baptism (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i), "the effect of Baptism is to make those,
4700 who are baptized, to be incorporated in Christ as His members." Wherefore the very pains of Christ were satisfactory for the
4701 sins of those who were to be baptized; just as the pain of one member can be satisfactory for the sin of another member. Hence
4702 it is written (
4703 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A5-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.53.4" target="asv">Is. 53:4</a>): "Surely He hath borne our
4704 infirmities and carried our sorrows."
4705 </p>
4706 <p id="TP_Q68_A5-p8">
4707 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Those who have been lately baptized should be drilled into righteousness, not by penal, but by "easy works, so as to advance
4708 to perfection by taking exercise, as infants by taking milk," as a gloss says on
4709 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A5-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.130.2" target="asv"> Ps. 130:2</a>: "As a child that is weaned is towards his mother." For this reason did our Lord excuse His disciples from fasting when they
4710 were recently converted, as we read in
4711 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A5-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.9.14" target="asv"> Mat. 9:14,15</a>: and the same is
4712 written
4713 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A5-p8.3" href="./asv.html#iPet.2.2" target="asv">1 Pet. 2:2</a>: "As new-born babes desire . . . milk . . . that thereby you may grow unto salvation."
4714 </p>
4715 <p id="TP_Q68_A5-p9">
4716 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> To restore what has been ill taken from one's neighbor, and to make satisfaction for wrong done to him, is to cease from
4717 sin: for the very fact of retaining what belongs to another and of not being reconciled to one's neighbor, is a sin. Wherefore
4718 those who are baptized should be enjoined to make satisfaction to their neighbor, as also to desist from sin. But they are
4719 not to be enjoined to suffer any punishment for past sins.
4720 </p>
4721 <p id="TP_Q68_A5-p10"></p>
4722 <p id="TP_Q68_A5-p11"></p>
4723 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A4.html"></a>
4724 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A6.html"></a>
4725 </div>
4726 <div id="TP_Q68_A6" class="div4">
4727 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A5.html"></a>
4728 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A7.html"></a>
4729 <h4 id="TP_Q68_A6-p0.1">Whether sinners who are going to be baptized are bound to confess their sins?</h4>
4730 <p id="TP_Q68_A6-p1"></p>
4731 <p id="TP_Q68_A6-p2">
4732 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that sinners who are going to be baptized are bound to confess their sins. For it is written (
4733 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A6-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.3.6" target="asv">Mat. 3:6</a>) that many "were baptized" by John "in the Jordan confessing their sins." But Christ's Baptism is more perfect than John's.
4734 Therefore it seems that there is yet greater reason why they who are about to receive Christ's Baptism should confess their
4735 sins.
4736 </p>
4737 <p id="TP_Q68_A6-p3">
4738 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is written (
4739 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A6-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.28.13" target="asv">Prov. 28:13</a>): "He that hideth his sins, shall not prosper; but he that shall confess and forsake them, shall obtain mercy." Now for this
4740 is a man baptized, that he may obtain mercy for his sins. Therefore those who are going to be baptized should confess their
4741 sins.
4742 </p>
4743 <p id="TP_Q68_A6-p4">
4744 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Penance is required before Baptism, according to
4745 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A6-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.2.38" target="asv">Acts 2:38</a>: "Do penance and be baptized every one of you." But confession is a part of Penance. Therefore it seems that confession of
4746 sins should take place before Baptism.
4747 </p>
4748 <p id="TP_Q68_A6-p5">
4749 <b>On the contrary,</b> Confession of sins should be sorrowful: thus Augustine says (De Vera et Falsa Poenit. xiv): "All these circumstances should
4750 be taken into account and deplored." Now, as Ambrose says on
4751 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.11.29" target="asv"> Rom. 11:29, </a> "the grace of God requires neither sighs nor groans in Baptism." Therefore confession of sins should not be required of those
4752 who are going to be baptized.
4753 </p>
4754 <p id="TP_Q68_A6-p6">
4755 <b>I answer that,</b> Confession of sins is twofold. One is made inwardly to God: and such confession of sins is required before Baptism: in other
4756 words, man should call his sins to mind and sorrow for them; since "he cannot begin the new life, except he repent of his
4757 former life," as Augustine says in his book on Penance (Serm. cccli). The other is the outward confession of sins, which is
4758 made to a priest; and such confession is not required before Baptism. First, because this
4759 confession, since it is directed to the person of the minister, belongs to the sacrament of Penance, which is not required
4760 before Baptism, which is the door of all the sacraments. Secondly, because the reason why a man makes outward confession to
4761 a priest, is that the priest may absolve him from his sins, and bind him to works of satisfaction, which should not be enjoined
4762 on the baptized, as stated above
4763 <a id="TP_Q68_A6-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q68_A5.html">(A[5])</a>. Moreover those who are being baptized do not need to be
4764 released from their sins by the keys of the Church, since all are forgiven them in Baptism. Thirdly, because the very act
4765 of confession made to a man is penal, by reason of the shame it inflicts on the one confessing: whereas no exterior punishment
4766 is enjoined on a man who is being baptized.
4767 </p>
4768 <p id="TP_Q68_A6-p7"> Therefore no special confession of sins is required of those who are being baptized; but that general confession suffices
4769 which they make when in accordance with the Church's ritual they "renounce Satan and all his works." And in this sense a gloss
4770 explains
4771 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A6-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.3.6" target="asv"> Mat. 3:6, </a> saying that in John's Baptism "those who are going to be baptized learn that they should confess their sins and promise to
4772 amend their life."
4773 </p>
4774 <p id="TP_Q68_A6-p8"> If, however, any persons about to be baptized, wish, out of devotion, to confess their sins, their confession should be heard;
4775 not for the purpose of enjoining them to do satisfaction, but in order to instruct them in the spiritual life as a remedy
4776 against their vicious habits.
4777 </p>
4778 <p id="TP_Q68_A6-p9">
4779 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Sins were not forgiven in John's Baptism, which, however, was the Baptism of Penance. Consequently it was fitting that those
4780 who went to receive that Baptism, should confess their sins, so that they should receive a penance in proportion to their
4781 sins. But Christ's Baptism is without outward penance, as Ambrose says (on
4782 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A6-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.11.29" target="asv"> Rom. 11:29</a>); and therefore there is no comparison.
4783 </p>
4784 <p id="TP_Q68_A6-p10">
4785 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> It is enough that the baptized make inward confession to God, and also an outward general confession, for them to "prosper
4786 and obtain mercy": and they need no special outward confession, as stated above.
4787 </p>
4788 <p id="TP_Q68_A6-p11">
4789 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Confession is a part of sacramental Penance, which is not required before Baptism, as stated above: but the inward virtue
4790 of Penance is required.
4791 </p>
4792 <p id="TP_Q68_A6-p12"></p>
4793 <p id="TP_Q68_A6-p13"></p>
4794 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A5.html"></a>
4795 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A7.html"></a>
4796 </div>
4797 <div id="TP_Q68_A7" class="div4">
4798 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A6.html"></a>
4799 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A8.html"></a>
4800 <h4 id="TP_Q68_A7-p0.1">Whether the intention of receiving the sacrament of Baptism is required on the part of the one baptized?</h4>
4801 <p id="TP_Q68_A7-p1"></p>
4802 <p id="TP_Q68_A7-p2">
4803 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the intention of receiving the sacrament of Baptism is not required on the part of the one baptized. For the
4804 one baptized is, as it were, "patient" in the sacrament. But an intention is required not on the part of the patient but on
4805 the part of the agent. Therefore it seems that the intention of receiving Baptism is not required on the part of the one baptized.
4806 </p>
4807 <p id="TP_Q68_A7-p3">
4808 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, if what is necessary for Baptism be omitted, the Baptism must be repeated; for instance, if the invocation of the
4809 Trinity be omitted, as stated above (
4810 <a id="TP_Q68_A7-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q66_A9.html">Q[66], A[9]</a>, ad 3). But it does not seem that a man should be rebaptized through not having had the intention of receiving Baptism: else,
4811 since his intention cannot be proved, anyone might ask to be baptized again on account of his lack of intention. Therefore
4812 it seems that no
4813 intention is required on the part of the one baptized, in order that he receive the sacrament.
4814 </p>
4815 <p id="TP_Q68_A7-p4">
4816 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Baptism is given as a remedy for original sin. But original sin is contracted without the intention of the person
4817 born. Therefore, seemingly, Baptism requires no intention on the part of the person baptized.
4818 </p>
4819 <p id="TP_Q68_A7-p5">
4820 <b>On the contrary,</b> According to the Church's ritual, those who are to be baptized ask of the Church that they may receive Baptism: and thus
4821 they express their intention of receiving the sacrament.
4822 </p>
4823 <p id="TP_Q68_A7-p6">
4824 <b>I answer that,</b> By Baptism a man dies to the old life of sin, and begins a certain newness of life, according to
4825 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A7-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.4" target="asv"> Rom. 6:4</a>: "We are buried together with" Christ "by Baptism into death; that, as Christ is risen from the dead . . . so we also may
4826 walk in newness of life." Consequently, just as, according to Augustine (Serm. cccli), he who has the use of free-will, must,
4827 in order to die to the old life, "will to repent of his former life"; so must he, of his
4828 own will, intend to lead a new life, the beginning of which is precisely the receiving of the sacrament. Therefore on the
4829 part of the one baptized, it is necessary for him to have the will or intention of receiving the sacrament.
4830 </p>
4831 <p id="TP_Q68_A7-p7">
4832 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> When a man is justified by Baptism, his passiveness is not violent but voluntary: wherefore it is necessary for him to intend
4833 to receive that which is given him.
4834 </p>
4835 <p id="TP_Q68_A7-p8">
4836 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> If an adult lack the intention of receiving the sacrament, he must be rebaptized. But if there be doubt about this, the form
4837 to be used should be: "If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee."
4838 </p>
4839 <p id="TP_Q68_A7-p9">
4840 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Baptism is a remedy not only against original, but also against actual sins, which are caused by our will and intention.
4841 </p>
4842 <p id="TP_Q68_A7-p10"></p>
4843 <p id="TP_Q68_A7-p11"></p>
4844 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A6.html"></a>
4845 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A8.html"></a>
4846 </div>
4847 <div id="TP_Q68_A8" class="div4">
4848 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A7.html"></a>
4849 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A9.html"></a>
4850 <h4 id="TP_Q68_A8-p0.1">Whether faith is required on the part of the one baptized?</h4>
4851 <p id="TP_Q68_A8-p1"></p>
4852 <p id="TP_Q68_A8-p2">
4853 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that faith is required on the part of the one baptized. For the sacrament of Baptism was instituted by Christ. But
4854 Christ, in giving the form of Baptism, makes faith to precede Baptism (
4855 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A8-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.16.16" target="asv">Mk. 16:16</a>): "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved." Therefore it seems that without faith there can be no sacrament of
4856 Baptism.
4857 </p>
4858 <p id="TP_Q68_A8-p3">
4859 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, nothing useless is done in the sacraments of the Church. But according to the Church's ritual, the man who comes
4860 to be baptized is asked concerning his faith: "Dost thou believe in God the Father Almighty?" Therefore it seems that faith
4861 is required for Baptism.
4862 </p>
4863 <p id="TP_Q68_A8-p4">
4864 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the intention of receiving the sacrament is required for Baptism. But this cannot be without right faith, since
4865 Baptism is the sacrament of right faith: for thereby men "are incorporated in Christ," as Augustine says in his book on Infant
4866 Baptism (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i); and this cannot be without right faith, according to
4867 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A8-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.3.17" target="asv">Eph. 3:17</a>: "That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts." Therefore it seems that a man who has not right faith cannot
4868 receive the sacrament of Baptism.
4869 </p>
4870 <p id="TP_Q68_A8-p5">
4871 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, unbelief is a most grievous sin, as we have shown in the
4872 <a id="TP_Q68_A8-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q10_A3.html">SS, Q[10], A[3]</a>. But those who remain in sin should not be baptized: therefore neither should those who remain in unbelief.
4873 </p>
4874 <p id="TP_Q68_A8-p6">
4875 <b>On the contrary,</b> Gregory writing to the bishop Quiricus says: "We have learned from the ancient tradition of the Fathers that when heretics,
4876 baptized in the name of the Trinity, come back to Holy Church, they are to be welcomed to her bosom, either with the anointing
4877 of chrism, or the imposition of hands, or the mere profession of faith." But such would not be the case if faith were necessary
4878 for a man to receive Baptism.
4879 </p>
4880 <p id="TP_Q68_A8-p7">
4881 <b>I answer that,</b> As appears from what has been said above (
4882 <a id="TP_Q68_A8-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q63_A6.html">Q[63], A[6]</a>;
4883 <a id="TP_Q68_A8-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q66_A9.html"> Q[66], A[9]</a>) Baptism produces a twofold effect in the soul, viz. the character and grace. Therefore in two ways may a thing be necessary
4884 for Baptism. First, as something without which grace, which is the ultimate effect of the sacrament, cannot be had. And thus
4885 right faith is necessary for Baptism, because, as it appears from
4886 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A8-p7.3" href="./asv.html#Rom.3.22" target="asv"> Rom. 3:22,
4887
4888 </a>the justice of God is by faith of Jesus Christ.
4889 </p>
4890 <p id="TP_Q68_A8-p8"> Secondly, something is required of necessity for Baptism, because without it the baptismal character cannot be imprinted
4891 And thus right faith is not necessary in the one baptized any more than in the one who baptizes: provided the other conditions
4892 are fulfilled which are essential to the sacrament. For the sacrament is not perfected by the righteousness of the minister
4893 or of the recipient of Baptism, but by the power of God.
4894 </p>
4895 <p id="TP_Q68_A8-p9">
4896 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Our Lord is speaking there of Baptism as bringing us to salvation by giving us sanctifying grace: which of course cannot
4897 be without right faith: wherefore He says pointedly: "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved."
4898 </p>
4899 <p id="TP_Q68_A8-p10">
4900 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The Church's intention in Baptizing men is that they may be cleansed from sin, according to
4901 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A8-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.27.9" target="asv"> Is. 27:9</a>: "This is all the fruit, that the sin . . . should be taken away." And therefore, as far as she is concerned, she does not
4902 intend to give Baptism save to those who have right faith, without which there is no remission of sins. And for this reason
4903 she asks those who come to be baptized whether they believe. If, on the contrary,
4904 anyone, without right faith, receive Baptism outside the Church, he does not receive it unto salvation. Hence Augustine says
4905 (De Baptism. contr. Donat. iv): "From the Church being compared to Paradise we learn that men can receive her Baptism even
4906 outside her fold, but that elsewhere none can receive or keep the salvation of the blessed."
4907 </p>
4908 <p id="TP_Q68_A8-p11">
4909 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Even he who has not right faith on other points, can have right faith about the sacrament of Baptism: and so he is not hindered
4910 from having the intention of receiving that sacrament. Yet even if he think not aright concerning this sacrament, it is enough,
4911 for the receiving of the sacrament, that he should have a general intention of receiving Baptism, according as Christ instituted,
4912 and as the Church bestows it.
4913 </p>
4914 <p id="TP_Q68_A8-p12">
4915 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Just as the sacrament of Baptism is not to be conferred on a man who is unwilling to give up his other sins, so neither should
4916 it be given to one who is unwilling to renounce his unbelief. Yet each receives the sacrament if it be conferred on him, though
4917 not unto salvation.
4918 </p>
4919 <p id="TP_Q68_A8-p13"></p>
4920 <p id="TP_Q68_A8-p14"></p>
4921 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A7.html"></a>
4922 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A9.html"></a>
4923 </div>
4924 <div id="TP_Q68_A9" class="div4">
4925 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A8.html"></a>
4926 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A10.html"></a>
4927 <h4 id="TP_Q68_A9-p0.1">Whether children should be baptized?</h4>
4928 <p id="TP_Q68_A9-p1"></p>
4929 <p id="TP_Q68_A9-p2">
4930 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that children should not be baptized. For the intention to receive the sacrament is required in one who is being
4931 baptized, as stated above
4932 <a id="TP_Q68_A9-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q68_A7.html">(A[7])</a>. But children cannot have such an intention, since they have not the use of free-will. Therefore it seems that they cannot
4933 receive the sacrament of Baptism.
4934 </p>
4935 <p id="TP_Q68_A9-p3">
4936 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Baptism is the sacrament of faith, as stated above (
4937 <a id="TP_Q68_A9-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q39_A5.html">Q[39], A[5]</a>;
4938 <a id="TP_Q68_A9-p3.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q66_A1.html"> Q[66], A[1]</a>, ad 1). But children have not faith, which demands an act of the will on the part of the believer, as Augustine says (Super
4939 Joan. xxvi). Nor can it be said that their salvation is implied in the faith of their parents; since the latter are sometimes
4940 unbelievers, and their unbelief would conduce rather to the damnation of their
4941 children. Therefore it seems that children cannot be baptized.
4942 </p>
4943 <p id="TP_Q68_A9-p4">
4944 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is written (
4945 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A9-p4.1" href="./asv.html#iPet.3.21" target="asv">1 Pet. 3:21</a>) that "Baptism saveth" men; "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience towards
4946 God." But children have no conscience, either good or bad, since they have not the use of reason: nor can they be fittingly
4947 examined, since they understand not. Therefore children should not be baptized.
4948 </p>
4949 <p id="TP_Q68_A9-p5">
4950 <b>On the contrary,</b> Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii): "Our heavenly guides," i.e. the Apostles, "approved of infants being admitted to Baptism."
4951 </p>
4952 <p id="TP_Q68_A9-p6">
4953 <b>I answer that,</b> As the Apostle says (
4954 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A9-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.17" target="asv">Rom. 5:17</a>), "if by one man's offense death reigned through one," namely Adam, "much more they who receive abundance of grace, and of
4955 the gift, and of justice, shall reign in life through one, Jesus Christ." Now children contract original sin from the sin
4956 of Adam; which is made clear by the fact that they are under the ban of death, which "passed upon all" on account of the sin
4957 of the first man, as the Apostle says in
4958 the same passage (
4959 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A9-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.12" target="asv">Rom. 5:12</a>). Much more, therefore, can children receive grace through Christ, so as to reign in eternal life. But our Lord Himself said
4960 (
4961 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A9-p6.3" href="./asv.html#John.3.5" target="asv">Jn. 3:5</a>): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Consequently it became
4962 necessary to baptize children, that, as in birth they incurred damnation through Adam so in a second birth they might obtain
4963 salvation through Christ. Moreover it was
4964 fitting that children should receive Baptism, in order that being reared from childhood in things pertaining to the Christian
4965 mode of life, they may the more easily persevere therein; according to
4966 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A9-p6.4" href="./asv.html#Prov.22.5" target="asv"> Prov. 22:5</a>: "A young man according to his way, even when he is old, he will not depart from it." This reason is also given by Dionysius
4967 (Eccl. Hier. iii).
4968 </p>
4969 <p id="TP_Q68_A9-p7">
4970 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The spiritual regeneration effected by Baptism is somewhat like carnal birth, in this respect, that as the child while in
4971 the mother's womb receives nourishment not independently, but through the nourishment of its mother, so also children before
4972 the use of reason, being as it were in the womb of their mother the Church, receive salvation not by their own act, but by
4973 the act of the Church. Hence Augustine says (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i): "The
4974 Church, our mother, offers her maternal mouth for her children, that they may imbibe the sacred mysteries: for they cannot
4975 as yet with their own hearts believe unto justice, nor with their own mouths confess unto salvation . . . And if they are
4976 rightly said to believe, because in a certain fashion they make profession of faith by the words of their sponsors, why should
4977 they not also be said to repent, since by the words of those same sponsors they evidence their renunciation of the devil and
4978 this world?" For the same reason they can be said to intend, not by their own act of intention, since at times they struggle
4979 and cry; but by the act of those who bring them to be baptized.
4980 </p>
4981 <p id="TP_Q68_A9-p8">
4982 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Augustine says, writing to Boniface (Cont. duas Ep. Pelag. i), "in the Church of our Saviour little children believe through
4983 others, just as they contracted from others those sins which are remitted in Baptism." Nor is it a hindrance to their salvation
4984 if their parents be unbelievers, because, as Augustine says, writing to the same Boniface (Ep. xcviii), "little children are
4985 offered that they may receive grace in their souls, not so much from the
4986 hands of those that carry them (yet from these too, if they be good and faithful) as from the whole company of the saints
4987 and the faithful. For they are rightly considered to be offered by those who are pleased at their being offered, and by whose
4988 charity they are united in communion with the Holy Ghost." And the unbelief of their own parents, even if after Baptism these
4989 strive to infect them with the worship of demons, hurts not the children. For as Augustine says (Cont. duas Ep. Pelag. i)
4990 "when once the child has been begotten by the will of others, he cannot subsequently be held by the bonds of another's sin
4991 so long as he consent not with his will, according to"
4992 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A9-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Ezek.18.4" target="asv"> Ezech. 18:4</a>: "'As the soul of the Father, so also the soul of the son is mine; the soul that sinneth, the same shall die.' Yet he contracted
4993 from Adam that which was loosed by the grace of this sacrament, because as yet he was not endowed with a separate existence."
4994 But the faith of one, indeed of
4995 the whole Church, profits the child through the operation of the Holy Ghost, Who unites the Church together, and communicates
4996 the goods of one member to another.
4997 </p>
4998 <p id="TP_Q68_A9-p9">
4999 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Just as a child, when he is being baptized, believes not by himself but by others, so is he examined not by himself but through
5000 others, and these in answer confess the Church's faith in the child's stead, who is aggregated to this faith by the sacrament
5001 of faith. And the child acquires a good conscience in himself, not indeed as to the act, but as to the habit, by sanctifying
5002 grace.
5003 </p>
5004 <p id="TP_Q68_A9-p10"></p>
5005 <p id="TP_Q68_A9-p11"></p>
5006 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A8.html"></a>
5007 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A10.html"></a>
5008 </div>
5009 <div id="TP_Q68_A10" class="div4">
5010 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A9.html"></a>
5011 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A11.html"></a>
5012 <h4 id="TP_Q68_A10-p0.1">Whether children of Jews or other unbelievers be baptized against the will of their parents?</h4>
5013 <p id="TP_Q68_A10-p1"></p>
5014 <p id="TP_Q68_A10-p2">
5015 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that children of Jews or other unbelievers should be baptized against the will of their parents. For it is a matter
5016 of greater urgency to rescue a man from the danger of eternal death than from the danger of temporal death. But one ought
5017 to rescue a child that is threatened by the danger of temporal death, even if its parents through malice try to prevent its
5018 being rescued. Therefore much more reason is there for rescuing the children of unbelievers
5019 from the danger of eternal death, even against their parents' will.
5020 </p>
5021 <p id="TP_Q68_A10-p3">
5022 <b>Objection 2:</b> The children of slaves are themselves slaves, and in the power of their masters. But Jews and all other unbelievers are the
5023 slaves of kings and rulers. Therefore without any injustice rulers can have the children of Jews baptized, as well as those
5024 of other slaves who are unbelievers.
5025 </p>
5026 <p id="TP_Q68_A10-p4">
5027 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, every man belongs more to God, from Whom he has his soul, than to his carnal father, from whom he has his body.
5028 Therefore it is not unjust if the children of unbelievers are taken away from their carnal parents, and consecrated to God
5029 by Baptism.
5030 </p>
5031 <p id="TP_Q68_A10-p5">
5032 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written in the Decretals (Dist. xlv), quoting the council of Toledo: "In regard to the Jews the holy synod commands
5033 that henceforward none of them be forced to believe: for such are not to be saved against their will, but willingly, that
5034 their righteousness may be without flaw."
5035 </p>
5036 <p id="TP_Q68_A10-p6">
5037 <b>I answer that,</b> The children of unbelievers either have the use of reason or they have not. If they have, then they already begin to control
5038 their own actions, in things that are of Divine or natural law. And therefore of their own accord, and against the will of
5039 their parents, they can receive Baptism, just as they can contract marriage. Consequently such can lawfully be advised and
5040 persuaded to be baptized.
5041 </p>
5042 <p id="TP_Q68_A10-p7"> If, however, they have not yet the use of free-will, according to the natural law they are under the care of their parents
5043 as long as they cannot look after themselves. For which reason we say that even the children of the ancients "were saved through
5044 the faith of their parents." Wherefore it would be contrary to natural justice if such children were baptized against their
5045 parents' will; just as it would be if one having the use of reason were baptized against his will. Moreover
5046 under the circumstances it would be dangerous to baptize the children of unbelievers; for they would be liable to lapse into
5047 unbelief, by reason of their natural affection for their parents. Therefore it is not the custom of the Church to baptize
5048 the children of unbelievers against their parents' will.
5049 </p>
5050 <p id="TP_Q68_A10-p8">
5051 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> It is not right to rescue a man from death of the body against the order of civil law: for instance, if a man be condemned
5052 to death by the judge who has tried him, none should use force in order to rescue him from death. Consequently, neither should
5053 anyone infringe the order of the natural law, in virtue of which a child is under the care of its father, in order to rescue
5054 it from the danger of eternal death.
5055 </p>
5056 <p id="TP_Q68_A10-p9">
5057 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Jews are slaves of rulers by civil slavery, which does not exclude the order of the natural and Divine law.
5058 </p>
5059 <p id="TP_Q68_A10-p10">
5060 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Man is ordained unto God through his reason, by which he can know God. Wherefore a child, before it has the use of reason,
5061 is ordained to God, by a natural order, through the reason of its parents, under whose care it naturally lies, and it is according
5062 to their ordering that things pertaining to God are to be done in respect of the child.
5063 </p>
5064 <p id="TP_Q68_A10-p11"></p>
5065 <p id="TP_Q68_A10-p12"></p>
5066 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A9.html"></a>
5067 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A11.html"></a>
5068 </div>
5069 <div id="TP_Q68_A11" class="div4">
5070 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A10.html"></a>
5071 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A12.html"></a>
5072 <h4 id="TP_Q68_A11-p0.1">Whether a child can be baptized while yet in its mother's womb?</h4>
5073 <p id="TP_Q68_A11-p1"></p>
5074 <p id="TP_Q68_A11-p2">
5075 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that a child can be baptized while yet in its mother's womb. For the gift of Christ is more efficacious unto salvation
5076 than Adam's sin unto condemnation, as the Apostle says (
5077 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A11-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.15" target="asv">Rom. 5:15</a>). But a child while yet in its mother's womb is under sentence of condemnation on account of Adam's sin. For much more reason,
5078 therefore, can it be saved through the gift of Christ, which is bestowed by means of Baptism. Therefore a child can be
5079 baptized while yet in its mother's womb.
5080 </p>
5081 <p id="TP_Q68_A11-p3">
5082 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a child, while yet in its mother's womb, seems to be part of its mother. Now, when the mother is baptized, whatever
5083 is in her and part of her, is baptized. Therefore it seems that when the mother is baptized, the child in her womb is baptized.
5084 </p>
5085 <p id="TP_Q68_A11-p4">
5086 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, eternal death is a greater evil than death of the body. But of two evils the less should be chosen. If, therefore,
5087 the child in the mother's womb cannot be baptized, it would be better for the mother to be opened, and the child to be taken
5088 out by force and baptized, than that the child should be eternally damned through dying without Baptism.
5089 </p>
5090 <p id="TP_Q68_A11-p5">
5091 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, it happens at times that some part of the child comes forth first, as we read in
5092 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A11-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.38.27" target="asv"> Gn. 38:27</a>: "In the very delivery of the infants, one put forth a hand, whereon the midwife tied a scarlet thread, saying: This shall
5093 come forth the first. But he drawing back his hand, the other came forth." Now sometimes in such cases there is danger of
5094 death. Therefore it seems that that part should be baptized, while the child is yet in its
5095 mother's womb.
5096 </p>
5097 <p id="TP_Q68_A11-p6">
5098 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (Ep. ad Dardan.): "No one can be born a second time unless he be born first." But Baptism is a spiritual regeneration.
5099 Therefore no one should be baptized before he is born from the womb.
5100 </p>
5101 <p id="TP_Q68_A11-p7">
5102 <b>I answer that,</b> It is essential to Baptism that some part of the body of the person baptized be in some way washed with water, since Baptism
5103 is a kind of washing, as stated above (
5104 <a id="TP_Q68_A11-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q66_A1.html">Q[66], A[1]</a>). But an infant's body, before being born from the womb, can nowise be washed with water; unless perchance it be said that
5105 the baptismal water, with which the mother's body is washed, reaches the child while yet in its mother's womb. But this is
5106 impossible:
5107 both because the child's soul, to the sanctification of which Baptism is ordained, is distinct from the soul of the mother;
5108 and because the body of the animated infant is already formed, and consequently distinct from the body of the mother. Therefore
5109 the Baptism which the mother receives does not overflow on to the child which is in her womb. Hence Augustine says (Cont.
5110 Julian. vi): "If what is conceived within a mother belonged to her body, so as to be considered a part thereof, we should
5111 not
5112 baptize an infant whose mother, through danger of death, was baptized while she bore it in her womb. Since, then, it," i.e.
5113 the infant, "is baptized, it certainly did not belong to the mother's body while it was in the womb." It follows, therefore,
5114 that a child can nowise be baptized while in its mother's womb.
5115 </p>
5116 <p id="TP_Q68_A11-p8">
5117 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Children while in the mother's womb have not yet come forth into the world to live among other men. Consequently they cannot
5118 be subject to the action of man, so as to receive the sacrament, at the hands of man, unto salvation. They can, however, be
5119 subject to the action of God, in Whose sight they live, so as, by a kind of privilege, to receive the grace of sanctification;
5120 as was the case with those who were sanctified in the womb.
5121 </p>
5122 <p id="TP_Q68_A11-p9">
5123 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> An internal member of the mother is something of hers by continuity and material union of the part with the whole: whereas
5124 a child while in its mother's womb is something of hers through being joined with, and yet distinct from her. Wherefore there
5125 is no comparison.
5126 </p>
5127 <p id="TP_Q68_A11-p10">
5128 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> We should "not do evil that there may come good" (
5129 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A11-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.3.8" target="asv">Rom. 3:8</a>). Therefore it is wrong to kill a mother that her child may be baptized. If, however, the mother die while the child lives
5130 yet in her womb, she should be opened that the child may be baptized.
5131 </p>
5132 <p id="TP_Q68_A11-p11">
5133 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Unless death be imminent, we should wait until the child has entirely come forth from the womb before baptizing it. If, however,
5134 the head, wherein the senses are rooted, appear first, it should be baptized, in cases of danger: nor should it be baptized
5135 again, if perfect birth should ensue. And seemingly the same should be done in cases of danger no matter what part of the
5136 body appear first. But as none of the exterior parts of the body belong to its
5137 integrity in the same degree as the head, some hold that since the matter is doubtful, whenever any other part of the body
5138 has been baptized, the child, when perfect birth has taken place, should be baptized with the form: "If thou art not baptized,
5139 I baptize thee," etc.
5140 </p>
5141 <p id="TP_Q68_A11-p12"></p>
5142 <p id="TP_Q68_A11-p13"></p>
5143 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A10.html"></a>
5144 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A12.html"></a>
5145 </div>
5146 <div id="TP_Q68_A12" class="div4">
5147 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A11.html"></a>
5148 <a href="summa.TP_Q69.html"></a>
5149 <h4 id="TP_Q68_A12-p0.1">Whether madmen and imbeciles should be baptized?</h4>
5150 <p id="TP_Q68_A12-p1"></p>
5151 <p id="TP_Q68_A12-p2">
5152 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that madmen and imbeciles should not be baptized. For in order to receive Baptism, the person baptized must have
5153 the intention, as stated above
5154 <a id="TP_Q68_A12-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q68_A7.html">(A[7])</a>. But since madmen and imbeciles lack the use of reason, they can have but a disorderly intention. Therefore they should not
5155 be baptized.
5156 </p>
5157 <p id="TP_Q68_A12-p3">
5158 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, man excels irrational animals in that he has reason. But madmen and imbeciles lack the use of reason, indeed in
5159 some cases we do not expect them ever to have it, as we do in the case of children. It seems, therefore, that just as irrational
5160 animals are not baptized, so neither should madmen and imbeciles in those cases be baptized.
5161 </p>
5162 <p id="TP_Q68_A12-p4">
5163 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the use of reason is suspended in madmen and imbeciles more than it is in one who sleeps. But it is not customary
5164 to baptize people while they sleep. Therefore it should not be given to madmen and imbeciles.
5165 </p>
5166 <p id="TP_Q68_A12-p5">
5167 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (Confess. iv) of his friend that "he was baptized when his recovery was despaired of": and yet Baptism was
5168 efficacious with him. Therefore Baptism should sometimes be given to those who lack the use of reason.
5169 </p>
5170 <p id="TP_Q68_A12-p6">
5171 <b>I answer that,</b> In the matter of madmen and imbeciles a distinction is to be made. For some are so from birth, and have no lucid intervals,
5172 and show no signs of the use of reason. And with regard to these it seems that we should come to the same decision as with
5173 regard to children who are baptized in the Faith of the Church, as stated above (A[9], ad 2).
5174 </p>
5175 <p id="TP_Q68_A12-p7"> But there are others who have fallen from a state of sanity into a state of insanity. And with regard to these we must be
5176 guided by their wishes as expressed by them when sane: so that, if then they manifested a desire to receive Baptism, it should
5177 be given to them when in a state of madness or imbecility, even though then they refuse. If, on the other hand, while sane
5178 they showed no desire to receive Baptism, they must not be baptized.
5179 </p>
5180 <p id="TP_Q68_A12-p8"> Again, there are some who, though mad or imbecile from birth, have, nevertheless, lucid intervals, in which they can make
5181 right use of reason. Wherefore, if then they express a desire for Baptism, they can be baptized though they be actually in
5182 a state of madness. And in this case the sacrament should be bestowed on them if there be fear of danger otherwise it is better
5183 to wait until the time when they are sane, so that they may receive the sacrament more devoutly. But if during
5184 the interval of lucidity they manifest no desire to receive Baptism, they should not be baptized while in a state of insanity.
5185 </p>
5186 <p id="TP_Q68_A12-p9"> Lastly there are others who, though not altogether sane, yet can use their reason so far as to think about their salvation,
5187 and understand the power of the sacrament. And these are to be treated the same as those who are sane, and who are baptized
5188 if they be willing, but not against their will.
5189 </p>
5190 <p id="TP_Q68_A12-p10">
5191 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Imbeciles who never had, and have not now, the use of reason, are baptized, according to the Church's intention, just as
5192 according to the Church's ritual, they believe and repent; as we have stated above of children (A[9], ad OBJ). But those who
5193 have had the use of reason at some time, or have now, are baptized according to their own intention, which they have now,
5194 or had when they were sane.
5195 </p>
5196 <p id="TP_Q68_A12-p11">
5197 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Madmen and imbeciles lack the use of reason accidentally, i.e. through some impediment in a bodily organ; but not like irrational
5198 animals through want of a rational soul. Consequently the comparison does not hold.
5199 </p>
5200 <p id="TP_Q68_A12-p12">
5201 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> A person should not be baptized while asleep, except he be threatened with the danger of death. In which case he should be
5202 baptized, if previously he has manifested a desire to receive Baptism, as we have stated in reference to imbeciles: thus Augustine
5203 relates of his friend that "he was baptized while unconscious," because he was in danger of death (Confess. iv).
5204 </p>
5205 <p id="TP_Q68_A12-p13"></p>
5206 <p id="TP_Q68_A12-p14"></p>
5207 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A11.html"></a>
5208 <a href="summa.TP_Q69.html"></a>
5209 </div>
5210 <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A8.html"></a>
5211 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A1.html"></a>
5212 </div>
5213 <div id="TP_Q69" class="div3">
5214 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A12.html"></a>
5215 <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A1.html"></a>
5216 <h3 id="TP_Q69-p0.1">OF THE EFFECTS OF BAPTISM (TEN ARTICLES)</h3>
5217 <p id="TP_Q69-p1"></p>
5218 <p id="TP_Q69-p2"> We must now consider the effects of Baptism, concerning which there are ten points of inquiry:</p>
5219 <p id="TP_Q69-p3"> (1) Whether all sins are taken away by Baptism?</p>
5220 <p id="TP_Q69-p4"> (2) Whether man is freed from all punishment by Baptism?</p>
5221 <p id="TP_Q69-p5"> (3) Whether Baptism takes away the penalties of sin that belong to this life?</p>
5222 <p id="TP_Q69-p6"> (4) Whether grace and virtues are bestowed on man by Baptism?</p>
5223 <p id="TP_Q69-p7"> (5) Of the effects of virtue which are conferred by Baptism?</p>
5224 <p id="TP_Q69-p8"> (6) Whether even children receive grace and virtues in Baptism?</p>
5225 <p id="TP_Q69-p9"> (7) Whether Baptism opens the gates of the heavenly kingdom to those who are baptized?</p>
5226 <p id="TP_Q69-p10"> (8) Whether Baptism produces an equal effect in all who are baptized?</p>
5227 <p id="TP_Q69-p11"> (9) Whether insincerity hinders the effect of Baptism?</p>
5228 <p id="TP_Q69-p12"> (10) Whether Baptism takes effect when the insincerity ceases?</p>
5229 <div id="TP_Q69_A1" class="div4">
5230 <a href="summa.TP_Q69.html"></a>
5231 <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A2.html"></a>
5232 <h4 id="TP_Q69_A1-p0.1">Whether all sins are taken away by Baptism?</h4>
5233 <p id="TP_Q69_A1-p1"></p>
5234 <p id="TP_Q69_A1-p2">
5235 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that not all sins are taken away by Baptism. For Baptism is a spiritual regeneration, which corresponds to carnal
5236 generation. But by carnal generation man contracts none but original sin. Therefore none but original sin is taken away by
5237 Baptism.
5238 </p>
5239 <p id="TP_Q69_A1-p3">
5240 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Penance is a sufficient cause of the remission of actual sins. But penance is required in adults before Baptism,
5241 according to
5242 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.2.38" target="asv">Acts 2:38</a>: "Do penance and be baptized every one of you." Therefore Baptism has nothing to do with the remission of actual sins.
5243 </p>
5244 <p id="TP_Q69_A1-p4">
5245 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, various diseases demand various remedies: because as Jerome says on
5246 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.9.27" target="asv"> Mk. 9:27,28</a>: "What is a cure for the heel is no cure for the eye." But original sin, which is taken away by Baptism, is generically distinct
5247 from actual sin. Therefore not all sins are taken away by Baptism.
5248 </p>
5249 <p id="TP_Q69_A1-p5">
5250 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
5251 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Ezek.36.25" target="asv">Ezech. 36:25</a>): "I will pour upon you clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness."
5252 </p>
5253 <p id="TP_Q69_A1-p6">
5254 <b>I answer that,</b> As the Apostle says (
5255 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.3" target="asv">Rom. 6:3</a>), "all we, who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death." And further on he concludes (
5256 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A1-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.11" target="asv">Rom. 6:11</a>): "So do you also reckon that you are dead to sin, but alive unto God in Christ Jesus our Lord." Hence it is clear that by
5257 Baptism man dies unto the oldness of sin, and begins to live unto the newness of grace. But every sin belongs to the primitive
5258 oldness. Consequently every
5259 sin is taken away by Baptism.
5260 </p>
5261 <p id="TP_Q69_A1-p7">
5262 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As the Apostle says (
5263 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.15" target="asv">Rom. 5:15,16</a>), the sin of Adam was not so far-reaching as the gift of Christ, which is bestowed in Baptism: "for judgment was by one unto
5264 condemnation; but grace is of many offenses, unto justification." Wherefore Augustine says in his book on Infant Baptism (De
5265 Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i), that "in carnal generation, original sin alone is contracted; but when we are born again of the
5266 Spirit, not only original
5267 sin but also wilful sin is forgiven."
5268 </p>
5269 <p id="TP_Q69_A1-p8">
5270 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> No sin can be forgiven save by the power of Christ's Passion: hence the Apostle says (
5271 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.9.22" target="asv">Heb. 9:22</a>) that "without shedding of blood there is no remission." Consequently no movement of the human will suffices for the remission
5272 of sin, unless there be faith in Christ's Passion, and the purpose of participating in it, either by receiving Baptism, or
5273 by submitting to the keys of the Church. Therefore when an adult approaches Baptism, he
5274 does indeed receive the forgiveness of all his sins through his purpose of being baptized, but more perfectly through the
5275 actual reception of Baptism.
5276 </p>
5277 <p id="TP_Q69_A1-p9">
5278 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This argument is true of special remedies. But Baptism operates by the power of Christ's Passion, which is the universal
5279 remedy for all sins; and so by Baptism all sins are loosed.
5280 </p>
5281 <p id="TP_Q69_A1-p10"></p>
5282 <p id="TP_Q69_A1-p11"></p>
5283 <p id="TP_Q69_A1-p12"></p>
5284 <a href="summa.TP_Q69.html"></a>
5285 <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A2.html"></a>
5286 </div>
5287 <div id="TP_Q69_A2" class="div4">
5288 <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A1.html"></a>
5289 <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A3.html"></a>
5290 <h4 id="TP_Q69_A2-p0.1">Whether man is freed by Baptism from all debt of punishment due to sin?</h4>
5291 <p id="TP_Q69_A2-p1"></p>
5292 <p id="TP_Q69_A2-p2">
5293 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that man is not freed by Baptism from all debt of punishment due to sin. For the Apostle says (
5294 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.13.1" target="asv">Rom. 13:1</a>): "Those things that are of God are well ordered [Vulg.: 'Those that are, are ordained of God']." But guilt is not set in
5295 order save by punishment, as Augustine says (Ep. cxl). Therefore Baptism does not take away the debt of punishment due to
5296 sins already committed.
5297 </p>
5298 <p id="TP_Q69_A2-p3">
5299 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the effect of a sacrament has a certain likeness to the sacrament itself; since the sacraments of the New Law "effect
5300 what they signify," as stated above (
5301 <a id="TP_Q69_A2-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q62_A1.html">Q[62], A[1]</a>, ad 1). But the washing of Baptism has indeed a certain likeness with the cleansing from the stain of sin, but none, seemingly,
5302 with the remission of the debt of punishment. Therefore the debt of punishment is not taken away by Baptism.
5303 </p>
5304 <p id="TP_Q69_A2-p4">
5305 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, when the debt of punishment has been remitted, a man no longer deserves to be punished, and so it would be unjust
5306 to punish him. If, therefore, the debt of punishment be remitted by Baptism, it would be unjust, after Baptism, to hang a
5307 thief who had committed murder before. Consequently the severity of human legislation would be relaxed on account of Baptism;
5308 which is undesirable. Therefore Baptism does not remit the debt of punishment.
5309 </p>
5310 <p id="TP_Q69_A2-p5">
5311 <b>On the contrary,</b> Ambrose, commenting on
5312 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.11.29" target="asv"> Rom. 11:29, </a> "The gifts and the calling of God ate without repentance," says: "The grace of God in Baptism remits all, gratis."
5313 </p>
5314 <p id="TP_Q69_A2-p6">
5315 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
5316 <a id="TP_Q69_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q49_A3.html">Q[49], A[3]</a>, ad 2;
5317 <a id="TP_Q69_A2-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q68_A1.html"> Q[68], AA[1]</a>,4,5) by Baptism a man is incorporated in the Passion and death of Christ, according to
5318 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A2-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.8" target="asv"> Rom. 6:8</a>: "If we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall live also together with Christ." Hence it is clear that the Passion
5319 of Christ is communicated to every baptized person, so that he is healed just as if he himself had suffered and died. Now
5320 Christ's Passion, as stated above (
5321 <a id="TP_Q69_A2-p6.4" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q68_A5.html">Q[68], A[5]</a>), is a sufficient satisfaction for all the sins of all men. Consequently he who is baptized, is freed from the debt of all
5322 punishment due to him for his sins, just as if he himself had offered sufficient satisfaction for all his sins.
5323 </p>
5324 <p id="TP_Q69_A2-p7">
5325 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Since the pains of Christ's Passion are communicated to the person baptized, inasmuch as he is made a member of Christ, just
5326 as if he himself had borne those pains, his sins are set in order by the pains of Christ's Passion.
5327 </p>
5328 <p id="TP_Q69_A2-p8">
5329 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Water not only cleanses but also refreshes. And thus by refreshing it signifies the remission of the debt of punishment,
5330 just as by cleansing it signifies the washing away of guilt.
5331 </p>
5332 <p id="TP_Q69_A2-p9">
5333 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> In punishments inflicted by a human tribunal, we have to consider not only what punishment a man deserves in respect of God,
5334 but also to what extent he is indebted to men who are hurt and scandalized by another's sin. Consequently, although a murderer
5335 is freed by Baptism from his debt of punishment in respect of God, he remains, nevertheless, in debt to men; and it is right
5336 that they should be edified at his punishment, since they were scandalized at
5337 his sin. But the sovereign may remit the penalty to such like out of kindness.
5338 </p>
5339 <p id="TP_Q69_A2-p10"></p>
5340 <p id="TP_Q69_A2-p11"></p>
5341 <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A1.html"></a>
5342 <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A3.html"></a>
5343 </div>
5344 <div id="TP_Q69_A3" class="div4">
5345 <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A2.html"></a>
5346 <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A4.html"></a>
5347 <h4 id="TP_Q69_A3-p0.1">Whether Baptism should take away the penalties of sin that belong to this life?</h4>
5348 <p id="TP_Q69_A3-p1"></p>
5349 <p id="TP_Q69_A3-p2">
5350 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that Baptism should take away the penalties of sin that belong to this life. For as the Apostle says (
5351 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.15" target="asv">Rom. 5:15</a>), the gift of Christ is farther-reaching than the sin of Adam. But through Adam's sin, as the Apostle says (
5352 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A3-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.12" target="asv">Rom. 5:12</a>), "death entered into this world," and, consequently, all the other penalties of the present life. Much more, therefore,
5353 should man be freed from the penalties of the present life, by
5354 the gift of Christ which is received in Baptism.
5355 </p>
5356 <p id="TP_Q69_A3-p3">
5357 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Baptism takes away the guilt of both original and actual sin. Now it takes away the guilt of actual sin in such
5358 a way as to free man from all debt of punishment resulting therefrom. Therefore it also frees man from the penalties of the
5359 present life, which are a punishment of original sin.
5360 </p>
5361 <p id="TP_Q69_A3-p4">
5362 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if the cause be removed, the effect is removed. But the cause of these penalties is original sin, which is taken
5363 away by Baptism. Therefore such like penalties should not remain.
5364 </p>
5365 <p id="TP_Q69_A3-p5">
5366 <b>On the contrary,</b> on
5367 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.6" target="asv"> Rom. 6:6, </a> "that the body of sin may be destroyed," a gloss says: "The effect of Baptism is that the old man is crucified, and the body
5368 of sin destroyed, not as though the living flesh of man were delivered by the destruction of that concupiscence with which
5369 it has been bespattered from its birth; but that it may not hurt him, when dead, though it was in him when he was born." Therefore
5370 for the same reason neither are the other
5371 penalties taken away by Baptism.
5372 </p>
5373 <p id="TP_Q69_A3-p6">
5374 <b>I answer that,</b> Baptism has the power to take away the penalties of the present life yet it does not take them away during the present life,
5375 but by its power they will be taken away from the just in the resurrection when "this mortal hath put on immortality" (
5376 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.54" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:54</a>). And this is reasonable. First, because, by Baptism, man is incorporated in Christ, and is made His member, as stated above
5377
5378 <a id="TP_Q69_A3-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q69_A3.html">(A[3];</a> Q[68], A[5]). Consequently
5379 it is fitting that what takes place in the Head should take place also in the member incorporated. Now, from the very beginning
5380 of His conception Christ was "full of grace and truth," yet He had a passible body, which through His Passion and death was
5381 raised up to a life of glory. Wherefore a Christian receives grace in Baptism, as to his soul; but he retains a passible body,
5382 so that he may suffer for Christ therein: yet at length he will be raised up to a life of impassibility. Hence the
5383 Apostle says (
5384 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A3-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.11" target="asv">Rom. 8:11</a>): "He that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead, shall quicken also our [Vulg.: 'your'] mortal bodies, because of His Spirit
5385 that dwelleth in us [Vulg.: 'you']": and further on in the same chapter (
5386 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A3-p6.4" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.17" target="asv">Rom. 8:17</a>): "Heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified with Him."
5387 </p>
5388 <p id="TP_Q69_A3-p7"> Secondly, this is suitable for our spiritual training: namely, in order that, by fighting against concupiscence and other
5389 defects to which he is subject, man may receive the crown of victory. Wherefore on
5390 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.6" target="asv"> Rom. 6:6, </a> "that the body of sin may be destroyed," a gloss says: "If a man after Baptism live in the flesh, he has concupiscence to
5391 fight against, and to conquer by God's help." In sign of which it is written (
5392 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A3-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Judg.3.1" target="asv">Judges 3:1,2</a>): "These are
5393 the nations which the Lord left, that by them He might instruct Israel . . . that afterwards their children might learn to
5394 fight with their enemies, and to be trained up to war."
5395 </p>
5396 <p id="TP_Q69_A3-p8"> Thirdly, this was suitable, lest men might seek to be baptized for the sake of impassibility in the present life, and not
5397 for the sake of the glory of life eternal. Wherefore the Apostle says (
5398 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A3-p8.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.19" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:19</a>): "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable."
5399 </p>
5400 <p id="TP_Q69_A3-p9">
5401 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As a gloss says on
5402 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A3-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.6" target="asv"> Rom. 6:6, </a> "that we may serve sin no longer---Like a man who, having captured a redoubtable enemy, slays him not forthwith, but suffers
5403 him to live for a little time in shame and suffering; so did Christ first of all fetter our punishment, but at a future time
5404 He will destroy it."
5405 </p>
5406 <p id="TP_Q69_A3-p10">
5407 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As the gloss says on the same passage (cf. ad 1), "the punishment of sin is twofold, the punishment of hell, and temporal
5408 punishment. Christ entirely abolished the punishment of hell, so that those who are baptized and truly repent, should not
5409 be subject to it. He did not, however, altogether abolish temporal punishment yet awhile; for hunger, thirst, and death still
5410 remain. But He overthrew its kingdom and power" in the sense that man should no
5411 longer be in fear of them: "and at length He will altogether exterminate it at the last day."
5412 </p>
5413 <p id="TP_Q69_A3-p11">
5414 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As we stated in the
5415 <a id="TP_Q69_A3-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q81_A1.html">FS, Q[81], A[1]</a>;
5416 <a id="TP_Q69_A3-p11.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q82_A1.html">FS, Q[82], A[1]</a>, ad 2 original sin spread in this way, that at first the person infected the nature, and afterwards the nature infected the
5417 person. Whereas Christ in reverse order at first repairs what regards the person, and afterwards will simultaneously repair
5418 what pertains to the nature in all men. Consequently by Baptism He takes away from man forthwith the
5419 guilt of original sin and the punishment of being deprived of the heavenly vision. But the penalties of the present life,
5420 such as death, hunger, thirst, and the like, pertain to the nature, from the principles of which they arise, inasmuch as it
5421 is deprived of original justice. Therefore these defects will not be taken away until the ultimate restoration of nature through
5422 the glorious resurrection.
5423 </p>
5424 <p id="TP_Q69_A3-p12"></p>
5425 <p id="TP_Q69_A3-p13"></p>
5426 <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A2.html"></a>
5427 <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A4.html"></a>
5428 </div>
5429 <div id="TP_Q69_A4" class="div4">
5430 <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A3.html"></a>
5431 <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A5.html"></a>
5432 <h4 id="TP_Q69_A4-p0.1">Whether grace and virtues are bestowed on man by Baptism?</h4>
5433 <p id="TP_Q69_A4-p1"></p>
5434 <p id="TP_Q69_A4-p2">
5435 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that grace and virtues are not bestowed on man by Baptism. Because, as stated above (
5436 <a id="TP_Q69_A4-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q62_A1.html">Q[62], A[1]</a>, ad 1), the sacraments of the New Law "effect what they signify." But the baptismal cleansing signifies the cleansing of
5437 the soul from guilt, and not the fashioning of the soul with grace and virtues. Therefore it seems that grace and virtues
5438 are not bestowed on man by Baptism.
5439 </p>
5440 <p id="TP_Q69_A4-p3">
5441 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, one does not need to receive what one has already acquired. But some approach Baptism who have already grace and
5442 virtues: thus we read (
5443 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.10.1" target="asv">Acts 10:1,2</a>): "There was a certain man in Cesarea, named Cornelius, a centurion of that which is called the Italian band, a religious
5444 man and fearing God"; who, nevertheless, was afterwards baptized by Peter. Therefore grace and virtues are not bestowed by
5445 Baptism.
5446 </p>
5447 <p id="TP_Q69_A4-p4">
5448 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, virtue is a habit: which is defined as a "quality not easily removed, by which one may act easily and pleasurably."
5449 But after Baptism man retains proneness to evil which removes virtue; and experiences difficulty in doing good, in which the
5450 act of virtue consists. Therefore man does not acquire grace and virtue in Baptism.
5451 </p>
5452 <p id="TP_Q69_A4-p5">
5453 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
5454 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Titus.3.5" target="asv">Titus 3:5,6</a>): "He saved us by the laver of regeneration," i.e. by Baptism, "and renovation of the Holy Ghost, Whom He hath poured forth
5455 upon us abundantly," i.e. "unto the remission of sins and the fulness of virtues," as a gloss expounds. Therefore the grace
5456 of the Holy Ghost and the fulness of virtues are given in Baptism.
5457 </p>
5458 <p id="TP_Q69_A4-p6">
5459 <b>I answer that,</b> As Augustine says in the book on Infant Baptism (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i) "the effect of Baptism is that the baptized
5460 are incorporated in Christ as His members." Now the fulness of grace and virtues flows from Christ the Head to all His members,
5461 according to
5462 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.16" target="asv">Jn. 1:16</a>: "Of His fulness we all have received." Hence it is clear that man receives grace and virtues in Baptism.
5463 </p>
5464 <p id="TP_Q69_A4-p7">
5465 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As the baptismal water by its cleansing signifies the washing away of guilt, and by its refreshment the remission of punishment,
5466 so by its natural clearness it signifies the splendor of grace and virtues.
5467 </p>
5468 <p id="TP_Q69_A4-p8">
5469 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As stated above (A[1], ad 2;
5470 <a id="TP_Q69_A4-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q68_A2.html"> Q[68], A[2]</a>) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and
5471 yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also
5472 before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for
5473 Baptism, implicit or
5474 explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. Hence in
5475 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A4-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.22.2" target="asv"> Ps. 22:2, </a> "He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment," a gloss says: "He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good
5476 deeds in Baptism."
5477 </p>
5478 <p id="TP_Q69_A4-p9">
5479 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Difficulty in doing good and proneness to evil are in the baptized, not through their lacking the habits of the virtues,
5480 but through concupiscence which is not taken away in Baptism. But just as concupiscence is diminished by Baptism, so as not
5481 to enslave us, so also are both the aforesaid defects diminished, so that man be not overcome by them.
5482 </p>
5483 <p id="TP_Q69_A4-p10"></p>
5484 <p id="TP_Q69_A4-p11"></p>
5485 <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A3.html"></a>
5486 <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A5.html"></a>
5487 </div>
5488 <div id="TP_Q69_A5" class="div4">
5489 <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A4.html"></a>
5490 <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A6.html"></a>
5491 <h4 id="TP_Q69_A5-p0.1">Whether certain acts of the virtues are fittingly set down as effects of Baptism, to wit---incorporation in Christ, enlightenment,
5492 and fruitfulness?
5493 </h4>
5494 <p id="TP_Q69_A5-p1"></p>
5495 <p id="TP_Q69_A5-p2">
5496 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that certain acts of the virtues are unfittingly set down as effects of Baptism, to wit---"incorporation in Christ,
5497 enlightenment, and fruitfulness." For Baptism is not given to an adult, except he believe; according to
5498 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A5-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.16.16" target="asv"> Mk. 16:16</a>: "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved." But it is by faith that man is incorporated in Christ, according to
5499 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A5-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Eph.3.17" target="asv"> Eph. 3:17</a>: "That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts."
5500 Therefore no one is baptized except he be already incorporated in Christ. Therefore incorporation with Christ is not the effect
5501 of Baptism.
5502 </p>
5503 <p id="TP_Q69_A5-p3">
5504 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, enlightenment is caused by teaching, according to
5505 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A5-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.3.8" target="asv">Eph. 3:8,9</a>: "To me the least of all the saints, is given this grace . . . to enlighten all men," etc. But teaching by the catechism
5506 precedes Baptism. Therefore it is not the effect of Baptism.
5507 </p>
5508 <p id="TP_Q69_A5-p4">
5509 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, fruitfulness pertains to active generation. But a man is regenerated spiritually by Baptism. Therefore fruitfulness
5510 is not an effect of Baptism.
5511 </p>
5512 <p id="TP_Q69_A5-p5">
5513 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says in the book on Infant Baptism (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i) that "the effect of Baptism is that the baptized
5514 are incorporated in Christ." And Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. ii) ascribes enlightenment to Baptism. And on
5515 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.22.2" target="asv"> Ps. 22:2, </a> "He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment," a gloss says that "the sinner's soul, sterilized by drought, is made
5516 fruitful by Baptism."
5517 </p>
5518 <p id="TP_Q69_A5-p6">
5519 <b>I answer that,</b> By Baptism man is born again unto the spiritual life, which is proper to the faithful of Christ, as the Apostle says (
5520 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A5-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.2.20" target="asv">Gal. 2:20</a>): "And that I live now in the flesh; I live in the faith of the Son of God." Now life is only in those members that are united
5521 to the head, from which they derive sense and movement. And therefore it follows of necessity that by Baptism man is incorporated
5522 in Christ, as one of His members. Again, just as the members derive sense and
5523 movement from the material head, so from their spiritual Head, i.e. Christ, do His members derive spiritual sense consisting
5524 in the knowledge Of truth, and spiritual movement which results from the instinct of grace. Hence it is written (
5525 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A5-p6.2" href="./asv.html#John.1.14" target="asv">Jn. 1:14</a>,
5526 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A5-p6.3" href="./asv.html#John.1.16" target="asv">16</a>): "We have seen Him . . . full of grace and truth; and of His fulness we all have received." And it follows from this that
5527 the baptized are enlightened by Christ as to the knowledge of truth, and made fruitful by Him with the
5528 fruitfulness of good works by the infusion of grace.
5529 </p>
5530 <p id="TP_Q69_A5-p7">
5531 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Adults who already believe in Christ are incorporated in Him mentally. But afterwards, when they are baptized, they are incorporated
5532 in Him, corporally, as it were, i.e. by the visible sacrament; without the desire of which they could not have been incorporated
5533 in Him even mentally.
5534 </p>
5535 <p id="TP_Q69_A5-p8">
5536 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The teacher enlightens outwardly and ministerially by catechizing: but God enlightens the baptized inwardly, by preparing
5537 their hearts for the reception of the doctrines of truth, according to
5538 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A5-p8.1" href="./asv.html#John.6.45" target="asv">Jn. 6:45</a>: "It is written in the prophets . . . They shall all be taught of God."
5539 </p>
5540 <p id="TP_Q69_A5-p9">
5541 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The fruitfulness which i ascribed as an effect of Baptism is that by which man brings forth good works; not that by which
5542 he begets others in Christ, as the Apostle says (
5543 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A5-p9.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.4.15" target="asv">1 Cor. 4:15</a>): "In Christ Jesus by the Gospel I have begotten you."
5544 </p>
5545 <p id="TP_Q69_A5-p10"></p>
5546 <p id="TP_Q69_A5-p11"></p>
5547 <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A4.html"></a>
5548 <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A6.html"></a>
5549 </div>
5550 <div id="TP_Q69_A6" class="div4">
5551 <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A5.html"></a>
5552 <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A7.html"></a>
5553 <h4 id="TP_Q69_A6-p0.1">Whether children receive grace and virtue in Baptism?</h4>
5554 <p id="TP_Q69_A6-p1"></p>
5555 <p id="TP_Q69_A6-p2">
5556 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that children do not receive grace and virtues in Baptism. For grace and virtues are not possessed without faith
5557 and charity. But faith, as Augustine says (Ep. xcviii), "depends on the will of the believer": and in like manner charity
5558 depends on the will of the lover. Now children have not the use of the will, and consequently they have neither faith nor
5559 charity. Therefore children do not receive grace and virtues in Baptism.
5560 </p>
5561 <p id="TP_Q69_A6-p3">
5562 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, on
5563 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A6-p3.1" href="./asv.html#John.14.12" target="asv"> Jn. 14:12, </a> "Greater than these shall he do," Augustine says that in order for the ungodly to be made righteous "Christ worketh in him,
5564 but not without him." But a child, through not having the use of free-will, does not co-operate with Christ unto its justification:
5565 indeed at times it does its best to resist. Therefore it is not justified by grace and virtues.
5566 </p>
5567 <p id="TP_Q69_A6-p4">
5568 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is written (
5569 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A6-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.4.5" target="asv">Rom. 4:5</a>): "To him that worketh not, yet believing in Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reputed to justice according to
5570 the purpose of the grace of God." But a child believeth not "in Him that justifieth the ungodly." Therefore a child receives
5571 neither sanctifying grace nor virtues.
5572 </p>
5573 <p id="TP_Q69_A6-p5">
5574 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, what is done with a carnal intention does not seem to have a spiritual effect. But sometimes children are taken
5575 to Baptism with a carnal intention, to wit, that their bodies may be healed. Therefore they do not receive the spiritual effect
5576 consisting in grace and virtue.
5577 </p>
5578 <p id="TP_Q69_A6-p6">
5579 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (Enchiridion lii): "When little children are baptized, they die to that sin which they contracted in birth:
5580 so that to them also may be applied the words: 'We are buried together with Him by Baptism unto death'": (and he continues
5581 thus) "'that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life.'" Now newness
5582 of life is through grace and virtues. Therefore children receive grace and virtues in
5583 Baptism.
5584 </p>
5585 <p id="TP_Q69_A6-p7">
5586 <b>I answer that,</b> Some of the early writers held that children do not receive grace and virtues in Baptism, but that they receive the imprint
5587 of the character of Christ, by the power of which they receive grace and virtue when they arrive at the perfect age. But this
5588 is evidently false, for two reasons. First, because children, like adults, are made members of Christ in Baptism; hence they
5589 must, of necessity, receive an influx of grace and virtues from the Head. Secondly,
5590 because, if this were true, children that die after Baptism, would not come to eternal life; since according to
5591 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A6-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.23" target="asv"> Rom. 6:23, </a> "the grace of God is life everlasting." And consequently Baptism would not have profited them unto salvation.
5592 </p>
5593 <p id="TP_Q69_A6-p8"> Now the source of their error was that they did not recognize the distinction between habit and act. And so, seeing children
5594 to be incapable of acts of virtue, they thought that they had no virtues at all after Baptism. But this inability of children
5595 to act is not due to the absence of habits, but to an impediment on the part of the body: thus also when a man is asleep,
5596 though he may have the habits of virtue, yet is he hindered from virtuous acts through being asleep.
5597 </p>
5598 <p id="TP_Q69_A6-p9">
5599 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Faith and charity depend on man's will, yet so that the habits of these and other virtues require the power of the will which
5600 is in children; whereas acts of virtue require an act of the will, which is not in children. In this sense Augustine says
5601 in the book on Infant Baptism (Ep. xcviii): "The little child is made a believer, not as yet by that faith which depends on
5602 the will of the believer, but by the sacrament of faith itself," which causes the
5603 habit of faith.
5604 </p>
5605 <p id="TP_Q69_A6-p10">
5606 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Augustine says in his book on Charity (Ep. Joan. ad Parth. iii), "no man is born of water and the Holy Ghost unwillingly
5607 which is to be understood not of little children but of adults." In like manner we are to understand as applying to adults,
5608 that man "without himself is not justified by Christ." Moreover, if little children who are about to be baptized resist as
5609 much as they can, "this is not imputed to them, since so little do they know what
5610 they do, that they seem not to do it at all": as Augustine says in a book on the Presence of God, addressed to Dardanus (Ep.
5611 clxxxvii).
5612 </p>
5613 <p id="TP_Q69_A6-p11">
5614 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Augustine says (Serm. clxxvi): "Mother Church lends other feet to the little children that they may come; another heart
5615 that they may believe; another tongue that they may confess." So that children believe, not by their own act, but by the faith
5616 of the Church, which is applied to them: by the power of which faith, grace and virtues are bestowed on them.
5617 </p>
5618 <p id="TP_Q69_A6-p12">
5619 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The carnal intention of those who take children to be baptized does not hurt the latter, as neither does one's sin hurt another,
5620 unless he consent. Hence Augustine says in his letter to Boniface (Ep. xcviii): "Be not disturbed because some bring children
5621 to be baptized, not in the hope that they may be born again to eternal life by the spiritual grace, but because they think
5622 it to be a remedy whereby they may preserve or recover health. For they are
5623 not deprived of regeneration, through not being brought for this intention."
5624 </p>
5625 <p id="TP_Q69_A6-p13"></p>
5626 <p id="TP_Q69_A6-p14"></p>
5627 <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A5.html"></a>
5628 <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A7.html"></a>
5629 </div>
5630 <div id="TP_Q69_A7" class="div4">
5631 <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A6.html"></a>
5632 <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A8.html"></a>
5633 <h4 id="TP_Q69_A7-p0.1">Whether the effect of Baptism is to open the gates of the heavenly kingdom?</h4>
5634 <p id="TP_Q69_A7-p1"></p>
5635 <p id="TP_Q69_A7-p2">
5636 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that it is not the effect of Baptism, to open the gates of the heavenly kingdom. For what is already opened needs
5637 no opening. But the gates of the heavenly kingdom were opened by Christ's Passion: hence it is written (
5638 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A7-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Rev.4.1" target="asv">Apoc. 4:1</a>): "After these things I looked and behold (a great) door was opened in heaven." Therefore it is not the effect of Baptism,
5639 to open the gates of the heavenly kingdom.
5640 </p>
5641 <p id="TP_Q69_A7-p3">
5642 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Baptism has had its effects ever since it was instituted. But some were baptized with Christ's Baptism, before His
5643 Passion, according to
5644 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A7-p3.1" href="./asv.html#John.3.22" target="asv">Jn. 3:22</a>,
5645 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A7-p3.2" href="./asv.html#John.3.26" target="asv">26</a>: and if they had died then, the gates of the heavenly kingdom would not have been opened to them, since none entered therein
5646 before Christ, according to
5647 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A7-p3.3" href="./asv.html#Mic.2.13" target="asv"> Mic. 2:13</a>: "He went up [Vulg.: 'shall go up'] that shall open the way before them." Therefore it is not the
5648 effect of Baptism, to open the gates of the heavenly kingdom.
5649 </p>
5650 <p id="TP_Q69_A7-p4">
5651 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the baptized are still subject to death and the other penalties of the present life, as stated above
5652 <a id="TP_Q69_A7-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q69_A3.html">(A[3])</a>. But entrance to the heavenly kingdom is opened to none that are subject to punishment: as is clear in regard to those who
5653 are in purgatory. Therefore it is not the effect of Baptism, to open the gates of the heavenly kingdom.
5654 </p>
5655 <p id="TP_Q69_A7-p5">
5656 <b>On the contrary,</b> on
5657 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A7-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.3.21" target="asv"> Lk. 3:21, </a> "Heaven was opened," the gloss of Bede says: "We see here the power of Baptism; from which when a man comes forth, the gates
5658 of the heavenly kingdom are opened unto him."
5659 </p>
5660 <p id="TP_Q69_A7-p6">
5661 <b>I answer that,</b> To open the gates of the heavenly kingdom is to remove the obstacle that prevents one from entering therein. Now this obstacle
5662 is guilt and the debt of punishment. But it has been shown above (
5663 <a id="TP_Q69_A7-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q69_A1.html">AA[1]</a> ,2) that all guilt and also all debt of punishment are taken away by Baptism. It follows, therefore, that the effect of Baptism
5664 is to open the gates of the heavenly kingdom.
5665 </p>
5666 <p id="TP_Q69_A7-p7">
5667 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Baptism opens the gates of the heavenly kingdom to the baptized in so far as it incorporates them in the Passion of Christ,
5668 by applying its power to man.
5669 </p>
5670 <p id="TP_Q69_A7-p8">
5671 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> When Christ's Passion was not as yet consummated actually but only in the faith of believers, Baptism proportionately caused
5672 the gates to be opened, not in fact but in hope. For the baptized who died then looked forward, with a sure hope, to enter
5673 the heavenly kingdom.
5674 </p>
5675 <p id="TP_Q69_A7-p9">
5676 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The baptized are subject to death and the penalties of the present life, not by reason of a personal debt of punishment but
5677 by reason of the state of their nature. And therefore this is no bar to their entrance to the heavenly kingdom, when death
5678 severs the soul from the body; since they have paid, as it were, the debt of nature.
5679 </p>
5680 <p id="TP_Q69_A7-p10"></p>
5681 <p id="TP_Q69_A7-p11"></p>
5682 <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A6.html"></a>
5683 <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A8.html"></a>
5684 </div>
5685 <div id="TP_Q69_A8" class="div4">
5686 <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A7.html"></a>
5687 <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A9.html"></a>
5688 <h4 id="TP_Q69_A8-p0.1">Whether Baptism has an equal effect in all?</h4>
5689 <p id="TP_Q69_A8-p1"></p>
5690 <p id="TP_Q69_A8-p2">
5691 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that Baptism has not an equal effect in all. For the effect of Baptism is to remove guilt. But in some it takes
5692 away more sins than in others; for in children it takes away only original sins, whereas in adults it takes away actual sins,
5693 in some many, in others few. Therefore Baptism has not an equal effect in all.
5694 </p>
5695 <p id="TP_Q69_A8-p3">
5696 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, grace and virtues are bestowed on man by Baptism. But some, after Baptism, seem to have more grace and more perfect
5697 virtue than others who have been baptized. Therefore Baptism has not an equal effect in all.
5698 </p>
5699 <p id="TP_Q69_A8-p4">
5700 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, nature is perfected by grace, as matter by form. But a form is received into matter according to its capacity. Therefore,
5701 since some of the baptized, even children, have greater capacity for natural gifts than others have, it seems that some receive
5702 greater grace than others.
5703 </p>
5704 <p id="TP_Q69_A8-p5">
5705 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, in Baptism some receive not only spiritual, but also bodily health; thus Constantine was cleansed in Baptism from
5706 leprosy. But all the infirm do not receive bodily health in Baptism. Therefore it has not an equal effect in all.
5707 </p>
5708 <p id="TP_Q69_A8-p6">
5709 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
5710 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A8-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.4.5" target="asv">Eph. 4:5</a>): "One Faith, one Baptism." But a uniform cause has a uniform effect. Therefore Baptism has an equal effect in all.
5711 </p>
5712 <p id="TP_Q69_A8-p7">
5713 <b>I answer that,</b> The effect of Baptism is twofold, the essential effect, and the accidental. The essential effect of Baptism is that for which
5714 Baptism was instituted, namely, the begetting of men unto spiritual life. Therefore, since all children are equally disposed
5715 to Baptism, because they are baptized not in their own faith, but in that of the Church, they all receive an equal effect
5716 in Baptism. Whereas adults, who approach Baptism in their own faith, are not equally
5717 disposed to Baptism; for some approach thereto with greater, some with less, devotion. And therefore some receive a greater,
5718 some a smaller share of the grace of newness; just as from the same fire, he receives more heat who approaches nearest to
5719 it, although the fire, as far as it is concerned, sends forth its heat equally to all.
5720 </p>
5721 <p id="TP_Q69_A8-p8"> But the accidental effect of Baptism, is that to which Baptism is not ordained, but which the Divine power produces miraculously
5722 in Baptism: thus on
5723 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A8-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.6" target="asv"> Rom. 6:6, </a> "that we may serve sin no longer," a gloss says: "this is not bestowed in Baptism, save by an ineffable miracle of the Creator,
5724 so that the law of sin, which is in our members, be absolutely destroyed." And such like effects are not equally received
5725 by all the baptized, even if they approach with equal
5726 devotion: but they are bestowed according to the ordering of Divine providence.
5727 </p>
5728 <p id="TP_Q69_A8-p9">
5729 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The least baptismal grace suffices to blot out all sins. Wherefore that in some more sins are loosed than in others is not
5730 due to the greater efficacy of Baptism, but to the condition of the recipient: for in each one it looses whatever it finds.
5731 </p>
5732 <p id="TP_Q69_A8-p10">
5733 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> That greater or lesser grace appears in the baptized, may occur in two ways. First, because one receives greater grace in
5734 Baptism than another, on account of his greater devotion, as stated above. Secondly, because, though they receive equal grace,
5735 they do not make an equal use of it, but one applies himself more to advance therein, while another by his negligence baffles
5736 grace.
5737 </p>
5738 <p id="TP_Q69_A8-p11">
5739 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The various degrees of capacity in men arise, not from a variety in the mind which is renewed by Baptism (since all men,
5740 being of one species, are of one form), but from the diversity of bodies. But it is otherwise with the angels, who differ
5741 in species. And therefore gratuitous gifts are bestowed on the angels according to their diverse capacity for natural gifts,
5742 but not on men.
5743 </p>
5744 <p id="TP_Q69_A8-p12">
5745 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Bodily health is not the essential effect of Baptism, but a miraculous work of Divine providence.
5746 </p>
5747 <p id="TP_Q69_A8-p13"></p>
5748 <p id="TP_Q69_A8-p14"></p>
5749 <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A7.html"></a>
5750 <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A9.html"></a>
5751 </div>
5752 <div id="TP_Q69_A9" class="div4">
5753 <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A8.html"></a>
5754 <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A10.html"></a>
5755 <h4 id="TP_Q69_A9-p0.1">Whether insincerity hinders the effect of Baptism?</h4>
5756 <p id="TP_Q69_A9-p1"></p>
5757 <p id="TP_Q69_A9-p2">
5758 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that insincerity does not hinder the effect of Baptism. For the Apostle says (
5759 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A9-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.3.27" target="asv">Gal. 3:27</a>): "As many of you as have been baptized in Christ Jesus, have put on Christ." But all that receive the Baptism of Christ,
5760 are baptized in Christ. Therefore they all put on Christ: and this is to receive the effect of Baptism. Consequently insincerity
5761 does not hinder the effect of Baptism.
5762 </p>
5763 <p id="TP_Q69_A9-p3">
5764 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Divine power which can change man's will to that which is better, works in Baptism. But the effect of the efficient
5765 cause cannot be hindered by that which can be removed by that cause. Therefore insincerity cannot hinder the effect of Baptism.
5766 </p>
5767 <p id="TP_Q69_A9-p4">
5768 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the effect of Baptism is grace, to which sin is in opposition. But many other sins are more grievous than insincerity,
5769 which are not said to hinder the effect of Baptism. Therefore neither does insincerity.
5770 </p>
5771 <p id="TP_Q69_A9-p5">
5772 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
5773 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A9-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.1.5" target="asv">Wis. 1:5</a>): "The Holy Spirit of discipline will flee from the deceitful." But the effect of Baptism is from the Holy Ghost. Therefore
5774 insincerity hinders the effect of Baptism.
5775 </p>
5776 <p id="TP_Q69_A9-p6">
5777 <b>I answer that,</b> As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii), "God does not compel man to be righteous." Consequently in order that a man be justified
5778 by Baptism, his will must needs embrace both Baptism and the baptismal effect. Now, a man is said to be insincere by reason
5779 of his will being in contradiction with either Baptism or its effect. For, according to Augustine (De Bapt. cont. Donat. vii),
5780 a man is said to be insincere, in four ways: first, because he does not believe,
5781 whereas Baptism is the sacrament of Faith; secondly, through scorning the sacrament itself; thirdly, through observing a rite
5782 which differs from that prescribed by the Church in conferring the sacrament; fourthly, through approaching the sacrament
5783 without devotion. Wherefore it is manifest that insincerity hinders the effect of Baptism.
5784 </p>
5785 <p id="TP_Q69_A9-p7">
5786 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> "To be baptized in Christ," may be taken in two ways. First, "in Christ," i.e. "in conformity with Christ." And thus whoever
5787 is baptized in Christ so as to be conformed to Him by Faith and Charity, puts on Christ by grace. Secondly, a man is said
5788 to be baptized in Christ, in so far as he receives Christ's sacrament. And thus all put on Christ, through being configured
5789 to Him by the character, but not through being conformed to Him by grace.
5790 </p>
5791 <p id="TP_Q69_A9-p8">
5792 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> When God changes man's will from evil to good, man does not approach with insincerity. But God does not always do this. Nor
5793 is this the purpose of the sacrament, that an insincere man be made sincere; but that he who comes in sincerity, be justified.
5794 </p>
5795 <p id="TP_Q69_A9-p9">
5796 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> A man is said to be insincere who makes a show of willing what he wills not. Now whoever approaches Baptism, by that very
5797 fact makes a show of having right faith in Christ, of veneration for this sacrament, and of wishing to conform to the Church,
5798 and to renounce sin. Consequently, to whatever sin a man wishes to cleave, if he approach Baptism, he approaches insincerely,
5799 which is the same as to approach without devotion. But this must be understood of
5800 mortal sin, which is in opposition to grace: but not of venial sin. Consequently, here insincerity includes, in a way, every
5801 sin.
5802 </p>
5803 <p id="TP_Q69_A9-p10"></p>
5804 <p id="TP_Q69_A9-p11"></p>
5805 <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A8.html"></a>
5806 <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A10.html"></a>
5807 </div>
5808 <div id="TP_Q69_A10" class="div4">
5809 <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A9.html"></a>
5810 <a href="summa.TP_Q70.html"></a>
5811 <h4 id="TP_Q69_A10-p0.1">Whether Baptism produces its effect when the insincerity ceases?</h4>
5812 <p id="TP_Q69_A10-p1"></p>
5813 <p id="TP_Q69_A10-p2">
5814 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that Baptism does not produce its effect, when the insincerity ceases. For a dead work, which is void of charity,
5815 can never come to life. But he who approaches Baptism insincerely, receives the sacrament without charity. Therefore it can
5816 never come to life so as to bestow grace.
5817 </p>
5818 <p id="TP_Q69_A10-p3">
5819 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, insincerity seems to be stronger than Baptism, because it hinders its effect. But the stronger is not removed by
5820 the weaker. Therefore the sin of insincerity cannot be taken away by Baptism which has been hindered by insincerity. And thus
5821 Baptism will not receive its full effect, which is the remission of all sins.
5822 </p>
5823 <p id="TP_Q69_A10-p4">
5824 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it may happen that a man approach Baptism insincerely, and afterwards commit a number of sins. And yet these sins
5825 will not be taken away by Baptism; because Baptism washes away past, not future, sins. Such a Baptism, therefore, will never
5826 have its effect, which is the remission of all sins.
5827 </p>
5828 <p id="TP_Q69_A10-p5">
5829 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Bapt. cont. Donat. i): "Then does Baptism begin to have its salutary effect, when truthful confession
5830 takes the place of that insincerity which hindered sins from being washed away, so long as the heart persisted in malice and
5831 sacrilege."
5832 </p>
5833 <p id="TP_Q69_A10-p6">
5834 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
5835 <a id="TP_Q69_A10-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q66_A9.html">Q[66], A[9]</a>), Baptism is a spiritual regeneration. Now when a thing is generated, it receives together with the form, the form's effect,
5836 unless there be an obstacle; and when this is removed, the form of the thing generated produces its effect: thus at the same
5837 time as a weighty body is generated, it has a downward movement, unless something prevent this; and when the obstacle is removed,
5838 it begins forthwith to move
5839 downwards. In like manner when a man is baptized, he receives the character, which is like a form; and he receives in consequence
5840 its proper effect, which is grace whereby all his sins are remitted. But this effect is sometimes hindered by insincerity.
5841 Wherefore, when this obstacle is removed by Penance, Baptism forthwith produces its effect.
5842 </p>
5843 <p id="TP_Q69_A10-p7">
5844 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The sacrament of Baptism is the work of God, not of man. Consequently, it is not dead in the man, who being insincere, is
5845 baptized without charity.
5846 </p>
5847 <p id="TP_Q69_A10-p8">
5848 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Insincerity is not removed by Baptism but by Penance: and when it is removed, Baptism takes away all guilt, and all debt
5849 of punishment due to sins, whether committed before Baptism, or even co-existent with Baptism. Hence Augustine says (De Bapt.
5850 cont. Donat. i): "Yesterday is blotted out, and whatever remains over and above, even the very last hour and moment preceding
5851 Baptism, the very moment of Baptism. But from that moment forward he is bound by
5852 his obligations." And so both Baptism and Penance concur in producing the effect of Baptism, but Baptism as the direct efficient
5853 cause, Penance as the indirect cause, i.e. as removing the obstacle.
5854 </p>
5855 <p id="TP_Q69_A10-p9">
5856 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The effect of Baptism is to take away not future, but present and past sins. And consequently, when the insincerity passes
5857 away, subsequent sins are indeed remitted, but by Penance, not by Baptism. Wherefore they are not remitted, like the sins
5858 which preceded Baptism, as to the whole debt of punishment.
5859 </p>
5860 <p id="TP_Q69_A10-p10"></p>
5861 <p id="TP_Q69_A10-p11"></p>
5862 <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A9.html"></a>
5863 <a href="summa.TP_Q70.html"></a>
5864 </div>
5865 <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A12.html"></a>
5866 <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A1.html"></a>
5867 </div>
5868 <div id="TP_Q70" class="div3">
5869 <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A10.html"></a>
5870 <a href="summa.TP_Q70_A1.html"></a>
5871 <h3 id="TP_Q70-p0.1">OF CIRCUMCISION (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3>
5872 <p id="TP_Q70-p1"></p>
5873 <p id="TP_Q70-p2"> We have now to consider things that are preparatory to Baptism: and (1) that which preceded Baptism, viz. Circumcision, (2)
5874 those which accompany Baptism, viz. Catechism and Exorcism.
5875 </p>
5876 <p id="TP_Q70-p3"> Concerning the first there are four points of inquiry:</p>
5877 <p id="TP_Q70-p4"> (1) Whether circumcision was a preparation for, and a figure of, Baptism?</p>
5878 <p id="TP_Q70-p5"> (2) Its institution;</p>
5879 <p id="TP_Q70-p6"> (3) Its rite;</p>
5880 <p id="TP_Q70-p7"> (4) Its effect.</p>
5881 <div id="TP_Q70_A1" class="div4">
5882 <a href="summa.TP_Q70.html"></a>
5883 <a href="summa.TP_Q70_A2.html"></a>
5884 <h4 id="TP_Q70_A1-p0.1">Whether circumcision was a preparation for, and a figure of Baptism?</h4>
5885 <p id="TP_Q70_A1-p1"></p>
5886 <p id="TP_Q70_A1-p2">
5887 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that circumcision was not a preparation for, and a figure of Baptism. For every figure has some likeness to that
5888 which it foreshadows. But circumcision has no likeness to Baptism. Therefore it seems that it was not a preparation for, and
5889 a figure of Baptism.
5890 </p>
5891 <p id="TP_Q70_A1-p3">
5892 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Apostle, speaking of the Fathers of old, says (
5893 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q70_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.10.2" target="asv">1 Cor. 10:2</a>), that "all were baptized in the cloud, and in the sea": but not that they were baptized in circumcision. Therefore the protecting
5894 pillar of a cloud, and the crossing of the Red Sea, rather than circumcision, were a preparation for, and a figure of Baptism.
5895 </p>
5896 <p id="TP_Q70_A1-p4">
5897 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it was stated above (
5898 <a id="TP_Q70_A1-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q38_A1.html">Q[38], AA[1]</a>,3) that the baptism of John was a preparation for Christ's. Consequently, if circumcision was a preparation for, and a figure
5899 of Christ's Baptism, it seems that John's baptism was superfluous: which is unseemly. Therefore circumcision was not a preparation
5900 for, and a figure of Baptism.
5901 </p>
5902 <p id="TP_Q70_A1-p5">
5903 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
5904 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q70_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Col.2.11" target="asv">Col. 2:11,12</a>): "You are circumcised with circumcision, not made by hand in despoiling the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of
5905 Christ, buried with Him in Baptism."
5906 </p>
5907 <p id="TP_Q70_A1-p6">
5908 <b>I answer that,</b> Baptism is called the Sacrament of Faith; in so far, to wit, as in Baptism man makes a profession of faith, and by Baptism
5909 is aggregated to the congregation of the faithful. Now our faith is the same as that of the Fathers of old, according to the
5910 Apostle (
5911 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q70_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.4.13" target="asv">2 Cor. 4:13</a>): "Having the same spirit of faith . . . we . . . believe." But circumcision was a protestation of faith; wherefore by circumcision
5912 also men of old were aggregated to the
5913 body of the faithful. Consequently, it is manifest that circumcision was a preparation for Baptism and a figure thereof, forasmuch
5914 as "all things happened" to the Fathers of old "in figure" (
5915 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q70_A1-p6.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.10.11" target="asv">1 Cor. 10:11</a>); just as their faith regarded things to come.
5916 </p>
5917 <p id="TP_Q70_A1-p7">
5918 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Circumcision was like Baptism as to the spiritual effect of the latter. For just as circumcision removed a carnal pellicule,
5919 so Baptism despoils man of carnal behavior.
5920 </p>
5921 <p id="TP_Q70_A1-p8">
5922 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The protecting pillar of cloud and the crossing of the Red Sea were indeed figures of our Baptism, whereby we are born again
5923 of water, signified by the Red Sea; and of the Holy Ghost, signified by the pillar of cloud: yet man did not make, by means
5924 of these, a profession of faith, as by circumcision; so that these two things were figures but not sacraments. But circumcision
5925 was a sacrament, and a preparation for Baptism; although less clearly
5926 figurative of Baptism, as to externals, than the aforesaid. And for this reason the Apostle mentions them rather than circumcision.
5927 </p>
5928 <p id="TP_Q70_A1-p9">
5929 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> John's baptism was a preparation for Christ's as to the act done: but circumcision, as to the profession of faith, which
5930 is required in Baptism, as stated above.
5931 </p>
5932 <p id="TP_Q70_A1-p10"></p>
5933 <p id="TP_Q70_A1-p11"></p>
5934 <a href="summa.TP_Q70.html"></a>
5935 <a href="summa.TP_Q70_A2.html"></a>
5936 </div>
5937 <div id="TP_Q70_A2" class="div4">
5938 <a href="summa.TP_Q70_A1.html"></a>
5939 <a href="summa.TP_Q70_A3.html"></a>
5940 <h4 id="TP_Q70_A2-p0.1">Whether circumcision was instituted in a fitting manner?</h4>
5941 <p id="TP_Q70_A2-p1"></p>
5942 <p id="TP_Q70_A2-p2">
5943 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that circumcision was instituted in an unfitting manner. For as stated above
5944 <a id="TP_Q70_A2-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q70_A1.html">(A[1])</a> a profession of faith was made in circumcision. But none could ever be delivered from the first man's sin, except by faith
5945 in Christ's Passion, according to
5946 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q70_A2-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.3.25" target="asv"> Rom. 3:25</a>: "Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood." Therefore circumcision should have been instituted
5947 forthwith after the first man's
5948 sin, and not at the time of Abraham.
5949 </p>
5950 <p id="TP_Q70_A2-p3">
5951 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in circumcision man made profession of keeping the Old Law, just as in Baptism he makes profession of keeping the
5952 New Law; wherefore the Apostle says (
5953 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q70_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.5.3" target="asv">Gal. 5:3</a>): "I testify . . . to every man circumcising himself, that he is a debtor to do the whole Law." But the observance of the
5954 Law was not promulgated at the time of Abraham, but rather at the time of Moses. Therefore it was unfitting for circumcision
5955 to be instituted at the
5956 time of Abraham
5957 </p>
5958 <p id="TP_Q70_A2-p4">
5959 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, circumcision was a figure of, and a preparation for, Baptism. But Baptism is offered to all nations, according to
5960 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q70_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.28.19" target="asv"> Mat. 28:19</a>: "Going . . . teach ye all nations, baptizing them." Therefore circumcision should have been instituted as binding, not the
5961 Jews only, but also all nations.
5962 </p>
5963 <p id="TP_Q70_A2-p5">
5964 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, carnal circumcision should correspond to spiritual circumcision, as the shadow to the reality. But spiritual circumcision
5965 which is of Christ, regards indifferently both sexes, since "in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female," as is written
5966
5967 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q70_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Col.3" target="asv">Col. 3</a> [*
5968 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q70_A2-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Gal.3.28" target="asv">Gal. 3:28</a>]. Therefore the institution of circumcision which concerns only males, was unfitting.
5969 </p>
5970 <p id="TP_Q70_A2-p6">
5971 <b>On the contrary,</b> We read (
5972 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q70_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.17" target="asv">Gn. 17</a>) that circumcision was instituted by God, Whose "works are perfect" (
5973 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q70_A2-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Deut.32.4" target="asv">Dt. 32:4</a>).
5974 </p>
5975 <p id="TP_Q70_A2-p7">
5976 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
5977 <a id="TP_Q70_A2-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q70_A1.html">(A[1])</a> circumcision was a preparation for Baptism, inasmuch as it was a profession of faith in Christ, which we also profess in
5978 Baptism. Now among the Fathers of old, Abraham was the first to receive the promise of the future birth of Christ, when it
5979 was said to him: "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed" (
5980 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q70_A2-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Gen.22.18" target="asv">Gn. 22:18</a>). Moreover, he was the first to cut himself off from the
5981 society of unbelievers, in accordance with the commandment of the Lord, Who said to him (
5982 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q70_A2-p7.3" href="./asv.html#Gen.13.1" target="asv">Gn. 13:1</a>): "Go forth out of thy country and from thy kindred." Therefore circumcision was fittingly instituted in the person of Abraham.
5983 </p>
5984 <p id="TP_Q70_A2-p8">
5985 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Immediately after the sin of our first parent, on account of the knowledge possessed by Adam, who was fully instructed about
5986 Divine things, both faith and natural reason flourished in man to such an extent, that there was no need for any signs of
5987 faith and salvation to be prescribed to him, but each one was wont to make protestation of his faith, by outward signs of
5988 his profession, according as he thought best. But about the time of Abraham faith was
5989 on the wane, many being given over to idolatry. Moreover, by the growth of carnal concupiscence natural reason was clouded
5990 even in regard to sins against nature. And therefore it was fitting that then, and not before, circumcision should be instituted,
5991 as a profession of faith and a remedy against carnal concupiscence.
5992 </p>
5993 <p id="TP_Q70_A2-p9">
5994 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The observance of the Law was not to be promulgated until the people were already gathered together: because the law is ordained
5995 to the public good, as we have stated in the
5996 <a id="TP_Q70_A2-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q90_A2.html">FS, Q[90], A[2]</a>. Now it behooved the body of the faithful to be gathered together by a sensible sign, which is necessary in order that men
5997 be united together in any religion, as Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix). Consequently, it was necessary for
5998 circumcision to be instituted before the giving of the Law. Those Fathers, however, who lived before the Law, taught their
5999 families concerning Divine things by way of paternal admonition. Hence the Lord said of Abraham (
6000 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q70_A2-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Gen.18.19" target="asv">Gn. 18:19</a>): "I know that he will command his children, and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord."
6001 </p>
6002 <p id="TP_Q70_A2-p10">
6003 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Baptism contains in itself the perfection of salvation, to which God calls all men, according to
6004 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q70_A2-p10.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.2.4" target="asv">1 Tim. 2:4</a>: "Who will have all men to be saved." Wherefore Baptism is offered to all nations. On the other hand circumcision did not
6005 contain the perfection of salvation, but signified it as to be achieved by Christ, Who was to be born of the Jewish nation.
6006 For this reason circumcision was given to that nation alone.
6007 </p>
6008 <p id="TP_Q70_A2-p11">
6009 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The institution of circumcision is as a sign of Abraham's faith, who believed that himself would be the father of Christ
6010 Who was promised to him: and for this reason it was suitable that it should be for males only. Again, original sin, against
6011 which circumcision was specially ordained, is contracted from the father, not from the mother, as was stated in the
6012 <a id="TP_Q70_A2-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q81_A5.html">FS, Q[81], A[5]</a>. But Baptism contains the power of Christ, Who is the
6013 universal cause of salvation for all, and is "The Remission of all sins" (Post-Communion, Tuesday in Whitweek).
6014 </p>
6015 <p id="TP_Q70_A2-p12"></p>
6016 <p id="TP_Q70_A2-p13"></p>
6017 <a href="summa.TP_Q70_A1.html"></a>
6018 <a href="summa.TP_Q70_A3.html"></a>
6019 </div>
6020 <div id="TP_Q70_A3" class="div4">
6021 <a href="summa.TP_Q70_A2.html"></a>
6022 <a href="summa.TP_Q70_A4.html"></a>
6023 <h4 id="TP_Q70_A3-p0.1">Whether the rite of circumcision was fitting?</h4>
6024 <p id="TP_Q70_A3-p1"></p>
6025 <p id="TP_Q70_A3-p2">
6026 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the rite of circumcision was unfitting. For circumcision, as stated above (
6027 <a id="TP_Q70_A3-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q70_A1.html">AA[1]</a>,2), was a profession of faith. But faith is in the apprehensive power, whose operations appear mostly in the head. Therefore
6028 the sign of circumcision should have been conferred on the head rather than on the virile member.
6029 </p>
6030 <p id="TP_Q70_A3-p3">
6031 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in the sacraments we make use of such things as are in more frequent use; for instance, water, which is used for
6032 washing, and bread, which we use for nourishment. But, in cutting, we use an iron knife more commonly than a stone knife.
6033 Therefore circumcision should not have been performed with a stone knife.
6034 </p>
6035 <p id="TP_Q70_A3-p4">
6036 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, just as Baptism was instituted as a remedy against original sin, so also was circumcision, as Bede says (Hom. in
6037 Circum.). But now Baptism is not put off until the eighth day, lest children should be in danger of loss on account of original
6038 sin, if they should die before being baptized. On the other hand, sometimes Baptism is put off until after the eighth day.
6039 Therefore the eighth day should not have been fixed for circumcision, but this day should
6040 have been anticipated, just as sometimes it was deferred.
6041 </p>
6042 <p id="TP_Q70_A3-p5">
6043 <b>On the contrary,</b> The aforesaid rite of circumcision is fixed by a gloss on
6044 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q70_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.4.11" target="asv"> Rom. 4:11</a>: "And he received the sign of circumcision."
6045 </p>
6046 <p id="TP_Q70_A3-p6">
6047 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
6048 <a id="TP_Q70_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q70_A2.html">(A[2])</a>, circumcision was established, as a sign of faith, by God "of" Whose "wisdom there is no number" (
6049 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q70_A3-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.146.5" target="asv">Ps. 146:5</a>). Now to determine suitable signs is a work of wisdom. Consequently, it must be allowed that the rite of circumcision was
6050 fitting.
6051 </p>
6052 <p id="TP_Q70_A3-p7">
6053 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> It was fitting for circumcision to be performed on the virile member. First, because it was a sign of that faith whereby
6054 Abraham believed that Christ would be born of his seed. Secondly, because it was to be a remedy against original sin, which
6055 is contracted through the act of generation. Thirdly, because it was ordained as a remedy for carnal concupiscence, which
6056 thrives principally in those members, by reason of the abundance of venereal
6057 pleasure.
6058 </p>
6059 <p id="TP_Q70_A3-p8">
6060 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> A stone knife was not essential to circumcision. Wherefore we do not find that an instrument of this description is required
6061 by any divine precept; nor did the Jews, as a rule, make use of such a knife for circumcision; indeed, neither do they now.
6062 Nevertheless, certain well-known circumcisions are related as having been performed with a stone knife, thus (
6063 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q70_A3-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.4.25" target="asv">Ex. 4:25</a>) we read that "Sephora took a very sharp stone and circumcised the
6064 foreskin of her son," and (
6065 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q70_A3-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Josh.5.2" target="asv">Joshua 5:2</a>): "Make thee knives of stone, and circumcise the second time the children of Israel." Which signified that spiritual circumcision
6066 would be done by Christ, of Whom it is written (
6067 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q70_A3-p8.3" href="./asv.html#iCor.10.4" target="asv">1 Cor. 10:4</a>): "Now the rock was Christ."
6068 </p>
6069 <p id="TP_Q70_A3-p9">
6070 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The eighth day was fixed for circumcision: first, because of the mystery; since, Christ, by taking away from the elect, not
6071 only guilt but also all penalties, will perfect the spiritual circumcision, in the eighth age (which is the age of those that
6072 rise again), as it were, on the eighth day. Secondly, on account of the tenderness of the infant before the eighth day. Wherefore
6073 even in regard to other animals it is prescribed (
6074 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q70_A3-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.22.27" target="asv">Lev.
6075 22:27
6076 </a>): "When a bullock, or a sheep, or a goat, is brought forth, they shall be seven days under the udder of their dam: but the
6077 eighth day and thenceforth, they may be offered to the Lord."
6078 </p>
6079 <p id="TP_Q70_A3-p10"> Moreover, the eighth day was necessary for the fulfilment of the precept; so that, to wit, those who delayed beyond the eighth
6080 day, sinned, even though it were the sabbath, according to
6081 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q70_A3-p10.1" href="./asv.html#John.7.23" target="asv"> Jn. 7:23</a>: "(If) a man receives circumcision on the sabbath-day, that the Law of Moses may not be broken." But it was not necessary
6082 for the validity of the sacrament: because if anyone delayed beyond the eighth day, they could be circumcised afterwards.
6083 </p>
6084 <p id="TP_Q70_A3-p11"> Some also say that in imminent danger of death, it was allowable to anticipate the eighth day. But this cannot be proved
6085 either from the authority of Scripture or from the custom of the Jews. Wherefore it is better to say with Hugh of St. Victor
6086 (De Sacram. i) that the eighth day was never anticipated for any motive, however urgent. Hence on
6087 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q70_A3-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.4.3" target="asv"> Prov. 4:3</a>: "I was . . . an only son in the sight of my mother," a gloss says, that Bersabee's other baby boy did not
6088 count because through dying before the eighth day it received no name; and consequently neither was it circumcised.
6089 </p>
6090 <p id="TP_Q70_A3-p12"></p>
6091 <p id="TP_Q70_A3-p13"></p>
6092 <a href="summa.TP_Q70_A2.html"></a>
6093 <a href="summa.TP_Q70_A4.html"></a>
6094 </div>
6095 <div id="TP_Q70_A4" class="div4">
6096 <a href="summa.TP_Q70_A3.html"></a>
6097 <a href="summa.TP_Q71.html"></a>
6098 <h4 id="TP_Q70_A4-p0.1">Whether circumcision bestowed sanctifying grace?</h4>
6099 <p id="TP_Q70_A4-p1"></p>
6100 <p id="TP_Q70_A4-p2">
6101 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that circumcision did not bestow sanctifying grace. For the Apostle says (
6102 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q70_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.2.21" target="asv">Gal. 2:21</a>): "If justice be by the Law, then Christ died in vain," i.e. without cause. But circumcision was an obligation imposed by
6103 the Law, according to
6104 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q70_A4-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Gal.5.3" target="asv"> Gal. 5:3</a>: "I testify . . . to every man circumcising himself, that ne is a debtor to do the whole law." Therefore, if justice be by
6105 circumcision, "Christ died in vain," i.e. without
6106 cause. But this cannot be allowed. Therefore circumcision did not confer grace whereby the sinner is made righteous.
6107 </p>
6108 <p id="TP_Q70_A4-p3">
6109 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, before the institution of circumcision faith alone sufficed for justification; hence Gregory says (Moral. iv): "Faith
6110 alone did of old in behalf of infants that for which the water of Baptism avails with us." But faith has lost nothing of its
6111 strength through the commandment of circumcision. Therefore faith alone justified little ones, and not circumcision.
6112 </p>
6113 <p id="TP_Q70_A4-p4">
6114 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, we read (
6115 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q70_A4-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Josh.5.5" target="asv">Joshua 5:5,6</a>) that "the people that were born in the desert, during the forty years . . . were uncircumcised." If, therefore, original
6116 sin was taken away by circumcision, it seems that all who died in the desert, both little children and adults, were lost.
6117 And the same argument avails in regard to those who died before the eighth day, which was that of circumcision, which day
6118 could nol be anticipated, as stated above
6119 (A[3], ad 3).
6120 </p>
6121 <p id="TP_Q70_A4-p5">
6122 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, nothing but sin closes the entrance to the heavenly kingdom. But before the Passion the entrance to the heavenly
6123 kingdom was closed to the circumcised. Therefore men were not justified from sin by circumcision.
6124 </p>
6125 <p id="TP_Q70_A4-p6">
6126 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, original sin is not remitted without actual sin being remitted also: because "it is wicked to hope for half forgiveness
6127 from God," as Augustine says (De Vera et Falsa Poenit. ix). But we read nowhere of circumcision as remitting actual sin. Therefore
6128 neither did it remit original sin.
6129 </p>
6130 <p id="TP_Q70_A4-p7">
6131 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says, writing to Valerius in answer to Julian (De Nup. et Concup. ii): "From the time that circumcision was instituted
6132 among God's people, as 'a seal of the justice of the faith,' it availed little children unto sanctification by cleansing them
6133 from the original and bygone sin; just as Baptism also from the time of its institution began to avail unto the renewal of
6134 man."
6135 </p>
6136 <p id="TP_Q70_A4-p8">
6137 <b>I answer that,</b> All are agreed in saying that original sin was remitted in circumcision. But some said that no grace was conferred, and that
6138 the only effect was to remit sin. The Master holds this opinion (Sent. iv, D, 1), and in a gloss on
6139 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q70_A4-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.4.11" target="asv"> Rom. 4:11.</a> But this is impossible, since guilt is not remitted except by grace, according to
6140 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q70_A4-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.3.2" target="asv"> Rom. 3:2</a>: "Being justified freely by His grace," etc.
6141 </p>
6142 <p id="TP_Q70_A4-p9"> Wherefore others said that grace was bestowed by circumcision, as to that effect which is the remission of guilt, but not
6143 as to its positive effects; lest they should be compelled to say that the grace bestowed in circumcision sufficed for the
6144 fulfilling of the precepts of the Law, and that, consequently, the coming of Christ was unnecessary. But neither can this
6145 opinion stand. First, because by circumcision children. received the power of obtaining glory at the allotted time,
6146 which is the last positive effect of grace. Secondly, because, in the order of the formal cause, positive effects naturally
6147 precede those that denote privation, although it is the reverse in the order of the material cause: since a form does not
6148 remove a privation save by informing the subject.
6149 </p>
6150 <p id="TP_Q70_A4-p10"> Consequently, others said that grace was conferred in circumcision, also as a particular positive effect consisting in being
6151 made worthy of eternal life; but not as to all its effects, for it did not suffice for the repression of the concupiscence
6152 of the fomes, nor again for the fulfilment of the precepts of the Law. And this was my opinion at one time (Sent. iv, D, 1;
6153 <a id="TP_Q70_A4-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q2_A4.html"> Q[2], A[4]</a>). But if one consider the matter carefully, it is clear that this is not
6154 true. Because the least grace can resist any degree of concupiscence, and avoid every mortal sin, that is committed in transgressing
6155 the precepts of the Law; for the smallest degree of charity loves God more than cupidity loves "thousands of gold and silver"
6156 (
6157 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q70_A4-p10.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.118.72" target="asv">Ps. 118:72</a>).
6158 </p>
6159 <p id="TP_Q70_A4-p11"> We must say, therefore, that grace was bestowed in circumcision as to all the effects of grace, but not as in Baptism. Because
6160 in Baptism grace is bestowed by the very power of Baptism itself, which power Baptism has as the instrument of Christ's Passion
6161 already consummated. Whereas circumcision bestowed grace, inasmuch as it was a sign of faith in Christ's future Passion: so
6162 that the man who was circumcised, professed to embrace that faith; whether, being an adult, he made
6163 profession for himself, or, being a child, someone else made profession for him. Hence, too, the Apostle says (
6164 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q70_A4-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.4.11" target="asv">Rom. 4:11</a>), that Abraham "received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the justice of the faith": because, to wit, justice was of faith
6165 signified: not of circumcision signifying. And since Baptism operates instrumentally by the power of Christ's Passion, whereas
6166 circumcision does not, therefore Baptism imprints a character that incorporates man in Christ, and
6167 bestows grace more copiously than does circumcision; since greater is the effect of a thing already present, than of the hope
6168 thereof.
6169 </p>
6170 <p id="TP_Q70_A4-p12">
6171 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This argument would prove if justice were of circumcision otherwise than through faith in Christ's Passion.
6172 </p>
6173 <p id="TP_Q70_A4-p13">
6174 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Just as before the institution of circumcision, faith in Christ to come justified both children and adults, so, too, after
6175 its institution. But before, there was no need of a sign expressive of this faith; because as yet believers had not begun
6176 to be united together apart from unbelievers for the worship of one God. It is probable, however, that parents who were believers
6177 offered up some prayers to God for their children, especially if these were in
6178 any danger. Or bestowed some blessing on them, as a "seal of faith"; just as the adults offered prayers and sacrifices for
6179 themselves.
6180 </p>
6181 <p id="TP_Q70_A4-p14">
6182 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> There was an excuse for the people in the desert failing to fulfil the precept of circumcision, both because they knew not
6183 when the camp was removed, and because, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv) they needed no distinctive sign while they dwelt
6184 apart from other nations. Nevertheless, as Augustine says (QQ. in Josue vi), those were guilty of disobedience who failed
6185 to obey through contempt.
6186 </p>
6187 <p id="TP_Q70_A4-p15"> It seems, however, that none of the uncircumcised died in the desert, for it is written (
6188 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q70_A4-p15.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.104.37" target="asv">Ps. 104:37</a>): "There was not among their tribes one that was feeble": and that those alone died in the desert, who had been circumcised
6189 in Egypt. If, however, some of the uncircumcised did die there, the same applies to them as to those who died before the institution
6190 of circumcision. And this applies also to those children who, at the time of the Law, died before the
6191 eighth day.
6192 </p>
6193 <p id="TP_Q70_A4-p16">
6194 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Original sin was taken away in circumcision, in regard to the person; but on the part of the entire nature, there remained
6195 the obstacle to the entrance of the kingdom of heaven, which obstacle was removed by Christ's Passion. Consequently, before
6196 Christ's Passion not even Baptism gave entrance to the kingdom. But were circumcision to avail after Christ's Passion, it
6197 would give entrance to the kingdom.
6198 </p>
6199 <p id="TP_Q70_A4-p17">
6200 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> When adults were circumcised, they received remission not only of original, but also of actual sin: yet not so as to be delivered
6201 from all debt of punishment, as in Baptism, in which grace is conferred more copiously.
6202 </p>
6203 <p id="TP_Q70_A4-p18"></p>
6204 <p id="TP_Q70_A4-p19"></p>
6205 <a href="summa.TP_Q70_A3.html"></a>
6206 <a href="summa.TP_Q71.html"></a>
6207 </div>
6208 <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A10.html"></a>
6209 <a href="summa.TP_Q70_A1.html"></a>
6210 </div>
6211 <div id="TP_Q71" class="div3">
6212 <a href="summa.TP_Q70_A4.html"></a>
6213 <a href="summa.TP_Q71_A1.html"></a>
6214 <h3 id="TP_Q71-p0.1">OF THE PREPARATIONS THAT ACCOMPANY BAPTISM (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3>
6215 <p id="TP_Q71-p1"></p>
6216 <p id="TP_Q71-p2"> We have now to consider the preparations that accompany Baptism: concerning which there are four points of inquiry:</p>
6217 <p id="TP_Q71-p3"> (1) Whether catechism should precede Baptism?</p>
6218 <p id="TP_Q71-p4"> (2) Whether exorcism should precede Baptism?</p>
6219 <p id="TP_Q71-p5"> (3) Whether what is done in catechizing and exorcizing, effects anything, or is a mere sign?</p>
6220 <p id="TP_Q71-p6"> (4) Whether those who are to be baptized should be catechized or exorcized by priests?</p>
6221 <div id="TP_Q71_A1" class="div4">
6222 <a href="summa.TP_Q71.html"></a>
6223 <a href="summa.TP_Q71_A2.html"></a>
6224 <h4 id="TP_Q71_A1-p0.1">Whether catechism should precede Baptism?</h4>
6225 <p id="TP_Q71_A1-p1"></p>
6226 <p id="TP_Q71_A1-p2">
6227 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that catechism should not precede Baptism. For by Baptism men are regenerated unto the spiritual life. But man begins
6228 to live before being taught. Therefore man should not be catechized, i.e. taught, before being baptized.
6229 </p>
6230 <p id="TP_Q71_A1-p3">
6231 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Baptism is given not only to adults, but also to children, who are not capable of being taught, since they have
6232 not the use of reason. Therefore it is absurd to catechize them.
6233 </p>
6234 <p id="TP_Q71_A1-p4">
6235 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a man, when catechized, confesses his faith. Now a child cannot confess its faith by itself, nor can anyone else
6236 in its stead; both because no one can bind another to do anything; and because one cannot know whether the child, having come
6237 to the right age, will give its assent to faith. Therefore catechism should not precede Baptism.
6238 </p>
6239 <p id="TP_Q71_A1-p5">
6240 <b>On the contrary,</b> Rabanus says (De Instit. Cleric. i): "Before Baptism man should be prepared by catechism, in order that the catechumen may
6241 receive the rudiments of faith."
6242 </p>
6243 <p id="TP_Q71_A1-p6">
6244 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
6245 <a id="TP_Q71_A1-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q70_A1.html">Q[70], A[1]</a>), Baptism is the Sacrament of Faith: since it is a profession of the Christian faith. Now in order that a man receive the
6246 faith, he must be instructed therein, according to
6247 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q71_A1-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.10.14" target="asv"> Rom. 10:14</a>: "How shall they believe Him, of Whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?" And therefore it
6248 is fitting that catechism should precede Baptism. Hence when our Lord bade His
6249 disciples to baptize, He made teaching to precede Baptism, saying: "Go ye . . . and teach all nations, baptizing them," etc.
6250 </p>
6251 <p id="TP_Q71_A1-p7">
6252 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The life of grace unto which a man is regenerated, presupposes the life of the rational nature, in which man is capable of
6253 receiving instruction.
6254 </p>
6255 <p id="TP_Q71_A1-p8">
6256 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Just as Mother Church, as stated above (
6257 <a id="TP_Q71_A1-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q69_A6.html">Q[69], A[6]</a>, ad 3), lends children another's feet that they may come, and another's heart that they may believe, so, too, she lends them
6258 another's ears, that they may hear, and another's mind, that through others they may be taught. And therefore, as they are
6259 to be baptized, on the same grounds they are to be instructed.
6260 </p>
6261 <p id="TP_Q71_A1-p9">
6262 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> He who answers in the child's stead: "I do believe," does not foretell that the child will believe when it comes to the right
6263 age, else he would say: "He will believe"; but in the child's stead he professes the Church's faith which is communicated
6264 to that child, the sacrament of which faith is bestowed on it, and to which faith he is bound by another. For there is nothing
6265 unfitting in a person being bound by another in things necessary for salvation.
6266 In like manner the sponsor, in answering for the child, promises to use his endeavors that the child may believe. This, however,
6267 would not be sufficient in the case of adults having the use of reason.
6268 </p>
6269 <p id="TP_Q71_A1-p10"></p>
6270 <p id="TP_Q71_A1-p11"></p>
6271 <a href="summa.TP_Q71.html"></a>
6272 <a href="summa.TP_Q71_A2.html"></a>
6273 </div>
6274 <div id="TP_Q71_A2" class="div4">
6275 <a href="summa.TP_Q71_A1.html"></a>
6276 <a href="summa.TP_Q71_A3.html"></a>
6277 <h4 id="TP_Q71_A2-p0.1">Whether exorcism should precede Baptism?</h4>
6278 <p id="TP_Q71_A2-p1"></p>
6279 <p id="TP_Q71_A2-p2">
6280 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that exorcism should not precede Baptism. For exorcism is ordained against energumens or those who are possessed.
6281 But not all are such like. Therefore exorcism should not precede Baptism.
6282 </p>
6283 <p id="TP_Q71_A2-p3">
6284 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, so long as man is a subject of sin, the devil has power over him, according to
6285 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q71_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#John.8.34" target="asv"> Jn. 8:34</a>: "Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin." But sin is taken away by Baptism. Therefore men should not be exorcized
6286 before Baptism.
6287 </p>
6288 <p id="TP_Q71_A2-p4">
6289 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Holy water was introduced in order to ward off the power of the demons. Therefore exorcism was not needed as a further
6290 remedy.
6291 </p>
6292 <p id="TP_Q71_A2-p5">
6293 <b>On the contrary,</b> Pope Celestine says (Epist. ad Episcop. Galliae): "Whether children or young people approach the sacrament of regeneration,
6294 they should not come to the fount of life before the unclean spirit has been expelled from them by the exorcisms and breathings
6295 of the clerics."
6296 </p>
6297 <p id="TP_Q71_A2-p6">
6298 <b>I answer that,</b> Whoever purposes to do a work wisely, first removes the obstacles to his work; hence it is written (
6299 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q71_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Jer.4.3" target="asv">Jer. 4:3</a>): "Break up anew your fallow ground and sow not upon thorns." Now the devil is the enemy of man's salvation, which man acquires
6300 by Baptism; and he has a certain power over man from the very fact that the latter is subject to original, or even actual,
6301 sin. Consequently it is fitting that before Baptism the demons should be cast out
6302 by exorcisms, lest they impede man's salvation. Which expulsion is signified by the (priest) breathing (upon the person to
6303 be baptized); while the blessing, with the imposition of hands, bars the way against the return of him who was cast out. Then
6304 the salt which is put in the mouth, and the anointing of the nose and ears with spittle, signify the receiving of doctrine,
6305 as to the ears; consent thereto as to the nose; and confession thereof, as to the mouth. And the anointing with oil signifies
6306 man's ability to fight against the demons.
6307 </p>
6308 <p id="TP_Q71_A2-p7">
6309 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The energumens are so-called from "laboring inwardly" under the outward operation of the devil. And though not all that approach
6310 Baptism are troubled by him in their bodies, yet all who are not baptized are subject to the power of the demons, at least
6311 on account of the guilt of original sin.
6312 </p>
6313 <p id="TP_Q71_A2-p8">
6314 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The power of the devil in so far as he hinders man from obtaining glory, is expelled from man by the baptismal ablution;
6315 but in so far as he hinders man from receiving the sacrament, his power is cast out by the exorcisms.
6316 </p>
6317 <p id="TP_Q71_A2-p9">
6318 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Holy water is used against the assaults of demons from without. But exorcisms are directed against those assaults of the
6319 demons which are from within. hence those who are exorcized are called energumens, as it were "laboring inwardly."
6320 </p>
6321 <p id="TP_Q71_A2-p10"> Or we may say that just as Penance is given as a further remedy against sin, because Baptism is not repeated; so Holy Water
6322 is given as a further remedy against the assaults of demons, because the baptismal exorcisms are not given a second time.
6323 </p>
6324 <p id="TP_Q71_A2-p11"></p>
6325 <p id="TP_Q71_A2-p12"></p>
6326 <a href="summa.TP_Q71_A1.html"></a>
6327 <a href="summa.TP_Q71_A3.html"></a>
6328 </div>
6329 <div id="TP_Q71_A3" class="div4">
6330 <a href="summa.TP_Q71_A2.html"></a>
6331 <a href="summa.TP_Q71_A4.html"></a>
6332 <h4 id="TP_Q71_A3-p0.1">Whether what is done in the exorcism effects anything, or is a mere sign?</h4>
6333 <p id="TP_Q71_A3-p1"></p>
6334 <p id="TP_Q71_A3-p2">
6335 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that what is done in the exorcism does not effect anything, but is a mere sign. For if a child die after the exorcisms,
6336 before being baptized, it is not saved. But the effects of what is done in the sacraments are ordained to the salvation of
6337 man; hence it is written (
6338 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q71_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.16.16" target="asv">Mk. 16:16</a>): "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Therefore what is done in the exorcism effects nothing, but is a mere
6339 sign.
6340 </p>
6341 <p id="TP_Q71_A3-p3">
6342 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, nothing is required for a sacrament of the New Law, but that it should be a sign and a cause, as stated above (
6343 <a id="TP_Q71_A3-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q62_A1.html">Q[62], A[1]</a>). If, therefore, the things done in the exorcism effect anything, it seems that each of them is a sacrament.
6344 </p>
6345 <p id="TP_Q71_A3-p4">
6346 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, just as the exorcism is ordained to Baptism, so if anything be effected in the exorcism, it is ordained to the effect
6347 of Baptism. But disposition must needs precede the perfect form: because form is not received save into matter already disposed.
6348 It would follow, therefore, that none could obtain the effect of Baptism unless he were previously exorcized; which is clearly
6349 false. Therefore what is done in the exorcisms has no effect.
6350 </p>
6351 <p id="TP_Q71_A3-p5">
6352 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, just as some things are done in the exorcism before Baptism, so are some things done after Baptism; for instance,
6353 the priest anoints the baptized on the top of the head. But what is done after Baptism seems to have no effect; for, if it
6354 had, the effect of Baptism would be imperfect. Therefore neither have those things an effect, which are done in exorcism before
6355 Baptism.
6356 </p>
6357 <p id="TP_Q71_A3-p6">
6358 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Symbolo I): "Little children are breathed upon and exorcized, in order to expel from them the devil's
6359 hostile power, which deceived man." But the Church does nothing in vain. Therefore the effect of these breathings is that
6360 the power of the devils is expelled.
6361 </p>
6362 <p id="TP_Q71_A3-p7">
6363 <b>I answer that,</b> Some say that the things done in the exorcism have no effect, but are mere signs. But this is clearly false; since in exorcizing,
6364 the Church uses words of command to cast out the devil's power, for instance, when she says: "Therefore, accursed devil, go
6365 out from him," etc.
6366 </p>
6367 <p id="TP_Q71_A3-p8"> Therefore we must say that they have some effect, but, other than that of Baptism. For Baptism gives man grace unto the full
6368 remission of sins. But those things that are done in the exorcism remove the twofold impediment against the reception of saving
6369 grace. Of these, one is the outward impediment, so far as the demons strive to hinder man's salvation. And this impediment
6370 is removed by the breathings, whereby the demon's power is cast out, as appears from the passage quoted
6371 from Augustine, i.e. as to the devil not placing obstacles against the reception of the sacrament. Nevertheless, the demon's
6372 power over man remains as to the stain of sin, and the debt of punishment, until sin be washed away by Baptism. And in this
6373 sense Cyprian says (Epist. lxxvi): "Know that the devil's evil power remains until the pouring of the saving water: but in
6374 Baptism he loses it all."
6375 </p>
6376 <p id="TP_Q71_A3-p9"> The other impediment is within, forasmuch as, from having contracted original sin, man's sense is closed to the perception
6377 of the mysteries of salvation. Hence Rabanus says (De Instit. Cleric. i) that "by means of the typifying spittle and the touch
6378 of the priest, the Divine wisdom and power brings salvation to the catechumen, that his nostrils being opened he may perceive
6379 the odor of the knowledge of God, that his ears be opened to hear the commandments of God, that his senses
6380 be opened in his inmost heart to respond."
6381 </p>
6382 <p id="TP_Q71_A3-p10">
6383 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> What is done in the exorcism does not take away the sin for which man is punished after death; but only the impediments against
6384 his receiving the remission of sin through the sacrament. Wherefore exorcism avails a man nothing after death if he has not
6385 been baptized.
6386 </p>
6387 <p id="TP_Q71_A3-p11"> Praepositivus, however, says that children who die after being exorcized but before being baptized are subjected to lesser
6388 darkness. But this does not seem to be true: because that darkness consists in privation of the vision of God, which cannot
6389 be greater or lesser.
6390 </p>
6391 <p id="TP_Q71_A3-p12">
6392 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> It is essential to a sacrament to produce its principal effect, which is grace that remits sin, or supplies some defect in
6393 man. But those things that are done in the exorcism do not effect this; they merely remove these impediments. Consequently,
6394 they are not sacraments but sacramentals.
6395 </p>
6396 <p id="TP_Q71_A3-p13">
6397 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The disposition that suffices for receiving the baptismal grace is the faith and intention, either of the one baptized, if
6398 it be an adult, or of the Church, if it be a child. But these things that are done in the exorcism, are directed to the removal
6399 of the impediments. And therefore one may receive the effect of Baptism without them.
6400 </p>
6401 <p id="TP_Q71_A3-p14"> Yet they are not to be omitted save in a case of necessity. And then, if the danger pass, they should be supplied, that uniformity
6402 in Baptism may be observed. Nor are they supplied to no purpose after Baptism: because, just as the effect of Baptism may
6403 be hindered before it is received, so can it be hindered after it has been received.
6404 </p>
6405 <p id="TP_Q71_A3-p15">
6406 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Of those things that are done after Baptism in respect of the person baptized, something is done which is not a mere sign,
6407 but produces an effect, for instance, the anointing on the top of the head, the effect of which is the preservation of baptismal
6408 grace. And there is something which has no effect, but is a mere sign, for instance, the baptized are given a white garment
6409 to signify the newness of life.
6410 </p>
6411 <p id="TP_Q71_A3-p16"></p>
6412 <p id="TP_Q71_A3-p17"></p>
6413 <a href="summa.TP_Q71_A2.html"></a>
6414 <a href="summa.TP_Q71_A4.html"></a>
6415 </div>
6416 <div id="TP_Q71_A4" class="div4">
6417 <a href="summa.TP_Q71_A3.html"></a>
6418 <a href="summa.TP_Q72.html"></a>
6419 <h4 id="TP_Q71_A4-p0.1">Whether it belongs to a priest to catechize and exorcize the person to be baptized?</h4>
6420 <p id="TP_Q71_A4-p1"></p>
6421 <p id="TP_Q71_A4-p2">
6422 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that it does not belong to a priest to catechize and exorcize the person to be baptized. For it belongs to the office
6423 of ministers to operate on the unclean, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v). But catechumens who are instructed by catechism,
6424 and "energumens" who are cleansed by exorcism, are counted among the unclean, as Dionysius says in the same place. Therefore
6425 to catechize and to exorcize do not belong to the office of the priests, but rather to
6426 that of the ministers.
6427 </p>
6428 <p id="TP_Q71_A4-p3">
6429 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, catechumens are instructed in the Faith by the Holy Scripture which is read in the church by ministers: for just
6430 as the Old Testament is recited by the Readers, so the New Testament is read by the Deacons and Subdeacons. And thus it belongs
6431 to the ministers to catechize. In like manner it belongs, seemingly, to the ministers to exorcize. For Isidore says (Epist.
6432 ad Ludifred.): "The exorcist should know the exorcisms by heart, and impose his hands on
6433 the energumens and catechumens during the exorcism." Therefore it belongs not to the priestly office to catechize and exorcize.
6434 </p>
6435 <p id="TP_Q71_A4-p4">
6436 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, "to catechize" is the same as "to teach," and this is the same as "to perfect." Now this belongs to the office of
6437 a bishop, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v). Therefore it does not belong to the priestly office.
6438 </p>
6439 <p id="TP_Q71_A4-p5">
6440 <b>On the contrary,</b> Pope Nicolas I says: "The catechizing of those who are to be baptized can be undertaken by the priests attached to each church."
6441 And Gregory says (Hom. xxix super Ezech.): "When priests place their hands on believers for the grace of exorcism, what else
6442 do they but cast out the devils?"
6443 </p>
6444 <p id="TP_Q71_A4-p6">
6445 <b>I answer that,</b> The minister compared to the priest, is as a secondary and instrumental agent to the principal agent: as is implied in the
6446 very word "minister." Now the secondary agent does nothing without the principal agent in operating. And the more mighty the
6447 operation, so much the mightier instruments does the principal agent require. But the operation of the priest in conferring
6448 the sacrament itself is mightier than in those things that are preparatory to the
6449 sacrament. And so the highest ministers who are called deacons co-operate with the priest in bestowing the sacraments themselves:
6450 for Isidore says (Epist. ad Ludifred.) that "it belongs to the deacons to assist the priests in all things that are done in
6451 Christ's sacraments, in Baptism, to wit, in the Chrism, in the Paten and Chalice"; while the inferior ministers assist the
6452 priest in those things which are preparatory to the sacraments: the readers, for instance, in catechizing; the exorcists
6453 in exorcizing.
6454 </p>
6455 <p id="TP_Q71_A4-p7">
6456 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The minister's operation in regard to the unclean is ministerial and, as it were, instrumental, but the priest's is principal.
6457 </p>
6458 <p id="TP_Q71_A4-p8">
6459 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> To readers and exorcists belongs the duty of catechizing and exorcizing, not, indeed, principally, but as ministers of the
6460 priest in these things.
6461 </p>
6462 <p id="TP_Q71_A4-p9">
6463 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Instruction is manifold. one leads to the embracing of the Faith; and is ascribed by Dionysius to bishops (Eccl. Hier. ii)
6464 and can be undertaken by any preacher, or even by any believer. Another is that by which a man is taught the rudiments of
6465 faith, and how to comport himself in receiving the sacraments: this belongs secondarily to the ministers, primarily to the
6466 priests. A third is instruction in the mode of Christian life: and this belongs to the
6467 sponsors. A fourth is the instruction in the profound mysteries of faith, and on the perfection of Christian life: this belongs
6468 to bishops "ex officio," in virtue of their office.
6469 </p>
6470 <p id="TP_Q71_A4-p10"></p>
6471 <p id="TP_Q71_A4-p11"></p>
6472 <a href="summa.TP_Q71_A3.html"></a>
6473 <a href="summa.TP_Q72.html"></a>
6474 </div>
6475 <a href="summa.TP_Q70_A4.html"></a>
6476 <a href="summa.TP_Q71_A1.html"></a>
6477 </div>
6478 <div id="TP_Q72" class="div3">
6479 <a href="summa.TP_Q71_A4.html"></a>
6480 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A1.html"></a>
6481 <h3 id="TP_Q72-p0.1">CONFIRMATION (Q[72])</h3>
6482 <p id="TP_Q72-p1"></p>
6483 <p id="TP_Q72-p2">OF THE SACRAMENT OF CONFIRMATION (TWELVE ARTICLES)</p>
6484 <p id="TP_Q72-p3"> We have now to consider the Sacrament of Confirmation. Concerning this there are twelve points of inquiry:</p>
6485 <p id="TP_Q72-p4"> (1) Whether Confirmation is a sacrament?</p>
6486 <p id="TP_Q72-p5"> (2) Its matter;</p>
6487 <p id="TP_Q72-p6"> (3) Whether it is essential to the sacrament that the chrism should have been previously consecrated by a bishop?</p>
6488 <p id="TP_Q72-p7"> (4) Its form;</p>
6489 <p id="TP_Q72-p8"> (5) Whether it imprints a character?</p>
6490 <p id="TP_Q72-p9"> (6) Whether the character of Confirmation presupposes the character of Baptism?</p>
6491 <p id="TP_Q72-p10"> (7) Whether it bestows grace?</p>
6492 <p id="TP_Q72-p11"> (8) Who is competent to receive this sacrament?</p>
6493 <p id="TP_Q72-p12"> (9) In what part of the body?</p>
6494 <p id="TP_Q72-p13"> (10) Whether someone is required to stand for the person to be confirmed?</p>
6495 <p id="TP_Q72-p14"> (11) Whether this sacrament is given by bishops only?</p>
6496 <p id="TP_Q72-p15"> (12) Of its rite.</p>
6497 <div id="TP_Q72_A1" class="div4">
6498 <a href="summa.TP_Q72.html"></a>
6499 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A2.html"></a>
6500 <h4 id="TP_Q72_A1-p0.1">Whether confirmation is a sacrament?</h4>
6501 <p id="TP_Q72_A1-p1"></p>
6502 <p id="TP_Q72_A1-p2">
6503 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that Confirmation is not a sacrament. For sacraments derive their efficacy from the Divine institution, as stated
6504 above (
6505 <a id="TP_Q72_A1-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q64_A2.html">Q[64] , A[2]</a>). But we read nowhere of Confirmation being instituted by Christ. Therefore it is not a sacrament.
6506 </p>
6507 <p id="TP_Q72_A1-p3">
6508 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the sacraments of the New Law were foreshadowed in the Old Law; thus the Apostle says (
6509 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.10.2" target="asv">1 Cor. 10:2-4</a>), that "all in Moses were baptized, in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual food, and all drank the
6510 same spiritual drink." But Confirmation was not foreshadowed in the old Testament. Therefore it is not a sacrament.
6511 </p>
6512 <p id="TP_Q72_A1-p4">
6513 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the sacraments are ordained unto man's salvation. But man can be saved without Confirmation: since children that
6514 are baptized, who die before being confirmed, are saved. Therefore Confirmation is not a sacrament.
6515 </p>
6516 <p id="TP_Q72_A1-p5">
6517 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, by all the sacraments of the Church, man is conformed to Christ, Who is the Author of the sacraments. But man cannot
6518 be conformed to Christ by Confirmation, since we read nowhere of Christ being confirmed.
6519 </p>
6520 <p id="TP_Q72_A1-p6">
6521 <b>On the contrary,</b> Pope Melchiades wrote to the bishops of Spain: "Concerning the point on which you sought to be informed, i.e. whether the
6522 imposition of the bishop's hand were a greater sacrament than Baptism, know that each is a great sacrament."
6523 </p>
6524 <p id="TP_Q72_A1-p7">
6525 <b>I answer that,</b> The sacraments of the New Law are ordained unto special effects of grace: and therefore where there is a special effect of
6526 grace, there we find a special sacrament ordained for the purpose. But since sensible and material things bear a likeness
6527 to things spiritual and intelligible, from what occurs in the life of the body, we can perceive that which is special to the
6528 spiritual life. Now it is evident that in the life of the body a certain special perfection
6529 consists in man's attaining to the perfect age, and being able to perform the perfect actions of a man: hence the Apostle
6530 says (
6531 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.13.11" target="asv">1 Cor. 13:11</a>): "When I became a man, I put away the things of a child." And thence it is that besides the movement of generation whereby
6532 man receives life of the body, there is the movement of growth, whereby man is brought to the perfect age. So therefore does
6533 man receive spiritual life in Baptism, which is a spiritual regeneration: while in
6534 Confirmation man arrives at the perfect age, as it were, of the spiritual life. Hence Pope Melchiades says: "The Holy Ghost,
6535 Who comes down on the waters of Baptism bearing salvation in His flight, bestows at the font, the fulness of innocence; but
6536 in Confirmation He confers an increase of grace. In Baptism we are born again unto life; after Baptism we are strengthened."
6537 And therefore it is evident that Confirmation is a special sacrament.
6538 </p>
6539 <p id="TP_Q72_A1-p8">
6540 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Concerning the institution of this sacrament there are three opinions. Some (Alexander of Hales, Summa Theol. P. IV, Q. IX;
6541 St. Bonaventure, Sent. iv, D, 7) have maintained that this sacrament was instituted neither by Christ, nor by the apostles;
6542 but later in the course of time by one of the councils. Others (Pierre de Tarentaise, Sent. iv, D, 7) held that it was instituted
6543 by the apostles. But this cannot be admitted; since the institution of a new
6544 sacrament belongs to the power of excellence, which belongs to Christ alone.
6545 </p>
6546 <p id="TP_Q72_A1-p9"> And therefore we must say that Christ instituted this sacrament not by bestowing, but by promising it, according to
6547 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A1-p9.1" href="./asv.html#John.16.7" target="asv"> Jn. 16:7</a>: "If I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you, but if I go, I will send Him to you." And this was because in this sacrament
6548 the fulness of the Holy Ghost is bestowed, which was not to be given before Christ's Resurrection and Ascension; according
6549 to
6550 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A1-p9.2" href="./asv.html#John.7.39" target="asv">Jn. 7:39</a>: "As yet the Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet
6551 glorified."
6552 </p>
6553 <p id="TP_Q72_A1-p10">
6554 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Confirmation is the sacrament of the fulness of grace: wherefore there could be nothing corresponding to it in the Old Law,
6555 since "the Law brought nothing to perfection" (
6556 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A1-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.7.19" target="asv">Heb. 7:19</a>).
6557 </p>
6558 <p id="TP_Q72_A1-p11">
6559 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As stated above (
6560 <a id="TP_Q72_A1-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q65_A4.html">Q[65], A[4]</a>), all the sacraments are in some way necessary for salvation: but some, so that there is no salvation without them; some
6561 as conducing to the perfection of salvation; and thus it is that Confirmation is necessary for salvation: although salvation
6562 is possible without it, provided it be not omitted out of contempt.
6563 </p>
6564 <p id="TP_Q72_A1-p12">
6565 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Those who receive Confirmation, which is the sacrament of the fulness of grace, are conformed to Christ, inasmuch as from
6566 the very first instant of His conception He was "full of grace and truth" (
6567 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A1-p12.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.14" target="asv">Jn. 1:14</a>). This fulness was made known at His Baptism, when "the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape . . . upon Him" (
6568 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A1-p12.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.3.22" target="asv">Lk. 3:22</a>). Hence (
6569 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A1-p12.3" href="./asv.html#Luke.4.1" target="asv">Lk. 4:1</a>) it is written that "Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost, returned
6570 from the Jordan." Nor was it fitting to Christ's dignity, that He, Who is the Author of the sacraments, should receive the
6571 fulness of grace from a sacrament.
6572 </p>
6573 <p id="TP_Q72_A1-p13"></p>
6574 <p id="TP_Q72_A1-p14"></p>
6575 <a href="summa.TP_Q72.html"></a>
6576 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A2.html"></a>
6577 </div>
6578 <div id="TP_Q72_A2" class="div4">
6579 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A1.html"></a>
6580 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A3.html"></a>
6581 <h4 id="TP_Q72_A2-p0.1">Whether chrism is a fitting matter for this sacrament?</h4>
6582 <p id="TP_Q72_A2-p1"></p>
6583 <p id="TP_Q72_A2-p2">
6584 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that chrism is not a fitting matter for this sacrament. For this sacrament, as stated above (A[1], ad 1), was instituted
6585 by Christ when He promised His disciples the Holy Ghost. But He sent them the Holy Ghost without their being anointed with
6586 chrism. Moreover, the apostles themselves bestowed this sacrament without chrism, by the mere imposition of hands: for it
6587 is written (
6588 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.8.17" target="asv">Acts 8:17</a>) that the apostles "laid their hands upon"
6589 those who were baptized, "and they received the Holy Ghost." Therefore chrism is not the matter of this sacrament: since the
6590 matter is essential to the sacrament.
6591 </p>
6592 <p id="TP_Q72_A2-p3">
6593 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Confirmation perfects, in a way, the sacrament of Baptism, as stated above (
6594 <a id="TP_Q72_A2-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q65_A3.html">Q[65], AA[3]</a>,4): and so it ought to be conformed to it as perfection to the thing perfected. But the matter, in Baptism, is a simple element,
6595 viz. water. Therefore chrism, which is made of oil and balm, is not a fitting matter for this sacrament.
6596 </p>
6597 <p id="TP_Q72_A2-p4">
6598 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, oil is used as the matter of this sacrament for the purpose of anointing. But any oil will do for anointing: for
6599 instance, oil made from nuts, and from anything else. Therefore not only olive oil should be used for this sacrament.
6600 </p>
6601 <p id="TP_Q72_A2-p5">
6602 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, it has been stated above (
6603 <a id="TP_Q72_A2-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q66_A3.html">Q[66], A[3]</a>) that water is used as the matter of Baptism, because it is easily procured everywhere. But olive oil is not to be procured
6604 everywhere; and much less is balm. Therefore chrism, which is made of these, is not a fitting matter for this sacrament.
6605 </p>
6606 <p id="TP_Q72_A2-p6">
6607 <b>On the contrary,</b> Gregory says (Registr. iv): "Let no priest dare to sign the baptized infants on the brow with the sacred chrism." Therefore
6608 chrism is the matter of this sacrament.
6609 </p>
6610 <p id="TP_Q72_A2-p7">
6611 <b>I answer that,</b> Chrism is the fitting matter of this sacrament. For, as stated above
6612 <a id="TP_Q72_A2-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q72_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, in this sacrament the fulness of the Holy Ghost is given for the spiritual strength which belongs to the perfect age. Now
6613 when man comes to perfect age he begins at once to have intercourse with others; whereas until then he lives an individual
6614 life, as it were, confined to himself. Now the grace of the Holy Ghost is signified by oil; hence Christ is said to
6615 be "anointed with the oil of gladness" (
6616 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A2-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.44.8" target="asv">Ps. 44:8</a>), by reason of His being gifted with the fulness of the Holy Ghost. Consequently oil is a suitable matter of this sacrament.
6617 And balm is mixed with the oil, by reason of its fragrant odor, which spreads about: hence the Apostle says (
6618 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A2-p7.3" href="./asv.html#iiCor.2.15" target="asv">2 Cor. 2:15</a>): "We are the good odor of Christ," etc. And though many other things be fragrant, yet preference is given to balm, because
6619 it has a special odor of its own, and because it confers
6620 incorruptibility: hence it is written (
6621 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A2-p7.4" href="./asv.html#Sir.24.21" target="asv">Ecclus. 24:21</a>): "My odor is as the purest balm."
6622 </p>
6623 <p id="TP_Q72_A2-p8">
6624 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Christ, by the power which He exercises in the sacraments, bestowed on the apostles the reality of this sacrament, i.e. the
6625 fulness of the Holy Ghost, without the sacrament itself, because they had received "the first fruits of the Spirit" (
6626 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A2-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.23" target="asv">Rom. 8:23</a>). Nevertheless, something of keeping with the matter of this sacrament was displayed to the apostles in a sensible manner
6627 when they received the Holy Ghost. For that the Holy Ghost
6628 came down upon them in a sensible manner under the form of fire, refers to the same signification as oil: except in so far
6629 as fire has an active power, while oil has a passive power, as being the matter and incentive of fire. And this was quite
6630 fitting: for it was through the apostles that the grace of the Holy Ghost was to flow forth to others. Again, the Holy Ghost
6631 came down on the apostles in the shape of a tongue. Which refers to the same signification as balm: except in so far as the
6632 tongue communicates with others by speech, but balm, by its odor. because, to wit, the apostles were filled with the Holy
6633 Ghost, as teachers of the Faith; but the rest of the believers, as doing that which gives edification to the faithful.
6634 </p>
6635 <p id="TP_Q72_A2-p9"> In like manner, too, when the apostles imposed their hands, and when they preached, the fulness of the Holy Ghost came down
6636 under visible signs on the faithful, just as, at the beginning, He came down on the apostles: hence Peter said (
6637 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A2-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.11.15" target="asv">Acts 11:15</a>): "When I had begun to speak, the Holy Ghost fell upon them, as upon us also in the beginning." Consequently there was no
6638 need for sacramental sensible matter, where God sent sensible signs miraculously.
6639 </p>
6640 <p id="TP_Q72_A2-p10"> However, the apostles commonly made use of chrism in bestowing the sacrament, when such like visible signs were lacking.
6641 For Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iv): "There is a certain perfecting operation which our guides," i.e. the apostles, "call
6642 the sacrifice of Chrism."
6643 </p>
6644 <p id="TP_Q72_A2-p11">
6645 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Baptism is bestowed that spiritual life may be received simply; wherefore simple matter is fitting to it. But this sacrament
6646 is given that we may receive the fulness of the Holy Ghost, Whose operations are manifold, according to
6647 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A2-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.7.22" target="asv"> Wis. 7:22, </a> "In her is the" Holy "Spirit . . . one, manifold"; and
6648 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A2-p11.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.12.4" target="asv">1 Cor. 12:4, </a> "There are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit." Consequently a compound matter is appropriate to
6649 this sacrament.
6650 </p>
6651 <p id="TP_Q72_A2-p12">
6652 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> These properties of oil, by reason of which it symbolizes the Holy Ghost, are to be found in olive oil rather than in any
6653 other oil. In fact, the olive-tree itself, through being an evergreen, signifies the refreshing and merciful operation of
6654 the Holy Ghost.
6655 </p>
6656 <p id="TP_Q72_A2-p13"> Moreover, this oil is called oil properly, and is very much in use, wherever it is to be had. And whatever other liquid is
6657 so called, derives its name from its likeness to this oil: nor are the latter commonly used, unless it be to supply the want
6658 of olive oil. Therefore it is that this oil alone is used for this and certain other sacraments.
6659 </p>
6660 <p id="TP_Q72_A2-p14">
6661 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Baptism is the sacrament of absolute necessity; and so its matter should be at hand everywhere. But it is enough that the
6662 matter of this sacrament, which is not of such great necessity, be easily sent to all parts of the world.
6663 </p>
6664 <p id="TP_Q72_A2-p15"></p>
6665 <p id="TP_Q72_A2-p16"></p>
6666 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A1.html"></a>
6667 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A3.html"></a>
6668 </div>
6669 <div id="TP_Q72_A3" class="div4">
6670 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A2.html"></a>
6671 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A4.html"></a>
6672 <h4 id="TP_Q72_A3-p0.1">Whether it is essential to this sacrament that the chrism which is its matter be previously consecrated by a bishop?</h4>
6673 <p id="TP_Q72_A3-p1"></p>
6674 <p id="TP_Q72_A3-p2">
6675 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that it is not essential to this sacrament, that the chrism, which is its matter, be previously consecrated by a
6676 bishop. For Baptism which bestows full remission of sins is not less efficacious than this sacrament. But, though the baptismal
6677 water receives a kind of blessing before being used for Baptism; yet this is not essential to the sacrament: since in a case
6678 of necessity it can be dispensed with. Therefore neither is it essential to this
6679 sacrament that the chrism should be previously consecrated by a bishop.
6680 </p>
6681 <p id="TP_Q72_A3-p3">
6682 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the same should not be consecrated twice. But the sacramental matter is sanctified, in the very conferring of the
6683 sacrament, by the form of words wherein the sacrament is bestowed; hence Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan.): "The word
6684 is added to the element, and this becomes a sacrament." Therefore the chrism should not be consecrated before this sacrament
6685 is given.
6686 </p>
6687 <p id="TP_Q72_A3-p4">
6688 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, every consecration employed in the sacraments is ordained to the bestowal of grace. But the sensible matter composed
6689 of oil and balm is not receptive of grace. Therefore it should not be consecrated.
6690 </p>
6691 <p id="TP_Q72_A3-p5">
6692 <b>On the contrary,</b> Pope Innocent I says (Ep. ad Decent.): "Priests, when baptizing, may anoint the baptized with chrism, previously consecrated
6693 by a bishop: but they must not sign the brow with the same oil; this belongs to the bishop alone, when he gives the Paraclete."
6694 Now this is done in this sacrament. Therefore it is necessary for this sacrament that its matter be previously consecrated
6695 by a bishop.
6696 </p>
6697 <p id="TP_Q72_A3-p6">
6698 <b>I answer that,</b> The entire sanctification of the sacraments is derived from Christ, as stated above (
6699 <a id="TP_Q72_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q64_A3.html">Q[64], A[3]</a>). But it must be observed that Christ did use certain sacraments having a corporeal matter, viz. Baptism, and also the Eucharist.
6700 And consequently, from Christ's very act in using them, the matter of these sacraments received a certain aptitude to the
6701 perfection of the sacrament. Hence Chrysostom (Chromatius, In
6702 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A3-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.3.15" target="asv"> Matth.
6703 3:15
6704 </a>) says that "the waters of Baptism could never wash away the sins of believers, had they not been sanctified by contact with
6705 our Lord's body." And again, our Lord Himself "taking bread . . . blessed . . . and in like manner the chalice" (
6706 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A3-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Matt.26.26" target="asv">Mat. 26:26,27</a>;
6707 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A3-p6.4" href="./asv.html#Luke.22.19" target="asv"> Lk. 22:19, 20</a>). For this reason there is no need for the matter of these sacraments to be blessed previously, since Christ's blessing is
6708 enough. And if any blessing be used, it belongs to
6709 the solemnity of the sacrament, not to its essence. But Christ did not make use of visible anointings, so as not to slight
6710 the invisible unction whereby He was "anointed above" His "fellows" (
6711 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A3-p6.5" href="./asv.html#Ps.44.8" target="asv">Ps. 44:8</a>). And hence both chrism, and the holy oil, and the oil of the sick are blessed before being put to sacramental use. This
6712 suffices for the reply to the First Objection.
6713 </p>
6714 <p id="TP_Q72_A3-p7">
6715 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Each consecration of the chrism has not the same object. For just as an instrument derives instrumental power in two ways,
6716 viz. when it receives the form of an instrument, and when it is moved by the principal agent; so too the sacramental matter
6717 needs a twofold sanctification, by one of which it becomes fit matter for the sacrament, while by the other it is applied
6718 to the production of the effect.
6719 </p>
6720 <p id="TP_Q72_A3-p8">
6721 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Corporeal matter is receptive of grace, not so as to be the subject of grace, but only as the instrument of grace, as explained
6722 above (
6723 <a id="TP_Q72_A3-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q62_A3.html">Q[62], A[3]</a>). And this sacramental matter is consecrated, either by Christ, or by a bishop, who, in the Church, impersonates Christ.
6724 </p>
6725 <p id="TP_Q72_A3-p9"></p>
6726 <p id="TP_Q72_A3-p10"></p>
6727 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A2.html"></a>
6728 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A4.html"></a>
6729 </div>
6730 <div id="TP_Q72_A4" class="div4">
6731 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A3.html"></a>
6732 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A5.html"></a>
6733 <h4 id="TP_Q72_A4-p0.1">Whether the proper form of this sacrament is: "I sign thee with the sign of the cross," etc.?</h4>
6734 <p id="TP_Q72_A4-p1"></p>
6735 <p id="TP_Q72_A4-p2">
6736 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the proper form of this sacrament is not: "I sign thee with the sign of the cross, I confirm thee with the
6737 chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen." For the use of the sacraments
6738 is derived from Christ and the apostles. But neither did Christ institute this form, nor do we read of the apostles making
6739 use of it. Therefore it is not the proper form of this sacrament.
6740 </p>
6741 <p id="TP_Q72_A4-p3">
6742 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, just as the sacrament is the same everywhere, so should the form be the same: because everything has unity, just
6743 as it has being, from its form. But this form is not used by all: for some say: "I confirm thee with the chrism of sanctification."
6744 Therefore the above is not the proper form of this sacrament.
6745 </p>
6746 <p id="TP_Q72_A4-p4">
6747 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, this sacrament should be conformed to Baptism, as the perfect to the thing perfected, as stated above (A[2], OBJ[2]).
6748 But in the form of Baptism no mention is made of signing the character; nor again of the cross of Christ, though in Baptism
6749 man dies with Christ, as the Apostle says (
6750 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A4-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.3" target="asv">Rom. 6:3-8</a>); nor of the effect which is salvation, though Baptism is necessary for salvation. Again, in the baptismal form, only one
6751 action is
6752 included; and the person of the baptizer is expressed in the words: "I baptize thee, whereas the contrary is to be observed
6753 in the above form." Therefore this is not the proper form of this sacrament.
6754 </p>
6755 <p id="TP_Q72_A4-p5">
6756 <b>On the contrary,</b> Is the authority of the Church, who always uses this form.
6757 </p>
6758 <p id="TP_Q72_A4-p6">
6759 <b>I answer that,</b> The above form is appropriate to this sacrament. For just as the form of a natural thing gives it its species, so a sacramental
6760 form should contain whatever belongs to the species of the sacrament. Now as is evident from what has been already said (
6761 <a id="TP_Q72_A4-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q72_A1.html">AA[1]</a>,2), in this sacrament the Holy Ghost is given for strength in the spiritual combat. Wherefore in this sacrament three things
6762 are necessary; and they are contained in the above form.
6763 The first of these is the cause conferring fulness of spiritual strength which cause is the Blessed Trinity: and this is expressed
6764 in the words, "In the name of the Father," etc. The second is the spiritual strength itself bestowed on man unto salvation
6765 by the sacrament of visible matter; and this is referred to in the words, "I confirm thee with the chrism of salvation." The
6766 third is the sign which is given to the combatant, as in a bodily combat: thus are soldiers marked with the sign of
6767 their leaders. And to this refer the words, "I sign thee with the sign of the cross," in which sign, to wit, our King triumphed
6768 (cf.
6769 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A4-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Col.2.15" target="asv"> Col. 2:15</a>).
6770 </p>
6771 <p id="TP_Q72_A4-p7">
6772 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As stated above (A[2], ad 1), sometimes the effect of this sacrament, i.e. the fulness of the Holy Ghost, was given through
6773 the ministry of the apostles, under certain visible signs, wrought miraculously by God, Who can bestow the sacramental effect,
6774 independently of the sacrament. In these cases there was no need for either the matter or the form of this sacrament. On the
6775 other hand, sometimes they bestowed this sacrament as ministers of the
6776 sacraments. And then, they used both matter and form according to Christ's command. For the apostles, in conferring the sacraments,
6777 observed many things which are not handed down in those Scriptures that are in general use. Hence Dionysius says at the end
6778 of his treatise on the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy (chap. vii): "It is not allowed to explain in writing the prayers which are
6779 used in the sacraments, and to publish their mystical meaning, or the power which, coming from God, gives them their
6780 efficacy; we learn these things by holy tradition without any display,"* i.e. secretly. [*The passage quoted in the text of
6781 the Summa differs slightly from the above, which is translated directly from the works of Dionysius.] Hence the Apostle, speaking
6782 of the celebration of the Eucharist, writes (
6783 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.11.34" target="asv">1 Cor. 11:34</a>): "The rest I will set in order, when I come."
6784 </p>
6785 <p id="TP_Q72_A4-p8">
6786 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Holiness is the cause of salvation. Therefore it comes to the same whether we say "chrism of salvation" or "of sanctification."
6787 </p>
6788 <p id="TP_Q72_A4-p9">
6789 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Baptism is the regeneration unto the spiritual life, whereby man lives in himself. And therefore in the baptismal form that
6790 action alone is expressed which refers to the man to be sanctified. But this sacrament is ordained not only to the sanctification
6791 of man in himself, but also to strengthen him in his outward combat. Consequently not only is mention made of interior sanctification,
6792 in the words, "I confirm thee with the chrism of salvation": but
6793 furthermore man is signed outwardly, as it were with the standard of the cross, unto the outward spiritual combat; and this
6794 is signified by the words, "I sign thee with the sign of the cross."
6795 </p>
6796 <p id="TP_Q72_A4-p10"> But in the very word "baptize," which signifies "to cleanse," we can understand both the matter, which is the cleansing water,
6797 and the effect, which is salvation. Whereas these are not understood by the word "confirm"; and consequently they had to be
6798 expressed.
6799 </p>
6800 <p id="TP_Q72_A4-p11"> Again, it has been said above (Q[66], A[5], ad 1) that the pronoun "I" is not necessary to the Baptismal form, because it
6801 is included in the first person of the verb. It is, however, included in order to express the intention. But this does not
6802 seem so necessary in Confirmation, which is conferred only by a minister of excellence, as we shall state later on
6803 <a id="TP_Q72_A4-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q72_A11.html">(A[11])</a>.
6804 </p>
6805 <p id="TP_Q72_A4-p12"></p>
6806 <p id="TP_Q72_A4-p13"></p>
6807 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A3.html"></a>
6808 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A5.html"></a>
6809 </div>
6810 <div id="TP_Q72_A5" class="div4">
6811 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A4.html"></a>
6812 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A6.html"></a>
6813 <h4 id="TP_Q72_A5-p0.1">Whether the sacrament of Confirmation imprints a character?</h4>
6814 <p id="TP_Q72_A5-p1"></p>
6815 <p id="TP_Q72_A5-p2">
6816 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the sacrament of Confirmation does not imprint a character. For a character means a distinctive sign. But a
6817 man is not distinguished from unbelievers by the sacrament of Confirmation, for this is the effect of Baptism; nor from the
6818 rest of the faithful, because this sacrament is ordained to the spiritual combat, which is enjoined to all the faithful. Therefore
6819 a character is not imprinted in this sacrament.
6820 </p>
6821 <p id="TP_Q72_A5-p3">
6822 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it was stated above (
6823 <a id="TP_Q72_A5-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q63_A2.html">Q[63], A[2]</a>) that a character is a spiritual power. Now a power must be either active or passive. But the active power in the sacraments
6824 is conferred by the sacrament of order: while the passive or receptive power is conferred by the sacrament of Baptism. Therefore
6825 no character is imprinted by the sacrament of Confirmation.
6826 </p>
6827 <p id="TP_Q72_A5-p4">
6828 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, in circumcision, which is a character of the body, no spiritual character is imprinted. But in this sacrament a
6829 character is imprinted on the body, when the sign of the cross is signed with chrism on man's brow. Therefore a spiritual
6830 character is not imprinted by this sacrament.
6831 </p>
6832 <p id="TP_Q72_A5-p5">
6833 <b>On the contrary,</b> A character is imprinted in every sacrament that is not repeated. But this sacrament is not repeated: for Gregory II says
6834 (Ep. iv ad Bonifac.): "As to the man who was confirmed a second time by a bishop, such a repetition must be forbidden." Therefore
6835 a character is imprinted in Confirmation.
6836 </p>
6837 <p id="TP_Q72_A5-p6">
6838 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (Q[63], A[2]), a character is a spiritual power ordained to certain sacred actions. Now it has been said
6839 above
6840 <a id="TP_Q72_A5-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q72_A1.html">(A[1];</a> Q[65], A[1]) that, just as Baptism is a spiritual regeneration unto Christian life, so also is Confirmation a certain spiritual
6841 growth bringing man to perfect spiritual age. But it is evident, from a comparison with the life of the body, that the action
6842 which is proper to man immediately after birth,
6843 is different from the action which is proper to him when he has come to perfect age. And therefore by the sacrament of Confirmation
6844 man is given a spiritual power in respect of sacred actions other than those in respect of which he receives power in Baptism.
6845 For in Baptism he receives power to do those things which pertain to his own salvation, forasmuch as he lives to himself:
6846 whereas in Confirmation he receives power to do those things which pertain to the spiritual combat with the enemies of
6847 the Faith. This is evident from the example of the apostles, who, before they received the fulness of the Holy Ghost, were
6848 in the "upper room . . . persevering . . . in prayer" (
6849 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A5-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Acts.1.13" target="asv">Acts 1:13,14</a>); whereas afterwards they went out and feared not to confess their faith in public, even in the face of the enemies of the
6850 Christian Faith. And therefore it is evident that a character is imprinted in the sacrament of Confirmation.
6851 </p>
6852 <p id="TP_Q72_A5-p7">
6853 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> All have to wage the spiritual combat with our invisible enemies. But to fight against visible foes, viz. against the persecutors
6854 of the Faith, by confessing Christ's name, belongs to the confirmed, who have already come spiritually to the age of virility,
6855 according to
6856 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A5-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iJohn.2.14" target="asv">1 Jn. 2:14</a>: "I write unto you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and you have overcome the wicked
6857 one." And therefore the character of Confirmation
6858 is a distinctive sign, not between unbelievers and believers, but between those who are grown up spiritually and those of
6859 whom it is written: "As new-born babes" (
6860 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A5-p7.2" href="./asv.html#iPet.2.2" target="asv">1 Pet. 2:2</a>).
6861 </p>
6862 <p id="TP_Q72_A5-p8">
6863 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> All the sacraments are protestations of faith. Therefore just as he who is baptized receives the power of testifying to his
6864 faith by receiving the other sacraments; so he who is confirmed receives the power of publicly confessing his faith by words,
6865 as it were "ex officio."
6866 </p>
6867 <p id="TP_Q72_A5-p9">
6868 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The sacraments of the Old Law are called "justice of the flesh" (
6869 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A5-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.9.10" target="asv">Heb. 9:10</a>) because, to wit, they wrought nothing inwardly. Consequently in circumcision a character was imprinted in the body only,
6870 but not in the soul. But in Confirmation, since it is a sacrament of the New Law, a spiritual character is imprinted at the
6871 same time, together with the bodily character.
6872 </p>
6873 <p id="TP_Q72_A5-p10"></p>
6874 <p id="TP_Q72_A5-p11"></p>
6875 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A4.html"></a>
6876 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A6.html"></a>
6877 </div>
6878 <div id="TP_Q72_A6" class="div4">
6879 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A5.html"></a>
6880 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A7.html"></a>
6881 <h4 id="TP_Q72_A6-p0.1">Whether the character of Confirmation presupposes of necessity, the baptismal character?</h4>
6882 <p id="TP_Q72_A6-p1"></p>
6883 <p id="TP_Q72_A6-p2">
6884 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the character of Confirmation does not presuppose, of necessity, the baptismal character. For the sacrament
6885 of Confirmation is ordained to the public confession of the Faith of Christ. But many, even before Baptism, have publicly
6886 confessed the Faith of Christ by shedding their blood for the Faith. Therefore the character of Confirmation does not presuppose
6887 the baptismal character.
6888 </p>
6889 <p id="TP_Q72_A6-p3">
6890 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is not related of the apostles that they were baptized; especially, since it is written (
6891 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A6-p3.1" href="./asv.html#John.4.2" target="asv">Jn. 4:2</a>) that Christ "Himself did not baptize, but His disciples." Yet afterwards they were confirmed by the coming of the Holy Ghost.
6892 Therefore, in like manner, others can be confirmed before being baptized.
6893 </p>
6894 <p id="TP_Q72_A6-p4">
6895 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is written (
6896 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A6-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.10.44" target="asv">Acts 10:44-48</a>) that "while Peter was yet speaking . . . the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word . . . and [Vulg.: 'for'] they
6897 heard them speaking with tongues": and afterwards "he commanded them to be baptized." Therefore others with equal reason can
6898 be confirmed before being baptized.
6899 </p>
6900 <p id="TP_Q72_A6-p5">
6901 <b>On the contrary,</b> Rabanus says (De Instit. Cleric. i): "Lastly the Paraclete is given to the baptized by the imposition of the high priest's
6902 hands, in order that the baptized may be strengthened by the Holy Ghost so as to publish his faith."
6903 </p>
6904 <p id="TP_Q72_A6-p6">
6905 <b>I answer that,</b> The character of Confirmation, of necessity supposes the baptismal character: so that, in effect, if one who is not baptized
6906 were to be confirmed, he would receive nothing, but would have to be confirmed again after receiving Baptism. The reason of
6907 this is that, Confirmation is to Baptism as growth to birth, as is evident from what has been said above
6908 <a id="TP_Q72_A6-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q72_A1.html">(A[1];</a> Q[65], A[1]). Now it is clear that no one can be brought to perfect age
6909 unless he be first born: and in like manner, unless a man be first baptized, he cannot receive the sacrament of Confirmation.
6910 </p>
6911 <p id="TP_Q72_A6-p7">
6912 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The Divine power is not confined to the sacraments. Hence man can receive spiritual strength to confess the Faith of Christ
6913 publicly, without receiving the sacrament of Confirmation: just as he can also receive remission of sins without Baptism.
6914 Yet, just as none receive the effect of Baptism without the desire of Baptism; so none receive the effect of Confirmation,
6915 without the desire of Confirmation. And man can have this even before receiving
6916 Baptism.
6917 </p>
6918 <p id="TP_Q72_A6-p8">
6919 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Augustine says (Ep. cclxv), from our Lord's words, "'He that is washed, needeth not but to wash his feet' (
6920 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A6-p8.1" href="./asv.html#John.13.10" target="asv">Jn. 13:10</a>), we gather that Peter and Christ's other disciples had been baptized, either with John's Baptism, as some think; or with
6921 Christ's, which is more credible. For He did not refuse to administer Baptism, so as to have servants by whom to baptize others."
6922 </p>
6923 <p id="TP_Q72_A6-p9">
6924 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Those who heard the preaching of Peter received the effect of Confirmation miraculously: but not the sacrament of Confirmation.
6925 Now it has been stated (ad 1) that the effect of Confirmation can be bestowed on man before Baptism, whereas the sacrament
6926 cannot. For just as the effect of Confirmation, which is spiritual strength, presupposes the effect of Baptism, which is justification,
6927 so the sacrament of Confirmation presupposes the sacrament of
6928 Baptism.
6929 </p>
6930 <p id="TP_Q72_A6-p10"></p>
6931 <p id="TP_Q72_A6-p11"></p>
6932 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A5.html"></a>
6933 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A7.html"></a>
6934 </div>
6935 <div id="TP_Q72_A7" class="div4">
6936 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A6.html"></a>
6937 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A8.html"></a>
6938 <h4 id="TP_Q72_A7-p0.1">Whether sanctifying grace is bestowed in this sacrament?</h4>
6939 <p id="TP_Q72_A7-p1"></p>
6940 <p id="TP_Q72_A7-p2">
6941 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that sanctifying grace is not bestowed in this sacrament. For sanctifying grace is ordained against sin. But this
6942 sacrament, as stated above
6943 <a id="TP_Q72_A7-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q72_A6.html">(A[6])</a> is given only to the baptized, who are cleansed from sin. Therefore sanctifying grace is not bestowed in this sacrament.
6944 </p>
6945 <p id="TP_Q72_A7-p3">
6946 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, sinners especially need sanctifying grace, by which alone can they be justified. If, therefore, sanctifying grace
6947 is bestowed in this sacrament, it seems that it should be given to those who are in sin. And yet this is not true.
6948 </p>
6949 <p id="TP_Q72_A7-p4">
6950 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, there can only be one species of sanctifying grace, since it is ordained to one effect. But two forms of the same
6951 species cannot be in the same subject. Since, therefore, man receives sanctifying grace in Baptism, it seems that sanctifying
6952 grace is not bestowed in Confirmation, which is given to none but the baptized.
6953 </p>
6954 <p id="TP_Q72_A7-p5">
6955 <b>On the contrary,</b> Pope Melchiades says (Ep. ad Episc. Hispan.): "The Holy Ghost bestows at the font the fulness of innocence; but in Confirmation
6956 He confers an increase of grace."
6957 </p>
6958 <p id="TP_Q72_A7-p6">
6959 <b>I answer that,</b> In this sacrament, as stated above (
6960 <a id="TP_Q72_A7-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q72_A1.html">AA[1]</a>,4), the Holy Ghost is given to the baptized for strength: just as He was given to the apostles on the day of Pentecost, as
6961 we read in
6962 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A7-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Acts.2" target="asv">Acts 2</a>; and just as He was given to the baptized by the imposition of the apostles' hands, as related in
6963 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A7-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Acts.8.17" target="asv"> Acts 8:17.</a> Now it has been proved in the
6964 <a id="TP_Q72_A7-p6.4" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q43_A3.html">FP, Q[43], A[3]</a> that the Holy Ghost is not sent or given except with
6965 sanctifying grace. Consequently it is evident that sanctifying grace is bestowed in this sacrament.
6966 </p>
6967 <p id="TP_Q72_A7-p7">
6968 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Sanctifying grace does indeed take away sin; but it has other effects also, because it suffices to carry man through every
6969 step as far as eternal life. Hence to Paul was it said (
6970 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A7-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.12.9" target="asv">2 Cor. 12:9</a>): "My grace is sufficient for thee": and he says of himself (
6971 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A7-p7.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.10" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:10</a>): "By the grace of God I am what I am." Therefore sanctifying grace is given not only for the remission of sin, but also
6972 for growth and stability in
6973 righteousness. And thus is it bestowed in this sacrament.
6974 </p>
6975 <p id="TP_Q72_A7-p8">
6976 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Further, as appears from its very name, this sacrament is given in order "to confirm" what it finds already there. And consequently
6977 it should not be given to those who are not in a state of grace. For this reason, just as it is not given to the unbaptized,
6978 so neither should it be given to the adult sinners, except they be restored by Penance. Wherefore was it decreed in the Council
6979 of Orleans (Can. iii) that "men should come to Confirmation fasting;
6980 and should be admonished to confess their sins first, so that being cleansed they may be able to receive the gift of the Holy
6981 Ghost." And then this sacrament perfects the effects of Penance, as of Baptism: because by the grace which he has received
6982 in this sacrament, the penitent will obtain fuller remission of his sin. And if any adult approach, being in a state of sin
6983 of which he is not conscious or for which he is not perfectly contrite, he will receive the remission of his sins through
6984 the
6985 grace bestowed in this sacrament.
6986 </p>
6987 <p id="TP_Q72_A7-p9">
6988 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As stated above (
6989 <a id="TP_Q72_A7-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q62_A2.html">Q[62], A[2]</a>), the sacramental grace adds to the sanctifying grace taken in its wide sense, something that produces a special effect,
6990 and to which the sacrament is ordained. If, then, we consider, in its wide sense, the grace bestowed in this sacrament, it
6991 does not differ from that bestowed in Baptism, but increases what was already there. On the other hand, if we consider it
6992 as to that which is added over and
6993 above, then one differs in species from the other.
6994 </p>
6995 <p id="TP_Q72_A7-p10"></p>
6996 <p id="TP_Q72_A7-p11"></p>
6997 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A6.html"></a>
6998 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A8.html"></a>
6999 </div>
7000 <div id="TP_Q72_A8" class="div4">
7001 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A7.html"></a>
7002 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A9.html"></a>
7003 <h4 id="TP_Q72_A8-p0.1">Whether this sacrament should be given to all?</h4>
7004 <p id="TP_Q72_A8-p1"></p>
7005 <p id="TP_Q72_A8-p2">
7006 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that this sacrament should not be given to all. For this sacrament is given in order to confer a certain excellence,
7007 as stated above (A[11], ad 2). But all are not suited for that which belongs to excellence. Therefore this sacrament should
7008 not be given to all.
7009 </p>
7010 <p id="TP_Q72_A8-p3">
7011 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, by this sacrament man advances spiritually to perfect age. But perfect age is inconsistent with childhood. Therefore
7012 at least it should not be given to children.
7013 </p>
7014 <p id="TP_Q72_A8-p4">
7015 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as Pope Melchiades says (Ep. ad Episc. Hispan.) "after Baptism we are strengthened for the combat." But women are
7016 incompetent to combat, by reason of the frailty of their sex. Therefore neither should women receive this sacrament.
7017 </p>
7018 <p id="TP_Q72_A8-p5">
7019 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, Pope Melchiades says (Ep. ad Episc. Hispan.): "Although the benefit of Regeneration suffices for those who are on
7020 the point of death, yet the graces of Confirmation are necessary for those who are to conquer. Confirmation arms and strengthens
7021 those to whom the struggles and combats of this world are reserved. And he who comes to die, having kept unsullied the innocence
7022 he acquired in Baptism, is confirmed by death; for after death he can sin no more."
7023 Therefore this sacrament should not be given to those who are on the point of death: and so it should not be given to all.
7024 </p>
7025 <p id="TP_Q72_A8-p6">
7026 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
7027 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A8-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.2.2" target="asv">Acts 2:2</a>) that the Holy Ghost in coming, "filled the whole house," whereby the Church is signified; and afterwards it is added that
7028 "they were all filled with the Holy Ghost." But this sacrament is given that we may receive that fulness. Therefore it should
7029 be given to all who belong to the Church.
7030 </p>
7031 <p id="TP_Q72_A8-p7">
7032 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
7033 <a id="TP_Q72_A8-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q72_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, man is spiritually advanced by this sacrament to perfect age. Now the intention of nature is that everyone born corporally,
7034 should come to perfect age: yet this is sometimes hindered by reason of the corruptibility of the body, which is forestalled
7035 by death. But much more is it God's intention to bring all things to perfection, since nature shares in this intention inasmuch
7036 as it reflects Him: hence it is
7037 written (
7038 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A8-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Deut.32.4" target="asv">Dt. 32:4</a>): "The works of God are perfect." Now the soul, to which spiritual birth and perfect spiritual age belong, is immortal; and
7039 just as it can in old age attain to spiritual birth, so can it attain to perfect (spiritual) age in youth or childhood; because
7040 the various ages of the body do not affect the soul. Therefore this sacrament should be given to all.
7041 </p>
7042 <p id="TP_Q72_A8-p8">
7043 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This sacrament is given in order to confer a certain excellence, not indeed, like the sacrament of order, of one man over
7044 another, but of man in regard to himself: thus the same man, when arrived at maturity, excels himself as he was when a boy.
7045 </p>
7046 <p id="TP_Q72_A8-p9">
7047 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As stated above, the age of the body does not affect the soul. Consequently even in childhood man can attain to the perfection
7048 of spiritual age, of which it is written (
7049 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A8-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.4.8" target="asv">Wis. 4:8</a>): "Venerable old age is not that of long time, nor counted by the number of years." And hence it is that many children, by
7050 reason of the strength of the Holy Ghost which they had received, fought bravely for Christ even to the shedding of their
7051 blood.
7052 </p>
7053 <p id="TP_Q72_A8-p10">
7054 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Chrysostom says (Hom. i De Machab.), "in earthly contests fitness of age, physique and rank are required; and consequently
7055 slaves, women, old men, and boys are debarred from taking part therein. But in the heavenly combats, the Stadium is open equally
7056 to all, to every age, and to either sex." Again, he says (Hom. de Militia Spirit.): "In God's eyes even women fight, for many
7057 a woman has waged the spiritual warfare with the courage of a man. For
7058 some have rivaled men in the courage with which they have suffered martyrdom; and some indeed have shown themselves stronger
7059 than men." Therefore this sacrament should be given to women.
7060 </p>
7061 <p id="TP_Q72_A8-p11">
7062 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> As we have already observed, the soul, to which spiritual age belongs, is immortal. Wherefore this sacrament should be given
7063 to those on the point of death, that they may be seen to be perfect at the resurrection, according to
7064 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A8-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.4.13" target="asv"> Eph. 4:13</a>: "Until we all meet into the unity of faith . . . unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ." And hence Hugh of
7065 St. Victor says (De Sacram. ii), "It would be altogether hazardous, if
7066 anyone happened to go forth from this life without being confirmed": not that such a one would be lost, except perhaps through
7067 contempt; but that this would be detrimental to his perfection. And therefore even children dying after Confirmation obtain
7068 greater glory, just as here below they receive more grace. The passage quoted is to be taken in the sense that, with regard
7069 to the dangers of the present combat, those who are on the point of death do not need this sacrament.
7070 </p>
7071 <p id="TP_Q72_A8-p12"></p>
7072 <p id="TP_Q72_A8-p13"></p>
7073 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A7.html"></a>
7074 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A9.html"></a>
7075 </div>
7076 <div id="TP_Q72_A9" class="div4">
7077 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A8.html"></a>
7078 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A10.html"></a>
7079 <h4 id="TP_Q72_A9-p0.1">Whether this sacrament should be given to man on the forehead?</h4>
7080 <p id="TP_Q72_A9-p1"></p>
7081 <p id="TP_Q72_A9-p2">
7082 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that this sacrament should not be given to man on the forehead. For this sacrament perfects Baptism, as stated above
7083 (
7084 <a id="TP_Q72_A9-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q65_A3.html">Q[65], AA[3]</a>,4). But the sacrament of Baptism is given to man over his whole body. Therefore this sacrament should not be given on the
7085 forehead only.
7086 </p>
7087 <p id="TP_Q72_A9-p3">
7088 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, this sacrament is given for spiritual strength, as stated above (
7089 <a id="TP_Q72_A9-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q72_A1.html">AA[1]</a>,2,4). But spiritual strength is situated principally in the heart. Therefore this sacrament should be given over the heart
7090 rather than on the forehead.
7091 </p>
7092 <p id="TP_Q72_A9-p4">
7093 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, this sacrament is given to man that he may freely confess the faith of Christ. But "with the mouth, confession is
7094 made unto salvation," according to
7095 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A9-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.10.10" target="asv"> Rom. 10:10.</a> Therefore this sacrament should be given about the mouth rather than on the forehead.
7096 </p>
7097 <p id="TP_Q72_A9-p5">
7098 <b>On the contrary,</b> Rabanus says (De Instit. Cleric. i): "The baptized is signed by the priest with chrism on the top of the head, but by the
7099 bishop on the forehead."
7100 </p>
7101 <p id="TP_Q72_A9-p6">
7102 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
7103 <a id="TP_Q72_A9-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q72_A1.html">AA[1]</a>,4), in this sacrament man receives the Holy Ghost for strength in the spiritual combat, that he may bravely confess the Faith
7104 of Christ even in face of the enemies of that Faith. Wherefore he is fittingly signed with the sign of the cross on the forehead,
7105 with chrism, for two reasons. First, because he is signed with the sign of the cross, as a soldier with the sign of his leader,
7106 which should be evident and
7107 manifest. Now, the forehead, which is hardly ever covered, is the most conspicuous part of the human body. Wherefore the confirmed
7108 is anointed with chrism on the forehead, that he may show publicly that he is a Christian: thus too the apostles after receiving
7109 the Holy Ghost showed themselves in public, whereas before they remained hidden in the upper room.
7110 </p>
7111 <p id="TP_Q72_A9-p7"> Secondly, because man is hindered from freely confessing Christ's name, by two things---by fear and by shame. Now both these
7112 things betray themselves principally on the forehead on account of the proximity of the imagination, and because the (vital)
7113 spirits mount directly from the heart to the forehead: hence "those who are ashamed, blush, and those who are afraid, pale"
7114 (Ethic. iv). And therefore man is signed with chrism, that neither fear nor shame may hinder him from
7115 confessing the name of Christ.
7116 </p>
7117 <p id="TP_Q72_A9-p8">
7118 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> By baptism we are regenerated unto spiritual life, which belongs to the whole man. But in Confirmation we are strengthened
7119 for the combat; the sign of which should be borne on the forehead, as in a conspicuous place.
7120 </p>
7121 <p id="TP_Q72_A9-p9">
7122 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The principle of fortitude is in the heart, but its sign appears on the forehead: wherefore it is written (
7123 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A9-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Ezek.3.8" target="asv">Ezech. 3:8</a>): "Behold I have made . . . thy forehead harder than their foreheads." Hence the sacrament of the Eucharist, whereby man
7124 is confirmed in himself, belongs to the heart, according to
7125 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A9-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.103.15" target="asv"> Ps. 103:15</a>: "That bread may strengthen man's heart." But the sacrament of Confirmation is required as a sign of
7126 fortitude against others; and for this reason it is given on the forehead.
7127 </p>
7128 <p id="TP_Q72_A9-p10">
7129 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This sacrament is given that we may confess freely: but not that we may confess simply, for this is also the effect of Baptism.
7130 And therefore it should not be given on the mouth, but on the forehead, where appear the signs of those passions which hinder
7131 free confession.
7132 </p>
7133 <p id="TP_Q72_A9-p11"></p>
7134 <p id="TP_Q72_A9-p12"></p>
7135 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A8.html"></a>
7136 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A10.html"></a>
7137 </div>
7138 <div id="TP_Q72_A10" class="div4">
7139 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A9.html"></a>
7140 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A11.html"></a>
7141 <h4 id="TP_Q72_A10-p0.1">Whether he who is confirmed needs one to stand* for him? [*Literally, "to hold him"]</h4>
7142 <p id="TP_Q72_A10-p1"></p>
7143 <p id="TP_Q72_A10-p2">
7144 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that he who is confirmed needs no one to stand for him. For this sacrament is given not only to children but also
7145 to adults. But adults can stand for themselves. Therefore it is absurd that someone else should stand for them.
7146 </p>
7147 <p id="TP_Q72_A10-p3">
7148 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, he that belongs already to the Church, has free access to the prince of the Church, i.e. the bishop. But this sacrament,
7149 as stated above
7150 <a id="TP_Q72_A10-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q72_A6.html">(A[6])</a>, is given only to one that is baptized, who is already a member of the Church. Therefore it seems that he should not be brought
7151 by another to the bishop in order to receive this sacrament.
7152 </p>
7153 <p id="TP_Q72_A10-p4">
7154 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, this sacrament is given for spiritual strength, which has more vigor in men than in women, according to
7155 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A10-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.31.10" target="asv"> Prov. 31:10</a>: "Who shall find a valiant woman?" Therefore at least a woman should not stand for a man in confirmation.
7156 </p>
7157 <p id="TP_Q72_A10-p5">
7158 <b>On the contrary,</b> Are the following words of Pope Innocent, which are to be found in the Decretals (X
7159 <a id="TP_Q72_A10-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XX_Q4.html">XX, Q[4])</a>: "If anyone raise the children of another's marriage from the sacred font, or stand for them in Confirmation," etc. Therefore,
7160 just as someone is required as sponsor of one who is baptized, so is someone required to stand for him who is to be confirmed
7161 .
7162 </p>
7163 <p id="TP_Q72_A10-p6">
7164 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
7165 <a id="TP_Q72_A10-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q72_A1.html">AA[1]</a>,4,9), this sacrament is given to man for strength in the spiritual combat. Now, just as one newly born requires someone to
7166 teach him things pertaining to ordinary conduct, according to
7167 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A10-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.12.9" target="asv"> Heb. 12:9</a>: "We have had fathers of our flesh, for instructors, and we obeyed [Vulg.: 'reverenced']" them; so they who are chosen for
7168 the fight need instructors by whom they are informed of things concerning
7169 the conduct of the battle, and hence in earthly wars, generals and captains are appointed to the command of the others. For
7170 this reason he also who receives this sacrament, has someone to stand for him, who, as it were, has to instruct him concerning
7171 the fight.
7172 </p>
7173 <p id="TP_Q72_A10-p7"> Likewise, since this sacrament bestows on man the perfection of spiritual age, as stated above (
7174 <a id="TP_Q72_A10-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q72_A2.html">AA[2]</a>,5), therefore he who approaches this sacrament is upheld by another, as being spiritually a weakling and a child.
7175 </p>
7176 <p id="TP_Q72_A10-p8">
7177 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although he who is confirmed, be adult in body, nevertheless he is not yet spiritually adult.
7178 </p>
7179 <p id="TP_Q72_A10-p9">
7180 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Though he who is baptized is made a member of the Church, nevertheless he is not yet enrolled as a Christian soldier. And
7181 therefore he is brought to the bishop, as to the commander of the army, by one who is already enrolled as a Christian soldier.
7182 For one who is not yet confirmed should not stand for another in Confirmation.
7183 </p>
7184 <p id="TP_Q72_A10-p10">
7185 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> According to
7186 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A10-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Col.3" target="asv">Col. 3</a> *(
7187 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A10-p10.2" href="./asv.html#Gal.3.28" target="asv">Gal. 3:28</a>), "in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female." Consequently it matters not whether a man or a woman stand for one
7188 who is to be confirmed.
7189 </p>
7190 <p id="TP_Q72_A10-p11"></p>
7191 <p id="TP_Q72_A10-p12"></p>
7192 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A9.html"></a>
7193 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A11.html"></a>
7194 </div>
7195 <div id="TP_Q72_A11" class="div4">
7196 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A10.html"></a>
7197 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A12.html"></a>
7198 <h4 id="TP_Q72_A11-p0.1">Whether only a bishop can confer this sacrament?</h4>
7199 <p id="TP_Q72_A11-p1"></p>
7200 <p id="TP_Q72_A11-p2">
7201 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that not only a bishop can confer this sacrament. For Gregory (Regist. iv), writing to Bishop Januarius, says: "We
7202 hear that some were scandalized because we forbade priests to anoint with chrism those who have been baptized. Yet in doing
7203 this we followed the ancient custom of our Church: but if this trouble some so very much we permit priests, where no bishop
7204 is to be had, to anoint the baptized on the forehead with chrism." But that which is
7205 essential to the sacraments should not be changed for the purpose of avoiding scandal. Therefore it seems that it is not essential
7206 to this sacrament that it be conferred by a bishop.
7207 </p>
7208 <p id="TP_Q72_A11-p3">
7209 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the sacrament of Baptism seems to be more efficacious than the sacrament of Confirmation: since it bestows full
7210 remission of sins, both as to guilt and as to punishment, whereas this sacrament does not. But a simple priest, in virtue
7211 of his office, can give the sacrament of Baptism: and in a case of necessity anyone, even without orders, can baptize. Therefore
7212 it is not essential to this sacrament that it be conferred by a bishop.
7213 </p>
7214 <p id="TP_Q72_A11-p4">
7215 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the top of the head, where according to medical men the reason is situated (i.e. the "particular reason," which
7216 is called the "cogitative faculty"), is more noble than the forehead, which is the site of the imagination. But a simple priest
7217 can anoint the baptized with chrism on the top of the head. Therefore much more can he anoint them with chrism on the forehead,
7218 which belongs to this sacrament.
7219 </p>
7220 <p id="TP_Q72_A11-p5">
7221 <b>On the contrary,</b> Pope Eusebius (Ep. iii ad Ep. Tusc.) says: "The sacrament of the imposition of the hand should be held in great veneration,
7222 and can be given by none but the high priests. Nor is it related or known to have been conf erred in apostolic times by others
7223 than the apostles themselves; nor can it ever be either licitly or validly performed by others than those who stand in their
7224 place. And if anyone presume to do otherwise, it must be considered null and void;
7225 nor will such a thing ever be counted among the sacraments of the Church." Therefore it is essential to this sacrament, which
7226 is called "the sacrament of the imposition of the hand," that it be given by a bishop.
7227 </p>
7228 <p id="TP_Q72_A11-p6">
7229 <b>I answer that,</b> In every work the final completion is reserved to the supreme act or power; thus the preparation of the matter belongs to
7230 the lower craftsmen, the higher gives the form, but the highest of all is he to whom pertains the use, which is the end of
7231 things made by art; thus also the letter which is written by the clerk, is signed by his employer. Now the faithful of Christ
7232 are a Divine work, according to
7233 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A11-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.3.9" target="asv">1 Cor. 3:9</a>: "You are God's building";
7234 and they are also "an epistle," as it were, "written with the Spirit of God," according to
7235 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A11-p6.2" href="./asv.html#iiCor.3.2" target="asv">2 Cor. 3:2,3.</a> And this sacrament of Confirmation is, as it were, the final completion of the sacrament of Baptism; in the sense that by
7236 Baptism man is built up into a spiritual dwelling, and is written like a spiritual letter; whereas by the sacrament of Confirmation,
7237 like a house already built, he is consecrated as a temple of the Holy Ghost, and as a letter already written, is
7238 signed with the sign of the cross. Therefore the conferring of this sacrament is reserved to bishops, who possess supreme
7239 power in the Church: just as in the primitive Church, the fulness of the Holy Ghost was given by the apostles, in whose place
7240 the bishops stand (
7241 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A11-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Acts.8" target="asv">Acts 8</a>). Hence Pope Urban I says: "All the faithful should. after Baptism, receive the Holy Ghost by the imposition of the bishop's
7242 hand, that they may become perfect Christians."
7243 </p>
7244 <p id="TP_Q72_A11-p7">
7245 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The Pope has the plenitude of power in the Church, in virtue of which he can commit to certain lower orders things that belong
7246 to the higher orders: thus he allows priests to confer minor orders, which belong to the episcopal power. And in virtue of
7247 this fulness of power the Pope, Blessed Gregory, allowed simple priests to confer this sacrament, so long as the scandal was
7248 ended.
7249 </p>
7250 <p id="TP_Q72_A11-p8">
7251 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The sacrament of Baptism is more efficacious than this sacrament as to the removal of evil, since it is a spiritual birth,
7252 that consists in change from non-being to being. But this sacrament is more efficacious for progress in good; since it is
7253 a spiritual growth from imperfect being to perfect being. And hence this sacrament is committed to a more worthy minister.
7254 </p>
7255 <p id="TP_Q72_A11-p9">
7256 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Rabanus says (De Instit. Cleric. i), "the baptized is signed by the priest with chrism on the top of the head, but by
7257 the bishop on the forehead; that the former unction may symbolize the descent of the Holy Ghost on hint, in order to consecrate
7258 a dwelling to God: and that the second also may teach us that the sevenfold grace of the same Holy Ghost descends on man with
7259 all fulness of sanctity, knowledge and virtue." Hence this unction is reserved
7260 to bishops, not on account of its being applied to a more worthy part of the body, but by reason of its having a more powerful
7261 effect.
7262 </p>
7263 <p id="TP_Q72_A11-p10"></p>
7264 <p id="TP_Q72_A11-p11"></p>
7265 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A10.html"></a>
7266 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A12.html"></a>
7267 </div>
7268 <div id="TP_Q72_A12" class="div4">
7269 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A11.html"></a>
7270 <a href="summa.TP_Q73.html"></a>
7271 <h4 id="TP_Q72_A12-p0.1">Whether the rite of this sacrament is appropriate?</h4>
7272 <p id="TP_Q72_A12-p1"></p>
7273 <p id="TP_Q72_A12-p2">
7274 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the rite of this sacrament is not appropriate. For the sacrament of Baptism is of greater necessity than this,
7275 as stated above (A[2], ad 4;
7276 <a id="TP_Q72_A12-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q65_A3.html"> Q[65], AA[3]</a>,4). But certain seasons are fixed for Baptism, viz. Easter and Pentecost. Therefore some fixed time of the year should be
7277 chosen for this sacrament.
7278 </p>
7279 <p id="TP_Q72_A12-p3">
7280 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, just as this sacrament requires devotion both in the giver and in the receiver, so also does the sacrament of Baptism.
7281 But in the sacrament of Baptism it is not necessary that it should be received or given fasting. Therefore it seems unfitting
7282 for the Council of Orleans to declare that "those who come to Confirmation should be fasting"; and the Council of Meaux, "that
7283 bishops should not give the Holy Ghost with imposition of the hand except they be
7284 fasting."
7285 </p>
7286 <p id="TP_Q72_A12-p4">
7287 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, chrism is a sign of the fulness of the Holy Ghost, as stated above
7288 <a id="TP_Q72_A12-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q72_A2.html">(A[2])</a>. But the fulness of the Holy Ghost was given to Christ's faithful on the day of Pentecost, as related in
7289 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A12-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Acts.2.1" target="asv"> Acts 2:1.</a> Therefore the chrism should be mixed and blessed on the day of Pentecost rather than on Maundy Thursday.
7290 </p>
7291 <p id="TP_Q72_A12-p5">
7292 <b>On the contrary,</b> Is the use of the Church, who is governed by the Holy Ghost.
7293 </p>
7294 <p id="TP_Q72_A12-p6">
7295 <b>I answer that,</b> Our Lord promised His faithful (
7296 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A12-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.18.20" target="asv">Mat. 18:20</a>) saying: "Where there are two or three gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them." And therefore we must
7297 hold firmly that the Church's ordinations are directed by the wisdom of Christ. And for this reason we must look upon it as
7298 certain that the rite observed by the Church, in this and the other sacraments, is appropriate.
7299 </p>
7300 <p id="TP_Q72_A12-p7">
7301 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As Pope Melchiades says (Ep. ad Epis. Hispan.), "these two sacraments," viz. Baptism and Confirmation, "are so closely connected
7302 that they can nowise be separated save by death intervening, nor can one be duly celebrated without the other." Consequently
7303 the same seasons are fixed for the solemn celebration of Baptism and of this sacrament. But since this sacrament is given
7304 only by bishops, who are not always present where priests are baptizing, it was
7305 necessary, as regards the common use, to defer the sacrament of Confirmation to other seasons also.
7306 </p>
7307 <p id="TP_Q72_A12-p8">
7308 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The sick and those in danger of death are exempt from this prohibition, as we read in the decree of the Council of Meaux.
7309 And therefore, on account of the multitude of the faithful, and on account of imminent dangers, it is allowed for this sacrament,
7310 which can be given by none but a bishop, to be given or received even by those who are not fasting: since one bishop, especially
7311 in a large diocese, would not suffice to confirm all, if he were confined
7312 to certain times. But where it can be done conveniently, it is more becoming that both giver and receiver should be fasting.
7313 </p>
7314 <p id="TP_Q72_A12-p9">
7315 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> According to the acts of the Council of Pope Martin, "it was lawful at all times to prepare the chrism." But since solemn
7316 Baptism, for which chrism has to be used, is celebrated on Easter Eve, it was rightly decreed, that chrism should be consecrated
7317 by the bishop two days beforehand, that it may be sent to the various parts of the diocese. Moreover, this day is sufficiently
7318 appropriate to the blessing of sacramental matter, since thereon was the
7319 Eucharist instituted, to which, in a certain way, all the other sacraments are ordained, as stated above (
7320 <a id="TP_Q72_A12-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q65_A3.html">Q[65], A[3]</a>).
7321 </p>
7322 <p id="TP_Q72_A12-p10"></p>
7323 <p id="TP_Q72_A12-p11"></p>
7324 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A11.html"></a>
7325 <a href="summa.TP_Q73.html"></a>
7326 </div>
7327 <a href="summa.TP_Q71_A4.html"></a>
7328 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A1.html"></a>
7329 </div>
7330 <div id="TP_Q73" class="div3">
7331 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A12.html"></a>
7332 <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A1.html"></a>
7333 <h3 id="TP_Q73-p0.1">OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST (SIX ARTICLES)</h3>
7334 <p id="TP_Q73-p1"></p>
7335 <p id="TP_Q73-p2"></p>
7336 <p id="TP_Q73-p3"> We have now to consider the sacrament of the Eucharist; and first of all we treat of the sacrament itself; secondly, of its
7337 matter; thirdly, of its form; fourthly, of its effects; fifthly, of the recipients of this sacrament; sixthly, of the minister;
7338 seventhly, of the rite.
7339 </p>
7340 <p id="TP_Q73-p4"> Under the first heading there are six points of inquiry:</p>
7341 <p id="TP_Q73-p5"> (1) Whether the Eucharist is a sacrament?</p>
7342 <p id="TP_Q73-p6"> (2) Whether it is one or several sacraments?</p>
7343 <p id="TP_Q73-p7"> (3) Whether it is necessary for salvation?</p>
7344 <p id="TP_Q73-p8"> (4) Its names;</p>
7345 <p id="TP_Q73-p9"> (5) Its institution;</p>
7346 <p id="TP_Q73-p10"> (6) Its figures.</p>
7347 <div id="TP_Q73_A1" class="div4">
7348 <a href="summa.TP_Q73.html"></a>
7349 <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A2.html"></a>
7350 <h4 id="TP_Q73_A1-p0.1">Whether the Eucharist is a sacrament?</h4>
7351 <p id="TP_Q73_A1-p1"></p>
7352 <p id="TP_Q73_A1-p2">
7353 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the Eucharist is not a sacrament. For two sacraments ought not to be ordained for the same end, because every
7354 sacrament is efficacious in producing its effect. Therefore, since both Confirmation and the Eucharist are ordained for perfection,
7355 as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iv), it seems that the Eucharist is not a sacrament, since Confirmation is one, as stated above
7356 (
7357 <a id="TP_Q73_A1-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q65_A1.html">Q[65], A[1]</a>;
7358 <a id="TP_Q73_A1-p2.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q72_A1.html"> Q[72], A[1]</a>).
7359 </p>
7360 <p id="TP_Q73_A1-p3">
7361 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in every sacrament of the New Law, that which comes visibly under our senses causes the invisible effect of the
7362 sacrament, just as cleansing with water causes the baptismal character and spiritual cleansing, as stated above (
7363 <a id="TP_Q73_A1-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q63_A6.html">Q[63], A[6]</a>;
7364 <a id="TP_Q73_A1-p3.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q66_A1.html"> Q[66], AA[1]</a>,3,7). But the species of bread and wine, which are the objects of our senses in this sacrament, neither produce Christ's
7365 true body, which is both reality
7366 and sacrament, nor His mystical body, which is the reality only in the Eucharist. Therefore, it seems that the Eucharist is
7367 not a sacrament of the New Law.
7368 </p>
7369 <p id="TP_Q73_A1-p4">
7370 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, sacraments of the New Law, as having matter, are perfected by the use of the matter, as Baptism is by ablution,
7371 and Confirmation by signing with chrism. If, then, the Eucharist be a sacrament, it would be perfected by the use of the matter,
7372 and not by its consecration. But this is manifestly false, because the words spoken in the consecration of the matter are
7373 the form of this sacrament, as will be shown later on (
7374 <a id="TP_Q73_A1-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q78_A1.html">Q[78],
7375 A[1]
7376 </a>). Therefore the Eucharist is not a sacrament.
7377 </p>
7378 <p id="TP_Q73_A1-p5">
7379 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is said in the Collect [*Postcommunion "pro vivis et defunctis"]: "May this Thy Sacrament not make us deserving of punishment."
7380 </p>
7381 <p id="TP_Q73_A1-p6">
7382 <b>I answer that,</b> The Church's sacraments are ordained for helping man in the spiritual life. But the spiritual life is analogous to the corporeal,
7383 since corporeal things bear a resemblance to spiritual. Now it is clear that just as generation is required for corporeal
7384 life, since thereby man receives life; and growth, whereby man is brought to maturity: so likewise food is required for the
7385 preservation of life. Consequently, just as for the spiritual life there had to be
7386 Baptism, which is spiritual generation; and Confirmation, which is spiritual growth: so there needed to be the sacrament of
7387 the Eucharist, which is spiritual food.
7388 </p>
7389 <p id="TP_Q73_A1-p7">
7390 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Perfection is twofold. The first lies within man himself; and he attains it by growth: such perfection belongs to Confirmation.
7391 The other is the perfection which comes to man from the addition of food, or clothing, or something of the kind; and such
7392 is the perfection befitting the Eucharist, which is the spiritual refreshment.
7393 </p>
7394 <p id="TP_Q73_A1-p8">
7395 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The water of Baptism does not cause any spiritual effect by reason of the water, but by reason of the power of the Holy Ghost,
7396 which power is in the water. Hence on
7397 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q73_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#John.5.4" target="asv"> Jn. 5:4, </a> "An angel of the Lord at certain times," etc., Chrysostom observes: "The water does not act simply as such upon the baptized,
7398 but when it receives the grace of the Holy Ghost, then it looses all sins." But the true body of Christ. bears the same relation
7399 to
7400 the species of the bread and wine, as the power of the Holy Ghost does to the water of Baptism: hence the species of the bread
7401 and wine produce no effect except from the virtue of Christ's true body.
7402 </p>
7403 <p id="TP_Q73_A1-p9">
7404 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> A sacrament is so termed because it contains something sacred. Now a thing can be styled sacred from two causes; either absolutely,
7405 or in relation to something else. The difference between the Eucharist and other sacraments having sensible matter is that
7406 whereas the Eucharist contains something which is sacred absolutely, namely, Christ's own body; the baptismal water contains
7407 something which is sacred in relation to something else, namely, the
7408 sanctifying power: and the same holds good of chrism and such like. Consequently, the sacrament of the Eucharist is completed
7409 in the very consecration of the matter, whereas the other sacraments are completed in the application of the matter for the
7410 sanctifying of the individual. And from this follows another difference. For, in the sacrament of the Eucharist, what is both
7411 reality and sacrament is in the matter itself. but what is reality only, namely, the grace bestowed, is in the recipient;
7412 whereas in Baptism both are in the recipient, namely, the character, which is both reality and sacrament, and the grace of
7413 pardon of sins, which is reality only. And the same holds good of the other sacraments.
7414 </p>
7415 <p id="TP_Q73_A1-p10"></p>
7416 <p id="TP_Q73_A1-p11"></p>
7417 <a href="summa.TP_Q73.html"></a>
7418 <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A2.html"></a>
7419 </div>
7420 <div id="TP_Q73_A2" class="div4">
7421 <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A1.html"></a>
7422 <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A3.html"></a>
7423 <h4 id="TP_Q73_A2-p0.1">Whether the Eucharist is one sacrament or several?</h4>
7424 <p id="TP_Q73_A2-p1"></p>
7425 <p id="TP_Q73_A2-p2">
7426 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the Eucharist is not one sacrament but several, because it is said in the Collect [*Postcommunion "pro vivis
7427 et defunctis"]: "May the sacraments which we have received purify us, O Lord": and this is said on account of our receiving
7428 the Eucharist. Consequently the Eucharist is not one sacrament but several.
7429 </p>
7430 <p id="TP_Q73_A2-p3">
7431 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is impossible for genera to be multiplied without the species being multiplied: thus it is impossible for one
7432 man to be many animals. But, as stated above (
7433 <a id="TP_Q73_A2-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q60_A1.html">Q[60], A[1]</a>), sign is the genus of sacrament. Since, then, there are more signs than one, to wit, bread and wine, it seems to follow
7434 that here must be more sacraments than one.
7435 </p>
7436 <p id="TP_Q73_A2-p4">
7437 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, this sacrament is perfected in the consecration of the matter, as stated above (A[1], ad 3). But in this sacrament
7438 there is a double consecration of the matter. Therefore, it is a twofold sacrament.
7439 </p>
7440 <p id="TP_Q73_A2-p5">
7441 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
7442 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q73_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.10.17" target="asv">1 Cor. 10:17</a>): "For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread": from which it is clear that the Eucharist
7443 is the sacrament of the Church's unity. But a sacrament bears the likeness of the reality whereof it is the sacrament. Therefore
7444 the Eucharist is one sacrament.
7445 </p>
7446 <p id="TP_Q73_A2-p6">
7447 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated in Metaph. v, a thing is said to be one, not only from being indivisible, or continuous, but also when it is complete;
7448 thus we speak of one house, and one man. A thing is one in perfection, when it is complete through the presence of all that
7449 is needed for its end; as a man is complete by having all the members required for the operation of his soul, and a house
7450 by having all the parts needful for dwelling therein. And so this sacrament is said to
7451 be one. Because it is ordained for spiritual refreshment, which is conformed to corporeal refreshment. Now there are two things
7452 required for corporeal refreshment, namely, food, which is dry sustenance, and drink, which is wet sustenance. Consequently,
7453 two things concur for the integrity of this sacrament, to wit, spiritual food and spiritual drink, according to John: "My
7454 flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed." Therefore, this sacrament is materially many, but formally and
7455 perfectively one.
7456 </p>
7457 <p id="TP_Q73_A2-p7">
7458 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The same Collect at first employs the plural: "May the sacraments which we have received purify us"; and afterwards the singular
7459 number: "May this sacrament of Thine not make us worthy of punishment": so as to show that this sacrament is in a measure
7460 several, yet simply one.
7461 </p>
7462 <p id="TP_Q73_A2-p8">
7463 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The bread and wine are materially several signs, yet formally and perfectively one, inasmuch as one refreshment is prepared
7464 therefrom.
7465 </p>
7466 <p id="TP_Q73_A2-p9">
7467 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> From the double consecration of the matter no more can be gathered than that the sacrament is several materially, as stated
7468 above.
7469 </p>
7470 <p id="TP_Q73_A2-p10"></p>
7471 <p id="TP_Q73_A2-p11"></p>
7472 <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A1.html"></a>
7473 <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A3.html"></a>
7474 </div>
7475 <div id="TP_Q73_A3" class="div4">
7476 <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A2.html"></a>
7477 <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A4.html"></a>
7478 <h4 id="TP_Q73_A3-p0.1">Whether the Eucharist is necessary for salvation?</h4>
7479 <p id="TP_Q73_A3-p1"></p>
7480 <p id="TP_Q73_A3-p2">
7481 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that this sacrament is necessary for salvation. For our Lord said (
7482 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q73_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.6.54" target="asv">Jn. 6:54</a>): "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you." But Christ's flesh is
7483 eaten and His blood drunk in this sacrament. Therefore, without this sacrament man cannot have the health of spiritual life.
7484 </p>
7485 <p id="TP_Q73_A3-p3">
7486 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, this sacrament is a kind of spiritual food. But bodily food is requisite for bodily health. Therefore, also is this
7487 sacrament, for spiritual health.
7488 </p>
7489 <p id="TP_Q73_A3-p4">
7490 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as Baptism is the sacrament of our Lord's Passion, without which there is no salvation, so also is the Eucharist.
7491 For the Apostle says (
7492 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q73_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.11.26" target="asv">1 Cor. 11:26</a>): "For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until He come."
7493 Consequently, as Baptism is necessary for salvation, so also is this sacrament.
7494 </p>
7495 <p id="TP_Q73_A3-p5">
7496 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine writes (Ad Bonifac. contra Pelag. I): "Nor are you to suppose that children cannot possess life, who are deprived
7497 of the body and blood of Christ."
7498 </p>
7499 <p id="TP_Q73_A3-p6">
7500 <b>I answer that,</b> Two things have to be considered in this sacrament, namely, the sacrament itself, and what is contained in it. Now it was
7501 stated above (A[1], OBJ[2]) that the reality of the sacrament is the unity of the mystical body, without which there can be
7502 no salvation; for there is no entering into salvation outside the Church, just as in the time of the deluge there was none
7503 outside the Ark, which denotes the Church, according to
7504 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q73_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iPet.3.20" target="asv">1 Pet. 3:20,21.</a>
7505 And it has been said above (
7506 <a id="TP_Q73_A3-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q68_A2.html">Q[68], A[2]</a>), that before receiving a sacrament, the reality of the sacrament can be had through the very desire of receiving the sacrament.
7507 Accordingly, before actual reception of this sacrament, a man can obtain salvation through the desire of receiving it, just
7508 as he can before Baptism through the desire of Baptism, as stated above (
7509 <a id="TP_Q73_A3-p6.3" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q68_A2.html">Q[68], A[2]</a>). Yet there is a difference in two respects. First of all, because
7510 Baptism is the beginning of the spiritual life, and the door of the sacraments; whereas the Eucharist is, as it were, the
7511 consummation of the spiritual life, and the end of all the sacraments, as was observed above (
7512 <a id="TP_Q73_A3-p6.4" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q63_A6.html">Q[63], A[6]</a>): for by the hallowings of all the sacraments preparation is made for receiving or consecrating the Eucharist. Consequently,
7513 the reception of Baptism is necessary for starting the spiritual life, while the receiving of the Eucharist is requisite
7514 for its consummation; by partaking not indeed actually, but in desire, as an end is possessed in desire and intention. Another
7515 difference is because by Baptism a man is ordained to the Eucharist, and therefore from the fact of children being baptized,
7516 they are destined by the Church to the Eucharist; and just as they believe through the Church's faith, so they desire the
7517 Eucharist through the Church's intention, and, as a result, receive its reality. But they are not disposed for Baptism by
7518 any
7519 previous sacrament, and consequently before receiving Baptism, in no way have they Baptism in desire; but adults alone have:
7520 consequently, they cannot have the reality of the sacrament without receiving the sacrament itself. Therefore this sacrament
7521 is not necessary for salvation in the same way as Baptism is.
7522 </p>
7523 <p id="TP_Q73_A3-p7">
7524 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As Augustine says, explaining
7525 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q73_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#John.6.54" target="asv"> Jn. 6:54, </a> "This food and this drink," namely, of His flesh and blood: "He would have us understand the fellowship of His body and members,
7526 which is the Church in His predestinated, and called, and justified, and glorified, His holy and believing ones." Hence, as
7527 he says in his Epistle to Boniface (Pseudo-Beda, in
7528 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q73_A3-p7.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.10.17" target="asv">1 Cor. 10:17</a>): "No one should entertain the slightest doubt, that
7529 then every one of the faithful becomes a partaker of the body and blood of Christ, when in Baptism he is made a member of
7530 Christ's body; nor is he deprived of his share in that body and chalice even though he depart from this world in the unity
7531 of Christ's body, before he eats that bread and drinks of that chalice."
7532 </p>
7533 <p id="TP_Q73_A3-p8">
7534 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The difference between corporeal and spiritual food lies in this, that the former is changed into the substance of the person
7535 nourished, and consequently it cannot avail for supporting life except it be partaken of; but spiritual food changes man into
7536 itself, according to that saying of Augustine (Confess. vii), that he heard the voice of Christ as it were saying to him:
7537 "Nor shalt thou change Me into thyself, as food of thy flesh, but thou shalt be
7538 changed into Me." But one can be changed into Christ, and be incorporated in Him by mental desire, even without receiving
7539 this sacrament. And consequently the comparison does not hold.
7540 </p>
7541 <p id="TP_Q73_A3-p9">
7542 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Baptism is the sacrament of Christ's death and Passion, according as a man is born anew in Christ in virtue of His Passion;
7543 but the Eucharist is the sacrament of Christ's Passion according as a man is made perfect in union with Christ Who suffered.
7544 Hence, as Baptism is called the sacrament of Faith, which is the foundation of the spiritual life, so the Eucharist is termed
7545 the sacrament of Charity, which is "the bond of perfection" (
7546 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q73_A3-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Col.3.14" target="asv">Col.
7547 3:14
7548 </a>).
7549 </p>
7550 <p id="TP_Q73_A3-p10"></p>
7551 <p id="TP_Q73_A3-p11"></p>
7552 <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A2.html"></a>
7553 <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A4.html"></a>
7554 </div>
7555 <div id="TP_Q73_A4" class="div4">
7556 <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A3.html"></a>
7557 <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A5.html"></a>
7558 <h4 id="TP_Q73_A4-p0.1">Whether this sacrament is suitably called by various names?</h4>
7559 <p id="TP_Q73_A4-p1"></p>
7560 <p id="TP_Q73_A4-p2">
7561 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that this sacrament is not suitably called by various names. For names should correspond with things. But this sacrament
7562 is one, as stated above
7563 <a id="TP_Q73_A4-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q73_A2.html">(A[2])</a>. Therefore, it ought not to be called by various names.
7564 </p>
7565 <p id="TP_Q73_A4-p3">
7566 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a species is not properly denominated by what is common to the whole genus. But the Eucharist is a sacrament of
7567 the New Law; and it is common to all the sacraments for grace to be conferred by them, which the name "Eucharist" denotes,
7568 for it is the same thing as "good grace." Furthermore, all the sacraments bring us help on our journey through this present
7569 life, which is the notion conveyed by "Viaticum." Again something sacred is done in all the
7570 sacraments, which belongs to the notion of "Sacrifice"; and the faithful intercommunicate through all the sacraments, which
7571 this Greek word {Synaxis} and the Latin "Communio" express. Therefore, these names are not suitably adapted to this sacrament.
7572 </p>
7573 <p id="TP_Q73_A4-p4">
7574 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a host [*From Latin "hostia," a victim] seems to be the same as a sacrifice. Therefore, as it is not properly called
7575 a sacrifice, so neither is it properly termed a "Host."
7576 </p>
7577 <p id="TP_Q73_A4-p5">
7578 <b>On the contrary,</b> is the use of these expressions by the faithful.
7579 </p>
7580 <p id="TP_Q73_A4-p6">
7581 <b>I answer that,</b> This sacrament has a threefold significance. one with regard to the past, inasmuch as it is commemorative of our Lord's Passion,
7582 which was a true sacrifice, as stated above (
7583 <a id="TP_Q73_A4-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q48_A3.html">Q[48], A[3]</a>), and in this respect it is called a "Sacrifice."
7584 </p>
7585 <p id="TP_Q73_A4-p7"> With regard to the present it has another meaning, namely, that of Ecclesiastical unity, in which men are aggregated through
7586 this Sacrament; and in this respect it is called "Communion" or {Synaxis}. For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv) that "it
7587 is called Communion because we communicate with Christ through it, both because we partake of His flesh and Godhead, and because
7588 we communicate with and are united to one another through it."
7589 </p>
7590 <p id="TP_Q73_A4-p8"> With regard to the future it has a third meaning, inasmuch as this sacrament foreshadows the Divine fruition, which shall
7591 come to pass in heaven; and according to this it is called "Viaticum," because it supplies the way of winning thither. And
7592 in this respect it is also called the "Eucharist," that is, "good grace," because "the grace of God is life everlasting" (
7593 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q73_A4-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.23" target="asv">Rom. 6:23</a>); or because it really contains Christ, Who is "full of grace."
7594 </p>
7595 <p id="TP_Q73_A4-p9"> In Greek, moreover, it is called {Metalepsis}, i.e. "Assumption," because, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv), "we thereby
7596 assume the Godhead of the Son."
7597 </p>
7598 <p id="TP_Q73_A4-p10">
7599 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> There is nothing to hinder the same thing from being called by several names, according to its various properties or effects.
7600 </p>
7601 <p id="TP_Q73_A4-p11">
7602 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> What is common to all the sacraments is attributed antonomastically to this one on account of its excellence.
7603 </p>
7604 <p id="TP_Q73_A4-p12">
7605 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This sacrament is called a "Sacrifice" inasmuch as it represents the Passion of Christ; but it is termed a "Host" inasmuch
7606 as it contains Christ, Who is "a host (Douay: 'sacrifice') . . . of sweetness" (
7607 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q73_A4-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.5.2" target="asv">Eph. 5:2</a>).
7608 </p>
7609 <p id="TP_Q73_A4-p13"></p>
7610 <p id="TP_Q73_A4-p14"></p>
7611 <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A3.html"></a>
7612 <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A5.html"></a>
7613 </div>
7614 <div id="TP_Q73_A5" class="div4">
7615 <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A4.html"></a>
7616 <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A6.html"></a>
7617 <h4 id="TP_Q73_A5-p0.1">Whether the institution of this sacrament was appropriate?</h4>
7618 <p id="TP_Q73_A5-p1"></p>
7619 <p id="TP_Q73_A5-p2">
7620 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the institution of this sacrament was not appropriate, because as the Philosopher says (De Gener. ii): "We
7621 are nourished by the things from whence we spring." But by Baptism, which is spiritual regeneration, we receive our spiritual
7622 being, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. ii). Therefore we are also nourished by Baptism. Consequently there was no need to institute
7623 this sacrament as spiritual nourishment.
7624 </p>
7625 <p id="TP_Q73_A5-p3">
7626 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, men are united with Christ through this sacrament as the members with the head. But Christ is the Head of all men,
7627 even of those who have existed from the beginning of the world, as stated above (
7628 <a id="TP_Q73_A5-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q8_A3.html">Q[8], AA[3]</a>,6). Therefore the institution of this sacrament should not have been postponed till the Lord's supper.
7629 </p>
7630 <p id="TP_Q73_A5-p4">
7631 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, this sacrament is called the memorial of our Lord's Passion, according to
7632 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q73_A5-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.26" target="asv">Mat. 26</a> (
7633 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q73_A5-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.22.19" target="asv">Lk. 22:19</a>): "Do this for a commemoration of Me." But a commemoration is of things past. Therefore, this sacrament should not have been
7634 instituted before Christ's Passion.
7635 </p>
7636 <p id="TP_Q73_A5-p5">
7637 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, a man is prepared by Baptism for the Eucharist, which ought to be given only to the baptized. But Baptism was instituted
7638 by Christ after His Passion and Resurrection, as is evident from
7639 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q73_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.28.19" target="asv"> Mat. 28:19.</a> Therefore, this sacrament was not suitably instituted before Christ's Passion.
7640 </p>
7641 <p id="TP_Q73_A5-p6">
7642 <b>On the contrary,</b> This sacrament was instituted by Christ, of Whom it is said (
7643 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q73_A5-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.7.37" target="asv">Mk. 7:37</a>) that "He did all things well."
7644 </p>
7645 <p id="TP_Q73_A5-p7">
7646 <b>I answer that,</b> This sacrament was appropriately instituted at the supper, when Christ conversed with His disciples for the last time. First
7647 of all, because of what is contained in the sacrament: for Christ is Himself contained in the Eucharist sacramentally. Consequently,
7648 when Christ was going to leave His disciples in His proper species, He left Himself with them under the sacramental species;
7649 as the Emperor's image is set up to be reverenced in his absence. Hence
7650 Eusebius says: "Since He was going to withdraw His assumed body from their eyes, and bear it away to the stars, it was needful
7651 that on the day of the supper He should consecrate the sacrament of His body and blood for our sakes, in order that what was
7652 once offered up for our ransom should be fittingly worshiped in a mystery."
7653 </p>
7654 <p id="TP_Q73_A5-p8"> Secondly, because without faith in the Passion there could never be any salvation, according to
7655 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q73_A5-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.3.25" target="asv"> Rom. 3:25</a>: "Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood." It was necessary accordingly that there should
7656 be at all times among men something to show forth our Lord's Passion; the chief sacrament of which in the old Law was the
7657 Paschal Lamb. Hence the Apostle says (
7658 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q73_A5-p8.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.5.7" target="asv">1 Cor. 5:7</a>): "Christ our Pasch is sacrificed." But
7659 its successor under the New Testament is the sacrament of the Eucharist, which is a remembrance of the Passion now past, just
7660 as the other was figurative of the Passion to come. And so it was fitting that when the hour of the Passion was come, Christ
7661 should institute a new Sacrament after celebrating the old, as Pope Leo I says (Serm. lviii).
7662 </p>
7663 <p id="TP_Q73_A5-p9"> Thirdly, because last words, chiefly such as are spoken by departing friends, are committed most deeply to memory; since
7664 then especially affection for friends is more enkindled, and the things which affect us most are impressed the deepest in
7665 the soul. Consequently, since, as Pope Alexander I says, "among sacrifices there can be none greater than the body and blood
7666 of Christ, nor any more powerful oblation"; our Lord instituted this sacrament at His last parting with His
7667 disciples, in order that it might be held in the greater veneration. And this is what Augustine says (Respons. ad Januar.
7668 i): "In order to commend more earnestly the death of this mystery, our Saviour willed this last act to be fixed in the hearts
7669 and memories of the disciples whom He was about to quit for the Passion."
7670 </p>
7671 <p id="TP_Q73_A5-p10">
7672 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> We are nourished from the same things of which we are made, but they do not come to us in the same way; for those out of
7673 which we are made come to us through generation, while the same, as nourishing us, come to us through being eaten. Hence,
7674 as we are new-born in Christ through Baptism, so through the Eucharist we eat Christ.
7675 </p>
7676 <p id="TP_Q73_A5-p11">
7677 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The Eucharist is the perfect sacrament of our Lord's Passion, as containing Christ crucified; consequently it could not be
7678 instituted before the Incarnation; but then there was room for only such sacraments as were prefigurative of the Lord's Passion.
7679 </p>
7680 <p id="TP_Q73_A5-p12">
7681 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This sacrament was instituted during the supper, so as in the future to be a memorial of our Lord's Passion as accomplished.
7682 Hence He said expressively: "As often as ye shall do these things" [*Cf. Canon of the Mass], speaking of the future.
7683 </p>
7684 <p id="TP_Q73_A5-p13">
7685 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The institution responds to the order of intention. But the sacrament of the Eucharist, although after Baptism in the receiving,
7686 is yet previous to it in intention; and therefore it behooved to be instituted first. or else it can be said that Baptism
7687 was already instituted in Christ's Baptism; hence some were already baptized with Christ's Baptism, as we read in
7688 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q73_A5-p13.1" href="./asv.html#John.3.22" target="asv"> Jn. 3:22.</a>
7689 </p>
7690 <p id="TP_Q73_A5-p14"></p>
7691 <p id="TP_Q73_A5-p15"></p>
7692 <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A4.html"></a>
7693 <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A6.html"></a>
7694 </div>
7695 <div id="TP_Q73_A6" class="div4">
7696 <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A5.html"></a>
7697 <a href="summa.TP_Q74.html"></a>
7698 <h4 id="TP_Q73_A6-p0.1">Whether the Paschal Lamb was the chief figure of this sacrament?</h4>
7699 <p id="TP_Q73_A6-p1"></p>
7700 <p id="TP_Q73_A6-p2">
7701 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the Paschal Lamb was not the chief figure of this sacrament, because (
7702 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q73_A6-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.109.4" target="asv">Ps. 109:4</a>) Christ is called "a priest according to the order of Melchisedech," since Melchisedech bore the figure of Christ's sacrifice,
7703 in offering bread and wine. But the expression of likeness causes one thing to be named from another. Therefore, it seems
7704 that Melchisedech's offering was the "principal" figure of this sacrament.
7705 </p>
7706 <p id="TP_Q73_A6-p3">
7707 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the passage of the Red Sea was a figure of Baptism, according to
7708 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q73_A6-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.10.2" target="asv">1 Cor. 10:2</a>: "All . . . were baptized in the cloud and in the sea." But the immolation of the Paschal Lamb was previous to the passage
7709 of the Red Sea, and the Manna came after it, just as the Eucharist follows Baptism. Therefore the Manna is a more expressive
7710 figure of this sacrament than the Paschal Lamb.
7711 </p>
7712 <p id="TP_Q73_A6-p4">
7713 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the principal power of this sacrament is that it brings us into the kingdom of heaven, being a kind of "viaticum."
7714 But this was chiefly prefigured in the sacrament of expiation when the "high-priest entered once a year into the Holy of Holies
7715 with blood," as the Apostle proves in
7716 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q73_A6-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.9" target="asv">Heb. 9</a>. Consequently, it seems that that sacrifice was a more significant figure of this sacrament than was the Paschal Lamb.
7717 </p>
7718 <p id="TP_Q73_A6-p5">
7719 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
7720 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q73_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.5.7" target="asv">1 Cor. 5:7,8</a>): "Christ our Pasch is sacrificed; therefore let us feast . . . with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."
7721 </p>
7722 <p id="TP_Q73_A6-p6">
7723 <b>I answer that,</b> We can consider three things in this sacrament: namely, that which is sacrament only, and this is the bread and wine; that
7724 which is both reality and sacrament, to wit, Christ's true body; and lastly that which is reality only, namely, the effect
7725 of this sacrament. Consequently, in relation to what is sacrament only, the chief figure of this sacrament was the oblation
7726 of Melchisedech, who offered up bread and wine. In relation to Christ crucified, Who is
7727 contained in this sacrament, its figures were all the sacrifices of the Old Testament, especially the sacrifice of expiation,
7728 which was the most solemn of all. While with regard to its effect, the chief figure was the Manna, "having in it the sweetness
7729 of every taste" (
7730 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q73_A6-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.16.20" target="asv">Wis. 16:20</a>), just as the grace of this sacrament refreshes the soul in all respects.
7731 </p>
7732 <p id="TP_Q73_A6-p7"> The Paschal Lamb foreshadowed this sacrament in these three ways. First of all, because it was eaten with unleavened loaves,
7733 according to
7734 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q73_A6-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.12.8" target="asv">Ex. 12:8</a>: "They shall eat flesh . . . and unleavened bread." As to the second because it was immolated by the entire multitude of
7735 the children of Israel on the fourteenth day of the moon; and this was a figure of the Passion of Christ, Who is called the
7736 Lamb on account of His innocence. As to the effect, because by the blood of the Paschal
7737 Lamb the children of Israel were preserved from the destroying Angel, and brought from the Egyptian captivity; and in this
7738 respect the Paschal Lamb is the chief figure of this sacrament, because it represents it in every respect.
7739 </p>
7740 <p id="TP_Q73_A6-p8"> From this the answer to the Objections is manifest.</p>
7741 <p id="TP_Q73_A6-p9"></p>
7742 <p id="TP_Q73_A6-p10"></p>
7743 <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A5.html"></a>
7744 <a href="summa.TP_Q74.html"></a>
7745 </div>
7746 <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A12.html"></a>
7747 <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A1.html"></a>
7748 </div>
7749 <div id="TP_Q74" class="div3">
7750 <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A6.html"></a>
7751 <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A1.html"></a>
7752 <h3 id="TP_Q74-p0.1">OF THE MATTER OF THIS SACRAMENT (EIGHT ARTICLES)</h3>
7753 <p id="TP_Q74-p1"></p>
7754 <p id="TP_Q74-p2"> We have now to consider the matter of this sacrament: and first of all as to its species; secondly, the change of the bread
7755 and wine into the body of Christ; thirdly, the manner in which Christ's body exists in this sacrament; fourthly, the accidents
7756 of bread and wine which continue in this sacrament.
7757 </p>
7758 <p id="TP_Q74-p3"> Under the first heading there are eight points for inquiry:</p>
7759 <p id="TP_Q74-p4"> (1) Whether bread and wine are the matter of this sacrament?</p>
7760 <p id="TP_Q74-p5"> (2) Whether a determinate quantity of the same is required for the matter of this sacrament?</p>
7761 <p id="TP_Q74-p6"> (3) Whether the matter of this sacrament is wheaten bread?</p>
7762 <p id="TP_Q74-p7"> (4) Whether it is unleavened or fermented bread?</p>
7763 <p id="TP_Q74-p8"> (5) Whether the matter of this sacrament is wine from the grape?</p>
7764 <p id="TP_Q74-p9"> (6) Whether water should be mixed with it?</p>
7765 <p id="TP_Q74-p10"> (7) Whether water is of necessity for this sacrament?</p>
7766 <p id="TP_Q74-p11"> (8) Of the quantity of the water added.</p>
7767 <div id="TP_Q74_A1" class="div4">
7768 <a href="summa.TP_Q74.html"></a>
7769 <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A2.html"></a>
7770 <h4 id="TP_Q74_A1-p0.1">Whether the matter of this sacrament is bread and wine?</h4>
7771 <p id="TP_Q74_A1-p1"></p>
7772 <p id="TP_Q74_A1-p2">
7773 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the matter of this sacrament is not bread and wine. Because this sacrament ought to represent Christ's Passion
7774 more fully than did the sacraments of the Old Law. But the flesh of animals, which was the matter of the sacraments under
7775 the Old Law, shows forth Christ's Passion more fully than bread and wine. Therefore the matter of this sacrament ought rather
7776 to be the flesh of animals than bread and wine.
7777 </p>
7778 <p id="TP_Q74_A1-p3">
7779 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, this sacrament is to be celebrated in every place. But in many lands bread is not to be found, and in many places
7780 wine is not to be found. Therefore bread and wine are not a suitable matter for this sacrament.
7781 </p>
7782 <p id="TP_Q74_A1-p4">
7783 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, this sacrament is for both hale and weak. But to some weak persons wine is hurtful. Therefore it seems that wine
7784 ought not to be the matter of this sacrament.
7785 </p>
7786 <p id="TP_Q74_A1-p5">
7787 <b>On the contrary,</b> Pope Alexander I says (Ep. ad omnes orth. i): "In oblations of the sacraments only bread and wine mixed with water are to
7788 be offered."
7789 </p>
7790 <p id="TP_Q74_A1-p6">
7791 <b>I answer that,</b> Some have fallen into various errors about the matter of this sacrament. Some, known as the Artotyrytae, as Augustine says
7792 (De Haeres. xxviii), "offer bread and cheese in this sacrament, contending that oblations were celebrated by men in the first
7793 ages, from fruits of the earth and sheep." Others, called Cataphrygae and Pepuziani, "are reputed to have made their Eucharistic
7794 bread with infants' blood drawn from tiny punctures over the entire body, and mixed
7795 with flour." Others, styled Aquarii, under guise of sobriety, offer nothing but water in this sacrament.
7796 </p>
7797 <p id="TP_Q74_A1-p7"> Now all these and similar errors are excluded by the fact that Christ instituted this sacrament under the species of bread
7798 and wine, as is evident from
7799 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q74_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.26" target="asv">Mat. 26</a>. Consequently, bread and wine are the proper matter of this sacrament. And the reasonableness of this is seen first, in the
7800 use of this sacrament, which is eating: for, as water is used in the sacrament of Baptism for the purpose of spiritual cleansing,
7801 since bodily cleansing is commonly done with water; so bread and wine,
7802 wherewith men are commonly fed, are employed in this sacrament for the use of spiritual eating.
7803 </p>
7804 <p id="TP_Q74_A1-p8"> Secondly, in relation to Christ's Passion, in which the blood was separated from the body. And therefore in this sacrament,
7805 which is the memorial of our Lord's Passion, the bread is received apart as the sacrament of the body, and the wine as the
7806 sacrament of the blood.
7807 </p>
7808 <p id="TP_Q74_A1-p9"> Thirdly, as to the effect, considered in each of the partakers. For, as Ambrose (Mag. Sent. iv, D, xi) says on
7809 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q74_A1-p9.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.11.20" target="asv">1 Cor. 11:20, </a> this sacrament "avails for the defense of soul and body"; and therefore "Christ's body is offered" under the species of bread
7810 "for the health of the body, and the blood" under the species of wine "for the health of the soul," according to
7811 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q74_A1-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Lev.17.14" target="asv"> Lev. 17:14</a>: "The life of the animal [Vulg.: 'of all flesh'] is in the
7812 blood."
7813 </p>
7814 <p id="TP_Q74_A1-p10"> Fourthly, as to the effect with regard to the whole Church, which is made up of many believers, just "as bread is composed
7815 of many grains, and wine flows from many grapes," as the gloss observes on
7816 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q74_A1-p10.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.10.17" target="asv">1 Cor. 10:17</a>: "We being many are . . . one body," etc.
7817 </p>
7818 <p id="TP_Q74_A1-p11">
7819 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although the flesh of slaughtered animals represents the Passion more forcibly, nevertheless it is less suitable for the
7820 common use of this sacrament, and for denoting the unity of the Church.
7821 </p>
7822 <p id="TP_Q74_A1-p12">
7823 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although wheat and wine are not produced in every country, yet they can easily be conveyed to every land, that is, as much
7824 as is needful for the use of this sacrament: at the same time one is not to be consecrated when the other is lacking, because
7825 it would not be a complete sacrament.
7826 </p>
7827 <p id="TP_Q74_A1-p13">
7828 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Wine taken in small quantity cannot do the sick much harm: yet if there be fear of harm, it is not necessary for all who
7829 take Christ's body to partake also of His blood, as will be stated later (
7830 <a id="TP_Q74_A1-p13.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q80_A12.html">Q[80], A[12]</a>).
7831 </p>
7832 <p id="TP_Q74_A1-p14"></p>
7833 <p id="TP_Q74_A1-p15"></p>
7834 <a href="summa.TP_Q74.html"></a>
7835 <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A2.html"></a>
7836 </div>
7837 <div id="TP_Q74_A2" class="div4">
7838 <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A1.html"></a>
7839 <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A3.html"></a>
7840 <h4 id="TP_Q74_A2-p0.1">Whether a determinate quantity of bread and wine is required for the matter of this sacrament?</h4>
7841 <p id="TP_Q74_A2-p1"></p>
7842 <p id="TP_Q74_A2-p2">
7843 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that a determinate quantity of bread and wine is required for the matter of this sacrament. Because the effects
7844 of grace are no less set in order than those of nature. But, "there is a limit set by nature upon all existing things, and
7845 a reckoning of size and development" (De Anima ii). Consequently, in this sacrament, which is called "Eucharist," that is,
7846 "a good grace," a determinate quantity of the bread and wine is required.
7847 </p>
7848 <p id="TP_Q74_A2-p3">
7849 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Christ gave no power to the ministers of the Church regarding matters which involve derision of the faith and of
7850 His sacraments, according to
7851 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q74_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.10.8" target="asv">2 Cor. 10:8</a>: "Of our power which the Lord hath given us unto edification, and not for your destruction." But it would lead to mockery
7852 of this sacrament if the priest were to wish to consecrate all the bread which is sold in the market and all the wine in the
7853 cellar. Therefore he cannot do
7854 this.
7855 </p>
7856 <p id="TP_Q74_A2-p4">
7857 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if anyone be baptized in the sea, the entire sea-water is not sanctified by the form of baptism, but only the water
7858 wherewith the body of the baptized is cleansed. Therefore, neither in this sacrament can a superfluous quantity of bread be
7859 consecrated.
7860 </p>
7861 <p id="TP_Q74_A2-p5">
7862 <b>On the contrary,</b> Much is opposed to little, and great to small. But there is no quantity, however small, of the bread and wine which cannot
7863 be consecrated. Therefore, neither is there any quantity, however great, which cannot be consecrated.
7864 </p>
7865 <p id="TP_Q74_A2-p6">
7866 <b>I answer that,</b> Some have maintained that the priest could not consecrate an immense quantity of bread and wine, for instance, all the bread
7867 in the market or all the wine in a cask. But this does not appear to be true, because in all things containing matter, the
7868 reason for the determination of the matter is drawn from its disposition to an end, just as the matter of a saw is iron, so
7869 as to adapt it for cutting. But the end of this sacrament is the use of the faithful.
7870 Consequently, the quantity of the matter of this sacrament must be determined by comparison with the use of the faithful.
7871 But this cannot be determined by comparison with the use of the faithful who are actually present; otherwise the parish priest
7872 having few parishioners could not consecrate many hosts. It remains, then, for the matter of this sacrament to be determined
7873 in reference to the number of the faithful absolutely. But the number of the faithful is not a determinate one. Hence it
7874 cannot be said that the quantity of the matter of this sacrament is restricted.
7875 </p>
7876 <p id="TP_Q74_A2-p7">
7877 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The matter of every natural object has its determinate quantity by comparison with its determinate form. But the number of
7878 the faithful, for whose use this sacrament is ordained, is not a determinate one. Consequently there is no comparison.
7879 </p>
7880 <p id="TP_Q74_A2-p8">
7881 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The power of the Church's ministers is ordained for two purposes: first for the proper effect, and secondly for the end of
7882 the effect. But the second does not take away the first. Hence, if the priest intends to consecrate the body of Christ for
7883 an evil purpose, for instance, to make mockery of it, or to administer poison through it, he commits sin by his evil intention,
7884 nevertheless, on account of the power committed to him, he accomplishes the
7885 sacrament.
7886 </p>
7887 <p id="TP_Q74_A2-p9">
7888 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The sacrament of Baptism is perfected in the use of the matter: and therefore no more of the water is hallowed than what
7889 is used. But this sacrament is wrought in the consecration of the matter. Consequently there is no parallel.
7890 </p>
7891 <p id="TP_Q74_A2-p10"></p>
7892 <p id="TP_Q74_A2-p11"></p>
7893 <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A1.html"></a>
7894 <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A3.html"></a>
7895 </div>
7896 <div id="TP_Q74_A3" class="div4">
7897 <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A2.html"></a>
7898 <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A4.html"></a>
7899 <h4 id="TP_Q74_A3-p0.1">Whether wheaten bread is required for the matter of this sacrament?</h4>
7900 <p id="TP_Q74_A3-p1"></p>
7901 <p id="TP_Q74_A3-p2">
7902 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that wheaten bread is not requisite for the matter of this sacrament, because this sacrament is a reminder of our
7903 Lord's Passion. But barley bread seems to be more in keeping with the Passion than wheaten bread, as being more bitter, and
7904 because Christ used it to feed the multitudes upon the mountain, as narrated in
7905 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q74_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.6" target="asv">Jn. 6</a>. Therefore wheaten bread is not the proper matter of this sacrament.
7906 </p>
7907 <p id="TP_Q74_A3-p3">
7908 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in natural things the shape is a sign of species. But some cereals resemble wheat, such as spelt and maize, from
7909 which in some localities bread is made for the use of this sacrament. Therefore wheaten bread is not the proper matter of
7910 this sacrament.
7911 </p>
7912 <p id="TP_Q74_A3-p4">
7913 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, mixing dissolves species. But wheaten flour is hardly to be found unmixed with some other species of grain, except
7914 in the instance of specially selected grain. Therefore it does not seem that wheaten bread is the proper matter for this sacrament.
7915 </p>
7916 <p id="TP_Q74_A3-p5">
7917 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, what is corrupted appears to be of another species. But some make the sacrament from bread which is corrupted, and
7918 which no longer seems to be wheaten bread. Therefore, it seems that such bread is not the proper matter of this sacrament.
7919 </p>
7920 <p id="TP_Q74_A3-p6">
7921 <b>On the contrary,</b> Christ is contained in this sacrament, and He compares Himself to a grain of wheat, saying (
7922 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q74_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#John.12.24" target="asv">Jn. 12:24</a>): "Unless the grain of wheat falling into the ground die, itself remaineth alone." Therefore bread from corn, i.e. wheaten
7923 bread, is the matter of this sacrament.
7924 </p>
7925 <p id="TP_Q74_A3-p7">
7926 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
7927 <a id="TP_Q74_A3-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q74_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, for the use of the sacraments such matter is adopted as is commonly made use of among men. Now among other breads wheaten
7928 bread is more commonly used by men; since other breads seem to be employed when this fails. And consequently Christ is believed
7929 to have instituted this sacrament under this species of bread. Moreover this bread strengthens man, and so it denotes more
7930 suitably the effect of this sacrament.
7931 Consequently, the proper matter for this sacrament is wheaten bread.
7932 </p>
7933 <p id="TP_Q74_A3-p8">
7934 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Barley bread serves to denote the hardness of the Old Law; both on account of the hardness of the bread, and because, as
7935 Augustine says (
7936 <a id="TP_Q74_A3-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q83.html">Q[83])</a>: "The flour within the barley, wrapped up as it is within a most tenacious fibre, denotes either the Law itself, which was
7937 given in such manner as to be vested in bodily sacraments; or else it denotes the people themselves, who were not yet despoiled
7938 of carnal desires, which clung to
7939 their hearts like fibre." But this sacrament belongs to Christ's "sweet yoke," and to the truth already manifested, and to
7940 a spiritual people. Consequently barley bread would not be a suitable matter for this sacrament.
7941 </p>
7942 <p id="TP_Q74_A3-p9">
7943 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> A begetter begets a thing like to itself in species. yet there is some unlikeness as to the accidents, owing either to the
7944 matter, or to weakness within the generative power. And therefore, if there be any cereals which can be grown from the seed
7945 of the wheat (as wild wheat from wheat seed grown in bad ground), the bread made from such grain can be the matter of this
7946 sacrament: and this does not obtain either in barley, or in spelt, or even in maize,
7947 which is of all grains the one most resembling the wheat grain. But the resemblance as to shape in such seems to denote closeness
7948 of species rather than identity; just as the resemblance in shape between the dog and the wolf goes to show that they are
7949 allied but not of the same species. Hence from such grains, which cannot in any way be generated from wheat grain, bread cannot
7950 be made such as to be the proper matter of this sacrament.
7951 </p>
7952 <p id="TP_Q74_A3-p10">
7953 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> A moderate mixing does not alter the species, because that little is as it were absorbed by the greater. Consequently, then,
7954 if a small quantity of another grain be mixed with a much greater quantity of wheat, bread may be made therefrom so as to
7955 be the proper matter of this sacrament; but if the mixing be notable, for instance, half and half; or nearly so, then such
7956 mixing alters the species; consequently, bread made therefrom will not be the proper
7957 matter of this sacrament.
7958 </p>
7959 <p id="TP_Q74_A3-p11">
7960 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Sometimes there is such corruption of the bread that the species of bread is lost, as when the continuity of its parts is
7961 destroyed, and the taste, color, and other accidents are changed; hence the body of Christ may not be made from such matter.
7962 But sometimes there is not such corruption as to alter the species, but merely disposition towards corruption, which a slight
7963 change in the savor betrays, and from such bread the body of Christ may be made:
7964 but he who does so, sins from irreverence towards the sacrament. And because starch comes of corrupted wheat, it does not
7965 seem as if the body of Christ could be made of the bread made therefrom, although some hold the contrary.
7966 </p>
7967 <p id="TP_Q74_A3-p12"></p>
7968 <p id="TP_Q74_A3-p13"></p>
7969 <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A2.html"></a>
7970 <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A4.html"></a>
7971 </div>
7972 <div id="TP_Q74_A4" class="div4">
7973 <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A3.html"></a>
7974 <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A5.html"></a>
7975 <h4 id="TP_Q74_A4-p0.1">Whether this sacrament ought to be made of unleavened bread?</h4>
7976 <p id="TP_Q74_A4-p1"></p>
7977 <p id="TP_Q74_A4-p2">
7978 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that this sacrament ought not to be made of unleavened bread. because in this sacrament we ought to imitate Christ's
7979 institution. But Christ appears to have instituted this sacrament in fermented bread, because, as we have read in
7980 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q74_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.12" target="asv">Ex. 12</a>, the Jews, according to the Law, began to use unleavened bread on the day of the Passover which is celebrated on the fourteenth
7981 day of the moon; and Christ instituted this sacrament at the supper which He celebrated
7982 "before the festival day of the Pasch" (
7983 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q74_A4-p2.2" href="./asv.html#John.13.1" target="asv">Jn. 13:1</a>,
7984 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q74_A4-p2.3" href="./asv.html#John.13.4" target="asv">4</a>). Therefore we ought likewise to celebrate this sacrament with fermented bread.
7985 </p>
7986 <p id="TP_Q74_A4-p3">
7987 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, legal observances ought not to be continued in the time of grace. But the use of unleavened bread was a ceremony
7988 of the Law, as is clear from
7989 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q74_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.12" target="asv">Ex. 12</a>. Therefore we ought not to use unfermented bread in this sacrament of grace.
7990 </p>
7991 <p id="TP_Q74_A4-p4">
7992 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as stated above (
7993 <a id="TP_Q74_A4-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q65_A1.html">Q[65], A[1]</a>;
7994 <a id="TP_Q74_A4-p4.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q73_A3.html"> Q[73], A[3]</a>), the Eucharist is the sacrament of charity just as Baptism is the sacrament of faith. But the fervor of charity is signified
7995 by fermented bread, as is declared by the gloss on
7996 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q74_A4-p4.3" href="./asv.html#Matt.13.33" target="asv"> Mat. 13:33</a>: "The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven," etc. Therefore this sacrament ought to be made of leavened bread.
7997 </p>
7998 <p id="TP_Q74_A4-p5">
7999 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, leavened or unleavened are mere accidents of bread, which do not vary the species. But in the matter for the sacrament
8000 of Baptism no difference is observed regarding the variation of the accidents, as to whether it be salt or fresh, warm or
8001 cold water. Therefore neither ought any distinction to be observed, as to whether the bread be unleavened or leavened.
8002 </p>
8003 <p id="TP_Q74_A4-p6">
8004 <b>On the contrary,</b> According to the Decretals (Extra, De Celebr. Miss.), a priest is punished "for presuming to celebrate, using fermented bread
8005 and a wooden cup."
8006 </p>
8007 <p id="TP_Q74_A4-p7">
8008 <b>I answer that,</b> Two things may be considered touching the matter of this sacrament namely, what is necessary, and what is suitable. It is
8009 necessary that the bread be wheaten, without which the sacrament is not valid, as stated above
8010 <a id="TP_Q74_A4-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q74_A3.html">(A[3])</a>. It is not, however, necessary for the sacrament that the bread be unleavened or leavened, since it can be celebrated in
8011 either.
8012 </p>
8013 <p id="TP_Q74_A4-p8"> But it is suitable that every priest observe the rite of his Church in the celebration of the sacrament. Now in this matter
8014 there are various customs of the Churches: for, Gregory says: "The Roman Church offers unleavened bread, because our Lord
8015 took flesh without union of sexes: but the Greek Churches offer leavened bread, because the Word of the Father was clothed
8016 with flesh; as leaven is mixed with the flour." Hence, as a priest sins by celebrating with fermented bread in the
8017 Latin Church, so a Greek priest celebrating with unfermented bread in a church of the Greeks would also sin, as perverting
8018 the rite of his Church. Nevertheless the custom of celebrating with unleavened bread is more reasonable. First, on account
8019 of Christ's institution: for He instituted this sacrament "on the first day of the Azymes" (
8020 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q74_A4-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.26.17" target="asv">Mat. 26:17</a>;
8021 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q74_A4-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Mark.14.12" target="asv"> Mk. 14:12</a>;
8022 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q74_A4-p8.3" href="./asv.html#Luke.22.7" target="asv"> Lk. 22:7</a>), on which day there ought to be nothing fermented in the houses of
8023 the Jews, as is stated in
8024 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q74_A4-p8.4" href="./asv.html#Exod.12.15" target="asv"> Ex. 12:15,19.</a> Secondly, because bread is properly the sacrament of Christ's body, which was conceived without corruption, rather than of
8025 His Godhead, as will be seen later (
8026 <a id="TP_Q74_A4-p8.5" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q76_A1.html">Q[76], A[1]</a>, ad 1). Thirdly, because this is more in keeping with the sincerity of the faithful, which is required in the use of this
8027 sacrament, according to
8028 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q74_A4-p8.6" href="./asv.html#iCor.5.7" target="asv">1 Cor. 5:7</a>: "Christ our Pasch is sacrificed: therefore let us feast . . .
8029 with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."
8030 </p>
8031 <p id="TP_Q74_A4-p9"> However, this custom of the Greeks is not unreasonable both on account of its signification, to which Gregory refers, and
8032 in detestation of the heresy of the Nazarenes, who mixed up legal observances with the Gospel.
8033 </p>
8034 <p id="TP_Q74_A4-p10">
8035 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As we read in
8036 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q74_A4-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.12" target="asv">Ex. 12</a>, the paschal solemnity began on the evening of the fourteenth day of the moon. So, then, after immolating the Paschal Lamb,
8037 Christ instituted this sacrament: hence this day is said by John to precede the day of the Pasch, while the other three Evangelists
8038 call it "the first day of the Azymes," when fermented bread was not found in the houses of the Jews, as stated above. Fuller
8039 mention was made of this in the treatise on our
8040 Lord's Passion (
8041 <a id="TP_Q74_A4-p10.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q46_A9.html">Q[46], A[9]</a>, ad 1).
8042 </p>
8043 <p id="TP_Q74_A4-p11">
8044 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Those who celebrate the sacrament with unleavened bread do not intend to follow the ceremonial of the Law, but to conform
8045 to Christ's institution; so they are not Judaizing; otherwise those celebrating in fermented bread would be Judaizing, because
8046 the Jews offered up fermented bread for the first-fruits.
8047 </p>
8048 <p id="TP_Q74_A4-p12">
8049 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Leaven denotes charity on account of one single effect, because it makes the bread more savory and larger; but it also signifies
8050 corruption from its very nature.
8051 </p>
8052 <p id="TP_Q74_A4-p13">
8053 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Since whatever is fermented partakes of corruption, this sacrament may not be made from corrupt bread, as stated above (A[3],
8054 ad 4); consequently, there is a wider difference between unleavened and leavened bread than between warm and cold baptismal
8055 water: because there might be such corruption of fermented bread that it could not be validly used for the sacrament.
8056 </p>
8057 <p id="TP_Q74_A4-p14"></p>
8058 <p id="TP_Q74_A4-p15"></p>
8059 <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A3.html"></a>
8060 <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A5.html"></a>
8061 </div>
8062 <div id="TP_Q74_A5" class="div4">
8063 <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A4.html"></a>
8064 <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A6.html"></a>
8065 <h4 id="TP_Q74_A5-p0.1">Whether wine of the grape is the proper matter of this sacrament?</h4>
8066 <p id="TP_Q74_A5-p1"></p>
8067 <p id="TP_Q74_A5-p2">
8068 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that wine of the grape is not the proper matter of this sacrament. Because, as water is the matter of Baptism, so
8069 is wine the matter of this sacrament. But Baptism can be conferred with any kind of water. Therefore this sacrament can be
8070 celebrated in any kind of wine, such as of pomegranates, or of mulberries; since vines do not grow in some countries.
8071 </p>
8072 <p id="TP_Q74_A5-p3">
8073 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, vinegar is a kind of wine drawn from the grape, as Isidore says (Etym. xx). But this sacrament cannot be celebrated
8074 with vinegar. Therefore, it seems that wine from the grape is not the proper matter of this sacrament.
8075 </p>
8076 <p id="TP_Q74_A5-p4">
8077 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, just as the clarified wine is drawn from grapes, so also are the juice of unripe grapes and must. But it does not
8078 appear that this sacrament may be made from such, according to what we read in the Sixth Council (Trull., Can. 28): "We have
8079 learned that in some churches the priests add grapes to the sacrifice of the oblation; and so they dispense both together
8080 to the people. Consequently we give order that no priest shall do this in future." And Pope
8081 Julius I rebukes some priests "who offer wine pressed from the grape in the sacrament of the Lord's chalice." Consequently,
8082 it seems that wine from the grape is not the proper matter of this sacrament.
8083 </p>
8084 <p id="TP_Q74_A5-p5">
8085 <b>On the contrary,</b> As our Lord compared Himself to the grain of wheat, so also He compared Himself to the vine, saying (
8086 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q74_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.15.1" target="asv">Jn. 15:1</a>): "I am the true vine." But only bread from wheat is the matter of this sacrament, as stated above
8087 <a id="TP_Q74_A5-p5.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q74_A3.html">(A[3])</a>. Therefore, only wine from the grape is the proper matter of this sacrament.
8088 </p>
8089 <p id="TP_Q74_A5-p6">
8090 <b>I answer that,</b> This sacrament can only be performed with wine from the grape. First of all on account of Christ's institution, since He
8091 instituted this sacrament in wine from the grape, as is evident from His own words, in instituting this sacrament (
8092 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q74_A5-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.26.29" target="asv">Mat. 26:29</a>): "I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine." Secondly, because, as stated above
8093 <a id="TP_Q74_A5-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q74_A3.html">(A[3])</a>, that is adopted as the matter of the sacraments which is
8094 properly and universally considered as such. Now that is properly called wine, which is drawn from the grape, whereas other
8095 liquors are called wine from resemblance to the wine of the grape. Thirdly, because the wine from the grape is more in keeping
8096 with the effect of this sacrament, which is spiritual; because it is written (
8097 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q74_A5-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Ps.103.15" target="asv">Ps. 103:15</a>): "That wine may cheer the heart of man."
8098 </p>
8099 <p id="TP_Q74_A5-p7">
8100 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Such liquors are called wine, not properly but only from their resemblance thereto. But genuine wine can be conveyed to such
8101 countries wherein the grape-vine does not flourish, in a quantity sufficient for this sacrament.
8102 </p>
8103 <p id="TP_Q74_A5-p8">
8104 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Wine becomes vinegar by corruption; hence there is no returning from vinegar to wine, as is said in Metaph. viii. And consequently,
8105 just as this sacrament may not be made from bread which is utterly corrupt, so neither can it be made from vinegar. It can,
8106 however, be made from wine which is turning sour, just as from bread turning corrupt, although he who does so sins, as stated
8107 above
8108 <a id="TP_Q74_A5-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q74_A3.html">(A[3])</a>.
8109 </p>
8110 <p id="TP_Q74_A5-p9">
8111 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The juice of unripe grapes is at the stage of incomplete generation, and therefore it has not yet the species of wine: on
8112 which account it may not be used for this sacrament. Must, however, has already the species of wine, for its sweetness [*"Aut
8113 dulcis musti Vulcano decoquit humorem"; Virgil, Georg. i, 295] indicates fermentation which is "the result of its natural
8114 heat" (Meteor. iv); consequently this sacrament can be made from must. Nevertheless
8115 entire grapes ought not to be mixed with this sacrament, because then there would be something else besides wine. It is furthermore
8116 forbidden to offer must in the chalice, as soon as it has been squeezed from the grape, since this is unbecoming owing to
8117 the impurity of the must. But in case of necessity it may be done: for it is said by the same Pope Julius, in the passage
8118 quoted in the argument: "If necessary, let the grape be pressed into the chalice."
8119 </p>
8120 <p id="TP_Q74_A5-p10"></p>
8121 <p id="TP_Q74_A5-p11"></p>
8122 <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A4.html"></a>
8123 <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A6.html"></a>
8124 </div>
8125 <div id="TP_Q74_A6" class="div4">
8126 <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A5.html"></a>
8127 <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A7.html"></a>
8128 <h4 id="TP_Q74_A6-p0.1">Whether water should be mixed with the wine?</h4>
8129 <p id="TP_Q74_A6-p1"></p>
8130 <p id="TP_Q74_A6-p2">
8131 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that water ought not to be mixed with the wine, since Christ's sacrifice was foreshadowed by that of Melchisedech,
8132 who (
8133 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q74_A6-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.14.18" target="asv">Gn. 14:18</a>) is related to have offered up bread and wine only. Consequently it seems that water should not be added in this sacrament.
8134 </p>
8135 <p id="TP_Q74_A6-p3">
8136 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the various sacraments have their respective matters. But water is the matter of Baptism. Therefore it should not
8137 be employed as the matter of this sacrament.
8138 </p>
8139 <p id="TP_Q74_A6-p4">
8140 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, bread and wine are the matter of this sacrament. But nothing is added to the bread. Therefore neither should anything
8141 be added to the wine.
8142 </p>
8143 <p id="TP_Q74_A6-p5">
8144 <b>On the contrary,</b> Pope Alexander I writes (
8145 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q74_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#." target="asv">Ep. 1</a> ad omnes orth.): "In the sacramental oblations which in mass are offered to the Lord, only bread and wine mixed with water
8146 are to be offered in sacrifice."
8147 </p>
8148 <p id="TP_Q74_A6-p6">
8149 <b>I answer that,</b> Water ought to be mingled with the wine which is offered in this sacrament. First of all on account of its institution: for
8150 it is believed with probability that our Lord instituted this sacrament in wine tempered with water according to the custom
8151 of that country: hence it is written (
8152 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q74_A6-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.9.5" target="asv">Prov. 9:5</a>): "Drink the wine which I have mixed for you." Secondly, because it harmonizes with the representation of our Lord's Passion:
8153 hence Pope
8154 Alexander I says (
8155 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q74_A6-p6.2" href="./asv.html#." target="asv">Ep. 1</a> ad omnes orth.): "In the Lord's chalice neither wine only nor water only ought to be offered, but both mixed because we read
8156 that both flowed from His side in the Passion." Thirdly, because this is adapted for signifying the effect of this sacrament,
8157 since as Pope Julius says (Concil. Bracarens iii, Can. 1): "We see that the people are signified by the water, but Christ's
8158 blood by the wine. Therefore when water is mixed with the wine in the chalice, the people is made
8159 one with Christ." Fourthly, because this is appropriate to the fourth effect of this sacrament, which is the entering into
8160 everlasting life: hence Ambrose says (De Sacram. v): "The water flows into the chalice, and springs forth unto everlasting
8161 life."
8162 </p>
8163 <p id="TP_Q74_A6-p7">
8164 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As Ambrose says (De Sacram. v), just as Christ's sacrifice is denoted by the offering of Melchisedech, so likewise it is
8165 signified by the water which flowed from the rock in the desert, according to
8166 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q74_A6-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.10.4" target="asv">1 Cor. 10:4</a>: "But they drank of the spiritual rock which came after them."
8167 </p>
8168 <p id="TP_Q74_A6-p8">
8169 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In Baptism water is used for the purpose of ablution: but in this sacrament it is used by way of refreshment, according to
8170
8171 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q74_A6-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.22.3" target="asv">Ps. 22:3</a>: "He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment."
8172 </p>
8173 <p id="TP_Q74_A6-p9">
8174 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Bread is made of water and flour; and therefore, since water is mixed with the wine, neither is without water.
8175 </p>
8176 <p id="TP_Q74_A6-p10"></p>
8177 <p id="TP_Q74_A6-p11"></p>
8178 <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A5.html"></a>
8179 <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A7.html"></a>
8180 </div>
8181 <div id="TP_Q74_A7" class="div4">
8182 <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A6.html"></a>
8183 <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A8.html"></a>
8184 <h4 id="TP_Q74_A7-p0.1">Whether the mixing with water is essential to this sacrament?</h4>
8185 <p id="TP_Q74_A7-p1"></p>
8186 <p id="TP_Q74_A7-p2">
8187 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the mixing with water is essential to this sacrament. Because Cyprian says to Cecilius (Ep. lxiii): "Thus the
8188 Lord's chalice is not water only and wine only, but both must be mixed together: in the same way as neither the Lord's body
8189 be of flour only, except both," i.e. the flour and the water "be united as one." But the admixture of water with the flour
8190 is necessary for this sacrament. Consequently, for the like reason, so is the mixing of water
8191 with the wine.
8192 </p>
8193 <p id="TP_Q74_A7-p3">
8194 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, at our Lord's Passion, of which this is the memorial, water as well as blood flowed from His side. But wine, which
8195 is the sacrament of the blood, is necessary for this sacrament. For the same reason, therefore, so is water.
8196 </p>
8197 <p id="TP_Q74_A7-p4">
8198 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if water were not essential to this sacrament, it would not matter in the least what kind of water was used; and
8199 so water distilled from roses, or any other kind might be employed; which is contrary to the usage of the Church. Consequently
8200 water is essential to this sacrament.
8201 </p>
8202 <p id="TP_Q74_A7-p5">
8203 <b>On the contrary,</b> Cyprian says (Ep. lxiii): "If any of our predecessors, out of ignorance or simplicity, has not kept this usage," i.e. of
8204 mixing water with the wine, "one may pardon his simplicity"; which would not be the case if water were essential to the sacrament,
8205 as the wine or the bread. Therefore the mingling of water with the wine is not essential to the sacrament.
8206 </p>
8207 <p id="TP_Q74_A7-p6">
8208 <b>I answer that,</b> Judgment concerning a sign is to be drawn from the thing signified. Now the adding of water to the wine is for the purpose
8209 of signifying the sharing of this sacrament by the faithful, in this respect that by the mixing of the water with the wine
8210 is signified the union of the people with Christ, as stated
8211 <a id="TP_Q74_A7-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q74_A6.html">(A[6])</a>. Moreover, the flowing of water from the side of Christ hanging on the cross refers to the same, because by the water is
8212 denoted the cleansing from sins, which was the effect of Christ's Passion. Now it was observed above (Q[73], A[1], ad 3),
8213 that this sacrament is completed in the consecration of the matter: while the usage of the faithful is not essential to the
8214 sacrament, but only a consequence thereof. Consequently, then, the adding of water is not essential to the sacrament.
8215 </p>
8216 <p id="TP_Q74_A7-p7">
8217 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Cyprian's expression is to be taken in the same sense in which we say that a thing cannot be, which cannot be suitably. And
8218 so the comparison refers to what ought to be done, not to what is essential to be done; since water is of the essence of bread,
8219 but not of the essence of wine.
8220 </p>
8221 <p id="TP_Q74_A7-p8">
8222 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The shedding of the blood belonged directly to Christ's Passion: for it is natural for blood to flow from a wounded human
8223 body. But the flowing of the water was not necessary for the Passion; but merely to show its effect, which is to wash away
8224 sins, and to refresh us from the heat of concupiscence. And therefore the water is not offered apart from the wine in this
8225 sacrament, as the wine is offered apart from the bread; but the water is offered mixed
8226 with the wine to show that the wine belongs of itself to this sacrament, as of its very essence; but the water as something
8227 added to the wine.
8228 </p>
8229 <p id="TP_Q74_A7-p9">
8230 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Since the mixing of water with the wine is not necessary for the sacrament, it does not matter, as to the essence of the
8231 sacrament, what kind of water is added to the wine, whether natural water, or artificial, as rose-water, although, as to the
8232 propriety of the sacrament, he would sin who mixes any other than natural and true water, because true water flowed from the
8233 side of Christ hanging on the cross, and not phlegm, as some have said, in order to
8234 show that Christ's body was truly composed of the four elements; as by the flowing blood, it was shown to be composed of the
8235 four humors, as Pope Innocent III says in a certain Decree. But because the mixing of water with flour is essential to this
8236 sacrament, as making the composition of bread, if rose-water, or any other liquor besides true water, be mixed with the flour,
8237 the sacrament would not be valid, because it would not be true bread.
8238 </p>
8239 <p id="TP_Q74_A7-p10"></p>
8240 <p id="TP_Q74_A7-p11"></p>
8241 <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A6.html"></a>
8242 <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A8.html"></a>
8243 </div>
8244 <div id="TP_Q74_A8" class="div4">
8245 <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A7.html"></a>
8246 <a href="summa.TP_Q75.html"></a>
8247 <h4 id="TP_Q74_A8-p0.1">Whether water should be added in great quantity?</h4>
8248 <p id="TP_Q74_A8-p1"></p>
8249 <p id="TP_Q74_A8-p2">
8250 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that water ought to be added in great quantity, because as blood flowed sensibly from Christ's side, so did water:
8251 hence it is written (
8252 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q74_A8-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.19.35" target="asv">Jn. 19:35</a>): "He that saw it, hath given testimony." But water could not be sensibly present in this sacrament except it were used in
8253 great quantity. Consequently it seems that water ought to be added in great quantity.
8254 </p>
8255 <p id="TP_Q74_A8-p3">
8256 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a little water mixed with much wine is corrupted. But what is corrupted no longer exists. Therefore, it is the same
8257 thing to add a little water in this sacrament as to add none. But it is not lawful to add none. Therefore, neither is it lawful
8258 to add a little.
8259 </p>
8260 <p id="TP_Q74_A8-p4">
8261 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if it sufficed to add a little, then as a consequence it would suffice to throw one drop of water into an entire
8262 cask. But this seems ridiculous. Therefore it does not suffice for a small quantity to be added.
8263 </p>
8264 <p id="TP_Q74_A8-p5">
8265 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is said in the Decretals (Extra, De Celeb. Miss.): "The pernicious abuse has prevailed in your country of adding water
8266 in greater quantity than the wine, in the sacrifice, where according to the reasonable custom of the entire Church more wine
8267 than water ought to be employed."
8268 </p>
8269 <p id="TP_Q74_A8-p6">
8270 <b>I answer that,</b> There is a threefold opinion regarding the water added to the wine, as Pope Innocent III says in a certain Decretal. For
8271 some say that the water remains by itself when the wine is changed into blood: but such an opinion cannot stand, because in
8272 the sacrament of the altar after the consecration there is nothing else save the body and the blood of Christ. Because, as
8273 Ambrose says in De Officiis (De Mysteriis ix): "Before the blessing it is another species that
8274 is named, after the blessing the Body is signified; otherwise it would not be adored with adoration of latria." And therefore
8275 others have said that as the wine is changed into blood, so the water is changed into the water which flowed from Christ's
8276 side. But this cannot be maintained reasonably, because according to this the water would be consecrated apart from the wine,
8277 as the wine is from the bread.
8278 </p>
8279 <p id="TP_Q74_A8-p7"> And therefore as he (Innocent III, Decretals, Extra, De Celeb. Miss.) says, the more probable opinion is that which holds
8280 that the water is changed into wine, and the wine into blood. Now, this could not be done unless so little water was used
8281 that it would be changed into wine. Consequently, it is always safer to add little water, especially if the wine be weak,
8282 because the sacrament could not be celebrated if there were such addition of water as to destroy the species of the
8283 wine. Hence Pope Julius I reprehends some who "keep throughout the year a linen cloth steeped in must, and at the time of
8284 sacrifice wash a part of it with water, and so make the offering."
8285 </p>
8286 <p id="TP_Q74_A8-p8">
8287 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> For the signification of this sacrament it suffices for the water to be appreciable by sense when it is mixed with the wine:
8288 but it is not necessary for it to be sensible after the mingling.
8289 </p>
8290 <p id="TP_Q74_A8-p9">
8291 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> If no water were added, the signification would be utterly excluded: but when the water is changed into wine, it is signified
8292 that the people is incorporated with Christ.
8293 </p>
8294 <p id="TP_Q74_A8-p10">
8295 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> If water were added to a cask, it would not suffice for the signification of this sacrament, but the water must be added
8296 to the wine at the actual celebration of the sacrament.
8297 </p>
8298 <p id="TP_Q74_A8-p11"></p>
8299 <p id="TP_Q74_A8-p12"></p>
8300 <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A7.html"></a>
8301 <a href="summa.TP_Q75.html"></a>
8302 </div>
8303 <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A6.html"></a>
8304 <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A1.html"></a>
8305 </div>
8306 <div id="TP_Q75" class="div3">
8307 <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A8.html"></a>
8308 <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A1.html"></a>
8309 <h3 id="TP_Q75-p0.1">OF THE CHANGE OF BREAD AND WINE INTO THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST (EIGHT ARTICLES)</h3>
8310 <p id="TP_Q75-p1"></p>
8311 <p id="TP_Q75-p2"> We have to consider the change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ; under which head there are eight
8312 points of inquiry:
8313 </p>
8314 <p id="TP_Q75-p3"> (1) Whether the substance of bread and wine remain in this sacrament after the consecration?*</p>
8315 <p id="TP_Q75-p4"> (2) Whether it is annihilated?</p>
8316 <p id="TP_Q75-p5"> (3) Whether it is changed into the body and blood of Christ?</p>
8317 <p id="TP_Q75-p6"> (4) Whether the accidents remain after the change?</p>
8318 <p id="TP_Q75-p7"> (5) Whether the substantial form remains there?</p>
8319 <p id="TP_Q75-p8"> (6) Whether this change is instantaneous?</p>
8320 <p id="TP_Q75-p9"> (7) Whether it is more miraculous than any other change?</p>
8321 <p id="TP_Q75-p10"> (8) By what words it may be suitably expressed?</p>
8322 <p id="TP_Q75-p11">[*The titles of the Articles here given were taken by St. Thomas from his Commentary on the Sentences (Sent. iv, D, 90). However,
8323 in writing the Articles he introduced a new point of inquiry, that of the First Article; and substituted another division
8324 of the matter under discussion, as may be seen by referring to the titles of the various Articles. Most editions have ignored
8325 St. Thomas's original division, and give the one to which he subsequently adhered.]
8326 </p>
8327 <div id="TP_Q75_A1" class="div4">
8328 <a href="summa.TP_Q75.html"></a>
8329 <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A2.html"></a>
8330 <h4 id="TP_Q75_A1-p0.1">Whether the body of Christ be in this sacrament in very truth, or merely as in a figure or sign?</h4>
8331 <p id="TP_Q75_A1-p1"></p>
8332 <p id="TP_Q75_A1-p2">
8333 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the body of Christ is not in this sacrament in very truth, but only as in a figure, or sign. For it is written
8334 (
8335 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q75_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.6.54" target="asv">Jn. 6:54</a>) that when our Lord had uttered these words: "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood," etc., "Many
8336 of His disciples on hearing it said: 'this is a hard saying'": to whom He rejoined: "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the
8337 flesh profiteth nothing": as if He were to say, according to
8338 Augustine's exposition on
8339 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q75_A1-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.4" target="asv">Ps. 4</a> [*On
8340 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q75_A1-p2.3" href="./asv.html#Ps.98.9" target="asv"> Ps. 98:9</a>]: "Give a spiritual meaning to what I have said. You are not to eat this body which you see, nor to drink the blood which
8341 they who crucify Me are to spill. It is a mystery that I put before you: in its spiritual sense it will quicken you; but the
8342 flesh profiteth nothing."
8343 </p>
8344 <p id="TP_Q75_A1-p3">
8345 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, our Lord said (
8346 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q75_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.28.20" target="asv">Mat. 28:20</a>): "Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world." Now in explaining this, Augustine makes this observation
8347 (Tract. xxx in Joan.): "The Lord is on high until the world be ended; nevertheless the truth of the Lord is here with us;
8348 for the body, in which He rose again, must be in one place; but His truth is spread abroad everywhere." Therefore, the body
8349 of Christ is not in this
8350 sacrament in very truth, but only as in a sign.
8351 </p>
8352 <p id="TP_Q75_A1-p4">
8353 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, no body can be in several places at the one time. For this does not even belong to an angel; since for the same
8354 reason it could be everywhere. But Christ's is a true body, and it is in heaven. Consequently, it seems that it is not in
8355 very truth in the sacrament of the altar, but only as in a sign.
8356 </p>
8357 <p id="TP_Q75_A1-p5">
8358 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the Church's sacraments are ordained for the profit of the faithful. But according to Gregory in a certain Homily
8359 (xxviii in Evang.), the ruler is rebuked "for demanding Christ's bodily presence." Moreover the apostles were prevented from
8360 receiving the Holy Ghost because they were attached to His bodily presence, as Augustine says on
8361 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q75_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.16.7" target="asv"> Jn. 16:7</a>: "Except I go, the Paraclete will not come to you" (Tract. xciv in Joan.). Therefore
8362 Christ is not in the sacrament of the altar according to His bodily presence.
8363 </p>
8364 <p id="TP_Q75_A1-p6">
8365 <b>On the contrary,</b> Hilary says (De Trin. viii): "There is no room for doubt regarding the truth of Christ's body and blood; for now by our Lord's
8366 own declaring and by our faith His flesh is truly food, and His blood is truly drink." And Ambrose says (De Sacram. vi): "As
8367 the Lord Jesus Christ is God's true Son so is it Christ's true flesh which we take, and His true blood which we drink."
8368 </p>
8369 <p id="TP_Q75_A1-p7">
8370 <b>I answer that,</b> The presence of Christ's true body and blood in this sacrament cannot be detected by sense, nor understanding, but by faith
8371 alone, which rests upon Divine authority. Hence, on
8372 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q75_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.22.19" target="asv"> Lk. 22:19</a>: "This is My body which shall be delivered up for you," Cyril says: "Doubt not whether this be true; but take rather the
8373 Saviour's words with faith; for since He is the Truth, He lieth not."
8374 </p>
8375 <p id="TP_Q75_A1-p8"> Now this is suitable, first for the perfection of the New Law. For, the sacrifices of the Old Law contained only in figure
8376 that true sacrifice of Christ's Passion, according to
8377 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q75_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.10.1" target="asv"> Heb. 10:1</a>: "For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things." And therefore it was necessary
8378 that the sacrifice of the New Law instituted by Christ should have something more, namely, that it should contain Christ Himself
8379 crucified, not merely
8380 in signification or figure, but also in very truth. And therefore this sacrament which contains Christ Himself, as Dionysius
8381 says (Eccl. Hier. iii), is perfective of all the other sacraments, in which Christ's virtue is participated.
8382 </p>
8383 <p id="TP_Q75_A1-p9"> Secondly, this belongs to Christ's love, out of which for our salvation He assumed a true body of our nature. And because
8384 it is the special feature of friendship to live together with friends, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix), He promises us
8385 His bodily presence as a reward, saying (
8386 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q75_A1-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.24.28" target="asv">Mat. 24:28</a>): "Where the body is, there shall the eagles be gathered together." Yet meanwhile in our pilgrimage He does not deprive us
8387 of His bodily presence; but unites us with
8388 Himself in this sacrament through the truth of His body and blood. Hence (
8389 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q75_A1-p9.2" href="./asv.html#John.6.57" target="asv">Jn. 6:57</a>) he says: "He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, abideth in Me, and I in him." Hence this sacrament is the sign
8390 of supreme charity, and the uplifter of our hope, from such familiar union of Christ with us.
8391 </p>
8392 <p id="TP_Q75_A1-p10"> Thirdly, it belongs to the perfection of faith, which concerns His humanity just as it does His Godhead, according to
8393 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q75_A1-p10.1" href="./asv.html#John.14.1" target="asv"> Jn. 14:1</a>: "You believe in God, believe also in Me." And since faith is of things unseen, as Christ shows us His Godhead invisibly,
8394 so also in this sacrament He shows us His flesh in an invisible manner.
8395 </p>
8396 <p id="TP_Q75_A1-p11"> Some men accordingly, not paying heed to these things, have contended that Christ's body and blood are not in this sacrament
8397 except as in a sign, a thing to be rejected as heretical, since it is contrary to Christ's words. Hence Berengarius, who had
8398 been the first deviser of this heresy, was afterwards forced to withdraw his error, and to acknowledge the truth of the faith.
8399 </p>
8400 <p id="TP_Q75_A1-p12">
8401 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> From this authority the aforesaid heretics have taken occasion to err from evilly understanding Augustine's words. For when
8402 Augustine says: "You are not to eat this body which you see," he means not to exclude the truth of Christ's body, but that
8403 it was not to be eaten in this species in which it was seen by them. And by the words: "It is a mystery that I put before
8404 you; in its spiritual sense it will quicken you," he intends not that the body of
8405 Christ is in this sacrament merely according to mystical signification, but "spiritually," that is, invisibly, and by the
8406 power of the spirit. Hence (Tract. xxvii), expounding
8407 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q75_A1-p12.1" href="./asv.html#John.6.64" target="asv"> Jn. 6:64</a>: "the flesh profiteth nothing," he says: "Yea, but as they understood it, for they understood that the flesh was to be eaten
8408 as it is divided piecemeal in a dead body, or as sold in the shambles, not as it is quickened by the spirit . . . Let the
8409 spirit draw nigh to the flesh . . . then the
8410 flesh profiteth very much: for if the flesh profiteth nothing, the Word had not been made flesh, that It might dwell among
8411 us."
8412 </p>
8413 <p id="TP_Q75_A1-p13">
8414 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> That saying of Augustine and all others like it are to be understood of Christ's body as it is beheld in its proper species;
8415 according as our Lord Himself says (
8416 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q75_A1-p13.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.26.11" target="asv">Mat. 26:11</a>): "But Me you have not always." Nevertheless He is invisibly under the species of this sacrament, wherever this sacrament
8417 is performed.
8418 </p>
8419 <p id="TP_Q75_A1-p14">
8420 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Christ's body is not in this sacrament in the same way as a body is in a place, which by its dimensions is commensurate with
8421 the place; but in a special manner which is proper to this sacrament. Hence we say that Christ's body is upon many altars,
8422 not as in different places, but "sacramentally": and thereby we do not understand that Christ is there only as in a sign,
8423 although a sacrament is a kind of sign; but that Christ's body is here after a
8424 fashion proper to this sacrament, as stated above.
8425 </p>
8426 <p id="TP_Q75_A1-p15">
8427 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> This argument holds good of Christ's bodily presence, as He is present after the manner of a body, that is, as it is in its
8428 visible appearance, but not as it is spiritually, that is, invisibly, after the manner and by the virtue of the spirit. Hence
8429 Augustine (Tract. xxvii in Joan.) says: "If thou hast understood" Christ's words spiritually concerning His flesh, "they are
8430 spirit and life to thee; if thou hast understood them carnally, they are also
8431 spirit and life, but not to thee."
8432 </p>
8433 <p id="TP_Q75_A1-p16"></p>
8434 <p id="TP_Q75_A1-p17"></p>
8435 <a href="summa.TP_Q75.html"></a>
8436 <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A2.html"></a>
8437 </div>
8438 <div id="TP_Q75_A2" class="div4">
8439 <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A1.html"></a>
8440 <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A3.html"></a>
8441 <h4 id="TP_Q75_A2-p0.1">Whether in this sacrament the substance of the bread and wine remains after the consecration?</h4>
8442 <p id="TP_Q75_A2-p1"></p>
8443 <p id="TP_Q75_A2-p2">
8444 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the substance of the bread and wine does remain in this sacrament after the consecration: because Damascene
8445 says (De Fide Orth. iv): "Since it is customary for men to eat bread and drink wine, God has wedded his Godhead to them, and
8446 made them His body and blood": and further on: "The bread of communication is not simple bread, but is united to the Godhead."
8447 But wedding together belongs to things actually existing. Therefore the bread and wine are
8448 at the same time, in this sacrament, with the body and the blood of Christ.
8449 </p>
8450 <p id="TP_Q75_A2-p3">
8451 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, there ought to be conformity between the sacraments. But in the other sacraments the substance of the matter remains,
8452 like the substance of water in Baptism, and the substance of chrism in Confirmation. Therefore the substance of the bread
8453 and wine remains also in this sacrament.
8454 </p>
8455 <p id="TP_Q75_A2-p4">
8456 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, bread and wine are made use of in this sacrament, inasmuch as they denote ecclesiastical unity, as "one bread is
8457 made from many grains and wine from many grapes," as Augustine says in his book on the Creed (Tract. xxvi in Joan.). But this
8458 belongs to the substance of bread and wine. Therefore, the substance of the bread and wine remains in this sacrament.
8459 </p>
8460 <p id="TP_Q75_A2-p5">
8461 <b>On the contrary,</b> Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): "Although the figure of the bread and wine be seen, still, after the Consecration, they are
8462 to be believed to be nothing else than the body end blood of Christ."
8463 </p>
8464 <p id="TP_Q75_A2-p6">
8465 <b>I answer that,</b> Some have held that the substance of the bread and wine remains in this sacrament after the consecration. But this opinion
8466 cannot stand: first of all, because by such an opinion the truth of this sacrament is destroyed, to which it belongs that
8467 Christ's true body exists in this sacrament; which indeed was not there before the consecration. Now a thing cannot be in
8468 any place, where it was not previously, except by change of place, or by the conversion of
8469 another thing into itself; just as fire begins anew to be in some house, either because it is carried thither, or because
8470 it is generated there. Now it is evident that Christ's body does not begin to be present in this sacrament by local motion.
8471 First of all, because it would follow that it would cease to be in heaven: for what is moved locally does not come anew to
8472 some place unless it quit the former one. Secondly, because every body moved locally passes through all intermediary spaces,
8473 which
8474 cannot be said here. Thirdly, because it is not possible for one movement of the same body moved locally to be terminated
8475 in different places at the one time, whereas the body of Christ under this sacrament begins at the one time to be in several
8476 places. And consequently it remains that Christ's body cannot begin to be anew in this sacrament except by change of the substance
8477 of bread into itself. But what is changed into another thing, no longer remains after such change. Hence the conclusion
8478 is that, saving the truth of this sacrament, the substance of the bread cannot remain after the consecration.
8479 </p>
8480 <p id="TP_Q75_A2-p7"> Secondly, because this position is contrary to the form of this sacrament, in which it is said: "This is My body," which
8481 would not be true if the substance of the bread were to remain there; for the substance of bread never is the body of Christ.
8482 Rather should one say in that case: "Here is My body."
8483 </p>
8484 <p id="TP_Q75_A2-p8"> Thirdly, because it would be opposed to the veneration of this sacrament, if any substance were there, which could not be
8485 adored with adoration of latria.
8486 </p>
8487 <p id="TP_Q75_A2-p9"> Fourthly, because it is contrary to the rite of the Church, according to which it is not lawful to take the body of Christ
8488 after bodily food, while it is nevertheless lawful to take one consecrated host after another. Hence this opinion is to be
8489 avoided as heretical.
8490 </p>
8491 <p id="TP_Q75_A2-p10">
8492 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> God "wedded His Godhead," i.e. His Divine power, to the bread and wine, not that these may remain in this sacrament, but
8493 in order that He may make from them His body and blood.
8494 </p>
8495 <p id="TP_Q75_A2-p11">
8496 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Christ is not really present in the other sacraments, as in this; and therefore the substance of the matter remains in the
8497 other sacraments, but not in this.
8498 </p>
8499 <p id="TP_Q75_A2-p12">
8500 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The species which remain in this sacrament, as shall be said later
8501 <a id="TP_Q75_A2-p12.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q75_A5.html">(A[5])</a>, suffice for its signification; because the nature of the substance is known by its accidents.
8502 </p>
8503 <p id="TP_Q75_A2-p13"></p>
8504 <p id="TP_Q75_A2-p14"></p>
8505 <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A1.html"></a>
8506 <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A3.html"></a>
8507 </div>
8508 <div id="TP_Q75_A3" class="div4">
8509 <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A2.html"></a>
8510 <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A4.html"></a>
8511 <h4 id="TP_Q75_A3-p0.1">Whether the substance of the bread or wine is annihilated after the consecration of this sacrament, or dissolved into their
8512 original matter?
8513 </h4>
8514 <p id="TP_Q75_A3-p1"></p>
8515 <p id="TP_Q75_A3-p2">
8516 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the substance of the bread is annihilated after the consecration of this sacrament, or dissolved into its original
8517 matter. For whatever is corporeal must be somewhere. But the substance of bread, which is something corporeal, does not remain,
8518 in this sacrament, as stated above
8519 <a id="TP_Q75_A3-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q75_A2.html">(A[2])</a>; nor can we assign any place where it may be. Consequently it is nothing after the consecration. Therefore, it is either
8520 annihilated, or
8521 dissolved into its original matter.
8522 </p>
8523 <p id="TP_Q75_A3-p3">
8524 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, what is the term "wherefrom" in every change exists no longer, except in the potentiality of matter; e.g. when air
8525 is changed into fire, the form of the air remains only in the potentiality of matter; and in like fashion when what is white
8526 becomes black. But in this sacrament the substance of the bread or of the wine is the term "wherefrom," while the body or
8527 the blood of Christ is the term "whereunto": for Ambrose says in De Officiis (De Myster. ix):
8528 "Before the blessing it is called another species, after the blessing the body of Christ is signified." Therefore, when the
8529 consecration takes place, the substance of the bread or wine no longer remains, unless perchance dissolved into its (original)
8530 matter.
8531 </p>
8532 <p id="TP_Q75_A3-p4">
8533 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, one of two contradictories must be true. But this proposition is false: "After the consecration the substance of
8534 the bread or wine is something." Consequently, this is true: "The substance of the bread or wine is nothing."
8535 </p>
8536 <p id="TP_Q75_A3-p5">
8537 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (
8538 <a id="TP_Q75_A3-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q83.html">Q[83])</a>: "God is not the cause of tending to nothing." But this sacrament is wrought by Divine power. Therefore, in this sacrament
8539 the substance of the bread or wine is not annihilated.
8540 </p>
8541 <p id="TP_Q75_A3-p6">
8542 <b>I answer that,</b> Because the substance of the bread and wine does not remain in this sacrament, some, deeming that it is impossible for the
8543 substance of the bread and wine to be changed into Christ's flesh and blood, have maintained that by the consecration, the
8544 substance of the bread and wine is either dissolved into the original matter, or that it is annihilated.
8545 </p>
8546 <p id="TP_Q75_A3-p7"> Now the original matter into which mixed bodies can be dissolved is the four elements. For dissolution cannot be made into
8547 primary matter, so that a subject can exist without a form, since matter cannot exist without a form. But since after the
8548 consecration nothing remains under the sacramental species except the body and the blood of Christ, it will be necessary to
8549 say that the elements into which the substance of the bread and wine is dissolved, depart from thence by local
8550 motion, which would be perceived by the senses. In like manner also the substance of the bread or wine remains until the last
8551 instant of the consecration; but in the last instant of the consecration there is already present there the substance of the
8552 body or blood of Christ, just as the form is already present in the last instant of generation. Hence no instant can be assigned
8553 in which the original matter can be there. For it cannot be said that the substance of the bread or wine is dissolved
8554 gradually into the original matter, or that it successively quits the species, for if this began to be done in the last instant
8555 of its consecration, then at the one time under part of the host there would be the body of Christ together with the substance
8556 of bread, which is contrary to what has been said above
8557 <a id="TP_Q75_A3-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q75_A2.html">(A[2])</a>. But if this begin to come to pass before the consecration, there will then be a time in which under one part of the host
8558 there will be neither the
8559 substance of bread nor the body of Christ, which is not fitting. They seem indeed to have taken this into careful consideration,
8560 wherefore they formulated their proposition with an alternative viz. that (the substance) may be annihilated. But even this
8561 cannot stand, because no way can be assigned whereby Christ's true body can begin to be in this sacrament, except by the change
8562 of the substance of bread into it, which change is excluded the moment we admit either annihilation of the substance
8563 of the bread, or dissolution into the original matter. Likewise no cause can be assigned for such dissolution or annihilation,
8564 since the effect of the sacrament is signified by the form: "This is My body." Hence it is clear that the aforesaid opinion
8565 is false.
8566 </p>
8567 <p id="TP_Q75_A3-p8">
8568 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The substance of the bread or wine, after the consecration, remains neither under the sacramental species, nor elsewhere;
8569 yet it does not follow that it is annihilated; for it is changed into the body of Christ; just as if the air, from which fire
8570 is generated, be not there or elsewhere, it does not follow that it is annihilated.
8571 </p>
8572 <p id="TP_Q75_A3-p9">
8573 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The form, which is the term "wherefrom," is not changed into another form; but one form succeeds another in the subject;
8574 and therefore the first form remains only in the potentiality of matter. But here the substance of the bread is changed into
8575 the body of Christ, as stated above. Hence the conclusion does not follow.
8576 </p>
8577 <p id="TP_Q75_A3-p10">
8578 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although after the consecration this proposition is false: "The substance of the breed is something," still that into which
8579 the substance of the bread is changed, is something, and consequently the substance of the bread is not annihilated.
8580 </p>
8581 <p id="TP_Q75_A3-p11"></p>
8582 <p id="TP_Q75_A3-p12"></p>
8583 <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A2.html"></a>
8584 <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A4.html"></a>
8585 </div>
8586 <div id="TP_Q75_A4" class="div4">
8587 <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A3.html"></a>
8588 <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A5.html"></a>
8589 <h4 id="TP_Q75_A4-p0.1">Whether bread can be converted into the body of Christ?</h4>
8590 <p id="TP_Q75_A4-p1"></p>
8591 <p id="TP_Q75_A4-p2">
8592 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that bread cannot be converted into the body of Christ. For conversion is a kind of change. But in every change
8593 there must be some subject, which from being previously in potentiality is now in act. because as is said in Phys. iii: "motion
8594 is the act of a thing existing in potentiality." But no subject can be assigned for the substance of the bread and of the
8595 body of Christ, because it is of the very nature of substance for it "not to be in a
8596 subject," as it is said in Praedic. iii. Therefore it is not possible for the whole substance of the bread to be converted
8597 into the body of Christ.
8598 </p>
8599 <p id="TP_Q75_A4-p3">
8600 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the form of the thing into which another is converted, begins anew to inhere in the matter of the thing converted
8601 into it: as when air is changed into fire not already existing, the form of fire begins anew to be in the matter of the air;
8602 and in like manner when food is converted into non-pre-existing man, the form of the man begins to be anew in the matter of
8603 the food. Therefore, if bread be changed into the body of Christ, the form of Christ's body
8604 must necessarily begin to be in the matter of the bread, which is false. Consequently, the bread is not changed into the substance
8605 of Christ's body.
8606 </p>
8607 <p id="TP_Q75_A4-p4">
8608 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, when two things are diverse, one never becomes the other, as whiteness never becomes blackness, as is stated in
8609 Phys. i. But since two contrary forms are of themselves diverse, as being the principles of formal difference, so two signate
8610 matters are of themselves diverse, as being the principles of material distinction. Consequently, it is not possible for this
8611 matter of bread to become this matter whereby Christ's body is individuated, and so it is
8612 not possible for this substance of bread to be changed into the substance of Christ's body.
8613 </p>
8614 <p id="TP_Q75_A4-p5">
8615 <b>On the contrary,</b> Eusebius Emesenus says: "To thee it ought neither to be a novelty nor an impossibility that earthly and mortal things be
8616 changed into the substance of Christ."
8617 </p>
8618 <p id="TP_Q75_A4-p6">
8619 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
8620 <a id="TP_Q75_A4-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q75_A2.html">(A[2])</a>, since Christ's true body is in this sacrament, and since it does not begin to be there by local motion, nor is it contained
8621 therein as in a place, as is evident from what was stated above (A[1], ad 2), it must be said then that it begins to be there
8622 by conversion of the substance of bread into itself.
8623 </p>
8624 <p id="TP_Q75_A4-p7"> Yet this change is not like natural changes, but is entirely supernatural, and effected by God's power alone. Hence Ambrose
8625 says [(De Sacram. iv): "See how Christ's word changes nature's laws, as He wills: a man is not wont to be born save of man
8626 and woman: see therefore that against the established law and order a man is born of a Virgin": and] [*The passage in the
8627 brackets is not in the Leonine edition] (De Myster. iv): "It is clear that a Virgin begot beyond the order of
8628 nature: and what we make is the body from the Virgin. Why, then, do you look for nature's order in Christ's body, since the
8629 Lord Jesus was Himself brought forth of a Virgin beyond nature?" Chrysostom likewise (Hom. xlvii), commenting on
8630 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q75_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#John.6.64" target="asv"> Jn. 6:64</a>: "The words which I have spoken to you," namely, of this sacrament, "are spirit and life," says: i.e. "spiritual, having
8631 nothing carnal, nor natural consequence; but they are rent from all such necessity which exists upon earth, and
8632 from the laws here established."
8633 </p>
8634 <p id="TP_Q75_A4-p8"> For it is evident that every agent acts according as it is in act. But every created agent is limited in its act, as being
8635 of a determinate genus and species: and consequently the action of every created agent bears upon some determinate act. Now
8636 the determination of every thing in actual existence comes from its form. Consequently, no natural or created agent can act
8637 except by changing the form in something; and on this account every change made according to nature's laws is a
8638 formal change. But God is infinite act, as stated in the
8639 <a id="TP_Q75_A4-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q7_A1.html">FP, Q[7], A[1]</a>; Q[26], A[2]; hence His action extends to the whole nature of being. Therefore He can work not only formal conversion, so
8640 that diverse forms succeed each other in the same subject; but also the change of all being, so that, to wit, the whole substance
8641 of one thing be changed into the whole substance of another. And this is done by Divine power in this sacrament; for the whole
8642 substance of the bread
8643 is changed into the whole substance of Christ's body, and the whole substance of the wine into the whole substance of Christ's
8644 blood. Hence this is not a formal, but a substantial conversion; nor is it a kind of natural movement: but, with a name of
8645 its own, it can be called "transubstantiation."
8646 </p>
8647 <p id="TP_Q75_A4-p9">
8648 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This objection holds good in respect of formal change, because it belongs to a form to be in matter or in a subject; but
8649 it does not hold good in respect of the change of the entire substance. Hence, since this substantial change implies a certain
8650 order of substances, one of which is changed into the other, it is in both substances as in a subject, just as order and number.
8651 </p>
8652 <p id="TP_Q75_A4-p10">
8653 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This argument also is true of formal conversion or change, because, as stated above (ad 1), a form must be in some matter
8654 or subject. But this is not so in a change of the entire substance; for in this case no subject is possible.
8655 </p>
8656 <p id="TP_Q75_A4-p11">
8657 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Form cannot be changed into form, nor matter into matter by the power of any finite agent. Such a change, however, can be
8658 made by the power of an infinite agent, which has control over all being, because the nature of being is common to both forms
8659 and to both matters; and whatever there is of being in the one, the author of being can change into whatever there is of being
8660 in the other, withdrawing that whereby it was distinguished from the other.
8661 </p>
8662 <p id="TP_Q75_A4-p12"></p>
8663 <p id="TP_Q75_A4-p13"></p>
8664 <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A3.html"></a>
8665 <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A5.html"></a>
8666 </div>
8667 <div id="TP_Q75_A5" class="div4">
8668 <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A4.html"></a>
8669 <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A6.html"></a>
8670 <h4 id="TP_Q75_A5-p0.1">Whether the accidents of the bread and wine remain in this sacrament after the change?</h4>
8671 <p id="TP_Q75_A5-p1"></p>
8672 <p id="TP_Q75_A5-p2">
8673 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the accidents of the bread and wine do not remain in this sacrament. For when that which comes first is removed,
8674 that which follows is also taken away. But substance is naturally before accident, as is proved in Metaph. vii. Since, then,
8675 after consecration, the substance of the bread does not remain in this sacrament, it seems that its accidents cannot remain.
8676 </p>
8677 <p id="TP_Q75_A5-p3">
8678 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, there ought not to be any deception in a sacrament of truth. But we judge of substance by accidents. It seems, then,
8679 that human judgment is deceived, if, while the accidents remain, the substance of the bread does not. Consequently this is
8680 unbecoming to this sacrament.
8681 </p>
8682 <p id="TP_Q75_A5-p4">
8683 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, although our faith is not subject to reason, still it is not contrary to reason, but above it, as was said in the
8684 beginning of this work (
8685 <a id="TP_Q75_A5-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q1_A6.html">FP, Q[1], A[6]</a>, ad 2; A[8]). But our reason has its origin in the senses. Therefore our faith ought not to be contrary to the senses, as
8686 it is when sense judges that to be bread which faith believes to be the substance of Christ's body. Therefore it is not befitting
8687 this sacrament for the
8688 accidents of bread to remain subject to the senses, and for the substance of bread not to remain.
8689 </p>
8690 <p id="TP_Q75_A5-p5">
8691 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, what remains after the change has taken place seems to be the subject of change. If therefore the accidents of the
8692 bread remain after the change has been effected, it seems that the accidents are the subject of the change. But this is impossible;
8693 for "an accident cannot have an accident" (Metaph. iii). Therefore the accidents of the bread and wine ought not to remain
8694 in this sacrament.
8695 </p>
8696 <p id="TP_Q75_A5-p6">
8697 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says in his book on the Sentences of Prosper (Lanfranc, De Corp. et Sang. Dom. xiii): "Under the species which
8698 we behold, of bread and wine, we honor invisible things, i.e. flesh and blood."
8699 </p>
8700 <p id="TP_Q75_A5-p7">
8701 <b>I answer that,</b> It is evident to sense that all the accidents of the bread and wine remain after the consecration. And this is reasonably
8702 done by Divine providence. First of all, because it is not customary, but horrible, for men to eat human flesh, and to drink
8703 blood. And therefore Christ's flesh and blood are set before us to be partaken of under the species of those things which
8704 are the more commonly used by men, namely, bread and wine. Secondly, lest this sacrament
8705 might be derided by unbelievers, if we were to eat our Lord under His own species. Thirdly, that while we receive our Lord's
8706 body and blood invisibly, this may redound to the merit of faith.
8707 </p>
8708 <p id="TP_Q75_A5-p8">
8709 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As is said in the book De Causis, an effect depends more on the first cause than on the second. And therefore by God's power,
8710 which is the first cause of all things, it is possible for that which follows to remain, while that which is first is taken
8711 away.
8712 </p>
8713 <p id="TP_Q75_A5-p9">
8714 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> There is no deception in this sacrament; for the accidents which are discerned by the senses are truly present. But the intellect,
8715 whose proper object is substance as is said in De Anima iii, is preserved by faith from deception.
8716 </p>
8717 <p id="TP_Q75_A5-p10"> And this serves as answer to the third argument; because faith is not contrary to the senses, but concerns things to which
8718 sense does not reach.
8719 </p>
8720 <p id="TP_Q75_A5-p11">
8721 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> This change has not properly a subject, as was stated above (A[4], ad 1); nevertheless the accidents which remain have some
8722 resemblance of a subject.
8723 </p>
8724 <p id="TP_Q75_A5-p12"></p>
8725 <p id="TP_Q75_A5-p13"></p>
8726 <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A4.html"></a>
8727 <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A6.html"></a>
8728 </div>
8729 <div id="TP_Q75_A6" class="div4">
8730 <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A5.html"></a>
8731 <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A7.html"></a>
8732 <h4 id="TP_Q75_A6-p0.1">Whether the substantial form of the bread remains in this sacrament after the consecration?</h4>
8733 <p id="TP_Q75_A6-p1"></p>
8734 <p id="TP_Q75_A6-p2">
8735 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the substantial form of the bread remains in this sacrament after the consecration. For it has been said
8736 <a id="TP_Q75_A6-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q75_A5.html">(A[5])</a> that the accidents remain after the consecration. But since bread is an artificial thing, its form is an accident. Therefore
8737 it remains after the consecration.
8738 </p>
8739 <p id="TP_Q75_A6-p3">
8740 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the form of Christ's body is His soul: for it is said in De Anima ii, that the soul "is the act of a physical body
8741 which has life in potentiality". But it cannot be said that the substantial form of the bread is changed into the soul. Therefore
8742 it appears that it remains after the consecration.
8743 </p>
8744 <p id="TP_Q75_A6-p4">
8745 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the proper operation of a things follows its substantial form. But what remains in this sacrament, nourishes, and
8746 performs every operation which bread would do were it present. Therefore the substantial form of the bread remains in this
8747 sacrament after the consecration.
8748 </p>
8749 <p id="TP_Q75_A6-p5">
8750 <b>On the contrary,</b> The substantial form of bread is of the substance of bread. But the substance of the bread is changed into the body of Christ,
8751 as stated above (
8752 <a id="TP_Q75_A6-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q75_A2.html">AA[2]</a>,3,4). Therefore the substantial form of the bread does not remain.
8753 </p>
8754 <p id="TP_Q75_A6-p6">
8755 <b>I answer that,</b> Some have contended that after the consecration not only do the accidents of the bread remain, but also its substantial form.
8756 But this cannot be. First of all, because if the substantial form of the bread were to remain, nothing of the bread would
8757 be changed into the body of Christ, excepting the matter; and so it would follow that it would be changed, not into the whole
8758 body of Christ, but into its matter, which is repugnant to the form of the sacrament,
8759 wherein it is said: "This is My body."
8760 </p>
8761 <p id="TP_Q75_A6-p7"> Secondly, because if the substantial form of the bread were to remain, it would remain either in matter, or separated from
8762 matter. The first cannot be, for if it were to remain in the matter of the bread, then the whole substance of the bread would
8763 remain, which is against what was said above
8764 <a id="TP_Q75_A6-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q75_A2.html">(A[2])</a>. Nor could it remain in any other matter, because the proper form exists only in its proper matter. But if it were to remain
8765 separate from matter, it would
8766 then be an actually intelligible form, and also an intelligence; for all forms separated from matter are such.
8767 </p>
8768 <p id="TP_Q75_A6-p8"> Thirdly, it would be unbefitting this sacrament: because the accidents of the bread remain in this sacrament, in order that
8769 the body of Christ may be seen under them, and not under its proper species, as stated above
8770 <a id="TP_Q75_A6-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q75_A5.html">(A[5])</a>.
8771 </p>
8772 <p id="TP_Q75_A6-p9"> And therefore it must be said that the substantial form of the bread does not remain.</p>
8773 <p id="TP_Q75_A6-p10">
8774 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> There is nothing to prevent art from making a thing whose form is not an accident, but a substantial form; as frogs and serpents
8775 can be produced by art: for art produces such forms not by its own power, but by the power of natural energies. And in this
8776 way it produces the substantial forms of bread, by the power of fire baking the matter made up of flour and water.
8777 </p>
8778 <p id="TP_Q75_A6-p11">
8779 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The soul is the form of the body, giving it the whole order of perfect being, i.e. being, corporeal being, and animated being,
8780 and so on. Therefore the form of the bread is changed into the form of Christ's body, according as the latter gives corporeal
8781 being, but not according as it bestows animated being.
8782 </p>
8783 <p id="TP_Q75_A6-p12">
8784 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Some of the operations of bread follow it by reason of the accidents, such as to affect the senses, and such operations are
8785 found in the species of the bread after the consecration on account of the accidents which remain. But some other operations
8786 follow the bread either by reason of the matter, such as that it is changed into something else, or else by reason of the
8787 substantial form, such as an operation consequent upon its species, for instance,
8788 that it "strengthens man's heart" (
8789 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q75_A6-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.103.15" target="asv">Ps. 103:15</a>); and such operations are found in this sacrament, not on account of the form or matter remaining, but because they are bestowed
8790 miraculously upon the accidents themselves, as will be said later (Q[77], A[3], ad 2,3;
8791 <a id="TP_Q75_A6-p12.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q75_A5.html">AA[5]</a>,6).
8792 </p>
8793 <p id="TP_Q75_A6-p13"></p>
8794 <p id="TP_Q75_A6-p14"></p>
8795 <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A5.html"></a>
8796 <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A7.html"></a>
8797 </div>
8798 <div id="TP_Q75_A7" class="div4">
8799 <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A6.html"></a>
8800 <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A8.html"></a>
8801 <h4 id="TP_Q75_A7-p0.1">Whether this change is wrought instantaneously?</h4>
8802 <p id="TP_Q75_A7-p1"></p>
8803 <p id="TP_Q75_A7-p2">
8804 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that this change is not wrought instantaneously, but successively. For in this change there is first the substance
8805 of bread, and afterwards the substance of Christ's body. Neither, then, is in the same instant, but in two instants. But there
8806 is a mid-time between every two instants. Therefore this change must take place according to the succession of time, which
8807 is between the last instant in which the bread is there, and the first instant in which
8808 the body of Christ is present.
8809 </p>
8810 <p id="TP_Q75_A7-p3">
8811 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in every change something is "in becoming" and something is "in being." But these two things do not exist at the
8812 one time for, what is "in becoming," is not yet, whereas what is "in being," already is. Consequently, there is a before and
8813 an after in such change: and so necessarily the change cannot be instantaneous, but successive.
8814 </p>
8815 <p id="TP_Q75_A7-p4">
8816 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv) that this sacrament "is made by the words of Christ." But Christ's words are pronounced
8817 successively. Therefore the change takes place successively.
8818 </p>
8819 <p id="TP_Q75_A7-p5">
8820 <b>On the contrary,</b> This change is effected by a power which is infinite, to which it belongs to operate in an instant.
8821 </p>
8822 <p id="TP_Q75_A7-p6">
8823 <b>I answer that,</b> A change may be instantaneous from a threefold reason. First on the part of the form, which is the terminus of the change.
8824 For, if it be a form that receives more and less, it is acquired by its subject successively, such as health; and therefore
8825 because a substantial form does not receive more and less, it follows that its introduction into matter is instantaneous.
8826 </p>
8827 <p id="TP_Q75_A7-p7"> Secondly on the part of the subject, which sometimes is prepared successively for receiving the form; thus water is heated
8828 successively. When, however, the subject itself is in the ultimate disposition for receiving the form, it receives it suddenly,
8829 as a transparent body is illuminated suddenly. Thirdly on the part of the agent, which possesses infinite power: wherefore
8830 it can instantly dispose the matter for the form. Thus it is written (
8831 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q75_A7-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.7.34" target="asv">Mk. 7:34</a>) that
8832 when Christ had said, "'Ephpheta,' which is 'Be thou opened,' immediately his ears were opened, and the string of his tongue
8833 was loosed."
8834 </p>
8835 <p id="TP_Q75_A7-p8"> For these three reasons this conversion is instantaneous. First, because the substance of Christ's body which is the term
8836 of this conversion, does not receive more or less. Secondly, because in this conversion there is no subject to be disposed
8837 successively. Thirdly, because it is effected by God's infinite power.
8838 </p>
8839 <p id="TP_Q75_A7-p9">
8840 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Some [*Cf. Albert the Great, Sent. iv, D, 11; St. Bonaventure, Sent., iv, D, 11] do not grant simply that there is a mid-time
8841 between every two instants. For they say that this is true of two instants referring to the same movement, but not if they
8842 refer to different things. Hence between the instant that marks the close of rest, and another which marks the beginning of
8843 movement, there is no mid-time. But in this they are mistaken, because the unity
8844 of time and of instant, or even their plurality, is not taken according to movements of any sort, but according to the first
8845 movement of the heavens, which is the measure of all movement and rest.
8846 </p>
8847 <p id="TP_Q75_A7-p10"> Accordingly others grant this of the time which measures movement depending on the movement of the heavens. But there are
8848 some movements which are not dependent on the movement of the heavens, nor measured by it, as was said in the
8849 <a id="TP_Q75_A7-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q53_A3.html">FP, Q[53], A[3]</a> concerning the movements of the angels. Hence between two instants responding to those movements there is no mid-time. But
8850 this is not to the point, because although the change in question has no relation of
8851 itself to the movement of the heavens, still it follows the pronouncing of the words, which (pronouncing) must necessarily
8852 be measured by the movement of the heavens. And therefore there must of necessity be a mid-time between every two signate
8853 instants in connection with that change.
8854 </p>
8855 <p id="TP_Q75_A7-p11"> Some say therefore that the instant in which the bread was last, and the instant in which the body of Christ is first, are
8856 indeed two in comparison with the things measured, but are one comparatively to the time measuring; as when two lines touch,
8857 there are two points on the part of the two lines, but one point on the part of the place containing them. But here there
8858 is no likeness, because instant and time is not the intrinsic measure of particular movements, as a line and
8859 point are of a body, but only the extrinsic measure, as place is to bodies.
8860 </p>
8861 <p id="TP_Q75_A7-p12"> Hence others say that it is the same instant in fact, but another according to reason. But according to this it would follow
8862 that things really opposite would exist together; for diversity of reason does not change a thing objectively.
8863 </p>
8864 <p id="TP_Q75_A7-p13"> And therefore it must be said that this change, as stated above, is wrought by Christ's words which are spoken by the priest,
8865 so that the last instant of pronouncing the words is the first instant in which Christ's body is in the sacrament; and that
8866 the substance of the bread is there during the whole preceding time. Of this time no instant is to be taken as proximately
8867 preceding the last one, because time is not made up of successive instants, as is proved in Phys. vi. And
8868 therefore a first instant can be assigned in which Christ's body is present; but a last instant cannot be assigned in which
8869 the substance of bread is there, but a last time can be assigned. And the same holds good in natural changes, as is evident
8870 from the Philosopher (Phys. viii).
8871 </p>
8872 <p id="TP_Q75_A7-p14">
8873 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In instantaneous changes a thing is "in becoming," and is "in being" simultaneously; just as becoming illuminated and to
8874 be actually illuminated are simultaneous: for in such, a thing is said to be "in being" according as it now is; but to be
8875 "in becoming," according as it was not before.
8876 </p>
8877 <p id="TP_Q75_A7-p15">
8878 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As stated above (ad 1), this change comes about in the last instant of the pronouncing of the words. for then the meaning
8879 of the words is finished, which meaning is efficacious in the forms of the sacraments. And therefore it does not follow that
8880 this change is successive.
8881 </p>
8882 <p id="TP_Q75_A7-p16"></p>
8883 <p id="TP_Q75_A7-p17"></p>
8884 <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A6.html"></a>
8885 <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A8.html"></a>
8886 </div>
8887 <div id="TP_Q75_A8" class="div4">
8888 <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A7.html"></a>
8889 <a href="summa.TP_Q76.html"></a>
8890 <h4 id="TP_Q75_A8-p0.1">Whether this proposition is false: "The body of Christ is made out of bread"?</h4>
8891 <p id="TP_Q75_A8-p1"></p>
8892 <p id="TP_Q75_A8-p2">
8893 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that this proposition is false: "The body of Christ is made out of bread." For everything out of which another is
8894 made, is that which is made the other; but not conversely: for we say that a black thing is made out of a white thing, and
8895 that a white thing is made black: and although we may say that a man becomes black still we do not say that a black thing
8896 is made out of a man, as is shown in Phys. i. If it be true, then, that Christ's body is made
8897 out of bread, it will be true to say that bread is made the body of Christ. But this seems to be false, because the bread
8898 is not the subject of the making, but rather its term. Therefore, it is not said truly that Christ's body is made out of bread.
8899 </p>
8900 <p id="TP_Q75_A8-p3">
8901 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the term of "becoming" is something that is, or something that is "made." But this proposition is never true: "The
8902 bread is the body of Christ"; or "The bread is made the body of Christ"; or again, "The bread will be the body of Christ."
8903 Therefore it seems that not even this is true: "The body of Christ is made out of bread."
8904 </p>
8905 <p id="TP_Q75_A8-p4">
8906 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, everything out of which another is made is converted into that which is made from it. But this proposition seems
8907 to be false: "The bread is converted into the body of Christ," because such conversion seems to be more miraculous than the
8908 creation of the world, in which it is not said that non-being is converted into being. Therefore it seems that this proposition
8909 likewise is false: "The body of Christ is made out of bread."
8910 </p>
8911 <p id="TP_Q75_A8-p5">
8912 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, that out of which something is made, can be that thing. But this proposition is false: "Bread can be the body of
8913 Christ." Therefore this is likewise false: "The body of Christ is made out of bread."
8914 </p>
8915 <p id="TP_Q75_A8-p6">
8916 <b>On the contrary,</b> Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): "When the consecration takes place, the body of Christ is made out of the bread."
8917 </p>
8918 <p id="TP_Q75_A8-p7">
8919 <b>I answer that,</b> This conversion of bread into the body of Christ has something in common with creation, and with natural transmutation, and
8920 in some respect differs from both. For the order of the terms is common to these three; that is, that after one thing there
8921 is another (for, in creation there is being after non-being; in this sacrament, Christ's body after the substance of bread;
8922 in natural transmutation white after black, or fire after air); and that the aforesaid
8923 terms are not coexistent.
8924 </p>
8925 <p id="TP_Q75_A8-p8"> Now the conversion, of which we are speaking, has this in common with creation, that in neither of them is there any common
8926 subject belonging to either of the extremes; the contrary of which appears in every natural transmutation.
8927 </p>
8928 <p id="TP_Q75_A8-p9"> Again, this conversion has something in common with natural transmutation in two respects, although not in the same fashion.
8929 First of all because in both, one of the extremes passes into the other, as bread into Christ's body, and air into fire; whereas
8930 non-being is not converted into being. But this comes to pass differently on the one side and on the other; for in this sacrament
8931 the whole substance of the bread passes into the whole body of Christ; whereas in natural
8932 transmutation the matter of the one receives the form of the other, the previous form being laid aside. Secondly, they have
8933 this in common, that on both sides something remains the same; whereas this does not happen in creation: yet differently;
8934 for the same matter or subject remains in natural transmutation; whereas in this sacrament the same accidents remain.
8935 </p>
8936 <p id="TP_Q75_A8-p10"> From these observations we can gather the various ways of speaking in such matters. For, because in no one of the aforesaid
8937 three things are the extremes coexistent, therefore in none of them can one extreme be predicated of the other by the substantive
8938 verb of the present tense: for we do not say, "Non-being is being" or, "Bread is the body of Christ," or, "Air is fire," or,
8939 "White is black." Yet because of the relationship of the extremes in all of them we can use the
8940 preposition "ex" [out of], which denotes order; for we can truly and properly say that "being is made out of non-being," and
8941 "out of bread, the body of Christ," and "out of air, fire," and "out of white, black." But because in creation one of the
8942 extremes does not pass into the other, we cannot use the word "conversion" in creation, so as to say that "non-being is converted
8943 into being": we can, however, use the word in this sacrament, just as in natural transmutation. But since in this
8944 sacrament the whole substance is converted into the whole substance, on that account this conversion is properly termed transubstantiation.
8945 </p>
8946 <p id="TP_Q75_A8-p11"> Again, since there is no subject of this conversion, the things which are true in natural conversion by reason of the subject,
8947 are not to be granted in this conversion. And in the first place indeed it is evident that potentiality to the opposite follows
8948 a subject, by reason whereof we say that "a white thing can be black," or that "air can be fire"; although the latter is not
8949 so proper as the former: for the subject of whiteness, in which there is potentiality to blackness, is
8950 the whole substance of the white thing; since whiteness is not a part thereof; whereas the subject of the form of air is part
8951 thereof: hence when it is said, "Air can be fire," it is verified by synecdoche by reason of the part. But in this conversion,
8952 and similarly in creation, because there is no subject, it is not said that one extreme can be the other, as that "non-being
8953 can be being," or that "bread can be the body of Christ": and for the same reason it cannot be properly said that "being
8954 is made of [de] non-being," or that "the body of Christ is made of bread," because this preposition "of" [de] denotes a consubstantial
8955 cause, which consubstantiality of the extremes in natural transmutations is considered according to something common in the
8956 subject. And for the same reason it is not granted that "bread will be the body of Christ," or that it "may become the body
8957 of Christ," just as it is not granted in creation that "non-being will be being," or that "non-being may become
8958 being," because this manner of speaking is verified in natural transmutations by reason of the subject: for instance, when
8959 we say that "a white thing becomes black," or "a white thing will be black."
8960 </p>
8961 <p id="TP_Q75_A8-p12"> Nevertheless, since in this sacrament, after the change, something remains the same, namely, the accidents of the bread,
8962 as stated above
8963 <a id="TP_Q75_A8-p12.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q75_A5.html">(A[5])</a>, some of these expressions may be admitted by way of similitude, namely, that "bread is the body of Christ," or, "bread will
8964 be the body of Christ," or "the body of Christ is made of bread"; provided that by the word "bread" is not understood the
8965 substance of bread, but in general "that which is contained under
8966 the species of bread," under which species there is first contained the substance of bread, and afterwards the body of Christ.
8967 </p>
8968 <p id="TP_Q75_A8-p13">
8969 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> That out of which something else is made, sometimes implies together with the subject, one of the extremes of the transmutation,
8970 as when it is said "a black thing is made out of a white one"; but sometimes it implies only the opposite or the extreme,
8971 as when it is said---"out of morning comes the day." And so it is not granted that the latter becomes the former, that is,
8972 "that morning becomes the day." So likewise in the matter in hand, although it
8973 may be said properly that "the body of Christ is made out of bread," yet it is not said properly that "bread becomes the body
8974 of Christ," except by similitude, as was said above.
8975 </p>
8976 <p id="TP_Q75_A8-p14">
8977 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> That out of which another is made, will sometimes be that other because of the subject which is implied. And therefore, since
8978 there is no subject of this change, the comparison does not hold.
8979 </p>
8980 <p id="TP_Q75_A8-p15">
8981 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> In this change there are many more difficulties than in creation, in which there is but this one difficulty, that something
8982 is made out of nothing; yet this belongs to the proper mode of production of the first cause, which presupposes nothing else.
8983 But in this conversion not only is it difficult for this whole to be changed into that whole, so that nothing of the former
8984 may remain (which does not belong to the common mode of production of a cause),
8985 but furthermore it has this difficulty that the accidents remain while the substance is destroyed, and many other difficulties
8986 of which we shall treat hereafter (
8987 <a id="TP_Q75_A8-p15.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q77.html">Q[77])</a>. Nevertheless the word "conversion" is admitted in this sacrament, but not in creation, as stated above.
8988 </p>
8989 <p id="TP_Q75_A8-p16">
8990 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> As was observed above, potentiality belongs to the subject, whereas there is no subject in this conversion. And therefore
8991 it is not granted that bread can be the body of Christ: for this conversion does not come about by the passive potentiality
8992 of the creature, but solely by the active power of the Creator.
8993 </p>
8994 <p id="TP_Q75_A8-p17"></p>
8995 <p id="TP_Q75_A8-p18"></p>
8996 <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A7.html"></a>
8997 <a href="summa.TP_Q76.html"></a>
8998 </div>
8999 <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A8.html"></a>
9000 <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A1.html"></a>
9001 </div>
9002 <div id="TP_Q76" class="div3">
9003 <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A8.html"></a>
9004 <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A1.html"></a>
9005 <h3 id="TP_Q76-p0.1">OF THE WAY IN WHICH CHRIST IS IN THIS SACRAMENT (EIGHT ARTICLES)</h3>
9006 <p id="TP_Q76-p1"></p>
9007 <p id="TP_Q76-p2"> We have now to consider the manner in which Christ exists in this sacrament; and under this head there are eight points of
9008 inquiry:
9009 </p>
9010 <p id="TP_Q76-p3"> (1) Whether the whole Christ is under this sacrament?</p>
9011 <p id="TP_Q76-p4"> (2) Whether the entire Christ is under each species of the sacrament?</p>
9012 <p id="TP_Q76-p5"> (3) Whether the entire Christ is under every part of the species?</p>
9013 <p id="TP_Q76-p6"> (4) Whether all the dimensions of Christ's body are in this sacrament?</p>
9014 <p id="TP_Q76-p7"> (5) Whether the body of Christ is in this sacrament locally?</p>
9015 <p id="TP_Q76-p8"> (6) Whether after the consecration, the body of Christ is moved when the host or chalice is moved?</p>
9016 <p id="TP_Q76-p9"> (7) Whether Christ's body, as it is in this sacrament, can be seen by the eye?</p>
9017 <p id="TP_Q76-p10"> (8) Whether the true body of Christ remains in this sacrament when He is seen under the appearance of a child or of flesh?</p>
9018 <div id="TP_Q76_A1" class="div4">
9019 <a href="summa.TP_Q76.html"></a>
9020 <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A2.html"></a>
9021 <h4 id="TP_Q76_A1-p0.1">Whether the whole Christ is contained under this sacrament?</h4>
9022 <p id="TP_Q76_A1-p1"></p>
9023 <p id="TP_Q76_A1-p2">
9024 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the whole Christ is not contained under this sacrament, because Christ begins to be in this sacrament by conversion
9025 of the bread and wine. But it is evident that the bread and wine cannot be changed either into the Godhead or into the soul
9026 of Christ. Since therefore Christ exists in three substances, namely, the Godhead, soul and body, as shown above (
9027 <a id="TP_Q76_A1-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q2_A5.html">Q[2], A[5]</a>;
9028 <a id="TP_Q76_A1-p2.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q5_A1.html"> Q[5], AA[1]</a>,3), it seems that the
9029 entire Christ is not under this sacrament.
9030 </p>
9031 <p id="TP_Q76_A1-p3">
9032 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Christ is in this sacrament, forasmuch as it is ordained to the refection of the faithful, which consists in food
9033 and drink, as stated above (
9034 <a id="TP_Q76_A1-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q74_A1.html">Q[74], A[1]</a>). But our Lord said (
9035 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q76_A1-p3.2" href="./asv.html#John.6.56" target="asv">Jn. 6:56</a>): "My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed." Therefore, only the flesh and blood of Christ are contained in
9036 this sacrament. But there are many other parts of Christ's body, for instance, the nerves, bones, and
9037 such like. Therefore the entire Christ is not contained under this sacrament.
9038 </p>
9039 <p id="TP_Q76_A1-p4">
9040 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a body of greater quantity cannot be contained under the measure of a lesser. But the measure of the bread and wine
9041 is much smaller than the measure of Christ's body. Therefore it is impossible that the entire Christ be contained under this
9042 sacrament.
9043 </p>
9044 <p id="TP_Q76_A1-p5">
9045 <b>On the contrary,</b> Ambrose says (De Officiis): "Christ is in this sacrament."
9046 </p>
9047 <p id="TP_Q76_A1-p6">
9048 <b>I answer that,</b> It is absolutely necessary to confess according to Catholic faith that the entire Christ is in this sacrament. Yet we must
9049 know that there is something of Christ in this sacrament in a twofold manner: first, as it were, by the power of the sacrament;
9050 secondly, from natural concomitance. By the power of the sacrament, there is under the species of this sacrament that into
9051 which the pre-existing substance of the bread and wine is changed, as expressed by the
9052 words of the form, which are effective in this as in the other sacraments; for instance, by the words: "This is My body,"
9053 or, "This is My blood." But from natural concomitance there is also in this sacrament that which is really united with that
9054 thing wherein the aforesaid conversion is terminated. For if any two things be really united, then wherever the one is really,
9055 there must the other also be: since things really united together are only distinguished by an operation of the mind.
9056 </p>
9057 <p id="TP_Q76_A1-p7">
9058 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Because the change of the bread and wine is not terminated at the Godhead or the soul of Christ, it follows as a consequence
9059 that the Godhead or the soul of Christ is in this sacrament not by the power of the sacrament, but from real concomitance.
9060 For since the Godhead never set aside the assumed body, wherever the body of Christ is, there, of necessity, must the Godhead
9061 be; and therefore it is necessary for the Godhead to be in this sacrament
9062 concomitantly with His body. Hence we read in the profession of faith at Ephesus (P. I., chap. xxvi): "We are made partakers
9063 of the body and blood of Christ, not as taking common flesh, nor as of a holy man united to the Word in dignity, but the truly
9064 life-giving flesh of the Word Himself."
9065 </p>
9066 <p id="TP_Q76_A1-p8"> On the other hand, His soul was truly separated from His body, as stated above (
9067 <a id="TP_Q76_A1-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q50_A5.html">Q[50], A[5]</a>). And therefore had this sacrament been celebrated during those three days when He was dead, the soul of Christ would not
9068 have been there, neither by the power of the sacrament, nor from real concomitance. But since "Christ rising from the dead
9069 dieth now no more" (
9070 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q76_A1-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.9" target="asv">Rom. 6:9</a>), His soul is always really united with His body. And therefore in this
9071 sacrament the body indeed of Christ is present by the power of the sacrament, but His soul from real concomitance.
9072 </p>
9073 <p id="TP_Q76_A1-p9">
9074 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> By the power of the sacrament there is contained under it, as to the species of the bread, not only the flesh, but the entire
9075 body of Christ, that is, the bones the nerves, and the like. And this is apparent from the form of this sacrament, wherein
9076 it is not said: "This is My flesh," but "This is My body." Accordingly, when our Lord said (
9077 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q76_A1-p9.1" href="./asv.html#John.6.56" target="asv">Jn. 6:56</a>): "My flesh is meat indeed," there the word flesh is put for the entire body, because according to human
9078 custom it seems to be more adapted for eating, as men commonly are fed on the flesh of animals, but not on the bones or the
9079 like.
9080 </p>
9081 <p id="TP_Q76_A1-p10">
9082 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As has been already stated (
9083 <a id="TP_Q76_A1-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q75_A5.html">Q[75], A[5]</a>), after the consecration of the bread into the body of Christ, or of the wine into His blood, the accidents of both remain.
9084 From which it is evident that the dimensions of the bread or wine are not changed into the dimensions of the body of Christ,
9085 but substance into substance. And so the substance of Christ's body or blood is under this sacrament by the power of the sacrament,
9086 but not
9087 the dimensions of Christ's body or blood. Hence it is clear that the body of Christ is in this sacrament "by way of substance,"
9088 and not by way of quantity. But the proper totality of substance is contained indifferently in a small or large quantity;
9089 as the whole nature of air in a great or small amount of air, and the whole nature of a man in a big or small individual.
9090 Wherefore, after the consecration, the whole substance of Christ's body and blood is contained in this sacrament, just as
9091 the
9092 whole substance of the bread and wine was contained there before the consecration.
9093 </p>
9094 <p id="TP_Q76_A1-p11"></p>
9095 <p id="TP_Q76_A1-p12"></p>
9096 <a href="summa.TP_Q76.html"></a>
9097 <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A2.html"></a>
9098 </div>
9099 <div id="TP_Q76_A2" class="div4">
9100 <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A1.html"></a>
9101 <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A3.html"></a>
9102 <h4 id="TP_Q76_A2-p0.1">Whether the whole Christ is contained under each species of this sacrament?</h4>
9103 <p id="TP_Q76_A2-p1"></p>
9104 <p id="TP_Q76_A2-p2">
9105 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the whole Christ is not contained under both species of this sacrament. For this sacrament is ordained for
9106 the salvation of the faithful, not by virtue of the species, but by virtue of what is contained under the species, because
9107 the species were there even before the consecration, from which comes the power of this sacrament. If nothing, then, be contained
9108 under one species, but what is contained under the other, and if the whole Christ be
9109 contained under both, it seems that one of them is superfluous in this sacrament.
9110 </p>
9111 <p id="TP_Q76_A2-p3">
9112 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it was stated above (A[1], ad 1) that all the other parts of the body, such as the bones, nerves, and the like,
9113 are comprised under the name of flesh. But the blood is one of the parts of the human body, as Aristotle proves (De Anima
9114 Histor. i). If, then, Christ's blood be contained under the species of bread, just as the other parts of the body are contained
9115 there, the blood ought not to be consecrated apart, just as no other part of the body is
9116 consecrated separately.
9117 </p>
9118 <p id="TP_Q76_A2-p4">
9119 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, what is once "in being" cannot be again "in becoming." But Christ's body has already begun to be in this sacrament
9120 by the consecration of the bread. Therefore, it cannot begin again to be there by the consecration of the wine; and so Christ's
9121 body will not be contained under the species of the wine, and accordingly neither the entire Christ. Therefore the whole Christ
9122 is not contained under each species.
9123 </p>
9124 <p id="TP_Q76_A2-p5">
9125 <b>On the contrary,</b> The gloss on
9126 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q76_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.11.25" target="asv">1 Cor. 11:25, </a> commenting on the word "Chalice," says that "under each species," namely, of the bread and wine, "the same is received";
9127 and thus it seems that Christ is entire under each species.
9128 </p>
9129 <p id="TP_Q76_A2-p6">
9130 <b>I answer that,</b> After what we have said above
9131 <a id="TP_Q76_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q76_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, it must be held most certainly that the whole Christ is under each sacramental species yet not alike in each. For the body
9132 of Christ is indeed present under the species of bread by the power of the sacrament, while the blood is there from real concomitance,
9133 as stated above (A[1], ad 1) in regard to the soul and Godhead of Christ; and under the species of wine the blood is present
9134 by the power of
9135 the sacrament, and His body by real concomitance, as is also His soul and Godhead: because now Christ's blood is not separated
9136 from His body, as it was at the time of His Passion and death. Hence if this sacrament had been celebrated then, the body
9137 of Christ would have been under the species of the bread, but without the blood; and, under the species of the wine, the blood
9138 would have been present without the body, as it was then, in fact.
9139 </p>
9140 <p id="TP_Q76_A2-p7">
9141 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although the whole Christ is under each species, yet it is so not without purpose. For in the first place this serves to
9142 represent Christ's Passion, in which the blood was separated from the body; hence in the form for the consecration of the
9143 blood mention is made of its shedding. Secondly, it is in keeping with the use of this sacrament, that Christ's body be shown
9144 apart to the faithful as food, and the blood as drink. Thirdly, it is in keeping with
9145 its effect, in which sense it was stated above (
9146 <a id="TP_Q76_A2-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q74_A1.html">Q[74], A[1]</a>) that "the body is offered for the salvation of the body, and the blood for the salvation of the soul."
9147 </p>
9148 <p id="TP_Q76_A2-p8">
9149 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In Christ's Passion, of which this is the memorial, the other parts of the body were not separated from one another, as the
9150 blood was, but the body remained entire, according to
9151 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q76_A2-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.12.46" target="asv"> Ex. 12:46</a>: "You shall not break a bone thereof." And therefore in this sacrament the blood is consecrated apart from the body, but
9152 no other part is consecrated separately from the rest.
9153 </p>
9154 <p id="TP_Q76_A2-p9">
9155 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As stated above, the body of Christ is not under the species of wine by the power of the sacrament, but by real concomitance:
9156 and therefore by the consecration of the wine the body of Christ is not there of itself, but concomitantly.
9157 </p>
9158 <p id="TP_Q76_A2-p10"></p>
9159 <p id="TP_Q76_A2-p11"></p>
9160 <p id="TP_Q76_A2-p12"></p>
9161 <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A1.html"></a>
9162 <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A3.html"></a>
9163 </div>
9164 <div id="TP_Q76_A3" class="div4">
9165 <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A2.html"></a>
9166 <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A4.html"></a>
9167 <h4 id="TP_Q76_A3-p0.1">Whether Christ is entire under every part of the species of the bread and wine?</h4>
9168 <p id="TP_Q76_A3-p1"></p>
9169 <p id="TP_Q76_A3-p2">
9170 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that Christ is not entire under every part of the species of bread and wine. Because those species can be divided
9171 infinitely. If therefore Christ be entirely under every part of the said species, it would follow that He is in this sacrament
9172 an infinite number of times: which is unreasonable; because the infinite is repugnant not only to nature, but likewise to
9173 grace.
9174 </p>
9175 <p id="TP_Q76_A3-p3">
9176 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, since Christ's is an organic body, it has parts determinately distant. for a determinate distance of the individual
9177 parts from each other is of the very nature of an organic body, as that of eye from eye, and eye from ear. But this could
9178 not be so, if Christ were entire under every part of the species; for every part would have to be under every other part,
9179 and so where one part would be, there another part would be. It cannot be then that the entire
9180 Christ is under every part of the host or of the wine contained in the chalice.
9181 </p>
9182 <p id="TP_Q76_A3-p4">
9183 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Christ's body always retains the true nature of a body, nor is it ever changed into a spirit. Now it is the nature
9184 of a body for it to be "quantity having position" (Predic. iv). But it belongs to the nature of this quantity that the various
9185 parts exist in various parts of place. Therefore, apparently it is impossible for the entire Christ to be under every part
9186 of the species.
9187 </p>
9188 <p id="TP_Q76_A3-p5">
9189 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says in a sermon (Gregory, Sacramentarium): "Each receives Christ the Lord, Who is entire under every morsel, nor
9190 is He less in each portion, but bestows Himself entire under each."
9191 </p>
9192 <p id="TP_Q76_A3-p6">
9193 <b>I answer that,</b> As was observed above (A[1], ad 3), because the substance of Christ's body is in this sacrament by the power of the sacrament,
9194 while dimensive quantity is there by reason of real concomitance, consequently Christ's body is in this sacrament substantively,
9195 that is, in the way in which substance is under dimensions, but not after the manner of dimensions, which means, not in the
9196 way in which the dimensive quantity of a body is under the dimensive quantity of
9197 place.
9198 </p>
9199 <p id="TP_Q76_A3-p7"> Now it is evident that the whole nature of a substance is under every part of the dimensions under which it is contained;
9200 just as the entire nature of air is under every part of air, and the entire nature of bread under every part of bread; and
9201 this indifferently, whether the dimensions be actually divided (as when the air is divided or the bread cut), or whether they
9202 be actually undivided, but potentially divisible. And therefore it is manifest that the entire Christ is under
9203 every part of the species of the bread, even while the host remains entire, and not merely when it is broken, as some say,
9204 giving the example of an image which appears in a mirror, which appears as one in the unbroken mirror, whereas when the mirror
9205 is broken, there is an image in each part of the broken mirror: for the comparison is not perfect, because the multiplying
9206 of such images results in the broken mirror on account of the various reflections in the various parts of the mirror; but
9207 here
9208 there is only one consecration, whereby Christ's body is in this sacrament.
9209 </p>
9210 <p id="TP_Q76_A3-p8">
9211 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Number follows division, and therefore so long as quantity remains actually undivided, neither is the substance of any thing
9212 several times under its proper dimensions, nor is Christ's body several times under the dimensions of the bread; and consequently
9213 not an infinite number of times, but just as many times as it is divided into parts.
9214 </p>
9215 <p id="TP_Q76_A3-p9">
9216 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The determinate distance of parts in an organic body is based upon its dimensive quantity; but the nature of substance precedes
9217 even dimensive quantity. And since the conversion of the substance of the bread is terminated at the substance of the body
9218 of Christ, and since according to the manner of substance the body of Christ is properly and directly in this sacrament; such
9219 distance of parts is indeed in Christ's true body, which, however, is not
9220 compared to this sacrament according to such distance, but according to the manner of its substance, as stated above (A[1],
9221 ad 3).
9222 </p>
9223 <p id="TP_Q76_A3-p10">
9224 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This argument is based on the nature of a body, arising from dimensive quantity. But it was said above (ad 2) that Christ's
9225 body is compared with this sacrament not by reason of dimensive quantity, but by reason of its substance, as already stated.
9226 </p>
9227 <p id="TP_Q76_A3-p11"></p>
9228 <p id="TP_Q76_A3-p12"></p>
9229 <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A2.html"></a>
9230 <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A4.html"></a>
9231 </div>
9232 <div id="TP_Q76_A4" class="div4">
9233 <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A3.html"></a>
9234 <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A5.html"></a>
9235 <h4 id="TP_Q76_A4-p0.1">Whether the whole dimensive quantity of Christ's body is in this sacrament?</h4>
9236 <p id="TP_Q76_A4-p1"></p>
9237 <p id="TP_Q76_A4-p2">
9238 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the whole dimensive quantity of Christ's body is not in this sacrament. For it was said
9239 <a id="TP_Q76_A4-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q76_A3.html">(A[3])</a> that Christ's entire body is contained under every part of the consecrated host. But no dimensive quantity is contained entirely
9240 in any whole, and in its every part. Therefore it is impossible for the entire dimensive quantity of Christ's body to be there.
9241 </p>
9242 <p id="TP_Q76_A4-p3">
9243 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is impossible for two dimensive quantities to be together, even though one be separate from its subject, and
9244 the other in a natural body, as is clear from the Philosopher (Metaph. iii). But the dimensive quantity of the bread remains
9245 in this sacrament, as is evident to our senses. Consequently, the dimensive quantity of Christ's body is not there.
9246 </p>
9247 <p id="TP_Q76_A4-p4">
9248 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if two unequal dimensive quantities be set side by side, the greater will overlap the lesser. But the dimensive
9249 quantity of Christ's body is considerably larger than the dimensive quantity of the consecrated host according to every dimension.
9250 Therefore, if the dimensive quantity of Christ's body be in this sacrament together with the dimensive quantity of the host,
9251 the dimensive quantity of Christ's body is extended beyond the quantity of the host,
9252 which nevertheless is not without the substance of Christ's body. Therefore, the substance of Christ's body will be in this
9253 sacrament even outside the species of the bread, which is unreasonable, since the substance of Christ's body is in this sacrament,
9254 only by the consecration of the bread, as stated above
9255 <a id="TP_Q76_A4-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q76_A2.html">(A[2])</a>. Consequently, it is impossible for the whole dimensive quantity of Christ's body to be in this sacrament.
9256 </p>
9257 <p id="TP_Q76_A4-p5">
9258 <b>On the contrary,</b> The existence of the dimensive quantity of any body cannot be separated from the existence of its substance. But in this
9259 sacrament the entire substance of Christ's body is present, as stated above (
9260 <a id="TP_Q76_A4-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q76_A1.html">AA[1]</a>,3). Therefore the entire dimensive quantity of Christ's body is in this sacrament.
9261 </p>
9262 <p id="TP_Q76_A4-p6">
9263 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
9264 <a id="TP_Q76_A4-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q76_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, any part of Christ is in this sacrament in two ways: in one way, by the power of the sacrament; in another, from real concomitance.
9265 By the power of the sacrament the dimensive quantity of Christ's body is not in this sacrament; for, by the power of the sacrament
9266 that is present in this sacrament, whereat the conversion is terminated. But the conversion which takes place in this sacrament
9267 is terminated directly
9268 at the substance of Christ's body, and not at its dimensions; which is evident from the fact that the dimensive quantity of
9269 the bread remains after the consecration, while only the substance of the bread passes away.
9270 </p>
9271 <p id="TP_Q76_A4-p7"> Nevertheless, since the substance of Christ's body is not really deprived of its dimensive quantity and its other accidents,
9272 hence it comes that by reason of real concomitance the whole dimensive quantity of Christ's body and all its other accidents
9273 are in this sacrament.
9274 </p>
9275 <p id="TP_Q76_A4-p8">
9276 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The manner of being of every thing is determined by what belongs to it of itself, and not according to what is coupled accidentally
9277 with it: thus an object is present to the sight, according as it is white, and not according as it is sweet, although the
9278 same object may be both white and sweet; hence sweetness is in the sight after the manner of whiteness, and not after that
9279 of sweetness. Since, then, the substance of Christ's body is present on the
9280 altar by the power of this sacrament, while its dimensive quantity is there concomitantly and as it were accidentally, therefore
9281 the dimensive quantity of Christ's body is in this sacrament, not according to its proper manner (namely, that the whole is
9282 in the whole, and the individual parts in individual parts), but after the manner of substance, whose nature is for the whole
9283 to be in the whole, and the whole in every part.
9284 </p>
9285 <p id="TP_Q76_A4-p9">
9286 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Two dimensive quantities cannot naturally be in the same subject at the same time, so that each be there according to the
9287 proper manner of dimensive quantity. But in this sacrament the dimensive quantity of the bread is there after its proper manner,
9288 that is, according to commensuration: not so the dimensive quantity of Christ's body, for that is there after the manner of
9289 substance, as stated above (ad 1).
9290 </p>
9291 <p id="TP_Q76_A4-p10">
9292 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The dimensive quantity of Christ's body is in this sacrament not by way of commensuration, which is proper to quantity, and
9293 to which it belongs for the greater to be extended beyond the lesser; but in the way mentioned above (ad 1,2).
9294 </p>
9295 <p id="TP_Q76_A4-p11"></p>
9296 <p id="TP_Q76_A4-p12"></p>
9297 <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A3.html"></a>
9298 <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A5.html"></a>
9299 </div>
9300 <div id="TP_Q76_A5" class="div4">
9301 <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A4.html"></a>
9302 <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A6.html"></a>
9303 <h4 id="TP_Q76_A5-p0.1">Whether Christ's body is in this sacrament as in a place?</h4>
9304 <p id="TP_Q76_A5-p1"></p>
9305 <p id="TP_Q76_A5-p2">
9306 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that Christ's body is in this sacrament as in a place. Because, to be in a place definitively or circumscriptively
9307 belongs to being in a place. But Christ's body seems to be definitively in this sacrament, because it is so present where
9308 the species of the bread and wine are, that it is nowhere else upon the altar: likewise it seems to be there circumscriptively,
9309 because it is so contained under the species of the consecrated host, that it neither
9310 exceeds it nor is exceeded by it. Therefore Christ's body is in this sacrament as in a place.
9311 </p>
9312 <p id="TP_Q76_A5-p3">
9313 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the place of the bread and wine is not empty, because nature abhors a vacuum; nor is the substance of the bread
9314 there, as stated above (
9315 <a id="TP_Q76_A5-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q75_A2.html">Q[75], A[2]</a>); but only the body of Christ is there. Consequently the body of Christ fills that place. But whatever fills a place is there
9316 locally. Therefore the body of Christ is in this sacrament locally.
9317 </p>
9318 <p id="TP_Q76_A5-p4">
9319 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as stated above
9320 <a id="TP_Q76_A5-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q76_A4.html">(A[4])</a>, the body of Christ is in this sacrament with its dimensive quantity, and with all its accidents. But to be in a place is
9321 an accident of a body; hence "where" is numbered among the nine kinds of accidents. Therefore Christ's body is in this sacrament
9322 locally.
9323 </p>
9324 <p id="TP_Q76_A5-p5">
9325 <b>On the contrary,</b> The place and the object placed must be equal, as is clear from the Philosopher (Phys. iv). But the place, where this sacrament
9326 is, is much less than the body of Christ. Therefore Christ's body is not in this sacrament as in a place.
9327 </p>
9328 <p id="TP_Q76_A5-p6">
9329 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (A[1], ad 3; A[3]), Christ's body is in this sacrament not after the proper manner of dimensive quantity,
9330 but rather after the manner of substance. But every body occupying a place is in the place according to the manner of dimensive
9331 quantity, namely, inasmuch as it is commensurate with the place according to its dimensive quantity. Hence it remains that
9332 Christ's body is not in this sacrament as in a place, but after the manner of substance,
9333 that is to say, in that way in which substance is contained by dimensions; because the substance of Christ's body succeeds
9334 the substance of bread in this sacrament: hence as the substance of bread was not locally under its dimensions, but after
9335 the manner of substance, so neither is the substance of Christ's body. Nevertheless the substance of Christ's body is not
9336 the subject of those dimensions, as was the substance of the bread: and therefore the substance of the bread was there locally
9337 by
9338 reason of its dimensions, because it was compared with that place through the medium of its own dimensions; but the substance
9339 of Christ's body is compared with that place through the medium of foreign dimensions, so that, on the contrary, the proper
9340 dimensions of Christ's body are compared with that place through the medium of substance; which is contrary to the notion
9341 of a located body.
9342 </p>
9343 <p id="TP_Q76_A5-p7"> Hence in no way is Christ's body locally in this sacrament.</p>
9344 <p id="TP_Q76_A5-p8">
9345 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Christ's body is not in this sacrament definitively, because then it would be only on the particular altar where this sacrament
9346 is performed: whereas it is in heaven under its own species, and on many other altars under the sacramental species. Likewise
9347 it is evident that it is not in this sacrament circumscriptively, because it is not there according to the commensuration
9348 of its own quantity, as stated above. But that it is not outside the
9349 superficies of the sacrament, nor on any other part of the altar, is due not to its being there definitively or circumscriptively,
9350 but to its being there by consecration and conversion of the bread and wine, as stated above
9351 <a id="TP_Q76_A5-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q76_A1.html">(A[1];</a> Q[15], A[2], sqq.).
9352 </p>
9353 <p id="TP_Q76_A5-p9">
9354 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The place in which Christ's body is, is not empty; nor yet is it properly filled with the substance of Christ's body, which
9355 is not there locally, as stated above; but it is filled with the sacramental species, which have to fill the place either
9356 because of the nature of dimensions, or at least miraculously, as they also subsist miraculously after the fashion of substance.
9357 </p>
9358 <p id="TP_Q76_A5-p10">
9359 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As stated above
9360 <a id="TP_Q76_A5-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q76_A4.html">(A[4])</a>, the accidents of Christ's body are in this sacrament by real concomitance. And therefore those accidents of Christ's body
9361 which are intrinsic to it are in this sacrament. But to be in a place is an accident when compared with the extrinsic container.
9362 And therefore it is not necessary for Christ to be in this sacrament as in a place.
9363 </p>
9364 <p id="TP_Q76_A5-p11"></p>
9365 <p id="TP_Q76_A5-p12"></p>
9366 <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A4.html"></a>
9367 <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A6.html"></a>
9368 </div>
9369 <div id="TP_Q76_A6" class="div4">
9370 <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A5.html"></a>
9371 <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A7.html"></a>
9372 <h4 id="TP_Q76_A6-p0.1">Whether Christ's body is in this sacrament movably?</h4>
9373 <p id="TP_Q76_A6-p1"></p>
9374 <p id="TP_Q76_A6-p2">
9375 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that Christ's body is movably in this sacrament, because the Philosopher says (Topic. ii) that "when we are moved,
9376 the things within us are moved": and this is true even of the soul's spiritual substance. "But Christ is in this sacrament,"
9377 as shown above (
9378 <a id="TP_Q76_A6-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q74_A1.html">Q[74], A[1]</a> ). Therefore He is moved when it is moved.
9379 </p>
9380 <p id="TP_Q76_A6-p3">
9381 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the truth ought to correspond with the figure. But, according to the commandment (
9382 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q76_A6-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.12.10" target="asv">Ex. 12:10</a>), concerning the Paschal Lamb, a figure of this sacrament, "there remained nothing until the morning." Neither, therefore,
9383 if this sacrament be reserved until morning, will Christ's body be there; and so it is not immovably in this sacrament.
9384 </p>
9385 <p id="TP_Q76_A6-p4">
9386 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if Christ's body were to remain under this sacrament even until the morrow, for the same reason it will remain there
9387 during all coming time; for it cannot be said that it ceases to be there when the species pass, because the existence of Christ's
9388 body is not dependent on those species. Yet Christ does not remain in this sacrament for all coming time. It seems, then,
9389 that straightway on the morrow, or after a short time, He ceases to be under this
9390 sacrament. And so it seems that Christ is in this sacrament movably.
9391 </p>
9392 <p id="TP_Q76_A6-p5">
9393 <b>On the contrary,</b> it is impossible for the same thing to be in motion and at rest, else contradictories would be verified of the same subject.
9394 But Christ's body is at rest in heaven. Therefore it is not movably in this sacrament.
9395 </p>
9396 <p id="TP_Q76_A6-p6">
9397 <b>I answer that,</b> When any thing is one, as to subject, and manifold in being, there is nothing to hinder it from being moved in one respect,
9398 and yet to remain at rest in another just as it is one thing for a body to be white, and another thing, to be large; hence
9399 it can be moved as to its whiteness, and yet continue unmoved as to its magnitude. But in Christ, being in Himself and being
9400 under the sacrament are not the same thing, because when we say that He is under this
9401 sacrament, we express a kind of relationship to this sacrament. According to this being, then, Christ is not moved locally
9402 of Himself, but only accidentally, because Christ is not in this sacrament as in a place, as stated above
9403 <a id="TP_Q76_A6-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q76_A5.html">(A[5])</a>. But what is not in a place, is not moved of itself locally, but only according to the motion of the subject in which it
9404 is.
9405 </p>
9406 <p id="TP_Q76_A6-p7"> In the same way neither is it moved of itself according to the being which it has in this sacrament, by any other change
9407 whatever, as for instance, that it ceases to be under this sacrament: because whatever possesses unfailing existence of itself,
9408 cannot be the principle of failing; but when something else fails, then it ceases to be in it; just as God, Whose existence
9409 is unfailing and immortal, ceases to be in some corruptible creature because such corruptible creature ceases
9410 to exist. And in this way, since Christ has unfailing and incorruptible being, He ceases to be under this sacrament, not because
9411 He ceases to be, nor yet by local movement of His own, as is clear from what has been said, but only by the fact that the
9412 sacramental species cease to exist.
9413 </p>
9414 <p id="TP_Q76_A6-p8"> Hence it is clear that Christ, strictly speaking is immovably in this sacrament.</p>
9415 <p id="TP_Q76_A6-p9">
9416 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This argument deals with accidental movement, whereby things within us are moved together with us. But with things which
9417 can of themselves be in a place, like bodies, it is otherwise than with things which cannot of themselves be in a place, such
9418 as forms and spiritual substances. And to this mode can be reduced what we say of Christ, being moved accidentally, according
9419 to the existence which He has in this sacrament, in which He is not present as in
9420 a place.
9421 </p>
9422 <p id="TP_Q76_A6-p10">
9423 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> It was this argument which seems to have convinced those who held that Christ's body does not remain under this sacrament
9424 if it be reserved until the morrow. It is against these that Cyril says (Ep. lxxxiii): "Some are so foolish as to say that
9425 the mystical blessing departs from the sacrament, if any of its fragments remain until the next day: for Christ's consecrated
9426 body is not changed, and the power of the blessing, and the life-giving grace is
9427 perpetually in it." Thus are all other consecrations irremovable so long as the consecrated things endure; on which account
9428 they are not repeated. And although the truth corresponds with the figure, still the figure cannot equal it.
9429 </p>
9430 <p id="TP_Q76_A6-p11">
9431 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The body of Christ remains in this sacrament not only until the morrow, but also in the future, so long as the sacramental
9432 species remain: and when they cease, Christ's body ceases to be under them, not because it depends on them, but because the
9433 relationship of Christ's body to those species is taken away, in the same way as God ceases to be the Lord of a creature which
9434 ceases to exist.
9435 </p>
9436 <p id="TP_Q76_A6-p12"></p>
9437 <p id="TP_Q76_A6-p13"></p>
9438 <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A5.html"></a>
9439 <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A7.html"></a>
9440 </div>
9441 <div id="TP_Q76_A7" class="div4">
9442 <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A6.html"></a>
9443 <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A8.html"></a>
9444 <h4 id="TP_Q76_A7-p0.1">Whether the body of Christ, as it is in this sacrament, can be seen by any eye, at least by a glorified one?</h4>
9445 <p id="TP_Q76_A7-p1"></p>
9446 <p id="TP_Q76_A7-p2">
9447 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the body of Christ, as it is in this sacrament, can be seen by the eye, at least by a glorified one. For our
9448 eyes are hindered from beholding Christ's body in this sacrament, on account of the sacramental species veiling it. But the
9449 glorified eye cannot be hindered by anything from seeing bodies as they are. Therefore, the glorified eye can see Christ's
9450 body as it is in this sacrament.
9451 </p>
9452 <p id="TP_Q76_A7-p3">
9453 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the glorified bodies of the saints will be "made like to the body" of Christ's "glory," according to
9454 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q76_A7-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Phil.3.21" target="asv"> Phil. 3:21.</a> But Christ's eye beholds Himself as He is in this sacrament. Therefore, for the same reason, every other glorified eye can
9455 see Him.
9456 </p>
9457 <p id="TP_Q76_A7-p4">
9458 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, in the resurrection the saints will be equal to the angels, according to
9459 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q76_A7-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.20.36" target="asv"> Lk. 20:36.</a> But the angels see the body of Christ as it is in this sacrament, for even the devils are found to pay reverence thereto,
9460 and to fear it. Therefore, for like reason, the glorified eye can see Christ as He is in this sacrament.
9461 </p>
9462 <p id="TP_Q76_A7-p5">
9463 <b>On the contrary,</b> As long as a thing remains the same, it cannot at the same time be seen by the same eye under diverse species. But the glorified
9464 eye sees Christ always, as He is in His own species, according to
9465 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q76_A7-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.33.17" target="asv"> Is. 33:17</a>: "(His eyes) shall see the king in his beauty." It seems, then, that it does not see Christ, as He is under the species of
9466 this sacrament.
9467 </p>
9468 <p id="TP_Q76_A7-p6">
9469 <b>I answer that,</b> The eye is of two kinds, namely, the bodily eye properly so-called, and the intellectual eye, so-called by similitude. But
9470 Christ's body as it is in this sacrament cannot be seen by any bodily eye. First of all, because a body which is visible brings
9471 about an alteration in the medium, through its accidents. Now the accidents of Christ's body are in this sacrament by means
9472 of the substance; so that the accidents of Christ's body have no immediate relationship
9473 either to this sacrament or to adjacent bodies; consequently they do not act on the medium so as to be seen by any corporeal
9474 eye. Secondly, because, as stated above (A[1], ad 3; A[3]), Christ's body is substantially present in this sacrament. But
9475 substance, as such, is not visible to the bodily eye, nor does it come under any one of the senses, nor under the imagination,
9476 but solely under the intellect, whose object is "what a thing is" (De Anima iii). And therefore, properly speaking, Christ's
9477 body, according to the mode of being which it has in this sacrament, is perceptible neither by the sense nor by the imagination,
9478 but only by the intellect, which is called the spiritual eye.
9479 </p>
9480 <p id="TP_Q76_A7-p7"> Moreover it is perceived differently by different intellects. For since the way in which Christ is in this sacrament is entirely
9481 supernatural, it is visible in itself to a supernatural, i.e. the Divine, intellect, and consequently to a beatified intellect,
9482 of angel or of man, which, through the participated glory of the Divine intellect, sees all supernatural things in the vision
9483 of the Divine Essence. But it can be seen by a wayfarer through faith alone, like other supernatural
9484 things. And not even the angelic intellect of its own natural power is capable of beholding it; consequently the devils cannot
9485 by their intellect perceive Christ in this sacrament, except through faith, to which they do not pay willing assent; yet they
9486 are convinced of it from the evidence of signs, according to
9487 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q76_A7-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Jas.2.19" target="asv"> James 2:19</a>: "The devils believe, and tremble."
9488 </p>
9489 <p id="TP_Q76_A7-p8">
9490 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Our bodily eye, on account of the sacramental species, is hindered from beholding the body of Christ underlying them, not
9491 merely as by way of veil (just as we are hindered from seeing what is covered with any corporeal veil), but also because Christ's
9492 body bears a relation to the medium surrounding this sacrament, not through its own accidents, but through the sacramental
9493 species.
9494 </p>
9495 <p id="TP_Q76_A7-p9">
9496 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Christ's own bodily eye sees Himself existing under the sacrament, yet it cannot see the way in which it exists under the
9497 sacrament, because that belongs to the intellect. But it is not the same with any other glorified eye, because Christ's eye
9498 is under this sacrament, in which no other glorified eye is conformed to it.
9499 </p>
9500 <p id="TP_Q76_A7-p10">
9501 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> No angel, good or bad, can see anything with a bodily eye, but only with the mental eye. Hence there is no parallel reason,
9502 as is evident from what was said above.
9503 </p>
9504 <p id="TP_Q76_A7-p11"></p>
9505 <p id="TP_Q76_A7-p12"></p>
9506 <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A6.html"></a>
9507 <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A8.html"></a>
9508 </div>
9509 <div id="TP_Q76_A8" class="div4">
9510 <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A7.html"></a>
9511 <a href="summa.TP_Q77.html"></a>
9512 <h4 id="TP_Q76_A8-p0.1">Whether Christ's body is truly there when flesh or a child appears miraculously in this sacrament?</h4>
9513 <p id="TP_Q76_A8-p1"></p>
9514 <p id="TP_Q76_A8-p2">
9515 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that Christ's body is not truly there when flesh or a child appears miraculously in this sacrament. Because His
9516 body ceases to be under this sacrament when the sacramental species cease to be present, as stated above
9517 <a id="TP_Q76_A8-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q76_A6.html">(A[6])</a>. But when flesh or a child appears, the sacramental species cease to be present. Therefore Christ's body is not truly there.
9518 </p>
9519 <p id="TP_Q76_A8-p3">
9520 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, wherever Christ's body is, it is there either under its own species, or under those of the sacrament. But when such
9521 apparitions occur, it is evident that Christ is not present under His own species, because the entire Christ is contained
9522 in this sacrament, and He remains entire under the form in which He ascended to heaven: yet what appears miraculously in this
9523 sacrament is sometimes seen as a small particle of flesh, or at times as a small child. Now
9524 it is evident that He is not there under the sacramental species, which is that of bread or wine. Consequently, it seems that
9525 Christ's body is not there in any way.
9526 </p>
9527 <p id="TP_Q76_A8-p4">
9528 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Christ's body begins to be in this sacrament by consecration and conversion, as was said above (
9529 <a id="TP_Q76_A8-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q75_A2.html">Q[75], AA[2]</a>,3,4). But the flesh and blood which appear by miracle are not consecrated, nor are they converted into Christ's true body
9530 and blood. Therefore the body or the blood of Christ is not under those species.
9531 </p>
9532 <p id="TP_Q76_A8-p5">
9533 <b>On the contrary,</b> When such apparition takes place, the same reverence is shown to it as was shown at first, which would not be done if Christ
9534 were not truly there, to Whom we show reverence of "latria." Therefore, when such apparition occurs, Christ is under the sacrament.
9535 </p>
9536 <p id="TP_Q76_A8-p6">
9537 <b>I answer that,</b> Such apparition comes about in two ways, when occasionally in this sacrament flesh, or blood, or a child, is seen. Sometimes
9538 it happens on the part of the beholders, whose eyes are so affected as if they outwardly saw flesh, or blood, or a child,
9539 while no change takes place in the sacrament. And this seems to happen when to one person it is seen under the species of
9540 flesh or of a child, while to others it is seen as before under the species of bread; or when
9541 to the same individual it appears for an hour under the appearance of flesh or a child, and afterwards under the appearance
9542 of bread. Nor is there any deception there, as occurs in the feats of magicians, because such species is divinely formed in
9543 the eye in order to represent some truth, namely, for the purpose of showing that Christ's body is truly under this sacrament;
9544 just as Christ without deception appeared to the disciples who were going to Emmaus. For Augustine says (De Qq. Evang. ii)
9545 that "when our pretense is referred to some significance, it is not a lie, but a figure of the truth." And since in this way
9546 no change is made in the sacrament, it is manifest that, when such apparition occurs, Christ does not cease to be under this
9547 sacrament.
9548 </p>
9549 <p id="TP_Q76_A8-p7"> But it sometimes happens that such apparition comes about not merely by a change wrought in the beholders, but by an appearance
9550 which really exists outwardly. And this indeed is seen to happen when it is beheld by everyone under such an appearance, and
9551 it remains so not for an hour, but for a considerable time; and, in this case some think that it is the proper species of
9552 Christ's body. Nor does it matter that sometimes Christ's entire body is not seen there, but part of His
9553 flesh, or else that it is not seen in youthful guise. but in the semblance of a child, because it lies within the power of
9554 a glorified body for it to be seen by a non-glorified eye either entirely or in part, and under its own semblance or in strange
9555 guise, as will be said later (
9556 <a id="TP_Q76_A8-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q85_A2.html">XP, Q[85], AA[2]</a>,3).
9557 </p>
9558 <p id="TP_Q76_A8-p8"> But this seems unlikely. First of all, because Christ's body under its proper species can be seen only in one place, wherein
9559 it is definitively contained. Hence since it is seen in its proper species, and is adored in heaven, it is not seen under
9560 its proper species in this sacrament. Secondly, because a glorified body, which appears at will, disappears when it wills
9561 after the apparition; thus it is related (
9562 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q76_A8-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.24.31" target="asv">Lk. 24:31</a>) that our Lord "vanished out of sight" of
9563 the disciples. But that which appears under the likeness of flesh in this sacrament, continues for a long time; indeed, one
9564 reads of its being sometimes enclosed, and, by order of many bishops, preserved in a pyx, which it would be wicked to think
9565 of Christ under His proper semblance.
9566 </p>
9567 <p id="TP_Q76_A8-p9"> Consequently, it remains to be said, that, while the dimensions remain the same as before, there is a miraculous change wrought
9568 in the other accidents, such as shape, color, and the rest, so that flesh, or blood, or a child, is seen. And, as was said
9569 already, this is not deception, because it is done "to represent the truth," namely, to show by this miraculous apparition
9570 that Christ's body and blood are truly in this sacrament. And thus it is clear that as the dimensions remain,
9571 which are the foundation of the other accidents, as we shall see later on (
9572 <a id="TP_Q76_A8-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q77_A2.html">Q[77], A[2]</a>), the body of Christ truly remains in this sacrament.
9573 </p>
9574 <p id="TP_Q76_A8-p10">
9575 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> When such apparition takes place, the sacramental species sometimes continue entire in themselves; and sometimes only as
9576 to that which is principal, as was said above.
9577 </p>
9578 <p id="TP_Q76_A8-p11">
9579 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As stated above, during such apparitions Christ's proper semblance is not seen, but a species miraculously formed either
9580 in the eyes of the beholders, or in the sacramental dimensions themselves, as was said above.
9581 </p>
9582 <p id="TP_Q76_A8-p12">
9583 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The dimensions of the consecrated bread and wine continue, while a miraculous change is wrought in the other accidents, as
9584 stated above.
9585 </p>
9586 <p id="TP_Q76_A8-p13"></p>
9587 <p id="TP_Q76_A8-p14"></p>
9588 <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A7.html"></a>
9589 <a href="summa.TP_Q77.html"></a>
9590 </div>
9591 <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A8.html"></a>
9592 <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A1.html"></a>
9593 </div>
9594 <div id="TP_Q77" class="div3">
9595 <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A8.html"></a>
9596 <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A1.html"></a>
9597 <h3 id="TP_Q77-p0.1">OF THE ACCIDENTS WHICH REMAIN IN THIS SACRAMENT (EIGHT ARTICLES)</h3>
9598 <p id="TP_Q77-p1"></p>
9599 <p id="TP_Q77-p2"> We must now consider the accidents which remain in this sacrament; under which head there are eight points of inquiry:</p>
9600 <p id="TP_Q77-p3"> (1) Whether the accidents which remain are without a subject?</p>
9601 <p id="TP_Q77-p4"> (2) Whether dimensive quantity is the subject of the other accidents?</p>
9602 <p id="TP_Q77-p5"> (3) Whether such accidents can affect an extrinsic body?</p>
9603 <p id="TP_Q77-p6"> (4) Whether they can be corrupted?</p>
9604 <p id="TP_Q77-p7"> (5) Whether anything can be generated from them?</p>
9605 <p id="TP_Q77-p8"> (6) Whether they can nourish?</p>
9606 <p id="TP_Q77-p9"> (7) Of the breaking of the consecrated bread?</p>
9607 <p id="TP_Q77-p10"> (8) Whether anything can be mixed with the consecrated wine?</p>
9608 <div id="TP_Q77_A1" class="div4">
9609 <a href="summa.TP_Q77.html"></a>
9610 <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A2.html"></a>
9611 <h4 id="TP_Q77_A1-p0.1">Whether the accidents remain in this sacrament without a subject?</h4>
9612 <p id="TP_Q77_A1-p1"></p>
9613 <p id="TP_Q77_A1-p2">
9614 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the accidents do not remain in this sacrament without a subject, because there ought not to be anything disorderly
9615 or deceitful in this sacrament of truth. But for accidents to be without a subject is contrary to the order which God established
9616 in nature; and furthermore it seems to savor of deceit, since accidents are naturally the signs of the nature of the subject.
9617 Therefore the accidents are not without a subject in this sacrament.
9618 </p>
9619 <p id="TP_Q77_A1-p3">
9620 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, not even by miracle can the definition of a thing be severed from it, or the definition of another thing be applied
9621 to it; for instance, that, while man remains a man, he can be an irrational animal. For it would follow that contradictories
9622 can exist at the one time: for the "definition of a thing is what its name expresses," as is said in Metaph. iv. But it belongs
9623 to the definition of an accident for it to be in a subject, while the definition of
9624 substance is that it must subsist of itself, and not in another. Therefore it cannot come to pass, even by miracle, that the
9625 accidents exist without a subject in this sacrament.
9626 </p>
9627 <p id="TP_Q77_A1-p4">
9628 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, an accident is individuated by its subject. If therefore the accidents remain in this sacrament without a subject,
9629 they will not be individual, but general, which is clearly false, because thus they would not be sensible, but merely intelligible.
9630 </p>
9631 <p id="TP_Q77_A1-p5">
9632 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the accidents after the consecration of this sacrament do not obtain any composition. But before the consecration
9633 they were not composed either of matter and form, nor of existence [quo est] and essence [quod est]. Therefore, even after
9634 consecration they are not composite in either of these ways. But this is unreasonable, for thus they would be simpler than
9635 angels, whereas at the same time these accidents are perceptible to the senses. Therefore, in
9636 this sacrament the accidents do not remain without a subject.
9637 </p>
9638 <p id="TP_Q77_A1-p6">
9639 <b>On the contrary,</b> Gregory says in an Easter Homily (Lanfranc, De Corp. et Sang. Dom. xx) that "the sacramental species are the names of those
9640 things which were there before, namely, of the bread and wine." Therefore since the substance of the bread and the wine does
9641 not remain, it seems that these species remain without a subject.
9642 </p>
9643 <p id="TP_Q77_A1-p7">
9644 <b>I answer that,</b> The species of the bread and wine, which are perceived by our senses to remain in this sacrament after consecration, are
9645 not subjected in the substance of the bread and wine, for that does not remain, as stated above (
9646 <a id="TP_Q77_A1-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q75_A2.html">Q[75], A[2]</a>); nor in the substantial form, for that does not remain (
9647 <a id="TP_Q77_A1-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q75_A6.html">Q[75], A[6]</a>), and if it did remain, "it could not be a subject," as Boethius declares (De Trin. i). Furthermore it is
9648 manifest that these accidents are not subjected in the substance of Christ's body and blood, because the substance of the
9649 human body cannot in any way be affected by such accidents; nor is it possible for Christ's glorious and impassible body to
9650 be altered so as to receive these qualities.
9651 </p>
9652 <p id="TP_Q77_A1-p8"> Now there are some who say that they are in the surrounding atmosphere as in a subject. But even this cannot be: in the first
9653 place, because atmosphere is not susceptive of such accidents. Secondly, because these accidents are not where the atmosphere
9654 is, nay more, the atmosphere is displaced by the motion of these species. Thirdly, because accidents do not pass from subject
9655 to subject, so that the same identical accident which was first in one subject be afterwards in another;
9656 because an accident is individuated by the subject; hence it cannot come to pass for an accident remaining identically the
9657 same to be at one time in one subject, and at another time in another. Fourthly, since the atmosphere is not deprived of its
9658 own accidents, it would have at the one time its own accidents and others foreign to it. Nor can it be maintained that this
9659 is done miraculously in virtue of the consecration, because the words of consecration do not signify this, and they effect
9660 only
9661 what they signify.
9662 </p>
9663 <p id="TP_Q77_A1-p9"> Therefore it follows that the accidents continue in this sacrament without a subject. This can be done by Divine power: for
9664 since an effect depends more upon the first cause than on the second, God Who is the first cause both of substance and accident,
9665 can by His unlimited power preserve an accident in existence when the substance is withdrawn whereby it was preserved in existence
9666 as by its proper cause, just as without natural causes He can produce other effects of natural
9667 causes, even as He formed a human body in the Virgin's womb, "without the seed of man" (Hymn for Christmas, First Vespers).
9668 </p>
9669 <p id="TP_Q77_A1-p10">
9670 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> There is nothing to hinder the common law of nature from ordaining a thing, the contrary of which is nevertheless ordained
9671 by a special privilege of grace, as is evident in the raising of the dead, and in the restoring of sight to the blind: even
9672 thus in human affairs, to some individuals some things are granted by special privilege which are outside the common law.
9673 And so, even though it be according to the common law of nature for an accident to be
9674 in a subject, still for a special reason, according to the order of grace, the accidents exist in this sacrament without a
9675 subject, on account of the reasons given above (
9676 <a id="TP_Q77_A1-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q75_A5.html">Q[75] , A[5]</a>).
9677 </p>
9678 <p id="TP_Q77_A1-p11">
9679 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Since being is not a genus, then being cannot be of itself the essence of either substance or accident. Consequently, the
9680 definition of substance is not---"a being of itself without a subject," nor is the definition of accident---"a being in a
9681 subject"; but it belongs to the quiddity or essence of substance "to have existence not in a subject"; while it belongs to
9682 the quiddity or essence of accident "to have existence in a subject." But in this
9683 sacrament it is not in virtue of their essence that accidents are not in a subject, but through the Divine power sustaining
9684 them; and consequently they do not cease to be accidents, because neither is the definition of accident withdrawn from them,
9685 nor does the definition of substance apply to them.
9686 </p>
9687 <p id="TP_Q77_A1-p12">
9688 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> These accidents acquired individual being in the substance of the bread and wine; and when this substance is changed into
9689 the body and blood of Christ, they remain in that individuated being which they possessed before, hence they are individual
9690 and sensible.
9691 </p>
9692 <p id="TP_Q77_A1-p13">
9693 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> These accidents had no being of their own nor other accidents, so long as the substance of the bread and wine remained; but
9694 their subjects had "such" being through them, just as snow is "white" through whiteness. But after the consecration the accidents
9695 which remain have being; hence they are compounded of existence and essence, as was said of the angels, in the
9696 <a id="TP_Q77_A1-p13.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q50_A2.html">FP, Q[50], A[2]</a>, ad 3; and besides they have composition of
9697 quantitative parts.
9698 </p>
9699 <p id="TP_Q77_A1-p14"></p>
9700 <p id="TP_Q77_A1-p15"></p>
9701 <a href="summa.TP_Q77.html"></a>
9702 <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A2.html"></a>
9703 </div>
9704 <div id="TP_Q77_A2" class="div4">
9705 <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A1.html"></a>
9706 <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A3.html"></a>
9707 <h4 id="TP_Q77_A2-p0.1">Whether in this sacrament the dimensive quantity of the bread or wine is the subject of the other accidents?</h4>
9708 <p id="TP_Q77_A2-p1"></p>
9709 <p id="TP_Q77_A2-p2">
9710 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that in this sacrament the dimensive quantity of the bread or wine is not the subject of the other accidents. For
9711 accident is not the subject of accident; because no form can be a subject, since to be a subject is a property of matter.
9712 But dimensive quantity is an accident. Therefore dimensive quantity cannot be the subject of the other accidents.
9713 </p>
9714 <p id="TP_Q77_A2-p3">
9715 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, just as quantity is individuated by substance, so also are the other accidents. If, then, the dimensive quantity
9716 of the bread or wine remains individuated according to the being it had before, in which it is preserved, for like reason
9717 the other accidents remain individuated according to the existence which they had before in the substance. Therefore they
9718 are not in dimensive quantity as in a subject, since every accident is individuated by its own
9719 subject.
9720 </p>
9721 <p id="TP_Q77_A2-p4">
9722 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, among the other accidents that remain, of the bread and wine, the senses perceive also rarity and density, which
9723 cannot be in dimensive quantity existing outside matter; because a thing is rare which has little matter under great dimensions.
9724 while a thing is dense which has much matter under small dimensions, as is said in Phys. iv. It does not seem, then, that
9725 dimensive quantity can be the subject of the accidents which remain in this sacrament.
9726 </p>
9727 <p id="TP_Q77_A2-p5">
9728 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, quantity abstract from matter seems to be mathematical quantity, which is not the subject of sensible qualities.
9729 Since, then, the remaining accidents in this sacrament are sensible, it seems that in this sacrament they cannot be subjected
9730 in the dimensive quantity of the bread and wine that remains after consecration.
9731 </p>
9732 <p id="TP_Q77_A2-p6">
9733 <b>On the contrary,</b> Qualities are divisible only accidentally, that is, by reason of the subject. But the qualities remaining in this sacrament
9734 are divided by the division of dimensive quantity, as is evident through our senses. Therefore, dimensive quantity is the
9735 subject of the accidents which remain in this sacrament.
9736 </p>
9737 <p id="TP_Q77_A2-p7">
9738 <b>I answer that,</b> It is necessary to say that the other accidents which remain in this sacrament are subjected in the dimensive quantity of
9739 the bread and wine that remains: first of all, because something having quantity and color and affected by other accidents
9740 is perceived by the senses; nor is sense deceived in such. Secondly, because the first disposition of matter is dimensive
9741 quantity, hence Plato also assigned "great" and "small" as the first differences of matter
9742 (Aristotle, Metaph. iv). And because the first subject is matter, the consequence is that all other accidents are related
9743 to their subject through the medium of dimensive quantity; just as the first subject of color is said to be the surface, on
9744 which account some have maintained that dimensions are the substances of bodies, as is said in Metaph. iii. And since, when
9745 the subject is withdrawn, the accidents remain according to the being which they had before, it follows that all accidents
9746 remain
9747 founded upon dimensive quantity.
9748 </p>
9749 <p id="TP_Q77_A2-p8"> Thirdly, because, since the subject is the principle of individuation of the accidents, it is necessary for what is admitted
9750 as the subject of some accidents to be somehow the principle of individuation: for it is of the very notion of an individual
9751 that it cannot be in several; and this happens in two ways. First, because it is not natural to it to be in any one; and in
9752 this way immaterial separated forms, subsisting of themselves, are also individuals of themselves. Secondly,
9753 because a form, be it substantial or accidental, is naturally in someone indeed, not in several, as this whiteness, which
9754 is in this body. As to the first, matter is the principle of individuation of all inherent forms, because, since these forms,
9755 considered in themselves, are naturally in something as in a subject, from the very fact that one of them is received in matter,
9756 which is not in another, it follows that neither can the form itself thus existing be in another. As to the second, it
9757 must be maintained that the principle of individuation is dimensive quantity. For that something is naturally in another one
9758 solely, is due to the fact that that other is undivided in itself, and distinct from all others. But it is on account of quantity
9759 that substance can be divided, as is said in Phys. i. And therefore dimensive quantity itself is a particular principle of
9760 individuation in forms of this kind, namely, inasmuch as forms numerically distinct are in different parts of the matter.
9761 Hence also dimensive quantity has of itself a kind of individuation, so that we can imagine several lines of the same species,
9762 differing in position, which is included in the notion of this quantity; for it belongs to dimension for it to be "quantity
9763 having position" (Aristotle, Categor. iv), and therefore dimensive quantity can be the subject of the other accidents, rather
9764 than the other way about.
9765 </p>
9766 <p id="TP_Q77_A2-p9">
9767 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> One accident cannot of itself be the subject of another, because it does not exist of itself. But inasmuch as an accident
9768 is received in another thing, one is said to be the subject of the other, inasmuch as one is received in a subject through
9769 another, as the surface is said to be the subject of color. Hence when God makes an accident to exist of itself, it can also
9770 be of itself the subject of another.
9771 </p>
9772 <p id="TP_Q77_A2-p10">
9773 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The other accidents, even as they were in the substance of the bread, were individuated by means of dimensive quantity, as
9774 stated above. And therefore dimensive quantity is the subject of the other accidents remaining in this sacrament, rather than
9775 conversely.
9776 </p>
9777 <p id="TP_Q77_A2-p11">
9778 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Rarity and density are particular qualities accompanying bodies, by reason of their having much or little matter under dimensions;
9779 just as all other accidents likewise follow from the principles of substance. And consequently, as the accidents are preserved
9780 by Divine power when the substance is withdrawn, so, when matter is withdrawn, the qualities which go with matter, such as
9781 rarity and density, are preserved by Divine power.
9782 </p>
9783 <p id="TP_Q77_A2-p12">
9784 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Mathematical quantity abstracts not from intelligible matter, but from sensible matter, as is said in Metaph. vii. But matter
9785 is termed sensible because it underlies sensible qualities. And therefore it is manifest that the dimensive quantity, which
9786 remains in this sacrament without a subject, is not mathematical quantity.
9787 </p>
9788 <p id="TP_Q77_A2-p13"></p>
9789 <p id="TP_Q77_A2-p14"></p>
9790 <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A1.html"></a>
9791 <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A3.html"></a>
9792 </div>
9793 <div id="TP_Q77_A3" class="div4">
9794 <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A2.html"></a>
9795 <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A4.html"></a>
9796 <h4 id="TP_Q77_A3-p0.1">Whether the species remaining in this sacrament can change external objects?</h4>
9797 <p id="TP_Q77_A3-p1"></p>
9798 <p id="TP_Q77_A3-p2">
9799 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the species which remain in this sacrament cannot affect external objects. For it is proved in Phys. vii, that
9800 forms which are in matter are produced by forms that are in matter, but not from forms which are without matter, because like
9801 makes like. But the sacramental species are species without matter, since they remain without a subject, as is evident from
9802 what was said above
9803 <a id="TP_Q77_A3-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q77_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. Therefore they cannot affect other
9804 matter by producing any form in it.
9805 </p>
9806 <p id="TP_Q77_A3-p3">
9807 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, when the action of the principal agent ceases, then the action of the instrument must cease, as when the carpenter
9808 rests, the hammer is moved no longer. But all accidental forms act instrumentally in virtue of the substantial form as the
9809 principal agent. Therefore, since the substantial form of the bread and wine does not remain in this sacrament, as was shown
9810 above (
9811 <a id="TP_Q77_A3-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q75_A6.html">Q[75], A[6]</a>), it seems that the accidental forms which
9812 remain cannot act so as to change external matter.
9813 </p>
9814 <p id="TP_Q77_A3-p4">
9815 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, nothing acts outside its species, because an effect cannot surpass its cause. But all the sacramental species are
9816 accidents. Therefore they cannot change external matter, at least as to a substantial form.
9817 </p>
9818 <p id="TP_Q77_A3-p5">
9819 <b>On the contrary,</b> If they could not change external bodies, they could not be felt; for a thing is felt from the senses being changed by a
9820 sensible thing, as is said in De Anima ii.
9821 </p>
9822 <p id="TP_Q77_A3-p6">
9823 <b>I answer that,</b> Because everything acts in so far as it is an actual being, the consequence is that everything stands in the same relation
9824 to action as it does to being. Therefore, because, according to what was said above
9825 <a id="TP_Q77_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q77_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, it is an effect of the Divine power that the sacramental species continue in the being which they had when the substance
9826 of the bread and wine was present, it follows that they continue in their action. Consequently they
9827 retain every action which they had while the substance of the bread and wine remained, now that the substance of the bread
9828 and wine has passed into the body and blood of Christ. Hence there is no doubt but that they can change external bodies.
9829 </p>
9830 <p id="TP_Q77_A3-p7">
9831 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The sacramental species, although they are forms existing without matter, still retain the same being which they had before
9832 in matter, and therefore as to their being they are like forms which are in matter.
9833 </p>
9834 <p id="TP_Q77_A3-p8">
9835 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The action of an accidental form depends upon the action of a substantial form in the same way as the being of accident depends
9836 upon the being of substance; and therefore, as it is an effect of Divine power that the sacramental species exist without
9837 substance, so is it an effect of Divine power that they can act without a substantial form, because every action of a substantial
9838 or accidental form depends upon God as the first agent.
9839 </p>
9840 <p id="TP_Q77_A3-p9">
9841 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The change which terminates in a substantial form is not effected by a substantial form directly, but by means of the active
9842 and passive qualities, which act in virtue of the substantial form. But by Divine power this instrumental energy is retained
9843 in the sacramental species, just as it was before: and consequently their action can be directed to a substantial form instrumentally,
9844 just in the same way as anything can act outside its species, not as
9845 by its own power, but by the power of the chief agent.
9846 </p>
9847 <p id="TP_Q77_A3-p10"></p>
9848 <p id="TP_Q77_A3-p11"></p>
9849 <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A2.html"></a>
9850 <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A4.html"></a>
9851 </div>
9852 <div id="TP_Q77_A4" class="div4">
9853 <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A3.html"></a>
9854 <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A5.html"></a>
9855 <h4 id="TP_Q77_A4-p0.1">Whether the sacramental species can be corrupted?</h4>
9856 <p id="TP_Q77_A4-p1"></p>
9857 <p id="TP_Q77_A4-p2">
9858 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the sacramental species cannot be corrupted, because corruption comes of the separation of the form from the
9859 matter. But the matter of the bread does not remain in this sacrament, as is clear from what was said above (
9860 <a id="TP_Q77_A4-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q75_A2.html">Q[75], A[2]</a>). Therefore these species cannot be corrupted.
9861 </p>
9862 <p id="TP_Q77_A4-p3">
9863 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, no form is corrupted except accidentally, that is, when its subject is corrupted; hence self-subsisting forms are
9864 incorruptible, as is seen in spiritual substances. But the sacramental species are forms without a subject. Therefore they
9865 cannot be corrupted.
9866 </p>
9867 <p id="TP_Q77_A4-p4">
9868 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if they be corrupted, it will either be naturally or miraculously. But they cannot be corrupted naturally, because
9869 no subject of corruption can be assigned as remaining after the corruption has taken place. Neither can they be corrupted
9870 miraculously, because the miracles which occur in this sacrament take place in virtue of the consecration, whereby the sacramental
9871 species are preserved: and the same thing is not the cause of preservation and of
9872 corruption. Therefore, in no way can the sacramental species be corrupted.
9873 </p>
9874 <p id="TP_Q77_A4-p5">
9875 <b>On the contrary,</b> We perceive by our senses that the consecrated hosts become putrefied and corrupted.
9876 </p>
9877 <p id="TP_Q77_A4-p6">
9878 <b>I answer that,</b> Corruption is "movement from being into non-being" (Aristotle, Phys. v). Now it has been stated
9879 <a id="TP_Q77_A4-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q77_A3.html">(A[3])</a> that the sacramental species retain the same being as they had before when the substance of the bread was present. Consequently,
9880 as the being of those accidents could be corrupted while the substance of the bread and wine was present, so likewise they
9881 can be corrupted now that the substance has passed away.
9882 </p>
9883 <p id="TP_Q77_A4-p7"> But such accidents could have been previously corrupted in two ways: in one way, of themselves; in another way, accidentally.
9884 They could be corrupted of themselves, as by alteration of the qualities, and increase or decrease of the quantity, not in
9885 the way in which increase or decrease is found only in animated bodies, such as the substances of the bread and wine are not,
9886 but by addition or division; for, as is said in Metaph. iii, one dimension is dissolved by division, and two
9887 dimensions result; while on the contrary, by addition, two dimensions become one. And in this way such accidents can be corrupted
9888 manifestly after consecration, because the dimensive quantity which remains can receive division and addition; and since it
9889 is the subject of sensible qualities, as stated above
9890 <a id="TP_Q77_A4-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q77_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, it can likewise be the subject of their alteration, for instance, if the color or the savor of the bread or wine be altered.
9891 </p>
9892 <p id="TP_Q77_A4-p8"> An accident can be corrupted in another way, through the corruption of its subject, and in this way also they can be corrupted
9893 after consecration; for although the subject does not remain, still the being which they had in the subject does remain, which
9894 being is proper, and suited to the subject. And therefore such being can be corrupted by a contrary agent, as the substance
9895 of the bread or wine was subject to corruption, and, moreover, was not corrupted except by a preceding
9896 alteration regarding the accidents.
9897 </p>
9898 <p id="TP_Q77_A4-p9"> Nevertheless, a distinction must be made between each of the aforesaid corruptions; because, when the body and the blood
9899 of Christ succeed in this sacrament to the substance of the bread and wine, if there be such change on the part of the accidents
9900 as would not have sufficed for the corruption of the bread and wine, then the body and blood of Christ do not cease to be
9901 under this sacrament on account of such change, whether the change be on the part of the quality, as for
9902 instance, when the color or the savor of the bread or wine is slightly modified; or on the part of the quantity, as when the
9903 bread or the wine is divided into such parts as to keep in them the nature of bread or of wine. But if the change be so great
9904 that the substance of the bread or wine would have been corrupted, then Christ's body and blood do not remain under this sacrament;
9905 and this either on the part of the qualities, as when the color, savor, and other qualities of the bread and wine
9906 are so altered as to be incompatible with the nature of bread or of wine; or else on the part of the quantity, as, for instance,
9907 if the bread be reduced to fine particles, or the wine divided into such tiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer
9908 remain.
9909 </p>
9910 <p id="TP_Q77_A4-p10">
9911 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Since it belongs essentially to corruption to take away the being of a thing, in so far as the being of some form is in matter,
9912 it results that by corruption the form is separated from the matter. But if such being were not in matter, yet like such being
9913 as is in matter, it could be taken away by corruption, even where there is no matter; as takes place in this sacrament, as
9914 is evident from what was said above.
9915 </p>
9916 <p id="TP_Q77_A4-p11">
9917 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although the sacramental species are forms not in matter, yet they have the being which they had in matter.
9918 </p>
9919 <p id="TP_Q77_A4-p12">
9920 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This corruption of species is not miraculous, but natural; nevertheless, it presupposes the miracle which is wrought in the
9921 consecration, namely, that those sacramental species retain without a subject, the same being as they had in a subject; just
9922 as a blind man, to whom sight is given miraculously, sees naturally.
9923 </p>
9924 <p id="TP_Q77_A4-p13"></p>
9925 <p id="TP_Q77_A4-p14"></p>
9926 <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A3.html"></a>
9927 <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A5.html"></a>
9928 </div>
9929 <div id="TP_Q77_A5" class="div4">
9930 <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A4.html"></a>
9931 <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A6.html"></a>
9932 <h4 id="TP_Q77_A5-p0.1">Whether anything can be generated from the sacramental species?</h4>
9933 <p id="TP_Q77_A5-p1"></p>
9934 <p id="TP_Q77_A5-p2">
9935 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that nothing can be generated from the sacramental species: because, whatever is generated, is generated out of
9936 some matter: for nothing is generated out of nothing, although by creation something is made out of nothing. But there is
9937 no matter underlying the sacramental species except that of Christ's body, and that body is incorruptible. Therefore it seems
9938 that nothing can be generated from the sacramental species.
9939 </p>
9940 <p id="TP_Q77_A5-p3">
9941 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, things which are not of the same genus cannot spring from one another: thus a line is not made of whiteness. But
9942 accident and substance differ generically. Therefore, since the sacramental species are accidents, it seems that no substance
9943 can be generated from them.
9944 </p>
9945 <p id="TP_Q77_A5-p4">
9946 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if any corporeal substance be generated from them, such substance will not be without accident. Therefore, if any
9947 corporeal substance be generated from the sacramental species, then substance and accident would be generated from accident,
9948 namely, two things from one, which is impossible. Consequently, it is impossible for any corporeal substance to be generated
9949 out of the sacramental species.
9950 </p>
9951 <p id="TP_Q77_A5-p5">
9952 <b>On the contrary,</b> The senses are witness that something is generated out of the sacramental species, either ashes, if they be burned, worms
9953 if they putrefy, or dust if they be crushed.
9954 </p>
9955 <p id="TP_Q77_A5-p6">
9956 <b>I answer that,</b> Since "the corruption of one thing is the generation of another" (De Gener. i), something must be generated necessarily from
9957 the sacramental species if they be corrupted, as stated above
9958 <a id="TP_Q77_A5-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q77_A4.html">(A[4])</a>; for they are not corrupted in such a way that they disappear altogether, as if reduced to nothing; on the contrary, something
9959 sensible manifestly succeeds to them.
9960 </p>
9961 <p id="TP_Q77_A5-p7"> Nevertheless, it is difficult to see how anything can be generated from them. For it is quite evident that nothing is generated
9962 out of the body and blood of Christ which are truly there, because these are incorruptible. But if the substance, or even
9963 the matter, of the bread and wine were to remain in this sacrament, then, as some have maintained, it would be easy to account
9964 for this sensible object which succeeds to them. But that supposition is false, as was stated above (
9965 <a id="TP_Q77_A5-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q75_A2.html">Q[75], AA[2]</a>,4,8).
9966 </p>
9967 <p id="TP_Q77_A5-p8"> Hence it is that others have said that the things generated have not sprung from the sacramental species, but from the surrounding
9968 atmosphere. But this can be shown in many ways to be impossible. In the first place, because when a thing is generated from
9969 another, the latter at first appears changed and corrupted; whereas no alteration or corruption appeared previously in the
9970 adjacent atmosphere; hence the worms or ashes are not generated therefrom. Secondly, because the nature
9971 of the atmosphere is not such as to permit of such things being generated by such alterations. Thirdly, because it is possible
9972 for many consecrated hosts to be burned or putrefied; nor would it be possible for an earthen body, large enough to be generated
9973 from the atmosphere, unless a great and, in fact, exceedingly sensible condensation of the atmosphere took place. Fourthly,
9974 because the same thing can happen to the solid bodies surrounding them, such as iron or stone, which remain entire
9975 after the generation of the aforesaid things. Hence this opinion cannot stand, because it is opposed to what is manifest to
9976 our senses.
9977 </p>
9978 <p id="TP_Q77_A5-p9"> And therefore others have said that the substance of the bread and wine returns during the corruption of the species, and
9979 so from the returning substance of the bread and wine, ashes or worms or something of the kind are generated. But this explanation
9980 seems an impossible one. First of all, because if the substance of the bread and wine be converted into the body and blood
9981 of Christ, as was shown above (Q[75], AA[2],4), the substance of the bread and wine cannot return, except
9982 the body and blood of Christ be again changed back into the substance of bread and wine, which is impossible: thus if air
9983 be turned into fire, the air cannot return without the fire being again changed into air. But if the substance of bread or
9984 wine be annihilated, it cannot return again, because what lapses into nothing does not return numerically the same. Unless
9985 perchance it be said that the said substance returns, because God creates anew another new substance to replace the first.
9986 Secondly, this seems to be impossible, because no time can be assigned when the substance of the bread returns. For, from
9987 what was said above
9988 <a id="TP_Q77_A5-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q77_A4.html">(A[4];</a> Q[76], A[6], ad 3), it is evident that while the species of the bread and wine remain, there remain also the body and blood
9989 of Christ, which are not present together with the substance of the bread and wine in this sacrament, according to what was
9990 stated above (Q[75], A[2]). Hence the substance of the bread and wine cannot
9991 return while the sacramental species remain; nor, again, when these species pass away; because then the substance of the bread
9992 and wine would be without their proper accidents, which is impossible. Unless perchance it be said that in the last instant
9993 of the corruption of the species there returns (not, indeed, the substance of bread and wine, because it is in that very instant
9994 that they have the being of the substance generated from the species, but) the matter of the bread and wine; which,
9995 matter, properly speaking, would be more correctly described as created anew, than as returning. And in this sense the aforesaid
9996 position might be held.
9997 </p>
9998 <p id="TP_Q77_A5-p10"> However, since it does not seem reasonable to say that anything takes place miraculously in this sacrament, except in virtue
9999 of the consecration itself, which does not imply either creation or return of matter, it seems better to say that in the actual
10000 consecration it is miraculously bestowed on the dimensive quantity of the bread and wine to be the subject of subsequent forms.
10001 Now this is proper to matter; and therefore as a consequence everything which goes with matter is
10002 bestowed on dimensive quantity; and therefore everything which could be generated from the matter of bread or wine, if it
10003 were present, can be generated from the aforesaid dimensive quantity of the bread or wine, not, indeed, by a new miracle,
10004 but by virtue of the miracle which has already taken place.
10005 </p>
10006 <p id="TP_Q77_A5-p11">
10007 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although no matter is there out of which a thing may be generated, nevertheless dimensive quantity supplies the place of
10008 matter, as stated above.
10009 </p>
10010 <p id="TP_Q77_A5-p12">
10011 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Those sacramental species are indeed accidents, yet they have the act and power of substance, as stated above
10012 <a id="TP_Q77_A5-p12.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q77_A3.html">(A[3])</a>.
10013 </p>
10014 <p id="TP_Q77_A5-p13">
10015 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The dimensive quantity of the bread and wine retains its own nature, and receives miraculously the power and property of
10016 substance; and therefore it can pass to both, that is, into substance and dimension.
10017 </p>
10018 <p id="TP_Q77_A5-p14"></p>
10019 <p id="TP_Q77_A5-p15"></p>
10020 <p id="TP_Q77_A5-p16"></p>
10021 <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A4.html"></a>
10022 <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A6.html"></a>
10023 </div>
10024 <div id="TP_Q77_A6" class="div4">
10025 <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A5.html"></a>
10026 <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A7.html"></a>
10027 <h4 id="TP_Q77_A6-p0.1">Whether the sacramental species can nourish?</h4>
10028 <p id="TP_Q77_A6-p1"></p>
10029 <p id="TP_Q77_A6-p2">
10030 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the sacramental species cannot nourish, because, as Ambrose says (De Sacram. v), "it is not this bread that
10031 enters into our body, but the bread of everlasting life, which supports the substance of our soul." But whatever nourishes
10032 enters into the body. Therefore this bread does not nourish: and the same reason holds good of the wine.
10033 </p>
10034 <p id="TP_Q77_A6-p3">
10035 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, as is said in De Gener. ii, "We are nourished by the very things of which we are made." But the sacramental species
10036 are accidents, whereas man is not made of accidents, because accident is not a part of substance. Therefore it seems that
10037 the sacramental species cannot nourish.
10038 </p>
10039 <p id="TP_Q77_A6-p4">
10040 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the Philosopher says (De Anima ii) that "food nourishes according as it is a substance, but it gives increase by
10041 reason of its quantity." But the sacramental species are not a substance. Consequently they cannot nourish.
10042 </p>
10043 <p id="TP_Q77_A6-p5">
10044 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle speaking of this sacrament says (
10045 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q77_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.11.21" target="asv">1 Cor. 11:21</a>): "One, indeed, is hungry, and another is drunk": upon which the gloss observes that "he alludes to those who after the celebration
10046 of the sacred mystery, and after the consecration of the bread and wine, claimed their oblations, and not sharing them with
10047 others, took the whole, so as even to become intoxicated thereby." But this could not happen if the sacramental species did
10048 not nourish. Therefore
10049 the sacramental species do nourish.
10050 </p>
10051 <p id="TP_Q77_A6-p6">
10052 <b>I answer that,</b> This question presents no difficulty, now that we have solved the preceding question. Because, as stated in De Anima ii,
10053 food nourishes by being converted into the substance of the individual nourished. Now it has been stated
10054 <a id="TP_Q77_A6-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q77_A5.html">(A[5])</a> that the sacramental species can be converted into a substance generated from them. And they can be converted into the human
10055 body for the same reason as they can into ashes or worms. Consequently, it is
10056 evident that they nourish.
10057 </p>
10058 <p id="TP_Q77_A6-p7"> But the senses witness to the untruth of what some maintain; viz. that the species do not nourish as though they were changed
10059 into the human body, but merely refresh and hearten by acting upon the senses (as a man is heartened by the odor of meat,
10060 and intoxicated by the fumes of wine). Because such refreshment does not suffice long for a man, whose body needs repair owing
10061 to constant waste: and yet a man could be supported for long if he were to take hosts and consecrated wine
10062 in great quantity.
10063 </p>
10064 <p id="TP_Q77_A6-p8"> In like manner the statement advanced by others cannot stand, who hold that the sacramental species nourish owing to the
10065 remaining substantial form of the bread and wine: both because the form does not remain, as stated above (
10066 <a id="TP_Q77_A6-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q75_A6.html">Q[75], A[6]</a>): and because to nourish is the act not of a form but rather of matter, which takes the form of the one nourished, while
10067 the form of the nourishment passes away: hence it is said in De Anima ii that nourishment is at
10068 first unlike, but at the end is like.
10069 </p>
10070 <p id="TP_Q77_A6-p9">
10071 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> After the consecration bread can be said to be in this sacrament in two ways. First, as to the species, which retain the
10072 name of the previous substance, as Gregory says in an Easter Homily (Lanfranc, De Corp. et Sang. Dom. xx). Secondly, Christ's
10073 very body can be called bread, since it is the mystical bread "coming down from heaven." Consequently, Ambrose uses the word
10074 "bread" in this second meaning, when he says that "this bread does not pass into
10075 the body," because, to wit, Christ's body is not changed into man's body, but nourishes his soul. But he is not speaking of
10076 bread taken in the first acceptation.
10077 </p>
10078 <p id="TP_Q77_A6-p10">
10079 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although the sacramental species are not those things out of which the human body is made, yet they are changed into those
10080 things stated above.
10081 </p>
10082 <p id="TP_Q77_A6-p11">
10083 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although the sacramental species are not a substance, still they have the virtue of a substance, as stated above.
10084 </p>
10085 <p id="TP_Q77_A6-p12"></p>
10086 <p id="TP_Q77_A6-p13"></p>
10087 <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A5.html"></a>
10088 <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A7.html"></a>
10089 </div>
10090 <div id="TP_Q77_A7" class="div4">
10091 <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A6.html"></a>
10092 <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A8.html"></a>
10093 <h4 id="TP_Q77_A7-p0.1">Whether the sacramental species are broken in this sacrament?</h4>
10094 <p id="TP_Q77_A7-p1"></p>
10095 <p id="TP_Q77_A7-p2">
10096 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the sacramental species are not broken in this sacrament, because the Philosopher says in Meteor. iv that bodies
10097 are breakable owing to a certain disposition of the pores; a thing which cannot be attributed to the sacramental species.
10098 Therefore the sacramental species cannot be broken.
10099 </p>
10100 <p id="TP_Q77_A7-p3">
10101 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, breaking is followed by sound. But the sacramental species emit no sound: because the Philosopher says (De Anima
10102 ii), that what emits sound is a hard body, having a smooth surface. Therefore the sacramental species are not broken.
10103 </p>
10104 <p id="TP_Q77_A7-p4">
10105 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, breaking and mastication are seemingly of the same object. But it is Christ's true body that is eaten, according
10106 to
10107 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q77_A7-p4.1" href="./asv.html#John.6.57" target="asv">Jn. 6:57</a>: "He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood." Therefore it is Christ's body that is broken and masticated: and hence
10108 it is said in the confession of Berengarius: "I agree with the Holy Catholic Church, and with heart and lips I profess, that
10109 the bread and wine which are placed on the altar, are the true body and blood of
10110 Christ after consecration, and are truly handled and broken by the priest's hands, broken and crushed by the teeth of believers."
10111 Consequently, the breaking ought not to be ascribed to the sacramental species.
10112 </p>
10113 <p id="TP_Q77_A7-p5">
10114 <b>On the contrary,</b> Breaking arises from the division of that which has quantity. But nothing having quantity except the sacramental species
10115 is broken here, because neither Christ's body is broken, as being incorruptible, nor is the substance of the bread, because
10116 it no longer remains. Therefore the sacramental species are broken.
10117 </p>
10118 <p id="TP_Q77_A7-p6">
10119 <b>I answer that,</b> Many opinions prevailed of old on this matter. Some held that in this sacrament there was no breaking at all in reality,
10120 but merely in the eyes of the beholders. But this contention cannot stand, because in this sacrament of truth the sense is
10121 not deceived with regard to its proper object of judgment, and one of these objects is breaking, whereby from one thing arise
10122 many: and these are common sensibles, as is stated in De Anima ii.
10123 </p>
10124 <p id="TP_Q77_A7-p7"> Others accordingly have said that there was indeed a genuine breaking, but without any subject. But this again contradicts
10125 our senses; because a quantitative body is seen in this sacrament, which formerly was one, and is now divided into many, and
10126 this must be the subject of the breaking.
10127 </p>
10128 <p id="TP_Q77_A7-p8"> But it cannot be said that Christ's true body is broken. First of all, because it is incorruptible and impassible: secondly,
10129 because it is entire under every part, as was shown above (
10130 <a id="TP_Q77_A7-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q76_A3.html">Q[76], A[3]</a>), which is contrary to the nature of a thing broken.
10131 </p>
10132 <p id="TP_Q77_A7-p9"> It remains, then, that the breaking is in the dimensive quantity of the bread, as in a subject, just as the other accidents.
10133 And as the sacramental species are the sacrament of Christ's true body, so is the breaking of these species the sacrament
10134 of our Lord's Passion, which was in Christ's true body.
10135 </p>
10136 <p id="TP_Q77_A7-p10">
10137 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As rarity and density remain under the sacramental species, as stated above (A[2], ad 3), so likewise porousness remains,
10138 and in consequence breakableness.
10139 </p>
10140 <p id="TP_Q77_A7-p11">
10141 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Hardness results from density; therefore, as density remains under the sacramental species, hardness remains there too, and
10142 the capability of sound as a consequence.
10143 </p>
10144 <p id="TP_Q77_A7-p12">
10145 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> What is eaten under its own species, is also broken and masticated under its own species; but Christ's body is eaten not
10146 under its proper, but under the sacramental species. Hence in explaining
10147 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q77_A7-p12.1" href="./asv.html#John.6.64" target="asv">Jn. 6:64</a>, "The flesh profiteth nothing," Augustine (Tract. xxvii in Joan.) says that this is to be taken as referring to those who
10148 understood carnally: "for they understood the flesh, thus, as it is divided piecemeal, in a dead body, or as sold in the
10149 shambles." Consequently, Christ's very body is not broken, except according to its sacramental species. And the confession
10150 made by Berengarius is to be understood in this sense, that the breaking and the crushing with the teeth is to be referred
10151 to the sacramental species, under which the body of Christ truly is.
10152 </p>
10153 <p id="TP_Q77_A7-p13"></p>
10154 <p id="TP_Q77_A7-p14"></p>
10155 <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A6.html"></a>
10156 <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A8.html"></a>
10157 </div>
10158 <div id="TP_Q77_A8" class="div4">
10159 <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A7.html"></a>
10160 <a href="summa.TP_Q78.html"></a>
10161 <h4 id="TP_Q77_A8-p0.1">Whether any liquid can be mingled with the consecrated wine?</h4>
10162 <p id="TP_Q77_A8-p1"></p>
10163 <p id="TP_Q77_A8-p2">
10164 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that no liquid can be mingled with the consecrated wine, because everything mingled with another partakes of its
10165 quality. But no liquid can share in the quality of the sacramental species, because those accidents are without a subject,
10166 as stated above
10167 <a id="TP_Q77_A8-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q77_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. Therefore it seems that no liquid can be mingled with the sacramental species of the wine.
10168 </p>
10169 <p id="TP_Q77_A8-p3">
10170 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, if any kind of liquid be mixed with those species, then some one thing must be the result. But no one thing can
10171 result from the liquid, which is a substance, and the sacramental species, which are accidents; nor from the liquid and Christ's
10172 blood, which owing to its incorruptibility suffers neither increase nor decrease. Therefore no liquid can be mixed with the
10173 consecrated wine.
10174 </p>
10175 <p id="TP_Q77_A8-p4">
10176 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if any liquid be mixed with the consecrated wine, then that also would appear to be consecrated; just as water added
10177 to holy-water becomes holy. But the consecrated wine is truly Christ's blood. Therefore the liquid added would likewise be
10178 Christ's blood otherwise than by consecration, which is unbecoming. Therefore no liquid can be mingled with the consecrated
10179 wine.
10180 </p>
10181 <p id="TP_Q77_A8-p5">
10182 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, if one of two things be entirely corrupted, there is no mixture (De Gener. i). But if we mix any liquid, it seems
10183 that the entire species of the sacramental wine is corrupted, so that the blood of Christ ceases to be beneath it; both because
10184 great and little are difference of quantity, and alter it, as white and black cause a difference of color; and because the
10185 liquid mixed, as having no obstacle, seems to permeate the whole, and so Christ's blood
10186 ceases to be there, since it is not there with any other substance. Consequently, no liquid can be mixed with the consecrated
10187 wine.
10188 </p>
10189 <p id="TP_Q77_A8-p6">
10190 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is evident to our senses that another liquid can be mixed with the wine after it is consecrated, just as before.
10191 </p>
10192 <p id="TP_Q77_A8-p7">
10193 <b>I answer that,</b> The truth of this question is evident from what has been said already. For it was said above
10194 <a id="TP_Q77_A8-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q77_A3.html">(A[3];</a> A[5], ad 2) that the species remaining in this sacrament, as they acquire the manner of being of substance in virtue of the
10195 consecration, so likewise do they obtain the mode of acting and of being acted upon, so that they can do or receive whatever
10196 their substance could do or receive, were it there present. But it is evident that if
10197 the substance of wine were there present, then some other liquid could be mingled with it.
10198 </p>
10199 <p id="TP_Q77_A8-p8"> Nevertheless there would be a different effect of such mixing both according to the form and according to the quantity of
10200 the liquid. For if sufficient liquid were mixed so as to spread itself all through the wine, then the whole would be a mixed
10201 substance. Now what is made up of things mixed is neither of them, but each passes into a third resulting from both: hence
10202 it would result that the former wine would remain no longer. But if the liquid added were of another species, for
10203 instance, if water were mixed, the species of the wine would be dissolved, and there would be a liquid of another species.
10204 But if liquid of the same species were added, of instance, wine with wine, the same species would remain, but the wine would
10205 not be the same numerically, as the diversity of the accidents shows: for instance, if one wine were white and the other red.
10206 </p>
10207 <p id="TP_Q77_A8-p9"> But if the liquid added were of such minute quantity that it could not permeate the whole, the entire wine would not be mixed,
10208 but only part of it, which would not remain the same numerically owing to the blending of extraneous matter: still it would
10209 remain the same specifically, not only if a little liquid of the same species were mixed with it, but even if it were of another
10210 species, since a drop of water blended with much wine passes into the species of wine (De Gener.
10211 i).
10212 </p>
10213 <p id="TP_Q77_A8-p10"> Now it is evident that the body and blood of Christ abide in this sacrament so long as the species remain numerically the
10214 same, as stated above
10215 <a id="TP_Q77_A8-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q77_A4.html">(A[4];</a> Q[76], A[6], ad 3); because it is this bread and this wine which is consecrated. Hence, if the liquid of any kind whatsoever
10216 added be so much in quantity as to permeate the whole of the consecrated wine, and be mixed with it throughout, the result
10217 would be something numerically distinct, and the blood of
10218 Christ will remain there no longer. But if the quantity of the liquid added be so slight as not to permeate throughout, but
10219 to reach only a part of the species, Christ's blood will cease to be under that part of the consecrated wine, yet will remain
10220 under the rest.
10221 </p>
10222 <p id="TP_Q77_A8-p11">
10223 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Pope Innocent III in a Decretal writes thus: "The very accidents appear to affect the wine that is added, because, if water
10224 is added, it takes the savor of the wine. The result is, then, that the accidents change the subject, just as subject changes
10225 accidents; for nature yields to miracle, and power works beyond custom." But this must not be understood as if the same identical
10226 accident, which was in the wine previous to consecration, is afterwards in
10227 the wine that is added; but such change is the result of action; because the remaining accidents of the wine retain the action
10228 of substance, as stated above, and so they act upon the liquid added, by changing it.
10229 </p>
10230 <p id="TP_Q77_A8-p12">
10231 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The liquid added to the consecrated wine is in no way mixed with the substance of Christ's blood. Nevertheless it is mixed
10232 with the sacramental species, yet so that after such mixing the aforesaid species are corrupted entirely or in part, after
10233 the way mentioned above
10234 <a id="TP_Q77_A8-p12.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q77_A5.html">(A[5])</a>, whereby something can be generated from those species. And if they be entirely corrupted, there remains no further question,
10235 because the whole will be
10236 uniform. But if they be corrupted in part, there will be one dimension according to the continuity of quantity, but not one
10237 according to the mode of being, because one part thereof will be without a subject while the other is in a subject; as in
10238 a body that is made up of two metals, there will be one body quantitatively, but not one as to the species of the matter.
10239 </p>
10240 <p id="TP_Q77_A8-p13">
10241 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Pope Innocent says in the aforesaid Decretal, "if after the consecration other wine be put in the chalice, it is not changed
10242 into the blood, nor is it mingled with the blood, but, mixed with the accidents of the previous wine, it is diffused throughout
10243 the body which underlies them, yet without wetting what surrounds it." Now this is to be understood when there is not sufficient
10244 mixing of extraneous liquid to cause the blood of Christ to cease to
10245 be under the whole; because a thing is said to be "diffused throughout," not because it touches the body of Christ according
10246 to its proper dimensions, but according to the sacramental dimensions, under which it is contained. Now it is not the same
10247 with holy water, because the blessing works no change in the substance of the water, as the consecration of the wine does.
10248 </p>
10249 <p id="TP_Q77_A8-p14">
10250 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Some have held that however slight be the mixing of extraneous liquid, the substance of Christ's blood ceases to be under
10251 the whole, and for the reason given above (OBJ[4]); which, however, is not a cogent one; because "more" or "less" diversify
10252 dimensive quantity, not as to its essence, but as to the determination of its measure. In like manner the liquid added can
10253 be so small as on that account to be hindered from permeating the whole, and not
10254 simply by the dimensions; which, although they are present without a subject, still they are opposed to another liquid, just
10255 as substance would be if it were present, according to what was said at the beginning of the article.
10256 </p>
10257 <p id="TP_Q77_A8-p15"></p>
10258 <p id="TP_Q77_A8-p16"></p>
10259 <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A7.html"></a>
10260 <a href="summa.TP_Q78.html"></a>
10261 </div>
10262 <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A8.html"></a>
10263 <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A1.html"></a>
10264 </div>
10265 <div id="TP_Q78" class="div3">
10266 <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A8.html"></a>
10267 <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A1.html"></a>
10268 <h3 id="TP_Q78-p0.1">OF THE FORM OF THIS SACRAMENT (SIX ARTICLES)</h3>
10269 <p id="TP_Q78-p1"></p>
10270 <p id="TP_Q78-p2"> We must now consider the form of this sacrament; concerning which there are six points of inquiry:</p>
10271 <p id="TP_Q78-p3"> (1) What is the form of this sacrament?</p>
10272 <p id="TP_Q78-p4"> (2) Whether the form for the consecration of the bread is appropriate?</p>
10273 <p id="TP_Q78-p5"> (3) Whether the form for the consecration of the blood is appropriate?</p>
10274 <p id="TP_Q78-p6"> (4) Of the power of each form?</p>
10275 <p id="TP_Q78-p7"> (5) Of the truth of the expression?</p>
10276 <p id="TP_Q78-p8"> (6) Of the comparison of the one form with the other?</p>
10277 <div id="TP_Q78_A1" class="div4">
10278 <a href="summa.TP_Q78.html"></a>
10279 <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A2.html"></a>
10280 <h4 id="TP_Q78_A1-p0.1">Whether this is the form of this sacrament: "This is My body," and "This is the chalice of My blood"?</h4>
10281 <p id="TP_Q78_A1-p1"></p>
10282 <p id="TP_Q78_A1-p2">
10283 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that this is not the form of this sacrament: "This is My body," and, "This is the chalice of My blood." Because
10284 those words seem to belong to the form of this sacrament, wherewith Christ consecrated His body and blood. But Christ first
10285 blessed the bread which He took, and said afterwards: "Take ye and eat; this is My body" (
10286 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q78_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.26.26" target="asv">Mat. 26:26</a>). Therefore the whole of this seems to belong to the form of this sacrament: and the same reason
10287 holds good of the words which go with the consecration of the blood.
10288 </p>
10289 <p id="TP_Q78_A1-p3">
10290 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Eusebius Emissenus (Pseudo-Hieron: Ep. xxix; Pseudo-Isid.: Hom. iv) says: "The invisible Priest changes visible
10291 creatures into His own body, saying: 'Take ye and eat; this is My body.'" Therefore, the whole of this seems to belong to
10292 the form of this sacrament: and the same hold good of the works appertaining to the blood.
10293 </p>
10294 <p id="TP_Q78_A1-p4">
10295 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, in the form of Baptism both the minister and his act are expressed, when it is said, "I baptize thee." But in the
10296 words set forth above there is no mention made either of the minister or of his act. Therefore the form of the sacrament is
10297 not a suitable one.
10298 </p>
10299 <p id="TP_Q78_A1-p5">
10300 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the form of the sacrament suffices for its perfection; hence the sacrament of Baptism can be performed sometimes
10301 by pronouncing the words of the form only, omitting all the others. Therefore, if the aforesaid words be the form of this
10302 sacrament, it would seem as if this sacrament could be performed sometimes by uttering those words alone, while leaving out
10303 all the others which are said in the mass; yet this seems to be false, because, were the other
10304 words to be passed over, the said words would be taken as spoken in the person of the priest saying them, whereas the bread
10305 and wine are not changed into his body and blood. Consequently, the aforesaid words are not the form of this sacrament.
10306 </p>
10307 <p id="TP_Q78_A1-p6">
10308 <b>On the contrary,</b> Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): "The consecration is accomplished by the words and expressions of the Lord Jesus. Because,
10309 by all the other words spoken, praise is rendered to God, prayer is put up for the people, for kings, and others; but when
10310 the time comes for perfecting the sacrament, the priest uses no longer his own words, but the words of Christ. Therefore,
10311 it is Christ's words that perfect this sacrament."
10312 </p>
10313 <p id="TP_Q78_A1-p7">
10314 <b>I answer that,</b> This sacrament differs from the other sacraments in two respects. First of all, in this, that this sacrament is accomplished
10315 by the consecration of the matter, while the rest are perfected in the use of the consecrated matter. Secondly, because in
10316 the other sacraments the consecration of the matter consists only in a blessing, from which the matter consecrated derives
10317 instrumentally a spiritual power, which through the priest who is an animated instrument,
10318 can pass on to inanimate instruments. But in this sacrament the consecration of the matter consists in the miraculous change
10319 of the substance, which can only be done by God; hence the minister in performing this sacrament has no other act save the
10320 pronouncing of the words. And because the form should suit the thing, therefore the form of this sacrament differs from the
10321 forms of the other sacraments in two respects. First, because the form of the other sacraments implies the use of the matter,
10322 as for instance, baptizing, or signing; but the form of this sacrament implies merely the consecration of the matter, which
10323 consists in transubstantiation, as when it is said, "This is My body," or, "This is the chalice of My blood." Secondly, because
10324 the forms of the other sacraments are pronounced in the person of the minister, whether by way of exercising an act, as when
10325 it is said, "I baptize thee," or "I confirm thee," etc.; or by way of command, as when it is said in the sacrament of
10326 order, "Take the power," etc.; or by way of entreaty, as when in the sacrament of Extreme Unction it is said, "By this anointing
10327 and our intercession," etc. But the form of this sacrament is pronounced as if Christ were speaking in person, so that it
10328 is given to be understood that the minister does nothing in perfecting this sacrament, except to pronounce the words of Christ.
10329 </p>
10330 <p id="TP_Q78_A1-p8">
10331 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> There are many opinions on this matter. Some have said that Christ, Who had power of excellence in the sacraments, performed
10332 this sacrament without using any form of words, and that afterwards He pronounced the words under which others were to consecrate
10333 thereafter. And the words of Pope Innocent III seem to convey the same sense (De Sacr. Alt. Myst. iv), where he says: "In
10334 good sooth it can be said that Christ accomplished this sacrament by His
10335 Divine power, and subsequently expressed the form under which those who came after were to consecrate." But in opposition
10336 to this view are the words of the Gospel in which it is said that Christ "blessed," and this blessing was effected by certain
10337 words. Accordingly those words of Innocent are to be considered as expressing an opinion, rather than determining the point.
10338 </p>
10339 <p id="TP_Q78_A1-p9"> Others, again, have said that the blessing was effected by other words not known to us. But this statement cannot stand,
10340 because the blessing of the consecration is now performed by reciting the things which were then accomplished; hence, if the
10341 consecration was not performed then by these words, neither would it be now.
10342 </p>
10343 <p id="TP_Q78_A1-p10"> Accordingly, others have maintained that this blessing was effected by the same words as are used now; but that Christ spoke
10344 them twice, at first secretly, in order to consecrate, and afterwards openly, to instruct others. But even this will not hold
10345 good, because the priest in consecrating uses these words, not as spoken in secret, but as openly pronounced. Accordingly,
10346 since these words have no power except from Christ pronouncing them, it seems that Christ also consecrated by
10347 pronouncing them openly.
10348 </p>
10349 <p id="TP_Q78_A1-p11"> And therefore others said that the Evangelists did not always follow the precise order in their narrative as that in which
10350 things actually happened, as is seen from Augustine (De Consens. Evang. ii). Hence it is to be understood that the order of
10351 what took place can be expressed thus: "Taking the bread He blessed it, saying: This is My body, and then He broke it, and
10352 gave it to His disciples." But the same sense can be had even without changing the words of the Gospel; because
10353 the participle "saying" implies sequence of the words uttered with what goes before. And it is not necessary for the sequence
10354 to be understood only with respect to the last word spoken, as if Christ had just then pronounced those words, when He gave
10355 it to His disciples; but the sequence can be understood with regard to all that had gone before; so that the sense is: "While
10356 He was blessing, and breaking, and giving it to His disciples, He spoke the words, 'Take ye,'" etc.
10357 </p>
10358 <p id="TP_Q78_A1-p12">
10359 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In these words, "Take ye and eat," the use of the consecrated, matter is indicated, which is not of the necessity of this
10360 sacrament, as stated above (
10361 <a id="TP_Q78_A1-p12.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q74_A7.html">Q[74], A[7]</a>). And therefore not even these words belong to the substance of the form. Nevertheless, because the use of the consecrated
10362 matter belongs to a certain perfection of the sacrament, in the same way as operation is not the first but the second perfection
10363 of a thing,
10364 consequently, the whole perfection of this sacrament is expressed by all those words: and it was in this way that Eusebius
10365 understood that the sacrament was accomplished by those words, as to its first and second perfection.
10366 </p>
10367 <p id="TP_Q78_A1-p13">
10368 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> In the sacrament of Baptism the minister exercises an act regarding the use of the matter, which is of the essence of the
10369 sacrament: such is not the case in this sacrament; hence there is no parallel.
10370 </p>
10371 <p id="TP_Q78_A1-p14">
10372 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Some have contended that this sacrament cannot be accomplished by uttering the aforesaid words, while leaving out the rest,
10373 especially the words in the Canon of the Mass. But that this is false can be seen both from Ambrose's words quoted above,
10374 as well as from the fact that the Canon of the Mass is not the same in all places or times, but various portions have been
10375 introduced by various people.
10376 </p>
10377 <p id="TP_Q78_A1-p15"> Accordingly it must be held that if the priest were to pronounce only the aforesaid words with the intention of consecrating
10378 this sacrament, this sacrament would be valid because the intention would cause these words to be understood as spoken in
10379 the person of Christ, even though the words were pronounced without those that precede. The priest, however, would sin gravely
10380 in consecrating the sacrament thus, as he would not be observing the rite of the Church. Nor does the
10381 comparison with Baptism prove anything; for it is a sacrament of necessity: whereas the lack of this sacrament can be supplied
10382 by the spiritual partaking thereof, as Augustine says (cf.
10383 <a id="TP_Q78_A1-p15.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q73_A3.html"> Q[73], A[3]</a>, ad 1).
10384 </p>
10385 <p id="TP_Q78_A1-p16"></p>
10386 <p id="TP_Q78_A1-p17"></p>
10387 <a href="summa.TP_Q78.html"></a>
10388 <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A2.html"></a>
10389 </div>
10390 <div id="TP_Q78_A2" class="div4">
10391 <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A1.html"></a>
10392 <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A3.html"></a>
10393 <h4 id="TP_Q78_A2-p0.1">Whether this is the proper form for the consecration of the bread: "This is My body"?</h4>
10394 <p id="TP_Q78_A2-p1"></p>
10395 <p id="TP_Q78_A2-p2">
10396 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that this is not the proper form of this sacrament: "This is My body." For the effect of a sacrament ought to be
10397 expressed in its form. But the effect of the consecration of the bread is the change of the substance of the bread into the
10398 body of Christ, and this is better expressed by the word "becomes" than by "is." Therefore, in the form of the consecration
10399 we ought to say: "This becomes My body."
10400 </p>
10401 <p id="TP_Q78_A2-p3">
10402 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv), "Christ's words consecrate this sacrament. What word of Christ? This word, whereby
10403 all things are made. The Lord commanded, and the heavens and earth were made. " Therefore, it would be a more proper form
10404 of this sacrament if the imperative mood were employed, so as to say: "Be this My body."
10405 </p>
10406 <p id="TP_Q78_A2-p4">
10407 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, that which is changed is implied in the subject of this phrase, just as the term of the change is implied in the
10408 predicate. But just as that into which the change is made is something determinate, for the change is into nothing else but
10409 the body of Christ, so also that which is converted is determinate, since only bread is converted into the body of Christ.
10410 Therefore, as a noun is inserted on the part of the predicate, so also should a noun be
10411 inserted in the subject, so that it be said: "This bread is My body."
10412 </p>
10413 <p id="TP_Q78_A2-p5">
10414 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, just as the term of the change is determinate in nature, because it is a body, so also is it determinate in person.
10415 Consequently, in order to determine the person, it ought to be said: "This is the body of Christ."
10416 </p>
10417 <p id="TP_Q78_A2-p6">
10418 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, nothing ought to be inserted in the form except what is substantial to it. Consequently, the conjunction "for" is
10419 improperly added in some books, since it does not belong to the substance of the form.
10420 </p>
10421 <p id="TP_Q78_A2-p7">
10422 <b>On the contrary,</b> our Lord used this form in consecrating, as is evident from
10423 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q78_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.26.26" target="asv"> Mat. 26:26.</a>
10424 </p>
10425 <p id="TP_Q78_A2-p8">
10426 <b>I answer that,</b> This is the proper form for the consecration of the bread. For it was said
10427 <a id="TP_Q78_A2-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q78_A1.html">(A[1])</a> that this consecration consists in changing the substance of bread into the body of Christ. Now the form of a sacrament ought
10428 to denote what is done in the sacrament. Consequently the form for the consecration of the bread ought to signify the actual
10429 conversion of the bread into the body of Christ. And herein are three things to be considered: namely,
10430 the actual conversion, the term "whence," and the term "whereunto."
10431 </p>
10432 <p id="TP_Q78_A2-p9"> Now the conversion can be considered in two ways: first, in "becoming," secondly, in "being." But the conversion ought not
10433 to be signified in this form as in "becoming," but as in "being." First, because such conversion is not successive, as was
10434 said above (
10435 <a id="TP_Q78_A2-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q75_A7.html">Q[75], A[7]</a>), but instantaneous; and in such changes the "becoming" is nothing else than the "being." Secondly, because the sacramental
10436 forms bear the same relation to the signification of the
10437 sacramental effect as artificial forms to the representation of the effect of art. Now an artificial form is the likeness
10438 of the ultimate effect, on which the artist's intention is fixed ;. just as the art-form in the builder's mind is principally
10439 the form of the house constructed, and secondarily of the constructing. Accordingly, in this form also the conversion ought
10440 to be expressed as in "being," to which the intention is referred.
10441 </p>
10442 <p id="TP_Q78_A2-p10"> And since the conversion is expressed in this form as in "being," it is necessary for the extremes of the conversion to be
10443 signified as they exist in the fact of conversion. But then the term "whereunto" has the proper nature of its own substance;
10444 whereas the term "whence" does not remain in its own substance, but only as to the accidents whereby it comes under the senses,
10445 and can be determined in relation to the senses. Hence the term "whence" of the conversion is conveniently
10446 expressed by the demonstrative pronoun, relative to the sensible accidents which continue; but the term "whereunto" is expressed
10447 by the noun signifying the nature of the thing which terminates the conversion, and this is Christ's entire body, and not
10448 merely His flesh; as was said above (
10449 <a id="TP_Q78_A2-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q76_A1.html">Q[76], A[1]</a>, ad 2). Hence this form is most appropriate: "This is My body."
10450 </p>
10451 <p id="TP_Q78_A2-p11">
10452 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The ultimate effect of this conversion is not a "becoming" but a "being," as stated above, and consequently prominence should
10453 be given to this in the form.
10454 </p>
10455 <p id="TP_Q78_A2-p12">
10456 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> God's word operated in the creation of things, and it is the same which operates in this consecration, yet each in different
10457 fashion: because here it operates effectively and sacramentally, that is, in virtue of its signification. And consequently
10458 the last effect of the consecration must needs be signified in this sentence by a substantive verb of the indicative mood
10459 and present time. But in the creation of things it worked merely effectively, and
10460 such efficiency is due to the command of His wisdom; and therefore in the creation of things the Lord's word is expressed
10461 by a verb in the imperative mood, as in
10462 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q78_A2-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.1.3" target="asv"> Gn. 1:3</a>: "Let there be light, and light was made."
10463 </p>
10464 <p id="TP_Q78_A2-p13">
10465 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The term "whence" does not retain the nature of its substance in the "being" of the conversion, as the term "whereunto" does.
10466 Therefore there is no parallel.
10467 </p>
10468 <p id="TP_Q78_A2-p14">
10469 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The pronoun "My," which implicitly points to the chief person, i.e. the person of the speaker, sufficiently indicates Christ's
10470 person, in Whose person these words are uttered, as stated above
10471 <a id="TP_Q78_A2-p14.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q78_A1.html">(A[1])</a>.
10472 </p>
10473 <p id="TP_Q78_A2-p15">
10474 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> The conjunction "for" is set in this form according to the custom of the Roman Church, who derived it from Peter the Apostle;
10475 and this on account of the sequence with the words preceding: and therefore it is not part of the form, just as the words
10476 preceding the form are not.
10477 </p>
10478 <p id="TP_Q78_A2-p16"></p>
10479 <p id="TP_Q78_A2-p17"></p>
10480 <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A1.html"></a>
10481 <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A3.html"></a>
10482 </div>
10483 <div id="TP_Q78_A3" class="div4">
10484 <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A2.html"></a>
10485 <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A4.html"></a>
10486 <h4 id="TP_Q78_A3-p0.1">Whether this is the proper form for the consecration of the wine: "This is the chalice of My blood," etc.?</h4>
10487 <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p1"></p>
10488 <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p2">
10489 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that this is not the proper form for the consecration of the wine. "This is the chalice of My blood, of the New
10490 and Eternal Testament, the Mystery of Faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins." For as
10491 the bread is changed by the power of consecration into Christ's body, so is the wine changed into Christ's blood, as is clear
10492 from what was said above (
10493 <a id="TP_Q78_A3-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q76_A1.html">Q[76], AA[1]</a>,2,3). But in the form of the
10494 consecration of the bread, the body of Christ is expressly mentioned, without any addition. Therefore in this form the blood
10495 of Christ is improperly expressed in the oblique case, and the chalice in the nominative, when it is said: "This is the chalice
10496 of My blood."
10497 </p>
10498 <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p3">
10499 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the words spoken in the consecration of the bread are not more efficacious than those spoken in the consecration
10500 of the wine, since both are Christ's words. But directly the words are spoken---"This is My body," there is perfect consecration
10501 of the bread. Therefore, directly these other words are uttered---"This is the chalice of My blood," there is perfect consecration
10502 of the blood; and so the words which follow do not appeal to be of the substance
10503 of the form, especially since they refer to the properties of this sacrament.
10504 </p>
10505 <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p4">
10506 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the New Testament seems to be an internal inspiration, as is evident from the Apostle quoting the words of Jeremias
10507 (31:31): "I will perfect unto the house of Israel a New Testament . . . I will give My laws into their mind" (
10508 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q78_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.8.8" target="asv">Heb. 8:8</a>). But a sacrament is an outward visible act. Therefore, in the form of the sacrament the words "of the New Testament" are
10509 improperly added.
10510 </p>
10511 <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p5">
10512 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, a thing is said to be new which is near the beginning of its existence. But what is eternal has no beginning of
10513 its existence. Therefore it is incorrect to say "of the New and Eternal," because it seems to savor of a contradiction.
10514 </p>
10515 <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p6">
10516 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, occasions of error ought to be withheld from men, according to
10517 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q78_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.57.14" target="asv"> Is. 57:14</a>: "Take away the stumbling blocks out of the way of My people." But some have fallen into error in thinking that Christ's
10518 body and blood are only mystically present in this sacrament. Therefore it is out of place to add "the mystery of faith."
10519 </p>
10520 <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p7">
10521 <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, it was said above (
10522 <a id="TP_Q78_A3-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q73_A3.html">Q[73], A[3]</a>, ad 3), that as Baptism is the sacrament of faith, so is the Eucharist the sacrament of charity. Consequently, in this form
10523 the word "charity" ought rather to be used than "faith."
10524 </p>
10525 <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p8">
10526 <b>Objection 7:</b> Further, the whole of this sacrament, both as to body and blood, is a memorial of our Lord's Passion, according to
10527 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q78_A3-p8.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.11.26" target="asv">1 Cor. 11:26</a>: "As often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord." Consequently, mention
10528 ought to be made of Christ's Passion and its fruit rather in the form of the consecration of the blood, than in the form of
10529 the consecration of the body, especially since our Lord said: "This
10530 is My body, which shall be delivered up for you" (
10531 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q78_A3-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.22.19" target="asv">Lk. 22:19</a>).
10532 </p>
10533 <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p9">
10534 <b>Objection 8:</b> Further, as was already observed (
10535 <a id="TP_Q78_A3-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q48_A2.html">Q[48], A[2]</a>;
10536 <a id="TP_Q78_A3-p9.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q49_A3.html"> Q[49], A[3]</a>), Christ's Passion sufficed for all; while as to its efficacy it was profitable for many. Therefore it ought to be said:
10537 "Which shall be shed for all," or else "for many," without adding, "for you."
10538 </p>
10539 <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p10">
10540 <b>Objection 9:</b> Further, the words whereby this sacrament is consecrated draw their efficacy from Christ's institution. But no Evangelist
10541 narrates that Christ spoke all these words. Therefore this is not an appropriate form for the consecration of the wine.
10542 </p>
10543 <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p11">
10544 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Church, instructed by the apostles, uses this form.
10545 </p>
10546 <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p12">
10547 <b>I answer that,</b> There is a twofold opinion regarding this form. Some have maintained that the words "This is the chalice of My blood" alone
10548 belong to the substance of this form, but not those words which follow. Now this seems incorrect, because the words which
10549 follow them are determinations of the predicate, that is, of Christ's blood. consequently they belong to the integrity of
10550 the expression.
10551 </p>
10552 <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p13"> And on this account others say more accurately that all the words which follow are of the substance of the form down to the
10553 words, "As often as ye shall do this," which belong to the use of this sacrament, and consequently do not belong to the substance
10554 of the form. Hence it is that the priest pronounces all these words, under the same rite and manner, namely, holding the chalice
10555 in his hands. Moreover, in
10556 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q78_A3-p13.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.22.20" target="asv"> Lk. 22:20, </a> the words that follow are interposed with
10557 the preceding words: "This is the chalice, the new testament in My blood."
10558 </p>
10559 <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p14"> Consequently it must be said that all the aforesaid words belong to the substance of the form; but that by the first words,
10560 "This is the chalice of My blood," the change of the wine into blood is denoted, as explained above
10561 <a id="TP_Q78_A3-p14.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q78_A2.html">(A[2])</a> in the form for the consecration of the bread; but by the words which come after is shown the power of the blood shed in
10562 the Passion, which power works in this sacrament, and is ordained for three purposes. First and
10563 principally for securing our eternal heritage, according to
10564 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q78_A3-p14.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.10.19" target="asv"> Heb. 10:19</a>: "Having confidence in the entering into the holies by the blood of Christ"; and in order to denote this, we say, "of the
10565 New and Eternal Testament." Secondly, for justifying by grace, which is by faith according to
10566 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q78_A3-p14.3" href="./asv.html#Rom.3.25" target="asv"> Rom. 3:25,26</a>: "Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood . . . that He Himself may be just, and the justifier
10567 of him who is of the faith of
10568 Jesus Christ": and on this account we add, "The Mystery of Faith." Thirdly, for removing sins which are the impediments to
10569 both of these things, according to
10570 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q78_A3-p14.4" href="./asv.html#Heb.9.14" target="asv">Heb. 9:14</a>: "The blood of Christ . . . shall cleanse our conscience from dead works," that is, from sins; and on this account, we say,
10571 "which shall be shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins."
10572 </p>
10573 <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p15">
10574 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The expression "This is the chalice of My blood" is a figure of speech, which can be understood in two ways. First, as a
10575 figure of metonymy; because the container is put for the contained, so that the meaning is: "This is My blood contained in
10576 the chalice"; of which mention is now made, because Christ's blood is consecrated in this sacrament, inasmuch as it is the
10577 drink of the faithful, which is not implied under the notion of blood; consequently this
10578 had to be denoted by the vessel adapted for such usage.
10579 </p>
10580 <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p16"> Secondly, it can be taken by way of metaphor, so that Christ's Passion is understood by the chalice by way of comparison,
10581 because, like a cup, it inebriates, according to
10582 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q78_A3-p16.1" href="./asv.html#Lam.3.15" target="asv"> Lam. 3:15</a>: "He hath filled me with bitterness, he hath inebriated me with wormwood": hence our Lord Himself spoke of His Passion as
10583 a chalice, when He said (
10584 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q78_A3-p16.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.26.39" target="asv">Mat. 26:39</a>): "Let this chalice pass away from Me": so that the meaning is: "This is the chalice of My Passion."
10585 This is denoted by the blood being consecrated apart from the body; because it was by the Passion that the blood was separated
10586 from the body.
10587 </p>
10588 <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p17">
10589 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As was said above (ad 1;
10590 <a id="TP_Q78_A3-p17.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q76_A2.html"> Q[76], A[2]</a>, ad 1), the blood consecrated apart expressly represents Christ's Passion, and therefore mention is made of the fruits of
10591 the Passion in the consecration of the blood rather than in that of the body, since the body is the subject of the Passion.
10592 This is also pointed out in our Lord's saying, "which shall be delivered up for you," as if to say, "which shall undergo the
10593 Passion for you."
10594 </p>
10595 <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p18">
10596 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> A testament is the disposal of a heritage. But God disposed of a heavenly heritage to men, to be bestowed through the virtue
10597 of the blood of Jesus Christ; because, according to
10598 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q78_A3-p18.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.9.16" target="asv"> Heb. 9:16</a>: "Where there is a testament the death of the testator must of necessity come in." Now Christ's blood was exhibited to men
10599 in two ways. First of all in figure, and this belongs to the Old Testament; consequently the Apostle concludes
10600 (
10601 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q78_A3-p18.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.9.16" target="asv">Heb. 9:16</a>): "Whereupon neither was the first indeed dedicated without blood," which is evident from this, that as related in
10602 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q78_A3-p18.3" href="./asv.html#Exod.24.7" target="asv"> Ex. 24:7,8, </a> "when every" commandment of the law "had been read" by Moses, "he sprinkled all the people" saying: "This is the blood of
10603 the testament which the Lord hath enjoined unto you."
10604 </p>
10605 <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p19"> Secondly, it was shown in very truth; and this belongs to the New Testament. This is what the Apostle premises when he says
10606 (
10607 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q78_A3-p19.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.9.15" target="asv">Rom. 9:15</a>): "Therefore He is the Mediator of the New Testament, that by means of His death . . . they that are called may receive the
10608 promise of eternal inheritance." Consequently, we say here, "The blood of the New Testament," because it is shown now not
10609 in figure but in truth; and therefore we add, "which shall be shed for you." But
10610 the internal inspiration has its origin in the power of this blood, according as we are justified by Christ's Passion.
10611 </p>
10612 <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p20">
10613 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> This Testament is a "new one" by reason of its showing forth: yet it is called "eternal" both on account of God's eternal
10614 pre-ordination, as well as on account of the eternal heritage which is prepared by this testament. Moreover, Christ's Person
10615 is eternal, in Whose blood this testament is appointed.
10616 </p>
10617 <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p21">
10618 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> The word "mystery" is inserted, not in order to exclude reality, but to show that the reality is hidden, because Christ's
10619 blood is in this sacrament in a hidden manner, and His Passion was dimly foreshadowed in the Old Testament.
10620 </p>
10621 <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p22">
10622 <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> It is called the "Sacrament of Faith," as being an object of faith: because by faith alone do we hold the presence of Christ's
10623 blood in this sacrament. Moreover Christ's Passion justifies by faith. Baptism is called the "Sacrament of Faith" because
10624 it is a profession of faith. This is called the "Sacrament of Charity," as being figurative and effective thereof.
10625 </p>
10626 <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p23">
10627 <b>Reply to Objection 7:</b> As stated above (ad 2), the blood consecrated apart represents Christ's blood more expressively; and therefore mention is
10628 made of Christ's Passion and its fruits, in the consecration of the blood rather than in that of the body.
10629 </p>
10630 <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p24">
10631 <b>Reply to Objection 8:</b> The blood of Christ's Passion has its efficacy not merely in the elect among the Jews, to whom the blood of the Old Testament
10632 was exhibited, but also in the Gentiles; nor only in priests who consecrate this sacrament, and in those others who partake
10633 of it; but likewise in those for whom it is offered. And therefore He says expressly, "for you," the Jews, "and for many,"
10634 namely the Gentiles; or, "for you" who eat of it, and "for many," for whom it is
10635 offered.
10636 </p>
10637 <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p25">
10638 <b>Reply to Objection 9:</b> The Evangelists did not intend to hand down the forms of the sacraments, which in the primitive Church had to be kept concealed,
10639 as Dionysius observes at the close of his book on the ecclesiastical hierarchy; their object was to write the story of Christ.
10640 Nevertheless nearly all these words can be culled from various passages of the Scriptures. Because the words, "This is the
10641 chalice," are found in
10642 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q78_A3-p25.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.22.20" target="asv">Lk. 22:20</a>, and
10643 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q78_A3-p25.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.11.25" target="asv">1 Cor. 11:25,
10644
10645 </a>while Matthew says in chapter 26:28: "This is My blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many unto the remission
10646 of sins." The words added, namely, "eternal" and "mystery of faith," were handed down to the Church by the apostles, who received
10647 them from our Lord, according to
10648 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q78_A3-p25.3" href="./asv.html#iCor.11.23" target="asv">1 Cor. 11:23</a>: "I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you."
10649 </p>
10650 <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p26"></p>
10651 <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p27"></p>
10652 <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A2.html"></a>
10653 <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A4.html"></a>
10654 </div>
10655 <div id="TP_Q78_A4" class="div4">
10656 <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A3.html"></a>
10657 <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A5.html"></a>
10658 <h4 id="TP_Q78_A4-p0.1">Whether in the aforesaid words of the forms there be any created power which causes the consecration?</h4>
10659 <p id="TP_Q78_A4-p1"></p>
10660 <p id="TP_Q78_A4-p2">
10661 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that in the aforesaid words of the forms there is no created power which causes the consecration. Because Damascene
10662 says (De Fide Orth. iv): "The change of the bread into Christ's body is caused solely by the power of the Holy Ghost." But
10663 the power of the Holy Ghost is uncreated. Therefore this sacrament is not caused by any created power of those words.
10664 </p>
10665 <p id="TP_Q78_A4-p3">
10666 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, miraculous works are wrought not by any created power, but solely by Divine power, as was stated in the
10667 <a id="TP_Q78_A4-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q110_A4.html">FP, Q[110], A[4]</a>. But the change of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood is a work not less miraculous than the creation of things,
10668 or than the formation of Christ's body in the womb of a virgin: which things could not be done by any created power. Therefore,
10669 neither is this sacrament consecrated by any created
10670 power of the aforesaid words.
10671 </p>
10672 <p id="TP_Q78_A4-p4">
10673 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the aforesaid words are not simple, but composed of many; nor are they uttered simultaneously, but successively.
10674 But, as stated above (
10675 <a id="TP_Q78_A4-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q75_A7.html">Q[75], A[7]</a>), this change is wrought instantaneously. hence it must be done by a simple power. Therefore it is not effected by the power
10676 of those words.
10677 </p>
10678 <p id="TP_Q78_A4-p5">
10679 <b>On the contrary,</b> Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): "If there be such might in the word of the Lord Jesus that things non-existent came into being,
10680 how much more efficacious is it to make things existing to continue, and to be changed into something else? And so, what was
10681 bread before consecration is now the body of Christ after consecration, because Christ's word changes a creature into something
10682 different."
10683 </p>
10684 <p id="TP_Q78_A4-p6">
10685 <b>I answer that,</b> Some have maintained that neither in the above words is there any created power for causing the transubstantiation, nor in
10686 the other forms of the sacraments, or even in the sacraments themselves, for producing the sacramental effects. This, as was
10687 shown above (
10688 <a id="TP_Q78_A4-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q62_A1.html">Q[62], A[1]</a> ), is both contrary to the teachings of the saints, and detracts from the dignity of the sacraments of the New Law. Hence,
10689 since this sacrament is of greater worth
10690 than the others, as stated above (
10691 <a id="TP_Q78_A4-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q65_A3.html">Q[65], A[3]</a>), the result is that there is in the words of the form of this sacrament a created power which causes the change to be wrought
10692 in it: instrumental, however, as in the other sacraments, as stated above (
10693 <a id="TP_Q78_A4-p6.3" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q62_A3.html">Q[62], AA[3]</a>,4). For since these words are uttered in the person of Christ, it is from His command that they receive their instrumental
10694 power from Him, just as His other deeds and sayings derive their
10695 salutary power instrumentally, as was observed above (
10696 <a id="TP_Q78_A4-p6.4" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q48_A6.html">Q[48], A[6]</a>;
10697 <a id="TP_Q78_A4-p6.5" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q56_A1.html"> Q[56], A[1]</a>, ad 3).
10698 </p>
10699 <p id="TP_Q78_A4-p7">
10700 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> When the bread is said to be changed into Christ's body solely by the power of the Holy Ghost, the instrumental power which
10701 lies in the form of this sacrament is not excluded: just as when we say that the smith alone makes a knife we do not deny
10702 the power of the hammer.
10703 </p>
10704 <p id="TP_Q78_A4-p8">
10705 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> No creature can work miracles as the chief agent. yet it can do so instrumentally, just as the touch of Christ's hand healed
10706 the leper. And in this fashion Christ's words change the bread into His body. But in Christ's conception, whereby His body
10707 was fashioned, it was impossible for anything derived from His body to have the instrumental power of forming that very body.
10708 Likewise in creation there was no term wherein the instrumental action of a
10709 creature could be received. Consequently there is no comparison.
10710 </p>
10711 <p id="TP_Q78_A4-p9">
10712 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The aforesaid words, which work the consecration, operate sacramentally. Consequently, the converting power latent under
10713 the forms of these sacraments follows the meaning, which is terminated in the uttering of the last word. And therefore the
10714 aforesaid words have this power in the last instant of their being uttered, taken in conjunction with those uttered before.
10715 And this power is simple by reason of the thing signified, although there be
10716 composition in the words uttered outwardly.
10717 </p>
10718 <p id="TP_Q78_A4-p10"></p>
10719 <p id="TP_Q78_A4-p11"></p>
10720 <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A3.html"></a>
10721 <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A5.html"></a>
10722 </div>
10723 <div id="TP_Q78_A5" class="div4">
10724 <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A4.html"></a>
10725 <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A6.html"></a>
10726 <h4 id="TP_Q78_A5-p0.1">Whether the aforesaid expressions are true? </h4>
10727 <p id="TP_Q78_A5-p1"></p>
10728 <p id="TP_Q78_A5-p2">
10729 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the aforesaid expressions are not true. Because when we say: "This is My body," the word "this" designates
10730 a substance. But according to what was said above (
10731 <a id="TP_Q78_A5-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q78_A1.html">AA[1]</a>,4, ad 3;
10732 <a id="TP_Q78_A5-p2.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q75_A2.html"> Q[75], AA[2]</a>,7), when the pronoun "this" is spoken, the substance of the bread is still there, because the transubstantiation takes place
10733 in the last instant of pronouncing the words. But it is false to say: "Bread is Christ's
10734 body." Consequently this expression, "This is My body," is false.
10735 </p>
10736 <p id="TP_Q78_A5-p3">
10737 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the pronoun "this" appeals to the senses. But the sensible species in this sacrament are neither Christ's body nor
10738 even its accidents. Therefore this expression, "This is My body," cannot be true.
10739 </p>
10740 <p id="TP_Q78_A5-p4">
10741 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as was observed above (A[4], ad 3), these words, by their signification, effect the change of the bread into the
10742 body of Christ. But an effective cause is understood as preceding its effect. Therefore the meaning of these words is understood
10743 as preceding the change of the bread into the body of Christ. But previous to the change this expression, "This is My body,"
10744 is false. Therefore the expression is to be judged as false simply; and the same reason
10745 holds good of the other phrase: "This is the chalice of My blood," etc.
10746 </p>
10747 <p id="TP_Q78_A5-p5">
10748 <b>On the contrary,</b> These words are pronounced in the person of Christ, Who says of Himself (
10749 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q78_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.14.6" target="asv">Jn. 14:6</a>): "I am the truth."
10750 </p>
10751 <p id="TP_Q78_A5-p6">
10752 <b>I answer that,</b> There have been many opinions on this point. Some have said that in this expression, "This is My body," the word "this" implies
10753 demonstration as conceived, and not as exercised, because the whole phrase is taken materially, since it is uttered by a way
10754 of narration: for the priest relates that Christ said: "This is My body."
10755 </p>
10756 <p id="TP_Q78_A5-p7"> But such a view cannot hold good, because then these words would not be applied to the corporeal matter present, and consequently
10757 the sacrament would not be valid: for Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan.): "The word is added to the element, and this becomes
10758 a sacrament." Moreover this solution ignores entirely the difficulty which this question presents: for there is still the
10759 objection in regard to the first uttering of these words by Christ; since it is evident that then they
10760 were employed, not materially, but significatively. And therefore it must be said that even when spoken by the priest they
10761 are taken significatively, and not merely materially. Nor does it matter that the priest pronounces them by way of recital,
10762 as though they were spoken by Christ, because owing to Christ's infinite power, just as through contact with His flesh the
10763 regenerative power entered not only into the waters which came into contact with Christ, but into all waters throughout the
10764 whole
10765 world and during all future ages, so likewise from Christ's uttering these words they derived their consecrating power, by
10766 whatever priest they be uttered, as if Christ present were saying them.
10767 </p>
10768 <p id="TP_Q78_A5-p8"> And therefore others have said that in this phrase the word "this" appeals, not to the senses, but to the intellect; so that
10769 the meaning is, "This is My body"---i.e. "The thing signified by 'this' is My body." But neither can this stand, because,
10770 since in the sacraments the effect is that which is signified, from such a form it would not result that Christ's body was
10771 in very truth in this sacrament, but merely as in a sign, which is heretical, as stated above (
10772 <a id="TP_Q78_A5-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q85_A1.html">Q[85], A[1]</a>).
10773 </p>
10774 <p id="TP_Q78_A5-p9"> Consequently, others have said that the word "this" appeals to the senses; not at the precise instant of its being uttered,
10775 but merely at the last instant thereof; as when a man says, "Now I am silent," this adverb "now" points to the instant immediately
10776 following the speech: because the sense is: "Directly these words are spoken I am silent." But neither can this hold good,
10777 because in that case the meaning of the sentence would be: "My body is My body," which the above phrase
10778 does not effect, because this was so even before the utterance of the words: hence neither does the aforesaid sentence mean
10779 this.
10780 </p>
10781 <p id="TP_Q78_A5-p10"> Consequently, then, it remains to be said, as stated above
10782 <a id="TP_Q78_A5-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q78_A4.html">(A[4])</a>, that this sentence possesses the power of effecting the conversion of the bread into the body of Christ. And therefore it
10783 is compared to other sentences, which have power only of signifying and not of producing, as the concept of the practical
10784 intellect, which is productive of the thing, is compared to the concept of our speculative intellect which is drawn from things.
10785 because "words are
10786 signs of concepts," as the Philosopher says (Peri Herm. i). And therefore as the concept of the practical intellect does not
10787 presuppose the thing understood, but makes it, so the truth of this expression does not presuppose the thing signified, but
10788 makes it; for such is the relation of God's word to the things made by the Word. Now this change takes place not successively,
10789 but in an instant, as stated above (Q[77], A[7]). Consequently one must understand the aforesaid expression with reference
10790 to the last instant of the words being spoken, yet not so that the subject may be understood to have stood for that which
10791 is the term of the conversion; viz. that the body of Christ is the body of Christ; nor again that the subject be understood
10792 to stand for that which it was before the conversion, namely, the bread. but for that which is commonly related to both, i.e.
10793 that which is contained in general under those species. For these words do not make the body of Christ to be the body of
10794 Christ, nor do they make the bread to be the body of Christ; but what was contained under those species, and was formerly
10795 bread, they make to be the body of Christ. And therefore expressly our Lord did not say: "This bread is My body," which would
10796 be the meaning of the second opinion; nor "This My body is My body," which would be the meaning of the third opinion: but
10797 in general: "This is My body," assigning no noun on the part of the subject, but only a pronoun, which signifies substance
10798 in
10799 common, without quality, that is, without a determinate form.
10800 </p>
10801 <p id="TP_Q78_A5-p11">
10802 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The term "this" points to a substance, yet without determining its proper nature, as stated above.
10803 </p>
10804 <p id="TP_Q78_A5-p12">
10805 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The pronoun "this" does not indicate the accidents, but the substance underlying the accidents, which at first was bread,
10806 and is afterwards the body of Christ, which body, although not informed by those accidents, is yet contained under them.
10807 </p>
10808 <p id="TP_Q78_A5-p13">
10809 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The meaning of this expression is, in the order of nature, understood before the thing signified, just as a cause is naturally
10810 prior to the effect; but not in order of time, because this cause has its effect with it at the same time, and this suffices
10811 for the truth of the expression.
10812 </p>
10813 <p id="TP_Q78_A5-p14"></p>
10814 <p id="TP_Q78_A5-p15"></p>
10815 <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A4.html"></a>
10816 <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A6.html"></a>
10817 </div>
10818 <div id="TP_Q78_A6" class="div4">
10819 <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A5.html"></a>
10820 <a href="summa.TP_Q79.html"></a>
10821 <h4 id="TP_Q78_A6-p0.1">Whether the form of the consecration of the bread accomplishes its effect before the form of the consecration of the wine
10822 be completed?
10823 </h4>
10824 <p id="TP_Q78_A6-p1"></p>
10825 <p id="TP_Q78_A6-p2">
10826 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the form of the consecration of the bread does not accomplish its effect until the form for the consecration
10827 of the wine be completed. For, as Christ's body begins to be in this sacrament by the consecration of the bread, so does His
10828 blood come to be there by the consecration of the wine. If, then, the words for consecrating the bread were to produce their
10829 effect before the consecration of the wine, it would follow that Christ's body would be
10830 present in this sacrament without the blood, which is improper.
10831 </p>
10832 <p id="TP_Q78_A6-p3">
10833 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, one sacrament has one completion: hence although there be three immersions in Baptism, yet the first immersion does
10834 not produce its effect until the third be completed. But all this sacrament is one, as stated above (
10835 <a id="TP_Q78_A6-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q73_A2.html">Q[73], A[2]</a>). Therefore the words whereby the bread is consecrated do not bring about their effect without the sacramental words whereby
10836 the wine is consecrated.
10837 </p>
10838 <p id="TP_Q78_A6-p4">
10839 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, there are several words in the form for consecrating the bread, the first of which do not secure their effect until
10840 the last be uttered, as stated above (A[4], ad 3). Therefore, for the same reason, neither do the words for the consecration
10841 of Christ's body produce their effect, until the words for consecrating Christ's blood are spoken.
10842 </p>
10843 <p id="TP_Q78_A6-p5">
10844 <b>On the contrary,</b> Directly the words are uttered for consecrating the bread, the consecrated host is shown to the people to be adored, which
10845 would not be done if Christ's body were not there, for that would be an act of idolatry. Therefore the consecrating words
10846 of the bread produce their effect before. the words are spoken for consecrating the wine.
10847 </p>
10848 <p id="TP_Q78_A6-p6">
10849 <b>I answer that,</b> Some of the earlier doctors said that these two forms, namely, for consecrating the bread and the wine, await each other's
10850 action, so that the first does not produce its effect until the second be uttered.
10851 </p>
10852 <p id="TP_Q78_A6-p7"> But this cannot stand, because, as stated above (A[5], ad 3), for the truth of this phrase, "This is My body," wherein the
10853 verb is in the present tense, it is required for the thing signified to be present simultaneously in time with the signification
10854 of the expression used; otherwise, if the thing signified had to be awaited for afterwards, a verb of the future tense would
10855 be employed, and not one of the present tense, so that we should not say, "This is My body," but "This
10856 will be My body." But the signification of this speech is complete directly those words are spoken. And therefore the thing
10857 signified must be present instantaneously, and such is the effect of this sacrament; otherwise it would not be a true speech.
10858 Moreover, this opinion is against the rite of the Church, which forthwith adores the body of Christ after the words are uttered.
10859 </p>
10860 <p id="TP_Q78_A6-p8"> Hence it must be said that the first form does not await the second in its action, but has its effect on the instant.</p>
10861 <p id="TP_Q78_A6-p9">
10862 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> It is on this account that they who maintained the above opinion seem to have erred. Hence it must be understood that directly
10863 the consecration of the bread is complete, the body of Christ is indeed present by the power of the sacrament, and the blood
10864 by real concomitance; but afterwards by the consecration of the wine, conversely, the blood of Christ is there by the power
10865 of the sacrament, and the body by real concomitance, so that the entire Christ
10866 is under either species, as stated above (
10867 <a id="TP_Q78_A6-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q76_A2.html">Q[76], A[2]</a>).
10868 </p>
10869 <p id="TP_Q78_A6-p10">
10870 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This sacrament is one in perfection, as stated above (
10871 <a id="TP_Q78_A6-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q73_A2.html">Q[73] , A[2]</a>), namely, inasmuch as it is made up of two things, that is, of food and drink, each of which of itself has its own perfection;
10872 but the three immersions of Baptism are ordained to one simple effect, and therefore there is no resemblance.
10873 </p>
10874 <p id="TP_Q78_A6-p11">
10875 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The various words in the form for consecrating the bread constitute the truth of one speech, but the words of the different
10876 forms do not, and consequently there is no parallel.
10877 </p>
10878 <p id="TP_Q78_A6-p12"></p>
10879 <p id="TP_Q78_A6-p13"></p>
10880 <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A5.html"></a>
10881 <a href="summa.TP_Q79.html"></a>
10882 </div>
10883 <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A8.html"></a>
10884 <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A1.html"></a>
10885 </div>
10886 <div id="TP_Q79" class="div3">
10887 <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A6.html"></a>
10888 <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A1.html"></a>
10889 <h3 id="TP_Q79-p0.1">OF THE EFFECTS OF THIS SACRAMENT (EIGHT ARTICLES)</h3>
10890 <p id="TP_Q79-p1"></p>
10891 <p id="TP_Q79-p2"> We must now consider the effects of this sacrament, and under this head there are eight points of inquiry:</p>
10892 <p id="TP_Q79-p3"> (1) Whether this sacrament bestows grace?</p>
10893 <p id="TP_Q79-p4"> (2) Whether the attaining of glory is an effect of this sacrament?</p>
10894 <p id="TP_Q79-p5"> (3) Whether the forgiveness of mortal sin is an effect of this sacrament?</p>
10895 <p id="TP_Q79-p6"> (4) Whether venial sin is forgiven by this sacrament?</p>
10896 <p id="TP_Q79-p7"> (5) Whether the entire punishment due for sin is forgiven by this sacrament?</p>
10897 <p id="TP_Q79-p8"> (6) Whether this sacrament preserves man from future sins?</p>
10898 <p id="TP_Q79-p9"> (7) Whether this sacrament benefits others besides the recipients?</p>
10899 <p id="TP_Q79-p10"> (8) Of the obstacles to the effect of this sacrament.</p>
10900 <div id="TP_Q79_A1" class="div4">
10901 <a href="summa.TP_Q79.html"></a>
10902 <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A2.html"></a>
10903 <h4 id="TP_Q79_A1-p0.1">Whether grace is bestowed through this sacrament?</h4>
10904 <p id="TP_Q79_A1-p1"></p>
10905 <p id="TP_Q79_A1-p2">
10906 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that grace is not bestowed through this sacrament. For this sacrament is spiritual nourishment. But nourishment
10907 is only given to the living. Therefore since the spiritual life is the effect of grace, this sacrament belongs only to one
10908 in the state of grace. Therefore grace is not bestowed through this sacrament for it to be had in the first instance. In like
10909 manner neither is it given so as grace may be increased, because spiritual growth belongs to
10910 the sacrament of Confirmation, as stated above (
10911 <a id="TP_Q79_A1-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q72_A1.html">Q[72], A[1]</a>). Consequently, grace is not bestowed through this sacrament.
10912 </p>
10913 <p id="TP_Q79_A1-p3">
10914 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, this sacrament is given as a spiritual refreshment. But spiritual refreshment seems to belong to the use of grace
10915 rather than to its bestowal. Therefore it seems that grace is not given through this sacrament.
10916 </p>
10917 <p id="TP_Q79_A1-p4">
10918 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as was said above (Q[74], A[1]), "Christ's body is offered up in this sacrament for the salvation of the body, and
10919 His blood for that of the soul." Now it is not the body which is the subject of grace, but the soul, as was shown in the
10920 <a id="TP_Q79_A1-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q110_A4.html">FS, Q[110], A[4]</a>. Therefore grace is not bestowed through this sacrament, at least so far as the body is concerned.
10921 </p>
10922 <p id="TP_Q79_A1-p5">
10923 <b>On the contrary,</b> Our Lord says (
10924 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q79_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.6.52" target="asv">Jn. 6:52</a>): "The bread which I will give, is My flesh for the life of the world." But the spiritual life is the effect of grace. Therefore
10925 grace is bestowed through this sacrament.
10926 </p>
10927 <p id="TP_Q79_A1-p6">
10928 <b>I answer that,</b> The effect of this sacrament ought to be considered, first of all and principally, from what is contained in this sacrament,
10929 which is Christ; Who, just as by coming into the world, He visibly bestowed the life of grace upon the world, according to
10930 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q79_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.17" target="asv"> Jn. 1:17</a>: "Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ," so also, by coming sacramentally into man causes the life of grace, according to
10931 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q79_A1-p6.2" href="./asv.html#John.6.58" target="asv"> Jn. 6:58</a>: "He that eateth Me, the same
10932 also shall live by Me." Hence Cyril says on
10933 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q79_A1-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Luke.22.19" target="asv"> Lk. 22:19</a>: "God's life-giving Word by uniting Himself with His own flesh, made it to be productive of life. For it was becoming that
10934 He should be united somehow with bodies through His sacred flesh and precious blood, which we receive in a life-giving blessing
10935 in the bread and wine."
10936 </p>
10937 <p id="TP_Q79_A1-p7"> Secondly, it is considered on the part of what is represented by this sacrament, which is Christ's Passion, as stated above
10938 (
10939 <a id="TP_Q79_A1-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q74_A1.html">Q[74], A[1]</a>;
10940 <a id="TP_Q79_A1-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q76_A2.html"> Q[76] , A[2]</a>, ad 1). And therefore this sacrament works in man the effect which Christ's Passion wrought in the world. Hence, Chrysostom
10941 says on the words, "Immediately there came out blood and water" (
10942 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q79_A1-p7.3" href="./asv.html#John.19.34" target="asv">Jn. 19:34</a>): "Since the sacred mysteries derive their origin from thence,
10943 when you draw nigh to the awe-inspiring chalice, so approach as if you were going to drink from Christ's own side." Hence
10944 our Lord Himself says (
10945 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q79_A1-p7.4" href="./asv.html#Matt.26.28" target="asv">Mat. 26:28</a>): "This is My blood . . . which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins."
10946 </p>
10947 <p id="TP_Q79_A1-p8"> Thirdly, the effect of this sacrament is considered from the way in which this sacrament is given; for it is given by way
10948 of food and drink. And therefore this sacrament does for the spiritual life all that material food does for the bodily life,
10949 namely, by sustaining, giving increase, restoring, and giving delight. Accordingly, Ambrose says (De Sacram. v): "This is
10950 the bread of everlasting life, which supports the substance of our soul." And Chrysostom says (Hom. xlvi in
10951 Joan.): "When we desire it, He lets us feel Him, and eat Him, and embrace Him." And hence our Lord says (
10952 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q79_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#John.6.56" target="asv">Jn. 6:56</a>): "My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed."
10953 </p>
10954 <p id="TP_Q79_A1-p9"> Fourthly, the effect of this sacrament is considered from the species under which it is given. Hence Augustine says (Tract.
10955 xxvi in Joan.): "Our Lord betokened His body and blood in things which out of many units are made into some one whole: for
10956 out of many grains is one thing made," viz. bread; "and many grapes flow into one thing," viz. wine. And therefore he observes
10957 elsewhere (Tract. xxvi in Joan.): "O sacrament of piety, O sign of unity, O bond of charity!"
10958 </p>
10959 <p id="TP_Q79_A1-p10"> And since Christ and His Passion are the cause of grace. and since spiritual refreshment, and charity cannot be without grace,
10960 it is clear from all that has been set forth that this sacrament bestows grace.
10961 </p>
10962 <p id="TP_Q79_A1-p11">
10963 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This sacrament has of itself the power of bestowing grace; nor does anyone possess grace before receiving this sacrament
10964 except from some desire thereof; from his own desire, as in the case of the adult. or from the Church's desire in the case
10965 of children, as stated above (
10966 <a id="TP_Q79_A1-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q73_A3.html">Q[73], A[3]</a>). Hence it is due to the efficacy of its power, that even from desire thereof a man procures grace whereby he is enabled
10967 to lead the spiritual
10968 life. It remains, then, that when the sacrament itself is really received, grace is increased, and the spiritual life perfected:
10969 yet in different fashion from the sacrament of Confirmation, in which grace is increased and perfected for resisting the outward
10970 assaults of Christ's enemies. But by this sacrament grace receives increase, and the spiritual life is perfected, so that
10971 man may stand perfect in himself by union with God.
10972 </p>
10973 <p id="TP_Q79_A1-p12">
10974 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This sacrament confers grace spiritually together with the virtue of charity. Hence Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv) compares
10975 this sacrament to the burning coal which Isaias saw (
10976 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q79_A1-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.6.6" target="asv">Is. 6:6</a>): "For a live ember is not simply wood, but wood united to fire; so also the bread of communion is not simple bread but bread
10977 united with the Godhead." But as Gregory observes in a Homily for Pentecost, "God's love is never idle; for, wherever it is
10978 it does great works." And consequently through this sacrament, as far as its power is concerned, not only is the habit of
10979 grace and of virtue bestowed, but it is furthermore aroused to act, according to
10980 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q79_A1-p12.2" href="./asv.html#iiCor.5.14" target="asv">2 Cor. 5:14</a>: "The charity of Christ presseth us." Hence it is that the soul is spiritually nourished through the power of this sacrament,
10981 by being spiritually gladdened, and as it were inebriated with the sweetness of the Divine goodness, according to
10982 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q79_A1-p12.3" href="./asv.html#Song.5.1" target="asv"> Cant
10983 5:1
10984 </a>: "Eat, O friends, and drink, and be inebriated, my dearly beloved."
10985 </p>
10986 <p id="TP_Q79_A1-p13">
10987 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Because the sacraments operate according to the similitude by which they signify, therefore by way of assimilation it is
10988 said that in this sacrament "the body is offered for the salvation of the body, and the blood for the salvation of the soul,"
10989 although each works for the salvation of both, since the entire Christ is under each, as stated above (
10990 <a id="TP_Q79_A1-p13.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q76_A2.html">Q[76], A[2]</a>). And although the body is not the immediate subject of grace, still
10991 the effect of grace flows into the body while in the present life we present "our [Vulg.: 'your'] members" as "instruments
10992 of justice unto God" (
10993 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q79_A1-p13.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.13" target="asv">Rom. 6:13</a>), and in the life to come our body will share in the incorruption and the glory of the soul.
10994 </p>
10995 <p id="TP_Q79_A1-p14"></p>
10996 <p id="TP_Q79_A1-p15"></p>
10997 <a href="summa.TP_Q79.html"></a>
10998 <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A2.html"></a>
10999 </div>
11000 <div id="TP_Q79_A2" class="div4">
11001 <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A1.html"></a>
11002 <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A3.html"></a>
11003 <h4 id="TP_Q79_A2-p0.1">Whether the attaining of glory is an effect of this sacrament?</h4>
11004 <p id="TP_Q79_A2-p1"></p>
11005 <p id="TP_Q79_A2-p2">
11006 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the attaining of glory is not an effect of this sacrament. For an effect is proportioned to its cause. But
11007 this sacrament belongs to "wayfarers" [viatoribus], and hence it is termed "Viaticum." Since, then, wayfarers are not yet
11008 capable of glory, it seems that this sacrament does not cause the attaining of glory.
11009 </p>
11010 <p id="TP_Q79_A2-p3">
11011 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, given sufficient cause, the effect follows. But many take this sacrament who will never come to glory, as Augustine
11012 declares (De Civ. Dei xxi). Consequently, this sacrament is not the cause of attaining unto glory.
11013 </p>
11014 <p id="TP_Q79_A2-p4">
11015 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the greater is not brought about by the lesser, for nothing acts outside its species. But it is the lesser thing
11016 to receive Christ under a strange species, which happens in this sacrament, than to enjoy Him in His own species, which belongs
11017 to glory. Therefore this sacrament does not cause the attaining of glory.
11018 </p>
11019 <p id="TP_Q79_A2-p5">
11020 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
11021 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q79_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.6.52" target="asv">Jn. 6:52</a>): "If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever." But eternal life is the life of glory. Therefore the attaining
11022 of glory is an effect of this sacrament.
11023 </p>
11024 <p id="TP_Q79_A2-p6">
11025 <b>I answer that,</b> In this sacrament we may consider both that from which it derives its effect, namely, Christ contained in it, as also His
11026 Passion represented by it; and that through which it works its effect, namely, the use of the sacrament, and its species.
11027 </p>
11028 <p id="TP_Q79_A2-p7"> Now as to both of these it belongs to this sacrament to cause the attaining of eternal life. Because it was by His Passion
11029 that Christ opened to us the approach to eternal life, according to
11030 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q79_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.9.15" target="asv"> Heb. 9:15</a>: "He is the Mediator of the New Testament; that by means of His death . . . they that are called may receive the promise
11031 of eternal inheritance." Accordingly in the form of this sacrament it is said: "This is the chalice of My blood, of the New
11032 and Eternal
11033 Testament."
11034 </p>
11035 <p id="TP_Q79_A2-p8"> In like manner the refreshment of spiritual food and the unity denoted by the species of the bread and wine are to be had
11036 in the present life, although imperfectly. but perfectly in the state of glory. Hence Augustine says on the words, "My flesh
11037 is meat indeed" (
11038 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q79_A2-p8.1" href="./asv.html#John.6.56" target="asv">Jn. 6:56</a>): "Seeing that in meat and drink, men aim at this, that they hunger not nor thirst, this verily nought doth afford save only
11039 this meat and drink which maketh them who partake thereof to be
11040 immortal and incorruptible, in the fellowship of the saints, where shall be peace, and unity, full and perfect."
11041 </p>
11042 <p id="TP_Q79_A2-p9">
11043 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As Christ's Passion, in virtue whereof this sacrament is accomplished, is indeed the sufficient cause of glory, yet not so
11044 that we are thereby forthwith admitted to glory, but we must first "suffer with Him in order that we may also be glorified"
11045 afterwards "with Him" (
11046 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q79_A2-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.17" target="asv">Rom. 8:17</a>), so this sacrament does not at once admit us to glory, but bestows on us the power of coming unto glory. And therefore it
11047 is called "Viaticum," a figure whereof we read in
11048
11049 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q79_A2-p9.2" href="./asv.html#." target="asv">3 Kings 19:8</a>: "Elias ate and drank, and walked in the strength of that food forty days and forty nights unto the mount of God, Horeb."
11050 </p>
11051 <p id="TP_Q79_A2-p10">
11052 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Just as Christ's Passion has not its effect in them who are not disposed towards it as they should be, so also they do not
11053 come to glory through this sacrament who receive it unworthily. Hence Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan.), expounding the same
11054 passage, observes: "The sacrament is one thing, the power of the sacrament another. Many receive it from the altar . . . and
11055 by receiving" . . . die . . . Eat, then, spiritually the heavenly "bread, bring
11056 innocence to the altar." It is no wonder, then, if those who do not keep innocence, do not secure the effect of this sacrament.
11057 </p>
11058 <p id="TP_Q79_A2-p11">
11059 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> That Christ is received under another species belongs to the nature of a sacrament, which acts instrumentally. But there
11060 is nothing to prevent an instrumental cause from producing a more mighty effect, as is evident from what was said above (
11061 <a id="TP_Q79_A2-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q77_A3.html">Q[77], A[3]</a>, ad 3).
11062 </p>
11063 <p id="TP_Q79_A2-p12"></p>
11064 <p id="TP_Q79_A2-p13"></p>
11065 <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A1.html"></a>
11066 <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A3.html"></a>
11067 </div>
11068 <div id="TP_Q79_A3" class="div4">
11069 <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A2.html"></a>
11070 <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A4.html"></a>
11071 <h4 id="TP_Q79_A3-p0.1">Whether the forgiveness of mortal sin is an effect of this sacrament?</h4>
11072 <p id="TP_Q79_A3-p1"></p>
11073 <p id="TP_Q79_A3-p2">
11074 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the forgiveness of mortal sin is an effect of this sacrament. For it is said in one of the Collects (Postcommunion,
11075 Pro vivis et defunctis): "May this sacrament be a cleansing from crimes." But mortal sins are called crimes. Therefore mortal
11076 sins are blotted out by this sacrament.
11077 </p>
11078 <p id="TP_Q79_A3-p3">
11079 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, this sacrament, like Baptism, works by the power of Christ's Passion. But mortal sins are forgiven by Baptism, as
11080 stated above (
11081 <a id="TP_Q79_A3-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q69_A1.html">Q[69], A[1]</a>). Therefore they are forgiven likewise by this sacrament, especially since in the form of this sacrament it is said: "Which
11082 shall be shed for many unto the forgiveness of sins."
11083 </p>
11084 <p id="TP_Q79_A3-p4">
11085 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, grace is bestowed through this sacrament, as stated above
11086 <a id="TP_Q79_A3-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q79_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. But by grace a man is justified from mortal sins, according to
11087 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q79_A3-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.3.24" target="asv"> Rom. 3:24</a>: "Being justified freely by His grace." Therefore mortal sins are forgiven by this sacrament.
11088 </p>
11089 <p id="TP_Q79_A3-p5">
11090 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
11091 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q79_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.11.29" target="asv">1 Cor. 11:29</a>): "He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself": and a gloss of the same passage makes
11092 the following commentary: "He eats and drinks unworthily who is in the state of sin, or who handles (the sacrament) irreverently;
11093 and such a one eats and drinks judgment, i.e. damnation, unto himself." Therefore, he that is in mortal sin, by taking the
11094 sacrament heaps sin upon sin,
11095 rather than obtains forgiveness of his sin.
11096 </p>
11097 <p id="TP_Q79_A3-p6">
11098 <b>I answer that,</b> The power of this sacrament can be considered in two ways. First of all, in itself: and thus this sacrament has from Christ's
11099 Passion the power of forgiving all sins, since the Passion is the fount and cause of the forgiveness of sins.
11100 </p>
11101 <p id="TP_Q79_A3-p7"> Secondly, it can be considered in comparison with the recipient of the sacrament, in so far as there is, or is not, found
11102 in him an obstacle to receiving the fruit of this sacrament. Now whoever is conscious of mortal sin, has within him an obstacle
11103 to receiving the effect of this sacrament; since he is not a proper recipient of this sacrament, both because he is not alive
11104 spiritually, and so he ought not to eat the spiritual nourishment, since nourishment is confined to the
11105 living; and because he cannot be united with Christ, which is the effect of this sacrament, as long as he retains an attachment
11106 towards mortal sin. Consequently, as is said in the book De Eccles. Dogm.: "If the soul leans towards sin, it is burdened
11107 rather than purified from partaking of the Eucharist." Hence, in him who is conscious of mortal sin, this sacrament does not
11108 cause the forgiveness of sin.
11109 </p>
11110 <p id="TP_Q79_A3-p8"> Nevertheless this sacrament can effect the forgiveness of sin in two ways. First of all, by being received, not actually,
11111 but in desire; as when a man is first justified from sin. Secondly, when received by one in mortal sin of which he is not
11112 conscious, and for which he has no attachment; since possibly he was not sufficiently contrite at first, but by approaching
11113 this sacrament devoutly and reverently he obtains the grace of charity, which will perfect his contrition and bring
11114 forgiveness of sin.
11115 </p>
11116 <p id="TP_Q79_A3-p9">
11117 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> We ask that this sacrament may be the "cleansing of crimes," or of those sins of which we are unconscious, according to
11118 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q79_A3-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.18.13" target="asv">Ps. 18:13</a>: "Lord, cleanse me from my hidden sins"; or that our contrition may be perfected for the forgiveness of our sins; or that
11119 strength be bestowed on us to avoid sin.
11120 </p>
11121 <p id="TP_Q79_A3-p10">
11122 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Baptism is spiritual generation, which is a transition from spiritual non-being into spiritual being, and is given by way
11123 of ablution. Consequently, in both respects he who is conscious of mortal sin does not improperly approach Baptism. But in
11124 this sacrament man receives Christ within himself by way of spiritual nourishment, which is unbecoming to one that lies dead
11125 in his sins. Therefore the comparison does not hold good.
11126 </p>
11127 <p id="TP_Q79_A3-p11">
11128 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Grace is the sufficient cause of the forgiveness of mortal sin; yet it does not forgive sin except when it is first bestowed
11129 on the sinner. But it is not given so in this sacrament. Hence the argument does not prove.
11130 </p>
11131 <p id="TP_Q79_A3-p12"></p>
11132 <p id="TP_Q79_A3-p13"></p>
11133 <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A2.html"></a>
11134 <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A4.html"></a>
11135 </div>
11136 <div id="TP_Q79_A4" class="div4">
11137 <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A3.html"></a>
11138 <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A5.html"></a>
11139 <h4 id="TP_Q79_A4-p0.1">Whether venial sins are forgiven through this sacrament?</h4>
11140 <p id="TP_Q79_A4-p1"></p>
11141 <p id="TP_Q79_A4-p2">
11142 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that venial sins are not forgiven by this sacrament, because this is the "sacrament of charity," as Augustine says
11143 (Tract. xxvi in Joan.). But venial sins are not contrary to charity, as was shown in the
11144 <a id="TP_Q79_A4-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q88_A1.html">FS, Q[88], AA[1]</a>,2;
11145 <a id="TP_Q79_A4-p2.2" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q24_A10.html">SS, Q[24], A[10]</a>. Therefore, since contrary is taken away by its contrary, it seems that venial sins are not forgiven by this sacrament.
11146 </p>
11147 <p id="TP_Q79_A4-p3">
11148 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, if venial sins be forgiven by this sacrament, then all of them are forgiven for the same reason as one is. But it
11149 does not appear that all are forgiven, because thus one might frequently be without any venial sin, against what is said in
11150
11151 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q79_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iJohn.1.8" target="asv">1 Jn. 1:8</a>: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves." Therefore no venial sin is forgiven by this sacrament.
11152 </p>
11153 <p id="TP_Q79_A4-p4">
11154 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, contraries mutually exclude each other. But venial sins do not forbid the receiving of this sacrament: because Augustine
11155 says on the words, "If any man eat of it he shall [Vulg.: 'may'] not die for ever" (
11156 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q79_A4-p4.1" href="./asv.html#John.6.50" target="asv">Jn. 6:50</a>): "Bring innocence to the altar: your sins, though they be daily . . . let them not be deadly." Therefore neither are venial
11157 sins taken away by this sacrament.
11158 </p>
11159 <p id="TP_Q79_A4-p5">
11160 <b>On the contrary,</b> Innocent III says (De S. Alt. Myst. iv) that this sacrament "blots out venial sins, and wards off mortal sins."
11161 </p>
11162 <p id="TP_Q79_A4-p6">
11163 <b>I answer that,</b> Two things may be considered in this sacrament, to wit, the sacrament itself, and the reality of the sacrament: and it appears
11164 from both that this sacrament has the power of forgiving venial sins. For this sacrament is received under the form of nourishing
11165 food. Now nourishment from food is requisite for the body to make good the daily waste caused by the action of natural heat.
11166 But something is also lost daily of our spirituality from the heat of
11167 concupiscence through venial sins, which lessen the fervor of charity, as was shown in the
11168 <a id="TP_Q79_A4-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q24_A10.html">SS, Q[24], A[10]</a>. And therefore it belongs to this sacrament to forgive venial sins. Hence Ambrose says (De Sacram. v) that this daily bread
11169 is taken "as a remedy against daily infirmity."
11170 </p>
11171 <p id="TP_Q79_A4-p7"> The reality of this sacrament is charity, not only as to its habit, but also as to its act, which is kindled in this sacrament;
11172 and by this means venial sins are forgiven. Consequently, it is manifest that venial sins are forgiven by the power of this
11173 sacrament.
11174 </p>
11175 <p id="TP_Q79_A4-p8">
11176 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Venial sins, although not opposed to the habit of charity, are nevertheless opposed to the fervor of its act, which act is
11177 kindled by this sacrament; by reason of which act venial sins are blotted out.
11178 </p>
11179 <p id="TP_Q79_A4-p9">
11180 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The passage quoted is not to be understood as if a man could not at some time be without all guilt of venial sin: but that
11181 the just do not pass through this life without committing venial sins.
11182 </p>
11183 <p id="TP_Q79_A4-p10">
11184 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The power of charity, to which this sacrament belongs, is greater than that of venial sins: because charity by its act takes
11185 away venial sins, which nevertheless cannot entirely hinder the act of charity. And the same holds good of this sacrament.
11186 </p>
11187 <p id="TP_Q79_A4-p11"></p>
11188 <p id="TP_Q79_A4-p12"></p>
11189 <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A3.html"></a>
11190 <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A5.html"></a>
11191 </div>
11192 <div id="TP_Q79_A5" class="div4">
11193 <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A4.html"></a>
11194 <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A6.html"></a>
11195 <h4 id="TP_Q79_A5-p0.1">Whether the entire punishment due to sin is forgiven through this sacrament?</h4>
11196 <p id="TP_Q79_A5-p1"></p>
11197 <p id="TP_Q79_A5-p2">
11198 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the entire punishment due to sin is forgiven through this sacrament. For through this sacrament man receives
11199 the effect of Christ's Passion within himself as stated above (
11200 <a id="TP_Q79_A5-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q79_A1.html">AA[1]</a>,2), just as he does through Baptism. But through Baptism man receives forgiveness of all punishment, through the virtue of
11201 Christ's Passion, which satisfied sufficiently for all sins, as was explained above (Q[69], A[2] ). Therefore it seems the
11202 whole debt of punishment is forgiven through this sacrament.
11203 </p>
11204 <p id="TP_Q79_A5-p3">
11205 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Pope Alexander I says (Ep. ad omnes orth.): "No sacrifice can be greater than the body and the blood of Christ."
11206 But man satisfied for his sins by the sacrifices of the old Law: for it is written (
11207 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q79_A5-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.4" target="asv">Lev. 4</a>,
11208 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q79_A5-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Lev.5" target="asv">5</a>): "If a man shall sin, let him offer" (so and so) "for his sin, and it shall be forgiven him." Therefore this sacrament avails
11209 much more for the forgiveness of all punishment.
11210 </p>
11211 <p id="TP_Q79_A5-p4">
11212 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is certain that some part of the debt of punishment is forgiven by this sacrament; for which reason it is sometimes
11213 enjoined upon a man, by way of satisfaction, to have masses said for himself. But if one part of the punishment is forgiven,
11214 for the same reason is the other forgiven: owing to Christ's infinite power contained in this sacrament. Consequently, it
11215 seems that the whole punishment can be taken away by this sacrament.
11216 </p>
11217 <p id="TP_Q79_A5-p5">
11218 <b>On the contrary,</b> In that case no other punishment would have to be enjoined; just as none is imposed upon the newly baptized.
11219 </p>
11220 <p id="TP_Q79_A5-p6">
11221 <b>I answer that,</b> This sacrament is both a sacrifice and a sacrament. it has the nature of a sacrifice inasmuch as it is offered up; and it
11222 has the nature of a sacrament inasmuch as it is received. And therefore it has the effect of a sacrament in the recipient,
11223 and the effect of a sacrifice in the offerer, or in them for whom it is offered.
11224 </p>
11225 <p id="TP_Q79_A5-p7"> If, then, it be considered as a sacrament, it produces its effect in two ways: first of all directly through the power of
11226 the sacrament; secondly as by a kind of concomitance, as was said above regarding what is contained in the sacrament (
11227 <a id="TP_Q79_A5-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q76_A1.html">Q[76], AA[1]</a>,2). Through the power of the sacrament it produces directly that effect for which it was instituted. Now it was instituted
11228 not for satisfaction, but for nourishing spiritually through union between Christ
11229 and His members, as nourishment is united with the person nourished. But because this union is the effect of charity, from
11230 the fervor of which man obtains forgiveness, not only of guilt but also of punishment, hence it is that as a consequence,
11231 and by concomitance with the chief effect, man obtains forgiveness of the punishment, not indeed of the entire punishment,
11232 but according to the measure of his devotion and fervor.
11233 </p>
11234 <p id="TP_Q79_A5-p8"> But in so far as it is a sacrifice, it has a satisfactory power. Yet in satisfaction, the affection of the offerer is weighed
11235 rather than the quantity of the offering. Hence our Lord says (
11236 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q79_A5-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.12.43" target="asv">Mk. 12:43</a>: cf.
11237 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q79_A5-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.21.4" target="asv"> Lk. 21:4</a>) of the widow who offered "two mites" that she "cast in more than all." Therefore, although this offering suffices of its
11238 own quantity to satisfy for all punishment, yet it becomes satisfactory for them for whom it is offered,
11239 or even for the offerers, according to the measure of their devotion, and not for the whole punishment.
11240 </p>
11241 <p id="TP_Q79_A5-p9">
11242 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The sacrament of Baptism is directly ordained for the remission of punishment and guilt: not so the Eucharist, because Baptism
11243 is given to man as dying with Christ, whereas the Eucharist is given as by way of nourishing and perfecting him through Christ.
11244 Consequently there is no parallel.
11245 </p>
11246 <p id="TP_Q79_A5-p10">
11247 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Those other sacrifices and oblations did not effect the forgiveness of the whole punishment, neither as to the quantity of
11248 the thing offered, as this sacrament does, nor as to personal devotion; from which it comes to pass that even here the whole
11249 punishment is not taken away.
11250 </p>
11251 <p id="TP_Q79_A5-p11">
11252 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> If part of the punishment and not the whole be taken away by this sacrament, it is due to a defect not on the part of Christ's
11253 power, but on the part of man's devotion.
11254 </p>
11255 <p id="TP_Q79_A5-p12"></p>
11256 <p id="TP_Q79_A5-p13"></p>
11257 <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A4.html"></a>
11258 <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A6.html"></a>
11259 </div>
11260 <div id="TP_Q79_A6" class="div4">
11261 <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A5.html"></a>
11262 <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A7.html"></a>
11263 <h4 id="TP_Q79_A6-p0.1">Whether man is preserved by this sacrament from future sins?</h4>
11264 <p id="TP_Q79_A6-p1"></p>
11265 <p id="TP_Q79_A6-p2">
11266 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that man is not preserved by this sacrament from future sins. For there are many that receive this sacrament worthily,
11267 who afterwards fall into sin. Now this would not happen if this sacrament were to preserve them from future sins. Consequently,
11268 it is not an effect of this sacrament to preserve from future sins.
11269 </p>
11270 <p id="TP_Q79_A6-p3">
11271 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Eucharist is the sacrament of charity, as stated above
11272 <a id="TP_Q79_A6-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q79_A4.html">(A[4])</a>. But charity does not seem to preserve from future sins, because it can be lost through sin after one has possessed it, as
11273 was stated in the
11274 <a id="TP_Q79_A6-p3.2" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q24_A11.html">SS, Q[24], A[11]</a>. Therefore it seems that this sacrament does not preserve man from sin.
11275 </p>
11276 <p id="TP_Q79_A6-p4">
11277 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the origin of sin within us is "the law of sin, which is in our members," as declared by the Apostle (
11278 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q79_A6-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.7.23" target="asv">Rom. 7:23</a>). But the lessening of the fomes, which is the law of sin, is set down as an effect not of this sacrament, but rather of
11279 Baptism. Therefore preservation from sin is not an effect of this sacrament.
11280 </p>
11281 <p id="TP_Q79_A6-p5">
11282 <b>On the contrary,</b> our Lord said (
11283 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q79_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.6.50" target="asv">Jn. 6:50</a>): "This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die": which manifestly is not to
11284 be understood of the death of the body. Therefore it is to be understood that this sacrament preserves from spiritual death,
11285 which is through sin.
11286 </p>
11287 <p id="TP_Q79_A6-p6">
11288 <b>I answer that,</b> Sin is the spiritual death of the soul. Hence man is preserved from future sin in the same way as the body is preserved from
11289 future death of the body: and this happens in two ways. First of all, in so far as man's nature is strengthened inwardly against
11290 inner decay, and so by means of food and medicine he is preserved from death. Secondly, by being guarded against outward assaults;
11291 and thus he is protected by means of arms by which he defends his body.
11292 </p>
11293 <p id="TP_Q79_A6-p7"> Now this sacrament preserves man from sin in both of these ways. For, first of all, by uniting man with Christ through grace,
11294 it strengthens his spiritual life, as spiritual food and spiritual medicine, according to
11295 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q79_A6-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.103.5" target="asv"> Ps. 103:5</a>: "(That) bread strengthens [Vulg.: 'may strengthen'] man's heart." Augustine likewise says (Tract. xxvi in Joan.): "Approach
11296 without fear; it is bread, not poison." Secondly, inasmuch as it is a sign of Christ's Passion, whereby the
11297 devils are conquered, it repels all the assaults of demons. Hence Chrysostom says (Hom. xlvi in Joan.): "Like lions breathing
11298 forth fire, thus do we depart from that table, being made terrible to the devil."
11299 </p>
11300 <p id="TP_Q79_A6-p8">
11301 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The effect of this sacrament is received according to man's condition: such is the case with every active cause in that its
11302 effect is received in matter according to the condition of the matter. But such is the condition of man on earth that his
11303 free-will can be bent to good or evil. Hence, although this sacrament of itself has the power of preserving from sin, yet
11304 it does not take away from man the possibility of sinning.
11305 </p>
11306 <p id="TP_Q79_A6-p9">
11307 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Even charity of itself keeps man from sin, according to
11308 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q79_A6-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.13.10" target="asv">Rom. 13:10</a>: "The love of our neighbor worketh no evil": but it is due to the mutability of free-will that a man sins after possessing
11309 charity, just as after receiving this sacrament.
11310 </p>
11311 <p id="TP_Q79_A6-p10">
11312 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although this sacrament is not ordained directly to lessen the fomes, yet it does lessen it as a consequence, inasmuch as
11313 it increases charity, because, as Augustine says (
11314 <a id="TP_Q79_A6-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q83.html">Q[83])</a>, "the increase of charity is the lessening of concupiscence." But it directly strengthens man's heart in good; whereby he
11315 is also preserved from sin.
11316 </p>
11317 <p id="TP_Q79_A6-p11"></p>
11318 <p id="TP_Q79_A6-p12"></p>
11319 <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A5.html"></a>
11320 <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A7.html"></a>
11321 </div>
11322 <div id="TP_Q79_A7" class="div4">
11323 <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A6.html"></a>
11324 <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A8.html"></a>
11325 <h4 id="TP_Q79_A7-p0.1">Whether this sacrament benefit others besides the recipients?</h4>
11326 <p id="TP_Q79_A7-p1"></p>
11327 <p id="TP_Q79_A7-p2">
11328 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that this sacrament benefits only the recipients. For this sacrament is of the same genus as the other sacraments,
11329 being one of those into which that genus is divided. But the other sacraments only benefit the recipients; thus the baptized
11330 person alone receives effect of Baptism. Therefore, neither does this sacrament benefit others than the recipients.
11331 </p>
11332 <p id="TP_Q79_A7-p3">
11333 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the effects of this sacrament are the attainment of grace and glory, and the forgiveness of sin, at least of venial
11334 sin. If therefore this sacrament were to produce its effects in others besides the recipients, a man might happen to acquire
11335 grace and glory and forgiveness of sin without doing or receiving anything himself, through another receiving or offering
11336 this sacrament.
11337 </p>
11338 <p id="TP_Q79_A7-p4">
11339 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, when the cause is multiplied, the effect is likewise multiplied. If therefore this sacrament benefit others besides
11340 the recipients, it would follow that it benefits a man more if he receive this sacrament through many hosts being consecrated
11341 in one mass, whereas this is not the Church's custom: for instance, that many receive communion for the salvation of one individual.
11342 Consequently, it does not seem that this sacrament benefits anyone but the
11343 recipient.
11344 </p>
11345 <p id="TP_Q79_A7-p5">
11346 <b>On the contrary,</b> Prayer is made for many others during the celebration of this sacrament; which would serve no purpose were the sacrament
11347 not beneficial to others. Therefore, this sacrament is beneficial not merely to them who receive it.
11348 </p>
11349 <p id="TP_Q79_A7-p6">
11350 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
11351 <a id="TP_Q79_A7-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q79_A3.html">(A[3])</a>, this sacrament is not only a sacrament, but also a sacrifice. For, it has the nature of a sacrifice inasmuch as in this
11352 sacrament Christ's Passion is represented, whereby Christ "offered Himself a Victim to God" (
11353 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q79_A7-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Eph.5.2" target="asv">Eph. 5:2</a>), and it has the nature of a sacrament inasmuch as invisible grace is bestowed in this sacrament under a visible species.
11354 So, then, this sacrament benefits recipients by
11355 way both of sacrament and of sacrifice, because it is offered for all who partake of it. For it is said in the Canon of the
11356 Mass: "May as many of us as, by participation at this Altar, shall receive the most sacred body and blood of Thy Son, be filled
11357 with all heavenly benediction and grace."
11358 </p>
11359 <p id="TP_Q79_A7-p7"> But to others who do not receive it, it is beneficial by way of sacrifice, inasmuch as it is offered for their salvation.
11360 Hence it is said in the Canon of the Mass: "Be mindful, O Lord, of Thy servants, men and women . . . for whom we offer, or
11361 who offer up to Thee, this sacrifice of praise for themselves and for all their own, for the redemption of their souls, for
11362 the hope of their safety and salvation." And our Lord expressed both ways, saying (
11363 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q79_A7-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.26.28" target="asv">Mat. 26:28,
11364
11365 </a>with
11366 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q79_A7-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.22.20" target="asv"> Lk. 22:20</a>): "Which for you," i.e. who receive it, "and for many," i.e. others, "shall be shed unto remission of sins."
11367 </p>
11368 <p id="TP_Q79_A7-p8">
11369 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This sacrament has this in addition to the others, that it is a sacrifice: and therefore the comparison fails.
11370 </p>
11371 <p id="TP_Q79_A7-p9">
11372 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Christ's Passion benefits all, for the forgiveness of sin and the attaining of grace and glory, whereas it produces no
11373 effect except in those who are united with Christ's Passion through faith and charity, so likewise this sacrifice, which is
11374 the memorial of our Lord's Passion, has no effect except in those who are united with this sacrament through faith and charity.
11375 Hence Augustine says to Renatus (De Anima et ejus origine i): "Who may offer
11376 Christ's body except for them who are Christ's members?" Hence in the Canon of the Mass no prayer is made for them who are
11377 outside the pale of the Church. But it benefits them who are members, more or less, according to the measure of their devotion.
11378 </p>
11379 <p id="TP_Q79_A7-p10">
11380 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Receiving is of the very nature of the sacrament, but offering belongs to the nature of sacrifice: consequently, when one
11381 or even several receive the body of Christ, no help accrues to others. In like fashion even when the priest consecrates several
11382 hosts in one mass, the effect of this sacrament is not increased, since there is only one sacrifice; because there is no more
11383 power in several hosts than in one, since there is only one Christ present
11384 under all the hosts and under one. Hence, neither will any one receive greater effect from the sacrament by taking many consecrated
11385 hosts in one mass. But the oblation of the sacrifice is multiplied in several masses, and therefore the effect of the sacrifice
11386 and of the sacrament is multiplied.
11387 </p>
11388 <p id="TP_Q79_A7-p11"></p>
11389 <p id="TP_Q79_A7-p12"></p>
11390 <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A6.html"></a>
11391 <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A8.html"></a>
11392 </div>
11393 <div id="TP_Q79_A8" class="div4">
11394 <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A7.html"></a>
11395 <a href="summa.TP_Q80.html"></a>
11396 <h4 id="TP_Q79_A8-p0.1">Whether the effect of this sacrament is hindered by venial sin?</h4>
11397 <p id="TP_Q79_A8-p1"></p>
11398 <p id="TP_Q79_A8-p2">
11399 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the effect of this sacrament is not hindered by venial sin. For Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan.), commenting
11400 on
11401 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q79_A8-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.6.52" target="asv"> Jn. 6:52, </a> "If any man eat of this bread," etc., says: "Eat the heavenly bread spiritually; bring innocence to the altar; your sins,
11402 though they be daily, let them not be deadly." From this it is evident that venial sins, which are called daily sins, do not
11403 prevent spiritual eating. But they who eat spiritually,
11404 receive the effect of this sacrament. Therefore, venial sins do not hinder the effect of this sacrament.
11405 </p>
11406 <p id="TP_Q79_A8-p3">
11407 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, this sacrament is not less powerful than Baptism. But, as stated above (
11408 <a id="TP_Q79_A8-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q69_A9.html">Q[69], AA[9]</a>,10), only pretense checks the effect of Baptism, and venial sins do not belong to pretense; because according to
11409 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q79_A8-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Wis.1.5" target="asv"> Wis. 1:5</a>: "the Holy Spirit of discipline will flee from the deceitful," yet He is not put to flight by venial sins. Therefore neither
11410 do venial sins hinder the effect of this sacrament.
11411 </p>
11412 <p id="TP_Q79_A8-p4">
11413 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, nothing which is removed by the action of any cause, can hinder the effect of such cause. But venial sins are taken
11414 away by this sacrament. Therefore, they do not hinder its effect.
11415 </p>
11416 <p id="TP_Q79_A8-p5">
11417 <b>On the contrary,</b> Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): "The fire of that desire which is within us, being kindled by the burning coal," i.e.
11418 this sacrament, "will consume our sins, and enlighten our hearts, so that we shall be inflamed and made godlike." But the
11419 fire of our desire or love is hindered by venial sins, which hinder the fervor of charity, as was shown in the
11420 <a id="TP_Q79_A8-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q81_A4.html">FS, Q[81], A[4]</a>;
11421 <a id="TP_Q79_A8-p5.2" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q24_A10.html">SS, Q[24], A[10]</a>. Therefore venial
11422 sins hinder the effect of this sacrament.
11423 </p>
11424 <p id="TP_Q79_A8-p6">
11425 <b>I answer that,</b> Venial sins can be taken in two ways: first of all as past, secondly as in the act of being committed. Venial sins taken
11426 in the first way do not in any way hinder the effect of this sacrament. For it can come to pass that after many venial sins
11427 a man may approach devoutly to this sacrament and fully secure its effect. Considered in the second way venial sins do not
11428 utterly hinder the effect of this sacrament, but merely in part. For, it has been stated above
11429
11430 <a id="TP_Q79_A8-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q79_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, that the effect of this sacrament is not only the obtaining of habitual grace or charity, but also a certain actual refreshment
11431 of spiritual sweetness: which is indeed hindered if anyone approach to this sacrament with mind distracted through venial
11432 sins; but the increase of habitual grace or of charity is not taken away.
11433 </p>
11434 <p id="TP_Q79_A8-p7">
11435 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> He that approaches this sacrament with actual venial sin, eats spiritually indeed, in habit but not in act: and therefore
11436 he shares in the habitual effect of the sacrament, but not in its actual effect.
11437 </p>
11438 <p id="TP_Q79_A8-p8">
11439 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Baptism is not ordained, as this sacrament is, for the fervor of charity as its actual effect. Because Baptism is spiritual
11440 regeneration, through which the first perfection is acquired, which is a habit or form; but this sacrament is spiritual eating,
11441 which has actual delight.
11442 </p>
11443 <p id="TP_Q79_A8-p9">
11444 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This argument deals with past venial sins, which are taken away by this sacrament.
11445 </p>
11446 <p id="TP_Q79_A8-p10"></p>
11447 <p id="TP_Q79_A8-p11"></p>
11448 <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A7.html"></a>
11449 <a href="summa.TP_Q80.html"></a>
11450 </div>
11451 <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A6.html"></a>
11452 <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A1.html"></a>
11453 </div>
11454 <div id="TP_Q80" class="div3">
11455 <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A8.html"></a>
11456 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A1.html"></a>
11457 <h3 id="TP_Q80-p0.1">OF THE USE OR RECEIVING OF THIS SACRAMENT IN GENERAL (TWELVE ARTICLES) </h3>
11458 <p id="TP_Q80-p1"></p>
11459 <p id="TP_Q80-p2"> We have now to consider the use or receiving of this sacrament, first of all in general; secondly, how Christ used this sacrament.</p>
11460 <p id="TP_Q80-p3"> Under the first heading there are twelve points of inquiry:</p>
11461 <p id="TP_Q80-p4"> (1) Whether there are two ways of eating this sacrament, namely, sacramentally and spiritually?</p>
11462 <p id="TP_Q80-p5"> (2) Whether it belongs to man alone to eat this sacrament spiritually?</p>
11463 <p id="TP_Q80-p6"> (3) Whether it belongs to the just man only to eat it sacramentally?</p>
11464 <p id="TP_Q80-p7"> (4) Whether the sinner sins in eating it sacramentally?</p>
11465 <p id="TP_Q80-p8"> (5) Of the degree of this sin;</p>
11466 <p id="TP_Q80-p9"> (6) Whether this sacrament should be refused to the sinner that approaches it?</p>
11467 <p id="TP_Q80-p10"> (7) Whether nocturnal pollution prevents man from receiving this sacrament?</p>
11468 <p id="TP_Q80-p11"> (8) Whether it is to be received only when one is fasting?</p>
11469 <p id="TP_Q80-p12"> (9) Whether it is to be given to them who lack the use of reason?</p>
11470 <p id="TP_Q80-p13"> (10) Whether it is to be received daily?</p>
11471 <p id="TP_Q80-p14"> (11) Whether it is lawful to refrain from it altogether?</p>
11472 <p id="TP_Q80-p15"> (12) Whether it is lawful to receive the body without the blood?</p>
11473 <div id="TP_Q80_A1" class="div4">
11474 <a href="summa.TP_Q80.html"></a>
11475 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A2.html"></a>
11476 <h4 id="TP_Q80_A1-p0.1">Whether there are two ways to be distinguished of eating Christ's body?</h4>
11477 <p id="TP_Q80_A1-p1"></p>
11478 <p id="TP_Q80_A1-p2">
11479 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that two ways ought not to be distinguished of eating Christ's body, namely, sacramentally and spiritually. For,
11480 as Baptism is spiritual regeneration, according to
11481 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.3.5" target="asv"> Jn. 3:5</a>: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost," etc., so also this sacrament is spiritual food: hence our Lord,
11482 speaking of this sacrament, says (
11483 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A1-p2.2" href="./asv.html#John.6.64" target="asv">Jn. 6:64</a>): "The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." But there are
11484 no two distinct ways of receiving Baptism, namely, sacramentally and spiritually. Therefore neither ought this distinction
11485 to be made regarding this sacrament.
11486 </p>
11487 <p id="TP_Q80_A1-p3">
11488 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, when two things are so related that one is on account of the other, they should not be put in contra-distinction
11489 to one another, because the one derives its species from the other. But sacramental eating is ordained for spiritual eating
11490 as its end. Therefore sacramental eating ought not to be divided in contrast with spiritual eating.
11491 </p>
11492 <p id="TP_Q80_A1-p4">
11493 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, things which cannot exist without one another ought not to be divided in contrast with each other. But it seems
11494 that no one can eat spiritually without eating sacramentally; otherwise the fathers of old would have eaten this sacrament
11495 spiritually. Moreover, sacramental eating would be to no purpose, if the spiritual eating could be had without it. Therefore
11496 it is not right to distinguish a twofold eating, namely, sacramental and spiritual.
11497 </p>
11498 <p id="TP_Q80_A1-p5">
11499 <b>On the contrary,</b> The gloss says on
11500 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.11.29" target="asv">1 Cor. 11:29</a>: "He that eateth and drinketh unworthily," etc.: "We hold that there are two ways of eating, the one sacramental, and the
11501 other spiritual."
11502 </p>
11503 <p id="TP_Q80_A1-p6">
11504 <b>I answer that,</b> There are two things to be considered in the receiving of this sacrament, namely, the sacrament itself, and its fruits, and
11505 we have already spoken of both (QQ[73],79). The perfect way, then, of receiving this sacrament is when one takes it so as
11506 to partake of its effect. Now, as was stated above (
11507 <a id="TP_Q80_A1-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q79_A3.html">Q[79], AA[3]</a>,8), it sometimes happens that a man is hindered from receiving the effect of this sacrament; and such receiving of this
11508 sacrament is an imperfect one. Therefore, as the perfect is divided against the imperfect, so sacramental eating, whereby
11509 the sacrament only is received without its effect, is divided against spiritual eating, by which one receives the effect of
11510 this sacrament, whereby a man is spiritually united with Christ through faith and charity.
11511 </p>
11512 <p id="TP_Q80_A1-p7">
11513 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The same distinction is made regarding Baptism and the other sacraments: for, some receive the sacrament only, while others
11514 receive the sacrament and the reality of the sacrament. However, there is a difference, because, since the other sacraments
11515 are accomplished in the use of the matter, the receiving of the sacrament is the actual perfection of the sacrament; whereas
11516 this sacrament is accomplished in the consecration of the matter: and consequently
11517 both uses follow the sacrament. On the other hand, in Baptism and in the other sacraments that imprint a character, they who
11518 receive the sacrament receive some spiritual effect, that is, the character. which is not the case in this sacrament. And
11519 therefore, in this sacrament, rather than in Baptism, the sacramental use is distinguished from the spiritual use.
11520 </p>
11521 <p id="TP_Q80_A1-p8">
11522 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> That sacramental eating which is also a spiritual eating is not divided in contrast with spiritual eating, but is included
11523 under it; but that sacramental eating which does not secure the effect, is divided in contrast with spiritual eating; just
11524 as the imperfect, which does not attain the perfection of its species, is divided in contrast with the perfect.
11525 </p>
11526 <p id="TP_Q80_A1-p9">
11527 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As stated above (
11528 <a id="TP_Q80_A1-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q73_A3.html">Q[73], A[3]</a>), the effect of the sacrament can be secured by every man if he receive it in desire, though not in reality. Consequently,
11529 just as some are baptized with the Baptism of desire, through their desire of baptism, before being baptized in the Baptism
11530 of water; so likewise some eat this sacrament spiritually ere they receive it sacramentally. Now this happens in two ways.
11531 First of all, from desire of
11532 receiving the sacrament itself, and thus are said to be baptized, and to eat spiritually, and not sacramentally, they who
11533 desire to receive these sacraments since they have been instituted. Secondly, by a figure: thus the Apostle says (
11534 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A1-p9.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.10.2" target="asv">1 Cor. 10:2</a>), that the fathers of old were "baptized in the cloud and in the sea," and that "they did eat . . . spiritual food, and .
11535 . . drank . . . spiritual drink." Nevertheless sacramental eating is not without avail, because the actual
11536 receiving of the sacrament produces more fully the effect of the sacrament than does the desire thereof, as stated above of
11537 Baptism (
11538 <a id="TP_Q80_A1-p9.3" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q69_A4.html">Q[69] , A[4]</a>, ad 2).
11539 </p>
11540 <p id="TP_Q80_A1-p10"></p>
11541 <p id="TP_Q80_A1-p11"></p>
11542 <a href="summa.TP_Q80.html"></a>
11543 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A2.html"></a>
11544 </div>
11545 <div id="TP_Q80_A2" class="div4">
11546 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A1.html"></a>
11547 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A3.html"></a>
11548 <h4 id="TP_Q80_A2-p0.1">Whether it belongs to man alone to eat this sacrament spiritually?</h4>
11549 <p id="TP_Q80_A2-p1"></p>
11550 <p id="TP_Q80_A2-p2">
11551 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that it does not belong to man alone to eat this sacrament spiritually, but likewise to angels. Because on
11552 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.77.25" target="asv"> Ps. 77:25</a>: "Man ate the bread of angels," the gloss says: "that is, the body of Christ, Who i's truly the food of angels." But it would
11553 not be so unless the angels were to eat Christ spiritually. Therefore the angels eat Christ spiritually.
11554 </p>
11555 <p id="TP_Q80_A2-p3">
11556 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan.) says: By "this meat and drink, He would have us to understand the fellowship of
11557 His body and members, which is the Church in His predestinated ones." But not only men, but also the holy angels belong to
11558 that fellowship. Therefore the holy angels eat of it spiritually.
11559 </p>
11560 <p id="TP_Q80_A2-p4">
11561 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Augustine in his book De Verbis Domini (Serm. cxlii) says: "Christ is to be eaten spiritually, as He Himself declares:
11562 'He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood, abideth in Me, and I in him.'" But this belongs not only to men, but also
11563 to the holy angels, in whom Christ dwells by charity, and they in Him. Consequently, it seems that to eat Christ spiritually
11564 is not for men only, but also for the angels.
11565 </p>
11566 <p id="TP_Q80_A2-p5">
11567 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan.) says: "Eat the bread" of the altar "spiritually; take innocence to the altar." But angels
11568 do not approach the altar as for the purpose of taking something therefrom. Therefore the angels do not eat spiritually.
11569 </p>
11570 <p id="TP_Q80_A2-p6">
11571 <b>I answer that,</b> Christ Himself is contained in this sacrament, not under His proper species, but under the sacramental species. Consequently
11572 there are two ways of eating spiritually. First, as Christ Himself exists under His proper species, and in this way the angels
11573 eat Christ spiritually inasmuch as they are united with Him in the enjoyment of perfect charity, and in clear vision (and
11574 this is the bread we hope for in heaven), and not by faith, as we are united with Him
11575 here.
11576 </p>
11577 <p id="TP_Q80_A2-p7"> In another way one may eat Christ spiritually, as He is under the sacramental species, inasmuch as a man believes in Christ,
11578 while desiring to receive this sacrament; and this is not merely to eat Christ spiritually, but likewise to eat this sacrament;
11579 which does not fall to the lot of the angels. And therefore although the angels feed on Christ spiritually, yet it does not
11580 belong to them to eat this sacrament spiritually.
11581 </p>
11582 <p id="TP_Q80_A2-p8">
11583 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The receiving of Christ under this sacrament is ordained to the enjoyment of heaven, as to its end, in the same way as the
11584 angels enjoy it; and since the means are gauged by the end, hence it is that such eating of Christ whereby we receive Him
11585 under this sacrament, is, as it were, derived from that eating whereby the angels enjoy Christ in heaven. Consequently, man
11586 is said to eat the "bread of angels," because it belongs to the angels to do so
11587 firstly and principally, since they enjoy Him in his proper species; and secondly it belongs to men, who receive Christ under
11588 this sacrament.
11589 </p>
11590 <p id="TP_Q80_A2-p9">
11591 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Both men and angels belong to the fellowship of His mystical body; men by faith, and angels by manifest vision. But the sacraments
11592 are proportioned to faith, through which the truth is seen "through a glass" and "in a dark manner." And therefore, properly
11593 speaking, it does not belong to angels, but to men, to eat this sacrament spiritually.
11594 </p>
11595 <p id="TP_Q80_A2-p10">
11596 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Christ dwells in men through faith, according to their present state, but He is in the blessed angels by manifest vision.
11597 Consequently the comparison does not hold, as stated above (ad 2).
11598 </p>
11599 <p id="TP_Q80_A2-p11"></p>
11600 <p id="TP_Q80_A2-p12"></p>
11601 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A1.html"></a>
11602 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A3.html"></a>
11603 </div>
11604 <div id="TP_Q80_A3" class="div4">
11605 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A2.html"></a>
11606 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A4.html"></a>
11607 <h4 id="TP_Q80_A3-p0.1">Whether the just man alone may eat Christ sacramentally?</h4>
11608 <p id="TP_Q80_A3-p1"></p>
11609 <p id="TP_Q80_A3-p2">
11610 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that none but the just man may eat Christ sacramentally. For Augustine says in his book De Remedio Penitentiae (cf.
11611 Tract. in Joan. xxv, n. 12; xxvi, n. 1): "Why make ready tooth and belly? Believe, and thou hast eaten . . . For to believe
11612 in Him, this it is, to eat the living bread." But the sinner does not believe in Him; because he has not living faith, to
11613 which it belongs to believe "in God," as stated above in the
11614 <a id="TP_Q80_A3-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q2_A2.html">SS, Q[2],
11615 A[2]
11616 </a>;
11617 <a id="TP_Q80_A3-p2.2" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q4_A5.html">SS, Q[4], A[5]</a>. Therefore the sinner cannot eat this sacrament, which is the living bread.
11618 </p>
11619 <p id="TP_Q80_A3-p3">
11620 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, this sacrament is specially called "the sacrament of charity," as stated above (
11621 <a id="TP_Q80_A3-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q78_A3.html">Q[78], A[3]</a>, ad 6). But as unbelievers lack faith, so all sinners lack charity. Now unbelievers do not seem to be capable of eating this
11622 sacrament, since in the sacramental form it is called the "Mystery of Faith." Therefore, for like reason, the sinner cannot
11623 eat Christ's body sacramentally.
11624 </p>
11625 <p id="TP_Q80_A3-p4">
11626 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the sinner is more abominable before God than the irrational creature: for it is said of the sinner (
11627 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.48.21" target="asv">Ps. 48:21</a>): "Man when he was in honor did not understand; he hath been compared to senseless beasts, and made like to them." But an
11628 irrational animal, such as a mouse or a dog, cannot receive this sacrament, just as it cannot receive the sacrament of Baptism.
11629 Therefore it seems that for the like reason neither may sinners eat this
11630 sacrament.
11631 </p>
11632 <p id="TP_Q80_A3-p5">
11633 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan.), commenting on the words, "that if any man eat of it he may not die," says: "Many receive
11634 from the altar, and by receiving die: whence the Apostle saith, 'eateth and drinketh judgment to himself.'" But only sinners
11635 die by receiving. Therefore sinners eat the body of Christ sacramentally, and not the just only.
11636 </p>
11637 <p id="TP_Q80_A3-p6">
11638 <b>I answer that,</b> In the past, some have erred upon this point, saying that Christ's body is not received sacramentally by sinners; but that
11639 directly the body is touched by the lips of sinners, it ceases to be under the sacramental species.
11640 </p>
11641 <p id="TP_Q80_A3-p7"> But this is erroneous; because it detracts from the truth of this sacrament, to which truth it belongs that so long as the
11642 species last, Christ's body does not cease to be under them, as stated above (
11643 <a id="TP_Q80_A3-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q76_A6.html">Q[76], A[6]</a>, ad 3;
11644 <a id="TP_Q80_A3-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q77_A8.html"> Q[77], A[8]</a>). But the species last so long as the substance of the bread would remain, if it were there, as was stated above (
11645 <a id="TP_Q80_A3-p7.3" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q77_A4.html">Q[77], A[4]</a>). Now it is clear that the substance of bread
11646 taken by a sinner does not at once cease to be, but it continues until digested by natural heat: hence Christ's body remains
11647 just as long under the sacramental species when taken by sinners. Hence it must be said that the sinner, and not merely the
11648 just, can eat Christ's body.
11649 </p>
11650 <p id="TP_Q80_A3-p8">
11651 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Such words and similar expressions are to be understood of spiritual eating, which does not belong to sinners. Consequently,
11652 it is from such expressions being misunderstood that the above error seems to have arisen, through ignorance of the distinction
11653 between corporeal and spiritual eating.
11654 </p>
11655 <p id="TP_Q80_A3-p9">
11656 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Should even an unbeliever receive the sacramental species, he would receive Christ's body under the sacrament: hence he would
11657 eat Christ sacramentally, if the word "sacramentally" qualify the verb on the part of the thing eaten. But if it qualify the
11658 verb on the part of the one eating, then, properly speaking, he does not eat sacramentally, because he uses what he takes,
11659 not as a sacrament, but as simple food. Unless perchance the unbeliever were to
11660 intend to receive what the Church bestows; without having proper faith regarding the other articles, or regarding this sacrament.
11661 </p>
11662 <p id="TP_Q80_A3-p10">
11663 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Even though a mouse or a dog were to eat the consecrated host, the substance of Christ's body would not cease to be under
11664 the species, so long as those species remain, and that is, so long as the substance of bread would have remained; just as
11665 if it were to be cast into the mire. Nor does this turn to any indignity regarding Christ's body, since He willed to be crucified
11666 by sinners without detracting from His dignity; especially since the mouse or dog
11667 does not touch Christ's body in its proper species, but only as to its sacramental species. Some, however, have said that
11668 Christ's body would cease to be there, directly it were touched by a mouse or a dog; but this again detracts from the truth
11669 of the sacrament, as stated above. None the less it must not be said that the irrational animal eats the body of Christ sacramentally;
11670 since it is incapable of using it as a sacrament. Hence it eats Christ's body "accidentally," and not sacramentally,
11671 just as if anyone not knowing a host to be consecrated were to consume it. And since no genus is divided by an accidental
11672 difference, therefore this manner of eating Christ's body is not set down as a third way besides sacramental and spiritual
11673 eating.
11674 </p>
11675 <p id="TP_Q80_A3-p11"></p>
11676 <p id="TP_Q80_A3-p12"></p>
11677 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A2.html"></a>
11678 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A4.html"></a>
11679 </div>
11680 <div id="TP_Q80_A4" class="div4">
11681 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A3.html"></a>
11682 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A5.html"></a>
11683 <h4 id="TP_Q80_A4-p0.1">Whether the sinner sins in receiving Christ's body sacramentally?</h4>
11684 <p id="TP_Q80_A4-p1"></p>
11685 <p id="TP_Q80_A4-p2">
11686 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the sinner does not sin in receiving Christ's body sacramentally, because Christ has no greater dignity under
11687 the sacramental species than under His own. But sinners did not sin when they touched Christ's body under its proper species;
11688 nay, rather they obtained forgiveness of their sins, as we read in
11689 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.7" target="asv">Lk. 7</a> of the woman who was a sinner; while it is written (
11690 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A4-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.14.36" target="asv">Mat. 14:36</a>) that "as many as touched the hem of His garment were
11691 healed." Therefore, they do not sin, but rather obtain salvation, by receiving the body of Christ.
11692 </p>
11693 <p id="TP_Q80_A4-p3">
11694 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, this sacrament, like the others, is a spiritual medicine. But medicine is given to the sick for their recovery,
11695 according to
11696 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.9.12" target="asv"> Mat. 9:12</a>: "They that are in health need not a physician." Now they that are spiritually sick or infirm are sinners. Therefore this
11697 sacrament can be received by them without sin.
11698 </p>
11699 <p id="TP_Q80_A4-p4">
11700 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, this sacrament is one of our greatest gifts, since it contains Christ. But according to Augustine (De Lib. Arb.
11701 ii), the greatest gifts are those "which no one can abuse." Now no one sins except by abusing something. Therefore no sinner
11702 sins by receiving this sacrament.
11703 </p>
11704 <p id="TP_Q80_A4-p5">
11705 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, as this sacrament is perceived by taste and touch, so also is it by sight. Consequently, if the sinner sins by receiving
11706 the sacrament, it seems that he would sin by beholding it, which is manifestly untrue, since the Church exposes this sacrament
11707 to be seen and adored by all. Therefore the sinner does not sin by eating this sacrament.
11708 </p>
11709 <p id="TP_Q80_A4-p6">
11710 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, it happens sometimes that the sinner is unconscious of his sin. Yet such a one does not seem to sin by receiving
11711 the body of Christ, for according to this all who receive it would sin, as exposing themselves to danger, since the Apostle
11712 says (
11713 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.4.4" target="asv">1 Cor. 4:4</a>): "I am not conscious to myself of anything, yet I am not hereby justified." Therefore, the sinner, if he receive this sacrament,
11714 does not appear to be guilty of sin.
11715 </p>
11716 <p id="TP_Q80_A4-p7">
11717 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
11718 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.11.29" target="asv">1 Cor. 11:29</a>): "He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself." Now the gloss says on this passage:
11719 "He eats and drinks unworthily who is in sin, or who handles it irreverently." Therefore, if anyone, while in mortal sin,
11720 receives this sacrament, he purchases damnation, by sinning mortally.
11721 </p>
11722 <p id="TP_Q80_A4-p8">
11723 <b>I answer that,</b> In this sacrament, as in the others, that which is a sacrament is a sign of the reality of the sacrament. Now there is a
11724 twofold reality of this sacrament, as stated above (
11725 <a id="TP_Q80_A4-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q73_A6.html">Q[73], A[6]</a>): one which is signified and contained, namely, Christ Himself; while the other is signified but not contained, namely, Christ's
11726 mystical body, which is the fellowship of the saints. Therefore, whoever receives this sacrament, expresses thereby that he
11727 is made one with Christ, and incorporated in His members; and this is done by living faith, which no one has who is in mortal
11728 sin. And therefore it is manifest that whoever receives this sacrament while in mortal sin, is guilty of lying to this sacrament,
11729 and consequently of sacrilege, because he profanes the sacrament: and therefore he sins mortally.
11730 </p>
11731 <p id="TP_Q80_A4-p9">
11732 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> When Christ appeared under His proper species, He did not give Himself to be touched by men as a sign of spiritual union
11733 with Himself, as He gives Himself to be received in this sacrament. And therefore sinners in touching Him under His proper
11734 species did not incur the sin of lying to Godlike things, as sinners do in receiving this sacrament.
11735 </p>
11736 <p id="TP_Q80_A4-p10"> Furthermore, Christ still bore the likeness of the body of sin; consequently He fittingly allowed Himself to be touched by
11737 sinners. But as soon as the body of sin was taken away by the glory of the Resurrection, he forbade the woman to touch Him,
11738 for her faith in Him was defective, according to
11739 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A4-p10.1" href="./asv.html#John.20.17" target="asv"> Jn. 20:17</a>: "Do not touch Me, for I am not yet ascended to My Father," i.e. "in your heart," as Augustine explains (Tract. cxxi in Joan.).
11740 And therefore sinners, who
11741 lack living faith regarding Christ are not allowed to touch this sacrament.
11742 </p>
11743 <p id="TP_Q80_A4-p11">
11744 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Every medicine does not suit every stage of sickness; because the tonic given to those who are recovering from fever would
11745 be hurtful to them if given while yet in their feverish condition. So likewise Baptism and Penance are as purgative medicines,
11746 given to take away the fever of sin; whereas this sacrament is a medicine given to strengthen, and it ought not to be given
11747 except to them who are quit of sin.
11748 </p>
11749 <p id="TP_Q80_A4-p12">
11750 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> By the greatest gifts Augustine understands the soul's virtues, "which no one uses to evil purpose," as though they were
11751 principles of evil. Nevertheless sometimes a man makes a bad use of them, as objects of an evil use, as is seen in those who
11752 are proud of their virtues. So likewise this sacrament, so far as the sacrament is concerned, is not the principle of an evil
11753 use, but the object thereof. Hence Augustine says (Tract. lxii in Joan.): "Many
11754 receive Christ's body unworthily; whence we are taught what need there is to beware of receiving a good thing evilly . . .
11755 For behold, of a good thing, received evilly, evil is wrought": just as on the other hand, in the Apostle's case, "good was
11756 wrought through evil well received," namely, by bearing patiently the sting of Satan.
11757 </p>
11758 <p id="TP_Q80_A4-p13">
11759 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Christ's body is not received by being seen, but only its sacrament, because sight does not penetrate to the substance of
11760 Christ's body, but only to the sacramental species, as stated above (
11761 <a id="TP_Q80_A4-p13.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q76_A7.html">Q[76], A[7]</a>). But he who eats, receives not only the sacramental species, but likewise Christ Himself Who is under them. Consequently,
11762 no one is forbidden to behold Christ's body, when once he has received Christ's sacrament, namely,
11763 Baptism: whereas the non-baptized are not to be allowed even to see this sacrament, as is clear from Dionysius (Eccl. Hier.
11764 vii). But only those are to be allowed to share in the eating who are united with Christ not merely sacramentally, but likewise
11765 really.
11766 </p>
11767 <p id="TP_Q80_A4-p14">
11768 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> The fact of a man being unconscious of his sin can come about in two ways. First of all through his own fault, either because
11769 through ignorance of the law (which ignorance does not excuse him), he thinks something not to be sinful which is a sin, as
11770 for example if one guilty of fornication were to deem simple fornication not to be a mortal sin; or because he neglects to
11771 examine his conscience, which is opposed to what the Apostle says (
11772 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A4-p14.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.11.28" target="asv">1
11773 Cor. 11:28
11774 </a>): "Let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice." And in this way nevertheless the
11775 sinner who receives Christ's body commits sin, although unconscious thereof, because the very ignorance is a sin on his part.
11776 </p>
11777 <p id="TP_Q80_A4-p15"> Secondly, it may happen without fault on his part, as, for instance, when he has sorrowed over his sin, but is not sufficiently
11778 contrite: and in such a case he does not sin in receiving the body of Christ, because a man cannot know for certain whether
11779 he is truly contrite. It suffices, however, if he find in himself the marks of contrition, for instance, if he "grieve over
11780 past sins," and "propose to avoid them in the future" [*Cf. Rule of Augustine]. But if he be ignorant that
11781 what he did was a sinful act, through ignorance of the fact, which excuses, for instance, if a man approach a woman whom he
11782 believed to be his wife whereas she was not, he is not to be called a sinner on that account; in the same way if he has utterly
11783 forgotten his sin, general contrition suffices for blotting it out, as will be said hereafter (
11784 <a id="TP_Q80_A4-p15.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q2_A3.html">XP, Q[2], A[3]</a>, ad 2); hence he is no longer to be called a sinner.
11785 </p>
11786 <p id="TP_Q80_A4-p16"></p>
11787 <p id="TP_Q80_A4-p17"></p>
11788 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A3.html"></a>
11789 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A5.html"></a>
11790 </div>
11791 <div id="TP_Q80_A5" class="div4">
11792 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A4.html"></a>
11793 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A6.html"></a>
11794 <h4 id="TP_Q80_A5-p0.1">Whether to approach this sacrament with consciousness of sin is the gravest of all sins?</h4>
11795 <p id="TP_Q80_A5-p1"></p>
11796 <p id="TP_Q80_A5-p2">
11797 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that to approach this sacrament with consciousness of sin is the gravest of all sins; because the Apostle says (
11798 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A5-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.11.27" target="asv">1 Cor. 11:27</a>): "Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood
11799 of the Lord": upon which the gloss observes: "He shall be punished as though he slew Christ." But the sin of them who slew
11800 Christ seems to have been most grave. Therefore this sin,
11801 whereby a man approaches Christ's table with consciousness of sin, appears to be the gravest.
11802 </p>
11803 <p id="TP_Q80_A5-p3">
11804 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Jerome says in an Epistle (xlix): "What hast thou to do with women, thou that speakest familiarly with God at the
11805 altar?" [*The remaining part of the quotation is not from St. Jerome]. Say, priest, say, cleric, how dost thou kiss the Son
11806 of God with the same lips wherewith thou hast kissed the daughter of a harlot? "Judas, thou betrayest the Son of Man with
11807 a kiss!" And thus it appears that the fornicator approaching Christ's table sins as Judas did,
11808 whose sin was most grave. But there are many other sins which are graver than fornication, especially the sin of unbelief.
11809 Therefore the sin of every sinner approaching Christ's table is the gravest of all.
11810 </p>
11811 <p id="TP_Q80_A5-p4">
11812 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, spiritual uncleanness is more abominable to God than corporeal. But if anyone was to cast Christ's body into mud
11813 or a cess-pool, his sin would be reputed a most grave one. Therefore, he sins more deeply by receiving it with sin, which
11814 is spiritual uncleanness, upon his soul.
11815 </p>
11816 <p id="TP_Q80_A5-p5">
11817 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says on the words, "If I had not come, and had not spoken to them, they would be without sin" (Tract. lxxxix in
11818 Joan.), that this is to be understood of the sin of unbelief, "in which all sins are comprised," and so the greatest of all
11819 sins appears to be, not this, but rather the sin of unbelief.
11820 </p>
11821 <p id="TP_Q80_A5-p6">
11822 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated in the
11823 <a id="TP_Q80_A5-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q73_A3.html">FS, Q[73], AA[3]</a>,6;
11824 <a id="TP_Q80_A5-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q73_A3.html">SS, Q[73], A[3]</a>, one sin can be said to be graver than another in two ways: first of all essentially, secondly accidentally. Essentially,
11825 in regard to its species, which is taken from its object: and so a sin is greater according as that against which it is committed
11826 is greater. And since Christ's Godhead is greater than His humanity, and His humanity greater than the
11827 sacraments of His humanity, hence it is that those are the gravest sins which are committed against the Godhead, such as unbelief
11828 and blasphemy. The second degree of gravity is held by those sins which are committed against His humanity: hence it is written
11829 (
11830 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A5-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Matt.12.32" target="asv">Mat. 12:32</a>): "Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but he that shall speak against the Holy
11831 Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the world to come."
11832 In the third place come sins committed against the sacraments, which belong to Christ's humanity; and after these are the
11833 other sins committed against mere creatures.
11834 </p>
11835 <p id="TP_Q80_A5-p7"> Accidentally, one sin can be graver than another on the sinner's part. for example, the sin which is the result of ignorance
11836 or of weakness is lighter than one arising from contempt, or from sure knowledge; and the same reason holds good of other
11837 circumstances. And according to this, the above sin can be graver in some, as happens in them who from actual contempt and
11838 with consciousness of sin approach this sacrament: but in others it is less grave; for instance, in those who
11839 from fear of their sin being discovered, approach this sacrament with consciousness of sin.
11840 </p>
11841 <p id="TP_Q80_A5-p8"> So, then, it is evident that this sin is specifically graver than many others, yet it is not the greatest of all.</p>
11842 <p id="TP_Q80_A5-p9">
11843 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The sin of the unworthy recipient is compared to the sin of them who slew Christ, by way of similitude, because each is committed
11844 against Christ's body; but not according to the degree of the crime. Because the sin of Christ's slayers was much graver,
11845 first of all, because their sin was against Christ's body in its own species, while this sin is against it under sacramental
11846 species; secondly, because their sin came of the intent of injuring Christ,
11847 while this does not.
11848 </p>
11849 <p id="TP_Q80_A5-p10">
11850 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The sin of the fornicator receiving Christ's body is likened to Judas kissing Christ, as to the resemblance of the sin, because
11851 each outrages Christ with the sign of friendship. but not as to the extent of the sin, as was observed above (ad 1). And this
11852 resemblance in crime applies no less to other sinners than to fornicators: because by other mortal sins, sinners act against
11853 the charity of Christ, of which this sacrament is the sign, and all the more
11854 according as their sins are graver. But in a measure the sin of fornication makes one more unfit for receiving this sacrament,
11855 because thereby especially the spirit becomes enslaved by the flesh, which is a hindrance to the fervor of love required for
11856 this sacrament.
11857 </p>
11858 <p id="TP_Q80_A5-p11"> However, the hindrance to charity itself weighs more than the hindrance to its fervor. Hence the sin of unbelief, which fundamentally
11859 severs a man from the unity of the Church, simply speaking, makes him to be utterly unfit for receiving this sacrament; because
11860 it is the sacrament of the Church's unity, as stated above (
11861 <a id="TP_Q80_A5-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q61_A2.html">Q[61], A[2]</a>). Hence the unbeliever who receives this sacrament sins more grievously than the believer who is in sin; and shows greater
11862 contempt towards Christ Who is in the sacrament, especially if he does not believe Christ to be truly in this sacrament; because,
11863 so far as lies in him, he lessens the holiness of the sacrament, and the power of Christ acting in it, and this is to despise
11864 the sacrament in itself. But the believer who receives the sacrament with consciousness of sin, by receiving it unworthily
11865 despises the sacrament, not in itself, but in its use. Hence the Apostle (
11866 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A5-p11.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.11.29" target="asv">1 Cor. 11:29</a>) in assigning the cause of this
11867 sin, says, "not discerning the body of the Lord," that is, not distinguishing it from other food: and this is what he does
11868 who disbelieves Christ's presence in this sacrament.
11869 </p>
11870 <p id="TP_Q80_A5-p12">
11871 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The man who would throw this sacrament into the mire would be guilty of more heinous sin than another approaching the sacrament
11872 fully conscious of mortal sin. First of all, because he would intend to outrage the sacrament, whereas the sinner receiving
11873 Christ's body unworthily has no such intent; secondly, because the sinner is capable of grace; hence he is more capable of
11874 receiving this sacrament than any irrational creature. Hence he would make a
11875 most revolting use of this sacrament who would throw it to dogs to eat, or fling it in the mire to be trodden upon.
11876 </p>
11877 <p id="TP_Q80_A5-p13"></p>
11878 <p id="TP_Q80_A5-p14"></p>
11879 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A4.html"></a>
11880 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A6.html"></a>
11881 </div>
11882 <div id="TP_Q80_A6" class="div4">
11883 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A5.html"></a>
11884 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A7.html"></a>
11885 <h4 id="TP_Q80_A6-p0.1">Whether the priest ought to deny the body of Christ to the sinner seeking it?</h4>
11886 <p id="TP_Q80_A6-p1"></p>
11887 <p id="TP_Q80_A6-p2">
11888 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the priest should deny the body of Christ to the sinner seeking it. For Christ's precept is not to be set aside
11889 for the sake of avoiding scandal or on account of infamy to anyone. But (
11890 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A6-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.7.6" target="asv">Mat. 7:6</a>) our Lord gave this command: "Give not that which is holy to dogs." Now it is especially casting holy things to dogs to give
11891 this sacrament to sinners. Therefore, neither on account of avoiding scandal or infamy should this sacrament be
11892 administered to the sinner who asks for it.
11893 </p>
11894 <p id="TP_Q80_A6-p3">
11895 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, one must choose the lesser of two evils. But it seems to be the lesser evil if the sinner incur infamy; or if an
11896 unconsecrated host be given to him; than for him to sin mortally by receiving the body of Christ. Consequently, it seems that
11897 the course to be adopted is either that the sinner seeking the body of Christ be exposed to infamy, or that an unconsecrated
11898 host be given to him.
11899 </p>
11900 <p id="TP_Q80_A6-p4">
11901 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the body of Christ is sometimes given to those suspected of crime in order to put them to proof. Because we read
11902 in the Decretals: "It often happens that thefts are perpetrated in monasteries of monks; wherefore we command that when the
11903 brethren have to exonerate themselves of such acts, that the abbot shall celebrate Mass, or someone else deputed by him, in
11904 the presence of the community; and so, when the Mass is over, all shall communicate under
11905 these words: 'May the body of Christ prove thee today.'" And further on: "If any evil deed be imputed to a bishop or priest,
11906 for each charge he must say Mass and communicate, and show that he is innocent of each act imputed." But secret sinners must
11907 not be disclosed, for, once the blush of shame is set aside, they will indulge the more in sin, as Augustine says (De Verbis.
11908 Dom.; cf. Serm. lxxxii). Consequently, Christ's body is not to be given to occult sinners, even if they ask for it.
11909 </p>
11910 <p id="TP_Q80_A6-p5">
11911 <b>On the contrary,</b> on
11912 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.21.30" target="asv"> Ps. 21:30</a>: "All the fat ones of the earth have eaten and have adored," Augustine says: "Let not the dispenser hinder the fat ones of
11913 the earth," i.e. sinners, "from eating at the table of the Lord."
11914 </p>
11915 <p id="TP_Q80_A6-p6">
11916 <b>I answer that,</b> A distinction must be made among sinners: some are secret; others are notorious, either from evidence of the fact, as public
11917 usurers, or public robbers, or from being denounced as evil men by some ecclesiastical or civil tribunal. Therefore Holy Communion
11918 ought not to be given to open sinners when they ask for it. Hence Cyprian writes to someone (Ep. lxi): "You were so kind as
11919 to consider that I ought to be consulted regarding actors, end that magician who
11920 continues to practice his disgraceful arts among you; as to whether I thought that Holy Communion ought to be given to such
11921 with the other Christians. I think that it is beseeming neither the Divine majesty, nor Christian discipline, for the Church's
11922 modesty and honor to be defiled by such shameful and infamous contagion."
11923 </p>
11924 <p id="TP_Q80_A6-p7"> But if they be not open sinners, but occult, the Holy Communion should not be denied them if they ask for it. For since every
11925 Christian, from the fact that he is baptized, is admitted to the Lord's table, he may not be robbed of his right, except from
11926 some open cause. Hence on
11927 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A6-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.5.11" target="asv">1 Cor. 5:11</a>, "If he who is called a brother among you," etc., Augustine's gloss remarks: "We cannot inhibit any person from Communion,
11928 except he has openly confessed, or has been named and convicted by
11929 some ecclesiastical or lay tribunal." Nevertheless a priest who has knowledge of the crime can privately warn the secret sinner,
11930 or warn all openly in public, from approaching the Lord's table, until they have repented of their sins and have been reconciled
11931 to the Church; because after repentance and reconciliation, Communion must not be refused even to public sinners, especially
11932 in the hour of death. Hence in the (3rd) Council of Carthage (Can. xxxv) we read: "Reconciliation is not to be
11933 denied to stage-players or actors, or others of the sort, or to apostates, after their conversion to God."
11934 </p>
11935 <p id="TP_Q80_A6-p8">
11936 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Holy things are forbidden to be given to dogs, that is, to notorious sinners: whereas hidden deeds may not be published,
11937 but are to be left to the Divine judgment.
11938 </p>
11939 <p id="TP_Q80_A6-p9">
11940 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although it is worse for the secret sinner to sin mortally in taking the body of Christ, rather than be defamed, nevertheless
11941 for the priest administering the body of Christ it is worse to commit mortal sin by unjustly defaming the hidden sinner than
11942 that the sinner should sin mortally; because no one ought to commit mortal sin in order to keep another out of mortal sin.
11943 Hence Augustine says (Quaest. super
11944 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A6-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.42" target="asv">Gen. 42</a>): "It is a most dangerous exchange,
11945 for us to do evil lest another perpetrate a greater evil." But the secret sinner ought rather to prefer infamy than approach
11946 the Lord's table unworthily.
11947 </p>
11948 <p id="TP_Q80_A6-p10"> Yet by no means should an unconsecrated host be given in place of a consecrated one; because the priest by so doing, so far
11949 as he is concerned, makes others, either the bystanders or the communicant, commit idolatry by believing that it is a consecrated
11950 host; because, as Augustine says on
11951 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A6-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.98.5" target="asv"> Ps. 98:5</a>: "Let no one eat Christ's flesh, except he first adore it." Hence in the Decretals (Extra, De Celeb. Miss., Ch. De Homine)
11952 it is said: "Although he who reputes
11953 himself unworthy of the Sacrament, through consciousness of his sin, sins gravely, if he receive; still he seems to offend
11954 more deeply who deceitfully has presumed to simulate it."
11955 </p>
11956 <p id="TP_Q80_A6-p11">
11957 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Those decrees were abolished by contrary enactments of Roman Pontiffs: because Pope Stephen V writes as follows: "The Sacred
11958 Canons do not allow of a confession being extorted from any person by trial made by burning iron or boiling water; it belongs
11959 to our government to judge of public crimes committed, and that by means of confession made spontaneously, or by proof of
11960 witnesses: but private and unknown crimes are to be left to Him Who alone knows
11961 the hearts of the sons of men." And the same is found in the Decretals (Extra, De Purgationibus, Ch. Ex tuarum). Because in
11962 all such practices there seems to be a tempting of God; hence such things cannot be done without sin. And it would seem graver
11963 still if anyone were to incur judgment of death through this sacrament, which was instituted as a means of salvation. Consequently,
11964 the body of Christ should never be given to anyone suspected of crime, as by way of examination.
11965 </p>
11966 <p id="TP_Q80_A6-p12"></p>
11967 <p id="TP_Q80_A6-p13"></p>
11968 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A5.html"></a>
11969 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A7.html"></a>
11970 </div>
11971 <div id="TP_Q80_A7" class="div4">
11972 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A6.html"></a>
11973 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A8.html"></a>
11974 <h4 id="TP_Q80_A7-p0.1">Whether the seminal loss that occurs during sleep hinders anyone from receiving this sacrament?</h4>
11975 <p id="TP_Q80_A7-p1"></p>
11976 <p id="TP_Q80_A7-p2">
11977 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that seminal loss does not hinder anyone from receiving the body of Christ: because no one is prevented from receiving
11978 the body of Christ except on account of sin. But seminal loss happens without sin: for Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii) that
11979 "the same image that comes into the mind of a speaker may present itself to the mind of the sleeper, so that the latter be
11980 unable to distinguish the image from the reality, and is moved carnally and with the
11981 result that usually follows such motions; and there is as little sin in this as there is in speaking and therefore thinking
11982 about such things." Consequently these motions do not prevent one from receiving this sacrament.
11983 </p>
11984 <p id="TP_Q80_A7-p3">
11985 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Gregory says in a Letter to Augustine, Bishop of the English (Regist. xi): "Those who pay the debt of marriage not
11986 from lust, but from desire to have children, should be left to their own judgment, as to whether they should enter the church
11987 and receive the mystery of our Lord's body, after such intercourse: because they ought not to be forbidden from receiving
11988 it, since they have passed through the fire unscorched."
11989 </p>
11990 <p id="TP_Q80_A7-p4"> From this it is evident that seminal loss even of one awake, if it be without sin, is no hindrance to receiving the body
11991 of Christ. Consequently, much less is it in the case of one asleep.
11992 </p>
11993 <p id="TP_Q80_A7-p5">
11994 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, these movements of the flesh seem to bring with them only bodily uncleanness. But there are other bodily defilements
11995 which according to the Law forbade entrance into the holy places, yet which under the New Law do not prevent receiving this
11996 sacrament: as, for instance, in the case of a woman after child-birth, or in her periods, or suffering from issue of blood,
11997 as Gregory writes to Augustine, Bishop of the English (Regist. xi). Therefore it seems
11998 that neither do these movements of the flesh hinder a man from receiving this sacrament.
11999 </p>
12000 <p id="TP_Q80_A7-p6">
12001 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, venial sin is no hindrance to receiving the sacrament, nor is mortal sin after repentance. But even supposing that
12002 seminal loss arises from some foregoing sin, whether of intemperance, or of bad thoughts, for the most part such sin is venial;
12003 and if occasionally it be mortal, a man may repent of it by morning and confess it. Consequently, it seems that he ought not
12004 to be prevented from receiving this sacrament.
12005 </p>
12006 <p id="TP_Q80_A7-p7">
12007 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, a sin against the Fifth Commandment is greater than a sin against the Sixth. But if a man dream that he has broken
12008 the Fifth or Seventh or any other Commandment, he is not on that account debarred from receiving this sacrament. Therefore
12009 it seems that much less should he be debarred through defilement resulting from a dream against the Sixth Commandment.
12010 </p>
12011 <p id="TP_Q80_A7-p8">
12012 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
12013 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A7-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.15.16" target="asv">Lev. 15:16</a>): "The man from whom the seed of copulation goeth out . . . shall be unclean until evening." But for the unclean there is
12014 no approaching to the sacraments. Therefore, it seems that owing to such defilement of the flesh a man is debarred from taking
12015 this which is the greatest of the sacraments.
12016 </p>
12017 <p id="TP_Q80_A7-p9">
12018 <b>I answer that,</b> There are two things to be weighed regarding the aforesaid movements: one on account of which they necessarily prevent a
12019 man from receiving this sacrament; the other, on account of which they do so, not of necessity, but from a sense of propriety.
12020 </p>
12021 <p id="TP_Q80_A7-p10"> Mortal sin alone necessarily prevents anyone from partaking of this sacrament: and although these movements during sleep,
12022 considered in themselves, cannot be a mortal sin, nevertheless, owing to their cause, they have mortal sin connected with
12023 them; which cause, therefore, must be investigated. Sometimes they are due to an external spiritual cause, viz. the deception
12024 of the demons, who can stir up phantasms, as was stated in the
12025 <a id="TP_Q80_A7-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q111_A3.html">FP, Q[111], A[3]</a>,
12026 through the apparition of which, these movements occasionally follow. Sometimes they are due to an internal spiritual cause,
12027 such as previous thoughts. At other times they arise from some internal corporeal cause, as from abundance or weakness of
12028 nature, or even from surfeit of meat or drink. Now every one of these three causes can be without sin at all, or else with
12029 venial sin, or with mortal sin. If it be without sin, or with venial sin, it does not necessarily prevent the receiving of
12030 this
12031 sacrament, so as to make a man guilty of the body and blood of the Lord: but should it be with mortal sin, it prevents it
12032 of necessity.
12033 </p>
12034 <p id="TP_Q80_A7-p11"> For such illusions on the part of demons sometimes come from one's not striving to receive fervently; and this can be either
12035 a mortal or a venial sin. At other times it is due to malice alone on the part of the demons who wish to keep men from receiving
12036 this sacrament. So we read in the Conferences of the Fathers (Cassian, Collat. xxii) that when a certain one always suffered
12037 thus on those feast-days on which he had to receive Communion, his superiors, discovering that there was
12038 no fault on his part, ruled that he was not to refrain from communicating on that account, and the demoniacal illusion ceased.
12039 </p>
12040 <p id="TP_Q80_A7-p12"> In like fashion previous evil thoughts can sometimes be without any sin whatever, as when one has to think of such things
12041 on account of lecturing or debating; and if it be done without concupiscence and delectation, the thoughts will not be unclean
12042 but honest; and yet defilement can come of such thoughts, as is clear from the authority of Augustine (OBJ[1]). At other times
12043 such thoughts come of concupiscence and delectation, and should there be consent, it will be a mortal sin:
12044 otherwise it will be a venial sin.
12045 </p>
12046 <p id="TP_Q80_A7-p13"> In the same way too the corporeal cause can be without sin, as when it arises from bodily debility, and hence some individuals
12047 suffer seminal loss without sin even in their wakeful hours; or it can come from the abundance of nature: for, just as blood
12048 can flow without sin, so also can the semen which is superfluity of the blood, according to the Philosopher (De Gener. Animal.
12049 i). But occasionally it is with sin, as when it is due to excess of food or drink. And this also can be
12050 either venial or mortal sin; although more frequently the sin is mortal in the case of evil thoughts on account of the proneness
12051 to consent, rather than in the case of consumption of food and drink. Hence Gregory, writing to Augustine, Bishop of the English
12052 (Regist. xi), says that one ought to refrain from Communion when this arises from evil thoughts, but not when it arises from
12053 excess of food or drink, especially if necessity call for Communion. So, then, one must judge from its cause whether
12054 such bodily defilement of necessity hinders the receiving of this sacrament.
12055 </p>
12056 <p id="TP_Q80_A7-p14"> At the same time a sense of decency forbids Communion on two accounts. The first of these is always verified, viz. the bodily
12057 defilement, with which, out of reverence for the sacrament, it is unbecoming to approach the altar (and hence those who wish
12058 to touch any sacred object, wash their hands): except perchance such uncleanness be perpetual or of long standing, such as
12059 leprosy or issue of blood, or anything else of the kind. The other reason is the mental distraction which
12060 follows after the aforesaid movements, especially when they take place with unclean imaginings. Now this obstacle, which arises
12061 from a sense of decency, can be set aside owing to any necessity, as Gregory says (Regist. xi): "As when perchance either
12062 a festival day calls for it, or necessity compels one to exercise the ministry because there is no other priest at hand."
12063 </p>
12064 <p id="TP_Q80_A7-p15">
12065 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> A person is hindered necessarily, only by mortal sin, from receiving this sacrament: but from a sense of decency one may
12066 be hindered through other causes, as stated above.
12067 </p>
12068 <p id="TP_Q80_A7-p16">
12069 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Conjugal intercourse, if it be without sin, (for instance, if it be done for the sake of begetting offspring, or of paying
12070 the marriage debt), does not prevent the receiving of this sacrament for any other reason than do those movements in question
12071 which happen without sin, as stated above; namely, on account of the defilement to the body and distraction to the mind. On
12072 this account Jerome expresses himself in the following terms in his commentary on
12073 Matthew (Epist. xxviii, among St. Jerome's works): "If the loaves of Proposition might not be eaten by them who had known
12074 their wives carnally, how much less may this bread which has come down from heaven be defiled and touched by them who shortly
12075 before have been in conjugal embraces? It is not that we condemn marriages, but that at the time when we are going to eat
12076 the flesh of the Lamb, we ought not to indulge in carnal acts." But since this is to be understood in the sense of decency,
12077 and
12078 not of necessity, Gregory says that such a person "is to be left to his own judgment." "But if," as Gregory says (Regist.
12079 xi), "it be not desire of begetting offspring, but lust that prevails," then such a one should be forbidden to approach this
12080 sacrament.
12081 </p>
12082 <p id="TP_Q80_A7-p17">
12083 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Gregory says in his Letter quoted above to Augustine, Bishop of the English, in the Old Testament some persons were termed
12084 polluted figuratively, which the people of the New Law understand spiritually. Hence such bodily uncleannesses, if perpetual
12085 or of long standing, do not hinder the receiving of this saving sacrament, as they prevented approaching those figurative
12086 sacraments; but if they pass speedily, like the uncleanness of the aforesaid
12087 movements, then from a sense of fittingness they hinder the receiving of this sacrament during the day on which it happens.
12088 Hence it is written (
12089 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A7-p17.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.23.10" target="asv">Dt. 23:10</a>): "If there be among you any man, that is defiled in a dream by night, he shall go forth out of the camp; and he shall not
12090 return before he be washed with water in the evening."
12091 </p>
12092 <p id="TP_Q80_A7-p18">
12093 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Although the stain of guilt be taken away by contrition and confession nevertheless the bodily defilement is not taken away,
12094 nor the mental distraction which follows therefrom.
12095 </p>
12096 <p id="TP_Q80_A7-p19">
12097 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> To dream of homicide brings no bodily uncleanness, nor such distraction of mind as fornication, on account of its intense
12098 delectation; still if the dream of homicide comes of a cause sinful in itself, especially if it be mortal sin, then owing
12099 to its cause it hinders the receiving of this sacrament.
12100 </p>
12101 <p id="TP_Q80_A7-p20"></p>
12102 <p id="TP_Q80_A7-p21"></p>
12103 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A6.html"></a>
12104 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A8.html"></a>
12105 </div>
12106 <div id="TP_Q80_A8" class="div4">
12107 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A7.html"></a>
12108 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A9.html"></a>
12109 <h4 id="TP_Q80_A8-p0.1">Whether food or drink taken beforehand hinders the receiving of this sacrament?</h4>
12110 <p id="TP_Q80_A8-p1"></p>
12111 <p id="TP_Q80_A8-p2">
12112 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that food or drink taken beforehand does not hinder the receiving of this sacrament. For this sacrament was instituted
12113 by our Lord at the supper. But when the supper was ended our Lord gave the sacrament to His disciples, as is evident from
12114 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A8-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.22.20" target="asv"> Lk. 22:20, </a> and from
12115 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A8-p2.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.11.25" target="asv">1 Cor. 11:25</a>. Therefore it seems that we ought to take this sacrament after receiving other food.
12116 </p>
12117 <p id="TP_Q80_A8-p3">
12118 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is written (
12119 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A8-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.11.33" target="asv">1 Cor. 11:33</a>): "When you come together to eat," namely, the Lord's body, "wait for one another; if any man be hungry, let him eat at home":
12120 and thus it seems that after eating at home a man may eat Christ's body in the Church.
12121 </p>
12122 <p id="TP_Q80_A8-p4">
12123 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, we read in the (3rd) Council of Carthage (Can. xxix): "Let the sacraments of the altar be celebrated only by men
12124 who are fasting, with the exception of the anniversary day on which the Lord's Supper is celebrated." Therefore, at least
12125 on that day, one may receive the body of Christ after partaking of other food.
12126 </p>
12127 <p id="TP_Q80_A8-p5">
12128 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the taking of water or medicine, or of any other food or drink in very slight quantity, or of the remains of food
12129 continuing in the mouth, neither breaks the Church's fast, nor takes away the sobriety required for reverently receiving this
12130 sacrament. Consequently, one is not prevented by the above things from receiving this sacrament.
12131 </p>
12132 <p id="TP_Q80_A8-p6">
12133 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, some eat and drink late at night, and possibly after passing a sleepless night receive the sacred mysteries in the
12134 morning when the food it not digested. But it would savor more of moderation if a man were to eat a little in the morning
12135 and afterwards receive this sacrament about the ninth hour, since also there is occasionally a longer interval of time. Consequently,
12136 it seems that such taking of food beforehand does not keep one from this
12137 sacrament.
12138 </p>
12139 <p id="TP_Q80_A8-p7">
12140 <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, there is no less reverence due to this sacrament after receiving it, than before. But one may take food and drink
12141 after receiving the sacrament. Therefore one may do so before receiving it.
12142 </p>
12143 <p id="TP_Q80_A8-p8">
12144 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (Resp. ad Januar., Ep. liv): "It has pleased the Holy Ghost that, out of honor for this great sacrament, the
12145 Lord's body should enter the mouth of a Christian before other foods."
12146 </p>
12147 <p id="TP_Q80_A8-p9">
12148 <b>I answer that,</b> A thing may prevent the receiving of this sacrament in two ways: first of all in itself, like mortal sin, which is repugnant
12149 to what is signified by this sacrament, as stated above
12150 <a id="TP_Q80_A8-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q80_A4.html">(A[4])</a>: secondly, on account of the Church's prohibition; and thus a man is prevented from taking this sacrament after receiving
12151 food or drink, for three reasons. First, as Augustine says (Resp. ad Januar., Ep. liv), "out of respect for this sacrament,"
12152 so
12153 that it may enter into a mouth not yet contaminated by any food or drink. Secondly, because of its signification. i.e. to
12154 give us to understand that Christ, Who is the reality of this sacrament, and His charity, ought to be first of all established
12155 in our hearts, according to
12156 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A8-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.6.33" target="asv"> Mat. 6:33</a>: "Seek first the kingdom of God." Thirdly, on account of the danger of vomiting and intemperance, which sometimes arise from
12157 over-indulging in food, as the Apostle says (
12158 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A8-p9.3" href="./asv.html#iCor.11.21" target="asv">1 Cor.
12159 11:21
12160 </a>): "One, indeed, is hungry, and another is drunk."
12161 </p>
12162 <p id="TP_Q80_A8-p10"> Nevertheless the sick are exempted from this general rule, for they should be given Communion at once, even after food, should
12163 there be any doubt as to their danger, lest they die without Communion, because necessity has no law. Hence it is said in
12164 the Canon de Consecratione: "Let the priest at once take Communion to the sick person, lest he die without Communion."
12165 </p>
12166 <p id="TP_Q80_A8-p11">
12167 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As Augustine says in the same book, "the fact that our Lord gave this sacrament after taking food is no reason why the brethren
12168 should assemble after dinner or supper in order to partake of it, or receive it at meal-time, as did those whom the Apostle
12169 reproves and corrects. For our Saviour, in order the more strongly to commend the depth of this mystery, wished to fix it
12170 closely in the hearts and memories of the disciples. and on that account He gave
12171 no command for it to be received in that order, leaving this to the apostles, to whom He was about to entrust the government
12172 of the churches."
12173 </p>
12174 <p id="TP_Q80_A8-p12">
12175 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The text quoted is thus paraphrased by the gloss: "If any man be hungry and loath to await the rest, let him partake of his
12176 food at home, that is, let him fill himself with earthly bread, without partaking of the Eucharist afterwards."
12177 </p>
12178 <p id="TP_Q80_A8-p13">
12179 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The wording of this decree is in accordance with the former custom observed by some of receiving the body of Christ on that
12180 day after breaking their fast, so as to represent the Lord's supper. But this is now abrogated, because as Augustine says
12181 (Resp. ad Januar., Ep. liv), it is customary throughout the whole world for Christ's body to be received before breaking the
12182 fast.
12183 </p>
12184 <p id="TP_Q80_A8-p14">
12185 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> As stated in the
12186 <a id="TP_Q80_A8-p14.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q147_A6.html">SS, Q[147], A[6]</a>, ad 2, there are two kinds of fast. First, there is the natural fast, which implies privation of everything taken before-hand
12187 by way of food or drink: and such fast is required for this sacrament for the reasons given above. And therefore it is never
12188 lawful to take this sacrament after taking water, or other food or drink, or even medicine, no matter how small the quantity
12189 be. Nor does it
12190 matter whether it nourishes or not, whether it be taken by itself or with other things, provided it be taken by way of food
12191 or drink. But the remains of food left in the mouth, if swallowed accidentally, do not hinder receiving this sacrament, because
12192 they are swallowed not by way of food but by way of saliva. The same holds good of the unavoidable remains of the water or
12193 wine wherewith the mouth is rinsed, provided they be not swallowed in great quantity, but mixed with saliva.
12194 </p>
12195 <p id="TP_Q80_A8-p15"> Secondly, there is the fast of the Church, instituted for afflicting the body: and this fast is not hindered by the things
12196 mentioned (in the objection), because they do not give much nourishment, but are taken rather as an alterative.
12197 </p>
12198 <p id="TP_Q80_A8-p16">
12199 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> That this sacrament ought to enter into the mouth of a Christian before any other food must not be understood absolutely
12200 of all time, otherwise he who had once eaten or drunk could never afterwards take this sacrament: but it must be understood
12201 of the same day; and although the beginning of the day varies according to different systems of reckoning (for some begin
12202 their day at noon, some at sunset, others at midnight, and others at sunrise), the Roman
12203 Church begins it at midnight. Consequently, if any person takes anything by way of food or drink after midnight, he may not
12204 receive this sacrament on that day; but he can do so if the food was taken before midnight. Nor does it matter, so far as
12205 the precept is concerned, whether he has slept after taking food or drink, or whether he has digested it; but it does matter
12206 as to the mental disturbance which one suffers from want of sleep or from indigestion, for, if the mind be much disturbed,
12207 one
12208 becomes unfit for receiving this sacrament.
12209 </p>
12210 <p id="TP_Q80_A8-p17">
12211 <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> The greatest devotion is called for at the moment of receiving this sacrament, because it is then that the effect of the
12212 sacrament is bestowed, and such devotion is hindered more by what goes before it than by what comes after it. And therefore
12213 it was ordained that men should fast before receiving the sacrament rather than after. Nevertheless there ought to be some
12214 interval between receiving this sacrament and taking other food. Consequently, both the
12215 Postcommunion prayer of thanksgiving is said in the Mass, and the communicants say their own private prayers.
12216 </p>
12217 <p id="TP_Q80_A8-p18"> However, according to the ancient Canons, the following ordination was made by Pope Clement I, (Ep. ii), "If the Lord's portion
12218 be eaten in the morning, the ministers who have taken it shall fast until the sixth hour, and if they take it at the third
12219 or fourth hour, they shall fast until evening." For in olden times, the priest celebrated Mass less frequently, and with greater
12220 preparation: but now, because the sacred mysteries have to be celebrated oftener, the same could not be
12221 easily observed, and so it has been abrogated by contrary custom.
12222 </p>
12223 <p id="TP_Q80_A8-p19"></p>
12224 <p id="TP_Q80_A8-p20"></p>
12225 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A7.html"></a>
12226 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A9.html"></a>
12227 </div>
12228 <div id="TP_Q80_A9" class="div4">
12229 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A8.html"></a>
12230 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A10.html"></a>
12231 <h4 id="TP_Q80_A9-p0.1">Whether those who have not the use of reason ought to receive this sacrament?</h4>
12232 <p id="TP_Q80_A9-p1"></p>
12233 <p id="TP_Q80_A9-p2">
12234 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that those who have not the use of reason ought not to receive this sacrament. For it is required that man should
12235 approach this sacrament with devotion and previous self-examination, according to
12236 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A9-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.11.28" target="asv">1 Cor. 11:28</a>: "Let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice." But this is not possible for those
12237 who are devoid of reason. Therefore this sacrament should not be given to them.
12238 </p>
12239 <p id="TP_Q80_A9-p3">
12240 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, among those who have not the use of reason are the possessed, who are called energumens. But such persons are kept
12241 from even beholding this sacrament, according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. iii). Therefore this sacrament ought not to be given
12242 to those who have not the use of reason.
12243 </p>
12244 <p id="TP_Q80_A9-p4">
12245 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, among those that lack the use of reason are children, the most innocent of all. But this sacrament is not given
12246 to children. Therefore much less should it be given to others deprived of the use of reason.
12247 </p>
12248 <p id="TP_Q80_A9-p5">
12249 <b>On the contrary,</b> We read in the First Council of Orange, (Canon 13); and the same is to be found in the Decretals (xxvi, 6): "All things that
12250 pertain to piety are to be given to the insane": and consequently, since this is the "sacrament of piety," it must be given
12251 to them.
12252 </p>
12253 <p id="TP_Q80_A9-p6">
12254 <b>I answer that,</b> Men are said to be devoid of reason in two ways. First, when they are feeble-minded, as a man who sees dimly is said not
12255 to see: and since such persons can conceive some devotion towards this sacrament, it is not to be denied them.
12256 </p>
12257 <p id="TP_Q80_A9-p7"> In another way men are said not to possess fully the use of reason. Either, then, they never had the use of reason, and have
12258 remained so from birth; and in that case this sacrament is not to be given to them, because in no way has there been any preceding
12259 devotion towards the sacrament: or else, they were not always devoid of reason, and then, if when they formerly had their
12260 wits they showed devotion towards this sacrament, it ought to be given to them in the hour of death;
12261 unless danger be feared of vomiting or spitting it out. Hence we read in the acts of the Fourth Council of Carthage (Canon
12262 76). and the same is to be found in the Decretals (xxvi, 6): "If a sick man ask to receive the sacrament of Penance; and if,
12263 when the priest who has been sent for comes to him, he be so weak as to be unable to speak, or becomes delirious, let them,
12264 who heard him ask, bear witness, and let him receive the sacrament of Penance. then if it be thought that he is going to die
12265 shortly, let him be reconciled by imposition of hands, and let the Eucharist be placed in his mouth."
12266 </p>
12267 <p id="TP_Q80_A9-p8">
12268 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Those lacking the use of reason can have devotion towards the sacrament; actual devotion in some cases, and past in others.
12269 </p>
12270 <p id="TP_Q80_A9-p9">
12271 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Dionysius is speaking there of energumens who are not yet baptized, in whom the devil's power is not yet extinct, since it
12272 thrives in them through the presence of original sin. But as to baptized persons who are vexed in body by unclean spirits,
12273 the same reason holds good of them as of others who are demented. Hence Cassian says (Collat. vii): "We do not remember the
12274 most Holy Communion to have ever been denied by our elders to them who are vexed by
12275 unclean spirits."
12276 </p>
12277 <p id="TP_Q80_A9-p10">
12278 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The same reason holds good of newly born children as of the insane who never have had the use of reason: consequently, the
12279 sacred mysteries are not to be given to them. Although certain Greeks do the contrary, because Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier.
12280 ii) that Holy Communion is to be given to them who are baptized; not understanding that Dionysius is speaking there of the
12281 Baptism of adults. Nor do they suffer any loss of life from the fact of our Lord
12282 saying (
12283 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A9-p10.1" href="./asv.html#John.6.54" target="asv">Jn. 6:54</a>), "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you"; because, as Augustine
12284 writes to Boniface (Pseudo-Beda, Comment. in
12285 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A9-p10.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.10.17" target="asv">1 Cor. 10:17</a>), "then every one of the faithful becomes a partaker," i.e. spiritually, "of the body and blood of the Lord, when he is made
12286 a member of Christ's body in Baptism." But when children once begin to have some use of reason so as to be able to conceive
12287 some
12288 devotion for the sacrament, then it can be given to them.
12289 </p>
12290 <p id="TP_Q80_A9-p11"></p>
12291 <p id="TP_Q80_A9-p12"></p>
12292 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A8.html"></a>
12293 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A10.html"></a>
12294 </div>
12295 <div id="TP_Q80_A10" class="div4">
12296 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A9.html"></a>
12297 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A11.html"></a>
12298 <h4 id="TP_Q80_A10-p0.1">Whether it is lawful to receive this sacrament daily?</h4>
12299 <p id="TP_Q80_A10-p1"></p>
12300 <p id="TP_Q80_A10-p2">
12301 <b>Objection 1:</b> It does not appear to be lawful to receive this sacrament daily, because, as Baptism shows forth our Lord's Passion, so also
12302 does this sacrament. Now one may not be baptized several times, but only once, because "Christ died once" only "for our sins,"
12303 according to
12304 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A10-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iPet.3.18" target="asv">1 Pet. 3:18.</a> Therefore, it seems unlawful to receive this sacrament daily.
12305 </p>
12306 <p id="TP_Q80_A10-p3">
12307 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the reality ought to answer to the figure. But the Paschal Lamb, which was the chief figure of this sacrament, as
12308 was said above (
12309 <a id="TP_Q80_A10-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q73_A9.html">Q[73], A[9]</a>) was eaten only once in the year; while the Church once a year commemorates Christ's Passion, of which this sacrament is
12310 the memorial. It seems, then, that it is lawful to receive this sacrament not daily, but only once in the year.
12311 </p>
12312 <p id="TP_Q80_A10-p4">
12313 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the greatest reverence is due to this sacrament as containing Christ. But it is a token of reverence to refrain
12314 from receiving this sacrament; hence the Centurion is praised for saying (
12315 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A10-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.8.8" target="asv">Mat. 8:8</a>), "Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldst enter under my roof"; also Peter, for saying (
12316 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A10-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.5.8" target="asv">Lk. 5:8</a>), "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord." Therefore, it is not praiseworthy for a man to receive this sacrament
12317 daily.
12318 </p>
12319 <p id="TP_Q80_A10-p5">
12320 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, if it were a praiseworthy custom to receive this sacrament frequently, then the oftener it were taken the more praise-worthy
12321 it would be. But there would be greater frequency if one were to receive it several. times daily; and yet this is not the
12322 custom of the Church. Consequently, it does not seem praiseworthy to receive it daily.
12323 </p>
12324 <p id="TP_Q80_A10-p6">
12325 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, the Church by her statutes intends to promote the welfare of the faithful. But the Church's statute only requires
12326 Communion once a year; hence it is enacted (Extra, De Poenit. et Remiss. xii): "Let every person of either sex devoutly receive
12327 the sacrament of the Eucharist at least at Easter; unless by the advice of his parish priest, and for some reasonable cause,
12328 he considers he ought to refrain from receiving for a time." Consequently, it is not
12329 praiseworthy to receive this sacrament daily.
12330 </p>
12331 <p id="TP_Q80_A10-p7">
12332 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Verb. Dom., Serm. xxviii): "This is our daily bread; take it daily, that it may profit thee daily."
12333 </p>
12334 <p id="TP_Q80_A10-p8">
12335 <b>I answer that,</b> There are two things to be considered regarding the use of this sacrament. The first is on the part of the sacrament itself,
12336 the virtue of which gives health to men; and consequently it is profitable to receive it daily so as to receive its fruits
12337 daily. Hence Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): "If, whenever Christ's blood is shed, it is shed for the forgiveness of sins, I
12338 who sin often, should receive it often: I need a frequent remedy." The second thing to be
12339 considered is on the part of the recipient, who is required to approach this sacrament with great reverence and devotion.
12340 Consequently, if anyone finds that he has these dispositions every day, he will do well to receive it daily. Hence, Augustine
12341 after saying, "Receive daily, that it may profit thee daily," adds: "So live, as to deserve to receive it daily." But because
12342 many persons are lacking in this devotion, on account of the many drawbacks both spiritual and corporal from which they
12343 suffer, it is not expedient for all to approach this sacrament every day; but they should do so as often as they find themselves
12344 properly disposed. Hence it is said in De Eccles. Dogmat. liii: "I neither praise nor blame daily reception of the Eucharist."
12345 </p>
12346 <p id="TP_Q80_A10-p9">
12347 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> In the sacrament of Baptism a man is conformed to Christ's death, by receiving His character within him. And therefore, as
12348 Christ died but once, so a man ought to be baptized but once. But a man does not receive Christ's character in this sacrament;
12349 He receives Christ Himself, Whose virtue endures for ever. Hence it is written (
12350 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A10-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.10.14" target="asv">Heb. 10:14</a>): "By one oblation He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." Consequently, since
12351 man has daily need of Christ's health-giving virtue, he may commendably receive this sacrament every day.
12352 </p>
12353 <p id="TP_Q80_A10-p10"> And since Baptism is above all a spiritual regeneration, therefore, as a man is born naturally but once, so ought he by Baptism
12354 to be reborn spiritually but once, as Augustine says (Tract. xi in Joan.), commenting on
12355 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A10-p10.1" href="./asv.html#John.3.4" target="asv"> Jn. 3:4, </a> "How can a man be born again, when he is grown old?" But this sacrament is spiritual food; hence, just as bodily food is
12356 taken every day, so is it a good thing to receive this sacrament every day. Hence it is that our Lord
12357 (
12358 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A10-p10.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.11.3" target="asv">Lk. 11:3</a>), teaches us to pray, "Give us this day our daily bread": in explaining which words Augustine observes (De Verb. Dom., Serm.
12359 xxviii): "If you receive it," i.e. this sacrament, every day, "every day is today for thee, and Christ rises again every day
12360 in thee, for when Christ riseth it is today."
12361 </p>
12362 <p id="TP_Q80_A10-p11">
12363 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The Paschal Lamb was the figure of this sacrament chiefly as to Christ's Passion represented therein; and therefore it was
12364 partaken of once a year only, since Christ died but once. And on this account the Church celebrates once a year the remembrance
12365 of Christ's Passion. But in this sacrament the memorial of His Passion is given by way of food which is partaken of daily;
12366 and therefore in this respect it is represented by the manna which was given
12367 daily to the people in the desert.
12368 </p>
12369 <p id="TP_Q80_A10-p12">
12370 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Reverence for this sacrament consists in fear associated with love; consequently reverential fear of God is called filial
12371 fear, as was said in the
12372 <a id="TP_Q80_A10-p12.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q67_A4.html">FS, Q[67], A[4]</a>, ad 2;
12373 <a id="TP_Q80_A10-p12.2" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q19_A9.html">SS, Q[19], AA[9]</a>,11,12; because the desire of receiving arises from love, while the humility of reverence springs from fear. Consequently,
12374 each of these belongs to the reverence due to this sacrament; both as to receiving it daily, and
12375 as to refraining from it sometimes. Hence Augustine says (Ep. liv): "If one says that the Eucharist should not be received
12376 daily, while another maintains the contrary, let each one do as according to his devotion he thinketh right; for Zaccheus
12377 and the Centurion did not contradict one another while the one received the Lord with joy, whereas the other said: 'Lord I
12378 am not worthy that Thou shouldst enter under my roof'; since both honored our Saviour, though not in the same way." But love
12379 and
12380 hope, whereunto the Scriptures constantly urge us, are preferable to fear. Hence, too, when Peter had said, "Depart from me,
12381 for I am a sinful man, O Lord," Jesus answered: "Fear not."
12382 </p>
12383 <p id="TP_Q80_A10-p13">
12384 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Because our Lord said (
12385 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A10-p13.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.11.3" target="asv">Lk. 11:3</a>), "Give us this day our daily bread," we are not on that account to communicate several times daily, for, by one daily communion
12386 the unity of Christ's Passion is set forth.
12387 </p>
12388 <p id="TP_Q80_A10-p14">
12389 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> Various statutes have emanated according to the various ages of the Church. In the primitive Church, when the devotion of
12390 the Christian faith was more flourishing, it was enacted that the faithful should communicate daily: hence Pope Anaclete says
12391 (Ep. i): "When the consecration is finished, let all communicate who do not wish to cut themselves off from the Church; for
12392 so the apostles have ordained, and the holy Roman Church holds." Later on, when the
12393 fervor of faith relaxed, Pope Fabian (Third Council of Tours, Canon 1) gave permission "that all should communicate, if not
12394 more frequently, at least three times in the year, namely, at Easter, Pentecost, and Christmas." Pope Soter likewise (Second
12395 Council of Chalon, Canon xlvii) declares that Communion should be received "on Holy Thursday," as is set forth in the Decretals
12396 (De Consecratione, dist. 2). Later on, when "iniquity abounded and charity grew cold" (
12397 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A10-p14.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.24.12" target="asv">Mat. 24:12</a>),
12398 Pope Innocent III commanded that the faithful should communicate "at least once a year," namely, "at Easter." However, in
12399 De Eccles. Dogmat. xxiii, the faithful are counseled "to communicate on all Sundays."
12400 </p>
12401 <p id="TP_Q80_A10-p15"></p>
12402 <p id="TP_Q80_A10-p16"></p>
12403 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A9.html"></a>
12404 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A11.html"></a>
12405 </div>
12406 <div id="TP_Q80_A11" class="div4">
12407 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A10.html"></a>
12408 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A12.html"></a>
12409 <h4 id="TP_Q80_A11-p0.1">Whether it is lawful to abstain altogether from communion?</h4>
12410 <p id="TP_Q80_A11-p1"></p>
12411 <p id="TP_Q80_A11-p2">
12412 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems to be lawful to abstain altogether from Communion. Because the Centurion is praised for saying (
12413 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A11-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.8.8" target="asv">Mat. 8:8</a>): "Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldst enter under my roof"; and he who deems that he ought to refrain entirely from
12414 Communion can be compared to the Centurion, as stated above (A[10], ad 3). Therefore, since we do not read of Christ entering
12415 his house, it seems to be lawful for any individual to abstain from Communion his
12416 whole life long.
12417 </p>
12418 <p id="TP_Q80_A11-p3">
12419 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is lawful for anyone to refrain from what is not of necessity for salvation. But this sacrament is not of necessity
12420 for salvation, as was stated above (
12421 <a id="TP_Q80_A11-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q73_A3.html">Q[73], A[3]</a>). Therefore it is permissible to abstain from Communion altogether.
12422 </p>
12423 <p id="TP_Q80_A11-p4">
12424 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, sinners are not bound to go to Communion: hence Pope Fabian (Third Council of Tours, Canon 1) after saying, "Let
12425 all communicate thrice each year," adds: "Except those who are hindered by grievous crimes." Consequently, if those who are
12426 not in the state of sin are bound to go to Communion, it seems that sinners are better off than good people, which is unfitting.
12427 Therefore, it seems lawful even for the godly to refrain from Communion.
12428 </p>
12429 <p id="TP_Q80_A11-p5">
12430 <b>On the contrary,</b> Our Lord said (
12431 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A11-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.6.54" target="asv">Jn. 6:54</a>): "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you."
12432 </p>
12433 <p id="TP_Q80_A11-p6">
12434 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
12435 <a id="TP_Q80_A11-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q80_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, there are two ways of receiving this sacrament namely, spiritually and sacramentally. Now it is clear that all are bound
12436 to eat it at least spiritually, because this is to be incorporated in Christ, as was said above (Q[73], A[3], ad 1). Now spiritual
12437 eating comprises the desire or yearning for receiving this sacrament, as was said above (A[1], ad 3, A[2]). Therefore, a man
12438 cannot be saved without desiring to
12439 receive this sacrament.
12440 </p>
12441 <p id="TP_Q80_A11-p7"> Now a desire would be vain except it were fulfilled when opportunity presented itself. Consequently, it is evident that a
12442 man is bound to receive this sacrament, not only by virtue of the Church's precept, but also by virtue of the Lord's command
12443 (
12444 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A11-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.22.19" target="asv">Lk. 22:19</a>): "Do this in memory of Me." But by the precept of the Church there are fixed times for fulfilling Christ's command.
12445 </p>
12446 <p id="TP_Q80_A11-p8">
12447 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As Gregory says: "He is truly humble, who is not obstinate in rejecting what is commanded for his good." Consequently, humility
12448 is not praiseworthy if anyone abstains altogether from Communion against the precept of Christ and the Church. Again the Centurion
12449 was not commanded to receive Christ into his house.
12450 </p>
12451 <p id="TP_Q80_A11-p9">
12452 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This sacrament is said not to be as necessary as Baptism, with regard to children, who can be saved without the Eucharist,
12453 but not without the sacrament of Baptism: both, however, are of necessity with regard to adults.
12454 </p>
12455 <p id="TP_Q80_A11-p10">
12456 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Sinners suffer great loss in being kept back from receiving this sacrament, so that they are not better off on that account;
12457 and although while continuing in their sins they are not on that account excused from transgressing the precept, nevertheless,
12458 as Pope Innocent III says, penitents, "who refrain on the advice of their priest," are excused.
12459 </p>
12460 <p id="TP_Q80_A11-p11"></p>
12461 <p id="TP_Q80_A11-p12"></p>
12462 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A10.html"></a>
12463 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A12.html"></a>
12464 </div>
12465 <div id="TP_Q80_A12" class="div4">
12466 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A11.html"></a>
12467 <a href="summa.TP_Q81.html"></a>
12468 <h4 id="TP_Q80_A12-p0.1">Whether it is lawful to receive the body of Christ without the blood?</h4>
12469 <p id="TP_Q80_A12-p1"></p>
12470 <p id="TP_Q80_A12-p2">
12471 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems unlawful to receive the body of Christ without the blood. For Pope Gelasius says (cf. De Consecr. ii): "We have
12472 learned that some persons after taking only a portion of the sacred body, abstain from the chalice of the sacred blood. I
12473 know not for what superstitious motive they do this: therefore let them either receive the entire sacrament, or let them be
12474 withheld from the sacrament altogether." Therefore it is not lawful to receive the body of Christ
12475 without His blood.
12476 </p>
12477 <p id="TP_Q80_A12-p3">
12478 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the eating of the body and the drinking of the blood are required for the perfection of this sacrament, as stated
12479 above (
12480 <a id="TP_Q80_A12-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q73_A2.html">Q[73], A[2]</a>;
12481 <a id="TP_Q80_A12-p3.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q76_A2.html"> Q[76], A[2]</a>, ad 1). Consequently, if the body be taken without the blood, it will be an imperfect sacrament, which seems to savor of
12482 sacrilege; hence Pope Gelasius adds (cf. De Consecr. ii), "because the dividing of one and the same mystery cannot happen
12483 without a great
12484 sacrilege."
12485 </p>
12486 <p id="TP_Q80_A12-p4">
12487 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, this sacrament is celebrated in memory of our Lord's Passion, as stated above (
12488 <a id="TP_Q80_A12-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q73_A4.html">Q[73], AA[4]</a>,5;
12489 <a id="TP_Q80_A12-p4.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q74_A1.html"> Q[74], A[1]</a>), and is received for the health of soul. But the Passion is expressed in the blood rather than in the body; moreover, as
12490 stated above (
12491 <a id="TP_Q80_A12-p4.3" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q74_A1.html">Q[74], A[1]</a>), the blood is offered for the health of the soul. Consequently, one ought to refrain from receiving the body rather than
12492 the
12493 blood. Therefore, such as approach this sacrament ought not to take Christ's body without His blood.
12494 </p>
12495 <p id="TP_Q80_A12-p5">
12496 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is the custom of many churches for the body of Christ to be given to the communicant without His blood.
12497 </p>
12498 <p id="TP_Q80_A12-p6">
12499 <b>I answer that,</b> Two points should be observed regarding the use of this sacrament, one on the part of the sacrament, the other on the part
12500 of the recipients; on the part of the sacrament it is proper for both the body and the blood to be received, since the perfection
12501 of the sacrament lies in both, and consequently, since it is the priest's duty both to consecrate and finish the sacrament,
12502 he ought on no account to receive Christ's body without the blood.
12503 </p>
12504 <p id="TP_Q80_A12-p7"> But on the part of the recipient the greatest reverence and caution are called for, lest anything happen which is unworthy
12505 of so great a mystery. Now this could especially happen in receiving the blood, for, if incautiously handled, it might easily
12506 be spilt. And because the multitude of the Christian people increased, in which there are old, young, and children, some of
12507 whom have not enough discretion to observe due caution in using this sacrament, on that account it is a
12508 prudent custom in some churches for the blood not to be offered to the reception of the people, but to be received by the
12509 priest alone.
12510 </p>
12511 <p id="TP_Q80_A12-p8">
12512 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Pope Gelasius is speaking of priests, who, as they consecrate the entire sacrament, ought to communicate in the entire sacrament.
12513 For, as we read in the (Twelfth) Council of Toledo, "What kind of a sacrifice is that, wherein not even the sacrificer is
12514 known to have a share?"
12515 </p>
12516 <p id="TP_Q80_A12-p9">
12517 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The perfection of this sacrament does not lie in the use of the faithful, but in the consecration of the matter. And hence
12518 there is nothing derogatory to the perfection of this sacrament; if the people receive the body without the blood, provided
12519 that the priest who consecrates receive both.
12520 </p>
12521 <p id="TP_Q80_A12-p10">
12522 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Our Lord's Passion is represented in the very consecration of this sacrament, in which the body ought not to be consecrated
12523 without the blood. But the body can be received by the people without the blood: nor is this detrimental to the sacrament.
12524 Because the priest both offers and consumes the blood on behalf of all; and Christ is fully contained under either species,
12525 as was shown above (
12526 <a id="TP_Q80_A12-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q76_A2.html">Q[76], A[2]</a>).
12527 </p>
12528 <p id="TP_Q80_A12-p11"></p>
12529 <p id="TP_Q80_A12-p12"></p>
12530 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A11.html"></a>
12531 <a href="summa.TP_Q81.html"></a>
12532 </div>
12533 <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A8.html"></a>
12534 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A1.html"></a>
12535 </div>
12536 <div id="TP_Q81" class="div3">
12537 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A12.html"></a>
12538 <a href="summa.TP_Q81_A1.html"></a>
12539 <h3 id="TP_Q81-p0.1">OF THE USE WHICH CHRIST MADE OF THIS SACRAMENT AT ITS INSTITUTION (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3>
12540 <p id="TP_Q81-p1"></p>
12541 <p id="TP_Q81-p2"> We have now to consider the use which Christ made of this sacrament at its institution; under which heading there are four
12542 points of inquiry:
12543 </p>
12544 <p id="TP_Q81-p3"> (1) Whether Christ received His own body and blood?</p>
12545 <p id="TP_Q81-p4"> (2) Whether He gave it to Judas?</p>
12546 <p id="TP_Q81-p5"> (3) What kind of body did He receive or give, namely, was it passible or impassible?</p>
12547 <p id="TP_Q81-p6"> (4) What would have been the condition of Christ's body under this sacrament, if it had been reserved or consecrated during
12548 the three days He lay dead?
12549 </p>
12550 <div id="TP_Q81_A1" class="div4">
12551 <a href="summa.TP_Q81.html"></a>
12552 <a href="summa.TP_Q81_A2.html"></a>
12553 <h4 id="TP_Q81_A1-p0.1">Whether Christ received His own body and blood?</h4>
12554 <p id="TP_Q81_A1-p1"></p>
12555 <p id="TP_Q81_A1-p2">
12556 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that Christ did not receive His own body and blood, because nothing ought to be asserted of either Christ's doings
12557 or sayings, which is not handed down by the authority of Sacred Scripture. But it is not narrated in the gospels that He ate
12558 His own body or drank His own blood. Therefore we must not assert this as a fact.
12559 </p>
12560 <p id="TP_Q81_A1-p3">
12561 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, nothing can be within itself except perchance by reason of its parts, for instance. as one part is in another, as
12562 is stated in Phys. iv. But what is eaten and drunk is in the eater and drinker. Therefore, since the entire Christ is under
12563 each species of the sacrament, it seems impossible for Him to have received this sacrament.
12564 </p>
12565 <p id="TP_Q81_A1-p4">
12566 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the receiving of this sacrament is twofold, namely, spiritual and sacramental. But the spiritual was unsuitable
12567 for Christ, as He derived no benefit from the sacrament. and in consequence so was the sacramental, since it is imperfect
12568 without the spiritual, as was observed above (
12569 <a id="TP_Q81_A1-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q80_A1.html">Q[80], A[1]</a>). Consequently, in no way did Christ partake of this sacrament.
12570 </p>
12571 <p id="TP_Q81_A1-p5">
12572 <b>On the contrary,</b> Jerome says (Ad Hedib., Ep. xxx), "The Lord Jesus Christ, Himself the guest and banquet, is both the partaker and what is
12573 eaten."
12574 </p>
12575 <p id="TP_Q81_A1-p6">
12576 <b>I answer that,</b> Some have said that Christ during the supper gave His body and blood to His disciples, but did not partake of it Himself.
12577 But this seems improbable. Because Christ Himself was the first to fulfill what He required others to observe: hence He willed
12578 first to be baptized when imposing Baptism upon others: as we read in
12579 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q81_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.1.1" target="asv"> Acts 1:1</a>: "Jesus began to do and to teach." Hence He first of all took His own body and blood, and afterwards gave it to
12580 be taken by the disciples. And hence the gloss upon
12581 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q81_A1-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Ruth.3.7" target="asv"> Ruth 3:7, </a> "When he had eaten and drunk, says: Christ ate and drank at the supper, when He gave to the disciples the sacrament of His
12582 body and blood. Hence, 'because the children partook [*Vulg.: 'are partakers' (
12583 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q81_A1-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Heb.2.14" target="asv">Heb. 2:14</a>)] of His flesh and blood, He also hath been partaker in the same.'"
12584 </p>
12585 <p id="TP_Q81_A1-p7">
12586 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> We read in the Gospels how Christ "took the bread . . . and the chalice"; but it is not to be understood that He took them
12587 merely into His hands, as some say. but that He took them in the same way as He gave them to others to take. Hence when He
12588 said to the disciples, "Take ye and eat," and again, "Take ye and drink," it is to be understood that He Himself, in taking
12589 it, both ate and drank. Hence some have composed this rhyme:
12590 </p>
12591 <p id="TP_Q81_A1-p8"> "The King at supper sits,</p>
12592 <p id="TP_Q81_A1-p9"> The twelve as guests He greets,</p>
12593 <p id="TP_Q81_A1-p10"> Clasping Himself in His hands,</p>
12594 <p id="TP_Q81_A1-p11"> The food Himself now eats."</p>
12595 <p id="TP_Q81_A1-p12">
12596 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As was said above (
12597 <a id="TP_Q81_A1-p12.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q76_A5.html">Q[76], A[5]</a>), Christ as contained under this sacrament stands in relation to place, not according to His own dimensions, but according
12598 to the dimensions of the sacramental species; so that Christ is Himself in every place where those species are. And because
12599 the species were able to be both in the hands and the mouth of Christ, the entire Christ could be in both His hands and mouth.
12600 Now this could not come
12601 to pass were His relation to place to be according to His proper dimensions.
12602 </p>
12603 <p id="TP_Q81_A1-p13">
12604 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As was stated above (
12605 <a id="TP_Q81_A1-p13.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q79_A1.html">Q[79], A[1]</a>, ad 2), the effect of this sacrament is not merely an increase of habitual grace, but furthermore a certain actual delectation
12606 of spiritual sweetness. But although grace was not increased in Christ through His receiving this sacrament, yet He had a
12607 certain spiritual delectation from the new institution of this sacrament. Hence He Himself said (
12608 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q81_A1-p13.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.22.15" target="asv">Lk. 22:15</a>): "With desire I
12609 have desired to eat this Pasch with you," which words Eusebius explains of the new mystery of the New Testament, which He
12610 gave to the disciples. And therefore He ate it both spiritually and sacramentally, inasmuch as He received His own body under
12611 the sacrament which sacrament of His own body He both understood and prepared; yet differently from others who partake of
12612 it both sacramentally and spiritually, for these receive an increase of grace, and they have need of the sacramental signs
12613 for
12614 perceiving its truth.
12615 </p>
12616 <p id="TP_Q81_A1-p14"></p>
12617 <p id="TP_Q81_A1-p15"></p>
12618 <a href="summa.TP_Q81.html"></a>
12619 <a href="summa.TP_Q81_A2.html"></a>
12620 </div>
12621 <div id="TP_Q81_A2" class="div4">
12622 <a href="summa.TP_Q81_A1.html"></a>
12623 <a href="summa.TP_Q81_A3.html"></a>
12624 <h4 id="TP_Q81_A2-p0.1">Whether Christ gave His body to Judas?</h4>
12625 <p id="TP_Q81_A2-p1"></p>
12626 <p id="TP_Q81_A2-p2">
12627 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that Christ did not give His body to Judas. Because, as we read (
12628 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q81_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.26.29" target="asv">Mat. 26:29</a>), our Lord, after giving His body and blood to the disciples, said to them: "I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit
12629 of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of My Father." From this it appears that those
12630 to whom He had given His body and blood were to drink of it again with Him. But Judas did not drink of it
12631 afterwards with Him. Therefore he did not receive Christ's body and blood with the other disciples.
12632 </p>
12633 <p id="TP_Q81_A2-p3">
12634 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, what the Lord commanded, He Himself fulfilled, as is said in
12635 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q81_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.1.1" target="asv"> Acts 1:1</a>: "Jesus began to do and to teach." But He gave the command (
12636 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q81_A2-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.7.6" target="asv">Mat. 7:6</a>): "Give not that which is holy to dogs." Therefore, knowing Judas to be a sinner, seemingly He did not give him His body
12637 and blood.
12638 </p>
12639 <p id="TP_Q81_A2-p4">
12640 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is distinctly related (
12641 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q81_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#John.13.26" target="asv">Jn. 13:26</a>) that Christ gave dipped bread to Judas. Consequently, if He gave His body to him, it appears that He gave it him in the
12642 morsel, especially since we read (
12643 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q81_A2-p4.2" href="./asv.html#John.13.26" target="asv">Jn. 13:26</a>) that "after the morsel, Satan entered into him." And on this passage Augustine says (Tract. lxii in Joan.): "From this we
12644 learn how we should beware of receiving a good thing in an evil way . . . For if he be 'chastised' who does
12645 'not discern,' i.e. distinguish, the body of the Lord from other meats, how must he be 'condemned' who, feigning himself a
12646 friend, comes to His table a foe?" But (Judas) did not receive our Lord's body with the dipped morsel; thus Augustine commenting
12647 on
12648 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q81_A2-p4.3" href="./asv.html#John.13.26" target="asv"> Jn. 13:26, </a> "When He had dipped the bread, He gave it to Judas, the son of Simon the Iscariot [Vulg.: 'to Judas Iscariot, the son of
12649 Simon]," says (Tract. lxii in Joan.): "Judas did not receive Christ's body then, as some
12650 think who read carelessly." Therefore it seems that Judas did not receive the body of Christ.
12651 </p>
12652 <p id="TP_Q81_A2-p5">
12653 <b>On the contrary,</b> Chrysostom says (Hom. lxxxii in Matth.): "Judas was not converted while partaking of the sacred mysteries: hence on both
12654 sides his crime becomes the more heinous, both because imbued with such a purpose he approached the mysteries, and because
12655 he became none the better for approaching, neither from fear, nor from the benefit received, nor from the honor conferred
12656 on him."
12657 </p>
12658 <p id="TP_Q81_A2-p6">
12659 <b>I answer that,</b> Hilary, in commenting on
12660 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q81_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.26.17" target="asv"> Mat. 26:17, </a> held that Christ did not give His body and blood to Judas. And this would have been quite proper, if the malice of Judas
12661 be considered. But since Christ was to serve us as a pattern of justice, it was not in keeping with His teaching authority
12662 to sever Judas, a hidden sinner, from Communion with the others without an accuser and evident proof. lest the Church's prelates
12663 might have an example for doing
12664 the like, and lest Judas himself being exasperated might take occasion of sinning. Therefore, it remains to be said that Judas
12665 received our Lord's body and blood with the other disciples, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii), and Augustine (Tract. lxii
12666 in Joan.).
12667 </p>
12668 <p id="TP_Q81_A2-p7">
12669 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This is Hilary's argument, to show that Judas did not receive Christ's body. But it is not cogent; because Christ is speaking
12670 to the disciples, from whose company Judas separated himself: and it was not Christ that excluded him. Therefore Christ for
12671 His part drinks the wine even with Judas in the kingdom of God; but Judas himself repudiated this banquet.
12672 </p>
12673 <p id="TP_Q81_A2-p8">
12674 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The wickedness of Judas was known to Christ as God; but it was unknown to Him, after the manner in which men know it. Consequently,
12675 Christ did not repel Judas from Communion; so as to furnish an example that such secret sinners are not to be repelled by
12676 other priests.
12677 </p>
12678 <p id="TP_Q81_A2-p9">
12679 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Without any doubt Judas did not receive Christ's body in the dipped bread; he received mere bread. Yet as Augustine observes
12680 (Tract. lxii in Joan.), "perchance the feigning of Judas is denoted by the dipping of the bread; just as some things are dipped
12681 to be dyed. If, however, the dipping signifies here anything good" (for instance, the sweetness of the Divine goodness, since
12682 bread is rendered more savory by being dipped), "then, not undeservedly, did
12683 condemnation follow his ingratitude for that same good." And owing to that ingratitude, "what is good became evil to him,
12684 as happens to them who receive Christ's body unworthily."
12685 </p>
12686 <p id="TP_Q81_A2-p10"> And as Augustine says (Tract. lxii in Joan.), "it must be understood that our Lord had already distributed the sacrament
12687 of His body and blood to all His disciples, among whom was Judas also, as Luke narrates: and after that, we came to this,
12688 where, according to the relation of John, our Lord, by dipping and handing the morsel, does most openly declare His betrayer."
12689 </p>
12690 <p id="TP_Q81_A2-p11"></p>
12691 <p id="TP_Q81_A2-p12"></p>
12692 <a href="summa.TP_Q81_A1.html"></a>
12693 <a href="summa.TP_Q81_A3.html"></a>
12694 </div>
12695 <div id="TP_Q81_A3" class="div4">
12696 <a href="summa.TP_Q81_A2.html"></a>
12697 <a href="summa.TP_Q81_A4.html"></a>
12698 <h4 id="TP_Q81_A3-p0.1">Whether Christ received and gave to the disciples His impassible body?</h4>
12699 <p id="TP_Q81_A3-p1"></p>
12700 <p id="TP_Q81_A3-p2">
12701 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that Christ both received and gave to the disciples His impassible body. Because on
12702 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q81_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.17.2" target="asv"> Mat. 17:2, </a> "He was transfigured before them," the gloss says: "He gave to the disciples at the supper that body which He had through
12703 nature, but neither mortal nor passible." And again, on
12704 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q81_A3-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Lev.2.5" target="asv"> Lev. 2:5, </a> "if thy oblation be from the frying-pan," the gloss says: "The Cross mightier than all things made Christ's flesh fit for
12705 being
12706 eaten, which before the Passion did not seem so suited." But Christ gave His body as suited for eating. Therefore He gave
12707 it just as it was after the Passion, that is, impassible and immortal.
12708 </p>
12709 <p id="TP_Q81_A3-p3">
12710 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, every passible body suffers by contact and by being eaten. Consequently, if Christ's body was passible, it would
12711 have suffered both from contact and from being eaten by the disciples.
12712 </p>
12713 <p id="TP_Q81_A3-p4">
12714 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the sacramental words now spoken by the priest in the person of Christ are not more powerful than when uttered by
12715 Christ Himself. But now by virtue of the sacramental words it is Christ's impassible and immortal body which is consecrated
12716 upon the altar. Therefore, much more so was it then.
12717 </p>
12718 <p id="TP_Q81_A3-p5">
12719 <b>On the contrary,</b> As Innocent III says (De Sacr. Alt. Myst. iv), "He bestowed on the disciples His body such as it was." But then He had a
12720 passible and a mortal body. Therefore, He gave a passible and mortal body to the disciples.
12721 </p>
12722 <p id="TP_Q81_A3-p6">
12723 <b>I answer that,</b> Hugh of Saint Victor (Innocent III, De Sacr. Alt. Myst. iv), maintained, that before the Passion, Christ assumed at various
12724 times the four properties of a glorified body ---namely, subtlety in His birth, when He came forth from the closed womb of
12725 the Virgin; agility, when He walked dryshod upon the sea; clarity, in the Transfiguration; and impassibility at the Last Supper,
12726 when He gave His body to the disciples to be eaten. And according to this He gave His
12727 body in an impassible and immortal condition to His disciples.
12728 </p>
12729 <p id="TP_Q81_A3-p7"> But whatever may be the case touching the other qualities, concerning which we have already stated what should be held (
12730 <a id="TP_Q81_A3-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q28_A2.html">Q[28], A[2]</a>, ad 3;
12731 <a id="TP_Q81_A3-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q45_A2.html"> Q[45], A[2]</a>), nevertheless the above opinion regarding impassibility is inadmissible. For it is manifest that the same body of Christ
12732 which was then seen by the disciples in its own species, was received by them under the sacramental species. But as seen in
12733 its own species it was not
12734 impassible; nay more, it was ready for the Passion. Therefore, neither was Christ's body impassible when given under the sacramental
12735 species.
12736 </p>
12737 <p id="TP_Q81_A3-p8"> Yet there was present in the sacrament, in an impassible manner, that which was passible of itself; just as that was there
12738 invisibly which of itself was visible. For as sight requires that the body seen be in contact with the adjacent medium of
12739 sight, so does passion require contact of the suffering body with the active agents. But Christ's body, according as it is
12740 under the sacrament, as stated above (A[1], ad 2;
12741 <a id="TP_Q81_A3-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q76_A5.html"> Q[76], A[5]</a>), is not compared with its
12742 surroundings through the intermediary of its own dimensions, whereby bodies touch each other, but through the dimensions of
12743 the bread and wine; consequently, it is those species which are acted upon and are seen, but not Christ's own body.
12744 </p>
12745 <p id="TP_Q81_A3-p9">
12746 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Christ is said not to have given His mortal and passible body at the supper, because He did not give it in mortal and passible
12747 fashion. But the Cross made His flesh adapted for eating, inasmuch as this sacrament represents Christ's Passion.
12748 </p>
12749 <p id="TP_Q81_A3-p10">
12750 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This argument would hold, if Christ's body, as it was passible, were also present in a passible manner in this sacrament.
12751 </p>
12752 <p id="TP_Q81_A3-p11">
12753 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As stated above (
12754 <a id="TP_Q81_A3-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q76_A4.html">Q[76], A[4]</a>), the accidents of Christ's body are in this sacrament by real concomitance, but not by the power of the sacrament, whereby
12755 the substance of Christ's body comes to be there. And therefore the power of the sacramental words extends to this, that the
12756 body, i.e. Christ's, is under this sacrament, whatever accidents really exist in it.
12757 </p>
12758 <p id="TP_Q81_A3-p12"></p>
12759 <p id="TP_Q81_A3-p13"></p>
12760 <a href="summa.TP_Q81_A2.html"></a>
12761 <a href="summa.TP_Q81_A4.html"></a>
12762 </div>
12763 <div id="TP_Q81_A4" class="div4">
12764 <a href="summa.TP_Q81_A3.html"></a>
12765 <a href="summa.TP_Q82.html"></a>
12766 <h4 id="TP_Q81_A4-p0.1">Whether, if this sacrament had been reserved in a pyx, or consecrated at the moment of Christ's death by one of the apostles,
12767 Christ Himself would have died there?
12768 </h4>
12769 <p id="TP_Q81_A4-p1"></p>
12770 <p id="TP_Q81_A4-p2">
12771 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that if this sacrament had been reserved in a pyx at the moment of Christ's death, or had then been consecrated
12772 by one of the apostles, that Christ would not have died there. For Christ's death happened through His Passion. But even then
12773 He was in this sacrament in an impassible manner. Therefore, He could not die in this sacrament.
12774 </p>
12775 <p id="TP_Q81_A4-p3">
12776 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, on the death of Christ, His blood was separated from the body. But His flesh and blood are together in this sacrament.
12777 Therefore He could not die in this sacrament.
12778 </p>
12779 <p id="TP_Q81_A4-p4">
12780 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, death ensues from the separation of the soul from the body. But both the body and the soul of Christ are contained
12781 in this sacrament. Therefore Christ could not die in this sacrament.
12782 </p>
12783 <p id="TP_Q81_A4-p5">
12784 <b>On the contrary,</b> The same Christ Who was upon the cross would have been in this sacrament. But He died upon the cross. Therefore, if this
12785 sacrament had been reserved, He would have died therein.
12786 </p>
12787 <p id="TP_Q81_A4-p6">
12788 <b>I answer that,</b> Christ's body is substantially the same in this sacrament, as in its proper species, but not after the same fashion; because
12789 in its proper species it comes in contact with surrounding bodies by its own dimensions: but it does not do so as it is in
12790 this sacrament, as stated above
12791 <a id="TP_Q81_A4-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q81_A3.html">(A[3])</a>. And therefore, all that belongs to Christ, as He is in Himself, can be attributed to Him both in His proper species, and
12792 as He exists in the
12793 sacrament; such as to live, to die, to grieve, to be animate or inanimate, and the like; while all that belongs to Him in
12794 relation to outward bodies, can be attributed to Him as He exists in His proper species, but not as He is in this sacrament;
12795 such as to be mocked, to be spat upon, to be crucified, to be scourged, and the rest. Hence some have composed this verse:
12796 </p>
12797 <p id="TP_Q81_A4-p7"> "Our Lord can grieve beneath the sacramental veils But cannot feel the piercing of the thorns and nails."</p>
12798 <p id="TP_Q81_A4-p8">
12799 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As was stated above, suffering belongs to a body that suffers in respect of some extrinsic body. And therefore Christ, as
12800 in this sacrament, cannot suffer; yet He can die.
12801 </p>
12802 <p id="TP_Q81_A4-p9">
12803 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As was said above (
12804 <a id="TP_Q81_A4-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q76_A2.html">Q[76], A[2]</a>), in virtue of the consecration, the body of Christ is under the species of bread, while His blood is under the species of
12805 wine. But now that His blood is not really separated from His body; by real concomitance, both His blood is present with the
12806 body under the species of the bread, and His body together with the blood under the species of the wine. But at the time when
12807 Christ suffered, when His
12808 blood was really separated from His body, if this sacrament had been consecrated, then the body only would have been present
12809 under the species of the bread, and the blood only under the species of the wine.
12810 </p>
12811 <p id="TP_Q81_A4-p10">
12812 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As was observed above (
12813 <a id="TP_Q81_A4-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q76_A1.html">Q[76], A[1]</a>, ad 1), Christ's soul is in this sacrament by real concomitance; because it is not without the body: but it is not there
12814 in virtue of the consecration. And therefore, if this sacrament had been consecrated then, or reserved, when His soul was
12815 really separated from His body, Christ's soul would not have been under this sacrament, not from any defect in the form of
12816 the words, but owing to the
12817 different dispositions of the thing contained.
12818 </p>
12819 <p id="TP_Q81_A4-p11"></p>
12820 <p id="TP_Q81_A4-p12"></p>
12821 <a href="summa.TP_Q81_A3.html"></a>
12822 <a href="summa.TP_Q82.html"></a>
12823 </div>
12824 <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A12.html"></a>
12825 <a href="summa.TP_Q81_A1.html"></a>
12826 </div>
12827 <div id="TP_Q82" class="div3">
12828 <a href="summa.TP_Q81_A4.html"></a>
12829 <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A1.html"></a>
12830 <h3 id="TP_Q82-p0.1">OF THE MINISTER OF THIS SACRAMENT (TEN ARTICLES)</h3>
12831 <p id="TP_Q82-p1"></p>
12832 <p id="TP_Q82-p2"> We now proceed to consider the minister of this sacrament: under which head there are ten points for our inquiry:</p>
12833 <p id="TP_Q82-p3"> (1) Whether it belongs to a priest alone to consecrate this sacrament?</p>
12834 <p id="TP_Q82-p4"> (2) Whether several priests can at the same time consecrate the same host?</p>
12835 <p id="TP_Q82-p5"> (3) Whether it belongs to the priest alone to dispense this sacrament?</p>
12836 <p id="TP_Q82-p6"> (4) Whether it is lawful for the priest consecrating to refrain from communicating?</p>
12837 <p id="TP_Q82-p7"> (5) Whether a priest in sin can perform this sacrament?</p>
12838 <p id="TP_Q82-p8"> (6) Whether the Mass of a wicked priest is of less value than that of a good one?</p>
12839 <p id="TP_Q82-p9"> (7) Whether those who are heretics, schismatics, or excommunicated, can perform this sacrament?</p>
12840 <p id="TP_Q82-p10"> (8) Whether degraded priests can do so?</p>
12841 <p id="TP_Q82-p11"> (9) Whether communicants receiving at their hands are guilty of sinning?</p>
12842 <p id="TP_Q82-p12"> (10) Whether a priest may lawfully refrain altogether from celebrating?</p>
12843 <p id="TP_Q82-p13">[*This is the order observed by St. Thomas in writing the Articles; but in writing this prologue, he placed Article 10 immediately
12844 after Article 4 (Cf. Leonine edition).]
12845 </p>
12846 <div id="TP_Q82_A1" class="div4">
12847 <a href="summa.TP_Q82.html"></a>
12848 <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A2.html"></a>
12849 <h4 id="TP_Q82_A1-p0.1">Whether the consecration of this sacrament belongs to a priest alone?</h4>
12850 <p id="TP_Q82_A1-p1"></p>
12851 <p id="TP_Q82_A1-p2">
12852 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the consecration of this sacrament does not belong exclusively to a priest. Because it was said above (
12853 <a id="TP_Q82_A1-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q78_A4.html">Q[78], A[4]</a>) that this sacrament is consecrated in virtue of the words, which are the form of this sacrament. But those words are not
12854 changed, whether spoken by a priest or by anyone else. Therefore, it seems that not only a priest, but anyone else, can consecrate
12855 this sacrament.
12856 </p>
12857 <p id="TP_Q82_A1-p3">
12858 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the priest performs this sacrament in the person of Christ. But a devout layman is united with Christ through charity.
12859 Therefore, it seems that even a layman can perform this sacrament. Hence Chrysostom (Opus imperfectum in Matth., Hom. xliii)
12860 says that "every holy man is a priest."
12861 </p>
12862 <p id="TP_Q82_A1-p4">
12863 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as Baptism is ordained for the salvation of mankind, so also is this sacrament, as is clear from what was said above
12864 (
12865 <a id="TP_Q82_A1-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q74_A1.html">Q[74], A[1]</a> ;
12866 <a id="TP_Q82_A1-p4.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q79_A2.html"> Q[79], A[2]</a>). But a layman can also baptize, as was stated above (
12867 <a id="TP_Q82_A1-p4.3" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q67_A3.html">Q[67] , A[3]</a>). Consequently, the consecration of this sacrament is not proper to a priest.
12868 </p>
12869 <p id="TP_Q82_A1-p5">
12870 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, this sacrament is completed in the consecration of the matter. But the consecration of other matters such as the
12871 chrism, the holy oil, and blessed oil, belongs exclusively to a bishop; yet their consecration does not equal the dignity
12872 of the consecration of the Eucharist, in which the entire Christ is contained. Therefore it belongs, not to a priest, but
12873 only to a bishop, to perform this sacrament.
12874 </p>
12875 <p id="TP_Q82_A1-p6">
12876 <b>On the contrary,</b> Isidore says in an Epistle to Ludifred (Decretals, dist. 25): "It belongs to a priest to consecrate this sacrament of the
12877 Lord's body and blood upon God's altar."
12878 </p>
12879 <p id="TP_Q82_A1-p7">
12880 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
12881 <a id="TP_Q82_A1-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q78_A1.html">Q[78], AA[1]</a>,4), such is the dignity of this sacrament that it is performed only as in the person of Christ. Now whoever performs any
12882 act in another's stead, must do so by the power bestowed by such a one. But as the power of receiving this sacrament is conceded
12883 by Christ to the baptized person, so likewise the power of consecrating this sacrament on Christ's behalf is bestowed upon
12884 the priest at his ordination: for
12885 thereby he is put upon a level with them to whom the Lord said (
12886 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q82_A1-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.22.19" target="asv">Lk. 22:19</a>): "Do this for a commemoration of Me." Therefore, it must be said that it belongs to priests to accomplish this sacrament.
12887 </p>
12888 <p id="TP_Q82_A1-p8">
12889 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The sacramental power is in several things, and not merely in one: thus the power of Baptism lies both in the words and in
12890 the water. Accordingly the consecrating power is not merely in the words, but likewise in the power delivered to the priest
12891 in his consecration and ordination, when the bishop says to him: "Receive the power of offering up the Sacrifice in the Church
12892 for the living as well as for the dead." For instrumental power lies in several
12893 instruments through which the chief agent acts.
12894 </p>
12895 <p id="TP_Q82_A1-p9">
12896 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> A devout layman is united with Christ by spiritual union through faith and charity, but not by sacramental power: consequently
12897 he has a spiritual priesthood for offering spiritual sacrifices, of which it is said (
12898 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q82_A1-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.1.19" target="asv">Ps. 1:19</a>): "A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit"; and (
12899 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q82_A1-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.12.1" target="asv">Rom. 12:1</a>): "Present your bodies a living sacrifice." Hence, too, it is written (
12900 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q82_A1-p9.3" href="./asv.html#iPet.2.5" target="asv">1 Pet. 2:5</a>): "A holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual
12901 sacrifices."
12902 </p>
12903 <p id="TP_Q82_A1-p10">
12904 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The receiving of this sacrament is not of such necessity as the receiving of Baptism, as is evident from what was said above
12905 (
12906 <a id="TP_Q82_A1-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q65_A3.html">Q[65], AA[3]</a>,4;
12907 <a id="TP_Q82_A1-p10.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q80_A11.html"> Q[80], A[11]</a>, ad 2). And therefore, although a layman can baptize in case of necessity, he cannot perform this sacrament.
12908 </p>
12909 <p id="TP_Q82_A1-p11">
12910 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The bishop receives power to act on Christ's behalf upon His mystical body, that is, upon the Church; but the priest receives
12911 no such power in his consecration, although he may have it by commission from the bishop. Consequently all such things as
12912 do not belong to the mystical body are not reserved to the bishop, such as the consecration of this sacrament. But it belongs
12913 to the bishop to deliver, not only to the people, but likewise to priests, such
12914 things as serve them in the fulfillment of their respective duties. And because the blessing of the chrism, and of the holy
12915 oil, and of the oil of the sick, and other consecrated things, such as altars, churches, vestments, and sacred vessels, makes
12916 such things fit for use in performing the sacraments which
12917 </p>
12918 <p id="TP_Q82_A1-p12"> belong to the priestly duty, therefore such consecrations are reserved to the bishop as the head of the whole ecclesiastical
12919 order.
12920 </p>
12921 <p id="TP_Q82_A1-p13"></p>
12922 <p id="TP_Q82_A1-p14"></p>
12923 <a href="summa.TP_Q82.html"></a>
12924 <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A2.html"></a>
12925 </div>
12926 <div id="TP_Q82_A2" class="div4">
12927 <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A1.html"></a>
12928 <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A3.html"></a>
12929 <h4 id="TP_Q82_A2-p0.1">Whether several priests can consecrate one and the same host?</h4>
12930 <p id="TP_Q82_A2-p1"></p>
12931 <p id="TP_Q82_A2-p2">
12932 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that several priests cannot consecrate one and the same host. For it was said above (
12933 <a id="TP_Q82_A2-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q67_A6.html">Q[67], A[6]</a>), that several cannot at the same time baptize one individual. But the power of a priest consecrating is not less than that
12934 of a man baptizing. Therefore, several priests cannot consecrate one host at the same time.
12935 </p>
12936 <p id="TP_Q82_A2-p3">
12937 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, what can be done by one, is superfluously done by several. But there ought to be nothing superfluous in the sacraments.
12938 Since, then, one is sufficient for consecrating, it seems that several cannot consecrate one host.
12939 </p>
12940 <p id="TP_Q82_A2-p4">
12941 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as Augustine says (Tract. xxvi in Joan.), this is "the sacrament of unity." But multitude seems to be opposed to
12942 unity. Therefore it seems inconsistent with the sacrament for several priests to consecrate the same host.
12943 </p>
12944 <p id="TP_Q82_A2-p5">
12945 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is the custom of some Churches for priests newly ordained to co-celebrate with the bishop ordaining them.
12946 </p>
12947 <p id="TP_Q82_A2-p6">
12948 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
12949 <a id="TP_Q82_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q82_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, when a priest is ordained he is placed on a level with those who received consecrating power from our Lord at the Supper.
12950 And therefore, according to the custom of some Churches, as the apostles supped when Christ supped, so the newly ordained
12951 co-celebrate with the ordaining bishop. Nor is the consecration, on that account, repeated over the same host, because as
12952 Innocent III says (De Sacr. Alt. Myst. iv), the
12953 intention of all should be directed to the same instant of the consecration.
12954 </p>
12955 <p id="TP_Q82_A2-p7">
12956 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> We do not read of Christ baptizing with the apostles when He committed to them the duty of baptizing; consequently there
12957 is no parallel.
12958 </p>
12959 <p id="TP_Q82_A2-p8">
12960 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> If each individual priest were acting in his own power, then other celebrants would be superfluous, since one would be sufficient.
12961 But whereas the priest does not consecrate except as in Christ's stead; and since many are "one in Christ" (
12962 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q82_A2-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.3.28" target="asv">Gal. 3:28</a>); consequently it does not matter whether this sacrament be consecrated by one or by many, except that the rite of the Church
12963 must be observed.
12964 </p>
12965 <p id="TP_Q82_A2-p9">
12966 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The Eucharist is the sacrament of ecclesiastical unity, which is brought about by many being "one in Christ."
12967 </p>
12968 <p id="TP_Q82_A2-p10"></p>
12969 <p id="TP_Q82_A2-p11"></p>
12970 <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A1.html"></a>
12971 <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A3.html"></a>
12972 </div>
12973 <div id="TP_Q82_A3" class="div4">
12974 <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A2.html"></a>
12975 <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A4.html"></a>
12976 <h4 id="TP_Q82_A3-p0.1">Whether dispensing of this sacrament belongs to a priest alone?</h4>
12977 <p id="TP_Q82_A3-p1"></p>
12978 <p id="TP_Q82_A3-p2">
12979 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the dispensing of this sacrament does not belong to a priest alone. For Christ's blood belongs to this sacrament
12980 no less than His body. But Christ's blood is dispensed by deacons: hence the blessed Lawrence said to the blessed Sixtus (Office
12981 of St. Lawrence, Resp. at Matins): "Try whether you have chosen a fit minister, to whom you have entrusted the dispensing
12982 of the Lord's blood." Therefore, with equal reason the dispensing of Christ's body
12983 does not belong to priests only.
12984 </p>
12985 <p id="TP_Q82_A3-p3">
12986 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, priests are the appointed ministers of the sacraments. But this sacrament is completed in the consecration of the
12987 matter, and not in the use, to which the dispensing belongs. Therefore it seems that it does not belong to a priest to dispense
12988 the Lord's body.
12989 </p>
12990 <p id="TP_Q82_A3-p4">
12991 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii, iv) that this sacrament, like chrism, has the power of perfecting. But it belongs,
12992 not to priests, but to bishops, to sign with the chrism. Therefore likewise, to dispense this sacrament belongs to the bishop
12993 and not to the priest.
12994 </p>
12995 <p id="TP_Q82_A3-p5">
12996 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (De Consecr., dist. 12): "It has come to our knowledge that some priests deliver the Lord's body to a layman
12997 or to a woman to carry it to the sick: The synod therefore forbids such presumption to continue; and let the priest himself
12998 communicate the sick."
12999 </p>
13000 <p id="TP_Q82_A3-p6">
13001 <b>I answer that,</b> The dispensing of Christ's body belongs to the priest for three reasons. First, because, as was said above
13002 <a id="TP_Q82_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q82_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, he consecrates as in the person of Christ. But as Christ consecrated His body at the supper, so also He gave it to others
13003 to be partaken of by them. Accordingly, as the consecration of Christ's body belongs to the priest, so likewise does the dispensing
13004 belong to him. Secondly, because the priest is the appointed
13005 intermediary between God and the people; hence as it belongs to him to offer the people's gifts to God, so it belongs to him
13006 to deliver consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this sacrament, nothing touches it,
13007 but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching
13008 this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it except from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall
13009 upon
13010 the ground, or else in some other case of urgency.
13011 </p>
13012 <p id="TP_Q82_A3-p7">
13013 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The deacon, as being nigh to the priestly order, has a certain share in the latter's duties, so that he may dispense the
13014 blood; but not the body, except in case of necessity, at the bidding of a bishop or of a priest. First of all, because Christ's
13015 blood is contained in a vessel, hence there is no need for it to be touched by the dispenser, as Christ's body is touched.
13016 Secondly, because the blood denotes the redemption derived by the people from
13017 Christ; hence it is that water is mixed with the blood, which water denotes the people. And because deacons are between priest
13018 and people, the dispensing of the blood is in the competency of deacons, rather than the dispensing of the body.
13019 </p>
13020 <p id="TP_Q82_A3-p8">
13021 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> For the reason given above, it belongs to the same person to dispense and to consecrate this sacrament.
13022 </p>
13023 <p id="TP_Q82_A3-p9">
13024 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As the deacon, in a measure, shares in the priest's "power of enlightening" (Eccl. Hier. v), inasmuch as he dispenses the
13025 blood. so the priest shares in the "perfective dispensing" (Eccl. Hier. v) of the bishop, inasmuch as he dispenses this sacrament
13026 whereby man is perfected in himself by union with Christ. But other perfections whereby a man is perfected in relation to
13027 others, are reserved to the bishop.
13028 </p>
13029 <p id="TP_Q82_A3-p10"></p>
13030 <p id="TP_Q82_A3-p11"></p>
13031 <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A2.html"></a>
13032 <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A4.html"></a>
13033 </div>
13034 <div id="TP_Q82_A4" class="div4">
13035 <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A3.html"></a>
13036 <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A5.html"></a>
13037 <h4 id="TP_Q82_A4-p0.1">Whether the priest who consecrates is bound to receive this sacrament?</h4>
13038 <p id="TP_Q82_A4-p1"></p>
13039 <p id="TP_Q82_A4-p2">
13040 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the priest who consecrates is not bound to receive this sacrament. Because, in the other consecrations, he
13041 who consecrates the matter does not use it, just as the bishop consecrating the chrism is not anointed therewith. But this
13042 sacrament consists in the consecration of the matter. Therefore, the priest performing this sacrament need not use the same,
13043 but may lawfully refrain from receiving it.
13044 </p>
13045 <p id="TP_Q82_A4-p3">
13046 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in the other sacraments the minister does not give the sacrament to himself: for no one can baptize himself, as
13047 stated above (
13048 <a id="TP_Q82_A4-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q66_A5.html">Q[66], A[5]</a>, ad 4). But as Baptism is dispensed in due order, so also is this sacrament. Therefore the priest who consecrates this sacrament
13049 ought not to receive it at his own hands.
13050 </p>
13051 <p id="TP_Q82_A4-p4">
13052 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it sometimes happens that Christ's body appears upon the altar under the guise of flesh, and the blood under the
13053 guise of blood; which are unsuited for food and drink: hence, as was said above (
13054 <a id="TP_Q82_A4-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q75_A5.html">Q[75], A[5]</a>), it is on that account that they are given under another species, lest they beget revulsion in the communicants. Therefore
13055 the priest who consecrates is not always bound to receive this sacrament.
13056 </p>
13057 <p id="TP_Q82_A4-p5">
13058 <b>On the contrary,</b> We read in the acts of the (Twelfth) Council of Toledo (Can. v), and again (De Consecr., dist. 2): "It must be strictly observed
13059 that as often as the priest sacrifices the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ upon the altar, he must himself be a partaker
13060 of Christ's body and blood."
13061 </p>
13062 <p id="TP_Q82_A4-p6">
13063 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
13064 <a id="TP_Q82_A4-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q79_A5.html">Q[79], AA[5]</a>,7), the Eucharist is not only a sacrament, but also a sacrifice. Now whoever offers sacrifice must be a sharer in the sacrifice,
13065 because the outward sacrifice he offers is a sign of the inner sacrifice whereby he offers himself to God, as Augustine says
13066 (De Civ. Dei x). Hence by partaking of the sacrifice he shows that the inner one is likewise his. In the same way also, by
13067 dispensing the sacrifice to
13068 the people he shows that he is the dispenser of Divine gifts, of which he ought himself to be the first to partake, as Dionysius
13069 says (Eccl. Hier. iii). Consequently, he ought to receive before dispensing it to the people. Accordingly we read in the chapter
13070 mentioned above (Twelfth Council of Toledo, Can. v): "What kind of sacrifice is that wherein not even the sacrificer is known
13071 to have a share?" But it is by partaking of the sacrifice that he has a share in it, as the Apostle says
13072 (
13073 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q82_A4-p6.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.10.18" target="asv">1 Cor. 10:18</a>): "Are not they that eat of the sacrifices, partakers of the altar?" Therefore it is necessary for the priest, as often as
13074 he consecrates, to receive this sacrament in its integrity.
13075 </p>
13076 <p id="TP_Q82_A4-p7">
13077 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The consecration of chrism or of anything else is not a sacrifice, as the consecration of the Eucharist is: consequently
13078 there is no parallel.
13079 </p>
13080 <p id="TP_Q82_A4-p8">
13081 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The sacrament of Baptism is accomplished in the use of the matter, and consequently no one can baptize himself, because the
13082 same person cannot be active and passive in a sacrament. Hence neither in this sacrament does the priest consecrate himself,
13083 but he consecrates the bread and wine, in which consecration the sacrament is completed. But the use thereof follows the sacrament,
13084 and therefore there is no parallel.
13085 </p>
13086 <p id="TP_Q82_A4-p9">
13087 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> If Christ's body appears miraculously upon the altar under the guise of flesh, or the blood under the guise of blood, it
13088 is not to be received. For Jerome says upon Leviticus (cf. De Consecr., dist. 2): "It is lawful to eat of this sacrifice which
13089 is wonderfully performed in memory of Christ: but it is not lawful for anyone to eat of that one which Christ offered on the
13090 altar of the cross." Nor does the priest transgress on that account, because
13091 miraculous events are not subject to human laws. Nevertheless the priest would be well advised to consecrate again and receive
13092 the Lord's body and blood.
13093 </p>
13094 <p id="TP_Q82_A4-p10"></p>
13095 <p id="TP_Q82_A4-p11"></p>
13096 <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A3.html"></a>
13097 <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A5.html"></a>
13098 </div>
13099 <div id="TP_Q82_A5" class="div4">
13100 <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A4.html"></a>
13101 <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A6.html"></a>
13102 <h4 id="TP_Q82_A5-p0.1">Whether a wicked priest can consecrate the Eucharist?</h4>
13103 <p id="TP_Q82_A5-p1"></p>
13104 <p id="TP_Q82_A5-p2">
13105 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that a wicked priest cannot consecrate the Eucharist. For Jerome, commenting on Sophon. iii, 4, says: "The priests
13106 who perform the Eucharist, and who distribute our Lord's blood to the people, act wickedly against Christ's law, in deeming
13107 that the Eucharist is consecrated by a prayer rather than by a good life; and that only the solemn prayer is requisite, and
13108 not the priest's merits: of whom it is said: 'Let not the priest, in whatever defilement he
13109 may be, approach to offer oblations to the Lord'" (
13110 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q82_A5-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.21.21" target="asv">Lev. 21:21, </a> Septuagint). But the sinful priest, being defiled, has neither the life nor the merits befitting this sacrament. Therefore
13111 a sinful priest cannot consecrate the Eucharist.
13112 </p>
13113 <p id="TP_Q82_A5-p3">
13114 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv) that "the bread and wine are changed supernaturally into the body and blood of
13115 our Lord, by the coming of the Holy Ghost." But Pope Gelasius I says (Ep. ad Elphid., cf. Decret. i, q. 1): "How shall the
13116 Holy Spirit, when invoked, come for the consecration of the Divine Mystery, if the priest invoking him be proved full of guilty
13117 deeds?" Consequently, the Eucharist cannot be consecrated by a wicked priest.
13118 </p>
13119 <p id="TP_Q82_A5-p4">
13120 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, this sacrament is consecrated by the priest's blessing. But a sinful priest's blessing is not efficacious for consecrating
13121 this sacrament, since it is written (
13122 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q82_A5-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Mal.2.2" target="asv">Malachi 2:2</a>): "I will curse your blessings." Again, Dionysius says in his Epistle (viii) to the monk Demophilus: "He who is not enlightened
13123 has completely fallen away from the priestly order; and I wonder that such a man dare to employ his hands in priestly actions,
13124 and in
13125 the person of Christ to utter, over the Divine symbols, his unclean infamies, for I will not call them prayers."
13126 </p>
13127 <p id="TP_Q82_A5-p5">
13128 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine (Paschasius) says (De Corp. Dom. xii): "Within the Catholic Church, in the mystery of the Lord's body and blood,
13129 nothing greater is done by a good priest, nothing less by an evil priest, because it is not by the merits of the consecrator
13130 that the sacrament is accomplished, but by the Creator's word, and by the power of the Holy Spirit."
13131 </p>
13132 <p id="TP_Q82_A5-p6">
13133 <b>I answer that,</b> As was said above (
13134 <a id="TP_Q82_A5-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q82_A1.html">AA[1]</a>,3), the priest consecrates this sacrament not by his own power, but as the minister of Christ, in Whose person he consecrates
13135 this sacrament. But from the fact of being wicked he does not cease to be Christ's minister; because our Lord has good and
13136 wicked ministers or servants. Hence (
13137 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q82_A5-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.24.45" target="asv">Mat. 24:45</a>) our Lord says: "Who, thinkest thou, is a faithful and wise servant?" and afterwards He adds:
13138 "But if that evil servant shall say in his heart," etc. And the Apostle (
13139 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q82_A5-p6.3" href="./asv.html#iCor.4.1" target="asv">1 Cor. 4:1</a>) says: "Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ"; and afterwards he adds: "I am not conscious to myself
13140 of anything; yet am I not hereby justified." He was therefore certain that he was Christ's minister; yet he was not certain
13141 that he was a just man. Consequently, a man can be Christ's minister even though he be not one of the just. And this belongs
13142 to Christ's excellence,
13143 Whom, as the true God, things both good and evil serve, since they are ordained by His providence for His glory. Hence it
13144 is evident that priests, even though they be not godly, but sinners, can consecrate the Eucharist.
13145 </p>
13146 <p id="TP_Q82_A5-p7">
13147 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> In those words Jerome is condemning the error of priests who believed they could consecrate the Eucharist worthily, from
13148 the mere fact of being priests, even though they were sinners; and Jerome condemns this from the fact that persons defiled
13149 are forbidden to approach the altar; but this does not prevent the sacrifice, which they offer, from being a true sacrifice,
13150 if they do approach.
13151 </p>
13152 <p id="TP_Q82_A5-p8">
13153 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Previous to the words quoted, Pope Gelasius expresses himself as follows: "That most holy rite, which contains the Catholic
13154 discipline, claims for itself such reverence that no one may dare to approach it except with clean conscience." From this
13155 it is evident that his meaning is that the priest who is a sinner ought not to approach this sacrament. Hence when he resumes,
13156 "How shall the Holy Spirit come when summoned," it must be understood that He
13157 comes, not through the priest's merits, but through the power of Christ, Whose words the priest utters.
13158 </p>
13159 <p id="TP_Q82_A5-p9">
13160 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As the same action can be evil, inasmuch as it is done with a bad intention of the servant; and good from the good intention
13161 of the master; so the blessing of a sinful priest, inasmuch as he acts unworthily is deserving of a curse, and is reputed
13162 an infamy and a blasphemy, and not a prayer; whereas, inasmuch as it is pronounced in the person of Christ, it is holy and
13163 efficacious. Hence it is said with significance: "I will curse your blessings."
13164 </p>
13165 <p id="TP_Q82_A5-p10"></p>
13166 <p id="TP_Q82_A5-p11"></p>
13167 <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A4.html"></a>
13168 <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A6.html"></a>
13169 </div>
13170 <div id="TP_Q82_A6" class="div4">
13171 <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A5.html"></a>
13172 <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A7.html"></a>
13173 <h4 id="TP_Q82_A6-p0.1">Whether the mass of a sinful priest is of less worth than the mass of a good priest?</h4>
13174 <p id="TP_Q82_A6-p1"></p>
13175 <p id="TP_Q82_A6-p2">
13176 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the mass of a sinful priest is not of less worth than that of a good priest. For Pope Gregory says in the Register:
13177 "Alas, into what a great snare they fall who believe that the Divine and hidden mysteries can be sanctified more by some than
13178 by others; since it is the one and the same Holy Ghost Who hallows those mysteries in a hidden and invisible manner." But
13179 these hidden mysteries are celebrated in the mass. Therefore the mass of a sinful
13180 priest is not of less value than the mass of a good priest.
13181 </p>
13182 <p id="TP_Q82_A6-p3">
13183 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, as Baptism is conferred by a minister through the power of Christ Who baptizes, so likewise this sacrament is consecrated
13184 in the person of Christ. But Baptism is no better when conferred by a better priest, as was said above (
13185 <a id="TP_Q82_A6-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q64_A1.html">Q[64], A[1]</a>, ad 2). Therefore neither is a mass the better, which is celebrated by a better priest.
13186 </p>
13187 <p id="TP_Q82_A6-p4">
13188 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as the merits of priests differ in the point of being good and better, so they likewise differ in the point of being
13189 good and bad. Consequently, if the mass of a better priest be itself better, it follows that the mass of a bad priest must
13190 be bad. Now this is unreasonable, because the malice of the ministers cannot affect Christ's mysteries, as Augustine says
13191 in his work on Baptism (Contra Donat. xii). Therefore neither is the mass of a better priest
13192 the better.
13193 </p>
13194 <p id="TP_Q82_A6-p5">
13195 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is stated in Decretal i, q. 1: "The worthier the priest, the sooner is he heard in the needs for which he prays."
13196 </p>
13197 <p id="TP_Q82_A6-p6">
13198 <b>I answer that,</b> There are two things to be considered in the mass. namely, the sacrament itself, which is the chief thing; and the prayers
13199 which are offered up in the mass for the quick and the dead. So far as the mass itself is concerned, the mass of a wicked
13200 priest is not of less value than that of a good priest, because the same sacrifice is offered by both.
13201 </p>
13202 <p id="TP_Q82_A6-p7"> Again, the prayer put up in the mass can be considered in two respects: first of all, in so far as it has its efficacy from
13203 the devotion of the priest interceding, and in this respect there is no doubt but that the mass of the better priest is the
13204 more fruitful. In another respect, inasmuch as the prayer is said by the priest in the mass in the place of the entire Church,
13205 of which the priest is the minister; and this ministry remains even in sinful men, as was said above
13206
13207 <a id="TP_Q82_A6-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q82_A5.html">(A[5])</a> in regard to Christ's ministry. Hence, in this respect the prayer even of the sinful priest is fruitful, not only that which
13208 he utters in the mass, but likewise all those he recites in the ecclesiastical offices, wherein he takes the place of the
13209 Church. on the other hand, his private prayers are not fruitful, according to
13210 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q82_A6-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Prov.28.9" target="asv"> Prov. 28:9</a>: "He that turneth away his ears from hearing the law, his prayer shall be an abomination."
13211 </p>
13212 <p id="TP_Q82_A6-p8">
13213 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Gregory is speaking there of the holiness of the Divine sacrament.
13214 </p>
13215 <p id="TP_Q82_A6-p9">
13216 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In the sacrament of Baptism solemn prayers are not made for all the faithful, as in the mass; therefore there is no parallel
13217 in this respect. There is, however, a resemblance as to the effect of the sacrament.
13218 </p>
13219 <p id="TP_Q82_A6-p10">
13220 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> By reason of the power of the Holy Ghost, Who communicates to each one the blessings of Christ's members on account of their
13221 being united in charity, the private blessing in the mass of a good priest is fruitful to others. But the private evil of
13222 one man cannot hurt another, except the latter, in some way, consent, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii).
13223 </p>
13224 <p id="TP_Q82_A6-p11"></p>
13225 <p id="TP_Q82_A6-p12"></p>
13226 <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A5.html"></a>
13227 <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A7.html"></a>
13228 </div>
13229 <div id="TP_Q82_A7" class="div4">
13230 <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A6.html"></a>
13231 <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A8.html"></a>
13232 <h4 id="TP_Q82_A7-p0.1">Whether heretics, schismatics, and excommunicated persons can consecrate?</h4>
13233 <p id="TP_Q82_A7-p1"></p>
13234 <p id="TP_Q82_A7-p2">
13235 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that heretics, schismatics, and excommunicated persons are not able to consecrate the Eucharist. For Augustine says
13236 (Liber sentent. Prosperi xv) that "there is no such thing as a true sacrifice outside the Catholic Church": and Pope Leo I
13237 says (Ep. lxxx; cf. Decretal i, q. 1): Elsewhere "(i.e. than in the Church which is Christ's body) there is neither valid
13238 priesthood nor true sacrifice." But heretics, schismatics, and excommunicated persons are
13239 severed from the Church. Therefore they are unable to offer a true sacrifice.
13240 </p>
13241 <p id="TP_Q82_A7-p3">
13242 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further (Decretal, caus. i, q. 1), Innocent I is quoted as saying: "Because we receive the laity of the Arians and other
13243 pestilential persons, if they seem to repent, it does not follow that their clergy have the dignity of the priesthood or of
13244 any other ministerial office, for we allow them to confer nothing save Baptism." But none can consecrate the Eucharist, unless
13245 he have the dignity of the priesthood. Therefore heretics and the like cannot consecrate the
13246 Eucharist.
13247 </p>
13248 <p id="TP_Q82_A7-p4">
13249 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it does not seem feasible for one outside the Church to act on behalf of the Church. But when the priest consecrates
13250 the Eucharist, he does so in the person of the entire Church, as is evident from the fact of his putting up all prayers in
13251 the person of the Church. Therefore, it seems that those who are outside the Church, such as those who are heretics, schismatics,
13252 and excommunicate, are not able to consecrate the Eucharist.
13253 </p>
13254 <p id="TP_Q82_A7-p5">
13255 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii): "Just as Baptism remains in them," i.e. in heretics, schismatics, and those who are excommunicate,
13256 "so do their orders remain intact." Now, by the power of his ordination, a priest can consecrate the Eucharist. Therefore,
13257 it seems that heretics, schismatics, and those who are excommunicate, can consecrate the Eucharist, since their orders remain
13258 entire.
13259 </p>
13260 <p id="TP_Q82_A7-p6">
13261 <b>I answer that,</b> Some have contended that heretics, schismatics, and the excommunicate, who are outside the pale of the Church, cannot perform
13262 this sacrament. But herein they are deceived, because, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii), "it is one thing to lack something
13263 utterly, and another to have it improperly"; and in like fashion, "it is one thing not to bestow, and quite another to bestow,
13264 but not rightly." Accordingly, such as, being within the Church, received the
13265 power of consecrating the Eucharist through being ordained to the priesthood, have such power rightly indeed; but they use
13266 it improperly if afterwards they be separated from the Church by heresy, schism, or excommunication. But such as are ordained
13267 while separated from the Church, have neither the power rightly, nor do they use it rightly. But that in both cases they have
13268 the power, is clear from what Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii), that when they return to the unity of the Church, they are
13269 not re-ordained, but are received in their orders. And since the consecration of the Eucharist is an act which follows the
13270 power of order, such persons as are separated from the Church by heresy, schism, or excommunication, can indeed consecrate
13271 the Eucharist, which on being consecrated by them contains Christ's true body and blood; but they act wrongly, and sin by
13272 doing so; and in consequence they do not receive the fruit of the sacrifice, which is a spiritual sacrifice.
13273 </p>
13274 <p id="TP_Q82_A7-p7">
13275 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Such and similar authorities are to be understood in this sense, that the sacrifice is offered wrongly outside the Church.
13276 Hence outside the Church there can be no spiritual sacrifice that is a true sacrifice with the truth of its fruit, although
13277 it be a true sacrifice with the truth of the sacrament; thus it was stated above (
13278 <a id="TP_Q82_A7-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q80_A3.html">Q[80], A[3]</a>), that the sinner receives Christ's body sacramentally, but not spiritually.
13279 </p>
13280 <p id="TP_Q82_A7-p8">
13281 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Baptism alone is allowed to be conferred by heretics, and schismatics, because they can lawfully baptize in case of necessity;
13282 but in no case can they lawfully consecrate the Eucharist, or confer the other sacraments.
13283 </p>
13284 <p id="TP_Q82_A7-p9">
13285 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The priest, in reciting the prayers of the mass, speaks instead of the Church, in whose unity he remains; but in consecrating
13286 the sacrament he speaks as in the person of Christ, Whose place he holds by the power of his orders. Consequently, if a priest
13287 severed from the unity of the Church celebrates mass, not having lost the power of order, he consecrates Christ's true body
13288 and blood; but because he is severed from the unity of the Church, his prayers
13289 have no efficacy.
13290 </p>
13291 <p id="TP_Q82_A7-p10"></p>
13292 <p id="TP_Q82_A7-p11"></p>
13293 <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A6.html"></a>
13294 <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A8.html"></a>
13295 </div>
13296 <div id="TP_Q82_A8" class="div4">
13297 <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A7.html"></a>
13298 <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A9.html"></a>
13299 <h4 id="TP_Q82_A8-p0.1">Whether a degraded priest can consecrate this sacrament?</h4>
13300 <p id="TP_Q82_A8-p1"></p>
13301 <p id="TP_Q82_A8-p2">
13302 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that a degraded priest cannot consecrate this sacrament. For no one can perform this sacrament except he have the
13303 power of consecrating. But the priest "who has been degraded has no power of consecrating, although he has the power of baptizing"
13304 (App. Gratiani). Therefore it seems that a degraded priest cannot consecrate the Eucharist.
13305 </p>
13306 <p id="TP_Q82_A8-p3">
13307 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, he who gives can take away. But the bishop in ordaining gives to the priest the power of consecrating. Therefore
13308 he can take it away by degrading him.
13309 </p>
13310 <p id="TP_Q82_A8-p4">
13311 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the priest, by degradation, loses either the power of consecrating, or the use of such power. But he does not lose
13312 merely the use, for thus the degraded one would lose no more than one excommunicated, who also lacks the use. Therefore it
13313 seems that he loses the power to consecrate, and in consequence that he cannot perform this sacrament.
13314 </p>
13315 <p id="TP_Q82_A8-p5">
13316 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine (Contra Parmen. ii) proves that "apostates" from the faith "are not deprived of their Baptism," from the fact that
13317 "it is not restored to them when they return repentant; and therefore it is deemed that it cannot be lost." But in like fashion,
13318 if the degraded man be restored, he has not to be ordained over again. Consequently, he has not lost the power of consecrating,
13319 and so the degraded priest can perform this sacrament.
13320 </p>
13321 <p id="TP_Q82_A8-p6">
13322 <b>I answer that,</b> The power of consecrating the Eucharist belongs to the character of the priestly order. But every character is indelible,
13323 because it is given with a kind of consecration, as was said above (
13324 <a id="TP_Q82_A8-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q63_A5.html">Q[63] , A[5]</a>), just as the consecrations of all other things are perpetual, and cannot be lost or repeated. Hence it is clear that the
13325 power of consecrating is not lost by degradation. For, again, Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii): "Both are
13326 sacraments," namely Baptism and order, "and both are given to a man with a kind of consecration; the former, when he is baptized;
13327 the latter when he is ordained; and therefore it is not lawful for Catholics to repeat either of them." And thus it is evident
13328 that the degraded priest can perform this sacrament.
13329 </p>
13330 <p id="TP_Q82_A8-p7">
13331 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> That Canon is speaking, not as by way of assertion, but by way of inquiry, as can be gleaned from the context.
13332 </p>
13333 <p id="TP_Q82_A8-p8">
13334 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The bishop gives the priestly power of order, not as though coming from himself, but instrumentally, as God's minister, and
13335 its effect cannot be taken away by man, according to
13336 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q82_A8-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.6" target="asv"> Mat. 19:6</a>: "What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder." And therefore the bishop cannot take this power away, just as neither
13337 can he who baptizes take away the baptismal character.
13338 </p>
13339 <p id="TP_Q82_A8-p9">
13340 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Excommunication is medicinal. And therefore the ministry of the priestly power is not taken away from the excommunicate,
13341 as it were, perpetually, but only for a time, that they may mend; but the exercise is withdrawn from the degraded, as though
13342 condemned perpetually.
13343 </p>
13344 <p id="TP_Q82_A8-p10"></p>
13345 <p id="TP_Q82_A8-p11"></p>
13346 <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A7.html"></a>
13347 <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A9.html"></a>
13348 </div>
13349 <div id="TP_Q82_A9" class="div4">
13350 <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A8.html"></a>
13351 <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A10.html"></a>
13352 <h4 id="TP_Q82_A9-p0.1">Whether it is permissible to receive communion from heretical, excommunicate, or sinful priests, and to hear mass said by
13353 them?
13354 </h4>
13355 <p id="TP_Q82_A9-p1"></p>
13356 <p id="TP_Q82_A9-p2">
13357 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that one may lawfully receive Communion from heretical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, and to hear mass
13358 said by them. Because, as Augustine says (Contra Petilian. iii), "we should not avoid God's sacraments, whether they be given
13359 by a good man or by a wicked one." But priests, even if they be sinful, or heretics, or excommunicate, perform a valid sacrament.
13360 Therefore it seems that one ought not to refrain from receiving Communion at their
13361 hands, or from hearing their mass.
13362 </p>
13363 <p id="TP_Q82_A9-p3">
13364 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Christ's true body is figurative of His mystical body, as was said above (
13365 <a id="TP_Q82_A9-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q67_A2.html">Q[67], A[2]</a>). But Christ's true body is consecrated by the priests mentioned above. Therefore it seems that whoever belongs to His mystical
13366 body can communicate in their sacrifices.
13367 </p>
13368 <p id="TP_Q82_A9-p4">
13369 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, there are many sins graver than fornication. But it is not forbidden to hear the masses of priests who sin otherwise.
13370 Therefore, it ought not to be forbidden to hear the masses of priests guilty of this sin.
13371 </p>
13372 <p id="TP_Q82_A9-p5">
13373 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Canon says (Dist. 32): "Let no one hear the mass of a priest whom he knows without doubt to have a concubine." Moreover,
13374 Gregory says (Dial. iii) that "the faithless father sent an Arian bishop to his son, for him to receive sacrilegiously the
13375 consecrated Communion at his hands. But, when the Arian bishop arrived, God's devoted servant rebuked him, as was right for
13376 him to do."
13377 </p>
13378 <p id="TP_Q82_A9-p6">
13379 <b>I answer that,</b> As was said above (
13380 <a id="TP_Q82_A9-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q82_A5.html">AA[5]</a>,7), heretical, schismatical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, although they have the power to consecrate the Eucharist,
13381 yet they do not make a proper use of it; on the contrary, they sin by using it. But whoever communicates with another who
13382 is in sin, becomes a sharer in his sin. Hence we read in John's Second Canonical Epistle (11) that "He that saith unto him,
13383 God speed you, communicateth with his
13384 wicked works." Consequently, it is not lawful to receive Communion from them, or to assist at their mass.
13385 </p>
13386 <p id="TP_Q82_A9-p7"> Still there is a difference among the above, because heretics, schismatics, and excommunicates, have been forbidden, by the
13387 Church's sentence, to perform the Eucharistic rite. And therefore whoever hears their mass or receives the sacraments from
13388 them, commits sin. But not all who are sinners are debarred by the Church's sentence from using this power: and so, although
13389 suspended by the Divine sentence, yet they are not suspended in regard to others by any ecclesiastical
13390 sentence: consequently, until the Church's sentence is pronounced, it is lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to
13391 hear their mass. Hence on
13392 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q82_A9-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.5.11" target="asv">1 Cor. 5:11</a>, "with such a one not so much as to eat," Augustine's gloss runs thus: "In saying this he was unwilling for a man to be judged
13393 by his fellow man on arbitrary suspicion, or even by usurped extraordinary judgment, but rather by God's law, according to
13394 the Church's ordering, whether he confess of his own accord, or whether he be accused
13395 and convicted."
13396 </p>
13397 <p id="TP_Q82_A9-p8">
13398 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> By refusing to hear the masses of such priests, or to receive Communion from them, we are not shunning God's sacraments;
13399 on the contrary, by so doing we are giving them honor (hence a host consecrated by such priests is to be adored, and if it
13400 be reserved, it can be consumed by a lawful priest): but what we shun is the sin of the unworthy ministers.
13401 </p>
13402 <p id="TP_Q82_A9-p9">
13403 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The unity of the mystical body is the fruit of the true body received. But those who receive or minister unworthily, are
13404 deprived of the fruit, as was said above
13405 <a id="TP_Q82_A9-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q82_A7.html">(A[7];</a> Q[80], A[4]). And therefore, those who belong to the unity of the Faith are not to receive the sacrament from their dispensing.
13406 </p>
13407 <p id="TP_Q82_A9-p10">
13408 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although fornication is not graver than other sins, yet men are more prone to it, owing to fleshly concupiscence. Consequently,
13409 this sin is specially inhibited to priests by the Church, lest anyone hear the mass of one living in concubinage. However,
13410 this is to be understood of one who is notorious, either from being convicted and sentenced, or from having acknowledged his
13411 guilt in legal form, or from it being impossible to conceal his guilt by any
13412 subterfuge.
13413 </p>
13414 <p id="TP_Q82_A9-p11"></p>
13415 <p id="TP_Q82_A9-p12"></p>
13416 <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A8.html"></a>
13417 <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A10.html"></a>
13418 </div>
13419 <div id="TP_Q82_A10" class="div4">
13420 <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A9.html"></a>
13421 <a href="summa.TP_Q83.html"></a>
13422 <h4 id="TP_Q82_A10-p0.1">Whether it is lawful for a priest to refrain entirely from consecrating the Eucharist?</h4>
13423 <p id="TP_Q82_A10-p1"></p>
13424 <p id="TP_Q82_A10-p2">
13425 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems to be lawful for a priest to refrain entirely from consecrating the Eucharist. Because, as it is the priest's office
13426 to consecrate the Eucharist, so it is likewise to baptize and administer the other sacraments. But the priest is not bound
13427 to act as a minister of the other sacraments, unless he has undertaken the care of souls. Therefore, it seems that likewise
13428 he is not bound to consecrate the Eucharist except he be charged with the care of
13429 souls.
13430 </p>
13431 <p id="TP_Q82_A10-p3">
13432 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, no one is bound to do what is unlawful for him to do; otherwise he would be in two minds. But it is not lawful for
13433 the priest who is in a state of sin, or excommunicate, to consecrate the Eucharist, as was said above
13434 <a id="TP_Q82_A10-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q82_A7.html">(A[7])</a>. Therefore it seems that such men are not bound to celebrate, and so neither are the others; otherwise they would be gainers
13435 by their fault.
13436 </p>
13437 <p id="TP_Q82_A10-p4">
13438 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the priestly dignity is not lost by subsequent weakness: because Pope Gelasius I says (cf. Decretal, Dist. 55):
13439 "As the canonical precepts do not permit them who are feeble in body to approach the priesthood, so if anyone be disabled
13440 when once in that state, he cannot lose that he received at the time he was well." But it sometimes happens that those who
13441 are already ordained as priests incur defects whereby they are hindered from celebrating, such as
13442 leprosy or epilepsy, or the like. Consequently, it does not appear that priests are bound to celebrate.
13443 </p>
13444 <p id="TP_Q82_A10-p5">
13445 <b>On the contrary,</b> Ambrose says in one of his Orations (xxxiii): "It is a grave matter if we do not approach Thy altar with clean heart and
13446 pure hands; but it is graver still if while shunning sins we also fail to offer our sacrifice."
13447 </p>
13448 <p id="TP_Q82_A10-p6">
13449 <b>I answer that,</b> Some have said that a priest may lawfully refrain altogether from consecrating, except he be bound to do so, and to give
13450 the sacraments to the people, by reason of his being entrusted with the care of souls.
13451 </p>
13452 <p id="TP_Q82_A10-p7"> But this is said quite unreasonably, because everyone is bound to use the grace entrusted to him, when opportunity serves,
13453 according to
13454 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q82_A10-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.6.1" target="asv">2 Cor. 6:1</a>: "We exhort you that you receive not the grace of God in vain." But the opportunity of offering sacrifice is considered not
13455 merely in relation to the faithful of Christ to whom the sacraments must be administered, but chiefly with regard to God to
13456 Whom the sacrifice of this sacrament is offered by consecrating. Hence, it is not lawful
13457 for the priest, even though he has not the care of souls, to refrain altogether from celebrating; and he seems to be bound
13458 to celebrate at least on the chief festivals, and especially on those days on which the faithful usually communicate. And
13459 hence it is that (
13460 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q82_A10-p7.2" href="./asv.html#iiMacc.4.14" target="asv">2 Macc. 4:14</a>) it is said against some priests that they "were not now occupied about the offices of the altar . . . despising the temple
13461 and neglecting the sacrifices."
13462 </p>
13463 <p id="TP_Q82_A10-p8">
13464 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The other sacraments are accomplished in being used by the faithful, and therefore he alone is bound to administer them who
13465 has undertaken the care of souls. But this sacrament is performed in the consecration of the Eucharist, whereby a sacrifice
13466 is offered to God, to which the priest is bound from the order he has received.
13467 </p>
13468 <p id="TP_Q82_A10-p9">
13469 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The sinful priest, if deprived by the Church's sentence from exercising his order, simply or for a time, is rendered incapable
13470 of offering sacrifice; consequently, the obligation lapses. But if not deprived of the power of celebrating, the obligation
13471 is not removed; nor is he in two minds, because he can repent of his sin and then celebrate.
13472 </p>
13473 <p id="TP_Q82_A10-p10">
13474 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Weakness or sickness contracted by a priest after his ordination does not deprive him of his orders; but hinders him from
13475 exercising them, as to the consecration of the Eucharist: sometimes by making it impossible to exercise them, as, for example,
13476 if he lose his sight, or his fingers, or the use of speech; and sometimes on account of danger, as in the case of one suffering
13477 from epilepsy, or indeed any disease of the mind; and sometimes, on account of
13478 loathsomeness, as is evident in the case of a leper, who ought not to celebrate in public: he can, however, say mass privately,
13479 unless the leprosy has gone so far that it has rendered him incapable owing to the wasting away of his limbs.
13480 </p>
13481 <p id="TP_Q82_A10-p11"></p>
13482 <p id="TP_Q82_A10-p12"></p>
13483 <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A9.html"></a>
13484 <a href="summa.TP_Q83.html"></a>
13485 </div>
13486 <a href="summa.TP_Q81_A4.html"></a>
13487 <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A1.html"></a>
13488 </div>
13489 <div id="TP_Q83" class="div3">
13490 <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A10.html"></a>
13491 <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A1.html"></a>
13492 <h3 id="TP_Q83-p0.1">OF THE RITE OF THIS SACRAMENT (SIX ARTICLES)</h3>
13493 <p id="TP_Q83-p1"></p>
13494 <p id="TP_Q83-p2"> We have now to consider the Rite of this sacrament, under which head there are six points of inquiry:</p>
13495 <p id="TP_Q83-p3"> (1) Whether Christ is sacrificed in the celebration of this mystery?</p>
13496 <p id="TP_Q83-p4"> (2) Of the time of celebrating;</p>
13497 <p id="TP_Q83-p5"> (3) Of the place and other matters relating to the equipment for this celebration;</p>
13498 <p id="TP_Q83-p6"> (4) Of the words uttered in celebrating this mystery;</p>
13499 <p id="TP_Q83-p7"> (5) Of the actions performed in celebrating this mystery.</p>
13500 <p id="TP_Q83-p8"> (6) Of the defects which occur in the celebration of this sacrament.</p>
13501 <div id="TP_Q83_A1" class="div4">
13502 <a href="summa.TP_Q83.html"></a>
13503 <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A2.html"></a>
13504 <h4 id="TP_Q83_A1-p0.1">Whether Christ is sacrificed in this sacrament?</h4>
13505 <p id="TP_Q83_A1-p1"></p>
13506 <p id="TP_Q83_A1-p2">
13507 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that Christ is not sacrificed in the celebration of this sacrament. For it is written (
13508 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.10.14" target="asv">Heb. 10:14</a>) that "Christ by one oblation hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." But that oblation was His oblation. Therefore
13509 Christ is not sacrificed in the celebration of this sacrament.
13510 </p>
13511 <p id="TP_Q83_A1-p3">
13512 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Christ's sacrifice was made upon the cross, whereon "He delivered Himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to
13513 God for an odor of sweetness," as is said in
13514 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.5.2" target="asv"> Eph. 5:2.</a> But Christ is not crucified in the celebration of this mystery. Therefore, neither is He sacrificed.
13515 </p>
13516 <p id="TP_Q83_A1-p4">
13517 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as Augustine says (De Trin. iv), in Christ's sacrifice the priest and the victim are one and the same. But in the
13518 celebration of this sacrament the priest and the victim are not the same. Therefore, the celebration of this sacrament is
13519 not a sacrifice of Christ.
13520 </p>
13521 <p id="TP_Q83_A1-p5">
13522 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says in the Liber Sentent. Prosp. (cf. Ep. xcviii): "Christ was sacrificed once in Himself, and yet He is sacrificed
13523 daily in the Sacrament."
13524 </p>
13525 <p id="TP_Q83_A1-p6">
13526 <b>I answer that,</b> The celebration of this sacrament is called a sacrifice for two reasons. First, because, as Augustine says (Ad Simplician.
13527 ii), "the images of things are called by the names of the things whereof they are the images; as when we look upon a picture
13528 or a fresco, we say, 'This is Cicero and that is Sallust.'" But, as was said above (
13529 <a id="TP_Q83_A1-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q79_A1.html">Q[79], A[1]</a>), the celebration of this sacrament is an image representing Christ's Passion, which is His
13530 true sacrifice. Accordingly the celebration of this sacrament is called Christ's sacrifice. Hence it is that Ambrose, in commenting
13531 on
13532 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A1-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.10.1" target="asv"> Heb. 10:1, </a> says: "In Christ was offered up a sacrifice capable of giving eternal salvation; what then do we do? Do we not offer it up
13533 every day in memory of His death?" Secondly it is called a sacrifice, in respect of the effect of His Passion: because, to
13534 wit, by this sacrament, we are made partakers of the fruit of our Lord's Passion.
13535 Hence in one of the Sunday Secrets (Ninth Sunday after Pentecost) we say: "Whenever the commemoration of this sacrifice is
13536 celebrated, the work of our redemption is enacted." Consequently, according to the first reason, it is true to say that Christ
13537 was sacrificed, even in the figures of the Old Testament: hence it is stated in the Apocalypse (13:8): "Whose names are not
13538 written in the Book of Life of the Lamb, which was slain from the beginning of the world." But according to the second
13539 reason, it is proper to this sacrament for Christ to be sacrificed in its celebration.
13540 </p>
13541 <p id="TP_Q83_A1-p7">
13542 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As Ambrose says (commenting on
13543 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.10.1" target="asv"> Heb. 10:1</a>), "there is but one victim," namely that which Christ offered, and which we offer, "and not many victims, because Christ
13544 was offered but once: and this latter sacrifice is the pattern of the former. For, just as what is offered everywhere is one
13545 body, and not many bodies, so also is it but one sacrifice."
13546 </p>
13547 <p id="TP_Q83_A1-p8">
13548 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As the celebration of this sacrament is an image representing Christ's Passion, so the altar is representative of the cross
13549 itself, upon which Christ was sacrificed in His proper species.
13550 </p>
13551 <p id="TP_Q83_A1-p9">
13552 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> For the same reason (cf. Reply OBJ[2]) the priest also bears Christ's image, in Whose person and by Whose power he pronounces
13553 the words of consecration, as is evident from what was said above (
13554 <a id="TP_Q83_A1-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q82_A1.html">Q[82], AA[1]</a>,3). And so, in a measure, the priest and victim are one and the same.
13555 </p>
13556 <p id="TP_Q83_A1-p10"></p>
13557 <p id="TP_Q83_A1-p11"></p>
13558 <a href="summa.TP_Q83.html"></a>
13559 <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A2.html"></a>
13560 </div>
13561 <div id="TP_Q83_A2" class="div4">
13562 <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A1.html"></a>
13563 <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A3.html"></a>
13564 <h4 id="TP_Q83_A2-p0.1">Whether the time for celebrating this mystery has been properly determined?</h4>
13565 <p id="TP_Q83_A2-p1"></p>
13566 <p id="TP_Q83_A2-p2">
13567 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the time for celebrating this mystery has not been properly determined. For as was observed above
13568 <a id="TP_Q83_A2-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q83_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, this sacrament is representative of our Lord's Passion. But the commemoration of our Lord's Passion takes place in the Church
13569 once in the year: because Augustine says (Enarr. ii in
13570 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A2-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.21" target="asv">Ps. 21</a>): "Is not Christ slain as often as the Pasch is celebrated? Nevertheless, the anniversary remembrance represents what took
13571 place in
13572 by-gone days; and so it does not cause us to be stirred as if we saw our Lord hanging upon the cross." Therefore this sacrament
13573 ought to be celebrated but once a year.
13574 </p>
13575 <p id="TP_Q83_A2-p3">
13576 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Christ's Passion is commemorated in the Church on the Friday before Easter, and not on Christmas Day. Consequently,
13577 since this sacrament is commemorative of our Lord's Passion, it seems unsuitable for this sacrament to be celebrated thrice
13578 on Christmas Day, and to be entirely omitted on Good Friday.
13579 </p>
13580 <p id="TP_Q83_A2-p4">
13581 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, in the celebration of this sacrament the Church ought to imitate Christ's institution. But it was in the evening
13582 that Christ consecrated this sacrament. Therefore it seems that this sacrament ought to be celebrated at that time of day.
13583 </p>
13584 <p id="TP_Q83_A2-p5">
13585 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, as is set down in the Decretals (De Consecr., dist. i), Pope Leo I wrote to Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria, that
13586 "it is permissible to celebrate mass in the first part of the day." But the day begins at midnight, as was said above (
13587 <a id="TP_Q83_A2-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q80_A8.html">Q[80], A[8]</a>, ad 5). Therefore it seems that after midnight it is lawful to celebrate.
13588 </p>
13589 <p id="TP_Q83_A2-p6">
13590 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, in one of the Sunday Secrets (Ninth Sunday after Pentecost) we say: "Grant us, Lord, we beseech Thee, to frequent
13591 these mysteries." But there will be greater frequency if the priest celebrates several times a day. Therefore it seems that
13592 the priest ought not to be hindered from celebrating several times daily.
13593 </p>
13594 <p id="TP_Q83_A2-p7"> On the contrary is the custom which the Church observes according to the statutes of the Canons.</p>
13595 <p id="TP_Q83_A2-p8">
13596 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
13597 <a id="TP_Q83_A2-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q83_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, in the celebration of this mystery, we must take into consideration the representation of our Lord's Passion, and the participation
13598 of its fruits; and the time suitable for the celebration of this mystery ought to be determined by each of these considerations.
13599 Now since, owing to our daily defects, we stand in daily need of the fruits of our Lord's Passion, this sacrament is offered
13600 regularly every day in the
13601 Church. Hence our Lord teaches us to pray (
13602 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A2-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.11.3" target="asv">Lk. 11:3</a>): "Give us this day our daily bread": in explanation of which words Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. xxviii): "If it be a daily
13603 bread, why do you take it once a year, as the Greeks have the custom in the east? Receive it daily that it may benefit you
13604 every day."
13605 </p>
13606 <p id="TP_Q83_A2-p9"> But since our Lord's Passion was celebrated from the third to the ninth hour, therefore this sacrament is solemnly celebrated
13607 by the Church in that part of the day.
13608 </p>
13609 <p id="TP_Q83_A2-p10">
13610 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Christ's Passion is recalled in this sacrament, inasmuch as its effect flows out to the faithful; but at Passion-tide Christ's
13611 Passion is recalled inasmuch as it was wrought in Him Who is our Head. This took place but once; whereas the faithful receive
13612 daily the fruits of His Passion: consequently, the former is commemorated but once in the year, whereas the latter takes place
13613 every day, both that we may partake of its fruit and in order that we may
13614 have a perpetual memorial.
13615 </p>
13616 <p id="TP_Q83_A2-p11">
13617 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The figure ceases on the advent of the reality. But this sacrament is a figure and a representation of our Lord's Passion,
13618 as stated above. And therefore on the day on which our Lord's Passion is recalled as it was really accomplished, this sacrament
13619 is not consecrated. Nevertheless, lest the Church be deprived on that day of the fruit of the Passion offered to us by this
13620 sacrament, the body of Christ consecrated the day before is reserved to be
13621 consumed on that day; but the blood is not reserved, on account of danger, and because the blood is more specially the image
13622 of our Lord's Passion, as stated above (
13623 <a id="TP_Q83_A2-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q78_A3.html">Q[78], A[3]</a>, ad 2). Nor is it true, as some affirm, that the wine is changed into blood when the particle of Christ's body is dropped
13624 into it. Because this cannot be done otherwise than by consecration under the due form of words.
13625 </p>
13626 <p id="TP_Q83_A2-p12"> On Christmas Day, however, several masses are said on account of Christ's threefold nativity. Of these the first is His eternal
13627 birth, which is hidden in our regard. and therefore one mass is sung in the night, in the "Introit" of which we say: "The
13628 Lord said unto Me: Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee." The second is His nativity in time, and the spiritual
13629 birth, whereby Christ rises "as the day-star in our [Vulg.: 'your'] hearts" (
13630 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A2-p12.1" href="./asv.html#iiPet.1.19" target="asv">2 Pet. 1:19</a>),
13631 and on this account the mass is sung at dawn, and in the "Introit" we say: "The light will shine on us today." The third is
13632 Christ's temporal and bodily birth, according as He went forth from the virginal womb, becoming visible to us through being
13633 clothed with flesh: and on that account the third mass is sung in broad daylight, in the "Introit" of which we say: "A child
13634 is born to us." Nevertheless, on the other hand, it can be said that His eternal generation, of itself, is in the full light,
13635 and on this account in the gospel of the third mass mention is made of His eternal birth. But regarding His birth in the body,
13636 He was literally born during the night, as a sign that He came to the darknesses of our infirmity; hence also in the midnight
13637 mass we say the gospel of Christ's nativity in the flesh.
13638 </p>
13639 <p id="TP_Q83_A2-p13"> Likewise on other days upon which many of God's benefits have to be recalled or besought, several masses are celebrated on
13640 one day, as for instance, one for the feast, and another for a fast or for the dead.
13641 </p>
13642 <p id="TP_Q83_A2-p14">
13643 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As already observed (
13644 <a id="TP_Q83_A2-p14.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q73_A5.html">Q[73], A[5]</a>), Christ wished to give this sacrament last of all, in order that it might make a deeper impression on the hearts of the
13645 disciples; and therefore it was after supper, at the close of day, that He consecrated this sacrament and gave it to His disciples.
13646 But we celebrate at the hour when our Lord suffered, i.e. either, as on feast-days, at the hour of Terce, when He was crucified
13647 by the tongues
13648 of the Jews (
13649 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A2-p14.2" href="./asv.html#Mark.15.25" target="asv">Mk. 15:25</a>), and when the Holy Ghost descended upon the disciples (
13650 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A2-p14.3" href="./asv.html#Acts.2.15" target="asv">Acts 2:15</a>); or, as when no feast is kept, at the hour of Sext, when He was crucified at the hands of the soldiers (
13651 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A2-p14.4" href="./asv.html#John.19.14" target="asv">Jn. 19:14</a>), or, as on fasting days, at None, when crying out with a loud voice He gave up the ghost (
13652 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A2-p14.5" href="./asv.html#Matt.27.46" target="asv">Mat. 27:46</a>,
13653 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A2-p14.6" href="./asv.html#Matt.27.50" target="asv">50</a>).
13654 </p>
13655 <p id="TP_Q83_A2-p15"> Nevertheless the mass can be postponed, especially when Holy orders have to be conferred, and still more on Holy Saturday;
13656 both on account of the length of the office, and also because orders belong to the Sunday, as is set forth in the Decretals
13657 (dist. 75).
13658 </p>
13659 <p id="TP_Q83_A2-p16"> Masses, however, can be celebrated "in the first part of the day," owing to any necessity; as is stated De Consecr., dist.
13660 1.
13661 </p>
13662 <p id="TP_Q83_A2-p17">
13663 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> As a rule mass ought to be said in the day and not in the night, because Christ is present in this sacrament, Who says (
13664 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A2-p17.1" href="./asv.html#John.9.4" target="asv">Jn. 9:4,5</a>): "I must work the works of Him that sent Me, whilst it is day: because the night cometh when no man can work; as long as
13665 I am in the world, I am the light of the world." Yet this should be done in such a manner that the beginning of the day is
13666 not to be taken from midnight; nor from sunrise, that is,
13667 when the substance of the sun appears above the earth; but when the dawn begins to show: because then the sun is said to be
13668 risen when the brightness of his beams appears. Accordingly it is written (
13669 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A2-p17.2" href="./asv.html#Mark.16.1" target="asv">Mk. 16:1</a>) that "the women came to the tomb, the sun being now risen"; though, as John relates (
13670 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A2-p17.3" href="./asv.html#John.20.1" target="asv">Jn. 20:1</a>), "while it was yet dark they came to the tomb." It is in this way that Augustine explains this difference (De Consens. Evang.
13671 iii).
13672 </p>
13673 <p id="TP_Q83_A2-p18"> Exception is made on the night of Christmas eve, when mass is celebrated, because our Lord was born in the night (De Consecr.,
13674 dist. 1). And in like manner it is celebrated on Holy Saturday towards the beginning of the night, since our Lord rose in
13675 the night, that is, "when it was yet dark, before the sun's rising was manifest."
13676 </p>
13677 <p id="TP_Q83_A2-p19">
13678 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> As is set down in the decree (De Consecr., dist. 1), in virtue of a decree of Pope Alexander II, "it is enough for a priest
13679 to celebrate one mass each day, because Christ suffered once and redeemed the whole world; and very happy is he who can worthily
13680 celebrate one mass. But there are some who say one mass for the dead, and another of the day, if need be. But I do not deem
13681 that those escape condemnation who presume to celebrate several masses daily,
13682 either for the sake of money, or to gain flattery from the laity." And Pope Innocent III says (Extra, De Celebr. Miss., chap.
13683 Consuluisti) that "except on the day of our Lord's birth, unless necessity urges, it suffices for a priest to celebrate only
13684 one mass each day."
13685 </p>
13686 <p id="TP_Q83_A2-p20"></p>
13687 <p id="TP_Q83_A2-p21"></p>
13688 <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A1.html"></a>
13689 <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A3.html"></a>
13690 </div>
13691 <div id="TP_Q83_A3" class="div4">
13692 <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A2.html"></a>
13693 <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A4.html"></a>
13694 <h4 id="TP_Q83_A3-p0.1">Whether this sacrament ought to be celebrated in a house and with sacred vessels?</h4>
13695 <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p1"></p>
13696 <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p2">
13697 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that this sacrament ought not to be celebrated in a house and with sacred vessels. For this sacrament is a representation
13698 of our Lord's Passion. But Christ did not suffer in a house, but outside the city gate, according to
13699 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.1.12" target="asv"> Heb. 1:12</a>: "Jesus, that He might sanctify the people by His own blood, suffered without the gate." Therefore, it seems that this sacrament
13700 ought not to be celebrated in a house, but rather in the open air.
13701 </p>
13702 <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p3">
13703 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in the celebration of this sacrament the Church ought to imitate the custom of Christ and the apostles. But the
13704 house wherein Christ first wrought this sacrament was not consecrated, but merely an ordinary supper-room prepared by the
13705 master of the house, as related in
13706 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.22.11" target="asv"> Lk. 22:11,12.</a> Moreover, we read (
13707 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A3-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Acts.2.46" target="asv">Acts 2:46</a>) that "the apostles were continuing daily with one accord in the temple; and, breaking bread from
13708 house to house, they took their meat with gladness." Consequently, there is no need for houses, in which this sacrament is
13709 celebrated, to be consecrated.
13710 </p>
13711 <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p4">
13712 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, nothing that is to no purpose ought to be done in the Church, which is governed by the Holy Ghost. But it seems
13713 useless to consecrate a church, or an altar, or such like inanimate things, since they are not capable of receiving grace
13714 or spiritual virtue. Therefore it is unbecoming for such consecrations to be performed in the Church.
13715 </p>
13716 <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p5">
13717 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, only Divine works ought to be recalled with solemnity, according to
13718 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.91.5" target="asv"> Ps. 91:5</a>: "I shall rejoice in the works of Thy hands." Now the consecration of a church or altar, is the work of a man; as is also
13719 the consecration of the chalice, and of the ministers, and of other such things. But these latter consecrations are not commemorated
13720 in the Church. Therefore neither ought the consecration of a church or of an altar to be commemorated
13721 with solemnity.
13722 </p>
13723 <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p6">
13724 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, the truth ought to correspond with the figure. But in the Old Testament, which was a figure of the New, the altar
13725 was not made of hewn stones: for, it is written (
13726 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.20.24" target="asv">Ex. 20:24</a>): "You shall make an altar of earth unto Me . . . and if thou make an altar of stone unto Me, thou shalt not build it of
13727 hewn stones." Again, the altar is commanded to be made of "setim-wood," covered "with brass" (
13728 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A3-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Exod.27.1" target="asv">Ex. 27:1,2</a>), or "with
13729 gold" (
13730 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A3-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Exod.25" target="asv">Ex. 25</a>). Consequently, it seems unfitting for the Church to make exclusive use of altars made of stone.
13731 </p>
13732 <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p7">
13733 <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, the chalice with the paten represents Christ's tomb, which was "hewn in a rock," as is narrated in the Gospels.
13734 Consequently, the chalice ought to be of stone, and not of gold or of silver or tin.
13735 </p>
13736 <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p8">
13737 <b>Objection 7:</b> Further, just as gold is the most precious among the materials of the altar vessels, so are cloths of silk the most precious
13738 among other cloths. Consequently, since the chalice is of gold, the altar cloths ought to be made of silk and not of linen.
13739 </p>
13740 <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p9">
13741 <b>Objection 8:</b> Further, the dispensing and ordering of the sacraments belong to the Church's ministers, just as the ordering of temporal
13742 affairs is subject to the ruling of secular princes; hence the Apostle says (
13743 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A3-p9.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.4.1" target="asv">1 Cor. 4:1</a>): "Let a man so esteem us as the ministers of Christ end the dispensers of the mysteries of God." But if anything be done
13744 against the ordinances of princes it is deemed void. Therefore, if the various items mentioned above are suitably commanded
13745 by the
13746 Church's prelates, it seems that the body of Christ could not be consecrated unless they be observed; and so it appears to
13747 follow that Christ's words are not sufficient of themselves for consecrating this sacrament: which is contrary to the fact.
13748 Consequently, it does not seem fitting for such ordinances to be made touching the celebration of this sacrament.
13749 </p>
13750 <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p10">
13751 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Church's ordinances are Christ's own ordinances; since He said (
13752 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A3-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.18.20" target="asv">Mat. 18:20</a>): "Wherever two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them."
13753 </p>
13754 <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p11">
13755 <b>I answer that,</b> There are two things to be considered regarding the equipment of this sacrament: one of these belongs to the representation
13756 of the events connected with our Lord's Passion; while the other is connected with the reverence due to the sacrament, in
13757 which Christ is contained verily, and not in figure only.
13758 </p>
13759 <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p12"> Hence we consecrate those things which we make use of in this sacrament; both that we may show our reverence for the sacrament,
13760 and in order to represent the holiness which is the effect of the Passion of Christ, according to
13761 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A3-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.13.12" target="asv"> Heb. 13:12</a>: "Jesus, that He might sanctify the people by His own blood," etc.
13762 </p>
13763 <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p13">
13764 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This sacrament ought as a rule to be celebrated in a house, whereby the Church is signified, according to
13765 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A3-p13.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.3.15" target="asv">1 Tim. 3:15</a>: "That thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God."
13766 Because "outside the Church there is no place for the true sacrifice," as Augustine says (Liber Sentent. Prosp. xv). And because
13767 the Church was not to be confined within the territories of the
13768 Jewish people, but was to be established throughout the whole world, therefore Christ's Passion was not celebrated within
13769 the city of the Jews, but in the open country, that so the whole world might serve as a house for Christ's Passion. Nevertheless,
13770 as is said in De Consecr., dist. 1, "if a church be not to hand, we permit travelers to celebrate mass in the open air, or
13771 in a tent, if there be a consecrated altar-table to hand, and the other requisites belonging to the sacred function."
13772 </p>
13773 <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p14">
13774 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The house in which this sacrament is celebrated denotes the Church, and is termed a church; and so it is fittingly consecrated,
13775 both to represent the holiness which the Church acquired from the Passion, as well as to denote the holiness required of them
13776 who have to receive this sacrament. By the altar Christ Himself is signified, of Whom the Apostle says (
13777 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A3-p14.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.13.15" target="asv">Heb. 13:15</a>): "Through Him we offer a sacrifice of praise to God." Hence the
13778 consecration of the altar signifies Christ's holiness, of which it was said (
13779 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A3-p14.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.35" target="asv">Lk. 1:35</a>): "The Holy one born of thee shall be called the Son of God." Hence we read in De Consecr., dist. 1: "It has seemed pleasing
13780 for the altars to be consecrated not merely with the anointing of chrism, but likewise with the priestly blessing."
13781 </p>
13782 <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p15"> And therefore, as a rule, it is not lawful to celebrate this sacrament except in a consecrated house. Hence it is enacted
13783 (De Consecr., dist. 1): "Let no priest presume to say mass except in places consecrated by the bishop." And furthermore because
13784 pagans and other unbelievers are not members of the Church, therefore we read (De Consecr., dist. 1): "It is not lawful to
13785 bless a church in which the bodies of unbelievers are buried, but if it seem suitable for consecration, then,
13786 after removing the corpses and tearing down the walls or beams, let it be rebuilt. If, however, it has been already consecrated,
13787 and the faithful lie in it, it is lawful to celebrate mass therein." Nevertheless in a case of necessity this sacrament can
13788 be performed in houses which have not been consecrated, or which have been profaned; but with the bishop's consent. Hence
13789 we read in the same distinction: "We deem that masses are not to be celebrated everywhere, but in places consecrated by the
13790 bishop, or where he gives permission." But not without a portable altar consecrated by the bishop: hence in the same distinction
13791 we read: "We permit that, if the churches be devastated or burned, masses may be celebrated in chapels, with a consecrated
13792 altar." For because Christ's holiness is the fount of all the Church's holiness, therefore in necessity a consecrated altar
13793 suffices for performing this sacrament. And on this account a church is never consecrated without consecrating the altar.
13794 Yet sometimes an altar is consecrated apart from the church, with the relics of the saints, "whose lives are hidden with Christ
13795 in God" (
13796 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A3-p15.1" href="./asv.html#Col.3.3" target="asv">Col. 3:3</a>). Accordingly under the same distinction we read: "It is our pleasure that altars, in which no relics of saints are found
13797 enclosed, be thrown down, if possible, by the bishops presiding over such places."
13798 </p>
13799 <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p16">
13800 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The church, altar, and other like inanimate things are consecrated, not because they are capable of receiving grace, but
13801 because they acquire special spiritual virtue from the consecration, whereby they are rendered fit for the Divine worship,
13802 so that man derives devotion therefrom, making him more fitted for Divine functions, unless this be hindered by want of reverence.
13803 Hence it is written (
13804 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A3-p16.1" href="./asv.html#iiMacc.3.38" target="asv">2 Macc. 3:38</a>): "There is undoubtedly
13805 in that place a certain power of God; for He that hath His dwelling in the heavens is the visitor, and the protector of that
13806 place."
13807 </p>
13808 <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p17"> Hence it is that such places are cleansed and exorcised before being consecrated, that the enemy's power may be driven forth.
13809 And for the same reason churches defiled by shedding of blood or seed are reconciled: because some machination of the enemy
13810 is apparent on account of the sin committed there. And for this reason we read in the same distinction: "Wherever you find
13811 churches of the Arians, consecrate them as Catholic churches without delay by means of devout prayers and
13812 rites." Hence, too, it is that some say with probability, that by entering a consecrated church one obtains forgiveness of
13813 venial sins, just as one does by the sprinkling of holy water; alleging the words of
13814 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A3-p17.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.84.2" target="asv"> Ps. 84:2,3</a>: "Lord, Thou hast blessed Thy land . . . Thou hast forgiven the iniquity of Thy people." And therefore, in consequence of
13815 the virtue acquired by a church's consecration, the consecration is never repeated. Accordingly we find in the same distinction
13816 the
13817 following words quoted from the Council of Nicaea: "Churches which have once been consecrated, must not be consecrated again,
13818 except they be devastated by fire, or defiled by shedding of blood or of anyone's seed; because, just as a child once baptized
13819 in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, ought not to be baptized again, so neither ought a place,
13820 once dedicated to God, to be consecrated again, except owing to the causes mentioned above; provided that the consecrators
13821 held faith in the Holy Trinity": in fact, those outside the Church cannot consecrate. But, as we read in the same distinction:
13822 "Churches or altars of doubtful consecration are to be consecrated anew."
13823 </p>
13824 <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p18"> And since they acquire special spiritual virtue from their consecration, we find it laid down in the same distinction that
13825 "the beams of a dedicated church ought not to be used for any other purpose, except it be for some other church, or else they
13826 are to be burned, or put to the use of brethren in some monastery: but on no account are they to be discarded for works of
13827 the laity." We read there, too, that "the altar covering, chair, candlesticks, and veil, are to be burned when
13828 warn out; and their ashes are to be placed in the baptistery, or in the walls, or else cast into the trenches beneath the
13829 flag-stones, so as not to be defiled by the feet of those that enter."
13830 </p>
13831 <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p19">
13832 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Since the consecration of the altar signifies Christ's holiness, and the consecration of a house the holiness of the entire
13833 Church, therefore the consecration of a church or of an altar is more fittingly commemorated. And on this account the solemnity
13834 of a church dedication is observed for eight days, in order to signify the happy resurrection of Christ and of the Church's
13835 members. Nor is the consecration of a church or altar man's doing only, since
13836 it has a spiritual virtue. Hence in the same distinction (De Consecr.) it is said: "The solemnities of the dedication of churches
13837 are to be solemnly celebrated each year: and that dedications are to be kept up for eight days, you will find in the third
13838 book of Kings" (8:66).
13839 </p>
13840 <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p20">
13841 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> As we read in De Consecr., dist. 1, "altars, if not of stone, are not to be consecrated with the anointing of chrism." And
13842 this is in keeping with the signification of this sacrament; both because the altar signifies Christ, for in
13843 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A3-p20.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.10.3" target="asv">1 Cor. 10:3, </a> it is written, "But the rock was Christ": and because Christ's body was laid in a stone sepulchre. This is also in keeping
13844 with the use of the sacrament. Because stone is solid, and may be
13845 found everywhere. which was not necessary in the old Law, when the altar was made in one place. As to the commandment to make
13846 the altar of earth, or of unhewn stones, this was given in order to remove idolatry.
13847 </p>
13848 <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p21">
13849 <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> As is laid down in the same distinction, "formerly the priests did not use golden but wooden chalices; but Pope Zephyrinus
13850 ordered the mass to be said with glass patens; and subsequently Pope Urban had everything made of silver." Afterwards it was
13851 decided that "the Lord's chalice with the paten should be made entirely of gold, or of silver or at least of tin. But it is
13852 not to be made of brass, or copper, because the action of the wine thereon produces
13853 verdigris, and provokes vomiting. But no one is to presume to sing mass with a chalice of wood or of glass," because as the
13854 wood is porous, the consecrated blood would remain in it; while glass is brittle and there might arise danger of breakage;
13855 and the same applies to stone. Consequently, out of reverence for the sacrament, it was enacted that the chalice should be
13856 made of the aforesaid materials.
13857 </p>
13858 <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p22">
13859 <b>Reply to Objection 7:</b> Where it could be done without danger, the Church gave order for that thing to be used which more expressively represents
13860 Christ's Passion. But there was not so much danger regarding the body which is placed on the corporal, as there is with the
13861 blood contained in the chalice. And consequently, although the chalice is not made of stone, yet the corporal is made of linen,
13862 since Christ's body was wrapped therein. Hence we read in an Epistle of Pope
13863 Silvester, quoted in the same distinction: "By a unanimous decree we command that no one shall presume to celebrate the sacrifice
13864 of the altar upon a cloth of silk, or dyed material, but upon linen consecrated by the bishop; as Christ's body was buried
13865 in a clean linen winding-sheet." Moreover, linen material is becoming, owing to its cleanness, to denote purity of conscience,
13866 and, owing to the manifold labor with which it is prepared, to denote Christ's Passion.
13867 </p>
13868 <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p23">
13869 <b>Reply to Objection 8:</b> The dispensing of the sacraments belongs to the Church's ministers; but their consecration is from God Himself. Consequently,
13870 the Church's ministers can make no ordinances regarding the form of the consecration, and the manner of celebrating. And therefore,
13871 if the priest pronounces the words of consecration over the proper matter with the intention of consecrating, then, without
13872 every one of the things mentioned above---namely, without house, and
13873 altar, consecrated chalice and corporal, and the other things instituted by the Church---he consecrates Christ's body in very
13874 truth; yet he is guilty of grave sin, in not following the rite of the Church.
13875 </p>
13876 <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p24"></p>
13877 <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p25"></p>
13878 <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A2.html"></a>
13879 <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A4.html"></a>
13880 </div>
13881 <div id="TP_Q83_A4" class="div4">
13882 <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A3.html"></a>
13883 <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A5.html"></a>
13884 <h4 id="TP_Q83_A4-p0.1">Whether the words spoken in this sacrament are properly framed?</h4>
13885 <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p1"></p>
13886 <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p2">
13887 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the words spoken in this sacrament are not properly framed. For, as Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv), this sacrament
13888 is consecrated with Christ's own words. Therefore no other words besides Christ's should be spoken in this sacrament.
13889 </p>
13890 <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p3">
13891 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Christ's words and deeds are made known to us through the Gospel. But in consecrating this sacrament words are used
13892 which are not set down in the Gospels: for we do not read in the Gospel, of Christ lifting up His eyes to heaven while consecrating
13893 this sacrament: and similarly it is said in the Gospel: "Take ye and eat" [comedite] without the addition of the word "all,"
13894 whereas in celebrating this sacrament we say: "Lifting up His eyes to heaven," and
13895 again, "Take ye and eat [manducate] of this." Therefore such words as these are out of place when spoken in the celebration
13896 of this sacrament.
13897 </p>
13898 <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p4">
13899 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, all the other sacraments are ordained for the salvation of all the faithful. But in the celebration of the other
13900 sacraments there is no common prayer put up for the salvation of all the faithful and of the departed. Consequently it is
13901 unbecoming in this sacrament.
13902 </p>
13903 <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p5">
13904 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, Baptism especially is called the sacrament of faith. Consequently, the truths which belong to instruction in the
13905 faith ought rather to be given regarding Baptism than regarding this sacrament, such as the doctrine of the apostles and of
13906 the Gospels.
13907 </p>
13908 <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p6">
13909 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, devotion on the part of the faithful is required in every sacrament. Consequently, the devotion of the faithful
13910 ought not to be stirred up in this sacrament more than in the others by Divine praises and by admonitions, such as, "Lift
13911 up your hearts."
13912 </p>
13913 <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p7">
13914 <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, the minister of this sacrament is the priest, as stated above (
13915 <a id="TP_Q83_A4-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q82_A1.html">Q[82], A[1]</a>). Consequently, all the words spoken in this sacrament ought to be uttered by the priest, and not some by the ministers,
13916 and some by the choir.
13917 </p>
13918 <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p8">
13919 <b>Objection 7:</b> Further, the Divine power works this sacrament unfailingly. Therefore it is to no purpose that the priest asks for the perfecting
13920 of this sacrament, saying: "Which oblation do thou, O God, in all," etc.
13921 </p>
13922 <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p9">
13923 <b>Objection 8:</b> Further, the sacrifice of the New Law is much more excellent than the sacrifice of the fathers of old. Therefore, it is unfitting
13924 for the priest to pray that this sacrifice may be as acceptable as the sacrifice of Abel, Abraham, and Melchisedech.
13925 </p>
13926 <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p10">
13927 <b>Objection 9:</b> Further, just as Christ's body does not begin to be in this sacrament by change of place, as stated above (
13928 <a id="TP_Q83_A4-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q75_A2.html">Q[75], A[2]</a>), so likewise neither does it cease to be there. Consequently, it is improper for the priest to ask: "Bid these things be
13929 borne by the hands of thy holy angel unto Thine altar on high."
13930 </p>
13931 <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p11">
13932 <b>On the contrary,</b> We find it stated in De Consecr., dist. 1, that "James, the brother of the Lord according to the flesh, and Basil, bishop
13933 of Caesarea, edited the rite of celebrating the mass": and from their authority it is manifest that whatever words are employed
13934 in this matter, are chosen becomingly.
13935 </p>
13936 <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p12">
13937 <b>I answer that,</b> Since the whole mystery of our salvation is comprised in this sacrament, therefore is it performed with greater solemnity
13938 than the other sacraments. And since it is written (
13939 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A4-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Eccl.4.17" target="asv">Eccles. 4:17</a>): "Keep thy foot when thou goest into the house of God"; and (
13940 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A4-p12.2" href="./asv.html#Sir.18.23" target="asv">Ecclus. 18:23</a>): "Before prayer prepare thy soul," therefore the celebration of this mystery is preceded by a certain preparation in order
13941 that we may perform worthily that
13942 which follows after. The first part of this preparation is Divine praise, and consists in the "Introit": according to
13943 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A4-p12.3" href="./asv.html#Ps.49.23" target="asv"> Ps. 49:23</a>: "The sacrifice of praise shall glorify me; and there is the way by which I will show him the salvation of God": and this
13944 is taken for the most part from the Psalms, or, at least, is sung with a Psalm, because, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii):
13945 "The Psalms comprise by way of praise whatever is contained in Sacred Scripture."
13946 </p>
13947 <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p13"> The second part contains a reference to our present misery, by reason of which we pray for mercy, saying: "Lord, have mercy
13948 on us," thrice for the Person of the Father, and "Christ, have mercy on us," thrice for the Person of the Son, and "Lord,
13949 have mercy on us," thrice for the Person of the Holy Ghost; against the threefold misery of ignorance, sin, and punishment;
13950 or else to express the "circuminsession" of all the Divine Persons.
13951 </p>
13952 <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p14"> The third part commemorates the heavenly glory, to the possession of which, after this life of misery, we are tending, in
13953 the words, "Glory be to God on high," which are sung on festival days, on which the heavenly glory is commemorated, but are
13954 omitted in those sorrowful offices which commemorate our unhappy state.
13955 </p>
13956 <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p15"> The fourth part contains the prayer which the priest makes for the people, that they may be made worthy of such great mysteries.</p>
13957 <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p16"> There precedes, in the second place, the instruction of the faithful, because this sacrament is "a mystery of faith," as
13958 stated above (
13959 <a id="TP_Q83_A4-p16.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q78_A3.html">Q[78], A[3]</a>, ad 5). Now this instruction is given "dispositively," when the Lectors and Sub-deacons read aloud in the church the teachings
13960 of the prophets and apostles: after this "lesson," the choir sing the "Gradual," which signifies progress in life; then the
13961 "Alleluia" is intoned, and this denotes spiritual joy; or in
13962 mournful offices the "Tract", expressive of spiritual sighing; for all these things ought to result from the aforesaid teaching.
13963 But the people are instructed "perfectly" by Christ's teaching contained in the Gospel, which is read by the higher ministers,
13964 that is, by the Deacons. And because we believe Christ as the Divine truth, according to
13965 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A4-p16.2" href="./asv.html#John.8.46" target="asv"> Jn. 8:46, </a> "If I tell you the truth, why do you not believe Me?" after the Gospel has been read, the "Creed" is sung in which the
13966 people show that they assent by faith to Christ's doctrine. And it is sung on those festivals of which mention is made therein,
13967 as on the festivals of Christ, of the Blessed Virgin, and of the apostles, who laid the foundations of this faith, and on
13968 other such days.
13969 </p>
13970 <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p17"> So then, after the people have been prepared and instructed, the next step is to proceed to the celebration of the mystery,
13971 which is both offered as a sacrifice, and consecrated and received as a sacrament: since first we have the oblation; then
13972 the consecration of the matter offered; and thirdly, its reception.
13973 </p>
13974 <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p18"> In regard to the oblation, two things are done, namely, the people's praise in singing the "offertory," expressing the joy
13975 of the offerers, and the priest's prayer asking for the people's oblation to be made acceptable to God. Hence David said (
13976 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A4-p18.1" href="./asv.html#iChr.29.17" target="asv">1 Para 29:17</a>): "In the simplicity of my heart, I have . . . offered all these things: and I have seen with great joy Thy people which
13977 are here present, offer Thee their offerings": and then he makes the following
13978 prayer: "O Lord God . . . keep . . . this will."
13979 </p>
13980 <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p19"> Then, regarding the consecration, performed by supernatural power, the people are first of all excited to devotion in the
13981 "Preface," hence they are admonished "to lift up their hearts to the Lord," and therefore when the "Preface" is ended the
13982 people devoutly praise Christ's Godhead, saying with the angels: "Holy, Holy, Holy"; and His humanity, saying with the children:
13983 "Blessed is he that cometh." In the next place the priest makes a "commemoration," first of those for whom
13984 this sacrifice is offered, namely, for the whole Church, and "for those set in high places" (
13985 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A4-p19.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.2.2" target="asv">1 Tim. 2:2</a>), and, in a special manner, of them "who offer, or for whom the mass is offered." Secondly, he commemorates the saints, invoking
13986 their patronage for those mentioned above, when he says: "Communicating with, and honoring the memory," etc. Thirdly, he concludes
13987 the petition when he says: "Wherefore that this oblation," etc., in order that the oblation may be salutary to
13988 them for whom it is offered.
13989 </p>
13990 <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p20"> Then he comes to the consecration itself. Here he asks first of all for the effect of the consecration, when he says: "Which
13991 oblation do Thou, O God," etc. Secondly, he performs the consecration using our Saviour's words, when he says: "Who the day
13992 before," etc. Thirdly, he makes excuse for his presumption in obeying Christ's command, saying: "Wherefore, calling to mind,"
13993 etc. Fourthly, he asks that the sacrifice accomplished may find favor with God, when he says: "Look down
13994 upon them with a propitious," etc. Fifthly, he begs for the effect of this sacrifice and sacrament, first for the partakers,
13995 saying: "We humbly beseech Thee"; then for the dead, who can no longer receive it, saying: "Be mindful also, O Lord," etc.;
13996 thirdly, for the priests themselves who offer, saying: "And to us sinners," etc.
13997 </p>
13998 <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p21"> Then follows the act of receiving the sacrament. First of all, the people are prepared for Communion; first, by the common
13999 prayer of the congregation, which is the Lord's Prayer, in which we ask for our daily bread to be given us; and also by private
14000 prayer, which the priest puts up specially for the people, when he says: "Deliver us, we beseech Thee, O Lord," etc. Secondly,
14001 the people are prepared by the "Pax" which is given with the words, "Lamb of God," etc., because this is
14002 the sacrament of unity and peace, as stated above (
14003 <a id="TP_Q83_A4-p21.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q73_A4.html">Q[73], A[4]</a>;
14004 <a id="TP_Q83_A4-p21.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q79_A1.html"> Q[79], A[1]</a>). But in masses for the dead, in which the sacrifice is offered not for present peace, but for the repose of the dead, the
14005 "Pax" is omitted.
14006 </p>
14007 <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p22"> Then follows the reception of the sacrament, the priest receiving first, and afterwards giving it to others, because, as
14008 Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii), he who gives Divine things to others, ought first to partake thereof himself.
14009 </p>
14010 <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p23"> Finally, the whole celebration of mass ends with the thanksgiving, the people rejoicing for having received the mystery (and
14011 this is the meaning of the singing after the Communion); and the priest returning thanks by prayer, as Christ, at the close
14012 of the supper with His disciples, "said a hymn" (
14013 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A4-p23.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.26.30" target="asv">Mat. 26:30</a>).
14014 </p>
14015 <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p24">
14016 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The consecration is accomplished by Christ's words only; but the other words must be added to dispose the people for receiving
14017 it, as stated above.
14018 </p>
14019 <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p25">
14020 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As is stated in the last chapter of John (verse 25), our Lord said and did many things which are not written down by the
14021 Evangelists; and among them is the uplifting of His eyes to heaven at the supper; nevertheless the Roman Church had it by
14022 tradition from the apostles. For it seems reasonable that He Who lifted up His eyes to the Father in raising Lazarus to life,
14023 as related in
14024 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A4-p25.1" href="./asv.html#John.11.41" target="asv"> Jn. 11:41, </a> and in the prayer which He made for the
14025 disciples (
14026 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A4-p25.2" href="./asv.html#John.17.1" target="asv">Jn. 17:1</a>), had more reason to do so in instituting this sacrament, as being of greater import.
14027 </p>
14028 <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p26"> The use of the word "manducate" instead of "comedite" makes no difference in the meaning, nor does the expression signify,
14029 especially since those words are no part of the form, as stated above (
14030 <a id="TP_Q83_A4-p26.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q78_A1.html">Q[78], A[1]</a>, ad 2,4).
14031 </p>
14032 <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p27"> The additional word "all" is understood in the Gospels, although not expressed, because He had said (
14033 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A4-p27.1" href="./asv.html#John.6.54" target="asv">Jn. 6:54</a>): "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man . . . you shall not have life in you."
14034 </p>
14035 <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p28">
14036 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The Eucharist is the sacrament of the unity of the whole Church: and therefore in this sacrament, more than in the others,
14037 mention ought to be made of all that belongs to the salvation of the entire Church.
14038 </p>
14039 <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p29">
14040 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> There is a twofold instruction in the Faith: the first is for those receiving it for the first time, that is to say, for
14041 catechumens, and such instruction is given in connection with Baptism. The other is the instruction of the faithful who take
14042 part in this sacrament; and such instruction is given in connection with this sacrament. Nevertheless catechumens and unbelievers
14043 are not excluded therefrom. Hence in De Consecr., dist. 1, it is laid down:
14044 "Let the bishop hinder no one from entering the church, and hearing the word of God, be they Gentiles, heretics, or Jews,
14045 until the mass of the Catechumens begins," in which the instruction regarding the Faith is contained.
14046 </p>
14047 <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p30">
14048 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> Greater devotion is required in this sacrament than in the others, for the reason that the entire Christ is contained therein.
14049 Moreover, this sacrament requires a more general devotion, i.e. on the part of the whole people, since for them it is offered;
14050 and not merely on the part of the recipients, as in the other sacraments. Hence Cyprian observes (De Orat. Domin. 31), "The
14051 priest, in saying the Preface, disposes the souls of the brethren by saying,
14052 'Lift up your hearts,' and when the people answer---'We have lifted them up to the Lord,' let them remember that they are
14053 to think of nothing else but God."
14054 </p>
14055 <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p31">
14056 <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> As was said above (ad 3), those things are mentioned in this sacrament which belong to the entire Church; and consequently
14057 some things which refer to the people are sung by the choir, and same of these words are all sung by the choir, as though
14058 inspiring the entire people with them; and there are other words which the priest begins and the people take up, the priest
14059 then acting as in the person of God; to show that the things they denote have come to
14060 the people through Divine revelation, such as faith and heavenly glory; and therefore the priest intones the "Creed" and the
14061 "Gloria in excelsis Deo." Other words are uttered by the ministers, such as the doctrine of the Old and New Testament, as
14062 a sign that this doctrine was announced to the peoples through ministers sent by God. And there are other words which the
14063 priest alone recites, namely, such as belong to his personal office, "that he may offer up gifts and prayers for the people"
14064 (
14065 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A4-p31.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.5.1" target="asv">Heb. 5:1</a>). Some of these, however, he says aloud, namely, such as are common to priest and people alike, such as the "common prayers";
14066 other words, however, belong to the priest alone, such as the oblation and the consecration; consequently, the prayers that
14067 are said in connection with these have to be said by the priest in secret. Nevertheless, in both he calls the people to attention
14068 by saying: "The Lord be with you," and he waits for them to assent by saying "Amen." And
14069 therefore before the secret prayers he says aloud, "The Lord be with you," and he concludes, "For ever and ever." Or the priest
14070 secretly pronounces some of the words as a token that regarding Christ's Passion the disciples acknowledged Him only in secret.
14071 </p>
14072 <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p32">
14073 <b>Reply to Objection 7:</b> The efficacy of the sacramental words can be hindered by the priest's intention. Nor is there anything unbecoming in our
14074 asking of God for what we know He will do, just as Christ (
14075 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A4-p32.1" href="./asv.html#John.17.1" target="asv">Jn. 17:1</a>,
14076 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A4-p32.2" href="./asv.html#John.17.5" target="asv">5</a>) asked for His glorification.
14077 </p>
14078 <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p33"> But the priest does not seem to pray there for the consecration to be fulfilled, but that it may be fruitful in our regard,
14079 hence he says expressively: "That it may become 'to us' the body and the blood." Again, the words preceding these have that
14080 meaning, when he says: "Vouchsafe to make this oblation blessed," i.e. according to Augustine (Paschasius, De Corp. et Sang.
14081 Dom. xii), "that we may receive a blessing," namely, through grace; "'enrolled,' i.e. that we may be enrolled
14082 in heaven; 'ratified,' i.e. that we may be incorporated in Christ; 'reasonable,' i.e. that we may be stripped of our animal
14083 sense; 'acceptable,' i.e. that we who in ourselves are displeasing, may, by its means, be made acceptable to His only Son."
14084 </p>
14085 <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p34">
14086 <b>Reply to Objection 8:</b> Although this sacrament is of itself preferable to all ancient sacrifices, yet the sacrifices of the men of old were most
14087 acceptable to God on account of their devotion. Consequently the priest asks that this sacrifice may be accepted by God through
14088 the devotion of the offerers, just as the former sacrifices were accepted by Him.
14089 </p>
14090 <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p35">
14091 <b>Reply to Objection 9:</b> The priest does not pray that the sacramental species may be borne up to heaven; nor that Christ's true body may be borne
14092 thither, for it does not cease to be there; but he offers this prayer for Christ's mystical body, which is signified in this
14093 sacrament, that the angel standing by at the Divine mysteries may present to God the prayers of both priest and people, according
14094 to
14095 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A4-p35.1" href="./asv.html#Rev.8.4" target="asv"> Apoc. 8:4</a>: "And the smoke of the incense of the
14096 prayers of the saints ascended up before God, from the hand of the angel." But God's "altar on high" means either the Church
14097 triumphant, unto which we pray to be translated, or else God Himself, in Whom we ask to share; because it is said of this
14098 altar (
14099 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A4-p35.2" href="./asv.html#Exod.20.26" target="asv">Ex. 20:26</a>): "Thou shalt not go up by steps unto My altar, i.e. thou shalt make no steps towards the Trinity." Or else by the angel
14100 we are to understand Christ Himself, Who is the "Angel of great counsel" (
14101 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A4-p35.3" href="./asv.html#Isa.9.6" target="asv">Is.
14102 9:6
14103 </a>: Septuagint), Who unites His mystical body with God the Father and the Church triumphant.
14104 </p>
14105 <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p36"> And from this the mass derives its name [missa]; because the priest sends [mittit] his prayers up to God through the angel,
14106 as the people do through the priest. or else because Christ is the victim sent [missa] to us: accordingly the deacon on festival
14107 days "dismisses" the people at the end of the mass, by saying: "Ite, missa est," that is, the victim has been sent [missa
14108 est] to God through the angel, so that it may be accepted by God.
14109 </p>
14110 <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p37"></p>
14111 <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p38"></p>
14112 <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A3.html"></a>
14113 <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A5.html"></a>
14114 </div>
14115 <div id="TP_Q83_A5" class="div4">
14116 <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A4.html"></a>
14117 <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A6.html"></a>
14118 <h4 id="TP_Q83_A5-p0.1">Whether the actions performed in celebrating this sacrament are becoming?</h4>
14119 <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p1"></p>
14120 <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p2">
14121 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the actions performed in celebrating this mystery are not becoming. For, as is evident from its form, this
14122 sacrament belongs to the New Testament. But under the New Testament the ceremonies of the old are not to be observed, such
14123 as that the priests and ministers were purified with water when they drew nigh to offer up the sacrifice: for we read (
14124 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A5-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.30.19" target="asv">Ex. 30:19,20</a>): "Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and feet . . . when
14125 they are going into the tabernacle of the testimony . . . and when they are to come to the altar." Therefore it is not fitting
14126 that the priest should wash his hands when celebrating mass.
14127 </p>
14128 <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p3">
14129 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, (
14130 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A5-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.30.7" target="asv">Ex. 30:7</a>), the Lord commanded Aaron to "burn sweet-smelling incense" upon the altar which was "before the propitiatory": and the same
14131 action was part of the ceremonies of the Old Law. Therefore it is not fitting for the priest to use incense during mass.
14132 </p>
14133 <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p4">
14134 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the ceremonies performed in the sacraments of the Church ought not to be repeated. Consequently it is not proper
14135 for the priest to repeat the sign of the cross many times over this sacrament.
14136 </p>
14137 <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p5">
14138 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the Apostle says (
14139 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.7.7" target="asv">Heb. 7:7</a>): "And without all contradiction, that which is less, is blessed by the better." But Christ, Who is in this sacrament after
14140 the consecration, is much greater than the priest. Therefore quite unseemingly the priest, after the consecration, blesses
14141 this sacrament, by signing it with the cross.
14142 </p>
14143 <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p6">
14144 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, nothing which appears ridiculous ought to be done in one of the Church's sacraments. But it seems ridiculous to
14145 perform gestures, e.g. for the priest to stretch out his arms at times, to join his hands, to join together his fingers, and
14146 to bow down. Consequently, such things ought not to be done in this sacrament.
14147 </p>
14148 <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p7">
14149 <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, it seems ridiculous for the priest to turn round frequently towards the people, and often to greet the people. Consequently,
14150 such things ought not to be done in the celebration of this sacrament.
14151 </p>
14152 <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p8">
14153 <b>Objection 7:</b> Further, the Apostle (
14154 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A5-p8.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.13" target="asv">1 Cor. 13</a>) deems it improper for Christ to be divided. But Christ is in this sacrament after the consecration. Therefore it is not
14155 proper for the priest to divide the host.
14156 </p>
14157 <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p9">
14158 <b>Objection 8:</b> Further, the ceremonies performed in this sacrament represent Christ's Passion. But during the Passion Christ's body was
14159 divided in the places of the five wounds. Therefore Christ's body ought to be broken into five parts rather than into three.
14160 </p>
14161 <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p10">
14162 <b>Objection 9:</b> Further, Christ's entire body is consecrated in this sacrament apart from the blood. Consequently, it is not proper for a
14163 particle of the body to be mixed with the blood.
14164 </p>
14165 <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p11">
14166 <b>Objection 10:</b> Further, just as, in this sacrament, Christ's body is set before us as food, so is His blood, as drink. But in receiving
14167 Christ's body no other bodily food is added in the celebration of the mass. Therefore, it is out of place for the priest,
14168 after taking Christ's blood, to receive other wine which is not consecrated.
14169 </p>
14170 <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p12">
14171 <b>Objection 11:</b> Further, the truth ought to be conformable with the figure. But regarding the Paschal Lamb, which was a figure of this sacrament,
14172 it was commanded that nothing of it should "remain until the morning." It is improper therefore for consecrated hosts to be
14173 reserved, and not consumed at once.
14174 </p>
14175 <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p13">
14176 <b>Objection 12:</b> Further, the priest addresses in the plural number those who are hearing mass, when he says, "The Lord be with you": and,
14177 "Let us return thanks." But it is out of keeping to address one individual in the plural number, especially an inferior. Consequently
14178 it seems unfitting for a priest to say mass with only a single server present. Therefore in the celebration of this sacrament
14179 it seems that some of the things done are out of place.
14180 </p>
14181 <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p14">
14182 <b>On the contrary,</b> The custom of the Church stands for these things: and the Church cannot err, since she is taught by the Holy Ghost.
14183 </p>
14184 <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p15">
14185 <b>I answer that,</b> As was said above (
14186 <a id="TP_Q83_A5-p15.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q60_A6.html">Q[60], A[6]</a>), there is a twofold manner of signification in the sacraments, by words, and by actions, in order that the signification
14187 may thus be more perfect. Now, in the celebration of this sacrament words are used to signify things pertaining to Christ's
14188 Passion, which is represented in this sacrament; or again, pertaining to Christ's mystical body, which is signified therein;
14189 and again, things pertaining to the
14190 use of this sacrament, which use ought to be devout and reverent. Consequently, in the celebration of this mystery some things
14191 are done in order to represent Christ's Passion, or the disposing of His mystical body, and some others are done which pertain
14192 to the devotion and reverence due to this sacrament.
14193 </p>
14194 <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p16">
14195 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The washing of the hands is done in the celebration of mass out of reverence for this sacrament; and this for two reasons:
14196 first, because we are not wont to handle precious objects except the hands be washed; hence it seems indecent for anyone to
14197 approach so great a sacrament with hands that are, even literally, unclean. Secondly, on account of its signification, because,
14198 as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii), the washing of the extremities of the limbs
14199 denotes cleansing from even the smallest sins, according to
14200 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A5-p16.1" href="./asv.html#John.13.10" target="asv"> Jn. 13:10</a>: "He that is washed needeth not but to wash his feet." And such cleansing is required of him who approaches this sacrament;
14201 and this is denoted by the confession which is made before the "Introit" of the mass. Moreover, this was signified by the
14202 washing of the priests under the Old Law, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii). However, the Church observes this ceremony,
14203 not because it was prescribed under the
14204 Old Law, but because it is becoming in itself, and therefore instituted by the Church. Hence it is not observed in the same
14205 way as it was then: because the washing of the feet is omitted, and the washing of the hands is observed; for this can be
14206 done more readily, and suffices far denoting perfect cleansing. For, since the hand is the "organ of organs" (De Anima iii),
14207 all works are attributed to the hands: hence it is said in
14208 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A5-p16.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.25.6" target="asv"> Ps. 25:6</a>: "I will wash my hands among the
14209 innocent."
14210 </p>
14211 <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p17">
14212 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> We use incense, not as commanded by a ceremonial precept of the Law, but as prescribed by the Church; accordingly we do not
14213 use it in the same fashion as it was ordered under the Old Law. It has reference to two things: first, to the reverence due
14214 to this sacrament, i.e. in order by its good odor, to remove any disagreeable smell that may be about the place; secondly,
14215 it serves to show the effect of grace, wherewith Christ was filled as with a good
14216 odor, according to
14217 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A5-p17.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.27.27" target="asv"> Gn. 27:27</a>: "Behold, the odor of my son is like the odor of a ripe field"; and from Christ it spreads to the faithful by the work of
14218 His ministers, according to
14219 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A5-p17.2" href="./asv.html#iiCor.2.14" target="asv">2 Cor. 2:14</a>: "He manifesteth the odor of his knowledge by us in every place"; and therefore when the altar which represents Christ, has
14220 been incensed on every side, then all are incensed in their proper order.
14221 </p>
14222 <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p18">
14223 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The priest, in celebrating the mass, makes use of the sign of the cross to signify Christ's Passion which was ended upon
14224 the cross. Now, Christ's Passion was accomplished in certain stages. First of all there was Christ's betrayal, which was the
14225 work of God, of Judas, and of the Jews; and this is signified by the triple sign of the cross at the words, "These gifts,
14226 these presents, these holy unspotted sacrifices."
14227 </p>
14228 <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p19"> Secondly, there was the selling of Christ. Now he was sold to the Priests, to the Scribes, and to the Pharisees: and to signify
14229 this the threefold sign of the cross is repeated, at the words, "blessed, enrolled, ratified." Or again, to signify the price
14230 for which He was sold, viz. thirty pence. And a double cross is added at the words---"that it may become to us the Body and
14231 the Blood," etc., to signify the person of Judas the seller, and of Christ Who was sold.
14232 </p>
14233 <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p20"> Thirdly, there was the foreshadowing of the Passion at the last supper. To denote this, in the third place, two crosses are
14234 made, one in consecrating the body, the other in consecrating the blood; each time while saying, "He blessed."
14235 </p>
14236 <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p21"> Fourthly, there was Christ's Passion itself. And so in order to represent His five wounds, in the fourth place, there is
14237 a fivefold signing of the cross at the words, "a pure Victim, a holy Victim, a spotless Victim, the holy bread of eternal
14238 life, and the cup of everlasting salvation."
14239 </p>
14240 <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p22"> Fifthly, the outstretching of Christ's body, and the shedding of the blood, and the fruits of the Passion, are signified
14241 by the triple signing of the cross at the words, "as many as shall receive the body and blood, may be filled with every blessing,"
14242 etc.
14243 </p>
14244 <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p23"> Sixthly, Christ's threefold prayer upon the cross is represented; one for His persecutors when He said, "Father, forgive
14245 them"; the second for deliverance from death, when He cried, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" the third referring
14246 to His entrance into glory, when He said, "Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit"; and in order to denote these there
14247 is a triple signing with the cross made at the words, "Thou dost sanctify, quicken, bless."
14248 </p>
14249 <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p24"> Seventhly, the three hours during which He hung upon the cross, that is, from the sixth to the ninth hour, are represented;
14250 in signification of which we make once more a triple sign of the cross at the words, "Through Him, and with Him, and in Him."
14251 </p>
14252 <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p25"> Eighthly, the separation of His soul from the body is signified by the two subsequent crosses made over the chalice.</p>
14253 <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p26"> Ninthly, the resurrection on the third day is represented by the three crosses made at the words---"May the peace of the
14254 Lord be ever with you."
14255 </p>
14256 <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p27"> In short, we may say that the consecration of this sacrament, and the acceptance of this sacrifice, and its fruits, proceed
14257 from the virtue of the cross of Christ, and therefore wherever mention is made of these, the priest makes use of the sign
14258 of the cross.
14259 </p>
14260 <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p28">
14261 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> After the consecration, the priest makes the sign of the cross, not for the purpose of blessing and consecrating, but only
14262 for calling to mind the virtue of the cross, and the manner of Christ's suffering, as is evident from what has been said (ad
14263 3).
14264 </p>
14265 <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p29">
14266 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> The actions performed by the priest in mass are not ridiculous gestures, since they are done so as to represent something
14267 else. The priest in extending his arms signifies the outstretching of Christ's arms upon the cross. He also lifts up his hands
14268 as he prays, to point out that his prayer is directed to God for the people, according to
14269 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A5-p29.1" href="./asv.html#Lam.3.41" target="asv"> Lam. 3:41</a>: "Let us lift up our hearts with our hands to the Lord in the heavens":
14270 and
14271 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A5-p29.2" href="./asv.html#Exod.17.11" target="asv"> Ex. 17:11</a>: "And when Moses lifted up his hands Israel overcame." That at times he joins his hands, and bows down, praying earnestly
14272 and humbly, denotes the humility and obedience of Christ, out of which He suffered. He closes his fingers, i.e. the thumb
14273 and first finger, after the consecration, because, with them, he had touched the consecrated body of Christ; so that if any
14274 particle cling to the fingers, it may not be scattered: and this belongs to the reverence for
14275 this sacrament.
14276 </p>
14277 <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p30">
14278 <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> Five times does the priest turn round towards the people, to denote that our Lord manifested Himself five times on the day
14279 of His Resurrection, as stated above in the treatise on Christ's Resurrection (
14280 <a id="TP_Q83_A5-p30.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q55_A3.html">Q[55], A[3]</a>, OBJ[3]). But the priest greets the people seven times, namely, five times, by turning round to the people, and twice without
14281 turning round, namely, when he says, "The Lord be with you" before the "Preface," and
14282 again when he says, "May the peace of the Lord be ever with you": and this is to denote the sevenfold grace of the Holy Ghost.
14283 But a bishop, when he celebrates on festival days, in his first greeting says, "Peace be to you," which was our Lord's greeting
14284 after Resurrection, Whose person the bishop chiefly represents.
14285 </p>
14286 <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p31">
14287 <b>Reply to Objection 7:</b> The breaking of the host denotes three things: first, the rending of Christ's body, which took place in the Passion; secondly,
14288 the distinction of His mystical body according to its various states; and thirdly, the distribution of the graces which flow
14289 from Christ's Passion, as Dionysius observes (Eccl. Hier. iii). Hence this breaking does not imply severance in Christ.
14290 </p>
14291 <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p32">
14292 <b>Reply to Objection 8:</b> As Pope Sergius says, and it is to be found in the Decretals (De Consecr., dist. ii), "the Lord's body is threefold; the
14293 part offered and put into the chalice signifies Christ's risen body," namely, Christ Himself, and the Blessed Virgin, and
14294 the other saints, if there be any, who are already in glory with their bodies. "The part consumed denotes those still walking
14295 upon earth," because while living upon earth they are united together by this
14296 sacrament; and are bruised by the passions, just as the bread eaten is bruised by the teeth. "The part reserved on the altar
14297 till the close of the mass, is His body hidden in the sepulchre, because the bodies of the saints will be in their graves
14298 until the end of the world": though their souls are either in purgatory, or in heaven. However, this rite of reserving one
14299 part on the altar till the close of the mass is no longer observed, on account of the danger; nevertheless, the same meaning
14300 of
14301 the parts continues, which some persons have expressed in verse, thus:
14302 </p>
14303 <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p33"> "The host being rent---</p>
14304 <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p34"> What is dipped, means the blest;</p>
14305 <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p35"> What is dry, means the living;</p>
14306 <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p36"> What is kept, those at rest."</p>
14307 <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p37"> Others, however, say that the part put into the chalice denotes those still living in this world. while the part kept outside
14308 the chalice denotes those fully blessed both in soul and body; while the part consumed means the others.
14309 </p>
14310 <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p38">
14311 <b>Reply to Objection 9:</b> Two things can be signified by the chalice: first, the Passion itself, which is represented in this sacrament, and according
14312 to this, by the part put into the chalice are denoted those who are still sharers of Christ's sufferings; secondly, the enjoyment
14313 of the Blessed can be signified, which is likewise foreshadowed in this sacrament; and therefore those whose bodies are already
14314 in full beatitude, are denoted by the part put into the chalice. And it
14315 is to be observed that the part put into the chalice ought not to be given to the people to supplement the communion, because
14316 Christ gave dipped bread only to Judas the betrayer.
14317 </p>
14318 <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p39">
14319 <b>Reply to Objection 10:</b> Wine, by reason of its humidity, is capable of washing, consequently it is received in order to rinse the mouth after receiving
14320 this sacrament, lest any particles remain: and this belongs to reverence for the sacrament. Hence (Extra, De Celebratione
14321 missae, chap. Ex parte), it is said: "The priest should always cleanse his mouth with wine after receiving the entire sacrament
14322 of Eucharist: except when he has to celebrate another mass on the same day,
14323 lest from taking the ablution-wine he be prevented from celebrating again"; and it is for the same reason that wine is poured
14324 over the fingers with which he had touched the body of Christ.
14325 </p>
14326 <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p40">
14327 <b>Reply to Objection 11:</b> The truth ought to be conformable with the figure, in some respect: namely, because a part of the host consecrated, of which
14328 the priest and ministers or even the people communicate, ought not to be reserved until the day following. Hence, as is laid
14329 down (De Consecr., dist. ii), Pope Clement I ordered that "as many hosts are to be offered on the altar as shall suffice for
14330 the people; should any be left over, they are not to be reserved until the
14331 morrow, but let the clergy carefully consume them with fear and trembling." Nevertheless, since this sacrament is to be received
14332 daily, whereas the Paschal Lamb was not, it is therefore necessary for other hosts to be reserved for the sick. Hence we read
14333 in the same distinction: "Let the priest always have the Eucharist ready, so that, when anyone fall sick, he may take Communion
14334 to him at once, lest he die without it."
14335 </p>
14336 <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p41">
14337 <b>Reply to Objection 12:</b> Several persons ought to be present at the solemn celebration of the mass. Hence Pope Soter says (De Consecr., dist. 1):
14338 "It has also been ordained, that no priest is to presume to celebrate solemn mass, unless two others be present answering
14339 him, while he himself makes the third; because when he says in the plural, 'The Lord be with you,' and again in the Secrets,
14340 'Pray ye for me,' it is most becoming that they should answer his greeting." Hence it
14341 is for the sake of greater solemnity that we find it decreed (De Consecr. dist. 1) that a bishop is to solemnize mass with
14342 several assistants. Nevertheless, in private masses it suffices to have one server, who takes the place of the whole Catholic
14343 people, on whose behalf he makes answer in the plural to the priest.
14344 </p>
14345 <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p42"></p>
14346 <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p43"></p>
14347 <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A4.html"></a>
14348 <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A6.html"></a>
14349 </div>
14350 <div id="TP_Q83_A6" class="div4">
14351 <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A5.html"></a>
14352 <a href="summa.TP_Q84.html"></a>
14353 <h4 id="TP_Q83_A6-p0.1">Whether the defects occurring during the celebration of this sacrament can be sufficiently met by observing the Church's statutes?</h4>
14354 <p id="TP_Q83_A6-p1"></p>
14355 <p id="TP_Q83_A6-p2">
14356 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the defects occurring during the celebration of this sacrament cannot be sufficiently met by observing the
14357 statutes of the Church. For it sometimes happens that before or after the consecration the priest dies or goes mad, or is
14358 hindered by some other infirmity from receiving the sacrament and completing the mass. Consequently it seems impossible to
14359 observe the Church's statute, whereby the priest consecrating must communicate of his own
14360 sacrifice.
14361 </p>
14362 <p id="TP_Q83_A6-p3">
14363 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it sometimes happens that, before the consecration, the priest remembers that he has eaten or drunk something, or
14364 that he is in mortal sin, or under excommunication, which he did not remember previously. Therefore, in such a dilemma a man
14365 must necessarily commit mortal sin by acting against the Church's statute, whether he receives or not.
14366 </p>
14367 <p id="TP_Q83_A6-p4">
14368 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it sometimes happens that a fly or a spider, or some other poisonous creature falls into the chalice after the consecration.
14369 Or even that the priest comes to know that poison has been put in by some evilly disposed person in order to kill him. Now
14370 in this instance, if he takes it, he appears to sin by killing himself, or by tempting God: also in like manner if he does
14371 not take it, he sins by acting against the Church's statute. Consequently, he seems
14372 to be perplexed, and under necessity of sinning, which is not becoming.
14373 </p>
14374 <p id="TP_Q83_A6-p5">
14375 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, it sometimes happens from the server's want of heed that water is not added to the chalice, or even the wine overlooked,
14376 and that the priest discovers this. Therefore he seems to be perplexed likewise in this case, whether he receives the body
14377 without the blood, thus making the sacrifice to be incomplete, or whether he receives neither the body nor the blood.
14378 </p>
14379 <p id="TP_Q83_A6-p6">
14380 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, it sometimes happens that the priest cannot remember having said the words of consecration, or other words which
14381 are uttered in the celebration of this sacrament. In this case he seems to sin, whether he repeats the words over the same
14382 matter, which words possibly he has said before, or whether he uses bread and wine which are not consecrated, as if they were
14383 consecrated.
14384 </p>
14385 <p id="TP_Q83_A6-p7">
14386 <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, it sometimes comes to pass owing to the cold that the host will slip from the priest's hands into the chalice, either
14387 before or after the breaking. In this case then the priest will not be able to comply with the Church's rite, either as to
14388 the breaking, or else as to this, that only a third part is put into the chalice.
14389 </p>
14390 <p id="TP_Q83_A6-p8">
14391 <b>Objection 7:</b> Further, sometimes, too, it happens, owing to the priest's want of care, that Christ's blood is spilled, or that he vomits
14392 the sacrament received, or that the consecrated hosts are kept so long that they become corrupt, or that they are nibbled
14393 by mice, or lost in any manner whatsoever; in which cases it does not seem possible for due reverence to be shown towards
14394 this sacrament, as the Church's ordinances require. It does not seem then that such defects or
14395 dangers can be met by keeping to the Church's statutes.
14396 </p>
14397 <p id="TP_Q83_A6-p9">
14398 <b>On the contrary,</b> Just as God does not command an impossibility, so neither does the Church.
14399 </p>
14400 <p id="TP_Q83_A6-p10">
14401 <b>I answer that,</b> Dangers or defects happening to this sacrament can be met in two ways: first, by preventing any such mishaps from occurring:
14402 secondly, by dealing with them in such a way, that what may have happened amiss is put right, either by employing a remedy,
14403 or at least by repentance on his part who has acted negligently regarding this sacrament.
14404 </p>
14405 <p id="TP_Q83_A6-p11">
14406 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> If the priest be stricken by death or grave sickness before the consecration of our Lord's body and blood, there is no need
14407 for it to be completed by another. But if this happens after the consecration is begun, for instance, when the body has been
14408 consecrated and before the consecration of the blood, or even after both have been consecrated, then the celebration of the
14409 mass ought to be finished by someone else. Hence, as is laid down (Decretal vii,
14410 q. 1), we read the following decree of the (Seventh) Council of Toledo: "We consider it to be fitting that when the sacred
14411 mysteries are consecrated by priests during the time of mass, if any sickness supervenes, in consequence of which they cannot
14412 finish the mystery begun, let it be free for the bishop or another priest to finish the consecration of the office thus begun.
14413 For nothing else is suitable for completing the mysteries commenced, unless the consecration be completed either by the
14414 priest who began it, or by the one who follows him: because they cannot be completed except they be performed in perfect order.
14415 For since we are all one in Christ, the change of persons makes no difference, since unity of faith insures the happy issue
14416 of the mystery. Yet let not the course we propose for cases of natural debility, be presumptuously abused: and let no minister
14417 or priest presume ever to leave the Divine offices unfinished, unless he be absolutely prevented from continuing. If
14418 anyone shall have rashly presumed to do so, he will incur sentence of excommunication."
14419 </p>
14420 <p id="TP_Q83_A6-p12">
14421 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Where difficulty arises, the less dangerous course should always be followed. But the greatest danger regarding this sacrament
14422 lies in whatever may prevent its completion, because this is a heinous sacrilege; while that danger is of less account which
14423 regards the condition of the receiver. Consequently, if after the consecration has been begun the priest remembers that he
14424 has eaten or drunk anything, he ought nevertheless to complete the sacrifice and
14425 receive the sacrament. Likewise, if he recalls a sin committed, he ought to make an act of contrition, with the firm purpose
14426 of confessing and making satisfaction for it: and thus he will not receive the sacrament unworthily, but with profit. The
14427 same applies if he calls to mind that he is under some excommunication; for he ought to make the resolution of humbly seeking
14428 absolution; and so he will receive absolution from the invisible High Priest Jesus Christ for his act of completing the Divine
14429 mysteries.
14430 </p>
14431 <p id="TP_Q83_A6-p13"> But if he calls to mind any of the above facts previous to the consecration, I should deem it safer for him to interrupt
14432 the mass begun, especially if he has broken his fast, or is under excommunication, unless grave scandal were to be feared.
14433 </p>
14434 <p id="TP_Q83_A6-p14">
14435 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> If a fly or a spider falls into the chalice before consecration, or if it be discovered that the wine is poisoned, it ought
14436 to be poured out, and after purifying the chalice, fresh wine should be served for consecration. But if anything of the sort
14437 happen after the consecration, the insect should be caught carefully and washed thoroughly, then burned, and the "ablution,"
14438 together with the ashes, thrown into the sacrarium. If it be discovered that the
14439 wine has been poisoned, the priest should neither receive it nor administer it to others on any account, lest the life-giving
14440 chalice become one of death, but it ought to be kept in a suitable vessel with the relics: and in order that the sacrament
14441 may not remain incomplete, he ought to put other wine into the chalice, resume the mass from the consecration of the blood,
14442 and complete the sacrifice.
14443 </p>
14444 <p id="TP_Q83_A6-p15">
14445 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> If before the consecration of the blood, and after the consecration of the body the priest detect that either the wine or
14446 the water is absent, then he ought at once to add them and consecrate. But if after the words of consecration he discover
14447 that the water is absent, he ought notwithstanding to proceed straight on, because the addition of the water is not necessary
14448 for the sacrament, as stated above (
14449 <a id="TP_Q83_A6-p15.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q74_A7.html">Q[74], A[7]</a>):
14450 nevertheless the person responsible for the neglect ought to be punished. And on no account should water be mixed with the
14451 consecrated wine, because corruption of the sacrament would ensue in part, as was said above (
14452 <a id="TP_Q83_A6-p15.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q77_A8.html">Q[77], A[8]</a>). But if after the words of consecration the priest perceive that no wine has been put in the chalice, and if he detect it
14453 before receiving the body, then rejecting the water, he ought to pour in wine with water, and begin over again the
14454 consecrating words of the blood. But if he notice it after receiving the body, he ought to procure another host which must
14455 be consecrated together with the blood; and I say so for this reason, because if he were to say only the words of consecration
14456 of the blood, the proper order of consecrating would not be observed; and, as is laid down by the Council of Toledo, quoted
14457 above (ad 1), sacrifices cannot be perfect, except they be performed in perfect order. But if he were to begin from the
14458 consecration of the blood, and were to repeat all the words which follow, it would not suffice, unless there was a consecrated
14459 host present, since in those words there are things to be said and done not only regarding the blood, but also regarding the
14460 body; and at the close he ought once more to receive the consecrated host and blood, even if he had already taken the water
14461 which was in the chalice, because the precept of the completing this sacrament is of greater weight than the precept of
14462 receiving the sacrament while fasting, as stated above (
14463 <a id="TP_Q83_A6-p15.3" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q80_A8.html">Q[80], A[8]</a>).
14464 </p>
14465 <p id="TP_Q83_A6-p16">
14466 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> Although the priest may not recollect having said some of the words he ought to say, he ought not to be disturbed mentally
14467 on that account; for a man who utters many words cannot recall to mind all that he has said; unless perchance in uttering
14468 them he adverts to something connected with the consecration; for so it is impressed on the memory. Hence, if a man pays attention
14469 to what he is saying, but without adverting to the fact that he is saying these
14470 particular words, he remembers soon after that he has said them; for, a thing is presented to the memory under the formality
14471 of the past (De Mem. et Remin. i).
14472 </p>
14473 <p id="TP_Q83_A6-p17"> But if it seem to the priest that he has probably omitted some of the words that are not necessary for the sacrament, I think
14474 that he ought not to repeat them on that account, changing the order of the sacrifice, but that he ought to proceed: but if
14475 he is certain that he has left out any of those that are necessary for the sacrament, namely, the form of the consecration,
14476 since the form of the consecration is necessary for the sacrament, just as the matter is, it seems that the
14477 same thing ought to be done as was stated above (ad 4) with regard to defect in the matter, namely, that he should begin again
14478 with the form of the consecration, and repeat the other things in order, lest the order of the sacrifice be altered.
14479 </p>
14480 <p id="TP_Q83_A6-p18">
14481 <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> The breaking of the consecrated host, and the putting of only one part into the chalice, regards the mystical body, just
14482 as the mixing with water signifies the people, and therefore the omission of either of them causes no such imperfection in
14483 the sacrifice, as calls for repetition regarding the celebration of this sacrament.
14484 </p>
14485 <p id="TP_Q83_A6-p19">
14486 <b>Reply to Objection 7:</b> According to the decree, De Consecr., dist. ii, quoting a decree of Pope Pius I, "If from neglect any of the blood falls
14487 upon a board which is fixed to the ground, let it be taken up with the tongue, and let the board be scraped. But if it be
14488 not a board, let the ground be scraped, and the scrapings burned, and the ashes buried inside the altar and let the priest
14489 do penance for forty days. But if a drop fall from the chalice on to the altar, let the
14490 minister suck up the drop, and do penance during three days; if it falls upon the altar cloth and penetrates to the second
14491 altar cloth, let him do four days' penance; if it penetrates to the third, let him do nine days' penance; if to the fourth,
14492 let him do twenty days' penance; and let the altar linens which the drop touched be washed three times by the priest, holding
14493 the chalice below, then let the water be taken and put away nigh to the altar." It might even be drunk by the minister, unless
14494 it might be rejected from nausea. Some persons go further, and cut out that part of the linen, which they burn, putting the
14495 ashes in the altar or down the sacrarium. And the Decretal continues with a quotation from the Penitential of Bede the Priest:
14496 "If, owing to drunkenness or gluttony, anyone vomits up the Eucharist, let him do forty days' penance, if he be a layman;
14497 but let clerics or monks, deacons and priests, do seventy days' penance; and let a bishop do ninety days'. But if they vomit
14498 from sickness, let them do penance for seven days." And in the same distinction, we read a decree of the (Fourth) Council
14499 of Arles: "They who do not keep proper custody over the sacrament, if a mouse or other animal consume it, must do forty days'
14500 penance: he who loses it in a church, or if a part fall and be not found, shall do thirty days' penance." And the priest seems
14501 to deserve the same penance, who from neglect allows the hosts to putrefy. And on those days the one doing penance ought to
14502 fast, and abstain from Communion. However, after weighing the circumstances of the fact and of the person, the said penances
14503 may be lessened or increased. But it must be observed that wherever the species are found to be entire, they must be preserved
14504 reverently, or consumed; because Christ's body is there so long as the species last, as stated above (
14505 <a id="TP_Q83_A6-p19.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q77_A4.html">Q[77], AA[4]</a>,5). But if it can be done conveniently, the things in which they are found are to be burned, and the ashes
14506 put in the sacrarium, as was said of the scrapings of the altar-table, here above.
14507 </p>
14508 <p id="TP_Q83_A6-p20"></p>
14509 <p id="TP_Q83_A6-p21"></p>
14510 <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A5.html"></a>
14511 <a href="summa.TP_Q84.html"></a>
14512 </div>
14513 <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A10.html"></a>
14514 <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A1.html"></a>
14515 </div>
14516 <div id="TP_Q84" class="div3">
14517 <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A6.html"></a>
14518 <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A1.html"></a>
14519 <h3 id="TP_Q84-p0.1">OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE (TEN ARTICLES)</h3>
14520 <p id="TP_Q84-p1"></p>
14521 <p id="TP_Q84-p2"></p>
14522 <p id="TP_Q84-p3"> We must now consider the Sacrament of Penance. We shall consider (1) Penance itself; (2) Its effect; (3) Its Parts; (4) The
14523 recipients of this sacrament; (5) The power of the ministers, which pertains to the keys; (6) The solemnization of this sacrament.
14524 </p>
14525 <p id="TP_Q84-p4"> The first of these considerations will be two fold: (1) Penance as a sacrament; (2) Penance as a virtue.</p>
14526 <p id="TP_Q84-p5"> Under the first head there are ten points of inquiry:</p>
14527 <p id="TP_Q84-p6"> (1) Whether Penance is a sacrament?</p>
14528 <p id="TP_Q84-p7"> (2) Of its proper matter;</p>
14529 <p id="TP_Q84-p8"> (3) Of its form;</p>
14530 <p id="TP_Q84-p9"> (4) Whether imposition of hands is necessary for this sacrament?</p>
14531 <p id="TP_Q84-p10"> (5) Whether this sacrament is necessary for salvation?</p>
14532 <p id="TP_Q84-p11"> (6) Of its relation to the other sacraments;</p>
14533 <p id="TP_Q84-p12"> (7) Of its institution;</p>
14534 <p id="TP_Q84-p13"> (8) Of its duration;</p>
14535 <p id="TP_Q84-p14"> (9) Of its continuance;</p>
14536 <p id="TP_Q84-p15"> (10) Whether it can be repeated?</p>
14537 <div id="TP_Q84_A1" class="div4">
14538 <a href="summa.TP_Q84.html"></a>
14539 <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A2.html"></a>
14540 <h4 id="TP_Q84_A1-p0.1">Whether Penance is a sacrament?</h4>
14541 <p id="TP_Q84_A1-p1"></p>
14542 <p id="TP_Q84_A1-p2">
14543 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Penance is not a sacrament. For Gregory [*Cf. Isidore, Etym. vi, ch. 19] says: "The sacraments are Baptism,
14544 Chrism, and the Body and Blood of Christ; which are called sacraments because under the veil of corporeal things the Divine
14545 power works out salvation in a hidden manner." But this does not happen in Penance, because therein corporeal things are not
14546 employed that, under them, the power of God may work our salvation. Therefore Penance is
14547 not a sacrament.
14548 </p>
14549 <p id="TP_Q84_A1-p3">
14550 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the sacraments of the Church are shown forth by the ministers of Christ, according to
14551 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.4.1" target="asv">1 Cor. 4:1</a>: "Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God." But Penance is not
14552 conferred by the ministers of Christ, but is inspired inwardly into man by God, according to
14553 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A1-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Jer.31.19" target="asv"> Jer. 31:19</a>: "After Thou didst convert me, I did penance." Therefore it seems that Penance is not a
14554 sacrament.
14555 </p>
14556 <p id="TP_Q84_A1-p4">
14557 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, in the sacraments of which we have already spoken above, there is something that is sacrament only, something that
14558 is both reality and sacrament, and something that is reality only, as is clear from what has been stated (
14559 <a id="TP_Q84_A1-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q66_A1.html">Q[66], A[1]</a>). But this does not apply to Penance. Therefore Penance is not a sacrament.
14560 </p>
14561 <p id="TP_Q84_A1-p5">
14562 <b>On the contrary,</b> As Baptism is conferred that we may be cleansed from sin, so also is Penance: wherefore Peter said to Simon Magus (
14563 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.8.22" target="asv">Acts 8:22</a>): "Do penance . . . from this thy wickedness." But Baptism is a sacrament as stated above (
14564 <a id="TP_Q84_A1-p5.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q66_A1.html">Q[66], A[1]</a>). Therefore for the same reason Penance is also a sacrament.
14565 </p>
14566 <p id="TP_Q84_A1-p6">
14567 <b>I answer that,</b> As Gregory says [*Isidore, Etym. vi, ch. 19], "a sacrament consists in a solemn act, whereby something is so done that we
14568 understand it to signify the holiness which it confers." Now it is evident that in Penance something is done so that something
14569 holy is signified both on the part of the penitent sinner, and on the part of the priest absolving, because the penitent sinner,
14570 by deed and word, shows his heart to have renounced sin, and in like manner the
14571 priest, by his deed and word with regard to the penitent, signifies the work of God Who forgives his sins. Therefore it is
14572 evident that Penance, as practiced in the Church, is a sacrament.
14573 </p>
14574 <p id="TP_Q84_A1-p7">
14575 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> By corporeal things taken in a wide sense we may understand also external sensible actions, which are to this sacrament what
14576 water is to Baptism, or chrism to Confirmation. But it is to be observed that in those sacraments, whereby an exceptional
14577 grace surpassing altogether the proportion of a human act, is conferred, some corporeal matter is employed externally, e.g.
14578 in Baptism, which confers full remission of all sins, both as to guilt and as to
14579 punishment, and in Confirmation, wherein the fulness of the Holy Ghost is bestowed, and in Extreme Unction, which confers
14580 perfect spiritual health derived from the virtue of Christ as from an extrinsic principle. Wherefore, such human acts as are
14581 in these sacraments, are not the essential matter of the sacrament, but are dispositions thereto. On the other hand, in those
14582 sacraments whose effect corresponds to that of some human act, the sensible human act itself takes the place of matter, as
14583 in
14584 the case of Penance and Matrimony, even as in bodily medicines, some are applied externally, such as plasters and drugs, while
14585 others are acts of the person who seeks to be cured, such as certain exercises.
14586 </p>
14587 <p id="TP_Q84_A1-p8">
14588 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In those sacraments which have a corporeal matter, this matter needs to be applied by a minister of the Church, who stands
14589 in the place of Christ, which denotes that the excellence of the power which operates in the sacraments is from Christ. But
14590 in the sacrament of Penance, as stated above (ad 1), human actions take the place of matter, and these actions proceed from
14591 internal inspiration, wherefore the matter is not applied by the minister, but by
14592 God working inwardly; while the minister furnishes the complement of the sacrament, when he absolves the penitent.
14593 </p>
14594 <p id="TP_Q84_A1-p9">
14595 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> In Penance also, there is something which is sacrament only, viz. the acts performed outwardly both by the repentant sinner,
14596 and by the priest in giving absolution; that which is reality and sacrament is the sinner's inward repentance; while that
14597 which is reality, and not sacrament, is the forgiveness of sin. The first of these taken altogether is the cause of the second;
14598 and the first and second together are the cause of the third.
14599 </p>
14600 <p id="TP_Q84_A1-p10"></p>
14601 <p id="TP_Q84_A1-p11"></p>
14602 <a href="summa.TP_Q84.html"></a>
14603 <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A2.html"></a>
14604 </div>
14605 <div id="TP_Q84_A2" class="div4">
14606 <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A1.html"></a>
14607 <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A3.html"></a>
14608 <h4 id="TP_Q84_A2-p0.1">Whether sins are the proper matter of this sacrament?</h4>
14609 <p id="TP_Q84_A2-p1"></p>
14610 <p id="TP_Q84_A2-p2">
14611 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that sins are not the proper matter of this sacrament. Because, in the other sacraments, the matter is hallowed
14612 by the utterance of certain words, and being thus hallowed produces the sacramental effect. Now sins cannot be hallowed, for
14613 they are opposed to the effect of the sacrament, viz. grace which blots out sin. Therefore sins are not the proper matter
14614 of this sacrament.
14615 </p>
14616 <p id="TP_Q84_A2-p3">
14617 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Augustine says in his book De Poenitentia [Cf. Serm. cccli]: "No one can begin a new life, unless he repent of the
14618 old." Now not only sins but also the penalties of the present life belong to the old life. Therefore sins are not the proper
14619 matter of Penance.
14620 </p>
14621 <p id="TP_Q84_A2-p4">
14622 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, sin is either original, mortal or venial. Now the sacrament of Penance is not ordained against original sin, for
14623 this is taken away by Baptism, [nor against mortal sin, for this is taken away by the sinner's confession]*, nor against venial
14624 sin, which is taken away by the beating of the breast and the sprinkling of holy water and the like. Therefore sins are not
14625 the proper matter of Penance. [*The words in brackets are omitted in the Leonine
14626 edition].
14627 </p>
14628 <p id="TP_Q84_A2-p5">
14629 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
14630 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.12.21" target="asv">2 Cor. 12:21</a>): "(Who) have not done penance for the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness, that they have committed."
14631 </p>
14632 <p id="TP_Q84_A2-p6">
14633 <b>I answer that,</b> Matter is twofold, viz. proximate and remote: thus the proximate matter of a statue is a metal, while the remote matter is
14634 water. Now it has been stated (A[1], ad 1, ad 2), that the proximate matter of this sacrament consists in the acts of the
14635 penitent, the matter of which acts are the sins over which he grieves, which he confesses, and for which he satisfies. Hence
14636 it follows that sins are the remote matter of Penance, as a matter, not for approval, but
14637 for detestation, and destruction.
14638 </p>
14639 <p id="TP_Q84_A2-p7">
14640 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This argument considers the proximate matter of a sacrament.
14641 </p>
14642 <p id="TP_Q84_A2-p8">
14643 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The old life that was subject to death is the object of Penance, not as regards the punishment, but as regards the guilt
14644 connected with it.
14645 </p>
14646 <p id="TP_Q84_A2-p9">
14647 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Penance regards every kind of sin in a way, but not each in the same way. Because Penance regards actual mortal sin properly
14648 and chiefly; properly, since, properly speaking, we are said to repent of what we have done of our own will; chiefly, since
14649 this sacrament was instituted chiefly for the blotting out of mortal sin. Penance regards venial sins, properly speaking indeed,
14650 in so far as they are committed of our own will, but this was not the chief
14651 purpose of its institution. But as to original sin, Penance regards it neither chiefly, since Baptism, and not Penance, is
14652 ordained against original sin, nor properly, because original sin is not done of our own will, except in so far as Adam's
14653 will is looked upon as ours, in which sense the Apostle says (
14654 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A2-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.12" target="asv">Rom. 5:12</a>): "In whom all have sinned." Nevertheless, Penance may be said to regard original sin, if we take it in a wide sense for
14655 any detestation of something past: in
14656 which sense Augustine uses the term in his book De Poenitentia (Serm. cccli).
14657 </p>
14658 <p id="TP_Q84_A2-p10"></p>
14659 <p id="TP_Q84_A2-p11"></p>
14660 <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A1.html"></a>
14661 <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A3.html"></a>
14662 </div>
14663 <div id="TP_Q84_A3" class="div4">
14664 <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A2.html"></a>
14665 <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A4.html"></a>
14666 <h4 id="TP_Q84_A3-p0.1">Whether the form of this sacrament is: "I absolve thee"?</h4>
14667 <p id="TP_Q84_A3-p1"></p>
14668 <p id="TP_Q84_A3-p2">
14669 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the form of this sacrament is not: "I absolve thee." Because the forms of the sacraments are received
14670 from Christ's institution and the Church's custom. But we do not read that Christ instituted this form. Nor is it in common
14671 use; in fact in certain absolutions which are given publicly in church (e.g. at Prime and Compline and on Maundy Thursday),
14672 absolution is given not in the indicative form by saying: "I absolve thee," but In the
14673 deprecatory form, by saying: "May Almighty God have mercy on you," or: "May Almighty God grant you absolution and forgiveness."
14674 Therefore the form of this sacrament is not: "I absolve thee."
14675 </p>
14676 <p id="TP_Q84_A3-p3">
14677 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Pope Leo says (Ep. cviii) that God's forgiveness cannot be obtained without the priestly supplications: and he is
14678 speaking there of God's forgiveness granted to the penitent. Therefore the form of this sacrament should be deprecatory.
14679 </p>
14680 <p id="TP_Q84_A3-p4">
14681 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, to absolve from sin is the same as to remit sin. But God alone remits sin, for He alone cleanses man inwardly from
14682 sin, as Augustine says (Contra Donatist. v, 21). Therefore it seems that God alone absolves from sin. Therefore the priest
14683 should say not: "I absolve thee," as neither does he say: "I remit thy sins."
14684 </p>
14685 <p id="TP_Q84_A3-p5">
14686 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, just as our Lord gave His disciples the power to absolve from sins, so also did He give them the power "to heal
14687 infirmities," "to cast out devils," and "to cure diseases" (
14688 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.10.1" target="asv">Mat. 10:1</a>;
14689 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A3-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.9.1" target="asv"> Lk. 9:1</a>). Now the apostles, in healing the sick, did not use the words: "I heal thee," but: "The Lord Jesus Christ heal [Vulg.: 'heals']
14690 thee," as Peter said to the palsied man (
14691 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A3-p5.3" href="./asv.html#Acts.9.34" target="asv">Acts 9:34</a>). Therefore since
14692 priests have the power which Christ gave His apostles, it seems that they should not use the form: "I absolve thee," but:
14693 "May Christ absolve thee."
14694 </p>
14695 <p id="TP_Q84_A3-p6">
14696 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, some explain this form by stating that when they say: "I absolve thee," they mean "I declare you to be absolved."
14697 But neither can this be done by a priest unless it be revealed to him by God, wherefore, as we read in
14698 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.16.19" target="asv"> Mat. 16:19 </a>before it was said to Peter: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth," etc., it was said to him (
14699 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A3-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.16.17" target="asv">Mat. 16:17</a>): "Blessed art thou Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood have not revealed it
14700 to thee, but My Father Who is in heaven." Therefore it seems presumptuous for a priest, who has received no revelation on
14701 the matter, to say: "I absolve thee," even if this be explained to mean: "I declare thee absolved."
14702 </p>
14703 <p id="TP_Q84_A3-p7">
14704 <b>On the contrary,</b> As our Lord said to His disciples (
14705 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.28.19" target="asv">Mat. 28:19</a>): "Going . . . teach ye all nations, baptizing them," etc., so did He say to Peter (
14706 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A3-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.16.19" target="asv">Mat. 16:19</a>): "Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth," etc. Now the priest, relying on the authority of those words of Christ, says: "I
14707 baptize thee." Therefore on the same authority he should say in this sacrament: "I absolve thee."
14708 </p>
14709 <p id="TP_Q84_A3-p8">
14710 <b>I answer that,</b> The perfection of a thing is ascribed to its form. Now it has been stated above (A[1], ad 2) that this sacrament is perfected
14711 by that which is done by the priest. Wherefore the part taken by the penitent, whether it consist of words or deeds, must
14712 needs be the matter of this sacrament, while the part taken by the priest, takes the place of the form.
14713 </p>
14714 <p id="TP_Q84_A3-p9"> Now since the sacraments of the New Law accomplish what they signify, as stated above (
14715 <a id="TP_Q84_A3-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q62_A1.html">Q[62], A[1]</a>, ad 1), it behooves the sacramental form to signify the sacramental effect in a manner that is in keeping with the matter.
14716 Hence the form of Baptism is: "I baptize thee," and the form of Confirmation is: "I sign thee with the sign of the cross,
14717 and I confirm thee with the chrism of salvation," because these sacraments are perfected in the use of their
14718 matter: while in the sacrament of the Eucharist, which consists in the very consecration of the matter, the reality of the
14719 consecration is expressed in the words: "This is My Body."
14720 </p>
14721 <p id="TP_Q84_A3-p10"> Now this sacrament, namely the sacrament of Penance, consists not in the consecration of a matter, nor in the use of a hallowed
14722 matter, but rather in the removal of a certain matter, viz. sin, in so far as sins are said to be the matter of Penance, as
14723 explained above
14724 <a id="TP_Q84_A3-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q84_A2.html">(A[2])</a>. This removal is expressed by the priest saying: "I absolve thee": because sins are fetters, according to
14725 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A3-p10.2" href="./asv.html#Prov.5.22" target="asv"> Prov. 5:22.</a> "His own iniquities catch the wicked, and he
14726 is fast bound with the ropes of his own sins." Wherefore it is evident that this is the most fitting form of this sacrament:
14727 "I absolve thee."
14728 </p>
14729 <p id="TP_Q84_A3-p11">
14730 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This form is taken from Christ's very words which He addressed to Peter (
14731 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A3-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.16.19" target="asv">Mat. 16:19</a>): "Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth," etc., and such is the form employed by the Church in sacramental absolution. But
14732 such absolutions as are given in public are not sacramental, but are prayers for the remission of venial sins. Wherefore in
14733 giving sacramental absolution it would not suffice to say: "May Almighty God have mercy on thee," or:
14734 "May God grant thee absolution and forgiveness," because by such words the priest does not signify the giving of absolution,
14735 but prays that it may be given. Nevertheless the above prayer is said before the sacramental absolution is given, lest the
14736 sacramental effect be hindered on the part of the penitent, whose acts are as matter in this sacrament, but not in Baptism
14737 or Confirmation.
14738 </p>
14739 <p id="TP_Q84_A3-p12">
14740 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The words of Leo are to be understood of the prayer that precedes the absolution, and do not exclude the fact that the priest
14741 pronounces absolution.
14742 </p>
14743 <p id="TP_Q84_A3-p13">
14744 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> God alone absolves from sin and forgives sins authoritatively; yet priests do both ministerially, because the words of the
14745 priest in this sacrament work as instruments of the Divine power, as in the other sacraments: because it is the Divine power
14746 that works inwardly in all the sacramental signs, be they things or words, as shown above (
14747 <a id="TP_Q84_A3-p13.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q62_A4.html">Q[62], A[4]</a>;
14748 <a id="TP_Q84_A3-p13.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q64_A1.html"> Q[64], AA[1]</a>,2). Wherefore our Lord expressed both:
14749 for He said to Peter (
14750 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A3-p13.3" href="./asv.html#Matt.16.19" target="asv">Mat. 16:19</a>): "Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth," etc., and to His disciples (
14751 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A3-p13.4" href="./asv.html#John.20.23" target="asv">Jn. 20:23</a>): "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them." Yet the priest says: "I absolve thee," rather than: "I forgive
14752 thee thy sins," because it is more in keeping with the words of our Lord, by expressing the power of the keys whereby priests
14753 absolve. Nevertheless, since the priest absolves ministerially, something is suitably added in
14754 reference to the supreme authority of God, by the priest saying: "I absolve thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
14755 and of the Holy Ghost," or by the power of Christ's Passion, or by the authority of God. However, as this is not defined by
14756 the words of Christ, as it is for Baptism, this addition is left to the discretion of the priest.
14757 </p>
14758 <p id="TP_Q84_A3-p14">
14759 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Power was given to the apostles, not that they themselves might heal the sick, but that the sick might be healed at the prayer
14760 of the apostles: whereas power was given to them to work instrumentally or ministerially in the sacraments; wherefore they
14761 could express their own agency in the sacramental forms rather than in the healing of infirmities. Nevertheless in the latter
14762 case they did not always use the deprecatory form, but sometimes employed the
14763 indicative or imperative: thus we read (
14764 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A3-p14.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.3.6" target="asv">Acts 3:6</a>) that Peter said to the lame man: "What I have, I give thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, arise and walk."
14765 </p>
14766 <p id="TP_Q84_A3-p15">
14767 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> It is true in a sense that the words, "I absolve thee" mean "I declare thee absolved," but this explanation is incomplete.
14768 Because the sacraments of the New Law not only signify, but effect what they signify. Wherefore, just as the priest in baptizing
14769 anyone, declares by deed and word that the person is washed inwardly, and this not only significatively but also effectively,
14770 so also when he says: "I absolve thee," he declares the man to be absolved
14771 not only significatively but also effectively. And yet he does not speak as of something uncertain, because just as the other
14772 sacraments of the New Law have, of themselves, a sure effect through the power of Christ's Passion, which effect, nevertheless,
14773 may be impeded on the part of the recipient, so is it with this sacrament. Hence Augustine says (De Adult. Conjug. ii): "There
14774 is nothing disgraceful or onerous in the reconciliation of husband and wife, when adultery committed has been washed
14775 away, since there is no doubt that remission of sins is granted through the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Consequently there
14776 is no need for a special revelation to be made to the priest, but the general revelation of faith suffices, through which
14777 sins are forgiven. Hence the revelation of faith is said to have been made to Peter.
14778 </p>
14779 <p id="TP_Q84_A3-p16"> It would be a more complete explanation to say that the words, "I absolve thee" mean: "I grant thee the sacrament of absolution."</p>
14780 <p id="TP_Q84_A3-p17"></p>
14781 <p id="TP_Q84_A3-p18"></p>
14782 <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A2.html"></a>
14783 <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A4.html"></a>
14784 </div>
14785 <div id="TP_Q84_A4" class="div4">
14786 <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A3.html"></a>
14787 <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A5.html"></a>
14788 <h4 id="TP_Q84_A4-p0.1">Whether the imposition of the priest's hands is necessary for this sacrament?</h4>
14789 <p id="TP_Q84_A4-p1"></p>
14790 <p id="TP_Q84_A4-p2">
14791 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the imposition of the priest's hands is necessary for this sacrament. For it is written (
14792 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.16.18" target="asv">Mk. 16:18</a>): "They shall lay hands upon the sick, and they shall recover." Now sinners are sick spiritually, and obtain recovery through
14793 this sacrament. Therefore an imposition of hands should be made in this sacrament.
14794 </p>
14795 <p id="TP_Q84_A4-p3">
14796 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in this sacrament man regains the Holy Ghost Whom he had lost, wherefore it is said in the person of the penitent
14797 (
14798 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.1.14" target="asv">Ps. 1:14</a>): "Restore unto me the joy of Thy salvation, and strengthen me with a perfect spirit." Now the Holy Ghost is given by the
14799 imposition of hands; for we read (
14800 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A4-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Acts.8.17" target="asv">Acts 8:17</a>) that the apostles "laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost"; and (
14801 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A4-p3.3" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.13" target="asv">Mat. 19:13</a>)
14802 that "little children were presented" to our Lord, "that He should impose hands upon them." Therefore an imposition of hands
14803 should be made in this sacrament.
14804 </p>
14805 <p id="TP_Q84_A4-p4">
14806 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the priest's words are not more efficacious in this than in the other sacraments. But in the other sacraments the
14807 words of the minister do not suffice, unless he perform some action: thus, in Baptism, the priest while saying: "I baptize
14808 thee," has to perform a bodily washing. Therefore, also while saying: "I absolve thee," the priest should perform some action
14809 in regard to the penitent, by laying hands on him.
14810 </p>
14811 <p id="TP_Q84_A4-p5">
14812 <b>On the contrary,</b> When our Lord said to Peter (
14813 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.16.19" target="asv">Mat. 16:19</a>): "Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth," etc., He made no mention of an imposition of hands; nor did He when He said to
14814 all the apostles (
14815 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A4-p5.2" href="./asv.html#John.20.13" target="asv">Jn. 20:13</a>): "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them." Therefore no imposition of hands is required for this sacrament.
14816 </p>
14817 <p id="TP_Q84_A4-p6">
14818 <b>I answer that,</b> In the sacraments of the Church the imposition of hands is made, to signify some abundant effect of grace, through those
14819 on whom the hands are laid being, as it were, united to the ministers in whom grace should be plentiful. Wherefore an imposition
14820 of hands is made in the sacrament of Confirmation, wherein the fulness of the Holy Ghost is conferred; and in the sacrament
14821 of order, wherein is bestowed a certain excellence of power over the Divine mysteries;
14822 hence it is written (
14823 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iiTim.1.6" target="asv">2 Tim. 1:6</a>): "Stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands."
14824 </p>
14825 <p id="TP_Q84_A4-p7"> Now the sacrament of Penance is ordained, not that man may receive some abundance of grace, but that his sins may be taken
14826 away; and therefore no imposition of hands is required for this sacrament, as neither is there for Baptism, wherein nevertheless
14827 a fuller remission of sins is bestowed.
14828 </p>
14829 <p id="TP_Q84_A4-p8">
14830 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> That imposition of hands is not sacramental, but is intended for the working of miracles, namely, that by the contact of
14831 a sanctified man's hand, even bodily infirmity might be removed; even as we read of our Lord (
14832 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A4-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.6.5" target="asv">Mk. 6:5</a>) that He cured the sick, "laying His hands upon them," and (
14833 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A4-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.8.3" target="asv">Mat. 8:3</a>) that He cleansed a leper by touching him.
14834 </p>
14835 <p id="TP_Q84_A4-p9">
14836 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> It is not every reception of the Holy Ghost that requires an imposition of hands, since even in Baptism man receives the
14837 Holy Ghost, without any imposition of hands: it is at the reception of the fulness of the Holy Ghost which belongs to Confirmation
14838 that an imposition of hands is required.
14839 </p>
14840 <p id="TP_Q84_A4-p10">
14841 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> In those sacraments which are perfected in the use of the matter, the minister has to perform some bodily action on the recipient
14842 of the sacrament, e.g. in Baptism, Confirmation, and Extreme Unction; whereas this sacrament does not consist in the use of
14843 matter employed outwardly, the matter being supplied by the part taken by the penitent: wherefore, just as in the Eucharist
14844 the priest perfects the sacrament by merely pronouncing the words over the
14845 matter, so the mere words which the priest while absolving pronounces over the penitent perfect the sacrament of absolution.
14846 If, indeed, any bodily act were necessary on the part of the priest, the sign of the cross, which is employed in the Eucharist,
14847 would not be less becoming than the imposition of hands, in token that sins are forgiven through the blood of Christ crucified;
14848 and yet this is not essential to this sacrament as neither is it to the Eucharist.
14849 </p>
14850 <p id="TP_Q84_A4-p11"></p>
14851 <p id="TP_Q84_A4-p12"></p>
14852 <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A3.html"></a>
14853 <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A5.html"></a>
14854 </div>
14855 <div id="TP_Q84_A5" class="div4">
14856 <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A4.html"></a>
14857 <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A6.html"></a>
14858 <h4 id="TP_Q84_A5-p0.1">Whether this sacrament is necessary for salvation?</h4>
14859 <p id="TP_Q84_A5-p1"></p>
14860 <p id="TP_Q84_A5-p2">
14861 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that this sacrament is not necessary for salvation. Because on
14862 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A5-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.125.5" target="asv"> Ps. 125:5, </a> "They that sow in tears," etc., the gloss says: "Be not sorrowful, if thou hast a good will, of which peace is the meed."
14863 But sorrow is essential to Penance, according to
14864 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A5-p2.2" href="./asv.html#iiCor.7.10" target="asv">2 Cor. 7:10</a>: "The sorrow that is according to God worketh penance steadfast unto salvation." Therefore a good will without Penance suffices
14865 for salvation.
14866 </p>
14867 <p id="TP_Q84_A5-p3">
14868 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is written (
14869 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A5-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.10.12" target="asv">Prov. 10:12</a>): "Charity covereth all sins," and further on (
14870 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A5-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Prov.15.27" target="asv">Prov. 15:27</a>): "By mercy and faith sins are purged away." But this sacrament is for nothing else but the purging of sins. Therefore if
14871 one has charity, faith, and mercy, one can obtain salvation, without the sacrament of Penance.
14872 </p>
14873 <p id="TP_Q84_A5-p4">
14874 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the sacraments of the Church take their origin from the institution of Christ. But according to
14875 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A5-p4.1" href="./asv.html#John.8" target="asv">Jn. 8</a> Christ absolved the adulterous woman without Penance. Therefore it seems that Penance is not necessary for salvation.
14876 </p>
14877 <p id="TP_Q84_A5-p5">
14878 <b>On the contrary,</b> our Lord said (
14879 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.13.3" target="asv">Lk. 13:3</a>): "Unless you shall do penance, you shall all likewise perish."
14880 </p>
14881 <p id="TP_Q84_A5-p6">
14882 <b>I answer that,</b> A thing is necessary for salvation in two ways: first, absolutely; secondly, on a supposition. A thing is absolutely necessary
14883 for salvation, if no one can obtain salvation without it, as, for example, the grace of Christ, and the sacrament of Baptism,
14884 whereby a man is born again in Christ. The sacrament of Penance is necessary on a supposition, for it is necessary, not for
14885 all, but for those who are in sin. For it is written (
14886 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A5-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iiChr.37" target="asv">2 Paral 37</a> [*The prayer of
14887 Manasses, among the Apocrypha]), "Thou, Lord, God of the righteous, hast not appointed repentance to the righteous, to Abraham,
14888 Isaac and Jacob, nor to those who sinned not against Thee." But "sin, when it is completed, begetteth death" (
14889 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A5-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Jas.1.15" target="asv">James 1:15</a>). Consequently it is necessary for the sinner's salvation that sin be taken away from him; which cannot be done without the
14890 sacrament of Penance, wherein the power of Christ's Passion operates through the priest's absolution and
14891 the acts of the penitent, who co-operates with grace unto the destruction of his sin. For as Augustine says (Tract. lxxii
14892 in Joan. [*Implicitly in the passage referred to, but explicitly Serm. xv de verb Apost.]), "He Who created thee without thee,
14893 will not justify thee without thee." Therefore it is evident that after sin the sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation,
14894 even as bodily medicine after man has contracted a dangerous disease.
14895 </p>
14896 <p id="TP_Q84_A5-p7">
14897 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This gloss should apparently be understood as referring to the man who has a good will unimpaired by sin, for such a man
14898 has no cause for sorrow: but as soon as the good will is forfeited through sin, it cannot be restored without that sorrow
14899 whereby a man sorrows for his past sin, and which belongs to Penance.
14900 </p>
14901 <p id="TP_Q84_A5-p8">
14902 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As soon as a man falls into sin, charity, faith, and mercy do not deliver him from sin, without Penance. Because charity
14903 demands that a man should grieve for the offense committed against his friend, and that he should be anxious to make satisfaction
14904 to his friend; faith requires that he should seek to be justified from his sins through the power of Christ's Passion which
14905 operates in the sacraments of the Church; and well-ordered pity necessitates
14906 that man should succor himself by repenting of the pitiful condition into which sin has brought him, according to
14907 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A5-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.14.34" target="asv"> Prov. 14:34</a>: "Sin maketh nations miserable"; wherefore it is written (
14908 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A5-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Sir.30.24" target="asv">Ecclus. 30:24</a>): "Have pity on thy own soul, pleasing God."
14909 </p>
14910 <p id="TP_Q84_A5-p9">
14911 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> It was due to His power of "excellence," which He alone had, as stated above (
14912 <a id="TP_Q84_A5-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q64_A3.html">Q[64], A[3]</a>), that Christ bestowed on the adulterous woman the effect of the sacrament of Penance, viz. the forgiveness of sins, without
14913 the sacrament of Penance, although not without internal repentance, which He operated in her by grace.
14914 </p>
14915 <p id="TP_Q84_A5-p10"></p>
14916 <p id="TP_Q84_A5-p11"></p>
14917 <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A4.html"></a>
14918 <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A6.html"></a>
14919 </div>
14920 <div id="TP_Q84_A6" class="div4">
14921 <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A5.html"></a>
14922 <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A7.html"></a>
14923 <h4 id="TP_Q84_A6-p0.1">Whether Penance is a second plank after shipwreck?</h4>
14924 <p id="TP_Q84_A6-p1"></p>
14925 <p id="TP_Q84_A6-p2">
14926 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Penance is not a second plank after shipwreck. Because on
14927 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A6-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.3.9" target="asv"> Is. 3:9, </a> "They have proclaimed abroad their sin as Sodom," a gloss says: "The second plank after shipwreck is to hide one's sins."
14928 Now Penance does not hide sins, but reveals them. Therefore Penance is not a second plank.
14929 </p>
14930 <p id="TP_Q84_A6-p3">
14931 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in a building the foundation takes the first, not the second place. Now in the spiritual edifice, Penance is the
14932 foundation, according to
14933 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A6-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.6.1" target="asv"> Heb. 6:1</a>: "Not laying again the foundation of Penance from dead works"; wherefore it precedes even Baptism, according to
14934 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A6-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Acts.2.38" target="asv"> Acts 2:38</a>: "Do penance, and be baptized every one of you." Therefore Penance should not be called a second plank.
14935 </p>
14936 <p id="TP_Q84_A6-p4">
14937 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, all the sacraments are planks, i.e. helps against sin. Now Penance holds, not the second but the fourth, place among
14938 the sacraments, as is clear from what has been said above (
14939 <a id="TP_Q84_A6-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q65_A1.html">Q[65], AA[1]</a>,2). Therefore Penance should not be called a second plank after shipwreck.
14940 </p>
14941 <p id="TP_Q84_A6-p5">
14942 <b>On the contrary,</b> Jerome says (Ep. cxxx) that "Penance is a second plank after shipwreck."
14943 </p>
14944 <p id="TP_Q84_A6-p6">
14945 <b>I answer that,</b> That which is of itself precedes naturally that which is accidental, as substance precedes accident. Now some sacraments
14946 are, of themselves, ordained to man's salvation, e.g. Baptism, which is the spiritual birth, Confirmation which is the spiritual
14947 growth, the Eucharist which is the spiritual food; whereas Penance is ordained to man's salvation accidentally as it were,
14948 and on something being supposed, viz. sin: for unless man were to sin actually, he would
14949 not stand in need of Penance and yet he would need Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist; even as in the life of the body,
14950 man would need no medical treatment, unless he were ill, and yet life, birth, growth, and food are, of themselves, necessary
14951 to man.
14952 </p>
14953 <p id="TP_Q84_A6-p7"> Consequently Penance holds the second place with regard to the state of integrity which is bestowed and safeguarded by the
14954 aforesaid sacraments, so that it is called metaphorically "a second plank after shipwreck." For just as the first help for
14955 those who cross the sea is to be safeguarded in a whole ship, while the second help when the ship is wrecked, is to cling
14956 to a plank; so too the first help in this life's ocean is that man safeguard his integrity, while the second help
14957 is, if he lose his integrity through sin, that he regain it by means of Penance.
14958 </p>
14959 <p id="TP_Q84_A6-p8">
14960 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> To hide one's sins may happen in two ways: first, in the very act of sinning. Now it is worse to sin in public than in private,
14961 both because a public sinner seems to sin more from contempt, and because by sinning he gives scandal to others. Consequently
14962 in sin it is a kind of remedy to sin secretly, and it is in this sense that the gloss says that "to hide one's sins is a second
14963 plank after shipwreck"; not that it takes away sin, as Penance does, but
14964 because it makes the sin less grievous. Secondly, one hides one's sin previously committed, by neglecting to confess it: this
14965 is opposed to Penance, and to hide one's sins thus is not a second plank, but is the reverse, since it is written (
14966 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A6-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.28.13" target="asv">Prov. 28:13</a>): "He that hideth his sins shall not prosper."
14967 </p>
14968 <p id="TP_Q84_A6-p9">
14969 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Penance cannot be called the foundation of the spiritual edifice simply, i.e. in the first building thereof; but it is the
14970 foundation in the second building which is accomplished by destroying sin, because man, on his return to God, needs Penance
14971 first. However, the Apostle is speaking there of the foundation of spiritual doctrine. Moreover, the penance which precedes
14972 Baptism is not the sacrament of Penance.
14973 </p>
14974 <p id="TP_Q84_A6-p10">
14975 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The three sacraments which precede Penance refer to the ship in its integrity, i.e. to man's state of integrity, with regard
14976 to which Penance is called a second plank.
14977 </p>
14978 <p id="TP_Q84_A6-p11"></p>
14979 <p id="TP_Q84_A6-p12"></p>
14980 <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A5.html"></a>
14981 <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A7.html"></a>
14982 </div>
14983 <div id="TP_Q84_A7" class="div4">
14984 <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A6.html"></a>
14985 <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A8.html"></a>
14986 <h4 id="TP_Q84_A7-p0.1">Whether this sacrament was suitably instituted in the New Law?</h4>
14987 <p id="TP_Q84_A7-p1"></p>
14988 <p id="TP_Q84_A7-p2">
14989 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that this sacrament was unsuitably instituted in the New Law. Because those things which belong to the natural
14990 law need not to be instituted. Now it belongs to the natural law that one should repent of the evil one has done: for it is
14991 impossible to love good without grieving for its contrary. Therefore Penance was unsuitably instituted in the New Law.
14992 </p>
14993 <p id="TP_Q84_A7-p3">
14994 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, that which existed in the Old Law had not to be instituted in the New. Now there was Penance in the old Law wherefore
14995 the Lord complains (
14996 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A7-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Jer.8.6" target="asv">Jer. 8:6</a>) saying: "There is none that doth penance for his sin, saying: What have I done?" Therefore Penance should not have been
14997 instituted in the New Law.
14998 </p>
14999 <p id="TP_Q84_A7-p4">
15000 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Penance comes after Baptism, since it is a second plank, as stated above
15001 <a id="TP_Q84_A7-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q84_A6.html">(A[6])</a>. Now it seems that our Lord instituted Penance before Baptism, because we read that at the beginning of His preaching He
15002 said (
15003 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A7-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.4.17" target="asv">Mat. 4:17</a>): "Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Therefore this sacrament was not suitably instituted in the New Law.
15004 </p>
15005 <p id="TP_Q84_A7-p5">
15006 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the sacraments of the New Law were instituted by Christ, by Whose power they work, as stated above (
15007 <a id="TP_Q84_A7-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q62_A5.html">Q[62], A[5]</a>;
15008 <a id="TP_Q84_A7-p5.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q64_A1.html"> Q[64], A[1]</a>). But Christ does not seem to have instituted this sacrament, since He made no use of it, as of the other sacraments which
15009 He instituted. Therefore this sacrament was unsuitably instituted in the New Law.
15010 </p>
15011 <p id="TP_Q84_A7-p6">
15012 <b>On the contrary,</b> our Lord said (
15013 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A7-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.24.46" target="asv">Lk. 24:46,47</a>): "It behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead the third day: and that penance and remission of sins should
15014 be preached in His name unto all nations."
15015 </p>
15016 <p id="TP_Q84_A7-p7">
15017 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (A[1], ad 1, ad 2), in this sacrament the acts of the penitent are as matter, while the part taken by the
15018 priest, who works as Christ's minister, is the formal and completive element of the sacrament. Now in the other sacraments
15019 the matter pre-exists, being provided by nature, as water, or by art, as bread: but that such and such a matter be employed
15020 for a sacrament requires to be decided by the institution; while the sacrament derives its
15021 form and power entirely from the institution of Christ, from Whose Passion the power of the sacraments proceeds.
15022 </p>
15023 <p id="TP_Q84_A7-p8"> Accordingly the matter of this sacrament pre-exists, being provided by nature; since it is by a natural principle of reason
15024 that man is moved to repent of the evil he has done: yet it is due to Divine institution that man does penance in this or
15025 that way. Wherefore at the outset of His preaching, our Lord admonished men, not only to repent, but also to "do penance,"
15026 thus pointing to the particular manner of actions required for this sacrament. As to the part to be taken by the
15027 ministers, this was fixed by our Lord when He said to Peter (
15028 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A7-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.16.19" target="asv">Mat. 16:19</a>): "To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven," etc.; but it was after His resurrection that He made known the
15029 efficacy of this sacrament and the source of its power, when He said (
15030 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A7-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.24.47" target="asv">Lk. 24:47</a>) that "penance and remission of sins should be preached in His name unto all nations," after speaking of His Passion and
15031 resurrection. Because it is from the power of the name of Jesus
15032 Christ suffering and rising again that this sacrament is efficacious unto the remission of sins.
15033 </p>
15034 <p id="TP_Q84_A7-p9"> It is therefore evident that this sacrament was suitably instituted in the New Law.</p>
15035 <p id="TP_Q84_A7-p10">
15036 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> It is a natural law that one should repent of the evil one has done, by grieving for having done it, and by seeking a remedy
15037 for one's grief in some way or other, and also that one should show some signs of grief, even as the Ninevites did, as we
15038 read in
15039 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A7-p10.1" href="./asv.html#John.3" target="asv">Jn. 3</a>. And yet even in their case there was also something of faith which they had received through Jonas' preaching, inasmuch
15040 as they did these things in the hope that they would receive pardon from
15041 God, according as we read (
15042 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A7-p10.2" href="./asv.html#John.3.9" target="asv">Jn. 3:9</a>): "Who can tell if God will turn and forgive, and will turn away from His fierce anger, and we shall not perish?" But just
15043 as other matters which are of the natural law were fixed in detail by the institution of the Divine law, as we have stated
15044 in the
15045 <a id="TP_Q84_A7-p10.3" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q91_A4.html">FS, Q[91], A[4]</a>;
15046 <a id="TP_Q84_A7-p10.5" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q95_A2.html">FS, Q[95], A[2]</a>; FS, Q[99], so was it with Penance.
15047 </p>
15048 <p id="TP_Q84_A7-p11">
15049 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Things which are of the natural law were determined in various ways in the old and in the New Law, in keeping with the imperfection
15050 of the old, and the perfection of the New. Wherefore Penance was fixed in a certain way in the Old Law---with regard to sorrow,
15051 that it should be in the heart rather than in external signs, according to
15052 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A7-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Joel.2.13" target="asv"> Joel 2:13</a>: "Rend your hearts and not your garments"; and with regard to seeking a remedy for
15053 sorrow, that they should in some way confess their sins, at least in general, to God's ministers. Wherefore the Lord said
15054 (
15055 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A7-p11.2" href="./asv.html#Lev.5.17" target="asv">Lev. 5:17,18</a>): "If anyone sin through ignorance . . . he shall offer of the flocks a ram without blemish to the priest, according to the
15056 measure and estimation of the sin, and the priest shall pray for him, because he did it ignorantly, and it shall be forgiven
15057 him"; since by the very fact of making an offering for his sin, a man, in a fashion,
15058 confessed his sin to the priest. And accordingly it is written (
15059 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A7-p11.3" href="./asv.html#Prov.28.13" target="asv">Prov. 28:13</a>): "He that hideth his sins, shall not prosper: but he that shall confess, and forsake them, shall obtain mercy." Not yet,
15060 however, was the power of the keys instituted, which is derived from Christ's Passion, and consequently it was not yet ordained
15061 that a man should grieve for his sin, with the purpose of submitting himself by confession and satisfaction to the keys of
15062 the Church, in the hope of
15063 receiving forgiveness through the power of Christ's Passion.
15064 </p>
15065 <p id="TP_Q84_A7-p12">
15066 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> If we note carefully what our Lord said about the necessity of Baptism (
15067 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A7-p12.1" href="./asv.html#John.3.3" target="asv">Jn. 3:3, </a> seqq.), we shall see that this was said before His words about the necessity of Penance (
15068 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A7-p12.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.4.17" target="asv">Mat. 4:17</a>); because He spoke to Nicodemus about Baptism before the imprisonment of John, of whom it is related afterwards (
15069 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A7-p12.3" href="./asv.html#John.3.23" target="asv">Jn. 3:23, 24</a>) that he baptized, whereas His words about Penance were said after John was cast into
15070 prison.
15071 </p>
15072 <p id="TP_Q84_A7-p13"> If, however, He had admonished men to do penance before admonishing them to be baptized, this would be because also before
15073 Baptism some kind of penance is required, according to the words of Peter (
15074 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A7-p13.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.2.38" target="asv">Acts 2:38</a>): "Do penance, and be baptized, every one of you."
15075 </p>
15076 <p id="TP_Q84_A7-p14">
15077 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Christ did not use the Baptism which He instituted, but was baptized with the baptism of John, as stated above (
15078 <a id="TP_Q84_A7-p14.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q39_A1.html">Q[39], AA[1]</a>,2). Nor did He use it actively by administering it Himself, because He "did not baptize" as a rule, "but His disciples" did,
15079 as related in
15080 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A7-p14.2" href="./asv.html#John.4.2" target="asv"> Jn. 4:2, </a> although it is to be believed that He baptized His disciples, as Augustine asserts (Ep. cclxv, ad Seleuc.). But with regard
15081 to His
15082 institution of this sacrament it was nowise fitting that He should use it, neither by repenting Himself, in Whom there was
15083 no sin, nor by administering the sacrament to others, since, in order to show His mercy and power, He was wont to confer the
15084 effect of this sacrament without the sacrament itself, as stated above (A[5], ad 3). On the other hand, He both received and
15085 gave to others the sacrament of the Eucharist, both in order to commend the excellence of that sacrament, and because that
15086 sacrament is a memorial of His Passion, in which Christ is both priest and victim.
15087 </p>
15088 <p id="TP_Q84_A7-p15"></p>
15089 <p id="TP_Q84_A7-p16"></p>
15090 <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A6.html"></a>
15091 <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A8.html"></a>
15092 </div>
15093 <div id="TP_Q84_A8" class="div4">
15094 <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A7.html"></a>
15095 <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A9.html"></a>
15096 <h4 id="TP_Q84_A8-p0.1">Whether Penance should last till the end of life?</h4>
15097 <p id="TP_Q84_A8-p1"></p>
15098 <p id="TP_Q84_A8-p2">
15099 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Penance should not last till the end of life. Because Penance is ordained for the blotting out of sin.
15100 Now the penitent receives forgiveness of his sins at once, according to
15101 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A8-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Ezek.18.21" target="asv"> Ezech. 18:21</a>: "If the wicked do penance for all his sins which he hath committed . . . he shall live and shall not die." Therefore there
15102 is no need for Penance to be further prolonged.
15103 </p>
15104 <p id="TP_Q84_A8-p3">
15105 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Penance belongs to the state of beginners. But man ought to advance from that state to the state of the proficient,
15106 and, from this, on to the state of the perfect. Therefore man need not do Penance till the end of his life.
15107 </p>
15108 <p id="TP_Q84_A8-p4">
15109 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, man is bound to observe the laws of the Church in this as in the other sacraments. But the duration of repentance
15110 is fixed by the canons, so that, to wit, for such and such a sin one is bound to do penance for so many years. Therefore it
15111 seems that Penance should not be prolonged till the end of life.
15112 </p>
15113 <p id="TP_Q84_A8-p5">
15114 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says in his book, De Poenitentia [*De vera et falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown]: "What remains
15115 for us to do, save to sorrow ever in this life? For when sorrow ceases, repentance fails; and if repentance fails, what becomes
15116 of pardon?"
15117 </p>
15118 <p id="TP_Q84_A8-p6">
15119 <b>I answer that,</b> Penance is twofold, internal and external. Internal penance is that whereby one grieves for a sin one has committed, and
15120 this penance should last until the end of life. Because man should always be displeased at having sinned, for if he were to
15121 be pleased thereat, he would for this very reason fall into sin and lose the fruit of pardon. Now displeasure causes sorrow
15122 in one who is susceptible to sorrow, as man is in this life; but after this life the saints
15123 are not susceptible to sorrow, wherefore they will be displeased at, without sorrowing for, their past sins, according to
15124 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A8-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.65.16" target="asv"> Is. 65:16.</a> "The former distresses are forgotten."
15125 </p>
15126 <p id="TP_Q84_A8-p7"> External penance is that whereby a man shows external signs of sorrow, confesses his sins verbally to the priest who absolves
15127 him, and makes satisfaction for his sins according to the judgment of the priest. Such penance need not last until the end
15128 of life, but only for a fixed time according to the measure of the sin.
15129 </p>
15130 <p id="TP_Q84_A8-p8">
15131 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> True penance not only removes past sins, but also preserves man from future sins. Consequently, although a man receives forgiveness
15132 of past sins in the first instant of his true penance, nevertheless he must persevere in his penance, lest he fall again into
15133 sin.
15134 </p>
15135 <p id="TP_Q84_A8-p9">
15136 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> To do penance both internal and external belongs to the state of beginners, of those, to wit, who are making a fresh start
15137 from the state of sin. But there is room for internal penance even in the proficient and the perfect, according to
15138 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A8-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.83.7" target="asv"> Ps. 83:7</a>: "In his heart he hath disposed to ascend by steps, in the vale of tears." Wherefore Paul says (
15139 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A8-p9.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.9" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:9</a>): "I . . . am not worthy to be called an apostle because I
15140 persecuted the Church of God."
15141 </p>
15142 <p id="TP_Q84_A8-p10">
15143 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> These durations of time are fixed for penitents as regards the exercise of external penance.
15144 </p>
15145 <p id="TP_Q84_A8-p11"></p>
15146 <p id="TP_Q84_A8-p12"></p>
15147 <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A7.html"></a>
15148 <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A9.html"></a>
15149 </div>
15150 <div id="TP_Q84_A9" class="div4">
15151 <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A8.html"></a>
15152 <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A10.html"></a>
15153 <h4 id="TP_Q84_A9-p0.1">Whether Penance can be continuous?</h4>
15154 <p id="TP_Q84_A9-p1"></p>
15155 <p id="TP_Q84_A9-p2">
15156 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that penance cannot be continuous. For it is written (
15157 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A9-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Jer.31.16" target="asv">Jer. 31:16</a>): "Let thy voice cease from weeping, and thy eyes from tears." But this would be impossible if penance were continuous, for
15158 it consists in weeping and tears. Therefore penance cannot be continuous.
15159 </p>
15160 <p id="TP_Q84_A9-p3">
15161 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, man ought to rejoice at every good work, according to
15162 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A9-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.99.1" target="asv"> Ps. 99:1</a>: "Serve ye the Lord with gladness." Now to do penance is a good work. Therefore man should rejoice at it. But man cannot
15163 rejoice and grieve at the same time, as the Philosopher declares (Ethic. ix, 4). Therefore a penitent cannot grieve continually
15164 for his past sins, which is essential to penance. Therefore penance cannot be continuous.
15165 </p>
15166 <p id="TP_Q84_A9-p4">
15167 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the Apostle says (
15168 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A9-p4.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.2.7" target="asv">2 Cor. 2:7</a>): "Comfort him," viz. the penitent, "lest perhaps such an one be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow." But comfort dispels
15169 grief, which is essential to penance. Therefore penance need not be continuous.
15170 </p>
15171 <p id="TP_Q84_A9-p5">
15172 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says in his book on Penance [*De vera et falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown]: "In doing penance
15173 grief should be continual."
15174 </p>
15175 <p id="TP_Q84_A9-p6">
15176 <b>I answer that,</b> One is said to repent in two ways, actually and habitually. It is impossible for a man continually to repent actually. for
15177 the acts, whether internal or external, of a penitent must needs be interrupted by sleep and other things which the body needs.
15178 Secondly, a man is said to repent habitually. and thus he should repent continually, both by never doing anything contrary
15179 to penance, so as to destroy the habitual disposition of the penitent, and by being
15180 resolved that his past sins should always be displeasing to him.
15181 </p>
15182 <p id="TP_Q84_A9-p7">
15183 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Weeping and tears belong to the act of external penance, and this act needs neither to be continuous, nor to last until the
15184 end of life, as stated above
15185 <a id="TP_Q84_A9-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q84_A8.html">(A[8])</a>: wherefore it is significantly added: "For there is a reward for thy work." Now the reward of the penitent's work is the
15186 full remission of sin both as to guilt and as to punishment; and after receiving this reward there is no need for man to proceed
15187 to acts of external
15188 penance. This, however, does not prevent penance being continual, as explained above.
15189 </p>
15190 <p id="TP_Q84_A9-p8">
15191 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Of sorrow and joy we may speak in two ways: first, as being passions of the sensitive appetite; and thus they can no. wise
15192 be together, since they are altogether contrary to one another, either on the part of the object (as when they have the same
15193 object), or at least on the part of the movement, for joy is with expansion [*Cf.
15194 <a id="TP_Q84_A9-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q33_A1.html">FS, Q[33], A[1]</a>] of the heart, whereas sorrow is with contraction; and it is in this sense that the
15195 Philosopher speaks in Ethic. ix. Secondly, we may speak of joy and sorrow as being simple acts of the will, to which something
15196 is pleasing or displeasing. Accordingly, they cannot be contrary to one another, except on the part of the object, as when
15197 they concern the same object in the same respect, in which way joy and sorrow cannot be simultaneous, because the same thing
15198 in the same respect cannot be pleasing and displeasing. If, on the other hand, joy and sorrow, understood thus, be not of
15199 the same object in the same respect, but either of different objects, or of the same object in different respects, in that
15200 case joy and sorrow are not contrary to one another, so that nothing hinders a man from being joyful and sorrowful at the
15201 same time---for instance, if we see a good man suffer, we both rejoice at his goodness and at the same time grieve for his
15202 suffering. In this way a man may be displeased at having sinned, and be pleased at his displeasure together with his hope
15203 for
15204 pardon, so that his very sorrow is a matter of joy. Hence Augustine says [*De vera et falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of
15205 which is unknown]: "The penitent should ever grieve and rejoice at his grief."
15206 </p>
15207 <p id="TP_Q84_A9-p9"> If, however, sorrow were altogether incompatible with joy, this would prevent the continuance, not of habitual penance, but
15208 only of actual penance.
15209 </p>
15210 <p id="TP_Q84_A9-p10">
15211 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> According to the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 3,6,7,9) it belongs to virtue to establish the mean in the passions. Now the sorrow
15212 which, in the sensitive appetite of the penitent, arises from the displeasure of his will, is a passion; wherefore it should
15213 be moderated according to virtue, and if it be excessive it is sinful, because it leads to despair, as the Apostle teaches
15214 (
15215 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A9-p10.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.2.7" target="asv">2 Cor. 2:7</a>), saying: "Lest such an one be swallowed up with
15216 overmuch sorrow." Accordingly comfort, of which the Apostle speaks, moderates sorrow but does not destroy it altogether.
15217 </p>
15218 <p id="TP_Q84_A9-p11"></p>
15219 <p id="TP_Q84_A9-p12"></p>
15220 <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A8.html"></a>
15221 <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A10.html"></a>
15222 </div>
15223 <div id="TP_Q84_A10" class="div4">
15224 <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A9.html"></a>
15225 <a href="summa.TP_Q85.html"></a>
15226 <h4 id="TP_Q84_A10-p0.1">Whether the sacrament of Penance may be repeated?</h4>
15227 <p id="TP_Q84_A10-p1"></p>
15228 <p id="TP_Q84_A10-p2">
15229 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the sacrament of Penance should not be repeated. For the Apostle says (
15230 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A10-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.6.4" target="asv">Heb. 6:4, </a> seqq.): "It is impossible for those, who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift, and were made partakers
15231 of the Holy Ghost . . . and are fallen away, to be renewed again to penance." Now whosoever have done penance, have been illuminated,
15232 and have received the gift of the Holy Ghost. Therefore whosoever sin after doing
15233 penance, cannot do penance again.
15234 </p>
15235 <p id="TP_Q84_A10-p3">
15236 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Ambrose says (De Poenit. ii): "Some are to be found who think they ought often to do penance, who take liberties
15237 with Christ: for if they were truly penitent, they would not think of doing penance over again, since there is but one Penance
15238 even as there is but one Baptism." Now Baptism is not repeated. Neither, therefore, is Penance to be repeated.
15239 </p>
15240 <p id="TP_Q84_A10-p4">
15241 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the miracles whereby our Lord healed bodily diseases, signify the healing of spiritual diseases, whereby men are
15242 delivered from sins. Now we do not read that our Lord restored the sight to any blind man twice, or that He cleansed any leper
15243 twice, or twice raised any dead man to life. Therefore it seems that He does not twice grant pardon to any sinner.
15244 </p>
15245 <p id="TP_Q84_A10-p5">
15246 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, Gregory says (Hom. xxxiv in Evang.): "Penance consists in deploring past sins, and in not committing again those
15247 we have deplored": and Isidore says (De Summo Bono ii): "He is a mocker and no penitent who still does what he has repented
15248 of." If, therefore, a man is truly penitent, he will not sin again. Therefore Penance cannot be repeated.
15249 </p>
15250 <p id="TP_Q84_A10-p6">
15251 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, just as Baptism derives its efficacy from the Passion of Christ, so does Penance. Now Baptism is not repeated, on
15252 account of the unity of Christ's Passion and death. Therefore in like manner Penance is not repeated.
15253 </p>
15254 <p id="TP_Q84_A10-p7">
15255 <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, Ambrose says on
15256 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A10-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.118.58" target="asv"> Ps. 118:58, </a> "I entreated Thy face," etc., that "facility of obtaining pardon is an incentive to sin." If, therefore, God frequently grants
15257 pardon through Penance, it seems that He affords man an incentive to sin, and thus He seems to take pleasure in sin, which
15258 is contrary to His goodness. Therefore Penance cannot be repeated.
15259 </p>
15260 <p id="TP_Q84_A10-p8">
15261 <b>On the contrary,</b> Man is induced to be merciful by the example of Divine mercy, according to
15262 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A10-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.6.36" target="asv"> Lk. 6:36</a>: "Be ye . . . merciful, as your Father also is merciful." Now our Lord commanded His disciples to be merciful by frequently
15263 pardoning their brethren who had sinned against them; wherefore, as related in
15264 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A10-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.18.21" target="asv"> Mat. 18:21, </a> when Peter asked: "How often shall my brother off end against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?" Jesus answered:
15265 "I say not to thee, till seven times, but till seventy times seven times." Therefore also God over and over again, through
15266 Penance, grants pardon to sinners, especially as He teaches us to pray (
15267 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A10-p8.3" href="./asv.html#Matt.6.12" target="asv">Mat. 6:12</a>): "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us."
15268 </p>
15269 <p id="TP_Q84_A10-p9">
15270 <b>I answer that,</b> As regards Penance, some have erred, saying that a man cannot obtain pardon of his sins through Penance a second time. Some
15271 of these, viz. the Novatians, went so far as to say that he who sins after the first Penance which is done in Baptism, cannot
15272 be restored again through Penance. There were also other heretics who, as Augustine relates in De Poenitentia [*De vera et
15273 falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown], said that, after Baptism, Penance
15274 is useful, not many times, but only once.
15275 </p>
15276 <p id="TP_Q84_A10-p10"> These errors seem to have arisen from a twofold source: first from not knowing the nature of true Penance. For since true
15277 Penance requires charity, without which sins are not taken away, they thought that charity once possessed could not be lost,
15278 and that, consequently, Penance, if true, could never be removed by sin, so that it should be necessary to repeat it. But
15279 this was refuted in the
15280 <a id="TP_Q84_A10-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q24_A11.html">SS, Q[24], A[11]</a>, where it was shown that on account of
15281 free-will charity, once possessed, can be lost, and that, consequently, after true Penance, a man can sin mortally. Secondly,
15282 they erred in their estimation of the gravity of sin. For they deemed a sin committed by a man after he had received pardon,
15283 to be so grave that it could not be forgiven. In this they erred not only with regard to sin which, even after a sin has been
15284 forgiven, can be either more or less grievous than the first, which was forgiven, but much more did they err against the
15285 infinity of Divine mercy, which surpasses any number and magnitude of sins, according to
15286 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A10-p10.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.50.1" target="asv"> Ps. 50:1,2</a>: "Have mercy on me, O God, according to Thy great mercy: and according to the multitude of Thy tender mercies, blot out my
15287 iniquity." Wherefore the words of Cain were reprehensible, when he said (
15288 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A10-p10.3" href="./asv.html#Gen.4.13" target="asv">Gn. 4:13</a>): "My iniquity is greater than that I may deserve pardon." And so God's mercy, through Penance, grants pardon to sinners
15289 without any end, wherefore it
15290 is written (
15291 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A10-p10.4" href="./asv.html#iiChr.37" target="asv">2 Paral 37</a> [*Prayer of Manasses, among the Apocrypha. St. Thomas is evidently quoting from memory, and omits the words in brackets.]):
15292 "Thy merciful promise is unmeasurable and unsearchable . . . (and Thou repentest) for the evil brought upon man." It is therefore
15293 evident that Penance can be repeated many times.
15294 </p>
15295 <p id="TP_Q84_A10-p11">
15296 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Some of the Jews thought that a man could be washed several times in the laver of Baptism, because among them the Law prescribed
15297 certain washing-places where they were wont to cleanse themselves repeatedly from their uncleannesses. In order to disprove
15298 this the Apostle wrote to the Hebrews that "it is impossible for those who were once illuminated," viz. through Baptism, "to
15299 be renewed again to penance," viz. through Baptism, which is "the laver of
15300 regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost," as stated in
15301 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A10-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Titus.3.5" target="asv"> Titus 3:5</a>: and he declares the reason to be that by Baptism man dies with Christ, wherefore he adds (
15302 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A10-p11.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.6.6" target="asv">Heb. 6:6</a>): "Crucifying again to themselves the Son of God."
15303 </p>
15304 <p id="TP_Q84_A10-p12">
15305 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Ambrose is speaking of solemn Penance, which is not repeated in the Church, as we shall state further on (
15306 <a id="TP_Q84_A10-p12.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q28_A2.html">XP, Q[28], A[2]</a>).
15307 </p>
15308 <p id="TP_Q84_A10-p13">
15309 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Augustine says [*De vera et falsa Poenitentia the authorship of which is unknown], "Our Lord gave sight to many blind
15310 men at various times, and strength to many infirm, thereby showing, in these different men, that the same sins are repeatedly
15311 forgiven, at one time healing a man from leprosy and afterwards from blindness. For this reason He healed so many stricken
15312 with fever, so many feeble in body, so many lame, blind, and withered, that the
15313 sinner might not despair; for this reason He is not described as healing anyone but once, that every one might fear to link
15314 himself with sin; for this reason He declares Himself to be the physician welcomed not of the hale, but of the unhealthy.
15315 What sort of a physician is he who knows not how to heal a recurring disease? For if a man ail a hundred times it is for the
15316 physician to heal him a hundred times: and if he failed where others succeed, he would be a poor physician in comparison with
15317 them."
15318 </p>
15319 <p id="TP_Q84_A10-p14">
15320 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Penance is to deplore past sins, and, "while deploring them," not to commit again, either by act or by intention, those which
15321 we have to deplore. Because a man is a mocker and not a penitent, who, "while doing penance," does what he repents having
15322 done, or intends to do again what he did before, or even commits actually the same or another kind of sin. But if a man sin
15323 afterwards either by act or intention, this does not destroy the fact that his
15324 former penance was real, because the reality of a former act is never destroyed by a subsequent contrary act: for even as
15325 he truly ran who afterwards sits, so he truly repented who subsequently sins.
15326 </p>
15327 <p id="TP_Q84_A10-p15">
15328 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> Baptism derives its power from Christ's Passion, as a spiritual regeneration, with a spiritual death, of a previous life.
15329 Now "it is appointed unto man once to die" (
15330 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A10-p15.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.9.27" target="asv">Heb. 9:27</a>), and to be born once, wherefore man should be baptized but once. On the other hand, Penance derives its power from Christ's
15331 Passion, as a spiritual medicine, which can be repeated frequently.
15332 </p>
15333 <p id="TP_Q84_A10-p16">
15334 <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> According to Augustine (De vera et falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown), "it is evident that sins displease
15335 God exceedingly, for He is always ready to destroy them, lest what He created should perish, and what He loved be lost," viz.
15336 by despair.
15337 </p>
15338 <p id="TP_Q84_A10-p17"></p>
15339 <p id="TP_Q84_A10-p18"></p>
15340 <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A9.html"></a>
15341 <a href="summa.TP_Q85.html"></a>
15342 </div>
15343 <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A6.html"></a>
15344 <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A1.html"></a>
15345 </div>
15346 <div id="TP_Q85" class="div3">
15347 <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A10.html"></a>
15348 <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A1.html"></a>
15349 <h3 id="TP_Q85-p0.1">OF PENANCE AS A VIRTUE (SIX ARTICLES)</h3>
15350 <p id="TP_Q85-p1"></p>
15351 <p id="TP_Q85-p2"> We must now consider penance as a virtue, under which head there are six points of inquiry:</p>
15352 <p id="TP_Q85-p3"> (1) Whether penance is a virtue?</p>
15353 <p id="TP_Q85-p4"> (2) Whether it is a special virtue?</p>
15354 <p id="TP_Q85-p5"> (3) To what species of virtue does it belong?</p>
15355 <p id="TP_Q85-p6"> (4) Of its subject;</p>
15356 <p id="TP_Q85-p7"> (5) Of its cause;</p>
15357 <p id="TP_Q85-p8"> (6) Of its relation to the other virtues.</p>
15358 <div id="TP_Q85_A1" class="div4">
15359 <a href="summa.TP_Q85.html"></a>
15360 <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A2.html"></a>
15361 <h4 id="TP_Q85_A1-p0.1">Whether Penance is a virtue?</h4>
15362 <p id="TP_Q85_A1-p1"></p>
15363 <p id="TP_Q85_A1-p2">
15364 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that penance is not a virtue. For penance is a sacrament numbered among the other sacraments, as was shown
15365 above (
15366 <a id="TP_Q85_A1-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q84_A1.html">Q[84], A[1]</a>;
15367 <a id="TP_Q85_A1-p2.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q65_A1.html"> Q[65], A[1]</a>). Now no other sacrament is a virtue. Therefore neither is penance a virtue.
15368 </p>
15369 <p id="TP_Q85_A1-p3">
15370 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 9), "shame is not a virtue," both because it is a passion accompanied by
15371 a bodily alteration, and because it is not the disposition of a perfect thing, since it is about an evil act, so that it has
15372 no place in a virtuous man. Now, in like manner, penance is a passion accompanied by a bodily alteration, viz. tears, according
15373 to Gregory, who says (Hom. xxxiv in Evang.) that "penance consists in deploring past
15374 sins": moreover it is about evil deeds, viz. sins, which have no place in a virtuous man. Therefore penance is not a virtue.
15375 </p>
15376 <p id="TP_Q85_A1-p4">
15377 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 3), "no virtuous man is foolish." But it seems foolish to deplore what
15378 has been done in the past, since it cannot be otherwise, and yet this is what we understand by penance. Therefore penance
15379 is not a virtue.
15380 </p>
15381 <p id="TP_Q85_A1-p5">
15382 <b>On the contrary,</b> The precepts of the Law are about acts of virtue, because "a lawgiver intends to make the citizens virtuous" (Ethic. ii,
15383 1). But there is a precept about penance in the Divine law, according to
15384 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q85_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.4.17" target="asv"> Mat. 4:17</a>: "Do penance," etc. Therefore penance is a virtue.
15385 </p>
15386 <p id="TP_Q85_A1-p6">
15387 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (OBJ[2];
15388 <a id="TP_Q85_A1-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q84_A10.html"> Q[84], A[10]</a>, ad 4), to repent is to deplore something one has done. Now it has been stated above (
15389 <a id="TP_Q85_A1-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q84_A9.html">Q[84] , A[9]</a>) that sorrow or sadness is twofold. First, it denotes a passion of the sensitive appetite, and in this sense penance is not
15390 a virtue, but a passion. Secondly, it denotes an act of the will, and in this way it implies choice, and if this be right,
15391 it must, of necessity, be
15392 an act of virtue. For it is stated in Ethic. ii, 6 that virtue is a habit of choosing according to right reason. Now it belongs
15393 to right reason than one should grieve for a proper object of grief as one ought to grieve, and for an end for which one ought
15394 to grieve. And this is observed in the penance of which we are speaking now; since the penitent assumes a moderated grief
15395 for his past sins, with the intention of removing them. Hence it is evident that the penance of which we are speaking now,
15396 is either a virtue or the act of a virtue.
15397 </p>
15398 <p id="TP_Q85_A1-p7">
15399 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As stated above (Q[84], A[1], ad 1;
15400 <a id="TP_Q85_A1-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q85_A2.html">AA[2]</a>,3), in the sacrament of Penance, human acts take the place of matter, which is not the case in Baptism and Confirmation.
15401 Wherefore, since virtue is a principle of an act, penance is either a virtue or accompanies a virtue, rather than Baptism
15402 or Confirmation.
15403 </p>
15404 <p id="TP_Q85_A1-p8">
15405 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Penance, considered as a passion, is not a virtue, as stated above, and it is thus that it is accompanied by a bodily alteration.
15406 On the other hand, it is a virtue, according as it includes a right choice on the part of the will; which, however, applies
15407 to penance rather than to shame. Because shame regards the evil deed as present, whereas penance regards the evil deed as
15408 past. Now it is contrary to the perfection of virtue that one should have an
15409 evil deed actually present, of which one ought to be ashamed; whereas it is not contrary to the perfection of virtue that
15410 we should have previously committed evil deeds, of which it behooves us to repent, since a man from being wicked becomes virtuous.
15411 </p>
15412 <p id="TP_Q85_A1-p9">
15413 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> It would indeed be foolish to grieve for what has already been done, with the intention of trying to make it not done. But
15414 the penitent does not intend this: for his sorrow is displeasure or disapproval with regard to the past deed, with the intention
15415 of removing its result, viz. the anger of God and the debt of punishment: and this is not foolish.
15416 </p>
15417 <p id="TP_Q85_A1-p10"></p>
15418 <p id="TP_Q85_A1-p11"></p>
15419 <a href="summa.TP_Q85.html"></a>
15420 <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A2.html"></a>
15421 </div>
15422 <div id="TP_Q85_A2" class="div4">
15423 <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A1.html"></a>
15424 <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A3.html"></a>
15425 <h4 id="TP_Q85_A2-p0.1">Whether Penance is a special virtue?</h4>
15426 <p id="TP_Q85_A2-p1"></p>
15427 <p id="TP_Q85_A2-p2">
15428 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that penance is not a special virtue. For it seems that to rejoice at the good one has done, and to grieve
15429 for the evil one has done are acts of the same nature. But joy for the good one has done is not a special virtue, but is a
15430 praiseworthy emotion proceeding from charity, as Augustine states (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7,8,9): wherefore the Apostle says (
15431 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q85_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.13.6" target="asv">1 Cor. 13:6</a>) that charity "rejoiceth not at iniquity, but rejoiceth with the
15432 truth." Therefore, in like manner, neither is penance, which is sorrow for past sins, a special virtue, but an emotion resulting
15433 from charity.
15434 </p>
15435 <p id="TP_Q85_A2-p3">
15436 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, every special virtue has its special matter, because habits are distinguished by their acts, and acts by their objects.
15437 But penance has no special matter, because its matter is past sins in any matter whatever. Therefore penance is not a special
15438 virtue.
15439 </p>
15440 <p id="TP_Q85_A2-p4">
15441 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, nothing is removed except by its contrary. But penance removes all sins. Therefore it is contrary to all sins, and
15442 consequently is not a special virtue.
15443 </p>
15444 <p id="TP_Q85_A2-p5">
15445 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Law has a special precept about penance, as stated above (
15446 <a id="TP_Q85_A2-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q84_A5.html">Q[84], AA[5]</a>,7).
15447 </p>
15448 <p id="TP_Q85_A2-p6">
15449 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated in the
15450 <a id="TP_Q85_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q54_A1.html">FS, Q[54], A[1]</a>, ad 1, A[2], habits are specifically distinguished according to the species of their acts, so that whenever an act has a
15451 special reason for being praiseworthy, there must needs be a special habit. Now it is evident that there is a special reason
15452 for praising the act of penance, because it aims at the destruction of past sin, considered as an offense against God, which
15453 does not apply to any other
15454 virtue. We must therefore conclude that penance is a special virtue.
15455 </p>
15456 <p id="TP_Q85_A2-p7">
15457 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> An act springs from charity in two ways: first as being elicited by charity, and a like virtuous act requires no other virtue
15458 than charity, e.g. to love the good, to rejoice therein, and to grieve for what is opposed to it. Secondly, an act springs
15459 from charity, being, so to speak, commanded by charity; and thus, since charity commands all the virtues, inasmuch as it directs
15460 them to its own end, an act springing from charity may belong even to another
15461 special virtue. Accordingly, if in the act of the penitent we consider the mere displeasure in the past sin, it belongs to
15462 charity immediately, in the same way as joy for past good acts; but the intention to aim at the destruction of past sin requires
15463 a special virtue subordinate to charity.
15464 </p>
15465 <p id="TP_Q85_A2-p8">
15466 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In point of fact, penance has indeed a general matter, inasmuch as it regards all sins; but it does so under a special aspect,
15467 inasmuch as they can be remedied by an act of man in co-operating with God for his justification.
15468 </p>
15469 <p id="TP_Q85_A2-p9">
15470 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Every special virtue removes formally the habit of the opposite vice, just as whiteness removes blackness from the same subject:
15471 but penance removes every sin effectively, inasmuch as it works for the destruction of sins, according as they are pardonable
15472 through the grace of God if man co-operate therewith. Wherefore it does not follow that it is a general virtue.
15473 </p>
15474 <p id="TP_Q85_A2-p10"></p>
15475 <p id="TP_Q85_A2-p11"></p>
15476 <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A1.html"></a>
15477 <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A3.html"></a>
15478 </div>
15479 <div id="TP_Q85_A3" class="div4">
15480 <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A2.html"></a>
15481 <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A4.html"></a>
15482 <h4 id="TP_Q85_A3-p0.1">Whether the virtue of penance is a species of justice?</h4>
15483 <p id="TP_Q85_A3-p1"></p>
15484 <p id="TP_Q85_A3-p2">
15485 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the virtue of penance is not a species of justice. For justice is not a theological but a moral virtue,
15486 as was shown in the
15487 <a id="TP_Q85_A3-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q62_A3.html">SS, Q[62], A[3]</a>. But penance seems to be a theological virtue, since God is its object, for it makes satisfaction to God, to Whom, moreover,
15488 it reconciles the sinner. Therefore it seems that penance is not a species of justice.
15489 </p>
15490 <p id="TP_Q85_A3-p3">
15491 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, since justice is a moral virtue it observes the mean. Now penance does not observe the mean, but rather goes to
15492 the extreme, according to
15493 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q85_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Jer.6.26" target="asv"> Jer. 6:26</a>: "Make thee mourning as for an only son, a bitter lamentation." Therefore penance is not a species of justice.
15494 </p>
15495 <p id="TP_Q85_A3-p4">
15496 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, there are two species of justice, as stated in Ethic. v, 4, viz. "distributive" and "commutative." But penance does
15497 not seem to be contained under either of them. Therefore it seems that penance is not a species of justice.
15498 </p>
15499 <p id="TP_Q85_A3-p5">
15500 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, a gloss on
15501 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q85_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.6.21" target="asv"> Lk. 6:21, </a> "Blessed are ye that weep now," says: "It is prudence that teaches us the unhappiness of earthly things and the happiness
15502 of heavenly things." But weeping is an act of penance. Therefore penance is a species of prudence rather than of justice.
15503 </p>
15504 <p id="TP_Q85_A3-p6">
15505 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says in De Poenitentia [*De vera et falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown]: "Penance is the vengeance
15506 of the sorrowful, ever punishing in them what they are sorry for having done." But to take vengeance is an act of justice,
15507 wherefore Tully says (De Inv. Rhet. ii) that one kind of justice is called vindictive. Therefore it seems that penance is
15508 a species of justice.
15509 </p>
15510 <p id="TP_Q85_A3-p7">
15511 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (A[1], ad 2) penance is a special virtue not merely because it sorrows for evil done (since charity would
15512 suffice for that), but also because the penitent grieves for the sin he has committed, inasmuch as it is an offense against
15513 God, and purposes to amend. Now amendment for an offense committed against anyone is not made by merely ceasing to offend,
15514 but it is necessary to make some kind of compensation, which obtains in offenses committed
15515 against another, just as retribution does, only that compensation is on the part of the offender, as when he makes satisfaction,
15516 whereas retribution is on the part of the person offended against. Each of these belongs to the matter of justice, because
15517 each is a kind of commutation. Wherefore it is evident that penance, as a virtue, is a part of justice.
15518 </p>
15519 <p id="TP_Q85_A3-p8"> It must be observed, however, that according to the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 6) a thing is said to be just in two ways, simply
15520 and relatively. A thing is just simply when it is between equals, since justice is a kind of equality, and he calls this the
15521 politic or civil just, because all citizens are equal, in the point of being immediately under the ruler, retaining their
15522 freedom. But a thing is just relatively when it is between parties of whom one is subject to the other, as a
15523 servant under his master, a son under his father, a wife under her husband. It is this kind of just that we consider in penance.
15524 Wherefore the penitent has recourse to God with a purpose of amendment, as a servant to his master, according to
15525 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q85_A3-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.122.2" target="asv"> Ps. 122:2</a>: "Behold, as the eyes of servants are on the hands of their masters . . . so are our eyes unto the Lord our God, until He
15526 have mercy on us"; and as a son to his father, according to
15527 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q85_A3-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.15.21" target="asv">Lk. 15:21</a>: "Father, I have sinned against
15528 heaven and before thee"; and as a wife to her husband, according to
15529 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q85_A3-p8.3" href="./asv.html#Jer.3.1" target="asv"> Jer. 3:1</a>: "Thou hast prostituted thyself to many lovers; nevertheless return to Me, saith the Lord."
15530 </p>
15531 <p id="TP_Q85_A3-p9">
15532 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As stated in Ethic. v, 1, justice is a virtue towards another person, and the matter of justice is not so much the person
15533 to whom justice is due as the thing which is the subject of distribution or commutation. Hence the matter of penance is not
15534 God, but human acts, whereby God is offended or appeased; whereas God is as one to whom justice is due. Wherefore it is evident
15535 that penance is not a theological virtue, because God is not its matter or
15536 object.
15537 </p>
15538 <p id="TP_Q85_A3-p10">
15539 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The mean of justice is the equality that is established between those between whom justice is, as stated in Ethic. v. But
15540 in certain cases perfect equality cannot be established, on account of the excellence of one, as between father and son, God
15541 and man, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. viii, 14), wherefore in such cases, he that falls short of the other must do whatever
15542 he can. Yet this will not be sufficient simply, but only according to the
15543 acceptance of the higher one; and this is what is meant by ascribing excess to penance.
15544 </p>
15545 <p id="TP_Q85_A3-p11">
15546 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As there is a kind of commutation in favors, when, to wit, a man gives thanks for a favor received, so also is there commutation
15547 in the matter of offenses, when, on account of an offense committed against another, a man is either punished against his
15548 will, which pertains to vindictive justice, or makes amends of his own accord, which belongs to penance, which regards the
15549 person of the sinner, just as vindictive justice regards the person of the judge.
15550 Therefore it is evident that both are comprised under commutative justice.
15551 </p>
15552 <p id="TP_Q85_A3-p12">
15553 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Although penance is directly a species of justice, yet, in a fashion, it comprises things pertaining to all the virtues;
15554 for inasmuch as there is a justice of man towards God, it must have a share in matter pertaining to the theological virtues,
15555 the object of which is God. Consequently penance comprises faith in Christ's Passion, whereby we are cleansed of our sins,
15556 hope for pardon, and hatred of vice, which pertains to charity. Inasmuch as it is a
15557 moral virtue, it has a share of prudence, which directs all the moral virtues: but from the very nature of justice, it has
15558 not only something belonging to justice, but also something belonging to temperance and fortitude, inasmuch as those things
15559 which cause pleasure, and which pertain to temperance, and those which cause terror, which fortitude moderates, are objects
15560 of commutative justice. Accordingly it belongs to justice both to abstain from pleasure, which belongs to temperance, and
15561 to
15562 bear with hardships, which belongs to fortitude.
15563 </p>
15564 <p id="TP_Q85_A3-p13"></p>
15565 <p id="TP_Q85_A3-p14"></p>
15566 <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A2.html"></a>
15567 <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A4.html"></a>
15568 </div>
15569 <div id="TP_Q85_A4" class="div4">
15570 <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A3.html"></a>
15571 <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A5.html"></a>
15572 <h4 id="TP_Q85_A4-p0.1">Whether the will is properly the subject of penance?</h4>
15573 <p id="TP_Q85_A4-p1"></p>
15574 <p id="TP_Q85_A4-p2">
15575 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the subject of penance is not properly the will. For penance is a species of sorrow. But sorrow is in
15576 the concupiscible part, even as joy is. Therefore penance is in the concupiscible faculty.
15577 </p>
15578 <p id="TP_Q85_A4-p3">
15579 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, penance is a kind of vengeance, as Augustine states in De Poenitentia [*De vera et falsa Poenitentia, the authorship
15580 of which is unknown]. But vengeance seems to regard the irascible faculty, since anger is the desire for vengeance. Therefore
15581 it seems that penance is in the irascible part.
15582 </p>
15583 <p id="TP_Q85_A4-p4">
15584 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the past is the proper object of the memory, according to the Philosopher (De Memoria i). Now penance regards the
15585 past, as stated above (A[1], ad 2, ad 3). Therefore penance is subjected in the memory.
15586 </p>
15587 <p id="TP_Q85_A4-p5">
15588 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, nothing acts where it is not. Now penance removes sin from all the powers of the soul. Therefore penance is in every
15589 power of the soul, and not only in the will.
15590 </p>
15591 <p id="TP_Q85_A4-p6">
15592 <b>On the contrary,</b> Penance is a kind of sacrifice, according to
15593 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q85_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.50.19" target="asv"> Ps. 50:19</a>: "A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit." But to offer a sacrifice is an act of the will, according to
15594 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q85_A4-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.53.8" target="asv"> Ps. 53:8</a>: "I will freely sacrifice to Thee." Therefore penance is in the will.
15595 </p>
15596 <p id="TP_Q85_A4-p7">
15597 <b>I answer that,</b> We can speak of penance in two ways: first, in so far as it is a passion, and thus, since it is a kind of sorrow, it is in
15598 the concupiscible part as its subject; secondly, in so far as it is a virtue, and thus, as stated above
15599 <a id="TP_Q85_A4-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q85_A3.html">(A[3])</a>, it is a species of justice. Now justice, as stated in the
15600 <a id="TP_Q85_A4-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q56_A6.html">FS, Q[56], A[6]</a>, is subjected in the rational appetite which is the will. Therefore it is evident that penance, in so
15601 far as it is a virtue, is subjected in the will, and its proper act is the purpose of amending what was committed against
15602 God.
15603 </p>
15604 <p id="TP_Q85_A4-p8">
15605 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This argument considers penance as a passion.
15606 </p>
15607 <p id="TP_Q85_A4-p9">
15608 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> To desire vengeance on another, through passion, belongs to the irascible appetite, but to desire or take vengeance on oneself
15609 or on another, through reason, belongs to the will.
15610 </p>
15611 <p id="TP_Q85_A4-p10">
15612 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The memory is a power that apprehends the past. But penance belongs not to the apprehensive but to the appetitive power,
15613 which presupposes an act of the apprehension. Wherefore penance is not in the memory, but presupposes it.
15614 </p>
15615 <p id="TP_Q85_A4-p11">
15616 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The will, as stated above (
15617 <a id="TP_Q85_A4-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q82_A4.html">FP, Q[82], A[4]</a>;
15618 <a id="TP_Q85_A4-p11.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q9_A1.html">FS, Q[9], A[1]</a> ), moves all the other powers of the soul; so that it is not unreasonable for penance to be subjected in the will, and to
15619 produce an effect in each power of the soul.
15620 </p>
15621 <p id="TP_Q85_A4-p12"></p>
15622 <p id="TP_Q85_A4-p13"></p>
15623 <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A3.html"></a>
15624 <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A5.html"></a>
15625 </div>
15626 <div id="TP_Q85_A5" class="div4">
15627 <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A4.html"></a>
15628 <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A6.html"></a>
15629 <h4 id="TP_Q85_A5-p0.1">Whether penance originates from fear?</h4>
15630 <p id="TP_Q85_A5-p1"></p>
15631 <p id="TP_Q85_A5-p2">
15632 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that penance does not originate from fear. For penance originates in displeasure at sin. But this belongs to
15633 charity, as stated above
15634 <a id="TP_Q85_A5-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q85_A3.html">(A[3])</a>. Therefore penance originates from love rather than fear.
15635 </p>
15636 <p id="TP_Q85_A5-p3">
15637 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, men are induced to do penance, through the expectation of the heavenly kingdom, according to
15638 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q85_A5-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.3.2" target="asv"> Mat. 3:2 </a>and
15639 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q85_A5-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.4.17" target="asv"> Mat. 4:17</a>: "Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Now the kingdom of heaven is the object of hope. Therefore penance results
15640 from hope rather than from fear.
15641 </p>
15642 <p id="TP_Q85_A5-p4">
15643 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, fear is an internal act of man. But penance does not seem to arise in us through any work of man, but through the
15644 operation of God, according to
15645 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q85_A5-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Jer.31.19" target="asv"> Jer. 31:19</a>: "After Thou didst convert me I did penance." Therefore penance does not result from fear.
15646 </p>
15647 <p id="TP_Q85_A5-p5">
15648 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
15649 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q85_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.26.17" target="asv">Is. 26:17</a>): "As a woman with child, when she draweth near the time of her delivery, is in pain, and crieth out in her pangs, so ere
15650 we become," by penance, to wit; and according to another [*The Septuagint] version the text continues: "Through fear of Thee,
15651 O Lord, we have conceived, and been as it were in labor, and have brought forth the spirit of salvation," i.e. of salutary
15652 penance, as is clear from what precedes.
15653 Therefore penance results from fear.
15654 </p>
15655 <p id="TP_Q85_A5-p6">
15656 <b>I answer that,</b> We may speak of penance in two ways: first, as to the habit, and then it is infused by God immediately without our operating
15657 as principal agents, but not without our co-operating dispositively by certain acts. Secondly, we may speak of penance, with
15658 regard to the acts whereby in penance we co-operate with God operating, the first principle [*Cf. FS, Q[113]] of which acts
15659 is the operation of God in turning the heart, according to
15660 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q85_A5-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Lam.5.21" target="asv"> Lam.
15661 5:21
15662 </a>: "Convert us, O Lord, to Thee, and we shall be converted"; the second, an act of faith; the third, a movement of servile
15663 fear, whereby a man is withdrawn from sin through fear of punishment; the fourth, a movement of hope, whereby a man makes
15664 a purpose of amendment, in the hope of obtaining pardon; the fifth, a movement of charity, whereby sin is displeasing to man
15665 for its own sake and no longer for the sake of the punishment; the sixth, a movement of filial fear whereby a man,
15666 of his own accord, offers to make amends to God through fear of Him.
15667 </p>
15668 <p id="TP_Q85_A5-p7"> Accordingly it is evident that the act of penance results from servile fear as from the first movement of the appetite in
15669 this direction and from filial fear as from its immediate and proper principle.
15670 </p>
15671 <p id="TP_Q85_A5-p8">
15672 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Sin begins to displease a man, especially a sinner, on account of the punishments which servile fear regards, before it displeases
15673 him on account of its being an offense against God, or on account of its wickedness, which pertains to charity.
15674 </p>
15675 <p id="TP_Q85_A5-p9">
15676 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> When the kingdom of heaven is said to be at hand, we are to understand that the king is on his way, not only to reward but
15677 also to punish. Wherefore John the Baptist said (
15678 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q85_A5-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.3.7" target="asv">Mat. 3:7</a>): "Ye brood of vipers, who hath showed you to flee from the wrath to come?"
15679 </p>
15680 <p id="TP_Q85_A5-p10">
15681 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Even the movement of fear proceeds from God's act in turning the heart; wherefore it is written (
15682 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q85_A5-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.5.29" target="asv">Dt. 5:29</a>): "Who shall give them to have such a mind, to fear Me?" And so the fact that penance results from fear does not hinder its
15683 resulting from the act of God in turning the heart.
15684 </p>
15685 <p id="TP_Q85_A5-p11"></p>
15686 <p id="TP_Q85_A5-p12"></p>
15687 <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A4.html"></a>
15688 <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A6.html"></a>
15689 </div>
15690 <div id="TP_Q85_A6" class="div4">
15691 <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A5.html"></a>
15692 <a href="summa.TP_Q86.html"></a>
15693 <h4 id="TP_Q85_A6-p0.1">Whether penance is the first of the virtues?</h4>
15694 <p id="TP_Q85_A6-p1"></p>
15695 <p id="TP_Q85_A6-p2">
15696 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that penance is the first of the virtues. Because, on
15697 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q85_A6-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.3.2" target="asv"> Mat. 3:2, </a> "Do penance," etc., a gloss says: "The first virtue is to destroy the old man, and hate sin by means of penance."
15698 </p>
15699 <p id="TP_Q85_A6-p3">
15700 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, withdrawal from one extreme seems to precede approach to the other. Now all the other virtues seem to regard approach
15701 to a term, because they all direct man to do good; whereas penance seems to direct him to withdraw from evil. Therefore it
15702 seems that penance precedes all the other virtues.
15703 </p>
15704 <p id="TP_Q85_A6-p4">
15705 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, before penance, there is sin in the soul. Now no virtue is compatible with sin in the soul. Therefore no virtue
15706 precedes penance, which is itself the first of all and opens the door to the others by expelling sin.
15707 </p>
15708 <p id="TP_Q85_A6-p5">
15709 <b>On the contrary,</b> Penance results from faith, hope, and charity, as already stated (
15710 <a id="TP_Q85_A6-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q85_A2.html">AA[2]</a>,5). Therefore penance is not the first of the virtues.
15711 </p>
15712 <p id="TP_Q85_A6-p6">
15713 <b>I answer that,</b> In speaking of the virtues, we do not consider the order of time with regard to the habits, because, since the virtues are
15714 connected with one another, as stated in the
15715 <a id="TP_Q85_A6-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q65_A1.html">FS, Q[65], A[1]</a>, they all begin at the same time to be in the soul; but one is said to precede the other in the order of nature, which order
15716 depends on the order of their acts, in so far as the act of one virtue presupposes the act of another. Accordingly, then,
15717 one
15718 must say that, even in the order of time, certain praiseworthy acts can precede the act and the habit of penance, e.g. acts
15719 of dead faith and hope, and an act of servile fear; while the act and habit of charity are, in point of time, simultaneous
15720 with the act and habit of penance, and with the habits of the other virtues. For, as was stated in the
15721 <a id="TP_Q85_A6-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q113_A7.html">FS, Q[113], AA[7]</a>,8, in the justification of the ungodly, the movement of the free-will towards God, which is an act of
15722 faith quickened by charity, and the movement of the free-will towards sin, which is the act of penance, are simultaneous.
15723 Yet of these two acts, the former naturally precedes the latter, because the act of the virtue of penance is directed against
15724 sin, through love of God; where the first-mentioned act is the reason and cause of the second.
15725 </p>
15726 <p id="TP_Q85_A6-p7"> Consequently penance is not simply the first of the virtues, either in the order of time, or in the order of nature, because,
15727 in the order of nature, the theological virtues precede it simply. Nevertheless, in a certain respect, it is the first of
15728 the other virtues in the order of time, as regards its act, because this act is the first in the justification of the ungodly;
15729 whereas in the order of nature, the other virtues seem to precede, as that which is natural precedes that
15730 which is accidental; because the other virtues seem to be necessary for man's good, by reason of their very nature, whereas
15731 penance is only necessary if something, viz. sin, be presupposed, as stated above (
15732 <a id="TP_Q85_A6-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q55_A2.html">Q[55], A[2]</a>), when we spoke of the relation of the sacrament of penance to the other sacraments aforesaid.
15733 </p>
15734 <p id="TP_Q85_A6-p8">
15735 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This gloss is to be taken as meaning that the act of penance is the first in point of time, in comparison with the acts of
15736 the other virtues.
15737 </p>
15738 <p id="TP_Q85_A6-p9">
15739 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In successive movements withdrawal from one extreme precedes approach to the other, in point of time; and also in the order
15740 of nature, if we consider the subject, i.e. the order of the material cause; but if we consider the order of the efficient
15741 and final causes, approach to the end is first, for it is this that the efficient cause intends first of all: and it is this
15742 order which we consider chiefly in the acts of the soul, as stated in Phys. ii.
15743 </p>
15744 <p id="TP_Q85_A6-p10">
15745 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Penance opens the door to the other virtues, because it expels sin by the virtues of faith, hope and charity, which precede
15746 it in the order of nature; yet it so opens the door to them that they enter at the same time as it: because, in the justification
15747 of the ungodly, at the same time as the free-will is moved towards God and against sin, the sin is pardoned and grace infused,
15748 and with grace all the virtues, as stated in the
15749 <a id="TP_Q85_A6-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q65_A3.html">FS,
15750 Q[65], AA[3]
15751 </a>,5.
15752 </p>
15753 <p id="TP_Q85_A6-p11"></p>
15754 <p id="TP_Q85_A6-p12"></p>
15755 <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A5.html"></a>
15756 <a href="summa.TP_Q86.html"></a>
15757 </div>
15758 <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A10.html"></a>
15759 <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A1.html"></a>
15760 </div>
15761 <div id="TP_Q86" class="div3">
15762 <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A6.html"></a>
15763 <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A1.html"></a>
15764 <h3 id="TP_Q86-p0.1">OF THE EFFECT OF PENANCE, AS REGARDS THE PARDON OF MORTAL SIN (SIX ARTICLES)</h3>
15765 <p id="TP_Q86-p1"></p>
15766 <p id="TP_Q86-p2"> We must now consider the effect of Penance; and (1) as regards the pardon of mortal sins; (2) as regards the pardon of venial
15767 sins; (3) as regards the return of sins which have been pardoned; (4) as regards the recovery of the virtues.
15768 </p>
15769 <p id="TP_Q86-p3"> Under the first head there are six points of inquiry:</p>
15770 <p id="TP_Q86-p4"> (1) Whether all mortal sins are taken away by Penance?</p>
15771 <p id="TP_Q86-p5"> (2) Whether they can be taken away without Penance?</p>
15772 <p id="TP_Q86-p6"> (3) Whether one can be taken away without the other?</p>
15773 <p id="TP_Q86-p7"> (4) Whether Penance takes away the guilt while the debt remains?</p>
15774 <p id="TP_Q86-p8"> (5) Whether any remnants of sin remain?</p>
15775 <p id="TP_Q86-p9"> (6) Whether the removal of sin is the effect of Penance as a virtue, or as a sacrament?</p>
15776 <div id="TP_Q86_A1" class="div4">
15777 <a href="summa.TP_Q86.html"></a>
15778 <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A2.html"></a>
15779 <h4 id="TP_Q86_A1-p0.1">Whether all sins are taken away by Penance?</h4>
15780 <p id="TP_Q86_A1-p1"></p>
15781 <p id="TP_Q86_A1-p2">
15782 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that not all sins are taken away by Penance. For the Apostle says (
15783 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q86_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.12.17" target="asv">Heb. 12:17</a>) that Esau "found no place of repentance, although with tears he had sought it," which a gloss explains as meaning that "he
15784 found no place of pardon and blessing through Penance": and it is related (
15785 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q86_A1-p2.2" href="./asv.html#iiMacc.9.13" target="asv">2 Macc. 9:13</a>) of Antiochus, that "this wicked man prayed to the Lord, of Whom he was not to obtain mercy." Therefore it does not
15786 seem that all sins are taken away by Penance.
15787 </p>
15788 <p id="TP_Q86_A1-p3">
15789 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i) that "so great is the stain of that sin (namely, when a man, after coming
15790 to the knowledge of God through the grace of Christ, resists fraternal charity, and by the brands of envy combats grace itself)
15791 that he is unable to humble himself in prayer, although he is forced by his wicked conscience to acknowledge and confess his
15792 sin." Therefore not every sin can be taken away by Penance.
15793 </p>
15794 <p id="TP_Q86_A1-p4">
15795 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, our Lord said (
15796 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q86_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.12.32" target="asv">Mat. 12:32</a>): "He that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the world to come."
15797 Therefore not every sin can be pardoned through Penance.
15798 </p>
15799 <p id="TP_Q86_A1-p5">
15800 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
15801 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q86_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Ezek.18.22" target="asv">Ezech. 18:22</a>): "I will not remember" any more "all his iniquities that he hath done."
15802 </p>
15803 <p id="TP_Q86_A1-p6">
15804 <b>I answer that,</b> The fact that a sin cannot be taken away by Penance may happen in two ways: first, because of the impossibility of repenting
15805 of sin; secondly, because of Penance being unable to blot out a sin. In the first way the sins of the demons and of men who
15806 are lost, cannot be blotted out by Penance, because their will is confirmed in evil, so that sin cannot displease them as
15807 to its guilt, but only as to the punishment which they suffer, by reason of which they have
15808 a kind of repentance, which yet is fruitless, according to
15809 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q86_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.5.3" target="asv"> Wis. 5:3</a>: "Repenting, and groaning for anguish of spirit." Consequently such Penance brings no hope of pardon, but only despair. Nevertheless
15810 no sin of a wayfarer can be such as that, because his will is flexible to good and evil. Wherefore to say that in this life
15811 there is any sin of which one cannot repent, is erroneous, first, because this would destroy free-will, secondly, because
15812 this would be derogatory to the
15813 power of grace, whereby the heart of any sinner whatsoever can be moved to repent, according to
15814 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q86_A1-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Prov.21.1" target="asv"> Prov. 21:1</a>: "The heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord: whithersoever He will He shall turn it."
15815 </p>
15816 <p id="TP_Q86_A1-p7"> It is also erroneous to say that any sin cannot be pardoned through true Penance. First, because this is contrary to Divine
15817 mercy, of which it is written (
15818 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q86_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Joel.2.13" target="asv">Joel 2:13</a>) that God is "gracious and merciful, patient, and rich in mercy, and ready to repent of the evil"; for, in a manner, God
15819 would be overcome by man, if man wished a sin to be blotted out, which God were unwilling to blot out. Secondly, because this
15820 would be derogatory to the power of Christ's
15821 Passion, through which Penance produces its effect, as do the other sacraments, since it is written (
15822 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q86_A1-p7.2" href="./asv.html#iJohn.2.2" target="asv">1 Jn. 2:2</a>): "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world."
15823 </p>
15824 <p id="TP_Q86_A1-p8"> Therefore we must say simply that, in this life, every sin can be blotted out by true Penance.</p>
15825 <p id="TP_Q86_A1-p9">
15826 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Esau did not truly repent. This is evident from his saying (
15827 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q86_A1-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.27.41" target="asv">Gn. 27:41</a>): "The days will come of the mourning of my father, and I will kill my brother Jacob." Likewise neither did Antiochus repent
15828 truly; since he grieved for his past sin, not because he had offended God thereby, but on account of the sickness which he
15829 suffered in his body.
15830 </p>
15831 <p id="TP_Q86_A1-p10">
15832 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> These words of Augustine should be understood thus: "So great is the stain of that sin, that man is unable to humble himself
15833 in prayer," i.e. it is not easy for him to do so; in which sense we say that a man cannot be healed, when it is difficult
15834 to heal him. Yet this is possible by the power of God's grace, which sometimes turns men even "into the depths of the sea"
15835 (
15836 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q86_A1-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.67.23" target="asv">Ps. 67:23</a>).
15837 </p>
15838 <p id="TP_Q86_A1-p11">
15839 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The word or blasphemy spoken against the Holy Ghost is final impenitence, as Augustine states (De Verb. Dom. xi), which is
15840 altogether unpardonable, because after this life is ended, there is no pardon of sins. or, if by the blasphemy against the
15841 Holy Ghost, we understand sin committed through certain malice, this means either that the blasphemy itself against the Holy
15842 Ghost is unpardonable, i.e. not easily pardonable, or that such a sin does not
15843 contain in itself any motive for pardon, or that for such a sin a man is punished both in this and in the next world, as we
15844 explained in the
15845 <a id="TP_Q86_A1-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q14_A3.html">SS, Q[14], A[3]</a>.
15846 </p>
15847 <p id="TP_Q86_A1-p12"></p>
15848 <p id="TP_Q86_A1-p13"></p>
15849 <a href="summa.TP_Q86.html"></a>
15850 <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A2.html"></a>
15851 </div>
15852 <div id="TP_Q86_A2" class="div4">
15853 <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A1.html"></a>
15854 <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A3.html"></a>
15855 <h4 id="TP_Q86_A2-p0.1">Whether sin can be pardoned without Penance?</h4>
15856 <p id="TP_Q86_A2-p1"></p>
15857 <p id="TP_Q86_A2-p2">
15858 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that sin can be pardoned without Penance. For the power of God is no less with regard to adults than with regard
15859 to children. But He pardons the sins of children without Penance. Therefore He also pardons adults without penance.
15860 </p>
15861 <p id="TP_Q86_A2-p3">
15862 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, God did not bind His power to the sacraments. But Penance is a sacrament. Therefore by God's power sin can be pardoned
15863 without Penance.
15864 </p>
15865 <p id="TP_Q86_A2-p4">
15866 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, God's mercy is greater than man's. Now man sometimes forgives another for offending him, without his repenting:
15867 wherefore our Lord commanded us (
15868 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q86_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.5.44" target="asv">Mat. 5:44</a>): "Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you." Much more, therefore, does God pardon men for offending him, without
15869 their repenting.
15870 </p>
15871 <p id="TP_Q86_A2-p5">
15872 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Lord said (
15873 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q86_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Jer.18.8" target="asv">Jer. 18:8</a>): "If that nation . . . shall repent of their evil" which they have done, "I also will repent of the evil that I have thought
15874 to do them," so that, on the other hand, if man "do not penance," it seems that God will not pardon him his sin.
15875 </p>
15876 <p id="TP_Q86_A2-p6">
15877 <b>I answer that,</b> It is impossible for a mortal actual sin to be pardoned without penance, if we speak of penance as a virtue. For, as sin
15878 is an offense against God, He pardons sin in the same way as he pardons an offense committed against Him. Now an offense is
15879 directly opposed to grace, since one man is said to be offended with another, because he excludes him from his grace. Now,
15880 as stated in the
15881 <a id="TP_Q86_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q110_A1.html">FS, Q[110], A[1]</a>, the difference between the grace
15882 of God and the grace of man, is that the latter does not cause, but presupposes true or apparent goodness in him who is graced,
15883 whereas the grace of God causes goodness in the man who is graced, because the good-will of God, which is denoted by the word
15884 "grace," is the cause of all created good. Hence it is possible for a man to pardon an offense, for which he is offended with
15885 someone, without any change in the latter's will; but it is impossible that God pardon a man for an offense, without
15886 his will being changed. Now the offense of mortal sin is due to man's will being turned away from God, through being turned
15887 to some mutable good. Consequently, for the pardon of this offense against God, it is necessary for man's will to be so changed
15888 as to turn to God and to renounce having turned to something else in the aforesaid manner, together with a purpose of amendment;
15889 all of which belongs to the nature of penance as a virtue. Therefore it is impossible for a sin to be pardoned anyone
15890 without penance as a virtue.
15891 </p>
15892 <p id="TP_Q86_A2-p7"> But the sacrament of Penance, as stated above (
15893 <a id="TP_Q86_A2-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q88_A3.html">Q[88], A[3]</a>), is perfected by the priestly office of binding and loosing, without which God can forgive sins, even as Christ pardoned
15894 the adulterous woman, as related in
15895 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q86_A2-p7.2" href="./asv.html#John.8" target="asv">Jn. 8</a>, and the woman that was a sinner, as related in Luke vii, whose sins, however, He did not forgive without the virtue of penance:
15896 for as Gregory states (Hom. xxxiii in Evang.), "He drew inwardly by grace," i.e. by penance, "her whom He
15897 received outwardly by His mercy."
15898 </p>
15899 <p id="TP_Q86_A2-p8">
15900 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> In children there is none but original sin, which consists, not in an actual disorder of the will, but in a habitual disorder
15901 of nature, as explained in the
15902 <a id="TP_Q86_A2-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q82_A1.html">FS, Q[82], A[1]</a>, and so in them the forgiveness of sin is accompanied by a habitual change resulting from the infusion of grace and virtues,
15903 but not by an actual change. On the other hand, in the case of an adult, in whom there are actual sins, which consist in an
15904 actual
15905 disorder of the will, there is no remission of sins, even in Baptism, without an actual change of the will, which is the effect
15906 of Penance.
15907 </p>
15908 <p id="TP_Q86_A2-p9">
15909 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This argument takes Penance as a sacrament.
15910 </p>
15911 <p id="TP_Q86_A2-p10">
15912 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> God's mercy is more powerful than man's, in that it moves man's will to repent, which man's mercy cannot do.
15913 </p>
15914 <p id="TP_Q86_A2-p11"></p>
15915 <p id="TP_Q86_A2-p12"></p>
15916 <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A1.html"></a>
15917 <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A3.html"></a>
15918 </div>
15919 <div id="TP_Q86_A3" class="div4">
15920 <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A2.html"></a>
15921 <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A4.html"></a>
15922 <h4 id="TP_Q86_A3-p0.1">Whether by Penance one sin can be pardoned without another? </h4>
15923 <p id="TP_Q86_A3-p1"></p>
15924 <p id="TP_Q86_A3-p2">
15925 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that by Penance one sin can be pardoned without another. For it is written (
15926 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q86_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Amos.4.7" target="asv">Amos 4:7</a>): "I caused it to rain upon one city, and caused it not to rain upon another city; one piece was rained upon: and the piece
15927 whereupon I rained not, withered." These words are expounded by Gregory, who says (Hom. x super Ezech.): "When a man who hates
15928 his neighbor, breaks himself of other vices, rain falls on one part of the city, leaving the
15929 other part withered, for there are some men who, when they prune some vices, become much more rooted in others." Therefore
15930 one sin can be forgiven by Penance, without another.
15931 </p>
15932 <p id="TP_Q86_A3-p3">
15933 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Ambrose in commenting on
15934 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q86_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.118" target="asv">Ps. 118</a>, "Blessed are the undefiled in the way," after expounding verse 136 ("My eyes have sent forth springs of water"), says that
15935 "the first consolation is that God is mindful to have mercy; and the second, that He punishes, for although faith be wanting,
15936 punishment makes satisfaction and raises us up." Therefore a man can be raised up from one sin, while the sin of unbelief
15937 remains.
15938 </p>
15939 <p id="TP_Q86_A3-p4">
15940 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, when several things are not necessarily together, one can be removed without the other. Now it was stated in the
15941
15942 <a id="TP_Q86_A3-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q73_A1.html">FS, Q[73], A[1]</a> that sins are not connected together, so that one sin can be without another. Therefore also one sin can be taken away by
15943 Penance without another being taken away.
15944 </p>
15945 <p id="TP_Q86_A3-p5">
15946 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, sins are the debts, for which we pray for pardon when we say in the Lord's Prayer: "Forgive us our trespasses,"
15947 etc. Now man sometimes forgives one debt without forgiving another. Therefore God also, by Penance, forgives one sin without
15948 another.
15949 </p>
15950 <p id="TP_Q86_A3-p6">
15951 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, man's sins are forgiven him through the love of God, according to
15952 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q86_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Jer.31.3" target="asv"> Jer. 31:3</a>: "I have loved thee with an everlasting love, therefore have I drawn thee, taking pity on thee." Now there is nothing to
15953 hinder God from loving a man in one respect, while being offended with him in another, even as He loves the sinner as regards
15954 his nature, while hating him for his sin. Therefore it seems possible for God, by Penance, to pardon one sin
15955 without another.
15956 </p>
15957 <p id="TP_Q86_A3-p7">
15958 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says in De Poenitentia [*De vera et falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown]: "There are many who
15959 repent having sinned, but not completely; for they except certain things which give them pleasure, forgetting that our Lord
15960 delivered from the devil the man who was both dumb and deaf, whereby He shows us that we are never healed unless it be from
15961 all sins."
15962 </p>
15963 <p id="TP_Q86_A3-p8">
15964 <b>I answer that,</b> It is impossible for Penance to take one sin away without another. First because sin is taken away by grace removing the
15965 offense against God. Wherefore it was stated in the
15966 <a id="TP_Q86_A3-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q109_A7.html">FS, Q[109], A[7]</a>;
15967 <a id="TP_Q86_A3-p8.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q113_A2.html">FS, Q[113], A[2]</a> that without grace no sin can be forgiven. Now every mortal sin is opposed to grace and excludes it. Therefore it is impossible
15968 for one sin to be pardoned without another. Secondly, because, as shown
15969 above
15970 <a id="TP_Q86_A3-p8.3" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q86_A2.html">(A[2])</a> mortal sin cannot be forgiven without true Penance, to which it belongs to renounce sin, by reason of its being against God,
15971 which is common to all mortal sins: and where the same reason applies, the result will be the same. Consequently a man cannot
15972 be truly penitent, if he repent of one sin and not of another. For if one particular sin were displeasing to him, because
15973 it is against the love of God above all things (which motive is necessary for true
15974 repentance), it follows that he would repent of all. Whence it follows that it is impossible for one sin to be pardoned through
15975 Penance, without another. Thirdly, because this would be contrary to the perfection of God's mercy, since His works are perfect,
15976 as stated in
15977 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q86_A3-p8.4" href="./asv.html#Deut.32.4" target="asv"> Dt. 32:4</a>; wherefore whomsoever He pardons, He pardons altogether. Hence Augustine says [*De vera et falsa Poenitentia, the authorship
15978 of which is unknown], that "it is irreverent and heretical to expect half
15979 a pardon from Him Who is just and justice itself."
15980 </p>
15981 <p id="TP_Q86_A3-p9">
15982 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> These words of Gregory do not refer to the forgiveness of the guilt, but to the cessation from act, because sometimes a man
15983 who has been wont to commit several kinds of sin, renounces one and not the other; which is indeed due to God's assistance,
15984 but does not reach to the pardon of the sin.
15985 </p>
15986 <p id="TP_Q86_A3-p10">
15987 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In this saying of Ambrose "faith" cannot denote the faith whereby we believe in Christ, because, as Augustine says on
15988 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q86_A3-p10.1" href="./asv.html#John.15.22" target="asv"> Jn. 15:22, </a> "If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin" (viz. unbelief): "for this is the sin which contains all
15989 others": but it stands for consciousness, because sometimes a man receives pardon for a sin of which he is not conscious,
15990 through the punishment which he bears patiently.
15991 </p>
15992 <p id="TP_Q86_A3-p11">
15993 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although sins are not connected in so far as they turn towards a mutable good, yet they are connected in so far as they turn
15994 away from the immutable Good, which applies to all mortal sins in common. and it is thus that they have the character of an
15995 offense which needs to be removed by Penance.
15996 </p>
15997 <p id="TP_Q86_A3-p12">
15998 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Debt as regards external things, e.g. money, is not opposed to friendship through which the debt is pardoned. hence one debt
15999 can be condoned without another. On the other hand, the debt of sin is opposed to friendship, and so one sin or offense is
16000 not pardoned without another; for it would seem absurd for anyone to ask even a man to forgive him one offense and not another.
16001 </p>
16002 <p id="TP_Q86_A3-p13">
16003 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> The love whereby God loves man's nature, does not ordain man to the good of glory from which man is excluded by any mortal
16004 sin. but the love of grace, whereby mortal sin is forgiven, ordains man to eternal life, according to
16005 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q86_A3-p13.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.23" target="asv"> Rom. 6:23</a>: "The grace of God (is) life everlasting." Hence there is no comparison.
16006 </p>
16007 <p id="TP_Q86_A3-p14"></p>
16008 <p id="TP_Q86_A3-p15"></p>
16009 <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A2.html"></a>
16010 <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A4.html"></a>
16011 </div>
16012 <div id="TP_Q86_A4" class="div4">
16013 <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A3.html"></a>
16014 <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A5.html"></a>
16015 <h4 id="TP_Q86_A4-p0.1">Whether the debt of punishment remains after the guilt has been forgiven through Penance? </h4>
16016 <p id="TP_Q86_A4-p1"></p>
16017 <p id="TP_Q86_A4-p2">
16018 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that no debt of punishment remains after the guilt has been forgiven through Penance. For when the cause is
16019 removed, the effect is removed. But the guilt is the cause of the debt of punishment: since a man deserves to be punished
16020 because he has been guilty of a sin. Therefore when the sin has been forgiven, no debt of punishment can remain.
16021 </p>
16022 <p id="TP_Q86_A4-p3">
16023 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, according to the Apostle (
16024 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q86_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.5" target="asv">Rom. 5</a>) the gift of Christ is more effective than the sin of Adam. Now, by sinning, man incurs at the same time guilt and the debt
16025 of punishment. Much more therefore, by the gift of grace, is the guilt forgiven and at the same time the debt of punishment
16026 remitted.
16027 </p>
16028 <p id="TP_Q86_A4-p4">
16029 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the forgiveness of sins is effected in Penance through the power of Christ's Passion, according to
16030 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q86_A4-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.3.25" target="asv"> Rom. 3:25</a>: "Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His Blood . . . for the remission of former sins." Now Christ's
16031 Passion made satisfaction sufficient for all sins, as stated above (QQ[48],49,79, A[5]). Therefore after the guilt has been
16032 pardoned, no debt of punishment remains.
16033 </p>
16034 <p id="TP_Q86_A4-p5">
16035 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is related (
16036 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q86_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iiKgdms.12.13" target="asv">2 Kings 12:13</a>) that when David penitent had said to Nathan: "I have sinned against the Lord," Nathan said to him: "The Lord also hath taken
16037 away thy sin, thou shalt not die. Nevertheless . . . the child that is born to thee shall surely die," which was to punish
16038 him for the sin he had committed, as stated in the same place. Therefore a debt of some punishment remains after the guilt
16039 has been forgiven.
16040 </p>
16041 <p id="TP_Q86_A4-p6">
16042 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated in the
16043 <a id="TP_Q86_A4-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q87_A4.html">FS, Q[87], A[4]</a>, in mortal sin there are two things, namely, a turning from the immutable Good, and an inordinate turning to mutable good.
16044 Accordingly, in so far as mortal sin turns away from the immutable Good, it induces a debt of eternal punishment, so that
16045 whosoever sins against the eternal Good should be punished eternally. Again, in so far as mortal sin turns inordinately to
16046 a mutable good, it gives rise to a
16047 debt of some punishment, because the disorder of guilt is not brought back to the order of justice, except by punishment:
16048 since it is just that he who has been too indulgent to his will, should suffer something against his will, for thus will equality
16049 be restored. Hence it is written (
16050 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q86_A4-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Rev.18.7" target="asv">Apoc. 18:7</a>): "As much as she hath glorified herself, and lived in delicacies, so much torment and sorrow give ye to her."
16051 </p>
16052 <p id="TP_Q86_A4-p7"> Since, however, the turning to mutable good is finite, sin does not, in this respect, induce a debt of eternal punishment.
16053 Wherefore, if man turns inordinately to a mutable good, without turning from God, as happens in venial sins, he incurs a debt,
16054 not of eternal but of temporal punishment. Consequently when guilt is pardoned through grace, the soul ceases to be turned
16055 away from God, through being united to God by grace: so that at the same time, the debt of punishment is taken
16056 away, albeit a debt of some temporal punishment may yet remain.
16057 </p>
16058 <p id="TP_Q86_A4-p8">
16059 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Mortal sin both turns away from God and turns to a created good. But, as stated in the
16060 <a id="TP_Q86_A4-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q71_A6.html">FS, Q[71], A[6]</a>, the turning away from God is as its form while the turning to created good is as its matter. Now if the formal element of
16061 anything be removed, the species is taken away: thus, if you take away rational, you take away the human species. Consequently
16062 mortal sin is said to be pardoned from the very fact that, by means of grace,
16063 the aversion of the mind from God is taken away together with the debt of eternal punishment: and yet the material element
16064 remains, viz. the inordinate turning to a created good, for which a debt of temporal punishment is due.
16065 </p>
16066 <p id="TP_Q86_A4-p9">
16067 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As stated in the
16068 <a id="TP_Q86_A4-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q109_A7.html">FS, Q[109], AA[7]</a>,8;
16069 <a id="TP_Q86_A4-p9.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q111_A2.html">FS, Q[111], A[2]</a>, it belongs to grace to operate in man by justifying him from sin, and to co-operate with man that his work may be rightly
16070 done. Consequently the forgiveness of guilt and of the debt of eternal punishment belongs to operating grace, while the remission
16071 of the debt of temporal punishment belongs to co-operating grace, in so far as man, by bearing
16072 punishment patiently with the help of Divine grace, is released also from the debt of temporal punishment. Consequently just
16073 as the effect of operating grace precedes the effect of co-operating grace, so too, the remission of guilt and of eternal
16074 punishment precedes the complete release from temporal punishment, since both are from grace, but the former, from grace alone,
16075 the latter, from grace and free-will.
16076 </p>
16077 <p id="TP_Q86_A4-p10">
16078 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Christ's Passion is of itself sufficient to remove all debt of punishment, not only eternal, but also temporal; and man is
16079 released from the debt of punishment according to the measure of his share in the power of Christ's Passion. Now in Baptism
16080 man shares the Power of Christ's Passion fully, since by water and the Spirit of Christ, he dies with Him to sin, and is born
16081 again in Him to a new life, so that, in Baptism, man receives the remission of all
16082 debt of punishment. In Penance, on the other hand, man shares in the power of Christ's Passion according to the measure of
16083 his own acts, which are the matter of Penance, as water is of Baptism, as stated above (
16084 <a id="TP_Q86_A4-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q84_A1.html">Q[84], AA[1]</a>,3). Wherefore the entire debt of punishment is not remitted at once after the first act of Penance, by which act the guilt
16085 is remitted, but only when all the acts of Penance have been completed.
16086 </p>
16087 <p id="TP_Q86_A4-p11"></p>
16088 <p id="TP_Q86_A4-p12"></p>
16089 <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A3.html"></a>
16090 <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A5.html"></a>
16091 </div>
16092 <div id="TP_Q86_A5" class="div4">
16093 <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A4.html"></a>
16094 <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A6.html"></a>
16095 <h4 id="TP_Q86_A5-p0.1">Whether the remnants of sin are removed when a mortal sin is forgiven?</h4>
16096 <p id="TP_Q86_A5-p1"></p>
16097 <p id="TP_Q86_A5-p2">
16098 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that all the remnants of sin are removed when a mortal sin is forgiven. For Augustine says in De Poenitentia
16099 [*De vera et falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown]: "Our Lord never healed anyone without delivering him
16100 wholly; for He wholly healed the man on the Sabbath, since He delivered his body from all disease, and his soul from all taint."
16101 Now the remnants of sin belong to the disease of sin. Therefore it does not seem possible
16102 for any remnants of sin to remain when the guilt has been pardoned.
16103 </p>
16104 <p id="TP_Q86_A5-p3">
16105 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv), "good is more efficacious than evil, since evil does not act save in virtue
16106 of some good." Now, by sinning, man incurs the taint of sin all at once. Much more, therefore, by repenting, is he delivered
16107 also from all remnants of sin.
16108 </p>
16109 <p id="TP_Q86_A5-p4">
16110 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, God's work is more efficacious than man's. Now by the exercise of good human works the remnants of contrary sins
16111 are removed. Much more, therefore, are they taken away by the remission of guilt, which is a work of God.
16112 </p>
16113 <p id="TP_Q86_A5-p5">
16114 <b>On the contrary,</b> We read (
16115 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q86_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.8" target="asv">Mk. 8</a>) that the blind man whom our Lord enlightened, was restored first of all to imperfect sight, wherefore he said (
16116 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q86_A5-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Mark.8.24" target="asv">Mk. 8:24</a>): "I see men, as it were trees, walking"; and afterwards he was restored perfectly, "so that he saw all things clearly."
16117 Now the enlightenment of the blind man signifies the delivery of the sinner. Therefore after the first remission of sin, whereby
16118 the sinner is restored to spiritual sight, there
16119 still remain in him some remnants of his past sin.
16120 </p>
16121 <p id="TP_Q86_A5-p6">
16122 <b>I answer that,</b> Mortal sin, in so far as it turns inordinately to a mutable good, produces in the soul a certain disposition, or even a habit,
16123 if the acts be repeated frequently. Now it has been said above
16124 <a id="TP_Q86_A5-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q86_A4.html">(A[4])</a> that the guilt of mortal sin is pardoned through grace removing the aversion of the mind from God. Nevertheless when that
16125 which is on the part of the aversion has been taken away by grace, that which is on the part of the inordinate turning
16126 to a mutable good can remain, since this may happen to be without the other, as stated above
16127 <a id="TP_Q86_A5-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q86_A4.html">(A[4])</a>. Consequently, there is no reason why, after the guilt has been forgiven, the dispositions caused by preceding acts should
16128 not remain, which are called the remnants of sin. Yet they remain weakened and diminished, so as not to domineer over man,
16129 and they are after the manner of dispositions rather than of habits, like the "fomes" which remains after Baptism.
16130 </p>
16131 <p id="TP_Q86_A5-p7">
16132 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> God heals the whole man perfectly; but sometimes suddenly, as Peter's mother-in-law was restored at once to perfect health,
16133 so that "rising she ministered to them" (
16134 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q86_A5-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.4.39" target="asv">Lk. 4:39</a>), and sometimes by degrees, as we said above (
16135 <a id="TP_Q86_A5-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q44_A3.html">Q[44], A[3]</a>, ad 2) about the blind man who was restored to sight (
16136 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q86_A5-p7.3" href="./asv.html#Matt.8" target="asv">Mat. 8</a>). And so too, He sometimes turns the heart of man with such power, that it receives at once perfect spiritual health,
16137 not only the guilt being pardoned, but all remnants of sin being removed as was the case with Magdalen (
16138 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q86_A5-p7.4" href="./asv.html#Luke.7" target="asv">Lk. 7</a>); whereas at other times He sometimes first pardons the guilt by operating grace, and afterwards, by co-operating grace,
16139 removes the remnants of sin by degrees.
16140 </p>
16141 <p id="TP_Q86_A5-p8">
16142 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Sin too, sometimes induces at once a weak disposition, such as is the result of one act, and sometimes a stronger disposition,
16143 the result of many acts.
16144 </p>
16145 <p id="TP_Q86_A5-p9">
16146 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> One human act does not remove all the remnants of sin, because, as stated in the Predicaments (Categor. viii) "a vicious
16147 man by doing good works will make but little progress so as to be any better, but if he continue in good practice, he will
16148 end in being good as to acquired virtue." But God's grace does this much more effectively, whether by one or by several acts.
16149 </p>
16150 <p id="TP_Q86_A5-p10"></p>
16151 <p id="TP_Q86_A5-p11"></p>
16152 <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A4.html"></a>
16153 <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A6.html"></a>
16154 </div>
16155 <div id="TP_Q86_A6" class="div4">
16156 <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A5.html"></a>
16157 <a href="summa.TP_Q87.html"></a>
16158 <h4 id="TP_Q86_A6-p0.1">Whether the forgiveness of guilt is an effect of Penance?</h4>
16159 <p id="TP_Q86_A6-p1"></p>
16160 <p id="TP_Q86_A6-p2">
16161 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the forgiveness of guilt is not an effect of penance as a virtue. For penance is said to be a virtue,
16162 in so far as it is a principle of a human action. But human action does nothing towards the remission of guilt, since this
16163 is an effect of operating grace. Therefore the forgiveness of guilt is not an effect of penance as a virtue.
16164 </p>
16165 <p id="TP_Q86_A6-p3">
16166 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, certain other virtues are more excellent than penance. But the forgiveness of sin is not said to be the effect of
16167 any other virtue. Neither, therefore, is it the effect of penance as a virtue.
16168 </p>
16169 <p id="TP_Q86_A6-p4">
16170 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, there is no forgiveness of sin except through the power of Christ's Passion, according to
16171 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q86_A6-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.9.22" target="asv"> Heb. 9:22</a>: "Without shedding of blood there is no remission." Now Penance, as a sacrament, produces its effect through the power of
16172 Christ's Passion, even as the other sacraments do, as was shown above (
16173 <a id="TP_Q86_A6-p4.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q62_A4.html">Q[62], AA[4]</a>,5). Therefore the forgiveness of sin is the effect of Penance, not as a virtue, but as a sacrament.
16174 </p>
16175 <p id="TP_Q86_A6-p5">
16176 <b>On the contrary,</b> Properly speaking, the cause of a thing is that without which it cannot be, since every defect depends on its cause. Now
16177 forgiveness of sin can come from God without the sacrament of Penance, but not without the virtue of penance, as stated above
16178 (
16179 <a id="TP_Q86_A6-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q84_A5.html">Q[84], A[5]</a>, ad 3;
16180 <a id="TP_Q86_A6-p5.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q85_A2.html"> Q[85], A[2]</a>); so that, even before the sacraments of the New Law were instituted, God pardoned the sins of the penitent. Therefore the
16181 forgiveness of sin is chiefly the effect of penance as a virtue.
16182 </p>
16183 <p id="TP_Q86_A6-p6">
16184 <b>I answer that,</b> Penance is a virtue in so far as it is a principle of certain human acts. Now the human acts, which are performed by the
16185 sinner, are the material element in the sacrament of Penance. Moreover every sacrament produces its effect, in virtue not
16186 only of its form, but also of its matter. because both these together make the one sacrament, as stated above (
16187 <a id="TP_Q86_A6-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q60_A6.html">Q[60], A[6]</a>, ad 2, A[7]). Hence in Baptism forgiveness of sin is effected, in
16188 virtue not only of the form (but also of the matter, viz. water, albeit chiefly in virtue of the form) [*The words in brackets
16189 are omitted in the Leonine edition] from which the water receives its power---and, similarly, the forgiveness of sin is the
16190 effect of Penance, chiefly by the power of the keys, which is vested in the ministers, who furnish the formal part of the
16191 sacrament, as stated above (
16192 <a id="TP_Q86_A6-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q84_A3.html">Q[84], A[3]</a>), and secondarily by the instrumentality of those acts of the
16193 penitent which pertain to the virtue of penance, but only in so far as such acts are, in some way, subordinate to the keys
16194 of the Church. Accordingly it is evident that the forgiveness of sin is the effect of penance as a virtue, but still more
16195 of Penance as a sacrament.
16196 </p>
16197 <p id="TP_Q86_A6-p7">
16198 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The effect of operating grace is the justification of the ungodly (as stated in the
16199 <a id="TP_Q86_A6-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q113.html">FS, Q[113])</a>, wherein there is, as was there stated (
16200 <a id="TP_Q86_A6-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q86_A1.html">AA[1]</a>,2,3), not only infusion of grace and forgiveness of sin, but also a movement of the free-will towards God, which is an act
16201 of faith quickened by charity, and a movement of the free-will against sin, which is the act of penance. Yet these human acts
16202 are there as the
16203 effects of operating grace, and are produced at the same time as the forgiveness of sin. Consequently the forgiveness of sin
16204 does not take place without an act of the virtue of penance, although it is the effect of operating grace.
16205 </p>
16206 <p id="TP_Q86_A6-p8">
16207 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In the justification of the ungodly there is not only an act of penance, but also an act of faith, as stated above (ad 1:
16208
16209 <a id="TP_Q86_A6-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q113_A4.html">FS, Q[113], A[4]</a>). Wherefore the forgiveness of sin is accounted the effect not only of the virtue of penance, but also, and that chiefly,
16210 of faith and charity.
16211 </p>
16212 <p id="TP_Q86_A6-p9">
16213 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The act of the virtue of penance is subordinate to Christ's Passion both by faith, and by its relation to the keys of the
16214 Church; and so, in both ways, it causes the forgiveness of sin, by the power of Christ's Passion.
16215 </p>
16216 <p id="TP_Q86_A6-p10"> To the argument advanced in the contrary sense we reply that the act of the virtue of penance is necessary for the forgiveness
16217 of sin, through being an inseparable effect of grace, whereby chiefly is sin pardoned, and which produces its effect in all
16218 the sacraments. Consequently it only follows that grace is a higher cause of the forgiveness of sin than the sacrament of
16219 Penance. Moreover, it must be observed that, under the Old Law and the law of nature, there was a sacrament of
16220 Penance after a fashion, as stated above (
16221 <a id="TP_Q86_A6-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q84_A7.html">Q[84], A[7]</a>, ad 2).
16222 </p>
16223 <p id="TP_Q86_A6-p11"></p>
16224 <p id="TP_Q86_A6-p12"></p>
16225 <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A5.html"></a>
16226 <a href="summa.TP_Q87.html"></a>
16227 </div>
16228 <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A6.html"></a>
16229 <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A1.html"></a>
16230 </div>
16231 <div id="TP_Q87" class="div3">
16232 <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A6.html"></a>
16233 <a href="summa.TP_Q87_A1.html"></a>
16234 <h3 id="TP_Q87-p0.1">OF THE REMISSION OF VENIAL SIN (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3>
16235 <p id="TP_Q87-p1"></p>
16236 <p id="TP_Q87-p2"> We must now consider the forgiveness of venial sins, under which head there are four points of inquiry:</p>
16237 <p id="TP_Q87-p3"> (1) Whether venial sin can be forgiven without Penance?</p>
16238 <p id="TP_Q87-p4"> (2) Whether it can be forgiven without the infusion of grace?</p>
16239 <p id="TP_Q87-p5"> (3) Whether venial sins are forgiven by the sprinkling of holy water, a bishop's blessing, the beating of the breast, the
16240 Lord's Prayer, and the like?
16241 </p>
16242 <p id="TP_Q87-p6"> (4) Whether a venial sin can be taken away without a mortal sin?</p>
16243 <div id="TP_Q87_A1" class="div4">
16244 <a href="summa.TP_Q87.html"></a>
16245 <a href="summa.TP_Q87_A2.html"></a>
16246 <h4 id="TP_Q87_A1-p0.1">Whether venial sin can be forgiven without Penance?</h4>
16247 <p id="TP_Q87_A1-p1"></p>
16248 <p id="TP_Q87_A1-p2">
16249 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that venial sin can be forgiven without penance. For, as stated above (
16250 <a id="TP_Q87_A1-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q84_A10.html">Q[84], A[10]</a>, ad 4), it is essential to true penance that man should not only sorrow for his past sins, but also that he should purpose
16251 to avoid them for the future. Now venial sins are forgiven without any such purpose, for it is certain that man cannot lead
16252 the present life without committing venial sins. Therefore venial sins can be forgiven
16253 without penance.
16254 </p>
16255 <p id="TP_Q87_A1-p3">
16256 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, there is no penance without actual displeasure at one's sins. But venial sins can be taken away without any actual
16257 displeasure at them, as would be the case if a man were to be killed in his sleep, for Christ's sake, since he would go to
16258 heaven at once, which would not happen if his venial sins remained. Therefore venial sins can be forgiven without penance.
16259 </p>
16260 <p id="TP_Q87_A1-p4">
16261 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, venial sins are contrary to the fervor of charity, as stated in the
16262 <a id="TP_Q87_A1-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q24_A10.html">SS, Q[24], A[10]</a>. Now one contrary is removed by another. Therefore forgiveness of venial sins is caused by the fervor of charity, which may
16263 be without actual displeasure at venial sin.
16264 </p>
16265 <p id="TP_Q87_A1-p5">
16266 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says in De Poenitentia [*De vera et falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown], that "there is a penance
16267 which is done for venial sins in the Church every day" which would be useless if venial sins could be forgiven without Penance.
16268 </p>
16269 <p id="TP_Q87_A1-p6">
16270 <b>I answer that,</b> Forgiveness of sin, as stated above (
16271 <a id="TP_Q87_A1-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q86_A2.html">Q[86], A[2]</a>), is effected by man being united to God from Whom sin separates him in some way. Now this separation is made complete by
16272 mortal sin, and incomplete by venial sin: because, by mortal sin, the mind through acting against charity is altogether turned
16273 away from God; whereas by venial sin man's affections are clogged, so that they are slow in tending towards God. Consequently
16274 both kinds of
16275 sin are taken away by penance, because by both of them man's will is disordered through turning inordinately to a created
16276 good; for just as mortal sin cannot be forgiven so long as the will is attached to sin, so neither can venial sin, because
16277 while the cause remains, the effect remains.
16278 </p>
16279 <p id="TP_Q87_A1-p7"> Yet a more perfect penance is requisite for the forgiveness of mortal sin, namely that man should detest actually the mortal
16280 sin which he committed, so far as lies in his power, that is to say, he should endeavor to remember each single mortal sin,
16281 in order to detest each one. But this is, not required for the forgiveness of venial sins; although it does not suffice to
16282 have habitual displeasure, which is included in the habit of charity or of penance as a virtue, since then
16283 venial sin would be incompatible with charity, which is evidently untrue. Consequently it is necessary to have a certain virtual
16284 displeasure, so that, for instance, a man's affections so tend to God and Divine things, that whatever might happen to him
16285 to hamper that tendency would be displeasing to him, and would grieve him, were he to commit it, even though he were not to
16286 think of it actually: and this is not sufficient for the remission of mortal sin, except as regards those sins which he
16287 fails to remember after a careful examination.
16288 </p>
16289 <p id="TP_Q87_A1-p8">
16290 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> When man is in a state of grace, he can avoid all mortal sins, and each single one; and he can avoid each single venial sin,
16291 but not all, as was explained in the
16292 <a id="TP_Q87_A1-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q74_A8.html">FS, Q[74], A[8]</a>, ad 2;
16293 <a id="TP_Q87_A1-p8.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q109_A8.html">FS, Q[109], A[8]</a>. Consequently penance for mortal sins requires man to purpose abstaining from mortal sins, all and each; whereas penance
16294 for venial sins requires man to purpose abstaining from each, but not from all,
16295 because the weakness of this life does not allow of this. Nevertheless he needs to have the purpose of taking steps to commit
16296 fewer venial sins, else he would be in danger of falling back, if he gave up the desire of going forward, or of removing the
16297 obstacles to spiritual progress, such as venial sins are.
16298 </p>
16299 <p id="TP_Q87_A1-p9">
16300 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Death for Christ's sake, as stated above (
16301 <a id="TP_Q87_A1-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q66_A11.html">Q[66], A[11]</a>), obtains the power of Baptism, wherefore it washes away all sin, both venial and mortal, unless it find the will attached
16302 to sin.
16303 </p>
16304 <p id="TP_Q87_A1-p10">
16305 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The fervor of charity implies virtual displeasure at venial sins, as stated above (
16306 <a id="TP_Q87_A1-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q79_A4.html">Q[79], A[4]</a>).
16307 </p>
16308 <p id="TP_Q87_A1-p11"></p>
16309 <p id="TP_Q87_A1-p12"></p>
16310 <a href="summa.TP_Q87.html"></a>
16311 <a href="summa.TP_Q87_A2.html"></a>
16312 </div>
16313 <div id="TP_Q87_A2" class="div4">
16314 <a href="summa.TP_Q87_A1.html"></a>
16315 <a href="summa.TP_Q87_A3.html"></a>
16316 <h4 id="TP_Q87_A2-p0.1">Whether infusion of grace is necessary for the remission of venial sins?</h4>
16317 <p id="TP_Q87_A2-p1"></p>
16318 <p id="TP_Q87_A2-p2">
16319 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that infusion of grace is necessary for the remission of venial sins. Because an effect is not produced without
16320 its proper cause. Now the proper cause of the remission of sins is grace; for man's sins are not forgiven through his own
16321 merits; wherefore it is written (
16322 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q87_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.2.4" target="asv">Eph. 2:4,5</a>): "God, Who is rich in mercy, for His exceeding charity, wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened
16323 us together in Christ,
16324 by Whose grace you are saved." Therefore venial sins are not forgiven without infusion of grace.
16325 </p>
16326 <p id="TP_Q87_A2-p3">
16327 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, venial sins are not forgiven without Penance. Now grace is infused, in Penance as in the other sacraments of the
16328 New Law. Therefore venial sins are not forgiven without infusion of grace.
16329 </p>
16330 <p id="TP_Q87_A2-p4">
16331 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, venial sin produces a stain on the soul. Now a stain is not removed save by grace which is the spiritual beauty
16332 of the soul. Therefore it seems that venial sins are not forgiven without infusion of grace.
16333 </p>
16334 <p id="TP_Q87_A2-p5">
16335 <b>On the contrary,</b> The advent of venial sin neither destroys nor diminishes grace, as stated in the
16336 <a id="TP_Q87_A2-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q24_A10.html">SS, Q[24], A[10]</a>. Therefore, in like manner, an infusion of grace is not necessary in order to remove venial sin.
16337 </p>
16338 <p id="TP_Q87_A2-p6">
16339 <b>I answer that,</b> Each thing is removed by its contrary. But venial sin is not contrary to habitual grace or charity, but hampers its act,
16340 through man being too much attached to a created good, albeit not in opposition to God, as stated in the
16341 <a id="TP_Q87_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q88_A1.html">FS, Q[88], A[1]</a>;
16342 <a id="TP_Q87_A2-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q24_A10.html">SS, Q[24], A[10]</a>. Therefore, in order that venial sin be removed, it is not necessary that habitual grace be infused, but a movement of grace
16343 or charity suffices for
16344 its forgiveness.
16345 </p>
16346 <p id="TP_Q87_A2-p7"> Nevertheless, since in those who have the use of free-will (in whom alone can there be venial sins), there can be no infusion
16347 of grace without an actual movement of the free-will towards God and against sin, consequently whenever grace is infused anew,
16348 venial sins are forgiven.
16349 </p>
16350 <p id="TP_Q87_A2-p8">
16351 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Even the forgiveness of venial sins is an effect of grace, in virtue of the act which grace produces anew, but not through
16352 any habit infused anew into the soul.
16353 </p>
16354 <p id="TP_Q87_A2-p9">
16355 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Venial sin is never forgiven without some act, explicit or implicit, of the virtue of penance, as stated above
16356 <a id="TP_Q87_A2-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q87_A1.html">(A[1])</a>: it can, however, be forgiven without the sacrament of Penance, which is formally perfected by the priestly absolution, as
16357 stated above (Q[87], A[2]). Hence it does not follow that infusion of grace is required for the forgiveness of venial sin,
16358 for although this infusion takes place in every sacrament, it does
16359 not occur in every act of virtue.
16360 </p>
16361 <p id="TP_Q87_A2-p10">
16362 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Just as there are two kinds of bodily stain, one consisting in the privation of something required for beauty, e.g. the right
16363 color or the due proportion of members, and another by the introduction of some hindrance to beauty, e.g. mud or dust; so
16364 too, a stain is put on the soul, in one way, by the privation of the beauty of grace through mortal sin, in another, by the
16365 inordinate inclination of the affections to some temporal thing, and this is the
16366 result of venial sin. Consequently, an infusion of grace is necessary for the removal of mortal sin, but in order to remove
16367 venial sin, it is necessary to have a movement proceeding from grace, removing the inordinate attachment to the temporal thing.
16368 </p>
16369 <p id="TP_Q87_A2-p11"></p>
16370 <p id="TP_Q87_A2-p12"></p>
16371 <a href="summa.TP_Q87_A1.html"></a>
16372 <a href="summa.TP_Q87_A3.html"></a>
16373 </div>
16374 <div id="TP_Q87_A3" class="div4">
16375 <a href="summa.TP_Q87_A2.html"></a>
16376 <a href="summa.TP_Q87_A4.html"></a>
16377 <h4 id="TP_Q87_A3-p0.1">Whether venial sins are removed by the sprinkling of holy water and the like?</h4>
16378 <p id="TP_Q87_A3-p1"></p>
16379 <p id="TP_Q87_A3-p2">
16380 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that venial sins are not removed by the sprinkling of holy water, a bishop's blessing, and the like. For venial
16381 sins are not forgiven without Penance, as stated above
16382 <a id="TP_Q87_A3-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q87_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. But Penance suffices by itself for the remission of venial sins. Therefore the above have nothing to do with the remission
16383 of venial sins.
16384 </p>
16385 <p id="TP_Q87_A3-p3">
16386 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, each of the above bears the same relation to one venial sin as to all. If therefore, by means of one of them, some
16387 venial sin is remitted, it follows that in like manner all are remitted, so that by beating his breast once, or by being sprinkled
16388 once with holy water, a man would be delivered from all his venial sins, which seems unreasonable.
16389 </p>
16390 <p id="TP_Q87_A3-p4">
16391 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, venial sins occasion a debt of some punishment, albeit temporal; for it is written (
16392 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q87_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.3.12" target="asv">1 Cor. 3:12</a>,
16393 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q87_A3-p4.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.3.15" target="asv">15</a>) of him that builds up "wood, hay, stubble" that "he shall be saved, yet so as by fire." Now the above things whereby venial
16394 sins are said to be taken away, contain either no punishment at all, or very little. Therefore they do not suffice for the
16395 full remission of venial sins.
16396 </p>
16397 <p id="TP_Q87_A3-p5">
16398 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says in De Poenitentia [*Hom. 30 inter 1; Ep. cclxv] that "for our slight sins we strike our breasts, and say:
16399 Forgive us our trespasses," and so it seems that striking one's breast, and the Lord's Prayer cause the remission of venial
16400 sins: and the same seems to apply to the other things.
16401 </p>
16402 <p id="TP_Q87_A3-p6">
16403 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
16404 <a id="TP_Q87_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q87_A2.html">(A[2])</a>, no infusion of fresh grace is required for the forgiveness of a venial sin, but it is enough to have an act proceeding from
16405 grace, in detestation of that venial sin, either explicit or at least implicit, as when one is moved fervently to God. Hence,
16406 for three reasons, certain things cause the remission of venial sins: first, because they imply the infusion of grace, since
16407 the infusion of grace removes venial
16408 sins, as stated above
16409 <a id="TP_Q87_A3-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q87_A2.html">(A[2])</a>; and so, by the Eucharist, Extreme Unction, and by all the sacraments of the New Law without exception, wherein grace is
16410 conferred, venial sins are remitted. Secondly, because they imply a movement of detestation for sin, and in this way the general
16411 confession [*i.e. the recital of the Confiteor or of an act of contrition], the beating of one's breast, and the Lord's Prayer
16412 conduce to the remission of venial sins, for we ask in the Lord's
16413 Prayer: "Forgive us our trespasses." Thirdly, because they include a movement of reverence for God and Divine things; and
16414 in this way a bishop's blessing, the sprinkling of holy water, any sacramental anointing, a prayer said in a dedicated church,
16415 and anything else of the kind, conduce to the remission of venial sins.
16416 </p>
16417 <p id="TP_Q87_A3-p7">
16418 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> All these things cause the remission of venial sins, in so far as they incline the soul to the movement of penance, viz.,
16419 the implicit or explicit detestation of one's sins.
16420 </p>
16421 <p id="TP_Q87_A3-p8">
16422 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> All these things, so far as they are concerned, conduce to the remission of all venial sins: but the remission may be hindered
16423 as regards certain venial sins, to which the mind is still actually attached, even as insincerity sometimes impedes the effect
16424 of Baptism.
16425 </p>
16426 <p id="TP_Q87_A3-p9">
16427 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> By the above things, venial sins are indeed taken away as regards the guilt, both because those things are a kind of satisfaction,
16428 and through the virtue of charity whose movement is aroused by such things.
16429 </p>
16430 <p id="TP_Q87_A3-p10"> Yet it does not always happen that, by means of each one, the whole guilt of punishment is taken away, because, in that case,
16431 whoever was entirely free from mortal sin, would go straight to heaven if sprinkled with holy water: but the debt of punishment
16432 is remitted by means of the above, according to the movement of fervor towards God, which fervor is aroused by such things,
16433 sometimes more, sometimes less.
16434 </p>
16435 <p id="TP_Q87_A3-p11"></p>
16436 <p id="TP_Q87_A3-p12"></p>
16437 <a href="summa.TP_Q87_A2.html"></a>
16438 <a href="summa.TP_Q87_A4.html"></a>
16439 </div>
16440 <div id="TP_Q87_A4" class="div4">
16441 <a href="summa.TP_Q87_A3.html"></a>
16442 <a href="summa.TP_Q88.html"></a>
16443 <h4 id="TP_Q87_A4-p0.1">Whether venial sin can be taken away without mortal sin?</h4>
16444 <p id="TP_Q87_A4-p1"></p>
16445 <p id="TP_Q87_A4-p2">
16446 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that venial sin can be taken away without mortal sin. For, on
16447 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q87_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.8.7" target="asv"> Jn. 8:7</a>: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her," a gloss says that "all those men were in a state
16448 of mortal sin: for venial offenses were forgiven them through the legal ceremonies." Therefore venial sin can be taken away
16449 without mortal sin.
16450 </p>
16451 <p id="TP_Q87_A4-p3">
16452 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, no infusion of grace is required for the remission of venial sin. but it is required for the forgiveness of mortal
16453 sin. Therefore venial sin can be taken away without mortal sin.
16454 </p>
16455 <p id="TP_Q87_A4-p4">
16456 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a venial sin differs from a mortal sin more than from another venial sin. But one venial sin can be pardoned without
16457 another, as stated above (A[3], ad 2;
16458 <a id="TP_Q87_A4-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q87_A3.html"> Q[87], A[3]</a>). Therefore a venial sin can be taken away without a mortal sin.
16459 </p>
16460 <p id="TP_Q87_A4-p5">
16461 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
16462 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q87_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.5.26" target="asv">Mat. 5:26</a>): "Amen I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from thence," viz., from the prison, into which a man is cast for mortal sin,
16463 "till thou repay the last farthing," by which venial sin is denoted. Therefore a venial sin is not forgiven without mortal
16464 sin.
16465 </p>
16466 <p id="TP_Q87_A4-p6">
16467 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
16468 <a id="TP_Q87_A4-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q87_A3.html">Q[87], A[3]</a>), there is no remission of any sin whatever except by the power of grace, because, as the Apostle declares (
16469 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q87_A4-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.4.8" target="asv">Rom. 4:8</a>), it is owing to God's grace that He does not impute sin to a man, which a gloss on that passage expounds as referring to
16470 venial sin. Now he that is in a state of mortal sin is without the grace of God. Therefore no venial sin is forgiven him.
16471 </p>
16472 <p id="TP_Q87_A4-p7">
16473 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Venial offenses, in the passage quoted, denote the irregularities or uncleannesses which men contracted in accordance with
16474 the Law.
16475 </p>
16476 <p id="TP_Q87_A4-p8">
16477 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although no new infusion of habitual grace is requisite for the remission of venial sin, yet it is necessary to exercise
16478 some act of grace, which cannot be in one who is a subject of mortal sin.
16479 </p>
16480 <p id="TP_Q87_A4-p9">
16481 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Venial sin does not preclude every act of grace whereby all venial sins can be removed; whereas mortal sin excludes altogether
16482 the habit of grace, without which no sin, either mortal or venial, is remitted. Hence the comparison fails.
16483 </p>
16484 <p id="TP_Q87_A4-p10"></p>
16485 <p id="TP_Q87_A4-p11"></p>
16486 <a href="summa.TP_Q87_A3.html"></a>
16487 <a href="summa.TP_Q88.html"></a>
16488 </div>
16489 <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A6.html"></a>
16490 <a href="summa.TP_Q87_A1.html"></a>
16491 </div>
16492 <div id="TP_Q88" class="div3">
16493 <a href="summa.TP_Q87_A4.html"></a>
16494 <a href="summa.TP_Q88_A1.html"></a>
16495 <h3 id="TP_Q88-p0.1">OF THE RETURN OF SINS WHICH HAVE BEEN TAKEN AWAY BY PENANCE (FOUR ARTICLES) </h3>
16496 <p id="TP_Q88-p1"></p>
16497 <p id="TP_Q88-p2"> We must now consider the return of sins which have been taken away by Penance: under which head there are four points of
16498 inquiry:
16499 </p>
16500 <p id="TP_Q88-p3"> (1) Whether sins which have been taken away by Penance return simply through a subsequent sin?</p>
16501 <p id="TP_Q88-p4"> (2) Whether more specially as regards certain sins they return, in a way, on account of ingratitude?</p>
16502 <p id="TP_Q88-p5"> (3) Whether the debt of punishment remains the same for sins thus returned?</p>
16503 <p id="TP_Q88-p6"> (4) Whether this ingratitude, on account of which sins return, is a special sin?</p>
16504 <div id="TP_Q88_A1" class="div4">
16505 <a href="summa.TP_Q88.html"></a>
16506 <a href="summa.TP_Q88_A2.html"></a>
16507 <h4 id="TP_Q88_A1-p0.1">Whether sins once forgiven return through a subsequent sin?</h4>
16508 <p id="TP_Q88_A1-p1"></p>
16509 <p id="TP_Q88_A1-p2">
16510 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that sins once forgiven return through a subsequent sin. For Augustine says (De Bapt. contra Donat. i, 12):
16511 "Our Lord teaches most explicitly in the Gospel that sins which have been forgiven return, when fraternal charity ceases,
16512 in the example of the servant from whom his master exacted the payment of the debt already forgiven, because he had refused
16513 to forgive the debt of his fellow-servant." Now fraternal charity is destroyed through each
16514 mortal sin. Therefore sins already taken away through Penance, return through each subsequent mortal sin.
16515 </p>
16516 <p id="TP_Q88_A1-p3">
16517 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, on
16518 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q88_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.11.24" target="asv"> Lk. 11:24, </a> "I will return into my house, whence I came out," Bede says: "This verse should make us tremble, we should not endeavor to
16519 explain it away lest through carelessness we give place to the sin which we thought to have been taken away, and become its
16520 slave once more." Now this would not be so unless it returned. Therefore a sin returns after once being taken away by Penance.
16521 </p>
16522 <p id="TP_Q88_A1-p4">
16523 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the Lord said (
16524 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q88_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Ezek.18.24" target="asv">Ezech. 18:24</a>): "If the just man turn himself away from his justice, and do iniquity . . . all his justices which he hath done, shall not
16525 be remembered." Now among the other "justices" which he had done, is also his previous penance, since it was said above (
16526 <a id="TP_Q88_A1-p4.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q85_A3.html">Q[85], A[3]</a>) that penance is a part of justice. Therefore when one who has done penance, sins, his previous penance, whereby he received
16527 forgiveness of his sins, is not imputed to him. Therefore his sins return.
16528 </p>
16529 <p id="TP_Q88_A1-p5">
16530 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, past sins are covered by grace, as the Apostle declares (
16531 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q88_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.4.7" target="asv">Rom. 4:7</a>) where he quotes
16532 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q88_A1-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.31.1" target="asv"> Ps. 31:1</a>: "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered." But a subsequent mortal sin takes away grace.
16533 Therefore the sins committed previously, become uncovered: and so, seemingly, they return.
16534 </p>
16535 <p id="TP_Q88_A1-p6">
16536 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
16537 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q88_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.11.29" target="asv">Rom. 11:29</a>): "The gifts and the calling of God are without repentance." Now the penitent's sins are taken away by a gift of God. Therefore
16538 the sins which have been taken away do not return through a subsequent sin, as though God repented His gift of forgiveness.
16539 </p>
16540 <p id="TP_Q88_A1-p7"> Moreover, Augustine says (Lib. Resp. Prosperi i [*Cf. Prosper, Responsiones ad Capitula Gallorum ii]): "When he that turns
16541 away from Christ, comes to the end of this life a stranger to grace, whither does he go, except to perdition? Yet he does
16542 not fall back into that which had been forgiven, nor will he be condemned for original sin."
16543 </p>
16544 <p id="TP_Q88_A1-p8">
16545 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
16546 <a id="TP_Q88_A1-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q86_A4.html">Q[86], A[4]</a>), mortal sin contains two things, aversion from God and adherence to a created good. Now, in mortal sin, whatever attaches
16547 to the aversion, is, considered in itself, common to all mortal sins, since man turns away from God by every mortal sin, so
16548 that, in consequence, the stain resulting from the privation of grace, and the debt of everlasting punishment are common to
16549 all mortal sins. This is what is
16550 meant by what is written (
16551 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q88_A1-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Jas.2.10" target="asv">James 2:10</a>): "Whosoever . . . shall offend in one point, is become guilty of all." On the other hand, as regards their adherence they
16552 are different from, and sometimes contrary to one another. Hence it is evident, that on the part of the adherence, a subsequent
16553 mortal sin does not cause the return of mortal sins previously dispelled, else it would follow that by a sin of wastefulness
16554 a man would be brought back to the habit or disposition of
16555 avarice previously dispelled, so that one contrary would be the cause of another, which is impossible. But if in mortal sins
16556 we consider that which attaches to the aversion absolutely, then a subsequent mortal sin [causes the return of that which
16557 was comprised in the mortal sins before they were pardoned, in so far as the subsequent mortal sin] [*The words in brackets
16558 are omitted in the Leonine edition.] deprives man of grace, and makes him deserving of everlasting punishment, just as he
16559 was
16560 before. Nevertheless, since the aversion of mortal sin is [in a way, caused by the adherence, those things which attach to
16561 the aversion are*] diversified somewhat in relation to various adherences, as it were to various causes, so that there will
16562 be a different aversion, a different stain, a different debt of punishment, according to the different acts of mortal sin
16563 from which they arise; hence the question is moved whether the stain and the debt of eternal punishment, as caused by acts
16564 of sins
16565 previously pardoned, return through a subsequent mortal sin.
16566 </p>
16567 <p id="TP_Q88_A1-p9"> Accordingly some have maintained that they return simply even in this way. But this is impossible, because what God has done
16568 cannot be undone by the work of man. Now the pardon of the previous sins was a work of Divine mercy, so that it cannot be
16569 undone by man's subsequent sin, according to
16570 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q88_A1-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.3.3" target="asv"> Rom. 3:3</a>: "Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?"
16571 </p>
16572 <p id="TP_Q88_A1-p10"> Wherefore others who maintained the possibility of sins returning, said that God pardons the sins of a penitent who will
16573 afterwards sin again, not according to His foreknowledge, but only according to His present justice: since He foresees that
16574 He will punish such a man eternally for his sins, and yet, by His grace, He makes him righteous for the present. But this
16575 cannot stand: because if a cause be placed absolutely, its effect is placed absolutely; so that if the remission of
16576 sins were effected by grace and the sacraments of grace, not absolutely but under some condition dependent on some future
16577 event, it would follow that grace and the sacraments of grace are not the sufficient causes of the remission of sins, which
16578 is erroneous, as being derogatory to God's grace.
16579 </p>
16580 <p id="TP_Q88_A1-p11"> Consequently it is in no way possible for the stain of past sins and the debt of punishment incurred thereby, to return,
16581 as caused by those acts. Yet it may happen that a subsequent sinful act virtually contains the debt of punishment due to the
16582 previous sin, in so far as when a man sins a second time, for this very reason he seems to sin more grievously than before,
16583 as stated in
16584 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q88_A1-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.2.5" target="asv"> Rom. 2:5</a>: "According to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest up to
16585 thyself wrath against the day of wrath," from the mere fact, namely, that God's goodness, which waits for us to repent, is
16586 despised. And so much the more is God's goodness despised, if the first sin is committed a second time after having been forgiven,
16587 as it is a greater favor for the sin to be forgiven than for the sinner to be endured.
16588 </p>
16589 <p id="TP_Q88_A1-p12"> Accordingly the sin which follows repentance brings back, in a sense, the debt of punishment due to the sins previously forgiven,
16590 not as caused by those sins already forgiven but as caused by this last sin being committed, on account of its being aggravated
16591 in view of those previous sins. This means that those sins return, not simply, but in a restricted sense, viz., in so far
16592 as they are virtually contained in the subsequent sin.
16593 </p>
16594 <p id="TP_Q88_A1-p13">
16595 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This saying of Augustine seems to refer to the return of sins as to the debt of eternal punishment considered in itself,
16596 namely, that he who sins after doing penance incurs a debt of eternal punishment, just as before, but not altogether for the
16597 same "reason." Wherefore Augustine, after saying (Lib. Resp. Prosperi i [*Cf. Prosper, Responsiones ad Capitula Gallorum ii])
16598 that "he does not fall back into that which was forgiven, nor will he be condemned
16599 for original sin," adds: "Nevertheless, for these last sins he will be condemned to the same death, which he deserved to suffer
16600 for the former," because he incurs the punishment of eternal death which he deserved for his previous sins.
16601 </p>
16602 <p id="TP_Q88_A1-p14">
16603 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> By these words Bede means that the guilt already forgiven enslaves man, not by the return of his former debt of punishment,
16604 but by the repetition of his act.
16605 </p>
16606 <p id="TP_Q88_A1-p15">
16607 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The effect of a subsequent sin is that the former "justices" are not remembered, in so far as they were deserving of eternal
16608 life, but not in so far as they were a hindrance to sin. Consequently if a man sins mortally after making restitution, he
16609 does not become guilty as though he had not paid back what he owed; and much less is penance previously done forgotten as
16610 to the pardon of the guilt, since this is the work of God rather than of man.
16611 </p>
16612 <p id="TP_Q88_A1-p16">
16613 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Grace removes the stain and the debt of eternal punishment simply; but it covers the past sinful acts, lest, on their account,
16614 God deprive man of grace, and judge him deserving of eternal punishment; and what grace has once done, endures for ever.
16615 </p>
16616 <p id="TP_Q88_A1-p17"></p>
16617 <p id="TP_Q88_A1-p18"></p>
16618 <a href="summa.TP_Q88.html"></a>
16619 <a href="summa.TP_Q88_A2.html"></a>
16620 </div>
16621 <div id="TP_Q88_A2" class="div4">
16622 <a href="summa.TP_Q88_A1.html"></a>
16623 <a href="summa.TP_Q88_A3.html"></a>
16624 <h4 id="TP_Q88_A2-p0.1">Whether sins that have been forgiven, return through ingratitude which is shown especially in four kinds of sin?</h4>
16625 <p id="TP_Q88_A2-p1"></p>
16626 <p id="TP_Q88_A2-p2">
16627 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that sins do not return through ingratitude, which is shown especially in four kinds of sin, viz., hatred of
16628 one's neighbor, apostasy from faith, contempt of confession and regret for past repentance, and which have been expressed
16629 in the following verse:
16630 </p>
16631 <p id="TP_Q88_A2-p3"> "Fratres odit, apostata fit, spernitque, fateri,</p>
16632 <p id="TP_Q88_A2-p4"> Poenituisse piget, pristina culpa redit."</p>
16633 <p id="TP_Q88_A2-p5">For the more grievous the sin committed against God after one has received the grace of pardon, the greater the ingratitude.
16634 But there are sins more grievous than these, such as blasphemy against God, and the sin against the Holy Ghost. Therefore
16635 it seems that sins already pardoned do not return through ingratitude as manifested in these sins, any more than as shown
16636 in other sins.
16637 </p>
16638 <p id="TP_Q88_A2-p6">
16639 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Rabanus says: "God delivered the wicked servant to the torturers, until he should pay the whole debt, because a
16640 man will be deemed punishable not only for the sins he commits after Baptism, but also for original sin which was taken away
16641 when he was baptized." Now venial sins are reckoned among our debts, since we pray in their regard: "Forgive us our trespasses
16642 [debita]." Therefore they too return through ingratitude; and, in like manner seemingly,
16643 sins already pardoned return through venial sins, and not only through those sins mentioned above.
16644 </p>
16645 <p id="TP_Q88_A2-p7">
16646 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, ingratitude is all the greater, according as one sins after receiving a greater favor. Now innocence whereby one
16647 avoids sin is a Divine favor, for Augustine says (Confess. ii): "Whatever sins I have avoided committing, I owe it to Thy
16648 grace." Now innocence is a greater gift, than even the forgiveness of all sins. Therefore the first sin committed after innocence
16649 is no less an ingratitude to God, than a sin committed after repentance, so that seemingly
16650 ingratitude in respect of the aforesaid sins is not the chief cause of sins returning.
16651 </p>
16652 <p id="TP_Q88_A2-p8">
16653 <b>On the contrary,</b> Gregory says (Moral. xviii [*Cf. Dial. iv]): "It is evident from the words of the Gospel that if we do not forgive from our
16654 hearts the offenses committed against us, we become once more accountable for what we rejoiced in as forgiven through Penance":
16655 so that ingratitude implied in the hatred of one's brother is a special cause of the return of sins already forgiven: and
16656 the same seems to apply to the others.
16657 </p>
16658 <p id="TP_Q88_A2-p9">
16659 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
16660 <a id="TP_Q88_A2-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q88_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, sins pardoned through Penance are said to return, in so far as their debt of punishment, by reason of ingratitude, is virtually
16661 contained in the subsequent sin. Now one may be guilty of ingratitude in two ways: first by doing something against the favor
16662 received, and, in this way, man is ungrateful to God in every mortal sin whereby he offends God Who forgave his sins, so that
16663 by every subsequent mortal sin,
16664 the sins previously pardoned return, on account of the ingratitude. Secondly, one is guilty of ingratitude, by doing something
16665 not only against the favor itself, but also against the form of the favor received. If this form be considered on the part
16666 of the benefactor, it is the remission of something due to him; wherefore he who does not forgive his brother when he asks
16667 pardon, and persists in his hatred, acts against this form. If, however, this form be taken in regard to the penitent who
16668 receives this favor, we find on his part a twofold movement of the free-will. The first is the movement of the free-will towards
16669 God, and is an act of faith quickened by charity; and against this a man acts by apostatizing from the faith. The second is
16670 a movement of the free-will against sin, and is the act of penance. This act consists first, as we have stated above (Q[85],
16671 AA[2],5) in man's detestation of his past sins; and against this a man acts when he regrets having done penance.
16672 Secondly, the act of penance consists in the penitent purposing to subject himself to the keys of the Church by confession,
16673 according to
16674 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q88_A2-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.31.5" target="asv"> Ps. 31:5</a>: "I said: I will confess against myself my injustice to the Lord: and Thou hast forgiven the wickedness of my sin": and against
16675 this a man acts when he scorns to confess as he had purposed to do.
16676 </p>
16677 <p id="TP_Q88_A2-p10"> Accordingly it is said that the ingratitude of sinners is a special cause of the return of sins previously forgiven.</p>
16678 <p id="TP_Q88_A2-p11">
16679 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This is not said of these sins as though they were more grievous than others, but because they are more directly opposed
16680 to the favor of the forgiveness of sin.
16681 </p>
16682 <p id="TP_Q88_A2-p12">
16683 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Even venial sins and original sin return in the way explained above, just as mortal sins do, in so far as the favor conferred
16684 by God in forgiving those sins is despised. A man does not, however, incur ingratitude by committing a venial sin, because
16685 by sinning venially man does not act against God, but apart from Him, wherefore venial sins nowise cause the return of sins
16686 already forgiven.
16687 </p>
16688 <p id="TP_Q88_A2-p13">
16689 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> A favor can be weighed in two ways. First by the quantity of the favor itself, and in this way innocence is a greater favor
16690 from God than penance, which is called the second plank after shipwreck (cf.
16691 <a id="TP_Q88_A2-p13.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q84_A6.html"> Q[84], A[6]</a>). Secondly, a favor may be weighed with regard to the recipient, who is less worthy, wherefore a greater favor is bestowed
16692 on him, so that he is the more ungrateful if he scorns it. In this way the favor of the pardon
16693 of sins is greater when bestowed on one who is altogether unworthy, so that the ingratitude which follows is all the greater.
16694 </p>
16695 <p id="TP_Q88_A2-p14"></p>
16696 <p id="TP_Q88_A2-p15"></p>
16697 <a href="summa.TP_Q88_A1.html"></a>
16698 <a href="summa.TP_Q88_A3.html"></a>
16699 </div>
16700 <div id="TP_Q88_A3" class="div4">
16701 <a href="summa.TP_Q88_A2.html"></a>
16702 <a href="summa.TP_Q88_A4.html"></a>
16703 <h4 id="TP_Q88_A3-p0.1">Whether the debt of punishment that arises through ingratitude in respect of a subsequent sin is as great as that of the sins
16704 previously pardoned?
16705 </h4>
16706 <p id="TP_Q88_A3-p1"></p>
16707 <p id="TP_Q88_A3-p2">
16708 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the debt of punishment arising through ingratitude in respect of a subsequent sin is as great as that
16709 of the sins previously pardoned. Because the greatness of the favor of the pardon of sins is according to the greatness of
16710 the sin pardoned, and so too, in consequence, is the greatness of the ingratitude whereby this favor is scorned. But the greatness
16711 of the consequent debt of punishment is in accord with the greatness of the ingratitude.
16712 Therefore the debt of punishment arising through ingratitude in respect of a subsequent sin is as great as the debt of punishment
16713 due for all the previous sins.
16714 </p>
16715 <p id="TP_Q88_A3-p3">
16716 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is a greater sin to offend God than to offend man. But a slave who is freed by his master returns to the same
16717 state of slavery from which he was freed, or even to a worse state. Much more therefore he that sins against God after being
16718 freed from sin, returns to the debt of as great a punishment as he had incurred before.
16719 </p>
16720 <p id="TP_Q88_A3-p4">
16721 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is written (
16722 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q88_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.18.34" target="asv">Mat. 18:34</a>) that "his lord being angry, delivered him" (whose sins returned to him on account of his ingratitude) "to the torturers,
16723 until he paid all the debt." But this would not be so unless the debt of punishment incurred through ingratitude were as great
16724 as that incurred through all previous sins. Therefore an equal debt of punishment returns through ingratitude.
16725 </p>
16726 <p id="TP_Q88_A3-p5">
16727 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
16728 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q88_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.25.2" target="asv">Dt. 25:2</a>): "According to the measure of the sin shall the measure also of the stripes be," whence it is evident that a great debt
16729 of punishment does not arise from a slight sin. But sometimes a subsequent mortal sin is much less grievous than any one of
16730 those previously pardoned. Therefore the debt of punishment incurred through subsequent sins is not equal to that of sins
16731 previously forgiven.
16732 </p>
16733 <p id="TP_Q88_A3-p6">
16734 <b>I answer that,</b> Some have maintained that the debt of punishment incurred through ingratitude in respect of a subsequent sin is equal to
16735 that of the sins previously pardoned, in addition to the debt proper to this subsequent sin. But there is no need for this,
16736 because, as stated above
16737 <a id="TP_Q88_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q88_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, the debt of punishment incurred by previous sins does not return on account of a subsequent sin, as resulting from the acts
16738 of the subsequent sin. Wherefore
16739 the amount of the debt that returns must be according to the gravity of the subsequent sin.
16740 </p>
16741 <p id="TP_Q88_A3-p7"> It is possible, however, for the gravity of the subsequent sin to equal the gravity of all previous sins. But it need not
16742 always be so, whether we speak of the gravity which a sin has from its species (since the subsequent sin may be one of simple
16743 fornication, while the previous sins were adulteries, murders, or sacrileges); or of the gravity which it incurs through the
16744 ingratitude connected with it. For it is not necessary that the measure of ingratitude should be exactly equal
16745 to the measure of the favor received, which latter is measured according to the greatness of the sins previously pardoned.
16746 Because it may happen that in respect of the same favor, one man is very ungrateful, either on account of the intensity of
16747 his scorn for the favor received, or on account of the gravity of the offense committed against the benefactor, while another
16748 man is slightly ungrateful, either because his scorn is less intense, or because his offense against the benefactor is less
16749 grave. But the measure of ingratitude is proportionately equal to the measure of the favor received: for supposing an equal
16750 contempt of the favor, or an equal offense against the benefactor, the ingratitude will be so much the greater, as the favor
16751 received is greater.
16752 </p>
16753 <p id="TP_Q88_A3-p8"> Hence it is evident that the debt of punishment incurred by a subsequent sin need not always be equal to that of previous
16754 sins; but it must be in proportion thereto, so that the more numerous or the greater the sins previously pardoned, the greater
16755 must be the debt of punishment incurred by any subsequent mortal sin whatever.
16756 </p>
16757 <p id="TP_Q88_A3-p9">
16758 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The favor of the pardon of sins takes its absolute quantity from the quantity of the sins previously pardoned: but the sin
16759 of ingratitude does not take its absolute quantity from the measure of the favor bestowed, but from the measure of the contempt
16760 or of the offense, as stated above: and so the objection does not prove.
16761 </p>
16762 <p id="TP_Q88_A3-p10">
16763 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> A slave who has been given his freedom is not brought back to his previous state of slavery for any kind of ingratitude,
16764 but only when this is grave.
16765 </p>
16766 <p id="TP_Q88_A3-p11">
16767 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> He whose forgiven sins return to him on account of subsequent ingratitude, incurs the debt for all, in so far as the measure
16768 of his previous sins is contained proportionally in his subsequent ingratitude, but not absolutely, as stated above.
16769 </p>
16770 <p id="TP_Q88_A3-p12"></p>
16771 <p id="TP_Q88_A3-p13"></p>
16772 <a href="summa.TP_Q88_A2.html"></a>
16773 <a href="summa.TP_Q88_A4.html"></a>
16774 </div>
16775 <div id="TP_Q88_A4" class="div4">
16776 <a href="summa.TP_Q88_A3.html"></a>
16777 <a href="summa.TP_Q89.html"></a>
16778 <h4 id="TP_Q88_A4-p0.1">Whether the ingratitude whereby a subsequent sin causes the return of previous sins, is a special sin?</h4>
16779 <p id="TP_Q88_A4-p1"></p>
16780 <p id="TP_Q88_A4-p2">
16781 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the ingratitude, whereby a subsequent sin causes the return of sins previously forgiven, is a special
16782 sin. For the giving of thanks belongs to counterpassion which is a necessary condition of justice, as the Philosopher shows
16783 (Ethic. v, 5). But justice is a special virtue. Therefore this ingratitude is a special sin.
16784 </p>
16785 <p id="TP_Q88_A4-p3">
16786 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Tully says (De Inv. Rhet. ii) that thanksgiving is a special virtue. But ingratitude is opposed to thanksgiving.
16787 Therefore ingratitude is a special sin.
16788 </p>
16789 <p id="TP_Q88_A4-p4">
16790 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a special effect proceeds from a special cause. Now ingratitude has a special effect, viz. the return, after a fashion,
16791 of sins already forgiven. Therefore ingratitude is a special sin.
16792 </p>
16793 <p id="TP_Q88_A4-p5">
16794 <b>On the contrary,</b> That which is a sequel to every sin is not a special sin. Now by any mortal sin whatever, a man becomes ungrateful to God,
16795 as evidenced from what has been said
16796 <a id="TP_Q88_A4-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q88_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. Therefore ingratitude is not a special sin.
16797 </p>
16798 <p id="TP_Q88_A4-p6">
16799 <b>I answer that,</b> The ingratitude of the sinner is sometimes a special sin; and sometimes it is not, but a circumstance arising from all mortal
16800 sins in common committed against God. For a sin takes its species according to the sinner's intention, wherefore the Philosopher
16801 says (Ethic. v, 2) that "he who commits adultery in order to steal is a thief rather than an adulterer."
16802 </p>
16803 <p id="TP_Q88_A4-p7"> If, therefore, a sinner commits a sin in contempt of God and of the favor received from Him, that sin is drawn to the species
16804 of ingratitude, and in this way a sinner's ingratitude is a special sin. If, however, a man, while intending to commit a sin,
16805 e.g. murder or adultery, is not withheld from it on account of its implying contempt of God, his ingratitude will not be a
16806 special sin, but will be drawn to the species of the other sin, as a circumstance thereof. And, as Augustine
16807 observes (De Nat. et Grat. xxix), not every sin implies contempt of God in His commandments. Therefore it is evident that
16808 the sinner's ingratitude is sometimes a special sin, sometimes not.
16809 </p>
16810 <p id="TP_Q88_A4-p8"> This suffices for the Replies to the Objections: for the first (three) objections prove that ingratitude is in itself a special
16811 sin; while the last objection proves that ingratitude, as included in every sin, is not a special sin.
16812 </p>
16813 <p id="TP_Q88_A4-p9"></p>
16814 <p id="TP_Q88_A4-p10"></p>
16815 <a href="summa.TP_Q88_A3.html"></a>
16816 <a href="summa.TP_Q89.html"></a>
16817 </div>
16818 <a href="summa.TP_Q87_A4.html"></a>
16819 <a href="summa.TP_Q88_A1.html"></a>
16820 </div>
16821 <div id="TP_Q89" class="div3">
16822 <a href="summa.TP_Q88_A4.html"></a>
16823 <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A1.html"></a>
16824 <h3 id="TP_Q89-p0.1">OF THE RECOVERY OF VIRTUE BY MEANS OF PENANCE (SIX ARTICLES)</h3>
16825 <p id="TP_Q89-p1"></p>
16826 <p id="TP_Q89-p2"> We must now consider the recovery of virtues by means of Penance, under which head there are six points of inquiry:</p>
16827 <p id="TP_Q89-p3"> (1) Whether virtues are restored through Penance?</p>
16828 <p id="TP_Q89-p4"> (2) Whether they are restored in equal measure?</p>
16829 <p id="TP_Q89-p5"> (3) Whether equal dignity is restored to the penitent?</p>
16830 <p id="TP_Q89-p6"> (4) Whether works of virtue are deadened by subsequent sin?</p>
16831 <p id="TP_Q89-p7"> (5) Whether works deadened by sin revive through Penance?</p>
16832 <p id="TP_Q89-p8"> (6) Whether dead works, i.e. works that are done without charity, are quickened by Penance?</p>
16833 <div id="TP_Q89_A1" class="div4">
16834 <a href="summa.TP_Q89.html"></a>
16835 <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A2.html"></a>
16836 <h4 id="TP_Q89_A1-p0.1">Whether the virtues are restored through Penance?</h4>
16837 <p id="TP_Q89_A1-p1"></p>
16838 <p id="TP_Q89_A1-p2">
16839 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the virtues are not restored through penance. Because lost virtue cannot be restored by penance, unless
16840 penance be the cause of virtue. But, since penance is itself a virtue, it cannot be the cause of all the virtues, and all
16841 the more, since some virtues naturally precede penance, viz., faith, hope, and charity, as stated above (
16842 <a id="TP_Q89_A1-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q85_A6.html">Q[85], A[6]</a>). Therefore the virtues are not restored through penance.
16843 </p>
16844 <p id="TP_Q89_A1-p3">
16845 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Penance consists in certain acts of the penitent. But the gratuitous virtues are not caused through any act of ours:
16846 for Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. ii, 18: In
16847 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q89_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.118" target="asv">Ps. 118</a>) that "God forms the virtues in us without us." Therefore it seems that the virtues are not restored through Penance.
16848 </p>
16849 <p id="TP_Q89_A1-p4">
16850 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, he that has virtue performs works of virtue with ease and pleasure: wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 8)
16851 that "a man is not just if he does not rejoice in just deeds." Now many penitents find difficulty in performing deeds of virtue.
16852 Therefore the virtues are not restored through Penance.
16853 </p>
16854 <p id="TP_Q89_A1-p5">
16855 <b>On the contrary,</b> We read (
16856 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q89_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.15.22" target="asv">Lk. 15:22</a>) that the father commanded his penitent son to be clothed in "the first robe," which, according to Ambrose (Expos. in Luc.
16857 vii), is the "mantle of wisdom," from which all the virtues flow together, according to
16858 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q89_A1-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Wis.8.7" target="asv"> Wis. 8:7</a>: "She teacheth temperance, and prudence, and justice, and fortitude, which are such things as men can have nothing more profitable
16859 in life." Therefore all the virtues are restored
16860 through Penance.
16861 </p>
16862 <p id="TP_Q89_A1-p6">
16863 <b>I answer that,</b> Sins are pardoned through Penance, as stated above (Q[86] , A[1]). But there can be no remission of sins except through the
16864 infusion of grace. Wherefore it follows that grace is infused into man through Penance. Now all the gratuitous virtues flow
16865 from grace, even as all the powers result from the essence of the soul; as stated in the
16866 <a id="TP_Q89_A1-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q110_A4.html">FS, Q[110], A[4]</a>, ad 1. Therefore all the virtues are restored through Penance.
16867 </p>
16868 <p id="TP_Q89_A1-p7">
16869 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Penance restores the virtues in the same way as it causes grace, as stated above (
16870 <a id="TP_Q89_A1-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q86_A1.html">Q[86], A[1]</a>). Now it is a cause of grace, in so far as it is a sacrament, because, in so far as it is a virtue, it is rather an effect
16871 of grace. Consequently it does not follow that penance, as a virtue, needs to be the cause of all the other virtues, but that
16872 the habit of penance together with the habits of the other virtues is caused through
16873 the sacrament of Penance.
16874 </p>
16875 <p id="TP_Q89_A1-p8">
16876 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In the sacrament of Penance human acts stand as matter, while the formal power of this sacrament is derived from the power
16877 of the keys. Consequently the power of the keys causes grace and virtue effectively indeed, but instrumentally; and the first
16878 act of the penitent, viz., contrition, stands as ultimate disposition to the reception of grace, while the subsequent acts
16879 of Penance proceed from the grace and virtues which are already there.
16880 </p>
16881 <p id="TP_Q89_A1-p9">
16882 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As stated above (
16883 <a id="TP_Q89_A1-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q86_A5.html">Q[86], A[5]</a>), sometimes after the first act of Penance, which is contrition, certain remnants of sin remain, viz. dispositions caused
16884 by previous acts, the result being that the penitent finds difficulty in doing deeds of virtue. Nevertheless, so far as the
16885 inclination itself of charity and of the other virtues is concerned, the penitent performs works of virtue with pleasure and
16886 ease. even as a virtuous man
16887 may accidentally find it hard to do an act of virtue, on account of sleepiness or some indisposition of the body.
16888 </p>
16889 <p id="TP_Q89_A1-p10"></p>
16890 <p id="TP_Q89_A1-p11"></p>
16891 <a href="summa.TP_Q89.html"></a>
16892 <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A2.html"></a>
16893 </div>
16894 <div id="TP_Q89_A2" class="div4">
16895 <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A1.html"></a>
16896 <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A3.html"></a>
16897 <h4 id="TP_Q89_A2-p0.1">Whether, after Penance, man rises again to equal virtue?</h4>
16898 <p id="TP_Q89_A2-p1"></p>
16899 <p id="TP_Q89_A2-p2">
16900 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that, after Penance, man rises again to equal virtue. For the Apostle says (
16901 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q89_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.28" target="asv">Rom. 8:28</a>): "To them that love God all things work together unto good," whereupon a gloss of Augustine says that "this is so true that,
16902 if any such man goes astray and wanders from the path, God makes even this conduce to his good." But this would not be true
16903 if he rose again to lesser virtue. Therefore it seems that a penitent never rises again to
16904 lesser virtue.
16905 </p>
16906 <p id="TP_Q89_A2-p3">
16907 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Ambrose says [*Cf. Hypognosticon iii, an anonymous work falsely ascribed to St. Augustine] that "Penance is a very
16908 good thing, for it restores every defect to a state of perfection." But this would not be true unless virtues were recovered
16909 in equal measure. Therefore equal virtue is always recovered through Penance.
16910 </p>
16911 <p id="TP_Q89_A2-p4">
16912 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, on
16913 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q89_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.1.5" target="asv"> Gn. 1:5</a>: "There was evening and morning, one day," a gloss says: "The evening light is that from which we fall the morning light
16914 is that to which we rise again." Now the morning light is greater than the evening light. Therefore a man rises to greater
16915 grace or charity than that which he had before; which is confirmed by the Apostle's words (
16916 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q89_A2-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.20" target="asv">Rom. 5:20</a>): "Where sin abounded, grace did more abound."
16917 </p>
16918 <p id="TP_Q89_A2-p5">
16919 <b>On the contrary,</b> Charity whether proficient or perfect is greater than incipient charity. But sometimes a man falls from proficient charity,
16920 and rises again to incipient charity. Therefore man always rises again to less virtue.
16921 </p>
16922 <p id="TP_Q89_A2-p6">
16923 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (Q[86], A[6], ad 3; Q[89], A[1], ad 2), the movement of the free-will, in the justification of the ungodly,
16924 is the ultimate disposition to grace; so that in the same instant there is infusion of grace together with the aforesaid movement
16925 of the free-will, as stated in the
16926 <a id="TP_Q89_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q113_A5.html">FS, Q[113], AA[5]</a>,7, which movement includes an act of penance, as stated above (Q[86], A[2]). But it is evident that forms which admit of
16927 being
16928 more or less, become intense or remiss, according to the different dispositions of the subject, as stated in the
16929 <a id="TP_Q89_A2-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q52_A1.html">FS, Q[52], AA[1]</a>,2;
16930 <a id="TP_Q89_A2-p6.3" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q66_A1.html">FS, Q[66], A[1]</a>. Hence it is that, in Penance, according to the degree of intensity or remissness in the movement of the free-will, the penitent
16931 receives greater or lesser grace. Now the intensity of the penitent's movement may be proportionate sometimes to a greater
16932 grace than that from which man fell by sinning,
16933 sometimes to an equal grace, sometimes to a lesser. Wherefore the penitent sometimes arises to a greater grace than that which
16934 he had before, sometimes to an equal, sometimes to a lesser grace: and the same applies to the virtues, which flow from grace.
16935 </p>
16936 <p id="TP_Q89_A2-p7">
16937 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The very fact of falling away from the love of God by sin, does not work unto the good of all those who love God, which is
16938 evident in the case of those who fall and never rise again, or who rise and fall yet again; but only to the good of "such
16939 as according to His purpose are called to be saints," viz. the predestined, who, however often they may fall, yet rise again
16940 finally. Consequently good comes of their falling, not that they always rise again to
16941 greater grace, but that they rise to more abiding grace, not indeed on the part of grace itself, because the greater the grace,
16942 the more abiding it is, but on the part of man, who, the more careful and humble he is, abides the more steadfastly in grace.
16943 Hence the same gloss adds that "their fall conduces to their good, because they rise more humble and more enlightened."
16944 </p>
16945 <p id="TP_Q89_A2-p8">
16946 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Penance, considered in itself, has the power to bring all defects back to perfection, and even to advance man to a higher
16947 state; but this is sometimes hindered on the part of man, whose movement towards God and in detestation of sin is too remiss,
16948 just as in Baptism adults receive a greater or a lesser grace, according to the various ways in which they prepare themselves.
16949 </p>
16950 <p id="TP_Q89_A2-p9">
16951 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This comparison of the two graces to the evening and morning light is made on account of a likeness of order, since the darkness
16952 of night follows after the evening light, and the light of day after the light of morning, but not on account of a likeness
16953 of greater or lesser quantity. Again, this saying of the Apostle refers to the grace of Christ, which abounds more than any
16954 number of man's sins. Nor is it true of all, that the more their sins abound,
16955 the more abundant grace they receive, if we measure habitual grace by the quantity. Grace is, however, more abundant, as regards
16956 the very notion of grace, because to him who sins more a more "gratuitous" favor is vouchsafed by his pardon; although sometimes
16957 those whose sins abound, abound also in sorrow, so that they receive a more abundant habit of grace and virtue, as was the
16958 case with Magdalen.
16959 </p>
16960 <p id="TP_Q89_A2-p10"> To the argument advanced in the contrary sense it must be replied that in one and the same man proficient grace is greater
16961 than incipient grace, but this is not necessarily the case in different men, for one begins with a greater grace than another
16962 has in the state of proficiency: thus Gregory says (Dial. ii, 1): "Let all, both now and hereafter, acknowledge how perfectly
16963 the boy Benedict turned to the life of grace from the very beginning."
16964 </p>
16965 <p id="TP_Q89_A2-p11"></p>
16966 <p id="TP_Q89_A2-p12"></p>
16967 <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A1.html"></a>
16968 <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A3.html"></a>
16969 </div>
16970 <div id="TP_Q89_A3" class="div4">
16971 <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A2.html"></a>
16972 <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A4.html"></a>
16973 <h4 id="TP_Q89_A3-p0.1">Whether, by Penance, man is restored to his former dignity?</h4>
16974 <p id="TP_Q89_A3-p1"></p>
16975 <p id="TP_Q89_A3-p2">
16976 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that man is not restored by Penance to his former dignity: because a gloss on
16977 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q89_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Amos.5.2" target="asv"> Amos 5:2, </a> "The virgin of Israel is cast down," observes: "It is not said that she cannot rise up, but that the virgin of Israel shall
16978 not rise; because the sheep that has once strayed, although the shepherd bring it back on his shoulder, has not the same glory
16979 as if it had never strayed." Therefore man does not, through Penance, recover his former
16980 dignity.
16981 </p>
16982 <p id="TP_Q89_A3-p3">
16983 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Jerome says: "Whoever fail to preserve the dignity of the sacred order, must be content with saving their souls;
16984 for it is a difficult thing to return to their former degree." Again, Pope Innocent I says (Ep. vi ad Agapit.) that "the canons
16985 framed at the council of Nicaea exclude penitents from even the lowest orders of clerics." Therefore man does not, through
16986 Penance, recover his former dignity.
16987 </p>
16988 <p id="TP_Q89_A3-p4">
16989 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, before sinning a man can advance to a higher sacred order. But this is not permitted to a penitent after his sin,
16990 for it is written (
16991 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q89_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Ezek.44.10" target="asv">Ezech. 44:10</a>,
16992 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q89_A3-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Ezek.44.13" target="asv">13</a>): "The Levites that went away . . . from Me . . . shall never [Vulg.: 'not'] come near to Me, to do the office of priest":
16993 and as laid down in the Decretals (Dist. 1, ch. 52), and taken from the council of Lerida: "If those who serve at the Holy
16994 Altar fall suddenly into some
16995 deplorable weakness of the flesh, and by God's mercy do proper penance, let them return to their duties, yet so as not to
16996 receive further promotion." Therefore Penance does not restore man to his former dignity.
16997 </p>
16998 <p id="TP_Q89_A3-p5">
16999 <b>On the contrary,</b> As we read in the same Distinction, Gregory writing to Secundinus (Regist. vii) says: "We consider that when a man has made
17000 proper satisfaction, he may return to his honorable position": and moreover we read in the acts of the council of Agde: "Contumacious
17001 clerics, so far as their position allows, should be corrected by their bishops. so that when Penance has reformed them, they
17002 may recover their degree and dignity."
17003 </p>
17004 <p id="TP_Q89_A3-p6">
17005 <b>I answer that,</b> By sin, man loses a twofold dignity, one in respect of God, the other in respect of the Church. In respect of God he again
17006 loses a twofold dignity. one is his principal dignity, whereby he was counted among the children of God, and this he recovers
17007 by Penance, which is signified (
17008 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q89_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.15" target="asv">Lk. 15</a>) in the prodigal son, for when he repented, his father commanded that the first garment should be restored to him, together
17009 with a ring and shoes. The
17010 other is his secondary dignity, viz. innocence, of which, as we read in the same chapter, the elder son boasted saying (
17011 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q89_A3-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.15.29" target="asv">Lk. 15:29</a>): "Behold, for so many years do I serve thee, and I have never transgressed thy commandments": and this dignity the penitent
17012 cannot recover. Nevertheless he recovers something greater sometimes; because as Gregory says (Hom. de centum Ovibus, 34 in
17013 Evang.), "those who acknowledge themselves to have strayed away from God, make up for their past
17014 losses, by subsequent gains: so that there is more joy in heaven on their account, even as in battle, the commanding officer
17015 thinks more of the soldier who, after running away, returns and bravely attacks the foe, than of one who has never turned
17016 his back, but has done nothing brave."
17017 </p>
17018 <p id="TP_Q89_A3-p7"> By sin man loses his ecclesiastical dignity, because thereby he becomes unworthy of those things which appertain to the exercise
17019 of the ecclesiastical dignity. This he is debarred from recovering: first, because he fails to repent; wherefore Isidore wrote
17020 to the bishop Masso, and as we read in the Distinction quoted above (OBJ[3]): "The canons order those to be restored to their
17021 former degree, who by repentance have made satisfaction for their sins, or have made worthy
17022 confession of them. On the other hand, those who do not mend their corrupt and wicked ways are neither allowed to exercise
17023 their order, nor received to the grace of communion."
17024 </p>
17025 <p id="TP_Q89_A3-p8"> Secondly, because he does penance negligently, wherefore it is written in the same Distinction (OBJ 3): "We can be sure that
17026 those who show no signs of humble compunction, or of earnest prayer, who avoid fasting or study, would exercise their former
17027 duties with great negligence if they were restored to them."
17028 </p>
17029 <p id="TP_Q89_A3-p9"> Thirdly, if he has committed a sin to which an irregularity is attached; wherefore it is said in the same Distinction (OBJ[3]),
17030 quoting the council of Pope Martin [*Martin, bishop of Braga]: "If a man marry a widow or the relict of another, he must not
17031 be admitted to the ranks of the clergy: and if he has succeeded in creeping in, he must be turned out. In like manner, if
17032 anyone after Baptism be guilty of homicide, whether by deed, or by command, or by counsel, or in
17033 self-defense." But this is in consequence not of sin, but of irregularity.
17034 </p>
17035 <p id="TP_Q89_A3-p10"> Fourthly, on account of scandal, wherefore it is said in the same Distinction (OBJ[3]): "Those who have been publicly convicted
17036 or caught in the act of perjury, robbery, fornication, and of such like crimes, according to the prescription of the sacred
17037 canons must be deprived of the exercise of their respective orders, because it is a scandal to God's people that such persons
17038 should be placed over them. But those who commit such sins occultly and confess them secretly to a
17039 priest, may be retained in the exercise of their respective orders, with the assurance of God's merciful forgiveness, provided
17040 they be careful to expiate their sins by fasts and alms, vigils and holy deeds." The same is expressed (Extra, De Qual. Ordinand.):
17041 "If the aforesaid crimes are not proved by a judicial process, or in some other way made notorious, those who are guilty of
17042 them must not be hindered, after they have done penance, from exercising the orders they have received, or from
17043 receiving further orders, except in cases of homicide."
17044 </p>
17045 <p id="TP_Q89_A3-p11">
17046 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The same is to be said of the recovery of virginity as of the recovery of innocence which belongs to man's secondary dignity
17047 in the sight of God.
17048 </p>
17049 <p id="TP_Q89_A3-p12">
17050 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In these words Jerome does not say that it is impossible, but that it is difficult, for man to recover his former dignity
17051 after having sinned, because this is allowed to none but those who repent perfectly, as stated above. To those canonical statutes,
17052 which seem to forbid this, Augustine replies in his letter to Boniface (Ep. clxxxv): "If the law of the Church forbids anyone,
17053 after doing penance for a crime, to become a cleric, or to return to his
17054 clerical duties, or to retain them the intention was not to deprive him of the hope of pardon, but to preserve the rigor of
17055 discipline; else we should have to deny the keys given to the Church, of which it was said: 'Whatsoever you shall loose on
17056 earth shall be loosed in heaven.'" And further on he adds: "For holy David did penance for his deadly crimes, and yet he retained
17057 his dignity; and Blessed Peter by shedding most bitter tears did indeed repent him of having denied his Lord, and yet he
17058 remained an apostle. Nevertheless we must not deem the care of later teachers excessive, who without endangering a man's salvation,
17059 exacted more from his humility, having, in my opinion, found by experience, that some assumed a pretended repentance through
17060 hankering after honors and power."
17061 </p>
17062 <p id="TP_Q89_A3-p13">
17063 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This statute is to be understood as applying to those who do public penance, for these cannot be promoted to a higher order.
17064 For Peter, after his denial, was made shepherd of Christ's sheep, as appears from
17065 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q89_A3-p13.1" href="./asv.html#John.21.21" target="asv"> Jn. 21:21, </a> where Chrysostom comments as follows: "After his denial and repentance Peter gives proof of greater confidence in Christ:
17066 for whereas, at the supper, he durst not ask Him, but deputed John to ask in his stead,
17067 afterwards he was placed at the head of his brethren, and not only did not depute another to ask for him, what concerned him,
17068 but henceforth asks the Master instead of John."
17069 </p>
17070 <p id="TP_Q89_A3-p14"></p>
17071 <p id="TP_Q89_A3-p15"></p>
17072 <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A2.html"></a>
17073 <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A4.html"></a>
17074 </div>
17075 <div id="TP_Q89_A4" class="div4">
17076 <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A3.html"></a>
17077 <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A5.html"></a>
17078 <h4 id="TP_Q89_A4-p0.1">Whether virtuous deeds done in charity can be deadened?</h4>
17079 <p id="TP_Q89_A4-p1"></p>
17080 <p id="TP_Q89_A4-p2">
17081 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that virtuous deeds done in charity cannot be deadened. For that which is not cannot be changed. But to be
17082 deadened is to be changed from life to death. Since therefore virtuous deeds, after being done, are no more, it seems that
17083 they cannot afterwards be deadened.
17084 </p>
17085 <p id="TP_Q89_A4-p3">
17086 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, by virtuous deeds done in charity, man merits eternal life. But to take away the reward from one who has merited
17087 it is an injustice, which cannot be ascribed to God. Therefore it is not possible for virtuous deeds done in charity to be
17088 deadened by a subsequent sin.
17089 </p>
17090 <p id="TP_Q89_A4-p4">
17091 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the strong is not corrupted by the weak. Now works of charity are stronger than any sins, because, as it is written
17092 (
17093 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q89_A4-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.10.12" target="asv">Prov. 10:12</a>), "charity covereth all sins." Therefore it seems that deeds done in charity cannot be deadened by a subsequent mortal sin.
17094 </p>
17095 <p id="TP_Q89_A4-p5">
17096 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
17097 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q89_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Ezek.18.24" target="asv">Ezech. 18:24</a>): "If the just man turn himself away from his justice . . . all his justices which he hath done shall not be remembered."
17098 </p>
17099 <p id="TP_Q89_A4-p6">
17100 <b>I answer that,</b> A living thing, by dying, ceases to have vital operations: for which reason, by a kind of metaphor, a thing is said to be
17101 deadened when it is hindered from producing its proper effect or operation.
17102 </p>
17103 <p id="TP_Q89_A4-p7"> Now the effect of virtuous works, which are done in charity, is to bring man to eternal life; and this is hindered by a subsequent
17104 mortal sin, inasmuch as it takes away grace. Wherefore deeds done in charity are said to be deadened by a subsequent mortal
17105 sin.
17106 </p>
17107 <p id="TP_Q89_A4-p8">
17108 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Just as sinful deeds pass as to the act but remain as to guilt, so deeds done in charity, after passing, as to the act, remain
17109 as to merit, in so far as they are acceptable to God. It is in this respect that they are deadened, inasmuch as man is hindered
17110 from receiving his reward.
17111 </p>
17112 <p id="TP_Q89_A4-p9">
17113 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> There is no injustice in withdrawing the reward from him who has deserved it, if he has made himself unworthy by his subsequent
17114 fault, since at times a man justly forfeits through his own fault, even that which he has already received.
17115 </p>
17116 <p id="TP_Q89_A4-p10">
17117 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> It is not on account of the strength of sinful deeds that deeds, previously done in charity, are deadened, but on account
17118 of the freedom of the will which can be turned away from good to evil.
17119 </p>
17120 <p id="TP_Q89_A4-p11"></p>
17121 <p id="TP_Q89_A4-p12"></p>
17122 <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A3.html"></a>
17123 <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A5.html"></a>
17124 </div>
17125 <div id="TP_Q89_A5" class="div4">
17126 <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A4.html"></a>
17127 <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A6.html"></a>
17128 <h4 id="TP_Q89_A5-p0.1">Whether deeds deadened by sin, are revived by Penance?</h4>
17129 <p id="TP_Q89_A5-p1"></p>
17130 <p id="TP_Q89_A5-p2">
17131 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that deeds deadened by sin are not revived by Penance. Because just as past sins are remitted by subsequent
17132 Penance, so are deeds previously done in charity, deadened by subsequent sin. But sins remitted by Penance do not return,
17133 as stated above (
17134 <a id="TP_Q89_A5-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q88_A1.html">Q[88], AA[1]</a>,2). Therefore it seems that neither are dead deeds revived by charity.
17135 </p>
17136 <p id="TP_Q89_A5-p3">
17137 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, deeds are said to be deadened by comparison with animals who die, as stated above
17138 <a id="TP_Q89_A5-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q89_A4.html">(A[4])</a>. But a dead animal cannot be revived. Therefore neither can dead works be revived by Penance.
17139 </p>
17140 <p id="TP_Q89_A5-p4">
17141 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, deeds done in charity are deserving of glory according to the quantity of grace or charity. But sometimes man arises
17142 through Penance to lesser grace or charity. Therefore he does not receive glory according to the merit of his previous works;
17143 so that it seems that deeds deadened by sin are not revived.
17144 </p>
17145 <p id="TP_Q89_A5-p5">
17146 <b>On the contrary,</b> on
17147 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q89_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Joel.2.25" target="asv"> Joel 2:25, </a> "I will restore to you the years, which the locust . . . hath eaten," a gloss says: "I will not suffer to perish the fruit
17148 which you lost when your soul was disturbed." But this fruit is the merit of good works which was lost through sin. Therefore
17149 meritorious deeds done before are revived by Penance.
17150 </p>
17151 <p id="TP_Q89_A5-p6">
17152 <b>I answer that,</b> Some have said that meritorious works deadened by subsequent sin are not revived by the ensuing Penance, because they deemed
17153 such works to have passed away, so that they could not be revived. But that is no reason why they should not be revived: because
17154 they are conducive to eternal life (wherein their life consists) not only as actually existing, but also after they cease
17155 to exist actually, and as abiding in the Divine acceptance. Now, they abide thus, so
17156 far as they are concerned, even after they have been deadened by sin, because those works, according as they were done, will
17157 ever be acceptable to God and give joy to the saints, according to
17158 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q89_A5-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Rev.3.11" target="asv"> Apoc. 3:11</a>: "Hold fast that which thou hast, that no man take thy crown." That they fail in their efficacy to bring the man, who did
17159 them, to eternal life, is due to the impediment of the supervening sin whereby he is become unworthy of eternal life. But
17160 this impediment is removed by
17161 Penance, inasmuch as sins are taken away thereby. Hence it follows that deeds previously deadened, recover, through Penance,
17162 their efficacy in bringing him, who did them, to eternal life, and, in other words, they are revived. It is therefore evident
17163 that deadened works are revived by Penance.
17164 </p>
17165 <p id="TP_Q89_A5-p7">
17166 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The very works themselves of sin are removed by Penance, so that, by God's mercy, no further stain or debt of punishment
17167 is incurred on their account: on the other hand, works done in charity are not removed by God, since they abide in His acceptance,
17168 but they are hindered on the part of the man who does them; wherefore if this hindrance, on the part of the man who does those
17169 works, be removed, God on His side fulfills what those works deserved.
17170 </p>
17171 <p id="TP_Q89_A5-p8">
17172 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Deeds done in charity are not in themselves deadened, as explained above, but only with regard to a supervening impediment
17173 on the part of the man who does them. On the other hand, an animal dies in itself, through being deprived of the principle
17174 of life: so that the comparison fails.
17175 </p>
17176 <p id="TP_Q89_A5-p9">
17177 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> He who, through Penance, arises to lesser charity, will receive the essential reward according to the degree of charity in
17178 which he is found. Yet he will have greater joy for the works he had done in his former charity, than for those which he did
17179 in his subsequent charity: and this joy belongs to the accidental reward.
17180 </p>
17181 <p id="TP_Q89_A5-p10"></p>
17182 <p id="TP_Q89_A5-p11"></p>
17183 <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A4.html"></a>
17184 <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A6.html"></a>
17185 </div>
17186 <div id="TP_Q89_A6" class="div4">
17187 <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A5.html"></a>
17188 <a href="summa.TP_Q90.html"></a>
17189 <h4 id="TP_Q89_A6-p0.1">Whether the effect of subsequent Penance is to quicken even dead works?</h4>
17190 <p id="TP_Q89_A6-p1"></p>
17191 <p id="TP_Q89_A6-p2">
17192 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the effect of subsequent Penance is to quicken even dead works, those, namely, that were not done in charity.
17193 For it seems more difficult to bring to life that which has been deadened, since this is never done naturally, than to quicken
17194 that which never had life, since certain living things are engendered naturally from things without life. Now deadened works
17195 are revived by Penance, as stated above
17196 <a id="TP_Q89_A6-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q89_A5.html">(A[5])</a>. Much more,
17197 therefore, are dead works revived.
17198 </p>
17199 <p id="TP_Q89_A6-p3">
17200 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, if the cause be removed, the effect is removed. But the cause of the lack of life in works generically good done
17201 without charity, was the lack of charity and grace. which lack is removed by Penance. Therefore dead works are quickened by
17202 charity.
17203 </p>
17204 <p id="TP_Q89_A6-p4">
17205 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Jerome in commenting on Agg. i, 6: "You have sowed much," says: "If at any time you find a sinner, among his many
17206 evil deeds, doing that which is right, God is not so unjust as to forget the few good deeds on account of his many evil deeds."
17207 Now this seems to be the case chiefly when past evil "deeds" are removed by Penance. Therefore it seems that through Penance,
17208 God rewards the former deeds done in the state of sin, which implies that they are
17209 quickened.
17210 </p>
17211 <p id="TP_Q89_A6-p5">
17212 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
17213 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q89_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.13.3" target="asv">1 Cor. 13:3</a>): "If I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity,
17214 it profiteth me nothing." But this would not be true, if, at least by subsequent Penance, they were quickened. Therefore Penance
17215 does not quicken works which before were dead.
17216 </p>
17217 <p id="TP_Q89_A6-p6">
17218 <b>I answer that,</b> A work is said to be dead in two ways: first, effectively, because, to wit, it is a cause of death, in which sense sinful
17219 works are said to be dead, according to
17220 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q89_A6-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.9.14" target="asv"> Heb. 9:14</a>: "The blood of Christ . . . shall cleanse our conscience from dead works." These dead works are not quickened but removed
17221 by Penance, according to
17222 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q89_A6-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.6.1" target="asv"> Heb. 6:1</a>: "Not laying again the foundation of Penance from dead works." Secondly, works are said to
17223 be dead privatively, because, to wit, they lack spiritual life, which is founded on charity, whereby the soul is united to
17224 God, the result being that it is quickened as the body by the soul: in which sense too, faith, if it lack charity, is said
17225 to be dead, according to
17226 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q89_A6-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Jas.2.20" target="asv"> James 2:20</a>: "Faith without works is dead." In this way also, all works that are generically good, are said to be dead, if they be done
17227 without charity, inasmuch as they fail to proceed from the principle of
17228 life; even as we might call the sound of a harp, a dead voice. Accordingly, the difference of life and death in works is in
17229 relation to the principle from which they proceed. But works cannot proceed a second time from a principle, because they are
17230 transitory, and the same identical deed cannot be resumed. Therefore it is impossible for dead works to be quickened by Penance.
17231 </p>
17232 <p id="TP_Q89_A6-p7">
17233 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> In the physical order things whether dead or deadened lack the principle of life. But works are said to be deadened, not
17234 in relation to the principle whence they proceeded, but in relation to an extrinsic impediment; while they are said to be
17235 dead in relation to a principle. Consequently there is no comparison.
17236 </p>
17237 <p id="TP_Q89_A6-p8">
17238 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Works generically good done without charity are said to be dead on account of the lack of grace and charity, as principles.
17239 Now the subsequent Penance does not supply that want, so as to make them proceed from such a principle. Hence the argument
17240 does not prove.
17241 </p>
17242 <p id="TP_Q89_A6-p9">
17243 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> God remembers the good deeds a man does when in a state of sin, not by rewarding them in eternal life, which is due only
17244 to living works, i.e. those done from charity, but by a temporal reward: thus Gregory declares (Hom. de Divite et Lazaro,
17245 41 in Evang.) that "unless that rich man had done some good deed, and had received his reward in this world, Abraham would
17246 certainly not have said to him: 'Thou didst receive good things in thy lifetime.'" Or
17247 again, this may mean that he will be judged less severely: wherefore Augustine says (De Patientia xxvi): "We cannot say that
17248 it would be better for the schismatic that by denying Christ he should suffer none of those things which he suffered by confessing
17249 Him; but we must believe that he will be judged with less severity, than if by denying Christ, he had suffered none of those
17250 things. Thus the words of the Apostle, 'If I should deliver my body to be burned and have not charity, it profiteth me
17251 nothing,' refer to the obtaining of the kingdom of heaven, and do not exclude the possibility of being sentenced with less
17252 severity at the last judgment."
17253 </p>
17254 <p id="TP_Q89_A6-p10"></p>
17255 <p id="TP_Q89_A6-p11"></p>
17256 <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A5.html"></a>
17257 <a href="summa.TP_Q90.html"></a>
17258 </div>
17259 <a href="summa.TP_Q88_A4.html"></a>
17260 <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A1.html"></a>
17261 </div>
17262 <div id="TP_Q90" class="div3">
17263 <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A6.html"></a>
17264 <a href="summa.TP_Q90_A1.html"></a>
17265 <h3 id="TP_Q90-p0.1">OF THE PARTS OF PENANCE, IN GENERAL (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3>
17266 <p id="TP_Q90-p1"></p>
17267 <p id="TP_Q90-p2"> We must now consider the parts of Penance: (1) in general. (2) each one in particular.</p>
17268 <p id="TP_Q90-p3"> Under the first head there are four points of inquiry:</p>
17269 <p id="TP_Q90-p4"> (1) Whether Penance has any parts?</p>
17270 <p id="TP_Q90-p5"> (2) Of the number of its parts;</p>
17271 <p id="TP_Q90-p6"> (3) What kind of parts are they?</p>
17272 <p id="TP_Q90-p7"> (4) Of its division into subjective parts.</p>
17273 <div id="TP_Q90_A1" class="div4">
17274 <a href="summa.TP_Q90.html"></a>
17275 <a href="summa.TP_Q90_A2.html"></a>
17276 <h4 id="TP_Q90_A1-p0.1">Whether Penance should be assigned any parts?</h4>
17277 <p id="TP_Q90_A1-p1"></p>
17278 <p id="TP_Q90_A1-p2">
17279 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that parts should not be assigned to Penance. For it is the Divine power that works our salvation most secretly
17280 in the sacraments. Now the Divine power is one and simple. Therefore Penance, being a sacrament, should have no parts assigned
17281 to it.
17282 </p>
17283 <p id="TP_Q90_A1-p3">
17284 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Penance is both a virtue and a sacrament. Now no parts are assigned to it as a virtue, since virtue is a habit,
17285 which is a simple quality of the mind. In like manner, it seems that parts should not be assigned to Penance as a sacrament,
17286 because no parts are assigned to Baptism and the other sacraments. Therefore no parts at all should be assigned to Penance.
17287 </p>
17288 <p id="TP_Q90_A1-p4">
17289 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the matter of Penance is sin, as stated above (
17290 <a id="TP_Q90_A1-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q84_A2.html">Q[84], A[2]</a>). But no parts are assigned to sin. Neither, therefore, should parts be assigned to Penance.
17291 </p>
17292 <p id="TP_Q90_A1-p5">
17293 <b>On the contrary,</b> The parts of a thing are those out of which the whole is composed. Now the perfection of Penance is composed of several things,
17294 viz. contrition, confession, and satisfaction. Therefore Penance has parts.
17295 </p>
17296 <p id="TP_Q90_A1-p6">
17297 <b>I answer that,</b> The parts of a thing are those into which the whole is divided materially, for the parts of a thing are to the whole, what
17298 matter is to the form; wherefore the parts are reckoned as a kind of material cause, and the whole as a kind of formal cause
17299 (Phys. ii). Accordingly wherever, on the part of matter, we find a kind of plurality, there we shall find a reason for assigning
17300 parts.
17301 </p>
17302 <p id="TP_Q90_A1-p7"> Now it has been stated above (Q[84], AA[2],3), that, in the sacrament of Penance, human actions stand as matter: and so,
17303 since several actions are requisite for the perfection of Penance, viz., contrition, confession, and satisfaction, as we shall
17304 show further on
17305 <a id="TP_Q90_A1-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q90_A2.html">(A[2])</a>, it follows that the sacrament of Penance has parts.
17306 </p>
17307 <p id="TP_Q90_A1-p8">
17308 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Every sacrament is something simple by reason of the Divine power, which operates therein: but the Divine power is so great
17309 that it can operate both through one and through many, and by reason of these many, parts may be assigned to a particular
17310 sacrament.
17311 </p>
17312 <p id="TP_Q90_A1-p9">
17313 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Parts are not assigned to penance as a virtue: because the human acts of which there are several in penance, are related
17314 to the habit of virtue, not as its parts, but as its effects. It follows, therefore, that parts are assigned to Penance as
17315 a sacrament, to which the human acts are related as matter: whereas in the other sacraments the matter does not consist of
17316 human acts, but of some one external thing, either simple, as water or oil, or compound,
17317 as chrism, and so parts are not assigned to the other sacraments.
17318 </p>
17319 <p id="TP_Q90_A1-p10">
17320 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Sins are the remote matter of Penance, inasmuch, to wit, as they are the matter or object of the human acts, which are the
17321 proper matter of Penance as a sacrament.
17322 </p>
17323 <p id="TP_Q90_A1-p11"></p>
17324 <p id="TP_Q90_A1-p12"></p>
17325 <a href="summa.TP_Q90.html"></a>
17326 <a href="summa.TP_Q90_A2.html"></a>
17327 </div>
17328 <div id="TP_Q90_A2" class="div4">
17329 <a href="summa.TP_Q90_A1.html"></a>
17330 <a href="summa.TP_Q90_A3.html"></a>
17331 <h4 id="TP_Q90_A2-p0.1">Whether contrition, confession, and satisfaction are fittingly assigned as parts of Penance?</h4>
17332 <p id="TP_Q90_A2-p1"></p>
17333 <p id="TP_Q90_A2-p2">
17334 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that contrition, confession, and satisfaction are not fittingly assigned as parts of Penance. For contrition
17335 is in the heart, and so belongs to interior penance; while confession consists of words, and satisfaction in deeds; so that
17336 the two latter belong to interior penance. Now interior penance is not a sacrament, but only exterior penance which is perceptible
17337 by the senses. Therefore these three parts are not fittingly assigned to the sacrament
17338 of Penance.
17339 </p>
17340 <p id="TP_Q90_A2-p3">
17341 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, grace is conferred in the sacraments of the New Law, as stated above (
17342 <a id="TP_Q90_A2-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q62_A1.html">Q[62], AA[1]</a>,3). But no grace is conferred in satisfaction. Therefore satisfaction is not part of a sacrament.
17343 </p>
17344 <p id="TP_Q90_A2-p4">
17345 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the fruit of a thing is not the same as its part. But satisfaction is a fruit of penance, according to
17346 <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q90_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.3.8" target="asv"> Lk. 3:8</a>: "Bring forth . . . fruits worthy of penance." Therefore it is not a part of Penance.
17347 </p>
17348 <p id="TP_Q90_A2-p5">
17349 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, Penance is ordained against sin. But sin can be completed merely in the thought by consent, as stated in the
17350 <a id="TP_Q90_A2-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q72_A7.html">FS, Q[72], A[7]</a>: therefore Penance can also. Therefore confession in word and satisfaction in deed should not be reckoned as parts of Penance.
17351 </p>
17352 <p id="TP_Q90_A2-p6">
17353 <b>On the contrary,</b> It seems that yet more parts should be assigned to Penance. For not only is the body assigned as a part of man, as being
17354 the matter, but also the soul, which is his form. But the aforesaid three, being the acts of the penitent, stand as matter,
17355 while the priestly absolution stands as form. Therefore the priestly absolution should be assigned as a fourth part of Penance.
17356 </p>
17357 <p id="TP_Q90_A2-p7">
17358 <b>I answer that,</b> A part is twofold, essential and quantitative. The essential parts are naturally the form and the matter, and logically the
17359 genus and the difference. In this way, each sacrament is divided into matter and form as its essential parts. Hence it has
17360 been said above (Q[60], AA[5],6) that sacraments consist of things and words. But since quantity is on the part of matter,
17361 quantitative parts are parts of matter: and, in this way, as stated above
17362
17363 <a id="TP_Q90_A2-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q90_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, parts are assigned specially to the sacrament of Penance, as regards the acts of the penitent, which are the matter of this
17364 sacrament.
17365 </p>
17366 <p id="TP_Q90_A2-p8"> Now it has been said above (
17367 <a id="TP_Q90_A2-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q85_A3.html">Q[85], A[3]</a>, ad 3) that an offense is atoned otherwise in Penance than in vindictive justice. Because, in vindictive justice the atonement
17368 is made according to the judge's decision, and not according to the discretion of the offender or of the person offended;
17369 whereas, in Penance, the offense is atoned according to the will of the sinner, and the judgment of God against Whom the sin
17370 was committed, because in the latter case we
17371 seek not only the restoration of the equality of justice, as in vindictive justice, but also and still more the reconciliation
17372 of friendship, which is accomplished by the offender making atonement according to the will of the person offended. Accordingly
17373 the first requisite on the part of the penitent is the will to atone, and this is done by contrition; the second is that he
17374 submit to the judgment of the priest standing in God's place, and this is done in confession; and the third is that he
17375 atone according to the decision of God's minister, and this is done in satisfaction: and so contrition, confession, and satisfaction
17376 are assigned as parts of Penance.
17377 </p>
17378 <p id="TP_Q90_A2-p9">
17379 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Contrition, as to its essence, is in the heart, and belongs to interior penance; yet, virtually, it belongs to exterior penance,
17380 inasmuch as it implies the purpose of confessing and making satisfaction.
17381 </p>
17382 <p id="TP_Q90_A2-p10">
17383 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Satisfaction confers grace, in so far as it is in man's purpose, and it increases grace, according as it is accomplished,
17384 just as Baptism does in adults, as stated above (
17385 <a id="TP_Q90_A2-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q68_A2.html">Q[68], A[2]</a>;
17386 <a id="TP_Q90_A2-p10.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q69_A8.html"> Q[69], A[8]</a>).
17387 </p>
17388 <p id="TP_Q90_A2-p11">
17389 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Satisfaction is a part of Penance as a sacrament, and a fruit of penance as a virtue.
17390 </p>
17391 <p id="TP_Q90_A2-p12">
17392 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> More things are required for good, "which proceeds from a cause that is entire," than for evil, "which results from each
17393 single defect," as Dionysius states (Div. Nom. iv). And thus, although sin is completed in the consent of the heart, yet the
17394 perfection of Penance requires contrition of the heart, together with confession in word and satisfaction in deed.
17395 </p>
17396 <p id="TP_Q90_A2-p13"> The Reply to the Fifth Objection is clear from what has been said.</p>
17397 <p id="TP_Q90_A2-p14"></p>
17398 <p id="TP_Q90_A2-p15"></p>
17399 <a href="summa.TP_Q90_A1.html"></a>
17400 <a href="summa.TP_Q90_A3.html"></a>
17401 </div>
17402 <div id="TP_Q90_A3" class="div4">
17403 <a href="summa.TP_Q90_A2.html"></a>
17404 <a href="summa.TP_Q90_A4.html"></a>
17405 <h4 id="TP_Q90_A3-p0.1">Whether these three are integral parts of Penance?</h4>
17406 <p id="TP_Q90_A3-p1"></p>
17407 <p id="TP_Q90_A3-p2">
17408 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that these three are not integral parts of Penance. For, as stated above (
17409 <a id="TP_Q90_A3-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q84_A3.html">Q[84], A[3]</a>), Penance is ordained against sin. But sins of thought, word, and deed are the subjective and not integral parts of sin,
17410 because sin is predicated of each one of them. Therefore in Penance also, contrition in thought, confession in word, and satisfaction
17411 in deed are not integral parts.
17412 </p>
17413 <p id="TP_Q90_A3-p3">
17414 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, no integral part includes within itself another that is condivided with it. But contrition includes both confession
17415 and satisfaction in the purpose of amendment. Therefore they are not integral parts.
17416 </p>
17417 <p id="TP_Q90_A3-p4">
17418 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a whole is composed of its integral parts, taken at the same time and equally, just as a line is made up of its
17419 parts. But such is not the case here. Therefore these are not integral parts of Penance.
17420 </p>
17421 <p id="TP_Q90_A3-p5">
17422 <b>On the contrary,</b> Integral parts are those by which the perfection of the whole is integrated. But the perfection of Penance is integrated
17423 by these three. Therefore they are integral parts of Penance.
17424 </p>
17425 <p id="TP_Q90_A3-p6">
17426 <b>I answer that,</b> Some have said that these three are subjective parts of Penance. But this is impossible, because the entire power of the
17427 whole is present in each subjective part at the same time and equally, just as the entire power of an animal, as such, is
17428 assured to each animal species, all of which species divide the animal genus at the same time and equally: which does not
17429 apply to the point in question. Wherefore others have said that these are potential parts: yet
17430 neither can this be true, since the whole is present, as to the entire essence, in each potential part, just as the entire
17431 essence of the soul is present in each of its powers: which does not apply to the case in point. Therefore it follows that
17432 these three are integral parts of Penance, the nature of which is that the whole is not present in each of the parts, either
17433 as to its entire power, or as to its entire essence, but that it is present to all of them together at the same time.
17434 </p>
17435 <p id="TP_Q90_A3-p7">
17436 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Sin forasmuch as it is an evil, can be completed in one single point, as stated above (A[2], ad 4); and so the sin which
17437 is completed in thought alone, is a special kind of sin. Another species is the sin that is completed in thought and word:
17438 and yet a third species is the sin that is completed in thought, word, and deed; and the quasi-integral parts of this last
17439 sin, are that which is in thought, that which is in word, and that which is in deed.
17440 Wherefore these three are the integral parts of Penance, which is completed in them.
17441 </p>
17442 <p id="TP_Q90_A3-p8">
17443 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> One integral part can include the whole, though not as to its essence: because the foundation, in a way, contains virtually
17444 the whole building. In this way contrition includes virtually the whole of Penance.
17445 </p>
17446 <p id="TP_Q90_A3-p9">
17447 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> All integral parts have a certain relation of order to one another: but some are only related as to position, whether in
17448 sequence as the parts of an army, or by contact, as the parts of a heap, or by being fitted together, as the parts of a house,
17449 or by continuation, as the parts of a line; while some are related, in addition, as to power, as the parts of an animal, the
17450 first of which is the heart, the others in a certain order being dependent on one
17451 another: and thirdly some are related in the order of time: as the parts of time and movement. Accordingly the parts of Penance
17452 are related to one another in the order of power and time, since they are actions, but not in the order of position, since
17453 they do not occupy a place.
17454 </p>
17455 <p id="TP_Q90_A3-p10"></p>
17456 <p id="TP_Q90_A3-p11"></p>
17457 <a href="summa.TP_Q90_A2.html"></a>
17458 <a href="summa.TP_Q90_A4.html"></a>
17459 </div>
17460 <div id="TP_Q90_A4" class="div4">
17461 <a href="summa.TP_Q90_A3.html"></a>
17462 <a href="summa.XP.html"></a>
17463 <h4 id="TP_Q90_A4-p0.1">Whether Penance is fittingly divided into penance before Baptism, penance for mortal sins, and penance for venial sins?</h4>
17464 <p id="TP_Q90_A4-p1"></p>
17465 <p id="TP_Q90_A4-p2">
17466 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that penance is unfittingly divided into penance before Baptism, penance for mortal, and penance for venial
17467 sins. For Penance is the second plank after shipwreck, as stated above (
17468 <a id="TP_Q90_A4-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q84_A6.html">Q[84], A[6]</a> ), while Baptism is the first. Therefore that which precedes Baptism should not be called a species of penance.
17469 </p>
17470 <p id="TP_Q90_A4-p3">
17471 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, that which can destroy the greater, can destroy the lesser. Now mortal sin is greater than venial; and penance which
17472 regards mortal sins regards also venial sins. Therefore they should not be considered as different species of penance.
17473 </p>
17474 <p id="TP_Q90_A4-p4">
17475 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, just as after Baptism man commits venial and mortal sins, so does he before Baptism. If therefore penance for venial
17476 sins is distinct from penance for mortal sins after Baptism, in like manner they should be distinguished before Baptism. Therefore
17477 penance is not fittingly divided into these species.
17478 </p>
17479 <p id="TP_Q90_A4-p5">
17480 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says in De Poenitentia [*Cf. Hom. 30 inter 1] that these three are species of Penance.
17481 </p>
17482 <p id="TP_Q90_A4-p6">
17483 <b>I answer that,</b> This is a division of penance as a virtue. Now it must be observed that every virtue acts in accordance with the time being,
17484 as also in keeping with other due circumstances, wherefore the virtue of penance has its act at this time, according to the
17485 requirements of the New Law.
17486 </p>
17487 <p id="TP_Q90_A4-p7"> Now it belongs to penance to detest one's past sins, and to purpose, at the same time, to change one's life for the better,
17488 which is the end, so to speak, of penance. And since moral matters take their species from the end, as stated in the
17489 <a id="TP_Q90_A4-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q1_A3.html">FS, Q[1], A[3]</a>; FS, 18, AA[4],6, it is reasonable to distinguish various species of penance, according to the various changes intended by
17490 the penitent.
17491 </p>
17492 <p id="TP_Q90_A4-p8"> Accordingly there is a threefold change intended by the penitent. The first is by regeneration unto a new life, and this
17493 belongs to that penance which precedes Baptism. The second is by reforming one's past life after it has been already destroyed,
17494 and this belongs to penance for mortal sins committed after Baptism. The third is by changing to a more perfect operation
17495 of life, and this belongs to penance for venial sins, which are remitted through a fervent act of charity, as
17496 stated above (
17497 <a id="TP_Q90_A4-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q87_A2.html">Q[87], AA[2]</a>,3).
17498 </p>
17499 <p id="TP_Q90_A4-p9">
17500 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The penance which precedes Baptism is not a sacrament, but an act of virtue disposing one to that sacrament.
17501 </p>
17502 <p id="TP_Q90_A4-p10">
17503 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The penance which washes away mortal sins, washes away venial sins also, but the converse does not hold. Wherefore these
17504 two species of penance are related to one another as perfect and imperfect.
17505 </p>
17506 <p id="TP_Q90_A4-p11">
17507 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Before Baptism there are no venial sins without mortal sins. And since a venial sin cannot be remitted without mortal sin,
17508 as stated above (
17509 <a id="TP_Q90_A4-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q87_A4.html">Q[87], A[4]</a>), before Baptism, penance for mortal sins is not distinct from penance for venial sins.
17510 </p>
17511 <a href="summa.TP_Q90_A3.html"></a>
17512 <a href="summa.XP.html"></a>
17513 </div>
17514 <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A6.html"></a>
17515 <a href="summa.TP_Q90_A1.html"></a>
17516 </div>
17517 <a href="summa.TP_Q59_A6.html"></a>
17518 <a href="summa.TP_Q60.html"></a>
17519 `
17520 </div>