--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/summa/english/TP_iii.html	Sun Jan 03 14:43:02 2010 +0000
@@ -0,0 +1,17520 @@
+<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" id="TP.iii" class="div2">
+            <a href="summa.TP_Q59_A6.html"></a>
+            <a href="summa.TP_Q60.html"></a>
+            <h2 id="TP.iii-p0.1">TREATISE ON THE SACRAMENTS (QQ[60]-90)</h2>
+            <div id="TP_Q60" class="div3">
+               <a href="summa.TP.iii.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A1.html"></a>
+               <h3 id="TP_Q60-p0.1">WHAT IS A SACRAMENT? (EIGHT ARTICLES)</h3>
+               <p id="TP_Q60-p1"></p>
+               <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
+                  which derive their efficacy from the Word incarnate Himself. First we shall consider the sacraments in general; secondly,
+                  we shall consider specially each sacrament.
+               </p>
+               <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;
+                  (3) of the effects of the sacraments; (4) Of their cause; (5) Of their number.
+               </p>
+               <p id="TP_Q60-p4"> Under the first heading there are eight points of inquiry:</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q60-p5"> (1) Whether a sacrament is a kind of sign?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q60-p6"> (2) Whether every sign of a sacred thing is a sacrament?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q60-p7"> (3) Whether a sacrament is a sign of one thing only, or of several?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q60-p8"> (4) Whether a sacrament is a sign that is something sensible?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q60-p9"> (5) Whether some determinate sensible thing is required for a sacrament?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q60-p10"> (6) Whether signification expressed by words is necessary for a sacrament?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q60-p11"> (7) Whether determinate words are required?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q60-p12"> (8) Whether anything may be added to or subtracted from these words?</p>
+               <div id="TP_Q60_A1" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q60.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A2.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q60_A1-p0.1">Whether a sacrament is a kind of sign?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A1-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A1-p2">
+                     <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,
+                     from "medicando" [healing]. But this seems to be of the nature of a cause rather than of a sign. Therefore a sacrament is
+                     a kind of cause rather than a kind of sign.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A1-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, sacrament seems to signify something hidden, according to
+                     <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
+                     <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,
+                     seems foreign to the nature of a sign; for "a sign is that which conveys something else to the mind, besides the species which
+                     it impresses on
+                     the senses," as Augustine explains (De Doctr. Christ. ii). Therefore it seems that a sacrament is not a kind of sign.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A1-p4">
+                     <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
+                     not attained the use of reason must not be obliged to swear: and whoever has foresworn himself once, must no more be a witness,
+                     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
+                     is not a kind of sign.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A1-p5">
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A1-p6">
+                     <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
+                     animal, not only is the animal said to be healthy through being the subject of health: but medicine also is said to be healthy
+                     through producing health; diet through preserving it; and urine, through being a sign of health. Consequently, a thing may
+                     be called a "sacrament," either from having a certain hidden sanctity, and in this sense a
+                     sacrament is a "sacred secret"; or from having some relationship to this sanctity, which relationship may be that of a cause,
+                     or of a sign or of any other relation. But now we are speaking of sacraments in a special sense, as implying the habitude
+                     of sign: and in this way a sacrament is a kind of sign.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A1-p7">
+                     <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
+                     to some first active cause: so that a medicament implies a certain causality. But sanctity from which a sacrament is denominated,
+                     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
+                     need always imply causality.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A1-p8">
+                     <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
+                     to be sacred and to be a sacrament: because according to the ancients, whatever it was unlawful to lay violent hands on was
+                     said to be holy or sacrosanct, such as the city walls, and persons of high rank. Consequently those secrets, whether Divine
+                     or human, which it is unlawful to violate by making them known to anybody
+                     whatever, are called "sacred secrets or sacraments."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A1-p9">
+                     <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
+                     in this sense it is called a sacrament: not in the sense in which we speak of sacraments now; the word "sacrament" being thus
+                     used not equivocally but analogically, i.e. by reason of a different relation to the one thing, viz. something sacred.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A1-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A1-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q60.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A2.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q60_A2" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A3.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q60_A2-p0.1">Whether every sign of a holy thing is a sacrament?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A2-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A2-p2">
+                     <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
+                     to 
+                     <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
+                     cannot be called sacraments. Therefore not every sign of a sacred thing is a sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A2-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, whatever was done under the Old Law was a figure of Christ Who is the "Holy of Holies" (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q60_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Dan.9.24" target="asv">Dan. 9:24</a>), according to 
+                     <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
+                     <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
+                     Testament, not even all the ceremonies of the Law, were sacraments, but only in certain special
+                     cases, as stated in the 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A2-p4">
+                     <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;
+                     such as sprinkling with holy water, the consecration of an altar, and such like. Therefore not every sign of a sacred thing
+                     is a sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A2-p5">
+                     <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,
+                     this is clear from the passage quoted above 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A2-p6">
+                     <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
+                     so called is that which is the sign of some sacred thing pertaining to man; so that properly speaking a sacrament, as considered
+                     by us now, is defined as being the "sign of a holy thing so far as it makes men holy."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A2-p7">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Sensible creatures signify something holy, viz. Divine wisdom and goodness inasmuch as these are holy in themselves; but
+                     not inasmuch as we are made holy by them. Therefore they cannot be called sacraments as we understand sacraments now.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A2-p8">
+                     <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
+                     His holiness considered as the cause of our holiness; thus the sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb signified Christ's Sacrifice
+                     whereby we are made holy: and such like are properly styled sacraments of the Old Law.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A2-p9">
+                     <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,
+                     whereas perfection is. Consequently things that signify disposition to holiness are not called sacraments, and with regard
+                     to these the objection is verified: only those are called sacraments which signify the perfection of holiness in man.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A2-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A2-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A3.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q60_A3" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A4.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q60_A3-p0.1">Whether a sacrament is a sign of one thing only?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A3-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A3-p2">
+                     <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
+                     occasions deception: this is clearly seen in equivocal words. But all deception should be removed from the Christian religion,
+                     according to 
+                     <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
+                     things.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A3-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, as stated above 
+                     <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
+                     blood of Christ; according to
+                     <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
+                     does not signify several things.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A3-p4">
+                     <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
+                     end of sanctification is eternal life, according to
+                     <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
+                     one thing only, viz. eternal life.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A3-p5">
+                     <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
+                     says (Liber Sent. Prosper.).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A3-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above 
+                     <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;
+                     viz. the very cause of our sanctification, which is Christ's passion; the form of our sanctification, which is grace and the
+                     virtues; and the ultimate end of our sanctification, which is eternal life. And all these are signified by the sacraments.
+                     Consequently a sacrament is a sign
+                     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
+                     passion, i.e. grace; and a prognostic, that is, a foretelling of future glory.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A3-p7">
+                     <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
+                     it signifies many things inasmuch as, through being mutually ordained, they form one thing, then the sign is not ambiguous
+                     but certain: thus this word "man" signifies the soul and body inasmuch as together they form the human nature. In this way
+                     a sacrament signifies the three things aforesaid, inasmuch as by being in a certain
+                     order they are one thing.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A3-p8">
+                     <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
+                     cause as such.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A3-p9">
+                     <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
+                     signify only that perfection which is the end.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A3-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A3-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A4.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q60_A4" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A5.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q60_A4-p0.1">Whether a sacrament is always something sensible?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A4-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A4-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that a sacrament is not always something sensible. Because, according to the Philosopher (Prior. Anal. ii), every
+                     effect is a sign of its cause. But just as there are some sensible effects, so are there some intelligible effects; thus science
+                     is the effect of a demonstration. Therefore not every sign is sensible. Now all that is required for a sacrament is something
+                     that is a sign of some sacred thing, inasmuch as thereby man is sanctified, as stated
+                     above 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A4-p3">
+                     <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
+                     Divine worship: for we are told (
+                     <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 (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A4-p4">
+                     <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
+                     aright." But the sacraments are necessary for man's salvation, as we shall show farther on (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A4-p5">
+                     <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
+                     there of water which is a sensible element. Therefore sensible things are required for the sacraments.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A4-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> Divine wisdom provides for each thing according to its mode; hence it is written (
+                     <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 (
+                     <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
+                     intelligible from the sensible. But a sign is that by means of which one attains to the knowledge of something else.
+                     Consequently, since the sacred things which are signified by the sacraments, are the spiritual and intelligible goods by means
+                     of which man is sanctified, it follows that the sacramental signs consist in sensible things: just as in the Divine Scriptures
+                     spiritual things are set before us under the guise of things sensible. And hence it is that sensible things are required for
+                     the sacraments; as Dionysius also proves in his book on the heavenly hierarchy (Coel. Hier. i).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A4-p7">
+                     <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
+                     not from that which belongs to it through something else. Now a sensible effect being the primary and direct object of man's
+                     knowledge (since all our knowledge springs from the senses) by its very nature leads to the knowledge of something else: whereas
+                     intelligible effects are not such as to be able to lead us to the knowledge of
+                     something else, except in so far as they are manifested by some other thing, i.e. by certain sensibles. It is for this reason
+                     that the name sign is given primarily and principally to things which are offered to the senses; hence Augustine says (De
+                     Doctr. Christ. ii) that a sign "is that which conveys something else to the mind, besides the species which it impresses on
+                     the senses." But intelligible effects do not partake of the nature of a sign except in so far as they are pointed out by
+                     certain signs. And in this way, too, certain things which are not sensible are termed sacraments as it were, in so far as
+                     they are signified by certain sensible things, of which we shall treat further on (
+                     <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;
+                     <a id="TP_Q60_A4-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q73_A6.html"> Q[73], A[6]</a>;
+                     <a id="TP_Q60_A4-p7.3" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q74_A1.html"> Q[74], A[1]</a>, ad 3).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A4-p8">
+                     <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
+                     of spiritual things in which the kingdom of God consists.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A4-p9">
+                     <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
+                     are the highest goods.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A4-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A4-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A5.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q60_A5" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A6.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q60_A5-p0.1">Whether determinate things are required for a sacrament?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A5-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A5-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that determinate things are not required for a sacrament. For sensible things are required in sacraments for the
+                     purpose of signification, as stated above 
+                     <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,
+                     sometimes by a stone (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q60_A5-p2.2" href="./asv.html#iiKgdms.22.2" target="asv">2 Kings 22:2</a>; 
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q60_A5-p2.3" href="./asv.html#Zech.3.9" target="asv">Zech. 3:9</a>; 
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q60_A5-p2.4" href="./asv.html#iCor.10.4" target="asv">1 Cor. 10:4</a>;
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q60_A5-p2.5" href="./asv.html#Rev.4.3" target="asv"> Apoc. 4:3</a>);
+                     sometimes by a lion (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q60_A5-p2.6" href="./asv.html#Isa.31.4" target="asv">Is. 31:4</a>;
+                     <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 (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q60_A5-p2.8" href="./asv.html#Isa.60.19" target="asv">Is. 60:19,20</a>;
+                     <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
+                     things are not required for the sacraments.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A5-p3">
+                     <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
+                     health of the body, one thing can be substituted for another which happens to be wanting. Therefore much more in the sacraments,
+                     which are spiritual remedies ordained to the health of the soul, can one thing be substituted for another when this happens
+                     to be lacking.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A5-p4">
+                     <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
+                     came to save all. But in the state of the Law of nature determinate things were not required in the sacraments, but were put
+                     to that use through a vow, as appears from 
+                     <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
+                     restricted, especially under the New Law,
+                     to the use of any determinate thing in the sacraments.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A5-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> our Lord said (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A5-p6">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     anyone to determine that which is in the power of another, but only that which is in his own power. Since, therefore, the
+                     sanctification of man is in the power of God Who sanctifies, it is not for man to decide what
+                     things should be used for his sanctification, but this should be determined by Divine institution. Therefore in the sacraments
+                     of the New Law, by which man is sanctified according to 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A5-p7">
+                     <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.
+                     Now it is God Who signifies spiritual things to us by means of the sensible things in the sacraments, and of similitudes in
+                     the Scriptures. And consequently, just as the Holy Ghost decides by what similitudes spiritual things are to be signified
+                     in certain passages of Scripture, so also must it be determined by Divine institution
+                     what things are to be employed for the purpose of signification in this or that sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A5-p8">
+                     <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
+                     same virtue, it matters not which we use. Yet they are ordained unto sanctification not through any power that they possess
+                     naturally, but only in virtue of the Divine institution. And therefore it was necessary that God should determine the sensible
+                     things to be employed in the sacraments.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A5-p9">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix), diverse sacraments suit different times; just as different times are signified by
+                     different parts of the verb, viz. present, past, and future. Consequently, just as under the state of the Law of nature man
+                     was moved by inward instinct and without any outward law, to worship God, so also the sensible things to be employed in the
+                     worship of God were determined by inward instinct. But later on it became necessary
+                     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
+                     to signify more expressly the grace of Christ, by which the human race is sanctified. And hence the need for those things
+                     to be determinate, of which men have to make use in the sacraments. Nor is the way of salvation narrowed thereby: because
+                     the things which need to be used in the sacraments, are either in everyone's possession or can be had with little trouble.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A5-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A5-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A6.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q60_A6" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A7.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q60_A6-p0.1">Whether words are required for the signification of the sacraments?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A6-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A6-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that words are not required for the signification of the sacraments. For Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix): "What
+                     else is a corporeal sacrament but a kind of visible word?" Wherefore to add words to the sensible things in the sacraments
+                     seems to be the same as to add words to words. But this is superfluous. Therefore words are not required besides the sensible
+                     things in the sacraments .
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A6-p3">
+                     <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
+                     genera. Since, therefore, sensible things and words are of different genera, for sensible things are the product of nature,
+                     but words, of reason; it seems that in the sacraments, words are not required besides sensible things.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A6-p4">
+                     <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
+                     abolished," as Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix). But no form of words was required in the sacraments of the Old Law. Therefore
+                     neither is it required in those of the New Law.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A6-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
+                     <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
+                     in the word of life." And Augustine says (Tract. xxx in Joan.): "The word is added to the element, and this becomes a sacrament."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A6-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> The sacraments, as stated above (
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     of sanctification, which is the Word incarnate: to Whom the sacraments have a certain conformity, in that the word is joined
+                     to the sensible sign, just
+                     as in the mystery of the Incarnation the Word of God is united to sensible flesh.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     the sacramental remedy is adjusted, since it touches the body through the sensible element, and the soul through faith in
+                     the words. Hence Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan.) on
+                     <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
+                     heart, but by the word doing
+                     it, not because it is spoken, but because it is believed?"
+                  </p>
+                  <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.
+                     ii) that "words are the principal signs used by men"; because words can be formed in various ways for the purpose of signifying
+                     various mental concepts, so that we are able to express our thoughts with greater distinctness by means of words. And therefore
+                     in order to insure the perfection of sacramental signification it was necessary to determine the
+                     signification of the sensible things by means of certain words. For water may signify both a cleansing by reason of its humidity,
+                     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
+                     order to signify a spiritual cleansing.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A6-p9">
+                     <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
+                     significative power, which resides principally in the very words, as stated above. Consequently it is not a superfluous repetition
+                     to add words to the visible element in the sacraments; because one determines the other, as stated above.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A6-p10">
+                     <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
+                     in common as to the thing signified by them: which is more perfectly done in words than in other things. Wherefore in the
+                     sacraments, words and things, like form and matter, combine in the formation of one thing, in so far as the signification
+                     of things is completed by means of words, as above stated. And under words are comprised
+                     also sensible actions, such as cleansing and anointing and such like: because they have a like signification with the things.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A6-p11">
+                     <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
+                     come. Now the sacraments of the Old Law foretold the coming of Christ. Consequently they did not signify Christ so clearly
+                     as the sacraments of the New Law, which flow from Christ Himself, and have a certain likeness to Him, as stated above. Nevertheless
+                     in the Old Law, certain words were used in things pertaining to the worship of
+                     God, both by the priests, who were the ministers of those sacraments, according to
+                     <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
+                     use of those sacraments, according to
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A6-p12"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A6-p13"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A7.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q60_A7" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A6.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A8.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q60_A7-p0.1">Whether determinate words are required in the sacraments?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A7-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A7-p2">
+                     <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
+                     not the same for all." But salvation, which is sought through the sacraments, is the same for all. Therefore determinate words
+                     are not required in the sacraments.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A7-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, words are required in the sacraments forasmuch as they are the principal means of signification, as stated above
+                     
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A7-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, corruption of anything changes its species. But some corrupt the pronunciation of words, and yet it is not credible
+                     that the sacramental effect is hindered thereby; else unlettered men and stammerers, in conferring sacraments, would frequently
+                     do so invalidly. Therefore it seems that determinate words are not required in the sacraments.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A7-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> our Lord used determinate words in consecrating the sacrament of the Eucharist, when He said (
+                     <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 (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A7-p6">
+                     <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
+                     all things composed of matter and form, the determining principle is on the part of the form, which is as it were the end
+                     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
+                     matter: for determinate matter is needed that it may be adapted to the determinate
+                     form. Since, therefore, in the sacraments determinate sensible things are required, which are as the sacramental matter, much
+                     more is there need in them of a determinate form of words.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A7-p7">
+                     <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
+                     the outward sound of the voice, "but because it is believed" in accordance with the sense of the words which is held by faith.
+                     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
+                     in what language this sense is expressed, the sacrament is complete.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A7-p8">
+                     <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
+                     who speak that language use principally and more commonly to signify that particular thing: and this is the word which should
+                     be used for the sacramental signification. So also among sensible things, that one is used for the sacramental signification
+                     which is most commonly employed for the action by which the sacramental effect
+                     is signified: thus water is most commonly used by men for bodily cleansing, by which the spiritual cleansing is signified:
+                     and therefore water is employed as the matter of baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A7-p9">
+                     <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
+                     the Church intends: and thus the sacrament seems to be defective. But if he do this through error or a slip of the tongue,
+                     and if he so far mispronounce the words as to deprive them of sense, the sacrament seems to be defective. This would be the
+                     case especially if the mispronunciation be in the beginning of a word, for instance,
+                     if one were to say "in nomine matris" instead of "in nomine Patris." If, however, the sense of the words be not entirely lost
+                     by this mispronunciation, the sacrament is complete. This would be the case principally if the end of a word be mispronounced;
+                     for instance, if one were to say "patrias et filias." For although the words thus mispronounced have no appointed meaning,
+                     yet we allow them an accommodated meaning corresponding to the usual forms of speech. And so, although the sensible sound
+                     is changed, yet the sense remains the same.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     with us a change at the beginning of a word changes the meaning, whereas a change at the end generally speaking does not effect
+                     such a change: whereas with the Greeks the sense is changed also in the beginning of words in the conjugation of verbs.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     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
+                     one to happen on the part of the beginning of the words, and the other at the end.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A7-p12"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A7-p13"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A6.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A8.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q60_A8" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A7.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q61.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q60_A8-p0.1">Whether it is lawful to add anything to the words in which the sacramental form consists?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A8-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A8-p2">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     anything from, the words of Holy Scripture: for it is written (
+                     <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 (
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     plagues written in this book. And if any man shall take away . . . God shall take away his part out of the book of life."
+                     Therefore it seems that neither is it lawful to add anything to, or to take anything from, the sacramental forms.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A8-p3">
+                     <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
+                     in forms changes the species, as also in numbers (Metaph. viii). Therefore it seems that if anything be added to or subtracted
+                     from a sacramental form, it will not be the same sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A8-p4">
+                     <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
+                     in a certain order and without interruption. If therefore, the sacrament is not rendered invalid by addition or subtraction
+                     of words, in like manner it seems that neither is it, if the words be pronounced in a different order or with interruptions.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A8-p5">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     form: "The servant of God, N . . . is baptized in the name of the Father," etc. Yet both confer the sacrament validly. Therefore
+                     it is lawful to add something to, or to take something from, the
+                     sacramental forms.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A8-p6">
+                     <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
+                     is on the part of the person who says the words, and whose intention is essential to the sacrament, as will be explained further
+                     on (
+                     <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,
+                     it seems that the sacrament is invalid:
+                     because he seems not to intend to do what the Church does.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     to the sense which they convey, as stated above (A[7], ad 1), we must see whether the change of words destroys the essential
+                     sense of the words: because then the sacrament is clearly rendered invalid. Now it is clear, if any substantial part of the
+                     sacramental form be suppressed, that the essential sense of the words is destroyed; and consequently the
+                     sacrament is invalid. Wherefore Didymus says (De Spir. Sanct. ii): "If anyone attempt to baptize in such a way as to omit
+                     one of the aforesaid names," i.e. of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, "his baptism will be invalid." But if that which is
+                     omitted be not a substantial part of the form, such an omission does not destroy the essential sense of the words, nor consequently
+                     the validity of the sacrament. Thus in the form of the Eucharist---"For this is My Body," the omission of the word "for"
+                     does not destroy the essential sense of the words, nor consequently cause the sacrament to be invalid; although perhaps he
+                     who makes the omission may sin from negligence or contempt.
+                  </p>
+                  <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:
+                     "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:
+                     and consequently such an addition makes the sacrament invalid. But if the addition be such as not to destroy the essential
+                     sense, the sacrament is not rendered invalid. Nor does it matter whether this addition be made at the beginning, in
+                     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
+                     only Begotten Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete," the baptism would be valid; and in like manner if one were to say,
+                     "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,
+                     the baptism would be valid.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     of the Blessed Virgin Mary," the baptism would be void; because it is written (
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     contrary to faith, and
+                     would therefore render the sacrament invalid: whereas if the addition, "and in the name of the Blessed Virgin" be understood,
+                     not as if the name of the Blessed Virgin effected anything in baptism, but as intimating that her intercession may help the
+                     person baptized to preserve the baptismal grace, then the sacrament is not rendered void.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A8-p10">
+                     <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
+                     by way of explanation of the Holy Scriptures. Nevertheless, it is not lawful to add even words to Holy Scripture as though
+                     such words were a part thereof, for this would amount to forgery. It would amount to the same if anyone were to pretend that
+                     something is essential to a sacramental form, which is not so.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A8-p11">
+                     <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
+                     words which does not add to or take from the essential sense, does not destroy the essence of the sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A8-p12">
+                     <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
+                     destroyed, and consequently, the validity of the sacrament. But this is not the case if the interruption of the speaker is
+                     so slight, that his intention and the sense of the words is not interrupted.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     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
+                     of the words does not vary, the sacrament is not invalidated, according to the Philosopher's dictum: "Nouns and verbs mean
+                     the same though they be transposed" (Peri Herm. x).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A8-p14"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q60_A8-p15"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A7.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q61.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <a href="summa.TP.iii.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A1.html"></a>
+            </div>
+            <div id="TP_Q61" class="div3">
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A8.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q61_A1.html"></a>
+               <h3 id="TP_Q61-p0.1">OF THE NECESSITY OF THE SACRAMENTS (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3>
+               <p id="TP_Q61-p1"></p>
+               <p id="TP_Q61-p2"> We must now consider the necessity of the sacraments; concerning which there are four points of inquiry:</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q61-p3"> (1) Whether sacraments are necessary for man's salvation?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q61-p4"> (2) Whether they were necessary in the state that preceded sin?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q61-p5"> (3) Whether they were necessary in the state after sin and before Christ?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q61-p6"> (4) Whether they were necessary after Christ's coming?</p>
+               <div id="TP_Q61_A1" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q61.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q61_A2.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q61_A1-p0.1">Whether sacraments are necessary for man's salvation? </h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A1-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A1-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that sacraments are not necessary for man's salvation. For the Apostle says (
+                     <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
+                     perfected in the signification of sensible things and words, as stated above (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A1-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Apostle was told (
+                     <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
+                     are not necessary for man's salvation.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A1-p4">
+                     <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
+                     cause of our salvation; for the Apostle says (
+                     <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
+                     saved by His life." Therefore sacraments are not necessary for man's salvation.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A1-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix): "It is impossible to keep men together in one religious denomination, whether true or
+                     false, except they be united by means of visible signs or sacraments." But it is necessary for salvation that men be united
+                     together in the name of the one true religion. Therefore sacraments are necessary for man's salvation.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A1-p6">
+                     <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
+                     is such that it has to be led by things corporeal and sensible to things spiritual and intelligible. Now it belongs to Divine
+                     providence to provide for each one according as its condition requires. Divine wisdom, therefore, fittingly provides man with
+                     means of salvation, in the shape of corporeal and sensible signs that are called
+                     sacraments.
+                  </p>
+                  <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.
+                     Now the healing remedy should be given to a man so as to reach the part affected by disease. Consequently it was fitting that
+                     God should provide man with a spiritual medicine by means of certain corporeal signs; for if man were offered spiritual things
+                     without a veil, his mind being taken up with the material world would be unable to apply itself to them.
+                  </p>
+                  <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,
+                     it should be too hard for man to be drawn away entirely from bodily actions, bodily exercise was offered to him in the sacraments,
+                     by which he might be trained to avoid superstitious practices, consisting in the worship of demons, and all manner of harmful
+                     action, consisting in sinful deeds.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A1-p9"> It follows, therefore, that through the institution of the sacraments man, consistently with his nature, is instructed through
+                     sensible things; he is humbled, through confessing that he is subject to corporeal things, seeing that he receives assistance
+                     through them: and he is even preserved from bodily hurt, by the healthy exercise of the sacraments.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A1-p10">
+                     <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
+                     to a certain extent spiritual, viz. in its signification and in its causality.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A1-p11">
+                     <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
+                     it is that man needs the sacraments that he may obtain grace.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A1-p12">
+                     <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
+                     for that purpose: because they obtain their effect through the power of Christ's Passion; and Christ's Passion is, so to say,
+                     applied to man through the sacraments according to the Apostle (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A1-p13"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A1-p14"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q61.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q61_A2.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q61_A2" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q61_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q61_A3.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q61_A2-p0.1">Whether before sin sacraments were necessary to man?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A2-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A2-p2">
+                     <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
+                     may obtain grace. But man needed grace even in the state of innocence, as we stated in the 
+                     <a id="TP_Q61_A2-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q95_A4.html">FP, Q[95], A[4]</a> (cf. 
+                     <a id="TP_Q61_A2-p2.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q109_A2.html">FS, Q[109], A[2]</a>; 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A2-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, sacraments are suitable to man by reason of the conditions of human nature, as stated above 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A2-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, matrimony is a sacrament, according to
+                     <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
+                     seen in 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A2-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> None but the sick need remedies, according to
+                     <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
+                     by sin. Therefore they were not necessary before sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A2-p6">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     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
+                     perfected either in knowledge or in grace, by anything corporeal; which happens in the
+                     sacraments. Therefore in the state of innocence man needed no sacraments, whether as remedies against sin or as means of perfecting
+                     the soul.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A2-p7">
+                     <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
+                     and invisible manner.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A2-p8">
+                     <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,
+                     even in its higher part, needs to receive something from corporeal things in order that it may be perfected: whereas man had
+                     no need of this in that state.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A2-p9">
+                     <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,
+                     it foreshadowed something in relation to Christ and the Church: just as everything else foreshadowed Christ.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A2-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A2-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q61_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q61_A3.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q61_A3" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q61_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q61_A4.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q61_A3-p0.1">Whether there should have been sacraments after sin, before Christ?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A3-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A3-p2">
+                     <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
+                     is applied to men through the sacraments: so that Christ's Passion is compared to the sacraments as cause to effect. But effect
+                     does not precede cause. Therefore there should have been no sacraments before Christ's coming.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A3-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, sacraments should be suitable to the state of the human race, as Augustine declares (Contra Faust. xix). But the
+                     state of the human race underwent no change after sin until it was repaired by Christ. Neither, therefore, should the sacraments
+                     have been changed, so that besides the sacraments of the natural law, others should be instituted in the law of Moses.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A3-p4">
+                     <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
+                     salvation was accomplished by Christ; to Whom the sacraments of the Old Law were nearer than those that preceded the Law.
+                     Therefore they should have borne a greater likeness to the sacraments of Christ. And yet the contrary is the case, since it
+                     was foretold that the priesthood of Christ would be "according to the order of Melchisedech,
+                     and not . . . according to the order of Aaron" (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A3-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix) that "the first sacraments which the Law commanded to be solemnized and observed were
+                     announcements of Christ's future coming." But it was necessary for man's salvation that Christ's coming should be announced
+                     beforehand. Therefore it was necessary that some sacraments should be instituted before Christ.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A3-p6">
+                     <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
+                     holy. Now after sin no man can be made holy save through Christ, "Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith
+                     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
+                     of Jesus Christ" (
+                     <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
+                     there was need for some visible signs whereby man might testify to his faith in the future coming of a Saviour. And these
+                     signs are called sacraments. It is therefore clear that some sacraments were necessary before Christ's coming.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A3-p7">
+                     <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
+                     cause precedes not in time, but in the intention of the agent. Consequently, there is no reason against the existence of sacraments
+                     before Christ's Passion.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A3-p8">
+                     <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:
+                     and thus it was always one and the same: since men were made righteous, through faith in the future coming of Christ. Secondly,
+                     according as sin was more or less intense, and knowledge concerning Christ more or less explicit. For as time went on sin
+                     gained a greater hold on man, so much so that it clouded man's reason, the
+                     consequence being that the precepts of the natural law were insufficient to make man live aright, and it became necessary
+                     to have a written code of fixed laws, and together with these certain sacraments of faith. For it was necessary, as time went
+                     on, that the knowledge of faith should be more and more unfolded, since, as Gregory says (Hom. vi in Ezech.): "With the advance
+                     of time there was an advance in the knowledge of Divine things." Consequently in the old Law there was also a need for
+                     certain fixed sacraments significative of man's faith in the future coming of Christ: which sacraments are compared to those
+                     that preceded the Law, as something determinate to that which is indeterminate: inasmuch as before the Law it was not laid
+                     down precisely of what sacraments men were to make use: whereas this was prescribed by the Law; and this was necessary both
+                     on account of the overclouding of the natural law, and for the clearer signification of faith.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A3-p9">
+                     <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
+                     "he offered bread and wine" (
+                     <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
+                     are more like the thing signified by the sacrament, i.e. the Passion of Christ: as clearly appears in the Paschal Lamb and
+                     such like. The reason of
+                     this was lest, if the sacraments retained the same appearance, it might seem to be the continuation of one and the same sacrament,
+                     where there was no interruption of time.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A3-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A3-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q61_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q61_A4.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q61_A4" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q61_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q62.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q61_A4-p0.1">Whether there was need for any sacraments after Christ came?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A4-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A4-p2">
+                     <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
+                     truth. But "grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (
+                     <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
+                     after Christ's Passion.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A4-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the sacraments consist in certain elements, as stated above (
+                     <a id="TP_Q61_A4-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q60_A4.html">Q[60], A[4]</a>). But the Apostle says (
+                     <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
+                     "come," we are no longer children. Therefore it seems that we should not serve God under the elements of this world, by making
+                     use of corporeal sacraments.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A4-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, according to
+                     <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
+                     give man certain sacraments for his sanctification now during the time of grace, and other sacraments before Christ's coming.
+                     Therefore it seems that other sacraments should not have been instituted after Christ.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A4-p5">
+                     <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
+                     were instituted, fewer in number, but more efficacious, more profitable, and of easier accomplishment."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A4-p6">
+                     <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
+                     birth and Passion. Now the sacraments are signs in protestation of the faith whereby man is justified; and signs should vary
+                     according as they signify the future, the past, or the present; for as Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix), "the same thing
+                     is variously pronounced as to be done and as having been done: for instance the word
+                     'passurus' [going to suffer] differs from 'passus' [having suffered]." Therefore the sacraments of the New Law, that signify
+                     Christ in relation to the past, must needs differ from those of the Old Law, that foreshadowed the future.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A4-p7">
+                     <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
+                     in the New, and the state of glory, in which all truth will be openly and perfectly revealed. Wherefore then there will be
+                     no sacraments. But now, so long as we know "through a glass in a dark manner," (
+                     <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
+                     sacraments.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A4-p8">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The Apostle calls the sacraments of the Old Law "weak and needy elements" (
+                     <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
+                     "under the elements of this world": for the very reason that these sacraments were nothing else than the elements of this
+                     world. But our sacraments both contain and cause grace: consequently the comparison does not hold.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A4-p9">
+                     <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
+                     at various seasons, ordering things differently in winter and summer; so it does not follow that there is any change in God,
+                     because He instituted sacraments of one kind after Christ's coming, and of another kind at the time of the Law. because the
+                     latter were suitable as foreshadowing grace; the former as signifying the presence of
+                     grace,
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A4-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q61_A4-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q61_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q62.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q60_A8.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q61_A1.html"></a>
+            </div>
+            <div id="TP_Q62" class="div3">
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q61_A4.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A1.html"></a>
+               <h3 id="TP_Q62-p0.1">OF THE SACRAMENTS' PRINCIPAL EFFECT, WHICH IS GRACE (SIX ARTICLES)</h3>
+               <p id="TP_Q62-p1"></p>
+               <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
+                  secondary effect, which is a character. Concerning the first there are six points of inquiry:
+               </p>
+               <p id="TP_Q62-p3"> (1) Whether the sacraments of the New Law are the cause of grace?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q62-p4"> (2) Whether sacramental grace confers anything in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q62-p5"> (3) Whether the sacraments contain grace?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q62-p6"> (4) Whether there is any power in them for the causing of grace?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q62-p7"> (5) Whether the sacraments derive this power from Christ's Passion?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q62-p8"> (6) Whether the sacraments of the Old Law caused grace?</p>
+               <div id="TP_Q62_A1" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q62.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A2.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q62_A1-p0.1">Whether the sacraments are the cause of grace?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A1-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A1-p2">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     cause.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A1-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, nothing corporeal can act on a spiritual thing: since "the agent is more excellent than the patient," as Augustine
+                     says (Gen. ad lit. xii). But the subject of grace is the human mind, which is something spiritual. Therefore the sacraments
+                     cannot cause grace.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A1-p4">
+                     <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
+                     <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
+                     that they cannot cause grace.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A1-p5">
+                     <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
+                     not cleansed save through grace. Therefore it causes grace: and for like reason so do the other sacraments of the Church.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A1-p6">
+                     <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
+                     of the New Law man is incorporated with Christ: thus the Apostle says of Baptism (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     soul when the sacraments are employed. And they give as an example a man who on presenting a leaden coin, receives, by the
+                     king's command, a hundred pounds: not as though the leaden coin, by any operation of its own, caused him to be given that
+                     sum of money; this being the effect of the mere will of the king. Hence Bernard says in a sermon on the Lord's
+                     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
+                     the various sacraments various kinds of grace are conferred." But if we examine the question properly, we shall see that according
+                     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
+                     man should receive money. In like manner the book is a sign of the conferring of a canonry. Hence, according to this
+                     opinion the sacraments of the New Law would be mere signs of grace; whereas we have it on the authority of many saints that
+                     the sacraments of the New Law not only signify, but also cause grace.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A1-p8"> We must therefore say otherwise, that an efficient cause is twofold, principal and instrumental. The principal cause works
+                     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
+                     none but God can cause grace: since grace is nothing else than a participated likeness of the Divine Nature, according to
+                     
+                     <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
+                     may be made'] partakers of the Divine Nature." But the instrumental cause works not by the power of its form, but only by
+                     the motion whereby it is moved by the principal agent: so that the effect is not likened to the instrument but to the principal
+                     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
+                     the sacraments of the New Law cause grace: for they are instituted by God to be employed for the purpose of conferring grace.
+                     Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix): "All these things," viz. pertaining to the sacraments, "are done and pass away,
+                     but the power," viz. of God, "which works by them, remains ever." Now that is, properly speaking, an instrument by which someone
+                     works: wherefore it is written (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A1-p9">
+                     <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
+                     sensible and manifest. But an instrumental cause, if manifest, can be called a sign of a hidden effect, for this reason, that
+                     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
+                     the sacraments of the New Law are both cause and signs. Hence, too, is it that, to
+                     use the common expression, "they effect what they signify." From this it is clear that they perfectly fulfil the conditions
+                     of a sacrament; being ordained to something sacred, not only as a sign, but also as a cause.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A1-p10">
+                     <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
+                     of the principal agent: the other is its proper action, which belongs to it in respect of its proper form: thus it belongs
+                     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
+                     it does not accomplish the instrumental action save by exercising its proper action:
+                     for it is by cutting that it makes a couch. In like manner the corporeal sacraments by their operation, which they exercise
+                     on the body that they touch, accomplish through the Divine institution an instrumental operation on the soul; for example,
+                     the water of baptism, in respect of its proper power, cleanses the body, and thereby, inasmuch as it is the instrument of
+                     the Divine power, cleanses the soul: since from soul and body one thing is made. And thus it is that Augustine says (Gen.
+                     ad lit.
+                     xii) that it "touches the body and cleanses the heart."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A1-p11">
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A1-p12"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A1-p13"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q62.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A2.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q62_A2" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A3.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q62_A2-p0.1">Whether sacramental grace confers anything in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A2-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A2-p2">
+                     <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
+                     and gifts perfects the soul sufficiently, both in its essence and in its powers; as is clear from what was said in the 
+                     <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
+                     the grace of the virtues and gifts.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A2-p3">
+                     <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:
+                     because there is no sin that is not contrary to some virtue. Since, therefore, sacramental grace is ordained to the removal
+                     of the soul's defects, it cannot confer anything in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A2-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, every addition or subtraction of form varies the species (Metaph. viii). If, therefore, sacramental grace confers
+                     anything in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts, it follows that it is called grace equivocally: and so we are
+                     none the wiser when it is said that the sacraments cause grace.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A2-p5">
+                     <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
+                     on those who have the virtues and gifts. But there is nothing useless in God's works. Therefore it seems that sacramental
+                     grace confers something in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A2-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As stated in the 
+                     <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
+                     Divine Nature. And just as the soul's powers flow from its essence, so from grace there flow certain perfections into the
+                     powers of the soul, which are called virtues and gifts, whereby the powers are perfected in reference to their actions. Now
+                     the sacraments are ordained
+                     unto certain special effects which are necessary in the Christian life: thus Baptism is ordained unto a certain spiritual
+                     regeneration, by which man dies to vice and becomes a member of Christ: which effect is something special in addition to the
+                     actions of the soul's powers: and the same holds true of the other sacraments. Consequently just as the virtues and gifts
+                     confer, in addition to grace commonly so called, a certain special perfection ordained to the powers' proper actions, so does
+                     sacramental grace confer, over and above grace commonly so called, and in addition to the virtues and gifts, a certain Divine
+                     assistance in obtaining the end of the sacrament. It is thus that sacramental grace confers something in addition to the grace
+                     of the virtues and gifts.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A2-p7">
+                     <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:
+                     but as regards certain special effects which are necessary in a Christian life, sacramental grace is needed.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A2-p8">
+                     <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
+                     from sinning. But in regard to past sins, the acts of which are transitory whereas their guilt remains, man is provided with
+                     a special remedy in the sacraments.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A2-p9">
+                     <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
+                     use the term "animal" in its generic sense, and as applied to a man, so neither is it equivocal to speak of grace commonly
+                     so called and of sacramental grace.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A2-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A2-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A3.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q62_A3" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A4.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q62_A3-p0.1">Whether the sacraments of the New Law contain grace?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A3-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A3-p2">
+                     <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.
+                     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
+                     as in a vessel, for according to Phys. iv, "a vessel is a movable place," and an accident cannot be in a place. Therefore
+                     it seems that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain grace.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A3-p3">
+                     <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
+                     one subject to another. Therefore it would be of no account if grace were in the sacraments.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A3-p4">
+                     <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;
+                     rather does it contain the body. Since, therefore, grace is something spiritual, it seems that it cannot be contained in a
+                     corporeal sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A3-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> Hugh of S. Victor says (De Sacram. i) that "a sacrament, through its being sanctified, contains an invisible grace."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A3-p6">
+                     <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
+                     sign; for a sacrament is a sign of grace. Secondly, as in its cause; for, as stated above 
+                     <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
+                     its specific likeness, as an effect in its univocal cause; nor as to some proper and permanent
+                     form proportioned to such an effect, as effects in non-univocal causes, for instance, as things generated are in the sun;
+                     but as to a certain instrumental power transient and incomplete in its natural being, as will be explained later on 
+                     <a id="TP_Q62_A3-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q62_A4.html">(A[4])</a>.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A3-p7">
+                     <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
+                     instrument of some work to be done, according to
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A3-p8">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     nature.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A3-p9">
+                     <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
+                     has a passing and incomplete mode of being: and consequently it is not unfitting to say that the sacraments contain grace.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A3-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A3-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A4.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q62_A4" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A5.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q62_A4-p0.1">Whether there be in the sacraments a power of causing grace?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A4-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A4-p2">
+                     <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.
+                     But a spiritual power cannot be in a body; neither as proper to it, because power flows from a thing's essence and consequently
+                     cannot transcend it; nor as derived from something else, because that which is received into anything follows the mode of
+                     the recipient. Therefore in the sacraments there is no power of causing grace.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A4-p3">
+                     <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
+                     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;
+                     for neither is it one of the goods of least account, since sacraments are necessary for salvation: nor is it an intermediate
+                     good, such as are the powers of the soul, which are natural powers; nor is it one of
+                     the greater goods, for it is neither grace nor a virtue of the mind. Therefore it seems that in the sacraments there is no
+                     power of causing grace.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A4-p4">
+                     <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
+                     God. But it seems unbecoming that so excellent a being created by God should cease to exist as soon as the sacrament is complete.
+                     Therefore it seems that in the sacraments there is no power for causing grace.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A4-p5">
+                     <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
+                     things: while in one sacrament there can be but one power. Therefore it seems that there is no power of causing grace in the
+                     sacraments.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A4-p6">
+                     <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?"
+                     And Bede says that "Our Lord conferred a power of regeneration on the waters by the contact of His most pure body."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A4-p7">
+                     <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
+                     itself productive of the sacramental effect, and hold that the Divine power assists the sacraments and produces their effect.
+                     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
+                     instrumental power of bringing about the sacramental effects. Now such power is
+                     proportionate to the instrument: and consequently it stands in comparison to the complete and perfect power of anything, as
+                     the instrument to the principal agent. For an instrument, as stated above 
+                     <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
+                     exists in nature completely and perfectly: whereas the instrumental power has a being that passes from one thing into another,
+                     and is incomplete;
+                     just as motion is an imperfect act passing from agent to patient.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A4-p8">
+                     <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.
+                     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
+                     particular spiritual substance so as to produce a particular spiritual effect; thus in the very voice which is perceived by
+                     the senses there is a certain spiritual power, inasmuch as it proceeds from a
+                     mental concept, of arousing the mind of the hearer. It is in this way that a spiritual power is in the sacraments, inasmuch
+                     as they are ordained by God unto the production of a spiritual effect.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A4-p9">
+                     <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
+                     instance, alteration to the genus of quality: so, instrumental power, properly speaking, is not in any genus, but is reducible
+                     to a genus and species of perfect act.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A4-p10">
+                     <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
+                     receive spiritual power from Christ's blessing and from the action of the minister in applying it to a sacramental use. Hence
+                     Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (St. Maximus of Turin, Serm. xii): "Nor should you marvel, if we say that water,
+                     a corporeal substance, achieves the cleansing of the soul. It does indeed, and
+                     penetrates every secret hiding-place of the conscience. For subtle and clear as it is, the blessing of Christ makes it yet
+                     more subtle, so that it permeates into the very principles of life and searches the inner-most recesses of the heart."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A4-p11">
+                     <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
+                     of an effect, forasmuch as they are one as being so ordained: so also the one same sacramental power is in both words and
+                     things, forasmuch as words and things combine to form one sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A4-p12"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A4-p13"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A5.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q62_A5" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A6.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q62_A5-p0.1">Whether the sacraments of the New Law derive their power from Christ's Passion?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A5-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A5-p2">
+                     <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
+                     is in the causing of grace which is the principle of spiritual life in the soul. But as Augustine says (Tract. xix in Joan.):
+                     "The Word, as He was in the beginning with God, quickens souls; as He was made flesh, quickens bodies." Since, therefore,
+                     Christ's Passion pertains to the Word as made flesh, it seems that it cannot cause the
+                     power of the sacraments.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A5-p3">
+                     <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
+                     perfects the sacrament "not because it is spoken, but because it is believed." But our faith regards not only Christ's Passion,
+                     but also the other mysteries of His humanity, and in a yet higher measure, His Godhead. Therefore it seems that the power
+                     of the sacraments is not due specially to Christ's Passion.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A5-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the sacraments are ordained unto man's justification, according to 
+                     <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
+                     <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
+                     rather than from His Passion.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A5-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> on
+                     <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
+                     flowed the sacraments which brought salvation to the Church." Consequently, it seems that the sacraments derive their power
+                     from Christ's Passion.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A5-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above 
+                     <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
+                     a stick, for instance; the other, united, as a hand. Moreover, the separate instrument is moved by means of the united instrument,
+                     as a stick by the hand. Now the principal efficient cause of grace is God Himself, in comparison with Whom Christ's humanity
+                     is as a united instrument, whereas
+                     the sacrament is as a separate instrument. Consequently, the saving power must needs be derived by the sacraments from Christ's
+                     Godhead through His humanity.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     sins, in so far as they are transitory in act, but endure in guilt; and, further, to perfect the soul in things pertaining
+                     to Divine Worship in regard to the Christian Religion. But it is manifest from what has been stated above (
+                     <a id="TP_Q62_A5-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q48_A1.html">Q[48], AA[1]</a>,2,6;
+                     <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
+                     principally through His Passion, not only by way of efficiency and merit, but also by way of satisfaction. Likewise by His
+                     Passion He inaugurated the Rites of the Christian Religion by offering "Himself---an oblation and a sacrifice to God" (
+                     <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
+                     of which is in a manner united to us by our receiving the sacraments. It was in sign of this that from
+                     the side of Christ hanging on the Cross there flowed water and blood, the former of which belongs to Baptism, the latter to
+                     the Eucharist, which are the principal sacraments.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A5-p8">
+                     <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
+                     accomplished therein, are as instrumental causes in the process of giving life to the soul: while in giving life to the body
+                     they act not only as instrumental causes, but also to a certain extent as exemplars, as we stated above (
+                     <a id="TP_Q62_A5-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q56_A1.html">Q[56], A[1]</a>, ad 3).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A5-p9">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Christ dwells in us "by faith" (
+                     <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
+                     Passion. And therefore men are delivered from sin especially by faith in His Passion, according to 
+                     <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
+                     ordained unto the remission of sins is
+                     derived principally from faith in Christ's Passion.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A5-p10">
+                     <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
+                     it is ascribed to the Passion by reason of the term "whence," i.e. in regard to the forgiveness of sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A5-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A5-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A6.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q62_A6" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q63.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q62_A6-p0.1">Whether the sacraments of the Old Law caused grace?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A6-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A6-p2">
+                     <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
+                     derive their efficacy from faith in Christ's Passion. But there was faith in Christ's Passion under the Old Law, as well as
+                     under the New, since we have "the same spirit of faith" (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A6-p3">
+                     <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
+                     (
+                     <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
+                     that the sacraments of the Old Law conferred grace.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A6-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Bede says in a homily on the Circumcision: "Under the Law circumcision provided the same health-giving balm against
+                     the wound of original sin, as baptism in the time of revealed grace." But Baptism confers grace now. Therefore circumcision
+                     conferred grace; and in like manner, the other sacraments of the Law; for just as Baptism is the door of the sacraments of
+                     the New Law, so was circumcision the door of the sacraments of the Old Law: hence the
+                     Apostle says (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A6-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
+                     <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
+                     not justify perfectly." But grace justifies perfectly. Therefore the sacraments of the old Law did not confer grace.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A6-p6">
+                     <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:
+                     since thus Christ's Passion would not have been necessary, according to 
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     stated above (A[5] ), the power of Christ's Passion is united to us by faith and the sacraments, but in different ways; because
+                     the link that comes from faith is produced by an act of the soul; whereas the link that comes from the sacraments, is produced
+                     by making use of exterior things. Now nothing hinders that which is subsequent in point of time, from
+                     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
+                     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
+                     does not yet actually exist, does not cause movement if we consider the use of exterior things. Consequently, the efficient
+                     cause cannot in point of time come into existence after causing movement, as does the final cause. It is therefore clear that
+                     the
+                     sacraments of the New Law do reasonably derive the power of justification from Christ's Passion, which is the cause of man's
+                     righteousness; whereas the sacraments of the Old Law did not.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     Law were a kind of protestation of that faith, inasmuch as they signified Christ's Passion and its effects. It is therefore
+                     manifest that the sacraments of the Old Law were not endowed with any power by which they conduced to the bestowal of justifying
+                     grace: and they merely signified faith by which men were justified.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A6-p9">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     things as stated above.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A6-p10">
+                     <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
+                     worship according to the rite of the Old Law, which was wholly ordained to the foreshadowing of Christ's Passion.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A6-p11">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> There have been many opinions about Circumcision. For, according to some, Circumcision conferred no grace, but only remitted
+                     sin. But this is impossible; because man is not justified from sin save by grace, according to
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     effects. But this also appears to be false, because by Circumcision, children received the faculty of obtaining glory, which
+                     is the ultimate positive effect of grace. Moreover, as regards the order of the formal cause, positive effects are naturally
+                     prior to privative effects, though according to the order of the material cause, the reverse is the case:
+                     for a form does not exclude privation save by informing the subject.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     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
+                     if the matter be considered carefully, this too appears to be untrue; because the very least grace is sufficient to resist
+                     any degree of concupiscence, and to merit eternal life.
+                  </p>
+                  <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 (
+                     <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
+                     in so far as it was a sign of Christ's future Passion, as will be made clear further on (
+                     <a id="TP_Q62_A6-p14.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q70_A4.html">Q[70], A[4]</a>).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A6-p15"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q62_A6-p16"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q63.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q61_A4.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A1.html"></a>
+            </div>
+            <div id="TP_Q63" class="div3">
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A6.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A1.html"></a>
+               <h3 id="TP_Q63-p0.1">OF THE OTHER EFFECT OF THE SACRAMENTS, WHICH IS A CHARACTER (SIX ARTICLES)</h3>
+               <p id="TP_Q63-p1"></p>
+               <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
+                  of inquiry:
+               </p>
+               <p id="TP_Q63-p3"> (1) Whether by the sacraments a character is produced in the soul?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q63-p4"> (2) What is this character?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q63-p5"> (3) Of whom is this character?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q63-p6"> (4) What is its subject?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q63-p7"> (5) Is it indelible?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q63-p8"> (6) Whether every sacrament imprints a character?</p>
+               <div id="TP_Q63_A1" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q63.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A2.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q63_A1-p0.1">Whether a sacrament imprints a character on the soul?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A1-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A1-p2">
+                     <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
+                     distinctive sign. But Christ's members are distinguished from others by eternal predestination, which does not imply anything
+                     in the predestined, but only in God predestinating, as we have stated in the 
+                     <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 (
+                     <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,
+                     having this seal: The Lord knoweth who are His." Therefore the sacraments do not imprint a character on the soul.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A1-p3">
+                     <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
+                     else to the mind, besides the species which it impresses on the senses." But nothing in the soul can impress a species on
+                     the senses. Therefore it seems that no character is imprinted on the soul by the sacraments.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A1-p4">
+                     <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
+                     Old Law. But the sacraments of the Old Law did not imprint a character; whence they are called "justices of the flesh" (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A1-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
+                     <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
+                     a character means nothing else than a kind of sealing. Therefore it seems that by the sacraments God imprints His character
+                     on us.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A1-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As is clear from what has been already stated (
+                     <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
+                     of the soul in things pertaining to the Divine worship according to the rite of the Christian life. Now whenever anyone is
+                     deputed to some definite purpose he is wont to receive some outward sign thereof; thus in olden times soldiers who enlisted
+                     in the
+                     ranks used to be marked with certain characters on the body, through being deputed to a bodily service. Since, therefore,
+                     by the sacraments men are deputed to a spiritual service pertaining to the worship of God, it follows that by their means
+                     the faithful receive a certain spiritual character. Wherefore Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii): "If a deserter from the
+                     battle, through dread of the mark of enlistment on his body, throws himself on the emperor's clemency, and having besought
+                     and
+                     received mercy, return to the fight; is that character renewed, when the man has been set free and reprimanded? is it not
+                     rather acknowledged and approved? Are the Christian sacraments, by any chance, of a nature less lasting than this bodily mark?"
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A1-p7">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     character.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A1-p8">
+                     <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
+                     that a certain one has received the baptismal character, through his being cleansed by the sensible water. Nevertheless from
+                     a kind of likeness, anything that assimilates one thing to another, or discriminates one thing from another, even though it
+                     be not sensible, can be called a character or a seal; thus the Apostle calls Christ
+                     "the figure" or {charakter} "of the substance of the Father" (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q63_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.1.3" target="asv">Heb. 1:3</a>).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A1-p9">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As stated above (
+                     <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
+                     those sacraments there was no need of a spiritual character, and bodily circumcision sufficed, which the Apostle calls "a
+                     seal" (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q63_A1-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.4.11" target="asv">Rom. 4:11</a>).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A1-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A1-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q63.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A2.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q63_A2" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A3.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q63_A2-p0.1">Whether a character is a spiritual power?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A2-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A2-p2">
+                     <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 (
+                     <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
+                     of quality, and thus differs from power which is in the second species. Therefore character is not a spiritual power.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A2-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. ii): "The Divine Beatitude admits him that seeks happiness to a share in Itself, and
+                     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
+                     of light. Now light belongs rather to the third species of quality. Therefore a character is not a power, since this seems
+                     to belong to the second species.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A2-p4">
+                     <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
+                     conferred by a hierarch." Now a sign is in the genus of "relation," not of "power." Therefore a character is not a spiritual
+                     power.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A2-p5">
+                     <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
+                     of a character is rather in the nature of an effect. Therefore a character is not a spiritual power.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A2-p6">
+                     <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
+                     a passion: since a passion passes quickly, whereas a character is indelible, as will be made clear further on 
+                     <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
+                     to either, since some use it well, some ill. Now this cannot occur with
+                     a habit: because no one abuses a habit of virtue, or uses well an evil habit. It remains, therefore, that a character is a
+                     power.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A2-p7">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above 
+                     <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
+                     the rite of the Christian religion. Wherefore Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. ii), after saying that God "by a kind of sign grants
+                     a share of Himself to those that approach Him," adds "by making them Godlike and communicators of Divine gifts." Now the worship
+                     of God consists either in receiving
+                     Divine gifts, or in bestowing them on others. And for both these purposes some power is needed; for to bestow something on
+                     others, active power is necessary; and in order to receive, we need a passive power. Consequently, a character signifies a
+                     certain spiritual power ordained unto things pertaining to the Divine worship.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A2-p8"> But it must be observed that this spiritual power is instrumental: as we have stated above (
+                     <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
+                     is a kind of instrument, as the Philosopher says (Polit. i). Consequently, just as the virtue which is in the sacraments is
+                     not of itself in a genus, but is reducible to a genus, for the reason that it is of a transitory and
+                     incomplete nature: so also a character is not properly in a genus or species, but is reducible to the second species of quality.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A2-p9">
+                     <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
+                     things is said metaphorically. Now that which decides the genus or species of a thing must needs be predicated of it properly.
+                     Consequently, a character cannot be in the fourth species of quality, although some have held this to be the case.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A2-p10">
+                     <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.
+                     Consequently, it is not in the third species of quality as some have maintained.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A2-p11">
+                     <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
+                     is a character, cannot be founded immediately on the essence of the soul: because then it would belong to every soul naturally.
+                     Consequently, there must be something in the soul on which such a relation is founded. And it is in this that a character
+                     essentially consists. Therefore it need not be in the genus "relation" as some have
+                     held.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A2-p12">
+                     <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
+                     itself, it is in the nature of a principle, in the way already explained.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A2-p13"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A2-p14"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A3.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q63_A3" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A4.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q63_A3-p0.1">Whether the sacramental character is the character of Christ?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A3-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A3-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the sacramental character is not the character of Christ. For it is written (
+                     <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.
+                     Therefore the sacramental character should be attributed to the Holy Ghost rather than to Christ.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A3-p3">
+                     <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
+                     is poured forth into the soul by the whole Trinity; wherefore it is written (
+                     <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
+                     to Christ.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A3-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a man is marked with a character that he may be distinguishable from others. But the saints are distinguishable
+                     from others by charity, which, as Augustine says (De Trin. xv), "alone separates the children of the Kingdom from the children
+                     of perdition": wherefore also the children of perdition are said to have "the character of the beast" (
+                     <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
+                     according to
+                     <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
+                     to 
+                     <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
+                     be attributed to Christ.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A3-p5">
+                     <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,
+                     whereby the created trinity is sealed with the likeness of the creating and re-creating Trinity, and distinguishing him from
+                     those who are not so enlikened, according to the state of faith." But the eternal Character is Christ Himself, according to
+                     <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
+                     character, "of His substance." It seems, therefore, that the character should properly be attributed to Christ.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A3-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As has been made clear above 
+                     <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
+                     is marked for use in exchange of goods, and soldiers are marked with a character as being deputed to military service. Now
+                     the faithful are deputed to a twofold end. First and principally to the enjoyment of glory. And for this purpose they are
+                     marked with the seal of grace
+                     according to
+                     <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
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     this, properly speaking, is the purpose of the sacramental character. Now the whole rite of the Christian religion is derived
+                     from Christ's priesthood. Consequently, it is clear that the sacramental character is specially the character of Christ, to
+                     Whose character the faithful are likened by reason of the sacramental characters, which are nothing else than
+                     certain participations of Christ's Priesthood, flowing from Christ Himself.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A3-p8">
+                     <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
+                     grace is attributed to the Holy Ghost, inasmuch as it is through love that God gives us something gratis, which is the very
+                     nature of grace: while the Holy Ghost is love. Wherefore it is written (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A3-p9">
+                     <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.
+                     Consequently, something can be attributed to a character in two ways. First, if the character be considered as a sacrament:
+                     and thus it is a sign of the invisible grace which is conferred in the sacrament. Secondly, if it be considered as a character.
+                     And thus it is a sign conferring on a man a likeness to some principal person in
+                     whom is vested the authority over that to which he is assigned: thus soldiers who are assigned to military service, are marked
+                     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
+                     worship, of which Christ is the author, receive a character by which they are likened to Christ. Consequently, properly speaking,
+                     this is Christ's character.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A3-p10">
+                     <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
+                     ordained: as has been stated concerning the military character 
+                     <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
+                     of the faithful is that by which the faithful of Christ are distinguished from the servants of the devil,
+                     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
+                     of charity and grace, as the objection runs; while the latter results from the sacramental character. Wherefore the "character
+                     of the beast" may be understood by opposition, to mean either the obstinate malice for which some are assigned to eternal
+                     punishment, or the profession of an unlawful form of worship.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A3-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A3-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A4.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q63_A4" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A5.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q63_A4-p0.1">Whether the character be subjected in the powers of the soul?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A4-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A4-p2">
+                     <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.
+                     But grace is subjected in the essence of the soul as we have stated in the 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A4-p3">
+                     <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
+                     stated above 
+                     <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.
+                     Therefore it seems that the character is not subjected in a power of the soul, but rather in its essence.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A4-p4">
+                     <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
+                     is only in a cognitive power, nor, again, only in an appetitive power: since it is neither ordained to knowledge only, nor
+                     to desire only. Likewise, neither can it be said to be in both, because the same accident cannot be in several subjects. Therefore
+                     it seems that a character is not subjected in a power of the soul, but rather in
+                     the essence.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A4-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> A character, according to its definition given above 
+                     <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.
+                     Therefore a character is in the powers of the soul.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A4-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above 
+                     <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
+                     to Divine worship. Now the Divine worship consists in certain actions: and the powers of the soul are properly ordained to
+                     actions, just as the essence is ordained to existence. Therefore a character is subjected not in the essence of the soul,
+                     but in its power.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A4-p7">
+                     <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
+                     of that to which it disposes it remotely or indirectly. Now a character disposes the soul directly and proximately to the
+                     fulfilling of things pertaining to Divine worship: and because such cannot be accomplished suitably without the help of grace,
+                     since, according to
+                     <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
+                     adore Him in spirit and in truth," consequently, the Divine bounty bestows grace on those who receive the character, so that
+                     they may accomplish worthily the service to which they are deputed. Therefore the subject should be ascribed to a character
+                     in respect of those actions that pertain to the Divine worship, rather than in respect of grace.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A4-p8">
+                     <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
+                     kind. but a spiritual power coming from without. Wherefore, just as the essence of the soul, from which man has his natural
+                     life, is perfected by grace from which the soul derives spiritual life; so the natural power of the soul is perfected by a
+                     spiritual power, which is a character. For habit and disposition belong to a power of
+                     the soul, since they are ordained to actions of which the powers are the principles. And in like manner whatever is ordained
+                     to action, should be attributed to a power.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A4-p9">
+                     <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
+                     by exterior signs. Consequently, a character needs to be in the soul's cognitive power, where also is faith.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A4-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A4-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A5.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q63_A5" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A6.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q63_A5-p0.1">Whether a character can be blotted out from the soul?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A5-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A5-p2">
+                     <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
+                     it adhere to its subject. But grace is more perfect than a character; because a character is ordained unto grace as to a further
+                     end. Now grace is lost through sin. Much more, therefore, is a character so lost.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A5-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, by a character a man is deputed to the Divine worship, as stated above (
+                     <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
+                     lose the sacramental character.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A5-p4">
+                     <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,
+                     because begetting will cease, which is the purpose of marriage. Now the exterior worship to which a character is ordained,
+                     will not endure in heaven, where there will be no shadows, but all will be truth without a veil. Therefore the sacramental
+                     character does not last in the soul for ever: and consequently it can be blotted out.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A5-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii): "The Christian sacraments are not less lasting than the bodily mark" of military service.
+                     But the character of military service is not repeated, but is "recognized and approved" in the man who obtains the emperor's
+                     forgiveness after offending him. Therefore neither can the sacramental character be blotted out.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A5-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above 
+                     <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
+                     of a spiritual priesthood, so His faithful are likened to Him by sharing a certain spiritual power with regard to the sacraments
+                     and to things pertaining to the Divine worship. For this reason it is unbecoming that Christ should have a character: but
+                     His Priesthood is compared to a
+                     character, as that which is complete and perfect is compared to some participation of itself. Now Christ's Priesthood is eternal,
+                     according to
+                     <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
+                     Priesthood, is perpetual, enduring as long as the thing sanctified endures. This is clear even in inanimate things; for the
+                     consecration of a church or an altar lasts for ever unless they be destroyed.
+                     Since, therefore, the subject of a character is the soul as to its intellective part, where faith resides, as stated above
+                     (A[4], ad 3); it is clear that, the intellect being perpetual and incorruptible, a character cannot be blotted out from the
+                     soul.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A5-p7">
+                     <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
+                     therein: whereas a character is in the soul, as an instrumental power, as stated above 
+                     <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
+                     is changeable in respect of the free-will, it results that grace is in the soul
+                     in a changeable manner. But an instrumental power follows rather the condition of the principal agent: and consequently a
+                     character exists in the soul in an indelible manner, not from any perfection of its own, but from the perfection of Christ's
+                     Priesthood, from which the character flows like an instrumental power.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A5-p8">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     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
+                     to move itself; this belongs to the will. Consequently, however much the will be
+                     moved in the contrary direction, the character is not removed, by reason of the immobility of the principal mover.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A5-p9">
+                     <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
+                     remains, both in the good as adding to their glory, and in the wicked as increasing their shame: just as the character of
+                     the military service remains in the soldiers after the victory, as the boast of the conquerors, and the disgrace of the conquered.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A5-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A5-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A6.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q63_A6" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q64.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q63_A6-p0.1">Whether a character is imprinted by each sacrament of the New Law?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A6-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A6-p2">
+                     <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
+                     man a participator in Christ's Priesthood. But the sacramental character is nothing but a participation in Christ's Priesthood,
+                     as already stated (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A6-p3">
+                     <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
+                     sacrament of the New Law man becomes the recipient of sanctifying grace, as stated above (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A6-p4">
+                     <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
+                     only a reality, and something which is only a sacrament, and something which is both reality and sacrament. Therefore a character
+                     is imprinted by each sacrament of the New Law.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A6-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> Those sacraments in which a character is imprinted, are not reiterated, because a character is indelible, as stated above
+                     
+                     <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
+                     character.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A6-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
+                     <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.
+                     Now all the sacraments, from the fact that they confer grace, have this in common, that they afford a remedy against sin:
+                     whereas not all the sacraments are directly ordained to the Divine worship. Thus it is clear that penance, whereby man is
+                     delivered from sin, does not afford
+                     man any advance in the Divine worship, but restores him to his former state.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     the agent; thirdly, in regard to the recipient. In regard to the thing done, the Eucharist belongs to the Divine worship,
+                     for the Divine worship consists principally therein, so far as it is the sacrifice of the Church. And by this same sacrament
+                     a character is not imprinted on man; because it does not ordain man to any further sacramental action or benefit
+                     received, since rather is it "the end and consummation of all the sacraments," as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii). But it
+                     contains within itself Christ, in Whom there is not the character, but the very plenitude of the Priesthood.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     to confer sacraments on others: while the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the recipients, since it confers on man the power
+                     to receive the other sacraments of the Church; whence it is called the "door of the sacraments." In a way Confirmation also
+                     is ordained for the same purpose, as we shall explain in its proper place (
+                     <a id="TP_Q63_A6-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q65_A3.html">Q[65],
+                        A[3]
+                     </a>). Consequently, these three sacraments imprint a character, namely, Baptism, Confirmation, and order.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A6-p9">
+                     <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
+                     thereof. But every sacrament does not depute a man to do or receive something pertaining to the worship of the priesthood
+                     of Christ: while it is just this that is required for a sacrament to imprint a character.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A6-p10">
+                     <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
+                     a special way some sacraments, which imprint a character, bestow on man a certain consecration, thus deputing him to the Divine
+                     worship: just as inanimate things are said to be consecrated forasmuch as they are deputed to Divine worship.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A6-p11">
+                     <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
+                     a character. With regard to the other sacraments we shall explain further on what is the reality and what is the sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A6-p12"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q63_A6-p13"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q64.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q62_A6.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A1.html"></a>
+            </div>
+            <div id="TP_Q64" class="div3">
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A6.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A1.html"></a>
+               <h3 id="TP_Q64-p0.1">OF THE CAUSES OF THE SACRAMENTS (TEN ARTICLES)</h3>
+               <p id="TP_Q64-p1"></p>
+               <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
+                  which there are ten points of inquiry:
+               </p>
+               <p id="TP_Q64-p3"> (1) Whether God alone works inwardly in the sacraments?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q64-p4"> (2) Whether the institution of the sacraments is from God alone?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q64-p5"> (3) Of the power which Christ exercised over the sacraments;</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q64-p6"> (4) Whether He could transmit that power to others?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q64-p7"> (5) Whether the wicked can have the power of administering the sacraments?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q64-p8"> (6) Whether the wicked sin in administering the sacraments?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q64-p9"> (7) Whether the angels can be ministers of the sacraments?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q64-p10"> (8) Whether the minister's intention is necessary in the sacraments?</p>
+               <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>
+               <p id="TP_Q64-p12"> (10) Whether a right intention is required therein?</p>
+               <div id="TP_Q64_A1" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q64.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A2.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q64_A1-p0.1">Whether God alone, or the minister also, works inwardly unto the sacramental effect?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A1-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A1-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that not God alone, but also the minister, works inwardly unto the sacramental effect. For the inward sacramental
+                     effect is to cleanse man from sin and enlighten him by grace. But it belongs to the ministers of the Church "to cleanse, enlighten
+                     and perfect," as Dionysius explains (Coel. Hier. v). Therefore it seems that the sacramental effect is the work not only of
+                     God, but also of the ministers of the Church.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A1-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, certain prayers are offered up in conferring the sacraments. But the prayers of the righteous are more acceptable
+                     to God than those of any other, according to
+                     <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
+                     effect if he receive it from a good minister. Consequently, the interior effect is partly the work of the minister and not
+                     of God
+                     alone.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A1-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, man is of greater account than an inanimate thing. But an inanimate thing contributes something to the interior
+                     effect: since "water touches the body and cleanses the soul," as Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan.). Therefore the interior
+                     sacramental effect is partly the work of man and not of God alone.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A1-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
+                     <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
+                     the interior sacramental effect.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A1-p6">
+                     <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
+                     interior sacramental effect is the work of God alone: first, because God alone can enter the soul wherein the sacramental
+                     effect takes place; and no agent can operate immediately where it is not: secondly, because grace which is an interior sacramental
+                     effect is from God alone, as we have established in the 
+                     <a id="TP_Q64_A1-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q112_A1.html">FS,
+                        Q[112], A[1]
+                     </a>; while the character which is the interior effect of certain sacraments, is an instrumental power which flows from the principal
+                     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
+                     as a minister. For a minister is of the nature of an instrument, since the action of both is applied to something extrinsic,
+                     while the interior effect is produced through the power of the principal agent, which is God.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A1-p7">
+                     <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,"
+                     inasmuch as they remove the unclean from the body of the faithful, or prepare them by their pious admonitions for the reception
+                     of the sacraments. In like manner also priests are said to "enlighten" God's people, not indeed by giving them grace, but
+                     by conferring on them the sacraments of grace; as Dionysius explains (Coel.
+                     Hier. v).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A1-p8">
+                     <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
+                     of the whole Church, whose prayers are acceptable to God, according to 
+                     <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."
+                     Nor is there any reason why the devotion of a just man should not contribute to this effect. But that which is the
+                     sacramental effect is not impetrated by the prayer of the Church or of the minister, but through the merit of Christ's Passion,
+                     the power of which operates in the sacraments, as stated above (
+                     <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
+                     for the receiver of the sacrament through the devotion of the minister: but this is not the work of the minister, but the
+                     work of God Who hears the
+                     minister's prayer.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A1-p9">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Inanimate things do not produce the sacramental effect, except instrumentally, as stated above. In like manner neither do
+                     men produce the sacramental effect, except ministerially, as also stated above.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A1-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A1-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q64.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A2.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q64_A2" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A3.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q64_A2-p0.1">Whether the sacraments are instituted by God alone?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A2-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A2-p2">
+                     <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
+                     us in Holy Scripture. But in the sacraments certain things are done which are nowhere mentioned in Holy Scripture; for instance,
+                     the chrism with which men are confirmed, the oil with which priests are anointed, and many others, both words and actions,
+                     which we employ in the sacraments. Therefore the sacraments were not instituted by God
+                     alone.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A2-p3">
+                     <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
+                     God takes pleasure in certain significations and not in others; because He approves of all that He made. Moreover, it seems
+                     to be peculiar to the demons to be enticed to something by means of signs; for Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxi): "The demons
+                     are enticed . . . by means of creatures, which were created not by them but by God, by
+                     various means of attraction according to their various natures, not as an animal is enticed by food, but as a spirit is drawn
+                     by a sign." It seems, therefore, that there is no need for the sacraments to be instituted by God.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A2-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the apostles were God's vicegerents on earth: hence the Apostle says (
+                     <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
+                     though Christ Himself had pardoned. Therefore it seems that the apostles and their successors can institute new sacraments.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A2-p5">
+                     <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
+                     of a sacrament is from God alone, as we have shown above 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A2-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As appears from what has been said above 
+                     <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
+                     agent. But an agent in respect of a sacrament is twofold; viz. he who institutes the sacraments, and he who makes use of the
+                     sacrament instituted, by applying it for the production of the effect. Now the power of a sacrament cannot be from him who
+                     makes use of
+                     the sacrament: because he works but as a minister. Consequently, it follows that the power of the sacrament is from the institutor
+                     of the sacrament. Since, therefore, the power of the sacrament is from God alone, it follows that God alone can institute
+                     the sacraments.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A2-p7">
+                     <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
+                     to the sacraments in order to arouse devotion and reverence in the recipients. But those things that are essential to the
+                     sacrament, are instituted by Christ Himself, Who is God and man. And though they are not all handed down by the Scriptures,
+                     yet the Church holds them from the intimate tradition of the apostles, according to
+                     the saying of the Apostle (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A2-p8">
+                     <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
+                     is fixed by the Divine institution to some special signification. This is what Hugh of St. Victor means by saying (De Sacram.
+                     i) that "a sacrament owes its signification to its institution." Yet God chooses certain things rather than others for sacramental
+                     signification, not as though His choice were restricted to them, but in
+                     order that their signification be more suitable to them.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A2-p9">
+                     <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
+                     faith. Wherefore, just as they may not institute another Church, so neither may they deliver another faith, nor institute
+                     other sacraments: on the contrary, the Church is said to be built up with the sacraments "which flowed from the side of Christ
+                     while hanging on the Cross."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A2-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A2-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A3.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q64_A3" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A4.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q64_A3-p0.1">Whether Christ as man had the power of producing the inward sacramental effect?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A3-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A3-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that Christ as man had the power of producing the interior sacramental effect. For John the Baptist said (
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     Holy Ghost. And the Holy Ghost descended upon Christ as man, not as God:
+                     for thus He Himself gives the Holy Ghost. Therefore it seems that Christ, as man, had the power of producing the inward sacramental
+                     effect.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A3-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, our Lord said (
+                     <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
+                     effect. Therefore it seems that Christ as man produces the inward sacramental effect.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A3-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the institution of the sacraments belongs to him who acts as principal agent in producing the inward sacramental
+                     effect. Now it is clear that Christ instituted the sacraments. Therefore it is He that produces the inward sacramental effect.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A3-p5">
+                     <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, no one can confer the sacramental effect without conferring the sacrament, except he produce the sacramental effect
+                     by his own power. But Christ conferred the sacramental effect without conferring the sacrament; as in the case of Magdalen
+                     to whom He said: "Thy sins are forgiven Thee" (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A3-p6">
+                     <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
+                     derive their power from Christ's Passion and through the invocation of His Name; according to 
+                     <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
+                     sacramental effect.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A3-p7">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine (Isidore, Etym. vi) says: "The Divine power in the sacraments works inwardly in producing their salutary effect."
+                     Now the Divine power is Christ's as God, not as man. Therefore Christ produces the inward sacramental effect, not as man but
+                     as God.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A3-p8">
+                     <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
+                     the sacraments by authority: but, as man, His operation conduces to the inward sacramental effects meritoriously and efficiently,
+                     but instrumentally. For it has been stated (
+                     <a id="TP_Q64_A3-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q48_A1.html">Q[48], AA[1]</a>,6;
+                     <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
+                     of justification, both meritoriously and efficiently, not as the principal cause thereof, or by His own authority, but as
+                     an instrument, in so far as His humanity is the instrument of His Godhead, as stated above (
+                     <a id="TP_Q64_A3-p8.3" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q13_A2.html">Q[13], AA[2]</a>,3;
+                     <a id="TP_Q64_A3-p8.4" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q19_A1.html"> Q[19], A[1]</a>).
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     in regard to extrinsic instruments, which are the ministers of the Church and the sacraments themselves, as has been explained
+                     above 
+                     <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
+                     in chief, or power of "excellence." And this consists in four things.
+                     First in this, that the merit and power of His Passion operates in the sacraments, as stated above (Q[62], A[5]). And because
+                     the power of the Passion is communicated to us by faith, according to
+                     <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
+                     of Christ: therefore, secondly, Christ's power of excellence over the sacraments consists in this, that they are sanctified
+                     by the invocation of His
+                     name. And because the sacraments derive their power from their institution, hence, thirdly, the excellence of Christ's power
+                     consists in this, that He, Who gave them their power, could institute the sacraments. And since cause does not depend on effect,
+                     but rather conversely, it belongs to the excellence of Christ's power, that He could bestow the sacramental effect without
+                     conferring the exterior sacrament. Thus it is clear how to solve the objections; for the arguments on either side are true
+                     to a certain extent, as explained above.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A3-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A3-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A4.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q64_A4" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A5.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q64_A4-p0.1">Whether Christ could communicate to ministers the power which He had in the sacraments?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A4-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A4-p2">
+                     <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
+                     against Maximin, "if He could, but would not, He was jealous of His power." But jealousy was far from Christ Who had the fulness
+                     of charity. Since, therefore, Christ did not communicate His power to ministers, it seems that He could not.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A4-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, on
+                     <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
+                     man from being ungodly to be made righteous, "than to create heaven and earth." But Christ could not communicate to His disciples
+                     the power of creating heaven and earth: neither, therefore, could He give them the power of making the ungodly to be righteous.
+                     Since, therefore, the justification of
+                     the ungodly is effected by the power that Christ has in the sacraments, it seems that He could not communicate that power
+                     to ministers.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A4-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it belongs to Christ as Head of the Church that grace should flow from Him to others, according to
+                     <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,
+                     having many heads. Therefore it seems that Christ could not communicate His power to ministers.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A4-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> on
+                     <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 . . .
+                     would keep it to Himself." But John would not have been in ignorance of this, if such a power were incommunicable. Therefore
+                     Christ could communicate His power to ministers.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A4-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above 
+                     <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
+                     He could not communicate to any creature; just as neither could He communicate the Divine Essence. The other was the power
+                     of "excellence," which belongs to Him as man. This power He could communicate to ministers; namely, by giving them such a
+                     fulness of grace---that their merits would
+                     conduce to the sacramental effect---that by the invocation of their names, the sacraments would be sanctified---and that they
+                     themselves might institute sacraments, and by their mere will confer the sacramental effect without observing the sacramental
+                     rite. For a united instrument, the more powerful it is, is all the more able to lend its power to the separated instrument;
+                     as the hand can to a stick.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A4-p7">
+                     <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
+                     of the faithful; lest they should put their trust in men, and lest there should be various kinds of sacraments, giving rise
+                     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" (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q64_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.1.12" target="asv">1 Cor. 1:12</a>).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A4-p8">
+                     <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
+                     can be called authority in comparison to other ministers. Whence on 
+                     <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
+                     of administering it."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A4-p9">
+                     <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
+                     His power of excellence. If, however, He had done so, He would have been Head in chief; the others in subjection to Him.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A4-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A4-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A5.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q64_A5" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A6.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q64_A5-p0.1">Whether the sacraments can be conferred by evil ministers?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A5-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A5-p2">
+                     <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
+                     purpose of cleansing from sin and for the bestowal of grace. Now evil men, being themselves unclean, cannot cleanse others
+                     from sin, according to 
+                     <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
+                     grace, for "no one gives what he has not." It seems,
+                     therefore, that the sacraments cannot be conferred by wicked men.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A5-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, all the power of the sacraments is derived from Christ, as stated above 
+                     <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
+                     Head, according to 
+                     <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
+                     by evil men.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A5-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if anything is wanting that is required for the sacraments, the sacrament is invalid; for instance, if the required
+                     matter or form be wanting. But the minister required for a sacrament is one who is without the stain of sin, according to
+                     <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
+                     approach to minister to Him." Therefore it seems that if the
+                     minister be wicked, the sacrament has no effect.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A5-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says on
+                     <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
+                     of baptizing, would keep it to Himself, but that the ministry would certainly pass to both good and evil men . . . What is
+                     a bad minister to thee, where the Lord is good?"
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A5-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above 
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     one who moves it. Consequently, whatever form or power an instrument has in addition to that which it has as an instrument,
+                     is accidental to it: for instance, that a
+                     physician's body, which is the instrument of his soul, wherein is his medical art, be healthy or sickly; or that a pipe, through
+                     which water passes, be of silver or lead. Therefore the ministers of the Church can confer the sacraments, though they be
+                     wicked.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A5-p7">
+                     <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
+                     grace on them: it is Christ Who does this by His own power while He employs them as instruments. Consequently, those who approach
+                     the sacraments receive an effect whereby they are enlikened not to the ministers but to Christ.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A5-p8">
+                     <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 (
+                     <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
+                     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,
+                     in another with his axe. Consequently, it is thus that
+                     Christ works in the sacraments, both by wicked men as lifeless instruments, and by good men as living instruments.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A5-p9">
+                     <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
+                     invalid; for instance, if the due form or matter be wanting. Secondly, a thing is required for a sacrament, by reason of a
+                     certain fitness. And in this way good ministers are required for a sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A5-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A5-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A6.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q64_A6" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A7.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q64_A6-p0.1">Whether wicked men sin in administering the sacraments?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A6-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A6-p2">
+                     <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
+                     serve Him in works of charity; whence it is written (
+                     <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
+                     serving God by works of charity: indeed, they should be persuaded to do so, according to
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q64_A6-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Dan.4.24" target="asv"> Dan. 4:24</a>: "Let my
+                     counsel be acceptable" to the king; "Redeem thou thy sins with alms." Therefore it seems that wicked men do not sin in administering
+                     the sacraments.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A6-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, whoever co-operates with another in his sin, is also guilty of sin, according to
+                     <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."
+                     But if wicked ministers sin in administering sacraments, those who receive sacraments from them, co-operate in their sin.
+                     Therefore they would sin also; which seems unreasonable.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A6-p4">
+                     <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
+                     sin. But if the wicked were to sin in administering sacraments, they would be in a state of perplexity: since sometimes they
+                     would sin also if they did not administer sacraments; for instance, when by reason of their office it is their bounden duty
+                     to do so; for it is written (
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     of death be brought to a sinner for baptism. Therefore it seems that the wicked do not sin in administering the sacraments.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A6-p5">
+                     <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
+                     he says in the epistle to Demophilus: "It seems presumptuous for such a man," i.e. a sinner, "to lay hands on priestly things;
+                     he is neither afraid nor ashamed, all unworthy that he is, to take part in Divine things, with the thought that God does not
+                     see what he sees in himself: he thinks, by false pretenses, to cheat Him Whom he
+                     calls his Father; he dares to utter, in the person of Christ, words polluted by his infamy, I will not call them prayers,
+                     over the Divine symbols."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A6-p6">
+                     <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
+                     it has been said (A[5], ad 3) that it is fitting for the ministers of sacraments to be righteous; because ministers should
+                     be like unto their Lord, according to
+                     <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 
+                     <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."
+                     Consequently, there can be no doubt that the wicked sin by exercising the ministry of God and the Church, by conferring the
+                     sacraments. And since this sin pertains to irreverence towards God and the contamination of holy things, as far as the man
+                     who sins is concerned, although holy things in themselves cannot be contaminated; it follows that such a sin is mortal in
+                     its genus.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A6-p7">
+                     <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
+                     being in a way parts of righteousness. Consequently, when a man shows himself as a minister of God, by doing works of charity,
+                     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,
+                     the sacraments are holy in themselves owing to their mystical consecration.
+                     Wherefore the holiness of righteousness is required in the minister, that he may be suitable for his ministry: for which reason
+                     he acts unbecomingly and sins, if while in a state of sin he attempts to fulfil that ministry.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A6-p8">
+                     <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
+                     he is a minister of the Church. Consequently, as long as the latter is tolerated in the ministry, he that receives a sacrament
+                     from him, does not communicate in his sin, but communicates with the Church from. whom he has his ministry. But if the Church,
+                     by degrading, excommunicating, or suspending him, does not tolerate him in
+                     the ministry, he that receives a sacrament from him sins, because he communicates in his sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A6-p9">
+                     <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;
+                     because he can repent of his sin and so minister lawfully. But there is nothing unreasonable in his being perplexed, if we
+                     suppose that he wishes to remain in sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     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
+                     so with the other sacraments, which are not so necessary as baptism, as we shall show further on (
+                     <a id="TP_Q64_A6-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q65_A3.html">Q[65], AA[3]</a>,4;
+                     <a id="TP_Q64_A6-p10.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q62_A3.html"> Q[62], A[3]</a>).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A6-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A6-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A7.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q64_A7" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A6.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A8.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q64_A7-p0.1">Whether angels can administer sacraments?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A7-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A7-p2">
+                     <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
+                     do whatever a deacon can: but not conversely. But angels are higher ministers in the hierarchical order than any men whatsoever,
+                     as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. ix). Therefore, since men can be ministers of sacraments, it seems that much more can angels
+                     be.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A7-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in heaven holy men are likened to the angels (
+                     <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
+                     stated above (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A7-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as stated above (
+                     <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
+                     it seems that they can be administered even by demons.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A7-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
+                     <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
+                     or bad are not taken from among men. Therefore they are not ordained ministers in the things that appertain to God, i.e. in
+                     the sacraments.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A7-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above 
+                     <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
+                     very nature men, not angels, resemble; indeed, in respect of His Passion, He is described as being "a little lower than the
+                     angels" (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     effect without conferring the sacrament; so neither did He bind His power to the ministers of the Church so as to be unable
+                     to give angels power to administer the sacraments. And since good angels are messengers of truth; if any sacramental rite
+                     were performed by good angels, it should be considered valid, because it ought to be evident that this is being
+                     done by the will of God: for instance, certain churches are said to have been consecrated by the ministry of the angels [*See
+                     Acta S.S., September 29]. But if demons, who are "lying spirits," were to perform a sacramental rite, it should be pronounced
+                     as invalid.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A7-p8">
+                     <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,
+                     as ministers of a higher degree, in a more perfect manner, i.e. invisibly---by cleansing, enlightening, and perfecting.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A7-p9">
+                     <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
+                     not in regard to the sacraments.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A7-p10">
+                     <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
+                     follow that "a fortiori" the devil, their head, can do so.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A7-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A7-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A6.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A8.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q64_A8" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A7.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A9.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q64_A8-p0.1">Whether the minister's intention is required for the validity of a sacrament?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A8-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A8-p2">
+                     <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
+                     instrumentally. But the perfection of an action does not depend on the intention of the instrument, but on that of the principal
+                     agent. Therefore the minister's intention is not necessary for the perfecting of a sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A8-p3">
+                     <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
+                     of a sacrament, he who approaches a sacrament could not know whether he has received the sacrament. Consequently he could
+                     have no certainty in regard to salvation; the more that some sacraments are necessary for salvation, as we shall state further
+                     on (
+                     <a id="TP_Q64_A8-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q65_A4.html">Q[65], A[4]</a>).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A8-p4">
+                     <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
+                     attend to what they say or do, through thinking of something else. Therefore in this respect the sacrament would be invalid
+                     through want of intention.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A8-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> What is unintentional happens by chance. But this cannot be said of the sacramental operation. Therefore the sacraments require
+                     the intention of the minister.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A8-p6">
+                     <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
+                     which are done in the sacraments, can be done with various intent; for instance, washing with water, which is done in baptism,
+                     may be ordained to bodily cleanliness, to the health of the body, to amusement, and many other similar things. Consequently,
+                     it needs to be determined to one purpose, i.e. the sacramental effect, by the
+                     intention of him who washes. And this intention is expressed by the words which are pronounced in the sacraments; for instance
+                     the words, "I baptize thee in the name of the Father," etc.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A8-p7">
+                     <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
+                     is moved by the principal agent. But an animate instrument, such as a minister, is not only moved, but in a sense moves itself,
+                     in so far as by his will he moves his bodily members to act. Consequently, his intention is required, whereby he subjects
+                     himself to the principal agent; that is, it is necessary that he intend to do that
+                     which Christ and the Church do.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A8-p8">
+                     <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
+                     of which the sacrament is invalid: and that this defect in the case of children who have not the intention of approaching
+                     the sacrament, is made good by Christ, Who baptizes inwardly: whereas in adults, who have that intention, this defect is made
+                     good by their faith and devotion.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     and sacramental, viz. the character, it does not appear possible for it to be made good by the devotion of the recipient,
+                     since a character is never imprinted save by a sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     minister he is; while in the words uttered by him, the intention of the Church is expressed; and that this suffices for the
+                     validity of the sacrament, except the contrary be expressed on the part either of the minister or of the recipient of the
+                     sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A8-p11">
+                     <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
+                     validity of the sacrament; for instance if, when a priest goes to baptize someone, he intends to do to him what the Church
+                     does. Wherefore if subsequently during the exercise of the act his mind be distracted by other matters, the sacrament is valid
+                     in virtue of his original intention. Nevertheless, the minister of a sacrament
+                     should take great care to have actual intention. But this is not entirely in man's power, because when a man wishes to be
+                     very intent on something, he begins unintentionally to think of other things, according to
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A8-p12"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A8-p13"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A7.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A9.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q64_A9" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A8.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A10.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q64_A9-p0.1">Whether faith is required of necessity in the minister of a sacrament?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A9-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A9-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that faith is required of necessity in the minister of a sacrament. For, as stated above 
+                     <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
+                     says against Julian (In Psalm xxxi, cf. Contra Julian iv). Therefore, if the minister is without the true faith, the sacrament
+                     is invalid.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A9-p3">
+                     <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
+                     confer sacraments. For Cyprian says in an epistle against heretics (lxxiii): "Everything whatsoever heretics do, is carnal,
+                     void and counterfeit, so that nothing that they do should receive our approval." And Pope Leo says in his epistle to Leo Augustus
+                     (clvi): "It is a matter of notoriety that the light of all the heavenly sacraments is
+                     extinguished in the see of Alexandria, by an act of dire and senseless cruelty. The sacrifice is no longer offered, the chrism
+                     is no longer consecrated, all the mysteries of religion have fled at the touch of the parricide hands of ungodly men." Therefore
+                     a sacrament requires of necessity that the minister should have the true faith.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A9-p4">
+                     <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
+                     the second canonical epistle of John (10): "If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the
+                     house, nor say to him; God speed you": and (
+                     <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
+                     a sacrament of the
+                     Church: since he is separated from the Church, to whose ministry the dispensation of the sacraments belongs. Therefore a sacrament
+                     requires of necessity that the minister should have the true faith.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A9-p5">
+                     <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,
+                     by rendering them either invalid or less holy."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A9-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above 
+                     <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
+                     belongs to a man's own power so also does faith. Wherefore, just as the validity of a sacrament does not require that the
+                     minister should have charity, and even sinners can confer sacraments, as stated above 
+                     <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
+                     faith, and even an unbeliever can confer a true sacrament, provided that the other essentials be there.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A9-p7">
+                     <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
+                     which he confers: for instance, he may believe that it is unlawful to swear in any case whatever, and yet he may believe that
+                     baptism is an efficient cause of salvation. And thus such unbelief does not hinder the intention of conferring the sacrament.
+                     But if his faith be defective in regard to the very sacrament that he confers,
+                     although he believe that no inward effect is caused by the thing done outwardly, yet he does know that the Catholic Church
+                     intends to confer a sacrament by that which is outwardly done. Wherefore, his unbelief notwithstanding, he can intend to do
+                     what the Church does, albeit he esteem it to be nothing. And such an intention suffices for a sacrament: because as stated
+                     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
+                     faith
+                     is made good.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A9-p8">
+                     <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
+                     nor the reality of the sacrament. But some do observe the form prescribed by the Church: and these confer indeed the sacrament
+                     but not the reality. I say this in the supposition that they are outwardly cut off from the Church; because from the very
+                     fact that anyone receives the sacraments from them, he sins; and consequently
+                     is hindered from receiving the effect of the sacrament. Wherefore Augustine (Fulgentius, De Fide ad Pet.) says: "Be well assured
+                     and have no doubt whatever that those who are baptized outside the Church, unless they come back to the Church, will reap
+                     disaster from their Baptism." In this sense Pope Leo says that "the light of the sacraments was extinguished in the Church
+                     of Alexandria"; viz. in regard to the reality of the sacrament, not as to the sacrament itself.
+                  </p>
+                  <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.
+                     Hence Augustine says (De unico Baptismo xiii): "Though the martyr Cyprian refused to recognize Baptism conferred by heretics
+                     or schismatics, yet so great are his merits, culminating in the crown of martyrdom, that the light of his charity dispels
+                     the darkness of his fault, and if anything needed pruning, the sickle of his passion cut it off."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A9-p10">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The power of administering the sacraments belongs to the spiritual character which is indelible, as explained above (
+                     <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
+                     sacraments, but the permission to use this power. Wherefore he does indeed confer the sacrament, but he sins in so doing.
+                     He also sins that receives a sacrament from such a
+                     man: so that he does not receive the reality of the sacrament, unless ignorance excuses him.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A9-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A9-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A8.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A10.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q64_A10" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A9.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q65.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q64_A10-p0.1">Whether the validity of a sacrament requires a good intention in the minister?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A10-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A10-p2">
+                     <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
+                     be in conformity with the Church's intention, as explained above (A[8], ad 1). But the intention of the Church is always good.
+                     Therefore the validity of a sacrament requires of necessity a good intention in the minister.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A10-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a perverse intention seems worse than a playful one. But a playful intention destroys a sacrament: for instance,
+                     if someone were to baptize anybody not seriously but in fun. Much more, therefore, does a perverse intention destroy a sacrament:
+                     for instance, if somebody were to baptize a man in order to kill him afterwards.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A10-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a perverse intention vitiates the whole work, according to
+                     <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;
+                     as Augustine says against Petilian (Cont. Litt. Petil ii). Therefore it seems that, if the minister's intention is perverse,
+                     the sacrament is invalid.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A10-p5">
+                     <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:
+                     neither, therefore, does his perverse intention.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A10-p6">
+                     <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
+                     intend to confer a sacrament, but to make a mockery of it. Such a perverse intention takes away the truth of the sacrament,
+                     especially if it be manifested outwardly.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     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.
+                     And because that which comes first does not depend on that which follows, consequently such a perverse intention does not
+                     annul the sacrament; but the minister himself sins grievously in having such an intention.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A10-p8">
+                     <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
+                     intention that perfects the sacrament, while the latter conduces to the meritorious effect. Consequently, the minister who
+                     conforms his intention to the Church as to the former rectitude, but not as to the latter, perfects the sacrament indeed,
+                     but gains no merit for himself.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A10-p9">
+                     <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,
+                     there is no comparison.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A10-p10">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     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
+                     wicked intention, whereas his master had commanded him with a good intention to do
+                     so.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A10-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q64_A10-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A9.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q65.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q63_A6.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A1.html"></a>
+            </div>
+            <div id="TP_Q65" class="div3">
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A10.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q65_A1.html"></a>
+               <h3 id="TP_Q65-p0.1">OF THE NUMBER OF THE SACRAMENTS (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3>
+               <p id="TP_Q65-p1"></p>
+               <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>
+               <p id="TP_Q65-p3"> (1) Whether there are seven sacraments?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q65-p4"> (2) The order of the sacraments among themselves;</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q65-p5"> (3) Their mutual comparison;</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q65-p6"> (4) Whether all the sacraments are necessary for salvation?</p>
+               <div id="TP_Q65_A1" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q65.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q65_A2.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q65_A1-p0.1">Whether there should be seven sacraments?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p2">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     for ever them that are sanctified" (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p3">
+                     <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
+                     two sacraments would be enough.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, sacraments belong to the actions of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, as Dionysius explains (Eccl. Hier. v). But, as
+                     he says, there are three actions of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, namely, "to cleanse, to enlighten, to perfect." Therefore
+                     there should be no more than three sacraments.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p5">
+                     <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
+                     Law. But in the Old Law there was no sacrament corresponding to Confirmation and Extreme Unction. Therefore these should not
+                     be counted among the sacraments of the New Law.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p6">
+                     <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, lust is not more grievous than other sins, as we have made clear in the 
+                     <a id="TP_Q65_A1-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q74_A5.html">FS, Q[74], A[5]</a>; 
+                     <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
+                     for lust.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p7">
+                     <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
+                     in the Church there are many sanctifications by sensible signs, such as Holy Water the Consecration of Altars, and such like.
+                     Therefore there are more than seven sacraments.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p8">
+                     <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.
+                     But the Sacrifice of the Church is one sacrament, called the Eucharist. Therefore oblations also and tithes should be called
+                     sacraments.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p9">
+                     <b>Objection 8:</b> Further, there are three kinds of sin, original, mortal and venial. Now Baptism is intended as a remedy against original
+                     sin, and Penance against mortal sin. Therefore besides the seven sacraments, there should be another against venial sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p10">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
+                     <a id="TP_Q65_A1-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q62_A5.html">Q[62], A[5]</a>;
+                     <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
+                     to the worship of God according to the religion of Christian life, and to be a remedy against the defects caused by sin. And
+                     in either way it is becoming that there should be seven sacraments.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     to things spiritual. Now a man attains perfection in the corporeal life in two ways: first, in regard to his own person; secondly,
+                     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
+                     man is perfected in the life of the body, in two ways; first, directly [per se], i.e. by acquiring
+                     some vital perfection; secondly, indirectly [per accidens], i.e. by the removal of hindrances to life, such as ailments, or
+                     the like. Now the life of the body is perfected "directly," in three ways. First, by generation whereby a man begins to be
+                     and to live: and corresponding to this in the spiritual life there is Baptism, which is a spiritual regeneration, according
+                     to
+                     <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
+                     size and strength: and corresponding to this in the spiritual life there is Confirmation, in which the Holy Ghost is given
+                     to strengthen us. Wherefore the disciples who were already baptized were bidden thus: "Stay you in the city till you be endued
+                     with power from on high" (
+                     <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
+                     there is the Eucharist. Wherefore it is said (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q65_A1-p11.3" 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 His blood, you shall not have life in you."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     times to both corporal and spiritual infirmity, i.e. sin, hence man needs a cure from his infirmity; which cure is twofold.
+                     one is the healing, that restores health: and corresponding to this in the spiritual life there is Penance, according to
+                     <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
+                     former vigor by means of suitable diet and exercise: and corresponding to this in the spiritual life there is Extreme Unction,
+                     which removes the remainder of sin, and prepares man for final glory. Wherefore it is written (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     public acts: and corresponding to this in the spiritual life there is the sacrament of order, according to the saying of
+                     <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.
+                     This is accomplished by Matrimony both in the corporal and in the spiritual
+                     life: since it is not only a sacrament but also a function of nature.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     sin. For Baptism is intended as a remedy against the absence of spiritual life; Confirmation, against the infirmity of soul
+                     found in those of recent birth; the Eucharist, against the soul's proneness to sin; Penance, against actual sin committed
+                     after baptism; Extreme Unction, against the remainders of sins---of those sins, namely, which are not sufficiently
+                     removed by Penance, whether through negligence or through ignorance; order, against divisions in the community; Matrimony,
+                     as a remedy against concupiscence in the individual, and against the decrease in numbers that results from death.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     resulting from sin. They say that Baptism corresponds to Faith, and is ordained as a remedy against original sin; Extreme
+                     Unction, to Hope, being ordained against venial sin; the Eucharist, to Charity, being ordained against the penal effect which
+                     is malice. order, to Prudence, being ordained against ignorance; Penance to Justice, being ordained against
+                     mortal sin; Matrimony, to Temperance, being ordained against concupiscence; Confirmation, to Fortitude, being ordained against
+                     infirmity.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p16">
+                     <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
+                     way the Divine power and the Passion of Christ work in us through the various sacraments as through various instruments.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p17">
+                     <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,
+                     and according to men's various states and habitudes. And in this respect it was necessary to have a number of sacraments,
+                     as explained above.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p18">
+                     <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
+                     Church; and to these the sacrament of order belongs. The recipients are those who approach the sacraments: and these are brought
+                     into being by Matrimony. The actions are "cleansing," "enlightening," and "perfecting." Mere cleansing, however, cannot be
+                     a sacrament of the New Law, which confers grace: yet it belongs to certain
+                     sacramentals, i.e. catechism and exorcism. But cleansing coupled with enlightening, according to Dionysius, belongs to Baptism;
+                     and, for him who falls back into sin, they belong secondarily to Penance and Extreme Unction. And perfecting, as regards power,
+                     which is, as it were, a formal perfection, belongs to Confirmation: while, as regards the attainment of the end, it belongs
+                     to the Eucharist.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p19">
+                     <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
+                     man is prepared for the immediate attainment of glory; and neither of these two purposes was becoming to the Old Testament.
+                     Consequently, nothing in the old Law could correspond to these sacraments. Nevertheless, the sacraments of the old Law were
+                     more numerous, on account of the various kinds of sacrifices and
+                     ceremonies.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p20">
+                     <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,
+                     not only the person but also the nature is defiled: secondly, by reason of its vehemence whereby it clouds the reason.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p21">
+                     <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
+                     is the receiving of grace. They are, however, a kind of disposition to the sacraments: either by removing obstacles. thus
+                     holy water is ordained against the snares of the demons, and against venial sins: or by making things suitable for the conferring
+                     of a sacrament; thus the altar and vessels are consecrated through reverence
+                     for the Eucharist.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p22">
+                     <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
+                     and the poor, but also figuratively; and consequently they were sacraments. But now they remain no longer as figures, and
+                     therefore they are not sacraments.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p23">
+                     <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
+                     sacraments of the New Law, none of them was instituted directly against venial sin. This is taken away by certain sacramentals,
+                     for instance, Holy Water and such like. Some, however, hold that Extreme Unction is ordained against venial sin. But of this
+                     we shall speak in its proper place (
+                     <a id="TP_Q65_A1-p23.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q30_A1.html">XP, Q[30],
+                        A[1]
+                     </a>).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p24"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A1-p25"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q65.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q65_A2.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q65_A2" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q65_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q65_A3.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q65_A2-p0.1">Whether the order of the sacraments, as given above, is becoming?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A2-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A2-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the order of the sacraments as given above is unbecoming. For according to the Apostle (
+                     <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
+                     by a first and natural generation; while in Baptism he is regenerated as by a second and spiritual generation. Therefore Matrimony
+                     should precede Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A2-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, through the sacrament of order man receives the power of agent in sacramental actions. But the agent precedes his
+                     action. Therefore order should precede Baptism and the other sacraments.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A2-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the Eucharist is a spiritual food; while Confirmation is compared to growth. But food causes, and consequently precedes,
+                     growth. Therefore the Eucharist precedes Confirmation.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A2-p5">
+                     <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, Penance prepares man for the Eucharist. But a disposition precedes perfection. Therefore Penance should precede
+                     the Eucharist.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A2-p6">
+                     <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
+                     to the last end which is Happiness. Therefore it should be placed last among the sacraments.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A2-p7">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> The order of the sacraments, as given above, is commonly adopted by all.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A2-p8">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> The reason of the order among the sacraments appears from what has been said above 
+                     <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
+                     precede those which are intended for the perfection of the multitude; and consequently the last place among the sacraments
+                     is given to order and Matrimony, which are intended for the perfection of the multitude: while
+                     Matrimony is placed after order, because it has less participation in the nature of the spiritual life, to which the sacraments
+                     are ordained. Moreover, among things ordained to the perfection of the individual, those naturally come first which are ordained
+                     directly to the perfection of the spiritual life, and afterwards, those which are ordained thereto indirectly, viz. by removing
+                     some supervening accidental cause of harm; such are Penance and Extreme Unction: while, of these, Extreme Unction
+                     is naturally placed last, for it preserves the healing which was begun by Penance.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     is ordained to the formal perfection of power; and after these the Eucharist which is ordained to final perfection.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A2-p10">
+                     <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.
+                     And because it has the least amount of spirituality it is placed last.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A2-p11">
+                     <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
+                     in himself, are placed before the sacrament of order, in which a man is made a perfecter of others.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A2-p12">
+                     <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,
+                     the Eucharist can be placed before Confirmation, as Dionysius places it (Eccl. Hier. iii, iv), and can be placed after it,
+                     as the Master does (iv, 2,8).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A2-p13">
+                     <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
+                     if anyone be without mortal sin, he does not need Penance in order to receive the Eucharist. Thus it is clear that Penance
+                     is an accidental preparation to the Eucharist, that is to say, sin being supposed. Wherefore it is written in the last chapter
+                     of the second Book of Paralipomenon (cf. 
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q65_A2-p13.1" href="./asv.html#iiChr.33.18" target="asv">2 Paral 33:18</a>):
+                     "Thou, O Lord of the righteous, didst not impose penance on righteous men." [*The words quoted are from the apocryphal Prayer
+                     of Manasses, which, before the Council of Trent, was to be found inserted in some Latin copies of the Bible.]
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A2-p14">
+                     <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
+                     of the individual.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A2-p15"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A2-p16"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q65_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q65_A3.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q65_A3" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q65_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q65_A4.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q65_A3-p0.1">Whether the Eucharist is the greatest of the sacraments?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A3-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A3-p2">
+                     <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
+                     of the individual (1 Ethic. ii). But Matrimony is ordained to the common good of the human race by means of generation: whereas
+                     the sacrament of the Eucharist is ordained to the private good of the recipient. Therefore it is not the greatest of the sacraments.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A3-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, those sacraments, seemingly, are greater, which are conferred by a greater minister. But the sacraments of Confirmation
+                     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
+                     of the Eucharist is conferred. Therefore those sacraments are greater.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A3-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, those sacraments are greater that have the greater power. But some of the sacraments imprint a character, viz. Baptism,
+                     Confirmation and order; whereas the Eucharist does not. Therefore those sacraments are greater.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A3-p5">
+                     <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:
+                     since no one can receive the Eucharist except he has been baptized. Therefore Baptism is greater than the Eucharist.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A3-p6">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii) that "No one receives hierarchical perfection save by the most God-like Eucharist." Therefore
+                     this sacrament is greater than all the others and perfects them.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A3-p7">
+                     <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
+                     ways. First of all because it contains Christ Himself substantially: whereas the other sacraments contain a certain instrumental
+                     power which is a share of Christ's power, as we have shown above (
+                     <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
+                     participation.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     to be ordained to this one as to their end. For it is manifest that the sacrament of order is ordained to the consecration
+                     of the Eucharist: and the sacrament of Baptism to the reception of the Eucharist: while a man is perfected by Confirmation,
+                     so as not to fear to abstain from this sacrament. By Penance and Extreme Unction man is prepared to receive the
+                     Body of Christ worthily. And Matrimony at least in its signification, touches this sacrament; in so far as it signifies the
+                     union of Christ with the Church, of which union the Eucharist is a figure: hence the Apostle says (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <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,
+                     as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii): thus those who have been ordained receive Holy Communion, as also do those who have been
+                     baptized, if they be adults.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     of the sacraments; while from the point of view of perfection, order comes first; while Confirmation holds a middle place.
+                     The sacraments of Penance and Extreme Unction are on a degree inferior to those mentioned above; because, as stated above
+                     
+                     <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
+                     it were, that is to say, as remedies against supervening defects. And among these, Extreme Unction is compared to Penance,
+                     as Confirmation to Baptism; in such a way, that Penance is more necessary, whereas Extreme Unction is more perfect.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A3-p11">
+                     <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
+                     substantially in the sacrament itself of the Eucharist.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A3-p12">
+                     <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
+                     alone. Consequently the conferring of these sacraments belongs exclusively to a bishop, who is, as it were, a prince in the
+                     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,
+                     as stated above.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A3-p13">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The sacramental character, as stated above (
+                     <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
+                     than a sacrament that imprints Christ's character.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A3-p14">
+                     <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
+                     the sacraments, just as order and Confirmation have a certain excellence considered in their administration; and Matrimony
+                     by reason of its signification. For there is no reason why a thing should not be greater from a certain point of view which
+                     is not greater absolutely speaking.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A3-p15"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A3-p16"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q65_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q65_A4.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q65_A4" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q65_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q65_A4-p0.1">Whether all the sacraments are necessary for salvation?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A4-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A4-p2">
+                     <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
+                     is superfluous, because "God does nothing without a purpose" (De Coelo et Mundo i). Therefore all the sacraments are necessary
+                     for salvation.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A4-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, just as it is said of Baptism (
+                     <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
+                     is it said (
+                     <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
+                     as Baptism is a necessary sacrament, so is the Eucharist.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A4-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a man can be saved without the sacrament of Baptism, provided that some unavoidable obstacle, and not his contempt
+                     for religion, debar him from the sacrament, as we shall state further on (
+                     <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
+                     necessary for salvation.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A4-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> Children are saved by Baptism alone without the other sacraments.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A4-p6">
+                     <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
+                     attained; thus food is necessary for human life. And this is simple necessity of end. Secondly, a thing is said to be necessary,
+                     if, without it, the end cannot be attained so becomingly: thus a horse is necessary for a journey. But this is not simple
+                     necessity of end.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     and absolutely; Penance, in the case of mortal sin committed after Baptism; while the sacrament of order is necessary to the
+                     Church, since "where there is no governor the people shall fall" (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q65_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.11.14" target="asv">Prov. 11:14</a>).
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     Penance; while Matrimony, by multiplying them, preserves the numbers in the Church.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A4-p9">
+                     <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
+                     the sacraments are necessary, as stated above.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A4-p10">
+                     <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.
+                     xxvi super Joan.).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A4-p11">
+                     <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,
+                     if anyone does not trouble to receive a sacrament that is not necessary for salvation. Else those who do not receive orders,
+                     and those who do not contract Matrimony, would be guilty of contempt of those sacraments.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A4-p12"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q65_A4-p13"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q65_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q64_A10.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q65_A1.html"></a>
+            </div>
+            <div id="TP_Q66" class="div3">
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q65_A4.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A1.html"></a>
+               <h3 id="TP_Q66-p0.1">OF THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM (TWELVE ARTICLES)</h3>
+               <p id="TP_Q66-p1"></p>
+               <p id="TP_Q66-p2"> We have now to consider each sacrament specially: (1) Baptism; (2) Confirmation; (3) the Eucharist; (4) Penance; (5) Extreme
+                  Unction; (6) Order; (7) Matrimony.
+               </p>
+               <p id="TP_Q66-p3"> Concerning the first, our consideration will be twofold: (1) of Baptism itself; (2) of things preparatory to Baptism.</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q66-p4"> Concerning the first, four points arise for our consideration: (1) Things pertaining to the sacrament of Baptism; (2) The
+                  minister of this sacrament; (3) The recipients of this sacrament; (4) The effect of this sacrament.
+               </p>
+               <p id="TP_Q66-p5"> Concerning the first there are twelve points of inquiry:</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q66-p6"> (1) What is Baptism? Is it a washing?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q66-p7"> (2) Of the institution of this sacrament;</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q66-p8"> (3) Whether water be the proper matter of this sacrament?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q66-p9"> (4) Whether plain water be required?</p>
+               <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
+                  the Holy Ghost"?
+               </p>
+               <p id="TP_Q66-p11"> (6) Whether one could baptize with this form: "I baptize thee in the name of Christ?"</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q66-p12"> (7) Whether immersion is necessary for Baptism?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q66-p13"> (8) Whether trine immersion is necessary?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q66-p14"> (9) Whether Baptism can be reiterated?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q66-p15"> (10) Of the Baptismal rite;</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q66-p16"> (11) Of the various kinds of Baptism;</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q66-p17"> (12) Of the comparison between various Baptisms.</p>
+               <div id="TP_Q66_A1" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A2.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q66_A1-p0.1">Whether Baptism is the mere washing?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A1-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A1-p2">
+                     <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
+                     permanent. Therefore Baptism is not the mere washing; but rather is it "the regeneration, the seal, the safeguarding, the
+                     enlightenment," as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A1-p3">
+                     <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
+                     sins." But the washing itself is not water, but a certain use of water.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A1-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Augustine says (Tract. lxxx super Joan.): "The word is added to the element, and this becomes a sacrament." Now,
+                     the element is the water. Therefore Baptism is the water and not the washing.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A1-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
+                     <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
+                     seems, therefore, that Baptism is the washing or bathing.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A1-p6">
+                     <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
+                     and sacrament"; and that which is "reality only." That which is sacrament only, is something visible and outward; the sign,
+                     namely, of the inward effect: for such is the very nature of a sacrament. And this outward something that can be perceived
+                     by the sense is both the water itself and its use, which is the washing. Hence some have
+                     thought that the water itself is the sacrament: which seems to be the meaning of the passage quoted from Hugh of St. Victor.
+                     For in the general definition of a sacrament he says that it is "a material element": and in defining Baptism he says it is
+                     "water."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     where the sanctification is completed. Now, the sanctification is not completed in water; but a certain sanctifying instrumental
+                     virtue, not permanent but transient, passes from the water, in which it is, into man who is the subject of true sanctification.
+                     Consequently the sacrament is not completed in the very water, but in applying the water to man,
+                     i.e. in the washing. Hence the Master (iv, 3) says that "Baptism is the outward washing of the body done together with the
+                     prescribed form of words."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     a sacramental sign of the inward justification: and this last is the reality only, in this sacrament---namely, the reality
+                     signified and not signifying.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A1-p9">
+                     <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:
+                     the character remains and is indelible, as stated above (
+                     <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,
+                     and is the sacrament only; but as to that which is inward. Hence he sets down two things as
+                     pertaining to the character---namely, "seal" and "safeguarding"; inasmuch as the character which is called a seal, so far
+                     as itself is concerned, safeguards the soul in good. He also sets down two things as pertaining to the ultimate reality of
+                     the sacrament---namely, "regeneration" which refers to the fact that man by being baptized begins the new life of righteousness;
+                     and "enlightenment," which refers especially to faith, by which man receives spiritual life, according to Habac 2
+                     (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A1-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.10.38" target="asv">Heb. 10:38</a>; cf.
+                     <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
+                     of Faith." Likewise Dionysius defined Baptism by its relation to the other sacraments, saying (Eccl. Hier. ii) that it is
+                     "the principle that forms the habits of the soul for the reception of those most holy words and sacraments"; and again by
+                     its relation to heavenly glory, which is the universal end of
+                     all the sacraments, when he adds, "preparing the way for us, whereby we mount to the repose of the heavenly kingdom"; and
+                     again as to the beginning of spiritual life, when he adds, "the conferring of our most sacred and Godlike regeneration."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A1-p10">
+                     <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
+                     "Baptism is water" may be verified in so far as water is the material principle of Baptism: and thus there would be "causal
+                     predication."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A1-p11">
+                     <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
+                     applied, by being used in washing him. Indeed, this is signified by those very words which are added to the element, when
+                     we say: "I baptize thee," etc.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A1-p12"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A1-p13"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A2.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q66_A2" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A3.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q66_A2-p0.1">Whether Baptism was instituted after Christ's Passion? </h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A2-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A2-p2">
+                     <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
+                     in the sacraments of the New Law. Therefore Christ's Passion precedes the institution of the sacraments of the New Law: especially
+                     the sacrament of Baptism since the Apostle says (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A2-p3">
+                     <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
+                     mandate of Baptism after His Passion and Resurrection, when He said: "Going, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name
+                     of the Father," etc. (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A2-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Baptism is a necessary sacrament, as stated above (
+                     <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
+                     not bound to be baptized: for Circumcision was still in force, which was supplanted by Baptism. Therefore it seems that Baptism
+                     was not instituted before Christ's Passion.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A2-p5">
+                     <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
+                     washed away the sins of all." But this was before Christ's Passion. Therefore Baptism was instituted before Christ's Passion.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A2-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
+                     <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,
+                     when it receives the power of producing its effect. Now Baptism received this power when Christ was baptized. Consequently
+                     Baptism was truly instituted then, if we consider it as a sacrament. But the obligation of receiving this sacrament was proclaimed
+                     to mankind after the
+                     Passion and Resurrection. First, because Christ's Passion put an end to the figurative sacraments, which were supplanted by
+                     Baptism and the other sacraments of the New Law. Secondly, because by Baptism man is "made conformable" to Christ's Passion
+                     and Resurrection, in so far as he dies to sin and begins to live anew unto righteousness. Consequently it behooved Christ
+                     to suffer and to rise again, before proclaiming to man his obligation of conforming himself to Christ's Death and
+                     Resurrection.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A2-p7">
+                     <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
+                     way as the sacraments of the Old Law. For these were mere figures: whereas Baptism derived the power of justifying from Christ
+                     Himself, to Whose power the Passion itself owed its saving virtue.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A2-p8">
+                     <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
+                     by His reality. Therefore before His Passion He did not make Baptism obligatory as soon as it was instituted; but wished men
+                     to become accustomed to its use; especially in regard to the Jews, to whom all things were figurative, as Augustine says (Contra
+                     Faust. iv). But after His Passion and Resurrection He made Baptism obligatory,
+                     not only on the Jews, but also on the Gentiles, when He gave the commandment: "Going, teach ye all nations."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A2-p9">
+                     <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
+                     above. For our Lord's words to Nicodemus (
+                     <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
+                     future rather than to the present."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A2-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A2-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A3.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q66_A3" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A4.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q66_A3-p0.1">Whether water is the proper matter of Baptism?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A3-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A3-p2">
+                     <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
+                     (De Fide Orth. iv), has a power of enlightening. But enlightenment is a special characteristic of fire. Therefore Baptism
+                     should be conferred with fire rather than with water: and all the more since John the Baptist said when foretelling Christ's
+                     Baptism (
+                     <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
+                     fire."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A3-p3">
+                     <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
+                     as wine, oil, and such like. Therefore Baptism can be conferred with these also; and consequently water is not the proper
+                     matter of Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A3-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the sacraments of the Church flowed from the side of Christ hanging on the cross, as stated above (
+                     <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.
+                     And this seems to be more in keeping with the effect of Baptism, because it is written (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A3-p5">
+                     <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
+                     of His most pure flesh, endowed the waters with a regenerating and cleansing virtue." But all waters are not connected with
+                     the waters of the Jordan which Christ touched with His flesh. Consequently it seems that Baptism cannot be conferred with
+                     any water; and therefore water, as such, is not the proper matter of Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A3-p6">
+                     <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
+                     using it for Baptism. But in solemn Baptism the water which is used for baptizing, is exorcized and blessed. Therefore it
+                     seems that water, as such, is not the proper matter of Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A3-p7">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> our Lord said (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A3-p8">
+                     <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,
+                     which is a regeneration unto spiritual life. And this answers to the nature of water in a special degree; wherefore seeds,
+                     from which all living things, viz. plants and animals are generated, are moist and akin to water. For this reason certain
+                     philosophers held that water is the first principle of all things.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     it cleanses; and hence it fittingly signifies and causes the cleansing from sins. By reason of its coolness it tempers superfluous
+                     heat: wherefore it fittingly mitigates the concupiscence of the fomes. By reason of its transparency, it is susceptive of
+                     light; hence its adaptability to Baptism as the "sacrament of Faith."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     says (Hom. xxv in Joan.) on
+                     <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
+                     being submerged is hidden below, and thence he rises again renewed."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     be obtained everywhere.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A3-p12">
+                     <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
+                     by hearing" (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <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.
+                     ii), to mean the Holy Ghost, Who appeared above the disciples under the form of fiery tongues (
+                     <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,
+                     and tempers concupiscence. Or again, as Hilary says (Super Matth. ii) that "when we have been baptized in
+                     the Holy Ghost," we still have to be "perfected by the fire of the judgment."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A3-p14">
+                     <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
+                     with them, contracts a certain smell therefrom; which is not the case if water be used. Moreover, they are not so universal
+                     or so abundant as water.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A3-p15">
+                     <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,
+                     while water belongs to the sacrament of Baptism. Yet this latter sacrament derives its cleansing virtue from the power of
+                     Christ's blood.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A3-p16">
+                     <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
+                     in a sermon on the Epiphany (Append. Serm. cxxxv): "The blessing that flowed from the Saviour's Baptism, like a mystic river,
+                     swelled the course of every stream, and filled the channels of every spring."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A3-p17">
+                     <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
+                     is aroused, and the cunning of the devil hindered from impeding the baptismal effect.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A3-p18"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A3-p19"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A4.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q66_A4" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A5.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q66_A4-p0.1">Whether plain water is necessary for Baptism?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A4-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A4-p2">
+                     <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
+                     in sea-water, in which there is a considerable proportion of the earthly element, as the Philosopher shows (Meteor. ii). Yet
+                     this water may be used for Baptism. Therefore plain and pure water is not necessary for Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A4-p3">
+                     <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
+                     plainness of the water. Therefore pure and plain water is not necessary for Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A4-p4">
+                     <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],
+                     ad 3). But that water, seemingly, was not pure, because the elements do not exist actually in a mixed body, such as Christ's.
+                     Therefore it seems that pure or plain water is not necessary for Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A4-p5">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     through a sulphurous vein, just as lye percolates through ashes. Therefore it seems that plain water is not necessary for
+                     Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A4-p6">
+                     <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, rose-water is distilled from roses, just as chemical waters are distilled from certain bodies. But seemingly, such
+                     like waters may be used in Baptism; just as rain-water, which is distilled from vapors. Since, therefore, such waters are
+                     not pure and plain water, it seems that pure and plain water is not necessary for Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A4-p7">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> The proper matter of Baptism is water, as stated above 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A4-p8">
+                     <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.
+                     And each of these may happen in a twofold manner; artificially and naturally. Now art fails in the operation of nature: because
+                     nature gives the substantial form, which art cannot give; for whatever form is given by art is accidental; except perchance
+                     when art applies a proper agent to its proper matter, as fire to a combustible; in which
+                     manner animals are produced from certain things by way of putrefaction.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     changed. Consequently such water can be used for Baptism: unless perhaps such a small quantity of water be mixed artificially
+                     with a body that the compound is something other than water; thus mud is earth rather than water, and diluted wine is wine
+                     rather than water.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     enters into the substance of a mixed body: thus water changed into the juice of the grape is wine, wherefore it has not the
+                     nature of water. Sometimes, however, there may be a natural change of the water, without destruction of species: and this,
+                     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
+                     river has become muddy by being mixed with particles of earth.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     of water is not destroyed; but if the species of water be destroyed, it cannot be used for Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A4-p12">
+                     <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
+                     therefore such waters may be used for Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A4-p13">
+                     <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
+                     the like are boiled: except the substance boiled be so dissolved that the liquor be of a nature foreign to water; in this
+                     we may be guided by the specific gravity [spissitudine]. If, however, from the liquor thus thickened plain water be strained,
+                     it can be used for Baptism: just as water strained from mud, although mud cannot be
+                     used for baptizing.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A4-p14">
+                     <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.
+                     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
+                     from plants. It was pure water gushing forth miraculously like the blood from a dead body, to prove the reality of our Lord's
+                     body, and confute the error of the Manichees: water, which is one of the four
+                     elements, showing Christ's body to be composed of the four elements; blood, proving that it was composed of the four humors.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A4-p15">
+                     <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
+                     or naturally, with certain mixed bodies, and suffer only a certain alteration by passing through certain bodies.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A4-p16">
+                     <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
+                     cannot be used, as neither can wine. Nor does the comparison hold with rain-water, which for the most part is formed by the
+                     condensing of vapors, themselves formed from water, and contains a minimum of the liquid matter from mixed bodies; which liquid
+                     matter by the force of nature, which is stronger than art, is transformed in
+                     this process of condensation into real water, a result which cannot be produced artificially. Consequently rain-water retains
+                     no properties of any mixed body; which cannot be said of rose-water or chemical waters.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A4-p17"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A4-p18"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A5.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q66_A5" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A6.html"></a>
+                  <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>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A5-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A5-p2">
+                     <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
+                     Holy Ghost." For action should be ascribed to the principal agent rather than to the minister. Now the minister of a sacrament
+                     acts as an instrument, as stated above (
+                     <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
+                     <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
+                     descending and remaining upon Him, He it is that baptizeth." It is therefore unbecoming for the minister to say, "I baptize
+                     thee": the more so that "Ego" [I] is understood in the word "baptizo" [I baptize], so that it seems redundant.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A5-p3">
+                     <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
+                     say, "I teach you." Now our Lord gave at the same time the precepts both of baptizing and of teaching, when He said (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A5-p4">
+                     <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
+                     useless to address such a one; according to
+                     <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:
+                     "I baptize thee."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A5-p5">
+                     <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
+                     thousand, and on another, five thousand (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.2" target="asv">Acts 2</a>, 
+                     <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
+                     be able to say, "We baptize you."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A5-p6">
+                     <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, Baptism derives its power from Christ's Passion. But Baptism is sanctified by the form. Therefore it seems that
+                     Christ's Passion should be mentioned in the form of Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A5-p7">
+                     <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
+                     the 
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A5-p8">
+                     <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";
+                     and the Son by those of "Word," "Image," and "Begotten"; and the Holy Ghost by those of "Gift," "Love," and the "Proceeding
+                     One." Therefore it seems that Baptism is valid if conferred in these names.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A5-p9">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> our Lord said (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A5-p10">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> Baptism receives its consecration from its form, according to
+                     <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
+                     by the words of the Gospel." Consequently the cause of Baptism needs to be expressed in the baptismal form. Now this cause
+                     is twofold; the principal cause from which it derives its virtue, and this is the Blessed Trinity; and the
+                     instrumental cause, viz. the minister who confers the sacrament outwardly. Wherefore both causes should be expressed in the
+                     form of Baptism. Now the minister is designated by the words, "I baptize thee"; and the principal cause in the words, "in
+                     the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Therefore this is the suitable form of Baptism: "I baptize
+                     thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A5-p11">
+                     <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
+                     in virtue thereof. Consequently it is fitting that in the baptismal form the minister should be mentioned as performing the
+                     act of baptizing, in the words, "I baptize thee"; indeed, our Lord attributed to the ministers the act of baptizing, when
+                     He said: "Baptizing them," etc. But the principal cause is indicated as conferring
+                     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
+                     does not baptize without the Father and the Holy Ghost.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     past ascribed the baptismal power to the baptizers, saying (
+                     <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
+                     the name of the Father," etc. And since the action performed by the minister is expressed with the invocation of the Trinity,
+                     the sacrament is
+                     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
+                     on the intention.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A5-p13">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     are bound to do all things in that Name (
+                     <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
+                     to the
+                     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
+                     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
+                     child is not baptized."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A5-p14">
+                     <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
+                     the purpose of efficiency, inasmuch as they derive efficacy from that Word, by Whom "all things were made." Consequently they
+                     are becomingly addressed not only to men, but also to insensible creatures; for instance, when we say: "I exorcize thee, creature
+                     salt" (Roman Ritual).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A5-p15">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     were without hands, and unable to perform the action, they could not both baptize at the same time, one saying the words and
+                     the other performing the action.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     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,
+                     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
+                     a change of form.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     did Christ choose to be baptized by John (Extra, De Baptismo et ejus effectu, cap. Debitum).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A5-p18">
+                     <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
+                     to the Blessed Trinity. For this reason the Trinity is mentioned rather than Christ's Passion.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A5-p19">
+                     <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
+                     works in Baptism, pertains to the Essence; and therefore we say, "in the name," and not, "in the names."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A5-p20">
+                     <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
+                     three Persons, in the form of Baptism, those names are chosen, which are generally used, in a particular language, to signify
+                     the Persons. Nor is the sacrament valid if conferred in any other names.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A5-p21"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A5-p22"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A6.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q66_A6" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A7.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q66_A6-p0.1">Whether Baptism can be conferred in the name of Christ?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A6-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A6-p2">
+                     <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"
+                     (
+                     <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 (
+                     <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
+                     the name of Christ.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A6-p3">
+                     <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,
+                     and the Son Himself, Who was anointed, and the Holy Ghost with Whom He was anointed." But Baptism can be conferred in the
+                     name of the Trinity: therefore also in the name of Christ.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A6-p4">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     saith), must not be rebaptized." But they would be baptized again if they had not been validly baptized with that form. Therefore
+                     Baptism can be celebrated in the name of Christ by using this form: "I baptize thee in
+                     the name of Christ."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A6-p5">
+                     <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
+                     been baptized in the name of the Lord only, without any hesitation baptize them again in the name of the Blessed Trinity,
+                     when they come in quest of the Catholic Faith." Didymus, too, says (De Spir. Sanct.): "If indeed there be such a one with
+                     a mind so foreign to faith as to baptize while omitting one of the aforesaid names," viz. of
+                     the three Persons, "he baptizes invalidly."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A6-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
+                     <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
+                     instituted in regard to a sacrament, it is invalid; save by special dispensation of Him Who did not bind His power to the
+                     sacraments. Now Christ commanded the sacrament of Baptism to be given with the invocation of the Trinity. And consequently
+                     whatever is lacking to the full
+                     invocation of the Trinity, destroys the integrity of Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <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,
+                     or that he who mentions the name of only one Person may believe aright in the Three; because just as a sacrament requires
+                     sensible matter, so does it require a sensible form. Hence, for the validity of the sacrament it is not enough to imply or
+                     to believe in the Trinity, unless the Trinity be expressed in sensible words. For this reason at Christ's
+                     Baptism, wherein was the source of the sanctification of our Baptism, the Trinity was present in sensible signs: viz. the
+                     Father in the voice, the Son in the human nature, the Holy Ghost in the dove.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A6-p8">
+                     <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
+                     that the name of Christ, which was hateful to Jews and Gentiles, might become an object of veneration, in that the Holy Ghost
+                     was given in Baptism at the invocation of that Name.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A6-p9">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Ambrose here gives this reason why exception could, without inconsistency, be allowed in the primitive Church; namely, because
+                     the whole Trinity is implied in the name of Christ, and therefore the form prescribed by Christ in the Gospel was observed
+                     in its integrity, at least implicitly.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A6-p10">
+                     <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
+                     this is clear from the two solutions given above.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A6-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A6-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A7.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q66_A7" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A6.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A8.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q66_A7-p0.1">Whether immersion in water is necessary for Baptism?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A7-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A7-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that immersion in water is necessary for Baptism. Because it is written (
+                     <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
+                     that there can be no Baptism without immersion.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A7-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Apostle says (
+                     <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
+                     death." But this is done by immersion: for Chrysostom says on
+                     <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,
+                     our old man is buried, and being submerged, is hidden below, and
+                     thence he rises again renewed." Therefore it seems that immersion is essential to Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A7-p4">
+                     <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
+                     pour water over any part of the body. But this seems unreasonable; since original sin, to remedy which is the principal purpose
+                     of Baptism, is not in only one part of the body. Therefore it seems that immersion is necessary for Baptism, and that mere
+                     sprinkling is not enough.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A7-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
+                     <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
+                     washed with clean water."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A7-p6">
+                     <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
+                     of sins. Now washing may be done with water not only by immersion, but also by sprinkling or pouring. And, therefore, although
+                     it is safer to baptize by immersion, because this is the more ordinary fashion, yet Baptism can be conferred by sprinkling
+                     or also by pouring, according to
+                     <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
+                     clean water," as also the Blessed Lawrence is related to have baptized. And this especially in cases of urgency: either because
+                     there is a great number to be baptized, as was clearly the case in 
+                     <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
+                     small supply of water, or through feebleness of the minister, who cannot hold up the candidate for Baptism; or through feebleness
+                     of the candidate, whose life might be
+                     endangered by immersion. We must therefore conclude that immersion is not necessary for Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A7-p7">
+                     <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
+                     Baptism is called a "laver," according to
+                     <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
+                     Baptism. And consequently such diversity does not destroy the oneness of Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A7-p8">
+                     <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
+                     more commendable. Yet in the other ways of baptizing it is represented after a fashion, albeit not so clearly; for no matter
+                     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
+                     the earth.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A7-p9">
+                     <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
+                     interior and exterior, flourish. And therefore, if the whole body cannot be covered with water, because of the scarcity of
+                     water, or because of some other reason, it is necessary to pour water over the head, in which the principle of animal life
+                     is made manifest.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     sprinkled in preference to the head, because by Baptism the transmission of original sin to the offspring by the act of procreation
+                     is not deleted, but the soul is freed from the stain and debt of sin which it has contracted. Consequently that part of the
+                     body should be washed in preference, in which the works of the soul are made manifest.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     Whom original sin was to be removed, was yet to be born of the seed of Abraham, whose faith was signified by circumcision
+                     according to
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A7-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.4.11" target="asv"> Rom. 4:11.</a>
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A7-p12"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A7-p13"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A6.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A8.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q66_A8" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A7.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A9.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q66_A8-p0.1">Whether trine immersion is essential to Baptism?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A8-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A8-p2">
+                     <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:
+                     "Rightly were you dipped three times, since you were baptized in the name of the Trinity. Rightly were you dipped three times,
+                     because you were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, Who on the third day rose again from the dead. For that thrice repeated
+                     immersion reproduces the burial of the Lord by which you were buried with Christ
+                     in Baptism." Now both seem to be essential to Baptism, namely, that in Baptism the Trinity of Persons should be signified,
+                     and that we should be conformed to Christ's burial. Therefore it seems that trine immersion is essential to Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A8-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the sacraments derive their efficacy from Christ's mandate. But trine immersion was commanded by Christ: for Pope
+                     Pelagius II wrote to Bishop Gaudentius: "The Gospel precept given by our Lord God Himself, our Saviour Jesus Christ, admonishes
+                     us to confer the sacrament of Baptism to each one in the name of the Trinity and also with trine immersion." Therefore, just
+                     as it is essential to Baptism to call on the name of the Trinity, so is it essential to
+                     baptize by trine immersion.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A8-p4">
+                     <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
+                     immersion; so that if a second or third immersion be added, it seems that Baptism is conferred a second or third time. which
+                     is absurd. Therefore one immersion does not suffice for the sacrament of Baptism, and trine immersion is essential thereto.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A8-p5">
+                     <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
+                     single immersion: since the Trinity can be represented in the three immersions, and the unity of the Godhead in one immersion."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     sacrament: whereas the mode of washing is accidental to the sacrament. Consequently, as Gregory in the words above quoted
+                     explains, both single and trine immersion are lawful considered in themselves; since one immersion signifies the oneness of
+                     Christ's death and of the Godhead; while trine immersion signifies the three days of Christ's burial, and also the
+                     Trinity of Persons.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     time. For since from the very earliest days of the Church some have had false notions concerning the Trinity, holding that
+                     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
+                     in His death; for this reason they did not baptize in the name of the Trinity, but in memory of Christ's
+                     death, and with one immersion. And this was condemned in the early Church. Wherefore in the Apostolic Canons (xlix) we read:
+                     "If any priest or bishop confer baptism not with the trine immersion in the one administration, but with one immersion, which
+                     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
+                     ye in My death," but "In the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A8-p8"> Later on, however, there arose the error of certain schismatics and heretics who rebaptized: as Augustine (Super. Joan.,
+                     cf. De Haeres. lxix) relates of the Donatists. Wherefore, in detestation of their error, only one immersion was ordered to
+                     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
+                     practice of heretical teaching let us hold to the single baptismal immersion."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A8-p9"> But now that this motive has ceased, trine immersion is universally observed in Baptism: and consequently anyone baptizing
+                     otherwise would sin gravely, through not following the ritual of the Church. It would, however, be valid Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A8-p10">
+                     <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
+                     and not in regard to the matter. Wherefore the Trinity is signified in Baptism by the words of the form. Nor is it essential
+                     for the Trinity to be signified by the manner in which the matter is used; although this is done to make the signification
+                     clearer.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     necessary for our salvation, because even if He had been buried or dead for one day, this would have been enough to consummate
+                     our redemption: yet those three days were ordained unto the manifestation of the reality of His death, as stated above (
+                     <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
+                     part of Christ's Passion, is the trine immersion essential to the sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A8-p12">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     to the use of the matter, as stated above (ad 1).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A8-p13">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As stated above (
+                     <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
+                     intends to confer one Baptism by a trine immersion. Wherefore Jerome says on
+                     <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
+                     as one Baptism."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     form, it would be a sin, in itself, because it would be a repetition of Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A8-p15"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A8-p16"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A7.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A9.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q66_A9" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A8.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A10.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q66_A9-p0.1">Whether Baptism may be reiterated?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A9-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A9-p2">
+                     <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
+                     reiterated. Therefore much more should Baptism be reiterated: because Christ's mercy surpasses man's guilt.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A9-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, John the Baptist received special commendation from Christ, Who said of him (
+                     <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
+                     were baptized again, according to
+                     <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
+                     rebaptized, who have been
+                     baptized by heretics or sinners.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A9-p4">
+                     <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
+                     to the Catholic Church, they were to be baptized": and this seemingly should be said in regard to other heretics. Therefore
+                     those whom the heretics have baptized, should be baptized again.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A9-p5">
+                     <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
+                     baptized. Therefore it seems that they should be baptized again.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A9-p6">
+                     <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, the Eucharist is a more perfect sacrament than Baptism, as stated above (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A9-p7">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written, (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A9-p8">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> Baptism cannot be reiterated.
+                  </p>
+                  <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.
+                     Whence it is written (
+                     <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
+                     man can be begotten but once. Wherefore Baptism cannot be reiterated, just as neither can carnal generation. Hence Augustine
+                     says on
+                     <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
+                     second time into his mother's womb and be born again': So thou," says he, "must understand the birth of the Spirit, as Nicodemus
+                     understood the birth of the flesh . . . . As there is no return to the womb, so neither is there to Baptism."
+                  </p>
+                  <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.
+                     <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" (
+                     <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 (
+                     <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
+                     observes: "Christ's one death hallowed the
+                     one Baptism."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A9-p11"> Thirdly, because Baptism imprints a character, which is indelible, and is conferred with a certain consecration. Wherefore,
+                     just as other consecrations are not reiterated in the Church, so neither is Baptism. This is the view expressed by Augustine,
+                     who says (Contra Epist. Parmen. ii) that "the military character is not renewed": and that "the sacrament of Christ is not
+                     less enduring than this bodily mark, since we see that not even apostates are deprived of Baptism, since when
+                     they repent and return they are not baptized anew."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     renewed, so neither is Baptism reiterated, for as it is written (
+                     <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
+                     life."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A9-p13">
+                     <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
+                     cancel the virtue of Christ's Passion, so neither do they cancel Baptism, so as to call for its repetition. on the other hand
+                     the sin which hindered the effect of Baptism is blotted out on being submitted to Penance.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A9-p14">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Augustine says on
+                     <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
+                     administered: because John gave his own Baptism; the murderer, Christ's; for that sacrament is so sacred, that not even a
+                     murderer's administration contaminates it."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A9-p15">
+                     <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
+                     Quiricus, says: "Those heretics who are not baptized in the name of the Trinity, such as the Bonosians and Cataphrygians"
+                     (who were of the same mind as the Paulianists), "since the former believe not that Christ is God" (holding Him to be a mere
+                     man), "while the latter," i.e. the Cataphrygians, "are so perverse as to deem a mere
+                     man," viz. Montanus, "to be the Holy Ghost: all these are baptized when they come to holy Church, for the baptism which they
+                     received while in that state of error was no Baptism at all, not being conferred in the name of the Trinity." On the other
+                     hand, as set down in De Eccles. Dogm. xxii: "Those heretics who have been baptized in the confession of the name of the Trinity
+                     are to be received as already baptized when they come to the Catholic Faith."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A9-p16">
+                     <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
+                     prefixed to the form: 'If thou art baptized, I do not rebaptize thee; but if thou art not baptized, I baptize thee,' etc.:
+                     for that does not appear to be repeated, which is not known to have been done."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A9-p17">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     new life. But the Eucharist is a commemoration of Christ's death, in so far as the suffering Christ Himself is offered to
+                     us as the Paschal banquet, according to 
+                     <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;
+                     therefore let us feast." And forasmuch as man is born once, whereas he eats many times, so is Baptism given once, but the
+                     Eucharist frequently.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A9-p18"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A9-p19"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A8.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A10.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q66_A10" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A9.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A11.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q66_A10-p0.1">Whether the Church observes a suitable rite in baptizing?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A10-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A10-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the Church observes an unsuitable rite in baptizing. For as Chrysostom (Chromatius, in
+                     <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
+                     touch of our Lord's body." Now this took place at Christ's Baptism, which is commemorated in the Feast of the Epiphany. Therefore
+                     solemn Baptism should be celebrated at the Feast of the Epiphany rather than
+                     on the eves of Easter and Whitsunday.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A10-p3">
+                     <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.
+                     Therefore it is unfitting that the person baptized should be anointed thrice with holy oil first on the breast, and then between
+                     the shoulders, and a third time with chrism on the top of the head.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A10-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, "in Christ Jesus . . . there is neither male nor female" (
+                     <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" (
+                     <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
+                     in the Faith of Christ. It is consequently unfitting to bestow a white garment on those who have been baptized.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A10-p5">
+                     <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, Baptism can be celebrated without such like ceremonies. Therefore it seems that those mentioned above are superfluous;
+                     and consequently that they are unsuitably inserted by the Church in the baptismal rite.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A10-p6">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> The Church is ruled by the Holy Ghost, Who does nothing inordinate.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A10-p7">
+                     <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
+                     solemnity of the sacrament. Essential indeed, to the sacrament are both the form which designates the principal cause of the
+                     sacrament; and the minister who is the instrumental cause; and the use of the matter, namely, washing with water, which designates
+                     the principal sacramental effect. But all the other things which the Church
+                     observes in the baptismal rite, belong rather to a certain solemnity of the sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     the faithful, and their reverence for the sacrament. For if there were nothing done but a mere washing with water, without
+                     any solemnity, some might easily think it to be an ordinary washing.
+                  </p>
+                  <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,
+                     for instance, pictures and the like. And in this way by means of the sacramental ceremonies they are either instructed, or
+                     urged to seek the signification of such like sensible signs. And consequently, since, besides the principal sacramental effect,
+                     other things should be known about Baptism, it was fitting that these also should be represented by some
+                     outward signs.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     effect.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A10-p11">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Christ was baptized on the Epiphany with the Baptism of John, as stated above (
+                     <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
+                     efficacy from the Passion of Christ, according to 
+                     <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
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A10-p11.3" href="./asv.html#John.3.5" target="asv"> Jn. 3:5</a>:
+                     "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost." Therefore it is that solemn Baptism is held in the Church, both
+                     on Easter Eve, when we commemorate our Lord's burial and resurrection; for which reason our Lord gave His disciples the commandment
+                     concerning Baptism as related by Matthew (28:19): and on Whitsun-eve, when the celebration of the Feast of the Holy Ghost
+                     begins; for which reason the apostles are said to have baptized three thousand on the very day of Pentecost when they had
+                     received the Holy Ghost.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A10-p12">
+                     <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.
+                     For the candidate is first of all anointed with Holy oil on the breast and between the shoulders, as "one who wrestles for
+                     God," to use Ambrose's expression (De Sacram. i): thus are prize-fighters wont to besmear themselves with oil. Or, as Innocent
+                     III says in a decretal on the Holy Unction: "The candidate is anointed on the
+                     breast, in order to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, to cast off error and ignorance, and to acknowledge the true faith,
+                     since 'the just man liveth by faith'; while he is anointed between the shoulders, that he may be clothed with the grace of
+                     the Holy Ghost, lay aside indifference and sloth, and become active in good works; so that the sacrament of faith may purify
+                     the thoughts of his heart, and strengthen his shoulders for the burden of labor." But after Baptism, as Rabanus says (De
+                     Sacram. iii), "he is forthwith anointed on the head by the priest with Holy Chrism, who proceeds at once to offer up a prayer
+                     that the neophyte may have a share in Christ's kingdom, and be called a Christian after Christ." Or, as Ambrose says (De Sacram.
+                     iii), his head is anointed, because "the senses of a wise man are in his head" (
+                     <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. 
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A10-p12.2" href="./asv.html#iPet.3.15" target="asv">1 Pet.
+                        3:15
+                     </a>; Innocent III, Decretal on Holy Unction).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A10-p13">
+                     <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
+                     resurrection, unto which men are born again by Baptism; and in order to designate the purity of life, to which he will be
+                     bound after being baptized, according to
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A10-p14">
+                     <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,
+                     since they pertain to the sacrament's wellbeing, as stated above.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A10-p15"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A10-p16"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A9.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A11.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q66_A11" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A10.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A12.html"></a>
+                  <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>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A11-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A11-p2">
+                     <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.
+                     of the Holy Ghost. Because the Apostle says (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A11-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Baptism is a sacrament, as we have made clear above (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A11-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv) distinguishes several other kinds of Baptism. Therefore we should admit more than three
+                     Baptisms.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A11-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> on
+                     <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
+                     of Blood."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A11-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
+                     <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
+                     Ghost, as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it
+                     depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in
+                     so far as he is conformed to Christ by
+                     suffering for Him. Hence it is written (
+                     <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
+                     of the Lamb." In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism
+                     of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God
+                     and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance.
+                     Of this it is written (
+                     <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
+                     midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning." Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is
+                     called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo Parvulorum iv): "The
+                     Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason from the thief to whom, though
+                     not baptized, it was said: 'Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise' that suffering can take the place of Baptism. Having
+                     weighed this in my mind again and again, I perceive that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply for what was
+                     lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if perchance on account of the stress of the times the celebration
+                     of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A11-p7">
+                     <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
+                     the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A11-p8">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As stated above (
+                     <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,
+                     but in the baptismal effect. Consequently they are not sacraments.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A11-p9">
+                     <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
+                     salvation of the faithful in the Church; since then "a few . . . souls were saved in the ark [Vulg.: 'by water']," according
+                     to 
+                     <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
+                     of sin; hence the Apostle says (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A11-p9.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.10.2" target="asv">1
+                        Cor. 10:2
+                     </a>) that "all . . . were baptized in the cloud and in the sea." And again he mentions "the various washings which were customary
+                     under the Old Law," which were figures of our Baptism, as to the cleansing from sins: also "the Baptism of John," which prepared
+                     the way for our Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A11-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A11-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A11-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A10.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A12.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q66_A12" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A11.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q67.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q66_A12-p0.1">Whether the Baptism of Blood is the most excellent of these?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A12-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A12-p2">
+                     <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;
+                     which the Baptism of Blood cannot do. Therefore the Baptism of Blood is not more excellent than the Baptism of Water.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A12-p3">
+                     <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 (
+                     <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
+                     avails without the Baptism of Blood; for not only the martyrs are saved. Therefore the Baptism of Blood is not the most excellent.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A12-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, just as the Baptism of Water derives its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which, as stated above 
+                     <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
+                     <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,"
+                     etc. Therefore the Baptism of the Spirit is more
+                     excellent than the Baptism of Blood. Therefore the Baptism of Blood is not the most excellent.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A12-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine (Ad Fortunatum) speaking of the comparison between Baptisms says: "The newly baptized confesses his faith in the
+                     presence of the priest: the martyr in the presence of the persecutor. The former is sprinkled with water, after he has confessed;
+                     the latter with his blood. The former receives the Holy Ghost by the imposition of the bishop's hands; the latter is made
+                     the temple of the Holy Ghost."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A12-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above 
+                     <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
+                     produce the effect of the Baptism of Water. Now the Baptism of Water derives its efficacy from Christ's Passion and from the
+                     Holy Ghost, as already stated 
+                     <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
+                     of Blood. For Christ's Passion acts in the Baptism of Water by way of a figurative representation; in the Baptism of the Spirit
+                     or of Repentance, by way of desire. but in the Baptism of Blood, by way of imitating the (Divine) act. In like manner, too,
+                     the power of the Holy Ghost acts in the Baptism of Water through a certain hidden power. in the Baptism of Repentance by moving
+                     the heart; but in the Baptism of Blood by the highest degree of fervor of dilection and love, according to
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q66_A12-p6.3" href="./asv.html#John.15.13" target="asv">
+                        Jn. 15:13
+                     </a>: "Greater love than this no man hath that a man lay down his life for his friends."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A12-p7">
+                     <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
+                     nature of a sacrament; but considering the sacramental effect.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A12-p8">
+                     <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
+                     includes the Baptism of the Spirit, but not conversely. And from this it is proved to be more perfect.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A12-p9">
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A12-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q66_A12-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A11.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q67.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q65_A4.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A1.html"></a>
+            </div>
+            <div id="TP_Q67" class="div3">
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A12.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A1.html"></a>
+               <h3 id="TP_Q67-p0.1">OF THE MINISTERS BY WHOM THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM IS CONFERRED (EIGHT ARTICLES)</h3>
+               <p id="TP_Q67-p1"></p>
+               <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
+                  points of inquiry:
+               </p>
+               <p id="TP_Q67-p3"> (1) Whether it belongs to a deacon to baptize?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q67-p4"> (2) Whether this belongs to a priest, or to a bishop only?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q67-p5"> (3) Whether a layman can confer the sacrament of Baptism?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q67-p6"> (4) Whether a woman can do this?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q67-p7"> (5) Whether an unbaptized person can baptize?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q67-p8"> (6) Whether several can at the same time baptize one and the same person?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q67-p9"> (7) Whether it is essential that someone should raise the person baptized from the sacred font?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q67-p10"> (8) Whether he who raises someone from the sacred font is bound to instruct him?</p>
+               <div id="TP_Q67_A1" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q67.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A2.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q67_A1-p0.1">Whether it is part of a deacon's duty to baptize?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A1-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A1-p2">
+                     <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
+                     our Lord at the same time, according to
+                     <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
+                     it seems that it is also part of a deacon's duty to baptize.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A1-p3">
+                     <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
+                     specially by Baptism, according to
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A1-p4">
+                     <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
+                     to baptize.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A1-p5">
+                     <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
+                     province"; and further on: "Without bishop or priest they must not dare to baptize, except in cases of extreme urgency, when
+                     the aforesaid are a long way off."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A1-p6">
+                     <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),
+                     so can we gather, from the names of the ecclesiastical orders, what belongs to each order. Now "deacons" are so called from
+                     being "ministers"; because, to wit, it is not in the deacon's province to be the chief and official celebrant in conferring
+                     a sacrament, but to minister to others, his elders, in the sacramental dispensations. And
+                     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
+                     in the bestowal of this and other sacraments. Hence Isidore says (Epist. ad Ludifred.): "It is a deacon's duty to assist and
+                     serve the priests, in all the rites of Christ's sacraments, viz. those of Baptism, of the Chrism, of the Paten and Chalice."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A1-p7">
+                     <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.
+                     v) that a deacon's office involves power over the unclean among whom he includes the catechumens. But to teach, i.e. to expound
+                     the Gospel, is the proper office of a bishop, whose action is "to perfect," as Dionysius teaches (Eccl. Hier. v); and "to
+                     perfect" is the same as "to teach." Consequently, it does not follow that the
+                     office of baptizing belongs to deacons.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A1-p8">
+                     <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,
+                     it is outside the province of the deacon whose duty it is to cleanse only: viz. either by driving away the unclean, or by
+                     preparing them for the reception of a sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A1-p9">
+                     <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
+                     hand; as appears from the authority of Gelasius quoted above. And it was thus that Blessed Laurence, being but a deacon, baptized.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A1-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A1-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q67.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A2.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q67_A2" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A3.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q67_A2-p0.1">Whether to baptize is part of the priestly office, or proper to that of bishops?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A2-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A2-p2">
+                     <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],
+                     OBJ[1]), the duties of teaching and baptizing are enjoined in the same precept (
+                     <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
+                     to baptize also belongs to the episcopal office.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A2-p3">
+                     <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
+                     than the princely office. Now the bishops hold the position of princes in the Church, as the gloss observes on
+                     <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 (
+                     <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
+                     exclusively to the office of bishops.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A2-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Isidore says (Epist. ad Ludifred.) that "it belongs to the bishop to consecrate churches, to anoint altars, to consecrate
+                     [conficere] the chrism; he it is that confers the ecclesiastical orders, and blesses the consecrated virgins." But the sacrament
+                     of Baptism is greater than all these. Therefore much more reason is there why to baptize should belong exclusively to the
+                     episcopal office.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A2-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> Isidore says (De Officiis. ii): "It is certain that Baptism was entrusted to priests alone."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A2-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> Priests are consecrated for the purpose of celebrating the sacrament of Christ's Body, as stated above (
+                     <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 (
+                     <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
+                     a participator in ecclesiastical unity, wherefore also he receives the right to
+                     approach our Lord's Table. Consequently, just as it belongs to a priest to consecrate the Eucharist, which is the principal
+                     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,
+                     to produce the whole and to dispose the part in the whole.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A2-p7">
+                     <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,
+                     but in different ways. Because Christ committed to them the duty of teaching, that they might exercise it themselves as being
+                     the most important duty of all: wherefore the apostles themselves said (
+                     <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
+                     entrusted the apostles with the office of baptizing, to be exercised vicariously; wherefore the Apostle says (
+                     <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
+                     minister have no bearing on the baptismal effect, as they have in teaching, as may be seen from what we have stated above
+                     (Q[64], A[1], ad 2; 
+                     <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
+                     Himself did not baptize, but His disciples, as John relates (4:2). Nor does it follow from this that bishops cannot baptize;
+                     since what a lower power can do, that can also a higher power. Wherefore also the Apostle says (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q67_A2-p7.4" href="./asv.html#iCor.1.14" target="asv">1 Cor. 1:14</a>, 
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q67_A2-p7.5" href="./asv.html#iCor.1.16" target="asv">16</a>) that he had baptized some.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A2-p8">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In every commonwealth minor affairs are entrusted to lower officials, while greater affairs are restricted to higher officials;
+                     according to
+                     <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
+                     it belongs to the lower officials of the state to decide matters concerning the lower orders; while to the highest it belongs
+                     to set in order those
+                     matters that regard the higher orders of the state. Now by Baptism a man attains only to the lowest rank among the Christian
+                     people: and consequently it belongs to the lesser officials of the Church
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     quoted from 
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q67_A2-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.10" target="asv">Luke 10</a>.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A2-p10">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As stated above (
+                     <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
+                     greater sacraments which are reserved to bishops.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A2-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A2-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A3.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q67_A3" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A4.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q67_A3-p0.1">Whether a layman can baptize?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A3-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A3-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that a layman cannot baptize. Because, as stated above 
+                     <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
+                     that is not ordained. Therefore it seems that a layman, who has no orders, cannot baptize.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A3-p3">
+                     <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,
+                     to exorcize, and to bless the baptismal water. But these things cannot be done by laymen, but only by priests. Therefore it
+                     seems that much less can laymen baptize.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A3-p4">
+                     <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.
+                     Neither, therefore, can he baptize.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A3-p5">
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A3-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> It is due to the mercy of Him "Who will have all men to be saved" (
+                     <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
+                     the sacraments is Baptism, which is man's regeneration unto spiritual life: since for children there is no substitute, while
+                     adults cannot otherwise than by Baptism receive a full remission both of guilt and of its punishment. Consequently,
+                     lest man should have to go without so necessary a remedy, it was ordained, both that the matter of Baptism should be something
+                     common that is easily obtainable by all, i.e. water; and that the minister of Baptism should be anyone, even not in orders,
+                     lest from lack of being baptized, man should suffer loss of his salvation.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A3-p7">
+                     <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
+                     to the sacrament. Consequently, if a layman were to baptize even outside a case of urgency; he would sin, yet he would confer
+                     the sacrament; nor would the person thus baptized have to be baptized again.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A3-p8">
+                     <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
+                     should nor can be done by a layman, but only by a priest, whose office it is to baptize solemnly.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A3-p9">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As stated above (
+                     <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
+                     not free from the whole punishment, nor again is it given to children. Therefore the comparison with Baptism does not stand,
+                     because its effect cannot be supplied by anything else.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A3-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A3-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A4.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q67_A4" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A5.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q67_A4-p0.1">Whether a woman can baptize?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A4-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A4-p2">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     in church, according to 
+                     <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
+                     to baptize.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A4-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, to baptize belongs to those having authority. wherefore baptism should be conferred by priests having charge of
+                     souls. But women are not qualified for this; according to 
+                     <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']."
+                     Therefore a woman cannot baptize.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A4-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, in the spiritual regeneration water seems to hold the place of the mother's womb, as Augustine says on
+                     <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
+                     position of father. But this is unfitting for a woman. Therefore a woman cannot baptize.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A4-p5">
+                     <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
+                     should be given: that the baptism is valid when, in cases of necessity, a woman baptizes a child in the name of the Trinity."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A4-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> Christ is the chief Baptizer, according to
+                     <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
+                     
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q67_A4-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Col.3" target="asv">Col. 3</a> (cf.
+                     <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
+                     a woman.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A4-p7"> But since "the head of the woman is the man," and "the head of . . . man, is Christ" (
+                     <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
+                     cleric, nor a cleric in the presence of a priest. The last, however, can baptize in the presence of a bishop, because it is
+                     part of the priestly office.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A4-p8">
+                     <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
+                     to baptize publicly and solemnly, and yet she can baptize in a case of urgency.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A4-p9">
+                     <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
+                     representing him. But this is not required in cases of urgency, when a woman may baptize.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A4-p10">
+                     <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
+                     be the active, but only the passive, principle of generation. But in spiritual generation they do not act, either of them,
+                     by their proper power, but only instrumentally by the power of Christ. Consequently, on the same grounds either man or woman
+                     can baptize in a case of urgency.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     in regard to laymen (A[3], ad 1). But the baptizer herself would sin, as also those who took part with her therein, either
+                     by receiving Baptism from her, or by bringing someone to her to be baptized.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A4-p12"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A4-p13"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A5.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q67_A5" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A6.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q67_A5-p0.1">Whether one that is not baptized can confer the sacrament of Baptism?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A5-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A5-p2">
+                     <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
+                     person has not the sacrament of Baptism. Therefore he cannot give it.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A5-p3">
+                     <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,
+                     belongs nowise to the Church, i.e. neither really nor sacramentally. Therefore he cannot confer the sacrament of Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A5-p4">
+                     <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.
+                     Much less, therefore, can he confer any sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A5-p5">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     can confer the sacrament of Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A5-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> Augustine left this question without deciding it. For he says (Contra Ep. Parmen. ii): "This is indeed another question,
+                     whether even those can baptize who were never Christians; nor should anything be rashly asserted hereupon, without the authority
+                     of a sacred council such as suffices for so great a matter." But afterwards it was decided by the Church that the unbaptized,
+                     whether Jews or pagans, can confer the sacrament of Baptism, provided they baptize in
+                     the form of the Church. Wherefore Pope Nicolas I replies to the questions propounded by the Bulgars: "You say that many in
+                     your country have been baptized by someone, whether Christian or pagan you know not. If these were baptized in the name of
+                     the Trinity, they must not be rebaptized." But if the form of the Church be not observed, the sacrament of Baptism is not
+                     conferred. And thus is to be explained what Gregory II [*Gregory III] writes to Bishop Boniface: "Those whom you assert to
+                     have
+                     been baptized by pagans," namely, with a form not recognized by the Church, "we command you to rebaptize in the name of the
+                     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
+                     concerned, any water will suffice, so, on the part of the minister, any man is competent. Consequently, an unbaptized person
+                     can baptize in a case of urgency. So that two unbaptized persons may baptize one another, one baptizing the other and being
+                     afterwards baptized by him: and each would receive not only the sacrament but also the reality of the sacrament. But if this
+                     were done outside a case of urgency, each would sin grievously, both the baptizer and the baptized, and thus the baptismal
+                     effect would be frustrated, although the sacrament itself would not be invalidated.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A5-p7">
+                     <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
+                     to whatever purpose He wills. Consequently, the unbaptized can baptize: because, as Pope Nicolas I says, "the Baptism is not
+                     theirs," i.e. the baptizers', "but His," i.e. Christ's.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A5-p8">
+                     <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
+                     her in intention and by similarity of action, namely, in so far as he intends to do what the Church does, and in baptizing
+                     observes the Church's form, and thus acts as the minister of Christ, Who did not confine His power to those that are baptized,
+                     as neither did He to the sacraments.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A5-p9">
+                     <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
+                     rather than that he should receive other sacraments.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A5-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A5-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A6.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q67_A6" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A7.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q67_A6-p0.1">Whether several can baptize at the same time?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A6-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A6-p2">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     baptize. Therefore several, too, can baptize one at the same time.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A6-p3">
+                     <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
+                     man can baptize several at the same time. Much more, therefore, can many baptize one at the same time.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A6-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Baptism is a sacrament of the greatest necessity. Now in certain cases it seems necessary for several to baptize
+                     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,
+                     and the other without hands or arms; for then the mutilated person would have to pronounce the words, and the dumb person
+                     would have to perform the act of baptizing. Therefore it seems that several can baptize one at
+                     the same time.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A6-p5">
+                     <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
+                     be several baptisms: and this is contrary to
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A6-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> The Sacrament of Baptism derives its power principally from its form, which the Apostle calls "the word of life" (
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     of Baptism would not be conferred, because the form of the Church would
+                     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
+                     is disproved by the form observed in the Greek Church. For they might say: "The servant of God, N . . ., is baptized in the
+                     name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," under which form the Greeks receive the sacrament of Baptism: and
+                     yet this form differs far more from the form that we use, than does this: "We baptize thee."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     concur in conferring one Baptism: and this seems contrary to the notion of a minister; for a man does not baptize save as
+                     a minister of Christ, and as standing in His place; wherefore just as there is one Christ, so should there be one minister
+                     to represent Christ. Hence the Apostle says pointedly (
+                     <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
+                     Baptism." Consequently, an intention which is in opposition to this seems to annul the sacrament of Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <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,"
+                     each would signify his intention as though he were conferring Baptism independently of the other. This might occur in the
+                     case where both were striving to baptize someone; and then it is clear that whichever pronounced the words first would confer
+                     the sacrament of Baptism; while the other, however great his right to baptize, if he presume to utter the words,
+                     would be liable to be punished as a rebaptizer. If, however, they were to pronounce the words absolutely at the same time,
+                     and dipped or sprinkled the man together, they should be punished for baptizing in an improper manner, but not for rebaptizing:
+                     because each would intend to baptize an unbaptized person, and each, so far as he is concerned, would baptize. Nor would they
+                     confer several sacraments: but the one Christ baptizing inwardly would confer one sacrament by means of both together.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A6-p9">
+                     <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,
+                     Who, since He is one, perfects His work by means of one minister.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A6-p10">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     baptizing them singly. Nor would this cause a change in the Church's form, since the plural is nothing but the singular doubled:
+                     especially as we find the plural expressed in
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q67_A6-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.28.19" target="asv"> Mat. 28:19</a>:
+                     "Baptizing them," etc. Nor is there parity between the baptizer and the baptized; since Christ, the baptizer in chief, is
+                     one: while many are made one in Christ by Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A6-p11">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As stated above (
+                     <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
+                     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.
+                     For neither could he say: "I baptize thee": since he dips not, and therefore baptizes not. Nor could they say: "We baptize
+                     thee": since
+                     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
+                     form of speech to say: "We wrote this book," but the figure of synecdoche in which the whole is put for the part.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A6-p12"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A6-p13"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A7.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q67_A7" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A6.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A8.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q67_A7-p0.1">Whether in Baptism it is necessary for someone to raise the baptized from the sacred font?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A7-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A7-p2">
+                     <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
+                     by Christ's Baptism and is conformed thereto. But Christ when baptized was not raised by anyone from the font, but according
+                     to
+                     <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
+                     anyone raise the baptized from the sacred font.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A7-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Baptism is a spiritual regeneration, as stated above 
+                     <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,
+                     i.e. the mother. Since, then, in Baptism he that baptizes takes the place of the father, while the very water of Baptism takes
+                     the place of the mother, as Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (cxxxv); it seems that there is no further need for
+                     someone to raise the baptized from the sacred font.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A7-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, nothing ridiculous should be observed in the sacraments of the Church. But it seems ridiculous that after being
+                     baptized, adults who can stand up of themselves and leave the sacred font, should be held up by another. Therefore there seems
+                     no need for anyone, especially in the Baptism of adults, to raise the baptized from the sacred font.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A7-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. ii) that "the priests taking the baptized hand him over to his sponsor and guide."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A7-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> The spiritual regeneration, which takes place in Baptism, is in a certain manner likened to carnal generation: wherefore
+                     it is written (
+                     <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
+                     the new-born child needs nourishment and guidance: wherefore, in spiritual generation also, someone is needed to undertake
+                     the office of nurse and tutor by forming
+                     and instructing one who is yet a novice in the Faith, concerning things pertaining to Christian faith and mode of life, which
+                     the clergy have not the leisure to do through being busy with watching over the people generally: because little children
+                     and novices need more than ordinary care. Consequently someone is needed to receive the baptized from the sacred font as though
+                     for the purpose of instructing and guiding them. It is to this that Dionysius refers (Eccl. Hier. xi) saying: "It occurred
+                     to our heavenly guides," i.e. the Apostles, "and they decided, that infants should be taken charge of thus: that the parents
+                     of the child should hand it over to some instructor versed in holy things, who would thenceforth take charge of the child,
+                     and be to it a spiritual father and a guide in the road of salvation."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A7-p7">
+                     <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
+                     needed no tutor like other children.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A7-p8">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     taken in Baptism by him who raises the child from the sacred font. Consequently this is not essential to the sacrament, and
+                     in a case of necessity one alone can baptize with water.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A7-p9">
+                     <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
+                     of spiritual weakness, as stated above.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A7-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A7-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A6.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A8.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q67_A8" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A7.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q67_A8-p0.1">Whether he who raises anyone from the sacred font is bound to instruct him?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A8-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A8-p2">
+                     <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
+                     instructed can give instruction. But even the uneducated and ill-instructed are allowed to raise people from the sacred font.
+                     Therefore he who raises a baptized person from the font is not bound to instruct him.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A8-p3">
+                     <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
+                     from his father, "being, food, and education." If, therefore, godparents are bound to instruct their godchildren, it would
+                     be fitting for the carnal father, rather than another, to be the godparent of his own child. And yet this seems to be forbidden,
+                     as may be seen in the Decretals (xxx, qu. 1, Cap. Pervenit and Dictum est).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A8-p4">
+                     <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,
+                     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
+                     should not have more than one godparent, be this a man or a woman."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A8-p5">
+                     <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
+                     children in Baptism, that ye stand before God as sureties for those whom you have been seen to raise from the sacred font."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A8-p6">
+                     <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 
+                     <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
+                     there is need for them to do so: for instance when and where children are brought up among unbelievers. But if they are brought
+                     up among Catholic Christians, the godparents may well be excused from
+                     this responsibility, since it may be presumed that the children will be carefully instructed by their parents. If, however,
+                     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
+                     welfare of their godchildren.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A8-p7">
+                     <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."
+                     But where the danger is not imminent, by reason of the children being brought up among Catholics, anyone is admitted to this
+                     position, because the things pertaining to the Christian rule of life and faith are known openly by all. Nevertheless an unbaptized
+                     person cannot be a godparent, as was decreed in the Council of Mainz,
+                     although an unbaptized person: because the person baptizing is essential to the sacrament, wherefore as the godparent is not,
+                     as stated above (A[7], ad 2).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A8-p8">
+                     <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;
+                     according to
+                     <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
+                     of Spirits, and live?" Therefore the spiritual father should be distinct from the carnal father, unless necessity demanded
+                     otherwise.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A8-p9">
+                     <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
+                     sponsor in Baptism: but others can be allowed as assistants.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A8-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q67_A8-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A7.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q66_A12.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A1.html"></a>
+            </div>
+            <div id="TP_Q68" class="div3">
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A8.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A1.html"></a>
+               <h3 id="TP_Q68-p0.1">OF THOSE WHO RECEIVE BAPTISM (TWELVE ARTICLES)</h3>
+               <p id="TP_Q68-p1"></p>
+               <p id="TP_Q68-p2"> We have now to consider those who receive Baptism; concerning which there are twelve points of inquiry:</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q68-p3"> (1) Whether all are bound to receive Baptism?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q68-p4"> (2) Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q68-p5"> (3) Whether Baptism should be deferred?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q68-p6"> (4) Whether sinners should be baptized?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q68-p7"> (5) Whether works of satisfaction should be enjoined on sinners that have been baptized?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q68-p8"> (6) Whether Confession of sins is necessary?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q68-p9"> (7) Whether an intention is required on the part of the one baptized?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q68-p10"> (8) Whether faith is necessary?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q68-p11"> (9) Whether infants should be baptized?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q68-p12"> (10) Whether the children of Jews should be baptized against the will of their parents?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q68-p13"> (11) Whether anyone should be baptized in the mother's womb?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q68-p14"> (12) Whether madmen and imbeciles should be baptized?</p>
+               <div id="TP_Q68_A1" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A2.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q68_A1-p0.1">Whether all are bound to receive Baptism?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A1-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A1-p2">
+                     <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
+                     coming men could be saved without Baptism: therefore also after Christ's coming.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A1-p3">
+                     <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
+                     is without original sin, it seems that he cannot transmit it to his children. Therefore it seems that the children of those
+                     who have been baptized, should not themselves be baptized.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A1-p4">
+                     <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
+                     womb, obtain this without Baptism. Therefore they are not bound to receive Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A1-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
+                     <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
+                     De Eccl. Dogm. xli, that "we believe the way of salvation to be open to those only who are baptized."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A1-p6">
+                     <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
+                     through Christ; wherefore the Apostle says (
+                     <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
+                     of life." But for this end is Baptism conferred on a man, that being regenerated thereby, he may be incorporated in Christ,
+                     by becoming His
+                     member: wherefore it is written (
+                     <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
+                     be baptized: and that without Baptism there is no salvation for men.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A1-p7">
+                     <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
+                     is written (
+                     <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
+                     in Christ by faith in His future coming: of which faith circumcision was the "seal," as the Apostle calls it (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A1-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.4.11" target="asv">Rom. 4:11</a>): whereas before
+                     circumcision was instituted, men were incorporated in Christ by "faith alone," as Gregory says (Moral. iv), together with
+                     the offering of sacrifices, by means of which the Fathers of old made profession of their faith. Again, since Christ's coming,
+                     men are incorporated in Christ by faith; according to
+                     <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
+                     from that by which it was manifested when
+                     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.
+                     Consequently although the sacrament itself of Baptism was not always necessary for salvation, yet faith, of which Baptism
+                     is the sacrament, was always necessary.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A1-p8">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As we have stated in the 
+                     <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
+                     to
+                     <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
+                     Julian. vi) proves that "not everything that is in man is baptized." Now it is manifest that in carnal
+                     generation man does not beget in respect of his soul, but in respect of his body. Consequently the children of those who are
+                     baptized are born with original sin; wherefore they need to be baptized.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A1-p9">
+                     <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
+                     receive the character, by which they are conformed to Christ. Consequently, if any were to be sanctified in the womb now,
+                     they would need to be baptized, in order to be conformed to Christ's other members by receiving the character.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A1-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A1-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A2.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q68_A2" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A3.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q68_A2-p0.1">Whether a man can be saved without Baptism? </h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A2-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A2-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For our Lord said (
+                     <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
+                     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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A2-p3">
+                     <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,
+                     will have eternal life, except he suffer martyrdom, which contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism." But if it were
+                     possible for anyone to be saved without Baptism, this would be the case specially with catechumens who are credited with good
+                     works, for they seem to have the "faith that worketh by charity" (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.5.6" target="asv">Gal.
+                        5:6
+                     </a>). Therefore it seems that none can be saved without Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A2-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as stated above 
+                     <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
+                     be" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A2-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that "some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and
+                     to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without
+                     the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit." Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible
+                     sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism,
+                     by means of the invisible sanctification.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A2-p6">
+                     <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
+                     those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to
+                     those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since
+                     neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can
+                     salvation be obtained.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation
+                     without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh
+                     by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose
+                     says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace
+                     he prayed for."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A2-p8">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As it is written (
+                     <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
+                     and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A2-p9">
+                     <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
+                     when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom "contains all the sacramental
+                     virtue of Baptism," i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the
+                     desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which
+                     cannot be without "faith that worketh by charity"), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life,
+                     but would suffer punishment for his past sins, "but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" as is stated 
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A2-p9.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.3.15" target="asv">1 Cor. 3:15.</a>
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A2-p10">
+                     <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
+                     of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in 
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A2-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.57" target="asv">Ps. 57</a>).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A2-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A2-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A3.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q68_A3" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A4.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q68_A3-p0.1">Whether Baptism should be deferred?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A3-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A3-p2">
+                     <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
+                     fixed by the Roman Pontiff for the celebration of Baptism. Wherefore we admonish your Beatitude not to add any other days
+                     to this custom." Therefore it seems that Baptism should be conferred not at once, but delayed until the aforesaid seasons.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A3-p3">
+                     <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,"
+                     wish to submit to the Law of the Catholic Church, let them for eight months enter the porch of the church with the catechumens;
+                     and if they are found to come in good faith then at last they may deserve the grace of Baptism." Therefore men should not
+                     be baptized at once, and Baptism should be deferred for a certain fixed time.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A3-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as we read in
+                     <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,
+                     if Baptism be deferred. First, because those who sin after Baptism, sin more grievously, according to
+                     <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.
+                     Baptism, "unclean, by which he
+                     was sanctified?" Secondly, because Baptism takes away past, but not future, sins: wherefore the more it is deferred, the more
+                     sins it takes away. Therefore it seems that Baptism should be deferred for a long time.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A3-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
+                     <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
+                     who are regenerated in Christ by Baptism. Therefore Baptism should not be deferred from day to day.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A3-p6">
+                     <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
+                     be children, Baptism should not be deferred. First, because in them we do not look for better instruction or fuller conversion.
+                     Secondly, because of the danger of death, for no other remedy is available for them besides the sacrament of Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A3-p7"> On the other hand, adults have a remedy in the mere desire for Baptism, as stated above 
+                     <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
+                     fixed time. First, as a safeguard to the Church, lest she be deceived through baptizing those who come to her under false
+                     pretenses, according to 
+                     <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
+                     of God." And those who approach Baptism are put to this test, when their faith and morals are subjected to proof for a space
+                     of time. Secondly, this is needful as being useful for those who are baptized; for they require a certain space of time in
+                     order to be fully instructed in the faith, and to be drilled in those things that pertain to the Christian mode of life. Thirdly,
+                     a certain reverence for the sacrament demands a delay whereby men are admitted to Baptism at the principal festivities,
+                     viz. of Easter and Pentecost, the result being that they receive the sacrament with greater devotion.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     instructed in the faith and ready for Baptism; thus, Philip baptized the Eunuch at once (
+                     <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 (
+                     <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
+                     by death, sickness, siege, persecution, or shipwreck, should be baptized at
+                     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
+                     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
+                     being baptized beyond the time appointed by the Church, except this be for an unavoidable cause and with the permission of
+                     the authorities of the Church. But even this sin, with his other sins, can be washed away by his subsequent contrition, which
+                     takes the place of Baptism, as stated above (
+                     <a id="TP_Q68_A3-p8.3" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q66_A11.html">Q[66], A[11]</a>).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A3-p9">
+                     <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
+                     the danger of death" (which is always to be feared in children) as stated above.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A3-p10">
+                     <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
+                     be not fully converted. Nevertheless, as the same passage reads further on, "if within the appointed time they are threatened
+                     with danger of sickness, they should be baptized."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A3-p11">
+                     <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
+                     the point to be considered---that men may not sin: it is a secondary consideration that their sins be less grievous, or that
+                     their sins be washed away, according to 
+                     <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
+                     Father,
+                     Jesus Christ the just; and He is the propitiation for our sins."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A3-p12"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A3-p13"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A4.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q68_A4" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A5.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q68_A4-p0.1">Whether sinners should be baptized?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A4-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A4-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that sinners should be baptized. For it is written (
+                     <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
+                     of the sinner and of the unclean woman": and this is to be understood of the fountain of Baptism. Therefore it seems that
+                     the sacrament of Baptism should be offered even to sinners.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A4-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, our Lord said (
+                     <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
+                     Baptism is the remedy of Christ the physician of our souls, it seems that this sacrament should be offered to sinners.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A4-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, no assistance should be withdrawn from sinners. But sinners who have been baptized derive spiritual assistance from
+                     the very character of Baptism, since it is a disposition to grace. Therefore it seems that the sacrament of Baptism should
+                     be offered to sinners.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A4-p5">
+                     <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
+                     will is ill-disposed, he does not co-operate with God. Therefore it is useless to employ Baptism as a means of justification.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A4-p6">
+                     <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:
+                     and on sinners in this sense the sacrament of Baptism should be conferred, since it is instituted specially for this purpose,
+                     that by it the uncleanness of sin may be washed away, according to
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     the sacrament of Baptism should not be conferred. First, indeed, because by Baptism men are incorporated in Christ, according
+                     to
+                     <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
+                     to Christ, according to 
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A4-p7.2" href="./asv.html#iiCor.6.14" target="asv">2 Cor. 6:14</a>: "What
+                     participation hath justice with injustice?" Wherefore Augustine says in his book on Penance (Serm. cccli) that "no man who
+                     has the use of free-will can begin the new life, except he repent of his former life." Secondly, because there should be nothing
+                     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;
+                     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
+                     Baptism; for this would be to combine two contradictory things. Thirdly, because there should be no falsehood in the sacramental
+                     signs. Now a sign is false if it does not correspond with the thing signified. But the very fact that a man presents himself
+                     to be cleansed by Baptism, signifies that he prepares himself for the inward cleansing: while this cannot be the case with
+                     one who purposes to remain in sin. Therefore it is manifest that on such a man the sacrament of Baptism is not to be
+                     conferred.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A4-p8">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The words quoted are to be understood of those sinners whose will is set on renouncing sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A4-p9">
+                     <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
+                     it wills good and hates evil. Secondly, He works through ministers, by the outward application of the sacraments: and in this
+                     way His work consists in perfecting what was begun outwardly. Therefore the sacrament of Baptism is not to be conferred save
+                     on those in whom there appears some sign of their interior conversion: just as
+                     neither is bodily medicine given to a sick man, unless he show some sign of life.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A4-p10">
+                     <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
+                     alone, "that worketh by charity" (
+                     <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
+                     is set on sinning, and hence expels the form of faith. Moreover, the impression of the baptismal character cannot dispose
+                     a man for grace as
+                     long as he retains the will to sin; for "God compels no man to be virtuous," as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A4-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A4-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A5.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q68_A5" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A6.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q68_A5-p0.1">Whether works of satisfaction should be enjoined on sinners that have been baptized?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A5-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A5-p2">
+                     <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
+                     that a man should be punished for every sin of his, according to
+                     <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
+                     of past sins. Therefore it seems that works of satisfaction should be enjoined on sinners that have been baptized.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A5-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, by means of works of satisfaction sinners recently converted are drilled into righteousness, and are made to avoid
+                     the occasions of sin: "for satisfaction consists in extirpating the causes of vice, and closing the doors to sin" (De Eccl.
+                     Dogm. iv). But this is most necessary in the case of those who have been baptized recently. Therefore it seems that works
+                     of satisfaction should be enjoined on sinners.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A5-p4">
+                     <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
+                     their neighbor, they should be told to make reparation to God by works of penance.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A5-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> Ambrose commenting on
+                     <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
+                     Baptism, nor indeed any work at all, but faith alone; and remits all, gratis."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A5-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As the Apostle says (
+                     <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
+                     death"; which is to say that by Baptism man is incorporated in the very death of Christ. Now it is manifest from what has
+                     been said above (
+                     <a id="TP_Q68_A5-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q48_A2.html">Q[48], AA[2]</a>,4;
+                     <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
+                     only, but also for those of the whole world," according to 
+                     <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
+                     be to dishonor the Passion and death of Christ, as being insufficient for the plenary satisfaction for the sins of those who
+                     were to be baptized.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A5-p7">
+                     <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,
+                     who are baptized, to be incorporated in Christ as His members." Wherefore the very pains of Christ were satisfactory for the
+                     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
+                     it is written (
+                     <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
+                     infirmities and carried our sorrows."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A5-p8">
+                     <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
+                     to perfection by taking exercise, as infants by taking milk," as a gloss says on
+                     <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
+                     were recently converted, as we read in
+                     <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
+                     written 
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A5-p9">
+                     <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
+                     sin: for the very fact of retaining what belongs to another and of not being reconciled to one's neighbor, is a sin. Wherefore
+                     those who are baptized should be enjoined to make satisfaction to their neighbor, as also to desist from sin. But they are
+                     not to be enjoined to suffer any punishment for past sins.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A5-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A5-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A6.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q68_A6" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A7.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q68_A6-p0.1">Whether sinners who are going to be baptized are bound to confess their sins?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A6-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A6-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that sinners who are going to be baptized are bound to confess their sins. For it is written (
+                     <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.
+                     Therefore it seems that there is yet greater reason why they who are about to receive Christ's Baptism should confess their
+                     sins.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A6-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is written (
+                     <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
+                     is a man baptized, that he may obtain mercy for his sins. Therefore those who are going to be baptized should confess their
+                     sins.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A6-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Penance is required before Baptism, according to 
+                     <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
+                     sins should take place before Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A6-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> Confession of sins should be sorrowful: thus Augustine says (De Vera et Falsa Poenit. xiv): "All these circumstances should
+                     be taken into account and deplored." Now, as Ambrose says on
+                     <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
+                     who are going to be baptized.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A6-p6">
+                     <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
+                     words, man should call his sins to mind and sorrow for them; since "he cannot begin the new life, except he repent of his
+                     former life," as Augustine says in his book on Penance (Serm. cccli). The other is the outward confession of sins, which is
+                     made to a priest; and such confession is not required before Baptism. First, because this
+                     confession, since it is directed to the person of the minister, belongs to the sacrament of Penance, which is not required
+                     before Baptism, which is the door of all the sacraments. Secondly, because the reason why a man makes outward confession to
+                     a priest, is that the priest may absolve him from his sins, and bind him to works of satisfaction, which should not be enjoined
+                     on the baptized, as stated above 
+                     <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
+                     released from their sins by the keys of the Church, since all are forgiven them in Baptism. Thirdly, because the very act
+                     of confession made to a man is penal, by reason of the shame it inflicts on the one confessing: whereas no exterior punishment
+                     is enjoined on a man who is being baptized.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     which they make when in accordance with the Church's ritual they "renounce Satan and all his works." And in this sense a gloss
+                     explains
+                     <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
+                     amend their life."
+                  </p>
+                  <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;
+                     not for the purpose of enjoining them to do satisfaction, but in order to instruct them in the spiritual life as a remedy
+                     against their vicious habits.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A6-p9">
+                     <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
+                     who went to receive that Baptism, should confess their sins, so that they should receive a penance in proportion to their
+                     sins. But Christ's Baptism is without outward penance, as Ambrose says (on
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A6-p10">
+                     <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
+                     and obtain mercy": and they need no special outward confession, as stated above.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A6-p11">
+                     <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
+                     of Penance is required.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A6-p12"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A6-p13"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A7.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q68_A7" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A6.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A8.html"></a>
+                  <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>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A7-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A7-p2">
+                     <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
+                     one baptized is, as it were, "patient" in the sacrament. But an intention is required not on the part of the patient but on
+                     the part of the agent. Therefore it seems that the intention of receiving Baptism is not required on the part of the one baptized.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A7-p3">
+                     <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
+                     Trinity be omitted, as stated above (
+                     <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,
+                     since his intention cannot be proved, anyone might ask to be baptized again on account of his lack of intention. Therefore
+                     it seems that no
+                     intention is required on the part of the one baptized, in order that he receive the sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A7-p4">
+                     <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
+                     born. Therefore, seemingly, Baptism requires no intention on the part of the person baptized.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A7-p5">
+                     <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
+                     they express their intention of receiving the sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A7-p6">
+                     <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
+                     <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
+                     walk in newness of life." Consequently, just as, according to Augustine (Serm. cccli), he who has the use of free-will, must,
+                     in order to die to the old life, "will to repent of his former life"; so must he, of his
+                     own will, intend to lead a new life, the beginning of which is precisely the receiving of the sacrament. Therefore on the
+                     part of the one baptized, it is necessary for him to have the will or intention of receiving the sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A7-p7">
+                     <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
+                     to receive that which is given him.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A7-p8">
+                     <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
+                     to be used should be: "If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A7-p9">
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A7-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A7-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A6.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A8.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q68_A8" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A7.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A9.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q68_A8-p0.1">Whether faith is required on the part of the one baptized?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A8-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A8-p2">
+                     <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
+                     Christ, in giving the form of Baptism, makes faith to precede Baptism (
+                     <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
+                     Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A8-p3">
+                     <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
+                     to be baptized is asked concerning his faith: "Dost thou believe in God the Father Almighty?" Therefore it seems that faith
+                     is required for Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A8-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the intention of receiving the sacrament is required for Baptism. But this cannot be without right faith, since
+                     Baptism is the sacrament of right faith: for thereby men "are incorporated in Christ," as Augustine says in his book on Infant
+                     Baptism (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i); and this cannot be without right faith, according to 
+                     <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
+                     receive the sacrament of Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A8-p5">
+                     <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, unbelief is a most grievous sin, as we have shown in the 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A8-p6">
+                     <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,
+                     baptized in the name of the Trinity, come back to Holy Church, they are to be welcomed to her bosom, either with the anointing
+                     of chrism, or the imposition of hands, or the mere profession of faith." But such would not be the case if faith were necessary
+                     for a man to receive Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A8-p7">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As appears from what has been said above (
+                     <a id="TP_Q68_A8-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q63_A6.html">Q[63], A[6]</a>;
+                     <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
+                     for Baptism. First, as something without which grace, which is the ultimate effect of the sacrament, cannot be had. And thus
+                     right faith is necessary for Baptism, because, as it appears from
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q68_A8-p7.3" href="./asv.html#Rom.3.22" target="asv"> Rom. 3:22,
+                        
+                     </a>the justice of God is by faith of Jesus Christ.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A8-p8"> Secondly, something is required of necessity for Baptism, because without it the baptismal character cannot be imprinted
+                     And thus right faith is not necessary in the one baptized any more than in the one who baptizes: provided the other conditions
+                     are fulfilled which are essential to the sacrament. For the sacrament is not perfected by the righteousness of the minister
+                     or of the recipient of Baptism, but by the power of God.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A8-p9">
+                     <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
+                     be without right faith: wherefore He says pointedly: "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A8-p10">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The Church's intention in Baptizing men is that they may be cleansed from sin, according to
+                     <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
+                     intend to give Baptism save to those who have right faith, without which there is no remission of sins. And for this reason
+                     she asks those who come to be baptized whether they believe. If, on the contrary,
+                     anyone, without right faith, receive Baptism outside the Church, he does not receive it unto salvation. Hence Augustine says
+                     (De Baptism. contr. Donat. iv): "From the Church being compared to Paradise we learn that men can receive her Baptism even
+                     outside her fold, but that elsewhere none can receive or keep the salvation of the blessed."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A8-p11">
+                     <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
+                     from having the intention of receiving that sacrament. Yet even if he think not aright concerning this sacrament, it is enough,
+                     for the receiving of the sacrament, that he should have a general intention of receiving Baptism, according as Christ instituted,
+                     and as the Church bestows it.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A8-p12">
+                     <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
+                     it be given to one who is unwilling to renounce his unbelief. Yet each receives the sacrament if it be conferred on him, though
+                     not unto salvation.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A8-p13"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A8-p14"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A7.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A9.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q68_A9" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A8.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A10.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q68_A9-p0.1">Whether children should be baptized?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A9-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A9-p2">
+                     <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
+                     baptized, as stated above 
+                     <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
+                     receive the sacrament of Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A9-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Baptism is the sacrament of faith, as stated above (
+                     <a id="TP_Q68_A9-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q39_A5.html">Q[39], A[5]</a>;
+                     <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
+                     Joan. xxvi). Nor can it be said that their salvation is implied in the faith of their parents; since the latter are sometimes
+                     unbelievers, and their unbelief would conduce rather to the damnation of their
+                     children. Therefore it seems that children cannot be baptized.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A9-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is written (
+                     <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
+                     God." But children have no conscience, either good or bad, since they have not the use of reason: nor can they be fittingly
+                     examined, since they understand not. Therefore children should not be baptized.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A9-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii): "Our heavenly guides," i.e. the Apostles, "approved of infants being admitted to Baptism."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A9-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As the Apostle says (
+                     <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
+                     the gift, and of justice, shall reign in life through one, Jesus Christ." Now children contract original sin from the sin
+                     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
+                     of the first man, as the Apostle says in
+                     the same passage (
+                     <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
+                     (
+                     <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
+                     necessary to baptize children, that, as in birth they incurred damnation through Adam so in a second birth they might obtain
+                     salvation through Christ. Moreover it was
+                     fitting that children should receive Baptism, in order that being reared from childhood in things pertaining to the Christian
+                     mode of life, they may the more easily persevere therein; according to
+                     <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
+                     (Eccl. Hier. iii).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A9-p7">
+                     <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
+                     the mother's womb receives nourishment not independently, but through the nourishment of its mother, so also children before
+                     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
+                     the act of the Church. Hence Augustine says (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i): "The
+                     Church, our mother, offers her maternal mouth for her children, that they may imbibe the sacred mysteries: for they cannot
+                     as yet with their own hearts believe unto justice, nor with their own mouths confess unto salvation . . . And if they are
+                     rightly said to believe, because in a certain fashion they make profession of faith by the words of their sponsors, why should
+                     they not also be said to repent, since by the words of those same sponsors they evidence their renunciation of the devil and
+                     this world?" For the same reason they can be said to intend, not by their own act of intention, since at times they struggle
+                     and cry; but by the act of those who bring them to be baptized.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A9-p8">
+                     <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
+                     others, just as they contracted from others those sins which are remitted in Baptism." Nor is it a hindrance to their salvation
+                     if their parents be unbelievers, because, as Augustine says, writing to the same Boniface (Ep. xcviii), "little children are
+                     offered that they may receive grace in their souls, not so much from the
+                     hands of those that carry them (yet from these too, if they be good and faithful) as from the whole company of the saints
+                     and the faithful. For they are rightly considered to be offered by those who are pleased at their being offered, and by whose
+                     charity they are united in communion with the Holy Ghost." And the unbelief of their own parents, even if after Baptism these
+                     strive to infect them with the worship of demons, hurts not the children. For as Augustine says (Cont. duas Ep. Pelag. i)
+                     "when once the child has been begotten by the will of others, he cannot subsequently be held by the bonds of another's sin
+                     so long as he consent not with his will, according to"
+                     <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
+                     from Adam that which was loosed by the grace of this sacrament, because as yet he was not endowed with a separate existence."
+                     But the faith of one, indeed of
+                     the whole Church, profits the child through the operation of the Holy Ghost, Who unites the Church together, and communicates
+                     the goods of one member to another.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A9-p9">
+                     <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
+                     others, and these in answer confess the Church's faith in the child's stead, who is aggregated to this faith by the sacrament
+                     of faith. And the child acquires a good conscience in himself, not indeed as to the act, but as to the habit, by sanctifying
+                     grace.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A9-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A9-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A8.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A10.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q68_A10" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A9.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A11.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q68_A10-p0.1">Whether children of Jews or other unbelievers be baptized against the will of their parents?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A10-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A10-p2">
+                     <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
+                     of greater urgency to rescue a man from the danger of eternal death than from the danger of temporal death. But one ought
+                     to rescue a child that is threatened by the danger of temporal death, even if its parents through malice try to prevent its
+                     being rescued. Therefore much more reason is there for rescuing the children of unbelievers
+                     from the danger of eternal death, even against their parents' will.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A10-p3">
+                     <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
+                     slaves of kings and rulers. Therefore without any injustice rulers can have the children of Jews baptized, as well as those
+                     of other slaves who are unbelievers.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A10-p4">
+                     <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.
+                     Therefore it is not unjust if the children of unbelievers are taken away from their carnal parents, and consecrated to God
+                     by Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A10-p5">
+                     <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
+                     that henceforward none of them be forced to believe: for such are not to be saved against their will, but willingly, that
+                     their righteousness may be without flaw."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A10-p6">
+                     <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
+                     their own actions, in things that are of Divine or natural law. And therefore of their own accord, and against the will of
+                     their parents, they can receive Baptism, just as they can contract marriage. Consequently such can lawfully be advised and
+                     persuaded to be baptized.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     as long as they cannot look after themselves. For which reason we say that even the children of the ancients "were saved through
+                     the faith of their parents." Wherefore it would be contrary to natural justice if such children were baptized against their
+                     parents' will; just as it would be if one having the use of reason were baptized against his will. Moreover
+                     under the circumstances it would be dangerous to baptize the children of unbelievers; for they would be liable to lapse into
+                     unbelief, by reason of their natural affection for their parents. Therefore it is not the custom of the Church to baptize
+                     the children of unbelievers against their parents' will.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A10-p8">
+                     <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
+                     to death by the judge who has tried him, none should use force in order to rescue him from death. Consequently, neither should
+                     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
+                     it from the danger of eternal death.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A10-p9">
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A10-p10">
+                     <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,
+                     is ordained to God, by a natural order, through the reason of its parents, under whose care it naturally lies, and it is according
+                     to their ordering that things pertaining to God are to be done in respect of the child.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A10-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A10-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A9.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A11.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q68_A11" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A10.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A12.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q68_A11-p0.1">Whether a child can be baptized while yet in its mother's womb?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A11-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A11-p2">
+                     <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
+                     than Adam's sin unto condemnation, as the Apostle says (
+                     <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,
+                     therefore, can it be saved through the gift of Christ, which is bestowed by means of Baptism. Therefore a child can be
+                     baptized while yet in its mother's womb.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A11-p3">
+                     <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
+                     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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A11-p4">
+                     <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,
+                     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
+                     out by force and baptized, than that the child should be eternally damned through dying without Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A11-p5">
+                     <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, it happens at times that some part of the child comes forth first, as we read in
+                     <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
+                     come forth the first. But he drawing back his hand, the other came forth." Now sometimes in such cases there is danger of
+                     death. Therefore it seems that that part should be baptized, while the child is yet in its
+                     mother's womb.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A11-p6">
+                     <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.
+                     Therefore no one should be baptized before he is born from the womb.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A11-p7">
+                     <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
+                     is a kind of washing, as stated above (
+                     <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
+                     the baptismal water, with which the mother's body is washed, reaches the child while yet in its mother's womb. But this is
+                     impossible:
+                     both because the child's soul, to the sanctification of which Baptism is ordained, is distinct from the soul of the mother;
+                     and because the body of the animated infant is already formed, and consequently distinct from the body of the mother. Therefore
+                     the Baptism which the mother receives does not overflow on to the child which is in her womb. Hence Augustine says (Cont.
+                     Julian. vi): "If what is conceived within a mother belonged to her body, so as to be considered a part thereof, we should
+                     not
+                     baptize an infant whose mother, through danger of death, was baptized while she bore it in her womb. Since, then, it," i.e.
+                     the infant, "is baptized, it certainly did not belong to the mother's body while it was in the womb." It follows, therefore,
+                     that a child can nowise be baptized while in its mother's womb.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A11-p8">
+                     <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
+                     be subject to the action of man, so as to receive the sacrament, at the hands of man, unto salvation. They can, however, be
+                     subject to the action of God, in Whose sight they live, so as, by a kind of privilege, to receive the grace of sanctification;
+                     as was the case with those who were sanctified in the womb.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A11-p9">
+                     <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
+                     a child while in its mother's womb is something of hers through being joined with, and yet distinct from her. Wherefore there
+                     is no comparison.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A11-p10">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> We should "not do evil that there may come good" (
+                     <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
+                     yet in her womb, she should be opened that the child may be baptized.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A11-p11">
+                     <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,
+                     the head, wherein the senses are rooted, appear first, it should be baptized, in cases of danger: nor should it be baptized
+                     again, if perfect birth should ensue. And seemingly the same should be done in cases of danger no matter what part of the
+                     body appear first. But as none of the exterior parts of the body belong to its
+                     integrity in the same degree as the head, some hold that since the matter is doubtful, whenever any other part of the body
+                     has been baptized, the child, when perfect birth has taken place, should be baptized with the form: "If thou art not baptized,
+                     I baptize thee," etc.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A11-p12"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A11-p13"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A10.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A12.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q68_A12" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A11.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q69.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q68_A12-p0.1">Whether madmen and imbeciles should be baptized?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A12-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A12-p2">
+                     <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
+                     the intention, as stated above 
+                     <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
+                     be baptized.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A12-p3">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     animals are not baptized, so neither should madmen and imbeciles in those cases be baptized.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A12-p4">
+                     <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
+                     to baptize people while they sleep. Therefore it should not be given to madmen and imbeciles.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A12-p5">
+                     <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
+                     efficacious with him. Therefore Baptism should sometimes be given to those who lack the use of reason.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A12-p6">
+                     <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,
+                     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
+                     regard to children who are baptized in the Faith of the Church, as stated above (A[9], ad 2).
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     guided by their wishes as expressed by them when sane: so that, if then they manifested a desire to receive Baptism, it should
+                     be given to them when in a state of madness or imbecility, even though then they refuse. If, on the other hand, while sane
+                     they showed no desire to receive Baptism, they must not be baptized.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     right use of reason. Wherefore, if then they express a desire for Baptism, they can be baptized though they be actually in
+                     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
+                     to wait until the time when they are sane, so that they may receive the sacrament more devoutly. But if during
+                     the interval of lucidity they manifest no desire to receive Baptism, they should not be baptized while in a state of insanity.
+                  </p>
+                  <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,
+                     and understand the power of the sacrament. And these are to be treated the same as those who are sane, and who are baptized
+                     if they be willing, but not against their will.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A12-p10">
+                     <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
+                     according to the Church's ritual, they believe and repent; as we have stated above of children (A[9], ad OBJ). But those who
+                     have had the use of reason at some time, or have now, are baptized according to their own intention, which they have now,
+                     or had when they were sane.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A12-p11">
+                     <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
+                     animals through want of a rational soul. Consequently the comparison does not hold.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A12-p12">
+                     <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
+                     baptized, if previously he has manifested a desire to receive Baptism, as we have stated in reference to imbeciles: thus Augustine
+                     relates of his friend that "he was baptized while unconscious," because he was in danger of death (Confess. iv).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A12-p13"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q68_A12-p14"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A11.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q69.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q67_A8.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A1.html"></a>
+            </div>
+            <div id="TP_Q69" class="div3">
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A12.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A1.html"></a>
+               <h3 id="TP_Q69-p0.1">OF THE EFFECTS OF BAPTISM (TEN ARTICLES)</h3>
+               <p id="TP_Q69-p1"></p>
+               <p id="TP_Q69-p2"> We must now consider the effects of Baptism, concerning which there are ten points of inquiry:</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q69-p3"> (1) Whether all sins are taken away by Baptism?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q69-p4"> (2) Whether man is freed from all punishment by Baptism?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q69-p5"> (3) Whether Baptism takes away the penalties of sin that belong to this life?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q69-p6"> (4) Whether grace and virtues are bestowed on man by Baptism?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q69-p7"> (5) Of the effects of virtue which are conferred by Baptism?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q69-p8"> (6) Whether even children receive grace and virtues in Baptism?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q69-p9"> (7) Whether Baptism opens the gates of the heavenly kingdom to those who are baptized?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q69-p10"> (8) Whether Baptism produces an equal effect in all who are baptized?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q69-p11"> (9) Whether insincerity hinders the effect of Baptism?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q69-p12"> (10) Whether Baptism takes effect when the insincerity ceases?</p>
+               <div id="TP_Q69_A1" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q69.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A2.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q69_A1-p0.1">Whether all sins are taken away by Baptism?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A1-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A1-p2">
+                     <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
+                     generation. But by carnal generation man contracts none but original sin. Therefore none but original sin is taken away by
+                     Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A1-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Penance is a sufficient cause of the remission of actual sins. But penance is required in adults before Baptism,
+                     according to 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A1-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, various diseases demand various remedies: because as Jerome says on
+                     <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
+                     from actual sin. Therefore not all sins are taken away by Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A1-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A1-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As the Apostle says (
+                     <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 (
+                     <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
+                     Baptism man dies unto the oldness of sin, and begins to live unto the newness of grace. But every sin belongs to the primitive
+                     oldness. Consequently every
+                     sin is taken away by Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A1-p7">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As the Apostle says (
+                     <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
+                     condemnation; but grace is of many offenses, unto justification." Wherefore Augustine says in his book on Infant Baptism (De
+                     Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i), that "in carnal generation, original sin alone is contracted; but when we are born again of the
+                     Spirit, not only original
+                     sin but also wilful sin is forgiven."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A1-p8">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> No sin can be forgiven save by the power of Christ's Passion: hence the Apostle says (
+                     <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
+                     of sin, unless there be faith in Christ's Passion, and the purpose of participating in it, either by receiving Baptism, or
+                     by submitting to the keys of the Church. Therefore when an adult approaches Baptism, he
+                     does indeed receive the forgiveness of all his sins through his purpose of being baptized, but more perfectly through the
+                     actual reception of Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A1-p9">
+                     <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
+                     remedy for all sins; and so by Baptism all sins are loosed.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A1-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A1-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A1-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q69.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A2.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q69_A2" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A3.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q69_A2-p0.1">Whether man is freed by Baptism from all debt of punishment due to sin?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A2-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A2-p2">
+                     <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 (
+                     <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
+                     order save by punishment, as Augustine says (Ep. cxl). Therefore Baptism does not take away the debt of punishment due to
+                     sins already committed.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A2-p3">
+                     <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
+                     what they signify," as stated above (
+                     <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,
+                     with the remission of the debt of punishment. Therefore the debt of punishment is not taken away by Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A2-p4">
+                     <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
+                     to punish him. If, therefore, the debt of punishment be remitted by Baptism, it would be unjust, after Baptism, to hang a
+                     thief who had committed murder before. Consequently the severity of human legislation would be relaxed on account of Baptism;
+                     which is undesirable. Therefore Baptism does not remit the debt of punishment.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A2-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> Ambrose, commenting on
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A2-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
+                     <a id="TP_Q69_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q49_A3.html">Q[49], A[3]</a>, ad 2;
+                     <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
+                     <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
+                     of Christ is communicated to every baptized person, so that he is healed just as if he himself had suffered and died. Now
+                     Christ's Passion, as stated above (
+                     <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
+                     punishment due to him for his sins, just as if he himself had offered sufficient satisfaction for all his sins.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A2-p7">
+                     <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
+                     as if he himself had borne those pains, his sins are set in order by the pains of Christ's Passion.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A2-p8">
+                     <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,
+                     just as by cleansing it signifies the washing away of guilt.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A2-p9">
+                     <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,
+                     but also to what extent he is indebted to men who are hurt and scandalized by another's sin. Consequently, although a murderer
+                     is freed by Baptism from his debt of punishment in respect of God, he remains, nevertheless, in debt to men; and it is right
+                     that they should be edified at his punishment, since they were scandalized at
+                     his sin. But the sovereign may remit the penalty to such like out of kindness.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A2-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A2-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A3.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q69_A3" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A4.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q69_A3-p0.1">Whether Baptism should take away the penalties of sin that belong to this life?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A3-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A3-p2">
+                     <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 (
+                     <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 (
+                     <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,
+                     should man be freed from the penalties of the present life, by
+                     the gift of Christ which is received in Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A3-p3">
+                     <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
+                     a way as to free man from all debt of punishment resulting therefrom. Therefore it also frees man from the penalties of the
+                     present life, which are a punishment of original sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A3-p4">
+                     <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
+                     away by Baptism. Therefore such like penalties should not remain.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A3-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> on
+                     <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
+                     of sin destroyed, not as though the living flesh of man were delivered by the destruction of that concupiscence with which
+                     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
+                     for the same reason neither are the other
+                     penalties taken away by Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A3-p6">
+                     <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,
+                     but by its power they will be taken away from the just in the resurrection when "this mortal hath put on immortality" (
+                     <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
+                     
+                     <a id="TP_Q69_A3-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q69_A3.html">(A[3];</a> Q[68], A[5]). Consequently
+                     it is fitting that what takes place in the Head should take place also in the member incorporated. Now, from the very beginning
+                     of His conception Christ was "full of grace and truth," yet He had a passible body, which through His Passion and death was
+                     raised up to a life of glory. Wherefore a Christian receives grace in Baptism, as to his soul; but he retains a passible body,
+                     so that he may suffer for Christ therein: yet at length he will be raised up to a life of impassibility. Hence the
+                     Apostle says (
+                     <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
+                     that dwelleth in us [Vulg.: 'you']": and further on in the same chapter (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A3-p7"> Secondly, this is suitable for our spiritual training: namely, in order that, by fighting against concupiscence and other
+                     defects to which he is subject, man may receive the crown of victory. Wherefore on
+                     <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
+                     fight against, and to conquer by God's help." In sign of which it is written (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A3-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Judg.3.1" target="asv">Judges 3:1,2</a>): "These are
+                     the nations which the Lord left, that by them He might instruct Israel . . . that afterwards their children might learn to
+                     fight with their enemies, and to be trained up to war."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     for the sake of the glory of life eternal. Wherefore the Apostle says (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A3-p9">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As a gloss says on
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     He will destroy it."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A3-p10">
+                     <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
+                     punishment. Christ entirely abolished the punishment of hell, so that those who are baptized and truly repent, should not
+                     be subject to it. He did not, however, altogether abolish temporal punishment yet awhile; for hunger, thirst, and death still
+                     remain. But He overthrew its kingdom and power" in the sense that man should no
+                     longer be in fear of them: "and at length He will altogether exterminate it at the last day."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A3-p11">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As we stated in the 
+                     <a id="TP_Q69_A3-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q81_A1.html">FS, Q[81], A[1]</a>; 
+                     <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
+                     person. Whereas Christ in reverse order at first repairs what regards the person, and afterwards will simultaneously repair
+                     what pertains to the nature in all men. Consequently by Baptism He takes away from man forthwith the
+                     guilt of original sin and the punishment of being deprived of the heavenly vision. But the penalties of the present life,
+                     such as death, hunger, thirst, and the like, pertain to the nature, from the principles of which they arise, inasmuch as it
+                     is deprived of original justice. Therefore these defects will not be taken away until the ultimate restoration of nature through
+                     the glorious resurrection.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A3-p12"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A3-p13"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A4.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q69_A4" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A5.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q69_A4-p0.1">Whether grace and virtues are bestowed on man by Baptism?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A4-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A4-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that grace and virtues are not bestowed on man by Baptism. Because, as stated above (
+                     <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
+                     the soul from guilt, and not the fashioning of the soul with grace and virtues. Therefore it seems that grace and virtues
+                     are not bestowed on man by Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A4-p3">
+                     <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
+                     virtues: thus we read (
+                     <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
+                     man and fearing God"; who, nevertheless, was afterwards baptized by Peter. Therefore grace and virtues are not bestowed by
+                     Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A4-p4">
+                     <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."
+                     But after Baptism man retains proneness to evil which removes virtue; and experiences difficulty in doing good, in which the
+                     act of virtue consists. Therefore man does not acquire grace and virtue in Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A4-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
+                     <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
+                     upon us abundantly," i.e. "unto the remission of sins and the fulness of virtues," as a gloss expounds. Therefore the grace
+                     of the Holy Ghost and the fulness of virtues are given in Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A4-p6">
+                     <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
+                     are incorporated in Christ as His members." Now the fulness of grace and virtues flows from Christ the Head to all His members,
+                     according to 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A4-p7">
+                     <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,
+                     so by its natural clearness it signifies the splendor of grace and virtues.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A4-p8">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As stated above (A[1], ad 2;
+                     <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
+                     yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also
+                     before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for
+                     Baptism, implicit or
+                     explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. Hence in
+                     <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
+                     deeds in Baptism."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A4-p9">
+                     <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,
+                     but through concupiscence which is not taken away in Baptism. But just as concupiscence is diminished by Baptism, so as not
+                     to enslave us, so also are both the aforesaid defects diminished, so that man be not overcome by them.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A4-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A4-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A5.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q69_A5" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A6.html"></a>
+                  <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,
+                     and fruitfulness?
+                  </h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A5-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A5-p2">
+                     <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,
+                     enlightenment, and fruitfulness." For Baptism is not given to an adult, except he believe; according to
+                     <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
+                     <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."
+                     Therefore no one is baptized except he be already incorporated in Christ. Therefore incorporation with Christ is not the effect
+                     of Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A5-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, enlightenment is caused by teaching, according to 
+                     <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
+                     precedes Baptism. Therefore it is not the effect of Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A5-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, fruitfulness pertains to active generation. But a man is regenerated spiritually by Baptism. Therefore fruitfulness
+                     is not an effect of Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A5-p5">
+                     <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
+                     are incorporated in Christ." And Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. ii) ascribes enlightenment to Baptism. And on
+                     <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
+                     fruitful by Baptism."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A5-p6">
+                     <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 (
+                     <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
+                     to the head, from which they derive sense and movement. And therefore it follows of necessity that by Baptism man is incorporated
+                     in Christ, as one of His members. Again, just as the members derive sense and
+                     movement from the material head, so from their spiritual Head, i.e. Christ, do His members derive spiritual sense consisting
+                     in the knowledge Of truth, and spiritual movement which results from the instinct of grace. Hence it is written (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A5-p6.2" href="./asv.html#John.1.14" target="asv">Jn. 1:14</a>, 
+                     <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
+                     the baptized are enlightened by Christ as to the knowledge of truth, and made fruitful by Him with the
+                     fruitfulness of good works by the infusion of grace.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A5-p7">
+                     <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
+                     in Him, corporally, as it were, i.e. by the visible sacrament; without the desire of which they could not have been incorporated
+                     in Him even mentally.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A5-p8">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The teacher enlightens outwardly and ministerially by catechizing: but God enlightens the baptized inwardly, by preparing
+                     their hearts for the reception of the doctrines of truth, according to 
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A5-p9">
+                     <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
+                     he begets others in Christ, as the Apostle says (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A5-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A5-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A6.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q69_A6" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A7.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q69_A6-p0.1">Whether children receive grace and virtue in Baptism?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A6-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A6-p2">
+                     <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
+                     and charity. But faith, as Augustine says (Ep. xcviii), "depends on the will of the believer": and in like manner charity
+                     depends on the will of the lover. Now children have not the use of the will, and consequently they have neither faith nor
+                     charity. Therefore children do not receive grace and virtues in Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A6-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, on
+                     <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,
+                     but not without him." But a child, through not having the use of free-will, does not co-operate with Christ unto its justification:
+                     indeed at times it does its best to resist. Therefore it is not justified by grace and virtues.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A6-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is written (
+                     <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
+                     the purpose of the grace of God." But a child believeth not "in Him that justifieth the ungodly." Therefore a child receives
+                     neither sanctifying grace nor virtues.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A6-p5">
+                     <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
+                     to Baptism with a carnal intention, to wit, that their bodies may be healed. Therefore they do not receive the spiritual effect
+                     consisting in grace and virtue.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A6-p6">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (Enchiridion lii): "When little children are baptized, they die to that sin which they contracted in birth:
+                     so that to them also may be applied the words: 'We are buried together with Him by Baptism unto death'": (and he continues
+                     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
+                     of life is through grace and virtues. Therefore children receive grace and virtues in
+                     Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A6-p7">
+                     <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
+                     of the character of Christ, by the power of which they receive grace and virtue when they arrive at the perfect age. But this
+                     is evidently false, for two reasons. First, because children, like adults, are made members of Christ in Baptism; hence they
+                     must, of necessity, receive an influx of grace and virtues from the Head. Secondly,
+                     because, if this were true, children that die after Baptism, would not come to eternal life; since according to
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     to be incapable of acts of virtue, they thought that they had no virtues at all after Baptism. But this inability of children
+                     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,
+                     though he may have the habits of virtue, yet is he hindered from virtuous acts through being asleep.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A6-p9">
+                     <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
+                     is in children; whereas acts of virtue require an act of the will, which is not in children. In this sense Augustine says
+                     in the book on Infant Baptism (Ep. xcviii): "The little child is made a believer, not as yet by that faith which depends on
+                     the will of the believer, but by the sacrament of faith itself," which causes the
+                     habit of faith.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A6-p10">
+                     <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
+                     which is to be understood not of little children but of adults." In like manner we are to understand as applying to adults,
+                     that man "without himself is not justified by Christ." Moreover, if little children who are about to be baptized resist as
+                     much as they can, "this is not imputed to them, since so little do they know what
+                     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.
+                     clxxxvii).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A6-p11">
+                     <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
+                     that they may believe; another tongue that they may confess." So that children believe, not by their own act, but by the faith
+                     of the Church, which is applied to them: by the power of which faith, grace and virtues are bestowed on them.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A6-p12">
+                     <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,
+                     unless he consent. Hence Augustine says in his letter to Boniface (Ep. xcviii): "Be not disturbed because some bring children
+                     to be baptized, not in the hope that they may be born again to eternal life by the spiritual grace, but because they think
+                     it to be a remedy whereby they may preserve or recover health. For they are
+                     not deprived of regeneration, through not being brought for this intention."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A6-p13"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A6-p14"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A7.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q69_A7" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A6.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A8.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q69_A7-p0.1">Whether the effect of Baptism is to open the gates of the heavenly kingdom?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A7-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A7-p2">
+                     <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
+                     no opening. But the gates of the heavenly kingdom were opened by Christ's Passion: hence it is written (
+                     <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,
+                     to open the gates of the heavenly kingdom.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A7-p3">
+                     <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
+                     Passion, according to
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q69_A7-p3.1" href="./asv.html#John.3.22" target="asv">Jn. 3:22</a>, 
+                     <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
+                     before Christ, according to
+                     <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
+                     effect of Baptism, to open the gates of the heavenly kingdom.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A7-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the baptized are still subject to death and the other penalties of the present life, as stated above 
+                     <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
+                     are in purgatory. Therefore it is not the effect of Baptism, to open the gates of the heavenly kingdom.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A7-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> on
+                     <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
+                     of the heavenly kingdom are opened unto him."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A7-p6">
+                     <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
+                     is guilt and the debt of punishment. But it has been shown above (
+                     <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
+                     is to open the gates of the heavenly kingdom.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A7-p7">
+                     <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,
+                     by applying its power to man.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A7-p8">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     the heavenly kingdom.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A7-p9">
+                     <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
+                     by reason of the state of their nature. And therefore this is no bar to their entrance to the heavenly kingdom, when death
+                     severs the soul from the body; since they have paid, as it were, the debt of nature.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A7-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A7-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A6.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A8.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q69_A8" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A7.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A9.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q69_A8-p0.1">Whether Baptism has an equal effect in all?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A8-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A8-p2">
+                     <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
+                     away more sins than in others; for in children it takes away only original sins, whereas in adults it takes away actual sins,
+                     in some many, in others few. Therefore Baptism has not an equal effect in all.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A8-p3">
+                     <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
+                     virtue than others who have been baptized. Therefore Baptism has not an equal effect in all.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A8-p4">
+                     <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,
+                     since some of the baptized, even children, have greater capacity for natural gifts than others have, it seems that some receive
+                     greater grace than others.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A8-p5">
+                     <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, in Baptism some receive not only spiritual, but also bodily health; thus Constantine was cleansed in Baptism from
+                     leprosy. But all the infirm do not receive bodily health in Baptism. Therefore it has not an equal effect in all.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A8-p6">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A8-p7">
+                     <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
+                     Baptism was instituted, namely, the begetting of men unto spiritual life. Therefore, since all children are equally disposed
+                     to Baptism, because they are baptized not in their own faith, but in that of the Church, they all receive an equal effect
+                     in Baptism. Whereas adults, who approach Baptism in their own faith, are not equally
+                     disposed to Baptism; for some approach thereto with greater, some with less, devotion. And therefore some receive a greater,
+                     some a smaller share of the grace of newness; just as from the same fire, he receives more heat who approaches nearest to
+                     it, although the fire, as far as it is concerned, sends forth its heat equally to all.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     in Baptism: thus on
+                     <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,
+                     so that the law of sin, which is in our members, be absolutely destroyed." And such like effects are not equally received
+                     by all the baptized, even if they approach with equal
+                     devotion: but they are bestowed according to the ordering of Divine providence.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A8-p9">
+                     <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
+                     due to the greater efficacy of Baptism, but to the condition of the recipient: for in each one it looses whatever it finds.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A8-p10">
+                     <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
+                     Baptism than another, on account of his greater devotion, as stated above. Secondly, because, though they receive equal grace,
+                     they do not make an equal use of it, but one applies himself more to advance therein, while another by his negligence baffles
+                     grace.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A8-p11">
+                     <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,
+                     being of one species, are of one form), but from the diversity of bodies. But it is otherwise with the angels, who differ
+                     in species. And therefore gratuitous gifts are bestowed on the angels according to their diverse capacity for natural gifts,
+                     but not on men.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A8-p12">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Bodily health is not the essential effect of Baptism, but a miraculous work of Divine providence.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A8-p13"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A8-p14"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A7.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A9.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q69_A9" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A8.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A10.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q69_A9-p0.1">Whether insincerity hinders the effect of Baptism?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A9-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A9-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that insincerity does not hinder the effect of Baptism. For the Apostle says (
+                     <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,
+                     are baptized in Christ. Therefore they all put on Christ: and this is to receive the effect of Baptism. Consequently insincerity
+                     does not hinder the effect of Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A9-p3">
+                     <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
+                     cause cannot be hindered by that which can be removed by that cause. Therefore insincerity cannot hinder the effect of Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A9-p4">
+                     <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,
+                     which are not said to hinder the effect of Baptism. Therefore neither does insincerity.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A9-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
+                     <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
+                     insincerity hinders the effect of Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A9-p6">
+                     <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
+                     by Baptism, his will must needs embrace both Baptism and the baptismal effect. Now, a man is said to be insincere by reason
+                     of his will being in contradiction with either Baptism or its effect. For, according to Augustine (De Bapt. cont. Donat. vii),
+                     a man is said to be insincere, in four ways: first, because he does not believe,
+                     whereas Baptism is the sacrament of Faith; secondly, through scorning the sacrament itself; thirdly, through observing a rite
+                     which differs from that prescribed by the Church in conferring the sacrament; fourthly, through approaching the sacrament
+                     without devotion. Wherefore it is manifest that insincerity hinders the effect of Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A9-p7">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     to be baptized in Christ, in so far as he receives Christ's sacrament. And thus all put on Christ, through being configured
+                     to Him by the character, but not through being conformed to Him by grace.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A9-p8">
+                     <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
+                     is this the purpose of the sacrament, that an insincere man be made sincere; but that he who comes in sincerity, be justified.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A9-p9">
+                     <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
+                     fact makes a show of having right faith in Christ, of veneration for this sacrament, and of wishing to conform to the Church,
+                     and to renounce sin. Consequently, to whatever sin a man wishes to cleave, if he approach Baptism, he approaches insincerely,
+                     which is the same as to approach without devotion. But this must be understood of
+                     mortal sin, which is in opposition to grace: but not of venial sin. Consequently, here insincerity includes, in a way, every
+                     sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A9-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A9-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A8.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A10.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q69_A10" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A9.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q70.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q69_A10-p0.1">Whether Baptism produces its effect when the insincerity ceases?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A10-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A10-p2">
+                     <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,
+                     can never come to life. But he who approaches Baptism insincerely, receives the sacrament without charity. Therefore it can
+                     never come to life so as to bestow grace.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A10-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, insincerity seems to be stronger than Baptism, because it hinders its effect. But the stronger is not removed by
+                     the weaker. Therefore the sin of insincerity cannot be taken away by Baptism which has been hindered by insincerity. And thus
+                     Baptism will not receive its full effect, which is the remission of all sins.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A10-p4">
+                     <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
+                     will not be taken away by Baptism; because Baptism washes away past, not future, sins. Such a Baptism, therefore, will never
+                     have its effect, which is the remission of all sins.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A10-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Bapt. cont. Donat. i): "Then does Baptism begin to have its salutary effect, when truthful confession
+                     takes the place of that insincerity which hindered sins from being washed away, so long as the heart persisted in malice and
+                     sacrilege."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A10-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
+                     <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,
+                     unless there be an obstacle; and when this is removed, the form of the thing generated produces its effect: thus at the same
+                     time as a weighty body is generated, it has a downward movement, unless something prevent this; and when the obstacle is removed,
+                     it begins forthwith to move
+                     downwards. In like manner when a man is baptized, he receives the character, which is like a form; and he receives in consequence
+                     its proper effect, which is grace whereby all his sins are remitted. But this effect is sometimes hindered by insincerity.
+                     Wherefore, when this obstacle is removed by Penance, Baptism forthwith produces its effect.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A10-p7">
+                     <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
+                     baptized without charity.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A10-p8">
+                     <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
+                     of punishment due to sins, whether committed before Baptism, or even co-existent with Baptism. Hence Augustine says (De Bapt.
+                     cont. Donat. i): "Yesterday is blotted out, and whatever remains over and above, even the very last hour and moment preceding
+                     Baptism, the very moment of Baptism. But from that moment forward he is bound by
+                     his obligations." And so both Baptism and Penance concur in producing the effect of Baptism, but Baptism as the direct efficient
+                     cause, Penance as the indirect cause, i.e. as removing the obstacle.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A10-p9">
+                     <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
+                     away, subsequent sins are indeed remitted, but by Penance, not by Baptism. Wherefore they are not remitted, like the sins
+                     which preceded Baptism, as to the whole debt of punishment.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A10-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q69_A10-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A9.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q70.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q68_A12.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A1.html"></a>
+            </div>
+            <div id="TP_Q70" class="div3">
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A10.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q70_A1.html"></a>
+               <h3 id="TP_Q70-p0.1">OF CIRCUMCISION (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3>
+               <p id="TP_Q70-p1"></p>
+               <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)
+                  those which accompany Baptism, viz. Catechism and Exorcism.
+               </p>
+               <p id="TP_Q70-p3"> Concerning the first there are four points of inquiry:</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q70-p4"> (1) Whether circumcision was a preparation for, and a figure of, Baptism?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q70-p5"> (2) Its institution;</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q70-p6"> (3) Its rite;</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q70-p7"> (4) Its effect.</p>
+               <div id="TP_Q70_A1" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q70.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q70_A2.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q70_A1-p0.1">Whether circumcision was a preparation for, and a figure of Baptism?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A1-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A1-p2">
+                     <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
+                     which it foreshadows. But circumcision has no likeness to Baptism. Therefore it seems that it was not a preparation for, and
+                     a figure of Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A1-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Apostle, speaking of the Fathers of old, says (
+                     <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
+                     pillar of a cloud, and the crossing of the Red Sea, rather than circumcision, were a preparation for, and a figure of Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A1-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it was stated above (
+                     <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
+                     of Christ's Baptism, it seems that John's baptism was superfluous: which is unseemly. Therefore circumcision was not a preparation
+                     for, and a figure of Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A1-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
+                     <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
+                     Christ, buried with Him in Baptism."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A1-p6">
+                     <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
+                     is aggregated to the congregation of the faithful. Now our faith is the same as that of the Fathers of old, according to the
+                     Apostle (
+                     <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
+                     also men of old were aggregated to the
+                     body of the faithful. Consequently, it is manifest that circumcision was a preparation for Baptism and a figure thereof, forasmuch
+                     as "all things happened" to the Fathers of old "in figure" (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A1-p7">
+                     <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,
+                     so Baptism despoils man of carnal behavior.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A1-p8">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     of these, a profession of faith, as by circumcision; so that these two things were figures but not sacraments. But circumcision
+                     was a sacrament, and a preparation for Baptism; although less clearly
+                     figurative of Baptism, as to externals, than the aforesaid. And for this reason the Apostle mentions them rather than circumcision.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A1-p9">
+                     <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
+                     is required in Baptism, as stated above.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A1-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A1-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q70.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q70_A2.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q70_A2" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q70_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q70_A3.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q70_A2-p0.1">Whether circumcision was instituted in a fitting manner?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A2-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A2-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that circumcision was instituted in an unfitting manner. For as stated above 
+                     <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
+                     in Christ's Passion, according to
+                     <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
+                     forthwith after the first man's
+                     sin, and not at the time of Abraham.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A2-p3">
+                     <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
+                     New Law; wherefore the Apostle says (
+                     <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
+                     Law was not promulgated at the time of Abraham, but rather at the time of Moses. Therefore it was unfitting for circumcision
+                     to be instituted at the
+                     time of Abraham
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A2-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, circumcision was a figure of, and a preparation for, Baptism. But Baptism is offered to all nations, according to
+                     <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
+                     Jews only, but also all nations.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A2-p5">
+                     <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, carnal circumcision should correspond to spiritual circumcision, as the shadow to the reality. But spiritual circumcision
+                     which is of Christ, regards indifferently both sexes, since "in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female," as is written
+                     
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q70_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Col.3" target="asv">Col. 3</a> [*
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A2-p6">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> We read (
+                     <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" (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q70_A2-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Deut.32.4" target="asv">Dt. 32:4</a>).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A2-p7">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above 
+                     <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
+                     Baptism. Now among the Fathers of old, Abraham was the first to receive the promise of the future birth of Christ, when it
+                     was said to him: "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed" (
+                     <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
+                     society of unbelievers, in accordance with the commandment of the Lord, Who said to him (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A2-p8">
+                     <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
+                     Divine things, both faith and natural reason flourished in man to such an extent, that there was no need for any signs of
+                     faith and salvation to be prescribed to him, but each one was wont to make protestation of his faith, by outward signs of
+                     his profession, according as he thought best. But about the time of Abraham faith was
+                     on the wane, many being given over to idolatry. Moreover, by the growth of carnal concupiscence natural reason was clouded
+                     even in regard to sins against nature. And therefore it was fitting that then, and not before, circumcision should be instituted,
+                     as a profession of faith and a remedy against carnal concupiscence.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A2-p9">
+                     <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
+                     to the public good, as we have stated in the 
+                     <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
+                     be united together in any religion, as Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix). Consequently, it was necessary for
+                     circumcision to be instituted before the giving of the Law. Those Fathers, however, who lived before the Law, taught their
+                     families concerning Divine things by way of paternal admonition. Hence the Lord said of Abraham (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A2-p10">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Baptism contains in itself the perfection of salvation, to which God calls all men, according to 
+                     <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
+                     contain the perfection of salvation, but signified it as to be achieved by Christ, Who was to be born of the Jewish nation.
+                     For this reason circumcision was given to that nation alone.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A2-p11">
+                     <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
+                     Who was promised to him: and for this reason it was suitable that it should be for males only. Again, original sin, against
+                     which circumcision was specially ordained, is contracted from the father, not from the mother, as was stated in the 
+                     <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
+                     universal cause of salvation for all, and is "The Remission of all sins" (Post-Communion, Tuesday in Whitweek).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A2-p12"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A2-p13"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q70_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q70_A3.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q70_A3" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q70_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q70_A4.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q70_A3-p0.1">Whether the rite of circumcision was fitting?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A3-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A3-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the rite of circumcision was unfitting. For circumcision, as stated above (
+                     <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
+                     the sign of circumcision should have been conferred on the head rather than on the virile member.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A3-p3">
+                     <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
+                     washing, and bread, which we use for nourishment. But, in cutting, we use an iron knife more commonly than a stone knife.
+                     Therefore circumcision should not have been performed with a stone knife.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A3-p4">
+                     <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
+                     Circum.). But now Baptism is not put off until the eighth day, lest children should be in danger of loss on account of original
+                     sin, if they should die before being baptized. On the other hand, sometimes Baptism is put off until after the eighth day.
+                     Therefore the eighth day should not have been fixed for circumcision, but this day should
+                     have been anticipated, just as sometimes it was deferred.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A3-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> The aforesaid rite of circumcision is fixed by a gloss on
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A3-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above 
+                     <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" (
+                     <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
+                     fitting.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A3-p7">
+                     <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
+                     Abraham believed that Christ would be born of his seed. Secondly, because it was to be a remedy against original sin, which
+                     is contracted through the act of generation. Thirdly, because it was ordained as a remedy for carnal concupiscence, which
+                     thrives principally in those members, by reason of the abundance of venereal
+                     pleasure.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A3-p8">
+                     <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
+                     by any divine precept; nor did the Jews, as a rule, make use of such a knife for circumcision; indeed, neither do they now.
+                     Nevertheless, certain well-known circumcisions are related as having been performed with a stone knife, thus (
+                     <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
+                     foreskin of her son," and (
+                     <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
+                     would be done by Christ, of Whom it is written (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A3-p9">
+                     <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
+                     only guilt but also all penalties, will perfect the spiritual circumcision, in the eighth age (which is the age of those that
+                     rise again), as it were, on the eighth day. Secondly, on account of the tenderness of the infant before the eighth day. Wherefore
+                     even in regard to other animals it is prescribed (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q70_A3-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.22.27" target="asv">Lev.
+                        22:27
+                     </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
+                     eighth day and thenceforth, they may be offered to the Lord."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     day, sinned, even though it were the sabbath, according to
+                     <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
+                     for the validity of the sacrament: because if anyone delayed beyond the eighth day, they could be circumcised afterwards.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     either from the authority of Scripture or from the custom of the Jews. Wherefore it is better to say with Hugh of St. Victor
+                     (De Sacram. i) that the eighth day was never anticipated for any motive, however urgent. Hence on
+                     <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
+                     count because through dying before the eighth day it received no name; and consequently neither was it circumcised.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A3-p12"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A3-p13"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q70_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q70_A4.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q70_A4" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q70_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q71.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q70_A4-p0.1">Whether circumcision bestowed sanctifying grace?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A4-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A4-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that circumcision did not bestow sanctifying grace. For the Apostle says (
+                     <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
+                     the Law, according to
+                     <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
+                     circumcision, "Christ died in vain," i.e. without
+                     cause. But this cannot be allowed. Therefore circumcision did not confer grace whereby the sinner is made righteous.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A4-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, before the institution of circumcision faith alone sufficed for justification; hence Gregory says (Moral. iv): "Faith
+                     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
+                     strength through the commandment of circumcision. Therefore faith alone justified little ones, and not circumcision.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A4-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, we read (
+                     <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
+                     sin was taken away by circumcision, it seems that all who died in the desert, both little children and adults, were lost.
+                     And the same argument avails in regard to those who died before the eighth day, which was that of circumcision, which day
+                     could nol be anticipated, as stated above
+                     (A[3], ad 3).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A4-p5">
+                     <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, nothing but sin closes the entrance to the heavenly kingdom. But before the Passion the entrance to the heavenly
+                     kingdom was closed to the circumcised. Therefore men were not justified from sin by circumcision.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A4-p6">
+                     <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
+                     from God," as Augustine says (De Vera et Falsa Poenit. ix). But we read nowhere of circumcision as remitting actual sin. Therefore
+                     neither did it remit original sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A4-p7">
+                     <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
+                     among God's people, as 'a seal of the justice of the faith,' it availed little children unto sanctification by cleansing them
+                     from the original and bygone sin; just as Baptism also from the time of its institution began to avail unto the renewal of
+                     man."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A4-p8">
+                     <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
+                     the only effect was to remit sin. The Master holds this opinion (Sent. iv, D, 1), and in a gloss on
+                     <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
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     as to its positive effects; lest they should be compelled to say that the grace bestowed in circumcision sufficed for the
+                     fulfilling of the precepts of the Law, and that, consequently, the coming of Christ was unnecessary. But neither can this
+                     opinion stand. First, because by circumcision children. received the power of obtaining glory at the allotted time,
+                     which is the last positive effect of grace. Secondly, because, in the order of the formal cause, positive effects naturally
+                     precede those that denote privation, although it is the reverse in the order of the material cause: since a form does not
+                     remove a privation save by informing the subject.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A4-p10"> Consequently, others said that grace was conferred in circumcision, also as a particular positive effect consisting in being
+                     made worthy of eternal life; but not as to all its effects, for it did not suffice for the repression of the concupiscence
+                     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;
+                     <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
+                     true. Because the least grace can resist any degree of concupiscence, and avoid every mortal sin, that is committed in transgressing
+                     the precepts of the Law; for the smallest degree of charity loves God more than cupidity loves "thousands of gold and silver"
+                     (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q70_A4-p10.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.118.72" target="asv">Ps. 118:72</a>).
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     in Baptism grace is bestowed by the very power of Baptism itself, which power Baptism has as the instrument of Christ's Passion
+                     already consummated. Whereas circumcision bestowed grace, inasmuch as it was a sign of faith in Christ's future Passion: so
+                     that the man who was circumcised, professed to embrace that faith; whether, being an adult, he made
+                     profession for himself, or, being a child, someone else made profession for him. Hence, too, the Apostle says (
+                     <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
+                     signified: not of circumcision signifying. And since Baptism operates instrumentally by the power of Christ's Passion, whereas
+                     circumcision does not, therefore Baptism imprints a character that incorporates man in Christ, and
+                     bestows grace more copiously than does circumcision; since greater is the effect of a thing already present, than of the hope
+                     thereof.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A4-p12">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This argument would prove if justice were of circumcision otherwise than through faith in Christ's Passion.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A4-p13">
+                     <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
+                     its institution. But before, there was no need of a sign expressive of this faith; because as yet believers had not begun
+                     to be united together apart from unbelievers for the worship of one God. It is probable, however, that parents who were believers
+                     offered up some prayers to God for their children, especially if these were in
+                     any danger. Or bestowed some blessing on them, as a "seal of faith"; just as the adults offered prayers and sacrifices for
+                     themselves.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A4-p14">
+                     <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
+                     when the camp was removed, and because, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv) they needed no distinctive sign while they dwelt
+                     apart from other nations. Nevertheless, as Augustine says (QQ. in Josue vi), those were guilty of disobedience who failed
+                     to obey through contempt.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A4-p15"> It seems, however, that none of the uncircumcised died in the desert, for it is written (
+                     <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
+                     in Egypt. If, however, some of the uncircumcised did die there, the same applies to them as to those who died before the institution
+                     of circumcision. And this applies also to those children who, at the time of the Law, died before the
+                     eighth day.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A4-p16">
+                     <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
+                     the obstacle to the entrance of the kingdom of heaven, which obstacle was removed by Christ's Passion. Consequently, before
+                     Christ's Passion not even Baptism gave entrance to the kingdom. But were circumcision to avail after Christ's Passion, it
+                     would give entrance to the kingdom.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A4-p17">
+                     <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
+                     from all debt of punishment, as in Baptism, in which grace is conferred more copiously.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A4-p18"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q70_A4-p19"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q70_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q71.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q69_A10.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q70_A1.html"></a>
+            </div>
+            <div id="TP_Q71" class="div3">
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q70_A4.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q71_A1.html"></a>
+               <h3 id="TP_Q71-p0.1">OF THE PREPARATIONS THAT ACCOMPANY BAPTISM (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3>
+               <p id="TP_Q71-p1"></p>
+               <p id="TP_Q71-p2"> We have now to consider the preparations that accompany Baptism: concerning which there are four points of inquiry:</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q71-p3"> (1) Whether catechism should precede Baptism?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q71-p4"> (2) Whether exorcism should precede Baptism?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q71-p5"> (3) Whether what is done in catechizing and exorcizing, effects anything, or is a mere sign?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q71-p6"> (4) Whether those who are to be baptized should be catechized or exorcized by priests?</p>
+               <div id="TP_Q71_A1" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q71.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q71_A2.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q71_A1-p0.1">Whether catechism should precede Baptism?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A1-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A1-p2">
+                     <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
+                     to live before being taught. Therefore man should not be catechized, i.e. taught, before being baptized.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A1-p3">
+                     <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
+                     not the use of reason. Therefore it is absurd to catechize them.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A1-p4">
+                     <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
+                     in its stead; both because no one can bind another to do anything; and because one cannot know whether the child, having come
+                     to the right age, will give its assent to faith. Therefore catechism should not precede Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A1-p5">
+                     <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
+                     receive the rudiments of faith."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A1-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
+                     <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
+                     faith, he must be instructed therein, according to 
+                     <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
+                     is fitting that catechism should precede Baptism. Hence when our Lord bade His
+                     disciples to baptize, He made teaching to precede Baptism, saying: "Go ye . . . and teach all nations, baptizing them," etc.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A1-p7">
+                     <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
+                     receiving instruction.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A1-p8">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Just as Mother Church, as stated above (
+                     <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
+                     another's ears, that they may hear, and another's mind, that through others they may be taught. And therefore, as they are
+                     to be baptized, on the same grounds they are to be instructed.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A1-p9">
+                     <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
+                     age, else he would say: "He will believe"; but in the child's stead he professes the Church's faith which is communicated
+                     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
+                     unfitting in a person being bound by another in things necessary for salvation.
+                     In like manner the sponsor, in answering for the child, promises to use his endeavors that the child may believe. This, however,
+                     would not be sufficient in the case of adults having the use of reason.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A1-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A1-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q71.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q71_A2.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q71_A2" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q71_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q71_A3.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q71_A2-p0.1">Whether exorcism should precede Baptism?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A2-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A2-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that exorcism should not precede Baptism. For exorcism is ordained against energumens or those who are possessed.
+                     But not all are such like. Therefore exorcism should not precede Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A2-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, so long as man is a subject of sin, the devil has power over him, according to
+                     <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
+                     before Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A2-p4">
+                     <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
+                     remedy.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A2-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> Pope Celestine says (Epist. ad Episcop. Galliae): "Whether children or young people approach the sacrament of regeneration,
+                     they should not come to the fount of life before the unclean spirit has been expelled from them by the exorcisms and breathings
+                     of the clerics."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A2-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> Whoever purposes to do a work wisely, first removes the obstacles to his work; hence it is written (
+                     <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
+                     by Baptism; and he has a certain power over man from the very fact that the latter is subject to original, or even actual,
+                     sin. Consequently it is fitting that before Baptism the demons should be cast out
+                     by exorcisms, lest they impede man's salvation. Which expulsion is signified by the (priest) breathing (upon the person to
+                     be baptized); while the blessing, with the imposition of hands, bars the way against the return of him who was cast out. Then
+                     the salt which is put in the mouth, and the anointing of the nose and ears with spittle, signify the receiving of doctrine,
+                     as to the ears; consent thereto as to the nose; and confession thereof, as to the mouth. And the anointing with oil signifies
+                     man's ability to fight against the demons.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A2-p7">
+                     <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
+                     Baptism are troubled by him in their bodies, yet all who are not baptized are subject to the power of the demons, at least
+                     on account of the guilt of original sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A2-p8">
+                     <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;
+                     but in so far as he hinders man from receiving the sacrament, his power is cast out by the exorcisms.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A2-p9">
+                     <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
+                     demons which are from within. hence those who are exorcized are called energumens, as it were "laboring inwardly."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     is given as a further remedy against the assaults of demons, because the baptismal exorcisms are not given a second time.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A2-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A2-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q71_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q71_A3.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q71_A3" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q71_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q71_A4.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q71_A3-p0.1">Whether what is done in the exorcism effects anything, or is a mere sign?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A3-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A3-p2">
+                     <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,
+                     before being baptized, it is not saved. But the effects of what is done in the sacraments are ordained to the salvation of
+                     man; hence it is written (
+                     <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
+                     sign.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A3-p3">
+                     <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 (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A3-p4">
+                     <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
+                     of Baptism. But disposition must needs precede the perfect form: because form is not received save into matter already disposed.
+                     It would follow, therefore, that none could obtain the effect of Baptism unless he were previously exorcized; which is clearly
+                     false. Therefore what is done in the exorcisms has no effect.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A3-p5">
+                     <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,
+                     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
+                     had, the effect of Baptism would be imperfect. Therefore neither have those things an effect, which are done in exorcism before
+                     Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A3-p6">
+                     <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
+                     hostile power, which deceived man." But the Church does nothing in vain. Therefore the effect of these breathings is that
+                     the power of the devils is expelled.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A3-p7">
+                     <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,
+                     the Church uses words of command to cast out the devil's power, for instance, when she says: "Therefore, accursed devil, go
+                     out from him," etc.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     remission of sins. But those things that are done in the exorcism remove the twofold impediment against the reception of saving
+                     grace. Of these, one is the outward impediment, so far as the demons strive to hinder man's salvation. And this impediment
+                     is removed by the breathings, whereby the demon's power is cast out, as appears from the passage quoted
+                     from Augustine, i.e. as to the devil not placing obstacles against the reception of the sacrament. Nevertheless, the demon's
+                     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
+                     sense Cyprian says (Epist. lxxvi): "Know that the devil's evil power remains until the pouring of the saving water: but in
+                     Baptism he loses it all."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     of the mysteries of salvation. Hence Rabanus says (De Instit. Cleric. i) that "by means of the typifying spittle and the touch
+                     of the priest, the Divine wisdom and power brings salvation to the catechumen, that his nostrils being opened he may perceive
+                     the odor of the knowledge of God, that his ears be opened to hear the commandments of God, that his senses
+                     be opened in his inmost heart to respond."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A3-p10">
+                     <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
+                     his receiving the remission of sin through the sacrament. Wherefore exorcism avails a man nothing after death if he has not
+                     been baptized.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A3-p11"> Praepositivus, however, says that children who die after being exorcized but before being baptized are subjected to lesser
+                     darkness. But this does not seem to be true: because that darkness consists in privation of the vision of God, which cannot
+                     be greater or lesser.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A3-p12">
+                     <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
+                     man. But those things that are done in the exorcism do not effect this; they merely remove these impediments. Consequently,
+                     they are not sacraments but sacramentals.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A3-p13">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     of the impediments. And therefore one may receive the effect of Baptism without them.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     in Baptism may be observed. Nor are they supplied to no purpose after Baptism: because, just as the effect of Baptism may
+                     be hindered before it is received, so can it be hindered after it has been received.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A3-p15">
+                     <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,
+                     but produces an effect, for instance, the anointing on the top of the head, the effect of which is the preservation of baptismal
+                     grace. And there is something which has no effect, but is a mere sign, for instance, the baptized are given a white garment
+                     to signify the newness of life.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A3-p16"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A3-p17"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q71_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q71_A4.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q71_A4" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q71_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q71_A4-p0.1">Whether it belongs to a priest to catechize and exorcize the person to be baptized?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A4-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A4-p2">
+                     <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
+                     of ministers to operate on the unclean, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v). But catechumens who are instructed by catechism,
+                     and "energumens" who are cleansed by exorcism, are counted among the unclean, as Dionysius says in the same place. Therefore
+                     to catechize and to exorcize do not belong to the office of the priests, but rather to
+                     that of the ministers.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A4-p3">
+                     <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
+                     as the Old Testament is recited by the Readers, so the New Testament is read by the Deacons and Subdeacons. And thus it belongs
+                     to the ministers to catechize. In like manner it belongs, seemingly, to the ministers to exorcize. For Isidore says (Epist.
+                     ad Ludifred.): "The exorcist should know the exorcisms by heart, and impose his hands on
+                     the energumens and catechumens during the exorcism." Therefore it belongs not to the priestly office to catechize and exorcize.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A4-p4">
+                     <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
+                     a bishop, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v). Therefore it does not belong to the priestly office.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A4-p5">
+                     <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."
+                     And Gregory says (Hom. xxix super Ezech.): "When priests place their hands on believers for the grace of exorcism, what else
+                     do they but cast out the devils?"
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A4-p6">
+                     <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
+                     very word "minister." Now the secondary agent does nothing without the principal agent in operating. And the more mighty the
+                     operation, so much the mightier instruments does the principal agent require. But the operation of the priest in conferring
+                     the sacrament itself is mightier than in those things that are preparatory to the
+                     sacrament. And so the highest ministers who are called deacons co-operate with the priest in bestowing the sacraments themselves:
+                     for Isidore says (Epist. ad Ludifred.) that "it belongs to the deacons to assist the priests in all things that are done in
+                     Christ's sacraments, in Baptism, to wit, in the Chrism, in the Paten and Chalice"; while the inferior ministers assist the
+                     priest in those things which are preparatory to the sacraments: the readers, for instance, in catechizing; the exorcists
+                     in exorcizing.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A4-p7">
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A4-p8">
+                     <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
+                     priest in these things.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A4-p9">
+                     <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)
+                     and can be undertaken by any preacher, or even by any believer. Another is that by which a man is taught the rudiments of
+                     faith, and how to comport himself in receiving the sacraments: this belongs secondarily to the ministers, primarily to the
+                     priests. A third is instruction in the mode of Christian life: and this belongs to the
+                     sponsors. A fourth is the instruction in the profound mysteries of faith, and on the perfection of Christian life: this belongs
+                     to bishops "ex officio," in virtue of their office.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A4-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q71_A4-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q71_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q70_A4.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q71_A1.html"></a>
+            </div>
+            <div id="TP_Q72" class="div3">
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q71_A4.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A1.html"></a>
+               <h3 id="TP_Q72-p0.1">CONFIRMATION (Q[72])</h3>
+               <p id="TP_Q72-p1"></p>
+               <p id="TP_Q72-p2">OF THE SACRAMENT OF CONFIRMATION (TWELVE ARTICLES)</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q72-p3"> We have now to consider the Sacrament of Confirmation. Concerning this there are twelve points of inquiry:</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q72-p4"> (1) Whether Confirmation is a sacrament?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q72-p5"> (2) Its matter;</p>
+               <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>
+               <p id="TP_Q72-p7"> (4) Its form;</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q72-p8"> (5) Whether it imprints a character?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q72-p9"> (6) Whether the character of Confirmation presupposes the character of Baptism?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q72-p10"> (7) Whether it bestows grace?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q72-p11"> (8) Who is competent to receive this sacrament?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q72-p12"> (9) In what part of the body?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q72-p13"> (10) Whether someone is required to stand for the person to be confirmed?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q72-p14"> (11) Whether this sacrament is given by bishops only?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q72-p15"> (12) Of its rite.</p>
+               <div id="TP_Q72_A1" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A2.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q72_A1-p0.1">Whether confirmation is a sacrament?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A1-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A1-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that Confirmation is not a sacrament. For sacraments derive their efficacy from the Divine institution, as stated
+                     above (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A1-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the sacraments of the New Law were foreshadowed in the Old Law; thus the Apostle says (
+                     <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
+                     same spiritual drink." But Confirmation was not foreshadowed in the old Testament. Therefore it is not a sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A1-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the sacraments are ordained unto man's salvation. But man can be saved without Confirmation: since children that
+                     are baptized, who die before being confirmed, are saved. Therefore Confirmation is not a sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A1-p5">
+                     <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
+                     be conformed to Christ by Confirmation, since we read nowhere of Christ being confirmed.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A1-p6">
+                     <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
+                     imposition of the bishop's hand were a greater sacrament than Baptism, know that each is a great sacrament."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A1-p7">
+                     <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
+                     grace, there we find a special sacrament ordained for the purpose. But since sensible and material things bear a likeness
+                     to things spiritual and intelligible, from what occurs in the life of the body, we can perceive that which is special to the
+                     spiritual life. Now it is evident that in the life of the body a certain special perfection
+                     consists in man's attaining to the perfect age, and being able to perform the perfect actions of a man: hence the Apostle
+                     says (
+                     <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
+                     man receives life of the body, there is the movement of growth, whereby man is brought to the perfect age. So therefore does
+                     man receive spiritual life in Baptism, which is a spiritual regeneration: while in
+                     Confirmation man arrives at the perfect age, as it were, of the spiritual life. Hence Pope Melchiades says: "The Holy Ghost,
+                     Who comes down on the waters of Baptism bearing salvation in His flight, bestows at the font, the fulness of innocence; but
+                     in Confirmation He confers an increase of grace. In Baptism we are born again unto life; after Baptism we are strengthened."
+                     And therefore it is evident that Confirmation is a special sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A1-p8">
+                     <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;
+                     St. Bonaventure, Sent. iv, D, 7) have maintained that this sacrament was instituted neither by Christ, nor by the apostles;
+                     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
+                     by the apostles. But this cannot be admitted; since the institution of a new
+                     sacrament belongs to the power of excellence, which belongs to Christ alone.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     <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
+                     the fulness of the Holy Ghost is bestowed, which was not to be given before Christ's Resurrection and Ascension; according
+                     to 
+                     <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
+                     glorified."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A1-p10">
+                     <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,
+                     since "the Law brought nothing to perfection" (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A1-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.7.19" target="asv">Heb. 7:19</a>).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A1-p11">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As stated above (
+                     <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
+                     as conducing to the perfection of salvation; and thus it is that Confirmation is necessary for salvation: although salvation
+                     is possible without it, provided it be not omitted out of contempt.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A1-p12">
+                     <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
+                     the very first instant of His conception He was "full of grace and truth" (
+                     <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" (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A1-p12.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.3.22" target="asv">Lk. 3:22</a>). Hence (
+                     <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
+                     from the Jordan." Nor was it fitting to Christ's dignity, that He, Who is the Author of the sacraments, should receive the
+                     fulness of grace from a sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A1-p13"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A1-p14"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A2.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q72_A2" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A3.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q72_A2-p0.1">Whether chrism is a fitting matter for this sacrament?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A2-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A2-p2">
+                     <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
+                     by Christ when He promised His disciples the Holy Ghost. But He sent them the Holy Ghost without their being anointed with
+                     chrism. Moreover, the apostles themselves bestowed this sacrament without chrism, by the mere imposition of hands: for it
+                     is written (
+                     <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"
+                     those who were baptized, "and they received the Holy Ghost." Therefore chrism is not the matter of this sacrament: since the
+                     matter is essential to the sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A2-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Confirmation perfects, in a way, the sacrament of Baptism, as stated above (
+                     <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,
+                     viz. water. Therefore chrism, which is made of oil and balm, is not a fitting matter for this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A2-p4">
+                     <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
+                     instance, oil made from nuts, and from anything else. Therefore not only olive oil should be used for this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A2-p5">
+                     <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, it has been stated above (
+                     <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
+                     everywhere; and much less is balm. Therefore chrism, which is made of these, is not a fitting matter for this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A2-p6">
+                     <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
+                     chrism is the matter of this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A2-p7">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> Chrism is the fitting matter of this sacrament. For, as stated above 
+                     <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
+                     when man comes to perfect age he begins at once to have intercourse with others; whereas until then he lives an individual
+                     life, as it were, confined to himself. Now the grace of the Holy Ghost is signified by oil; hence Christ is said to
+                     be "anointed with the oil of gladness" (
+                     <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.
+                     And balm is mixed with the oil, by reason of its fragrant odor, which spreads about: hence the Apostle says (
+                     <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
+                     it has a special odor of its own, and because it confers
+                     incorruptibility: hence it is written (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A2-p8">
+                     <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
+                     fulness of the Holy Ghost, without the sacrament itself, because they had received "the first fruits of the Spirit" (
+                     <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
+                     when they received the Holy Ghost. For that the Holy Ghost
+                     came down upon them in a sensible manner under the form of fire, refers to the same signification as oil: except in so far
+                     as fire has an active power, while oil has a passive power, as being the matter and incentive of fire. And this was quite
+                     fitting: for it was through the apostles that the grace of the Holy Ghost was to flow forth to others. Again, the Holy Ghost
+                     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
+                     tongue communicates with others by speech, but balm, by its odor. because, to wit, the apostles were filled with the Holy
+                     Ghost, as teachers of the Faith; but the rest of the believers, as doing that which gives edification to the faithful.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     under visible signs on the faithful, just as, at the beginning, He came down on the apostles: hence Peter said (
+                     <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
+                     need for sacramental sensible matter, where God sent sensible signs miraculously.
+                  </p>
+                  <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.
+                     For Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iv): "There is a certain perfecting operation which our guides," i.e. the apostles, "call
+                     the sacrifice of Chrism."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A2-p11">
+                     <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
+                     is given that we may receive the fulness of the Holy Ghost, Whose operations are manifold, according to
+                     <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 
+                     <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
+                     this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A2-p12">
+                     <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
+                     other oil. In fact, the olive-tree itself, through being an evergreen, signifies the refreshing and merciful operation of
+                     the Holy Ghost.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     so called, derives its name from its likeness to this oil: nor are the latter commonly used, unless it be to supply the want
+                     of olive oil. Therefore it is that this oil alone is used for this and certain other sacraments.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A2-p14">
+                     <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
+                     matter of this sacrament, which is not of such great necessity, be easily sent to all parts of the world.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A2-p15"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A2-p16"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A3.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q72_A3" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A4.html"></a>
+                  <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>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A3-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A3-p2">
+                     <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
+                     bishop. For Baptism which bestows full remission of sins is not less efficacious than this sacrament. But, though the baptismal
+                     water receives a kind of blessing before being used for Baptism; yet this is not essential to the sacrament: since in a case
+                     of necessity it can be dispensed with. Therefore neither is it essential to this
+                     sacrament that the chrism should be previously consecrated by a bishop.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A3-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the same should not be consecrated twice. But the sacramental matter is sanctified, in the very conferring of the
+                     sacrament, by the form of words wherein the sacrament is bestowed; hence Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan.): "The word
+                     is added to the element, and this becomes a sacrament." Therefore the chrism should not be consecrated before this sacrament
+                     is given.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A3-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, every consecration employed in the sacraments is ordained to the bestowal of grace. But the sensible matter composed
+                     of oil and balm is not receptive of grace. Therefore it should not be consecrated.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A3-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> Pope Innocent I says (Ep. ad Decent.): "Priests, when baptizing, may anoint the baptized with chrism, previously consecrated
+                     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."
+                     Now this is done in this sacrament. Therefore it is necessary for this sacrament that its matter be previously consecrated
+                     by a bishop.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A3-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> The entire sanctification of the sacraments is derived from Christ, as stated above (
+                     <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.
+                     And consequently, from Christ's very act in using them, the matter of these sacraments received a certain aptitude to the
+                     perfection of the sacrament. Hence Chrysostom (Chromatius, In 
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A3-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.3.15" target="asv"> Matth.
+                        3:15
+                     </a>) says that "the waters of Baptism could never wash away the sins of believers, had they not been sanctified by contact with
+                     our Lord's body." And again, our Lord Himself "taking bread . . . blessed . . . and in like manner the chalice" (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A3-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Matt.26.26" target="asv">Mat. 26:26,27</a>;
+                     <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
+                     enough. And if any blessing be used, it belongs to
+                     the solemnity of the sacrament, not to its essence. But Christ did not make use of visible anointings, so as not to slight
+                     the invisible unction whereby He was "anointed above" His "fellows" (
+                     <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
+                     suffices for the reply to the First Objection.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A3-p7">
+                     <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,
+                     viz. when it receives the form of an instrument, and when it is moved by the principal agent; so too the sacramental matter
+                     needs a twofold sanctification, by one of which it becomes fit matter for the sacrament, while by the other it is applied
+                     to the production of the effect.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A3-p8">
+                     <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
+                     above (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A3-p9"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A3-p10"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A4.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q72_A4" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A5.html"></a>
+                  <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>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A4-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A4-p2">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     is derived from Christ and the apostles. But neither did Christ institute this form, nor do we read of the apostles making
+                     use of it. Therefore it is not the proper form of this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A4-p3">
+                     <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
+                     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."
+                     Therefore the above is not the proper form of this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A4-p4">
+                     <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]).
+                     But in the form of Baptism no mention is made of signing the character; nor again of the cross of Christ, though in Baptism
+                     man dies with Christ, as the Apostle says (
+                     <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
+                     action is
+                     included; and the person of the baptizer is expressed in the words: "I baptize thee, whereas the contrary is to be observed
+                     in the above form." Therefore this is not the proper form of this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A4-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> Is the authority of the Church, who always uses this form.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A4-p6">
+                     <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
+                     form should contain whatever belongs to the species of the sacrament. Now as is evident from what has been already said (
+                     <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
+                     are necessary; and they are contained in the above form.
+                     The first of these is the cause conferring fulness of spiritual strength which cause is the Blessed Trinity: and this is expressed
+                     in the words, "In the name of the Father," etc. The second is the spiritual strength itself bestowed on man unto salvation
+                     by the sacrament of visible matter; and this is referred to in the words, "I confirm thee with the chrism of salvation." The
+                     third is the sign which is given to the combatant, as in a bodily combat: thus are soldiers marked with the sign of
+                     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
+                     (cf.
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A4-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Col.2.15" target="asv"> Col. 2:15</a>).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A4-p7">
+                     <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
+                     the ministry of the apostles, under certain visible signs, wrought miraculously by God, Who can bestow the sacramental effect,
+                     independently of the sacrament. In these cases there was no need for either the matter or the form of this sacrament. On the
+                     other hand, sometimes they bestowed this sacrament as ministers of the
+                     sacraments. And then, they used both matter and form according to Christ's command. For the apostles, in conferring the sacraments,
+                     observed many things which are not handed down in those Scriptures that are in general use. Hence Dionysius says at the end
+                     of his treatise on the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy (chap. vii): "It is not allowed to explain in writing the prayers which are
+                     used in the sacraments, and to publish their mystical meaning, or the power which, coming from God, gives them their
+                     efficacy; we learn these things by holy tradition without any display,"* i.e. secretly. [*The passage quoted in the text of
+                     the Summa differs slightly from the above, which is translated directly from the works of Dionysius.] Hence the Apostle, speaking
+                     of the celebration of the Eucharist, writes (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A4-p8">
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A4-p9">
+                     <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
+                     action alone is expressed which refers to the man to be sanctified. But this sacrament is ordained not only to the sanctification
+                     of man in himself, but also to strengthen him in his outward combat. Consequently not only is mention made of interior sanctification,
+                     in the words, "I confirm thee with the chrism of salvation": but
+                     furthermore man is signed outwardly, as it were with the standard of the cross, unto the outward spiritual combat; and this
+                     is signified by the words, "I sign thee with the sign of the cross."
+                  </p>
+                  <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,
+                     and the effect, which is salvation. Whereas these are not understood by the word "confirm"; and consequently they had to be
+                     expressed.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     is included in the first person of the verb. It is, however, included in order to express the intention. But this does not
+                     seem so necessary in Confirmation, which is conferred only by a minister of excellence, as we shall state later on 
+                     <a id="TP_Q72_A4-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q72_A11.html">(A[11])</a>.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A4-p12"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A4-p13"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A5.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q72_A5" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A6.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q72_A5-p0.1">Whether the sacrament of Confirmation imprints a character?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A5-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A5-p2">
+                     <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
+                     man is not distinguished from unbelievers by the sacrament of Confirmation, for this is the effect of Baptism; nor from the
+                     rest of the faithful, because this sacrament is ordained to the spiritual combat, which is enjoined to all the faithful. Therefore
+                     a character is not imprinted in this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A5-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it was stated above (
+                     <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
+                     is conferred by the sacrament of order: while the passive or receptive power is conferred by the sacrament of Baptism. Therefore
+                     no character is imprinted by the sacrament of Confirmation.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A5-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, in circumcision, which is a character of the body, no spiritual character is imprinted. But in this sacrament a
+                     character is imprinted on the body, when the sign of the cross is signed with chrism on man's brow. Therefore a spiritual
+                     character is not imprinted by this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A5-p5">
+                     <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
+                     (Ep. iv ad Bonifac.): "As to the man who was confirmed a second time by a bishop, such a repetition must be forbidden." Therefore
+                     a character is imprinted in Confirmation.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A5-p6">
+                     <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
+                     above 
+                     <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
+                     growth bringing man to perfect spiritual age. But it is evident, from a comparison with the life of the body, that the action
+                     which is proper to man immediately after birth,
+                     is different from the action which is proper to him when he has come to perfect age. And therefore by the sacrament of Confirmation
+                     man is given a spiritual power in respect of sacred actions other than those in respect of which he receives power in Baptism.
+                     For in Baptism he receives power to do those things which pertain to his own salvation, forasmuch as he lives to himself:
+                     whereas in Confirmation he receives power to do those things which pertain to the spiritual combat with the enemies of
+                     the Faith. This is evident from the example of the apostles, who, before they received the fulness of the Holy Ghost, were
+                     in the "upper room . . . persevering . . . in prayer" (
+                     <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
+                     Christian Faith. And therefore it is evident that a character is imprinted in the sacrament of Confirmation.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A5-p7">
+                     <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
+                     of the Faith, by confessing Christ's name, belongs to the confirmed, who have already come spiritually to the age of virility,
+                     according to 
+                     <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
+                     one." And therefore the character of Confirmation
+                     is a distinctive sign, not between unbelievers and believers, but between those who are grown up spiritually and those of
+                     whom it is written: "As new-born babes" (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A5-p7.2" href="./asv.html#iPet.2.2" target="asv">1 Pet. 2:2</a>).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A5-p8">
+                     <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
+                     faith by receiving the other sacraments; so he who is confirmed receives the power of publicly confessing his faith by words,
+                     as it were "ex officio."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A5-p9">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The sacraments of the Old Law are called "justice of the flesh" (
+                     <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,
+                     but not in the soul. But in Confirmation, since it is a sacrament of the New Law, a spiritual character is imprinted at the
+                     same time, together with the bodily character.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A5-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A5-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A6.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q72_A6" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A7.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q72_A6-p0.1">Whether the character of Confirmation presupposes of necessity, the baptismal character?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A6-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A6-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the character of Confirmation does not presuppose, of necessity, the baptismal character. For the sacrament
+                     of Confirmation is ordained to the public confession of the Faith of Christ. But many, even before Baptism, have publicly
+                     confessed the Faith of Christ by shedding their blood for the Faith. Therefore the character of Confirmation does not presuppose
+                     the baptismal character.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A6-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is not related of the apostles that they were baptized; especially, since it is written (
+                     <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.
+                     Therefore, in like manner, others can be confirmed before being baptized.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A6-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is written (
+                     <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
+                     heard them speaking with tongues": and afterwards "he commanded them to be baptized." Therefore others with equal reason can
+                     be confirmed before being baptized.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A6-p5">
+                     <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
+                     hands, in order that the baptized may be strengthened by the Holy Ghost so as to publish his faith."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A6-p6">
+                     <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
+                     were to be confirmed, he would receive nothing, but would have to be confirmed again after receiving Baptism. The reason of
+                     this is that, Confirmation is to Baptism as growth to birth, as is evident from what has been said above 
+                     <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
+                     unless he be first born: and in like manner, unless a man be first baptized, he cannot receive the sacrament of Confirmation.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A6-p7">
+                     <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
+                     publicly, without receiving the sacrament of Confirmation: just as he can also receive remission of sins without Baptism.
+                     Yet, just as none receive the effect of Baptism without the desire of Baptism; so none receive the effect of Confirmation,
+                     without the desire of Confirmation. And man can have this even before receiving
+                     Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A6-p8">
+                     <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' (
+                     <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
+                     Christ's, which is more credible. For He did not refuse to administer Baptism, so as to have servants by whom to baptize others."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A6-p9">
+                     <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.
+                     Now it has been stated (ad 1) that the effect of Confirmation can be bestowed on man before Baptism, whereas the sacrament
+                     cannot. For just as the effect of Confirmation, which is spiritual strength, presupposes the effect of Baptism, which is justification,
+                     so the sacrament of Confirmation presupposes the sacrament of
+                     Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A6-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A6-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A7.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q72_A7" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A6.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A8.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q72_A7-p0.1">Whether sanctifying grace is bestowed in this sacrament?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A7-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A7-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that sanctifying grace is not bestowed in this sacrament. For sanctifying grace is ordained against sin. But this
+                     sacrament, as stated above 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A7-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, sinners especially need sanctifying grace, by which alone can they be justified. If, therefore, sanctifying grace
+                     is bestowed in this sacrament, it seems that it should be given to those who are in sin. And yet this is not true.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A7-p4">
+                     <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
+                     species cannot be in the same subject. Since, therefore, man receives sanctifying grace in Baptism, it seems that sanctifying
+                     grace is not bestowed in Confirmation, which is given to none but the baptized.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A7-p5">
+                     <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
+                     He confers an increase of grace."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A7-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> In this sacrament, as stated above (
+                     <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
+                     we read in 
+                     <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
+                     <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 
+                     <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
+                     sanctifying grace. Consequently it is evident that sanctifying grace is bestowed in this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A7-p7">
+                     <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
+                     step as far as eternal life. Hence to Paul was it said (
+                     <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 (
+                     <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
+                     for growth and stability in
+                     righteousness. And thus is it bestowed in this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A7-p8">
+                     <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
+                     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,
+                     so neither should it be given to the adult sinners, except they be restored by Penance. Wherefore was it decreed in the Council
+                     of Orleans (Can. iii) that "men should come to Confirmation fasting;
+                     and should be admonished to confess their sins first, so that being cleansed they may be able to receive the gift of the Holy
+                     Ghost." And then this sacrament perfects the effects of Penance, as of Baptism: because by the grace which he has received
+                     in this sacrament, the penitent will obtain fuller remission of his sin. And if any adult approach, being in a state of sin
+                     of which he is not conscious or for which he is not perfectly contrite, he will receive the remission of his sins through
+                     the
+                     grace bestowed in this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A7-p9">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As stated above (
+                     <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,
+                     and to which the sacrament is ordained. If, then, we consider, in its wide sense, the grace bestowed in this sacrament, it
+                     does not differ from that bestowed in Baptism, but increases what was already there. On the other hand, if we consider it
+                     as to that which is added over and
+                     above, then one differs in species from the other.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A7-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A7-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A6.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A8.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q72_A8" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A7.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A9.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q72_A8-p0.1">Whether this sacrament should be given to all?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A8-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A8-p2">
+                     <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,
+                     as stated above (A[11], ad 2). But all are not suited for that which belongs to excellence. Therefore this sacrament should
+                     not be given to all.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A8-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, by this sacrament man advances spiritually to perfect age. But perfect age is inconsistent with childhood. Therefore
+                     at least it should not be given to children.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A8-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as Pope Melchiades says (Ep. ad Episc. Hispan.) "after Baptism we are strengthened for the combat." But women are
+                     incompetent to combat, by reason of the frailty of their sex. Therefore neither should women receive this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A8-p5">
+                     <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, Pope Melchiades says (Ep. ad Episc. Hispan.): "Although the benefit of Regeneration suffices for those who are on
+                     the point of death, yet the graces of Confirmation are necessary for those who are to conquer. Confirmation arms and strengthens
+                     those to whom the struggles and combats of this world are reserved. And he who comes to die, having kept unsullied the innocence
+                     he acquired in Baptism, is confirmed by death; for after death he can sin no more."
+                     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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A8-p6">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
+                     <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
+                     "they were all filled with the Holy Ghost." But this sacrament is given that we may receive that fulness. Therefore it should
+                     be given to all who belong to the Church.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A8-p7">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above 
+                     <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,
+                     should come to perfect age: yet this is sometimes hindered by reason of the corruptibility of the body, which is forestalled
+                     by death. But much more is it God's intention to bring all things to perfection, since nature shares in this intention inasmuch
+                     as it reflects Him: hence it is
+                     written (
+                     <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
+                     just as it can in old age attain to spiritual birth, so can it attain to perfect (spiritual) age in youth or childhood; because
+                     the various ages of the body do not affect the soul. Therefore this sacrament should be given to all.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A8-p8">
+                     <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
+                     another, but of man in regard to himself: thus the same man, when arrived at maturity, excels himself as he was when a boy.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A8-p9">
+                     <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
+                     of spiritual age, of which it is written (
+                     <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
+                     reason of the strength of the Holy Ghost which they had received, fought bravely for Christ even to the shedding of their
+                     blood.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A8-p10">
+                     <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
+                     slaves, women, old men, and boys are debarred from taking part therein. But in the heavenly combats, the Stadium is open equally
+                     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
+                     a woman has waged the spiritual warfare with the courage of a man. For
+                     some have rivaled men in the courage with which they have suffered martyrdom; and some indeed have shown themselves stronger
+                     than men." Therefore this sacrament should be given to women.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A8-p11">
+                     <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
+                     to those on the point of death, that they may be seen to be perfect at the resurrection, according to
+                     <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
+                     St. Victor says (De Sacram. ii), "It would be altogether hazardous, if
+                     anyone happened to go forth from this life without being confirmed": not that such a one would be lost, except perhaps through
+                     contempt; but that this would be detrimental to his perfection. And therefore even children dying after Confirmation obtain
+                     greater glory, just as here below they receive more grace. The passage quoted is to be taken in the sense that, with regard
+                     to the dangers of the present combat, those who are on the point of death do not need this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A8-p12"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A8-p13"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A7.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A9.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q72_A9" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A8.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A10.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q72_A9-p0.1">Whether this sacrament should be given to man on the forehead?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A9-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A9-p2">
+                     <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
+                     (
+                     <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
+                     forehead only.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A9-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, this sacrament is given for spiritual strength, as stated above (
+                     <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
+                     rather than on the forehead.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A9-p4">
+                     <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
+                     made unto salvation," according to
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A9-p5">
+                     <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
+                     bishop on the forehead."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A9-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
+                     <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
+                     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,
+                     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,
+                     which should be evident and
+                     manifest. Now, the forehead, which is hardly ever covered, is the most conspicuous part of the human body. Wherefore the confirmed
+                     is anointed with chrism on the forehead, that he may show publicly that he is a Christian: thus too the apostles after receiving
+                     the Holy Ghost showed themselves in public, whereas before they remained hidden in the upper room.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     things betray themselves principally on the forehead on account of the proximity of the imagination, and because the (vital)
+                     spirits mount directly from the heart to the forehead: hence "those who are ashamed, blush, and those who are afraid, pale"
+                     (Ethic. iv). And therefore man is signed with chrism, that neither fear nor shame may hinder him from
+                     confessing the name of Christ.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A9-p8">
+                     <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
+                     for the combat; the sign of which should be borne on the forehead, as in a conspicuous place.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A9-p9">
+                     <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 (
+                     <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
+                     is confirmed in himself, belongs to the heart, according to
+                     <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
+                     fortitude against others; and for this reason it is given on the forehead.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A9-p10">
+                     <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.
+                     And therefore it should not be given on the mouth, but on the forehead, where appear the signs of those passions which hinder
+                     free confession.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A9-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A9-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A8.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A10.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q72_A10" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A9.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A11.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q72_A10-p0.1">Whether he who is confirmed needs one to stand* for him? [*Literally, "to hold him"]</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A10-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A10-p2">
+                     <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
+                     to adults. But adults can stand for themselves. Therefore it is absurd that someone else should stand for them.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A10-p3">
+                     <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,
+                     as stated above 
+                     <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
+                     by another to the bishop in order to receive this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A10-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, this sacrament is given for spiritual strength, which has more vigor in men than in women, according to
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A10-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> Are the following words of Pope Innocent, which are to be found in the Decretals (X
+                     <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,
+                     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
+                     .
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A10-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
+                     <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
+                     teach him things pertaining to ordinary conduct, according to
+                     <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
+                     the fight need instructors by whom they are informed of things concerning
+                     the conduct of the battle, and hence in earthly wars, generals and captains are appointed to the command of the others. For
+                     this reason he also who receives this sacrament, has someone to stand for him, who, as it were, has to instruct him concerning
+                     the fight.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A10-p7"> Likewise, since this sacrament bestows on man the perfection of spiritual age, as stated above (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A10-p8">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although he who is confirmed, be adult in body, nevertheless he is not yet spiritually adult.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A10-p9">
+                     <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
+                     therefore he is brought to the bishop, as to the commander of the army, by one who is already enrolled as a Christian soldier.
+                     For one who is not yet confirmed should not stand for another in Confirmation.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A10-p10">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> According to 
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q72_A10-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Col.3" target="asv">Col. 3</a> *(
+                     <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
+                     who is to be confirmed.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A10-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A10-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A9.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A11.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q72_A11" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A10.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A12.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q72_A11-p0.1">Whether only a bishop can confer this sacrament?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A11-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A11-p2">
+                     <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
+                     hear that some were scandalized because we forbade priests to anoint with chrism those who have been baptized. Yet in doing
+                     this we followed the ancient custom of our Church: but if this trouble some so very much we permit priests, where no bishop
+                     is to be had, to anoint the baptized on the forehead with chrism." But that which is
+                     essential to the sacraments should not be changed for the purpose of avoiding scandal. Therefore it seems that it is not essential
+                     to this sacrament that it be conferred by a bishop.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A11-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the sacrament of Baptism seems to be more efficacious than the sacrament of Confirmation: since it bestows full
+                     remission of sins, both as to guilt and as to punishment, whereas this sacrament does not. But a simple priest, in virtue
+                     of his office, can give the sacrament of Baptism: and in a case of necessity anyone, even without orders, can baptize. Therefore
+                     it is not essential to this sacrament that it be conferred by a bishop.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A11-p4">
+                     <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
+                     is called the "cogitative faculty"), is more noble than the forehead, which is the site of the imagination. But a simple priest
+                     can anoint the baptized with chrism on the top of the head. Therefore much more can he anoint them with chrism on the forehead,
+                     which belongs to this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A11-p5">
+                     <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,
+                     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
+                     than the apostles themselves; nor can it ever be either licitly or validly performed by others than those who stand in their
+                     place. And if anyone presume to do otherwise, it must be considered null and void;
+                     nor will such a thing ever be counted among the sacraments of the Church." Therefore it is essential to this sacrament, which
+                     is called "the sacrament of the imposition of the hand," that it be given by a bishop.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A11-p6">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     things made by art; thus also the letter which is written by the clerk, is signed by his employer. Now the faithful of Christ
+                     are a Divine work, according to 
+                     <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";
+                     and they are also "an epistle," as it were, "written with the Spirit of God," according to 
+                     <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
+                     Baptism man is built up into a spiritual dwelling, and is written like a spiritual letter; whereas by the sacrament of Confirmation,
+                     like a house already built, he is consecrated as a temple of the Holy Ghost, and as a letter already written, is
+                     signed with the sign of the cross. Therefore the conferring of this sacrament is reserved to bishops, who possess supreme
+                     power in the Church: just as in the primitive Church, the fulness of the Holy Ghost was given by the apostles, in whose place
+                     the bishops stand (
+                     <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
+                     hand, that they may become perfect Christians."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A11-p7">
+                     <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
+                     to the higher orders: thus he allows priests to confer minor orders, which belong to the episcopal power. And in virtue of
+                     this fulness of power the Pope, Blessed Gregory, allowed simple priests to confer this sacrament, so long as the scandal was
+                     ended.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A11-p8">
+                     <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,
+                     that consists in change from non-being to being. But this sacrament is more efficacious for progress in good; since it is
+                     a spiritual growth from imperfect being to perfect being. And hence this sacrament is committed to a more worthy minister.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A11-p9">
+                     <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
+                     the bishop on the forehead; that the former unction may symbolize the descent of the Holy Ghost on hint, in order to consecrate
+                     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
+                     all fulness of sanctity, knowledge and virtue." Hence this unction is reserved
+                     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
+                     effect.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A11-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A11-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A10.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A12.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q72_A12" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A11.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q73.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q72_A12-p0.1">Whether the rite of this sacrament is appropriate?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A12-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A12-p2">
+                     <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,
+                     as stated above (A[2], ad 4;
+                     <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
+                     chosen for this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A12-p3">
+                     <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.
+                     But in the sacrament of Baptism it is not necessary that it should be received or given fasting. Therefore it seems unfitting
+                     for the Council of Orleans to declare that "those who come to Confirmation should be fasting"; and the Council of Meaux, "that
+                     bishops should not give the Holy Ghost with imposition of the hand except they be
+                     fasting."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A12-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, chrism is a sign of the fulness of the Holy Ghost, as stated above 
+                     <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
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A12-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> Is the use of the Church, who is governed by the Holy Ghost.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A12-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> Our Lord promised His faithful (
+                     <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
+                     hold firmly that the Church's ordinations are directed by the wisdom of Christ. And for this reason we must look upon it as
+                     certain that the rite observed by the Church, in this and the other sacraments, is appropriate.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A12-p7">
+                     <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
+                     that they can nowise be separated save by death intervening, nor can one be duly celebrated without the other." Consequently
+                     the same seasons are fixed for the solemn celebration of Baptism and of this sacrament. But since this sacrament is given
+                     only by bishops, who are not always present where priests are baptizing, it was
+                     necessary, as regards the common use, to defer the sacrament of Confirmation to other seasons also.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A12-p8">
+                     <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.
+                     And therefore, on account of the multitude of the faithful, and on account of imminent dangers, it is allowed for this sacrament,
+                     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
+                     in a large diocese, would not suffice to confirm all, if he were confined
+                     to certain times. But where it can be done conveniently, it is more becoming that both giver and receiver should be fasting.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A12-p9">
+                     <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
+                     Baptism, for which chrism has to be used, is celebrated on Easter Eve, it was rightly decreed, that chrism should be consecrated
+                     by the bishop two days beforehand, that it may be sent to the various parts of the diocese. Moreover, this day is sufficiently
+                     appropriate to the blessing of sacramental matter, since thereon was the
+                     Eucharist instituted, to which, in a certain way, all the other sacraments are ordained, as stated above (
+                     <a id="TP_Q72_A12-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q65_A3.html">Q[65], A[3]</a>).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A12-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q72_A12-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A11.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q73.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q71_A4.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A1.html"></a>
+            </div>
+            <div id="TP_Q73" class="div3">
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A12.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A1.html"></a>
+               <h3 id="TP_Q73-p0.1">OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST (SIX ARTICLES)</h3>
+               <p id="TP_Q73-p1"></p>
+               <p id="TP_Q73-p2"></p>
+               <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
+                  matter; thirdly, of its form; fourthly, of its effects; fifthly, of the recipients of this sacrament; sixthly, of the minister;
+                  seventhly, of the rite.
+               </p>
+               <p id="TP_Q73-p4"> Under the first heading there are six points of inquiry:</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q73-p5"> (1) Whether the Eucharist is a sacrament?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q73-p6"> (2) Whether it is one or several sacraments?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q73-p7"> (3) Whether it is necessary for salvation?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q73-p8"> (4) Its names;</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q73-p9"> (5) Its institution;</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q73-p10"> (6) Its figures.</p>
+               <div id="TP_Q73_A1" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q73.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A2.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q73_A1-p0.1">Whether the Eucharist is a sacrament?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A1-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A1-p2">
+                     <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
+                     sacrament is efficacious in producing its effect. Therefore, since both Confirmation and the Eucharist are ordained for perfection,
+                     as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iv), it seems that the Eucharist is not a sacrament, since Confirmation is one, as stated above
+                     (
+                     <a id="TP_Q73_A1-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q65_A1.html">Q[65], A[1]</a>;
+                     <a id="TP_Q73_A1-p2.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q72_A1.html"> Q[72], A[1]</a>).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A1-p3">
+                     <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
+                     sacrament, just as cleansing with water causes the baptismal character and spiritual cleansing, as stated above (
+                     <a id="TP_Q73_A1-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q63_A6.html">Q[63], A[6]</a>;
+                     <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
+                     true body, which is both reality
+                     and sacrament, nor His mystical body, which is the reality only in the Eucharist. Therefore, it seems that the Eucharist is
+                     not a sacrament of the New Law.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A1-p4">
+                     <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,
+                     and Confirmation by signing with chrism. If, then, the Eucharist be a sacrament, it would be perfected by the use of the matter,
+                     and not by its consecration. But this is manifestly false, because the words spoken in the consecration of the matter are
+                     the form of this sacrament, as will be shown later on (
+                     <a id="TP_Q73_A1-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q78_A1.html">Q[78],
+                        A[1]
+                     </a>). Therefore the Eucharist is not a sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A1-p5">
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A1-p6">
+                     <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,
+                     since corporeal things bear a resemblance to spiritual. Now it is clear that just as generation is required for corporeal
+                     life, since thereby man receives life; and growth, whereby man is brought to maturity: so likewise food is required for the
+                     preservation of life. Consequently, just as for the spiritual life there had to be
+                     Baptism, which is spiritual generation; and Confirmation, which is spiritual growth: so there needed to be the sacrament of
+                     the Eucharist, which is spiritual food.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A1-p7">
+                     <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.
+                     The other is the perfection which comes to man from the addition of food, or clothing, or something of the kind; and such
+                     is the perfection befitting the Eucharist, which is the spiritual refreshment.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A1-p8">
+                     <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,
+                     which power is in the water. Hence on
+                     <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,
+                     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
+                     to
+                     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
+                     and wine produce no effect except from the virtue of Christ's true body.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A1-p9">
+                     <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,
+                     or in relation to something else. The difference between the Eucharist and other sacraments having sensible matter is that
+                     whereas the Eucharist contains something which is sacred absolutely, namely, Christ's own body; the baptismal water contains
+                     something which is sacred in relation to something else, namely, the
+                     sanctifying power: and the same holds good of chrism and such like. Consequently, the sacrament of the Eucharist is completed
+                     in the very consecration of the matter, whereas the other sacraments are completed in the application of the matter for the
+                     sanctifying of the individual. And from this follows another difference. For, in the sacrament of the Eucharist, what is both
+                     reality and sacrament is in the matter itself. but what is reality only, namely, the grace bestowed, is in the recipient;
+                     whereas in Baptism both are in the recipient, namely, the character, which is both reality and sacrament, and the grace of
+                     pardon of sins, which is reality only. And the same holds good of the other sacraments.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A1-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A1-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q73.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A2.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q73_A2" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A3.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q73_A2-p0.1">Whether the Eucharist is one sacrament or several?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A2-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A2-p2">
+                     <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
+                     et defunctis"]: "May the sacraments which we have received purify us, O Lord": and this is said on account of our receiving
+                     the Eucharist. Consequently the Eucharist is not one sacrament but several.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A2-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is impossible for genera to be multiplied without the species being multiplied: thus it is impossible for one
+                     man to be many animals. But, as stated above (
+                     <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
+                     that here must be more sacraments than one.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A2-p4">
+                     <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
+                     there is a double consecration of the matter. Therefore, it is a twofold sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A2-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
+                     <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
+                     is the sacrament of the Church's unity. But a sacrament bears the likeness of the reality whereof it is the sacrament. Therefore
+                     the Eucharist is one sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A2-p6">
+                     <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;
+                     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
+                     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
+                     by having all the parts needful for dwelling therein. And so this sacrament is said to
+                     be one. Because it is ordained for spiritual refreshment, which is conformed to corporeal refreshment. Now there are two things
+                     required for corporeal refreshment, namely, food, which is dry sustenance, and drink, which is wet sustenance. Consequently,
+                     two things concur for the integrity of this sacrament, to wit, spiritual food and spiritual drink, according to John: "My
+                     flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed." Therefore, this sacrament is materially many, but formally and
+                     perfectively one.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A2-p7">
+                     <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
+                     number: "May this sacrament of Thine not make us worthy of punishment": so as to show that this sacrament is in a measure
+                     several, yet simply one.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A2-p8">
+                     <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
+                     therefrom.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A2-p9">
+                     <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
+                     above.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A2-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A2-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A3.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q73_A3" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A4.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q73_A3-p0.1">Whether the Eucharist is necessary for salvation?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A3-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A3-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that this sacrament is necessary for salvation. For our Lord said (
+                     <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
+                     eaten and His blood drunk in this sacrament. Therefore, without this sacrament man cannot have the health of spiritual life.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A3-p3">
+                     <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
+                     sacrament, for spiritual health.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A3-p4">
+                     <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.
+                     For the Apostle says (
+                     <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."
+                     Consequently, as Baptism is necessary for salvation, so also is this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A3-p5">
+                     <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
+                     of the body and blood of Christ."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A3-p6">
+                     <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
+                     stated above (A[1], OBJ[2]) that the reality of the sacrament is the unity of the mystical body, without which there can be
+                     no salvation; for there is no entering into salvation outside the Church, just as in the time of the deluge there was none
+                     outside the Ark, which denotes the Church, according to 
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q73_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iPet.3.20" target="asv">1 Pet. 3:20,21.</a>
+                     And it has been said above (
+                     <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.
+                     Accordingly, before actual reception of this sacrament, a man can obtain salvation through the desire of receiving it, just
+                     as he can before Baptism through the desire of Baptism, as stated above (
+                     <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
+                     Baptism is the beginning of the spiritual life, and the door of the sacraments; whereas the Eucharist is, as it were, the
+                     consummation of the spiritual life, and the end of all the sacraments, as was observed above (
+                     <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,
+                     the reception of Baptism is necessary for starting the spiritual life, while the receiving of the Eucharist is requisite
+                     for its consummation; by partaking not indeed actually, but in desire, as an end is possessed in desire and intention. Another
+                     difference is because by Baptism a man is ordained to the Eucharist, and therefore from the fact of children being baptized,
+                     they are destined by the Church to the Eucharist; and just as they believe through the Church's faith, so they desire the
+                     Eucharist through the Church's intention, and, as a result, receive its reality. But they are not disposed for Baptism by
+                     any
+                     previous sacrament, and consequently before receiving Baptism, in no way have they Baptism in desire; but adults alone have:
+                     consequently, they cannot have the reality of the sacrament without receiving the sacrament itself. Therefore this sacrament
+                     is not necessary for salvation in the same way as Baptism is.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A3-p7">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As Augustine says, explaining
+                     <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,
+                     which is the Church in His predestinated, and called, and justified, and glorified, His holy and believing ones." Hence, as
+                     he says in his Epistle to Boniface (Pseudo-Beda, in 
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     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
+                     of Christ's body, before he eats that bread and drinks of that chalice."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A3-p8">
+                     <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
+                     nourished, and consequently it cannot avail for supporting life except it be partaken of; but spiritual food changes man into
+                     itself, according to that saying of Augustine (Confess. vii), that he heard the voice of Christ as it were saying to him:
+                     "Nor shalt thou change Me into thyself, as food of thy flesh, but thou shalt be
+                     changed into Me." But one can be changed into Christ, and be incorporated in Him by mental desire, even without receiving
+                     this sacrament. And consequently the comparison does not hold.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A3-p9">
+                     <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;
+                     but the Eucharist is the sacrament of Christ's Passion according as a man is made perfect in union with Christ Who suffered.
+                     Hence, as Baptism is called the sacrament of Faith, which is the foundation of the spiritual life, so the Eucharist is termed
+                     the sacrament of Charity, which is "the bond of perfection" (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q73_A3-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Col.3.14" target="asv">Col.
+                        3:14
+                     </a>).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A3-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A3-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A4.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q73_A4" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A5.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q73_A4-p0.1">Whether this sacrament is suitably called by various names?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A4-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A4-p2">
+                     <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
+                     is one, as stated above 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A4-p3">
+                     <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
+                     the New Law; and it is common to all the sacraments for grace to be conferred by them, which the name "Eucharist" denotes,
+                     for it is the same thing as "good grace." Furthermore, all the sacraments bring us help on our journey through this present
+                     life, which is the notion conveyed by "Viaticum." Again something sacred is done in all the
+                     sacraments, which belongs to the notion of "Sacrifice"; and the faithful intercommunicate through all the sacraments, which
+                     this Greek word {Synaxis} and the Latin "Communio" express. Therefore, these names are not suitably adapted to this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A4-p4">
+                     <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
+                     a sacrifice, so neither is it properly termed a "Host."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A4-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> is the use of these expressions by the faithful.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A4-p6">
+                     <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,
+                     which was a true sacrifice, as stated above (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     this Sacrament; and in this respect it is called "Communion" or {Synaxis}. For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv) that "it
+                     is called Communion because we communicate with Christ through it, both because we partake of His flesh and Godhead, and because
+                     we communicate with and are united to one another through it."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     come to pass in heaven; and according to this it is called "Viaticum," because it supplies the way of winning thither. And
+                     in this respect it is also called the "Eucharist," that is, "good grace," because "the grace of God is life everlasting" (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     assume the Godhead of the Son."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A4-p10">
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A4-p11">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> What is common to all the sacraments is attributed antonomastically to this one on account of its excellence.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A4-p12">
+                     <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
+                     as it contains Christ, Who is "a host (Douay: 'sacrifice') . . . of sweetness" (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q73_A4-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.5.2" target="asv">Eph. 5:2</a>).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A4-p13"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A4-p14"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A5.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q73_A5" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A6.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q73_A5-p0.1">Whether the institution of this sacrament was appropriate?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A5-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A5-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the institution of this sacrament was not appropriate, because as the Philosopher says (De Gener. ii): "We
+                     are nourished by the things from whence we spring." But by Baptism, which is spiritual regeneration, we receive our spiritual
+                     being, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. ii). Therefore we are also nourished by Baptism. Consequently there was no need to institute
+                     this sacrament as spiritual nourishment.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A5-p3">
+                     <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,
+                     even of those who have existed from the beginning of the world, as stated above (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A5-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, this sacrament is called the memorial of our Lord's Passion, according to 
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q73_A5-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.26" target="asv">Mat. 26</a> (
+                     <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
+                     instituted before Christ's Passion.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A5-p5">
+                     <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
+                     by Christ after His Passion and Resurrection, as is evident from
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A5-p6">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> This sacrament was instituted by Christ, of Whom it is said (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A5-p7">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> This sacrament was appropriately instituted at the supper, when Christ conversed with His disciples for the last time. First
+                     of all, because of what is contained in the sacrament: for Christ is Himself contained in the Eucharist sacramentally. Consequently,
+                     when Christ was going to leave His disciples in His proper species, He left Himself with them under the sacramental species;
+                     as the Emperor's image is set up to be reverenced in his absence. Hence
+                     Eusebius says: "Since He was going to withdraw His assumed body from their eyes, and bear it away to the stars, it was needful
+                     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
+                     once offered up for our ransom should be fittingly worshiped in a mystery."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A5-p8"> Secondly, because without faith in the Passion there could never be any salvation, according to
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     Paschal Lamb. Hence the Apostle says (
+                     <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
+                     its successor under the New Testament is the sacrament of the Eucharist, which is a remembrance of the Passion now past, just
+                     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
+                     should institute a new Sacrament after celebrating the old, as Pope Leo I says (Serm. lviii).
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     then especially affection for friends is more enkindled, and the things which affect us most are impressed the deepest in
+                     the soul. Consequently, since, as Pope Alexander I says, "among sacrifices there can be none greater than the body and blood
+                     of Christ, nor any more powerful oblation"; our Lord instituted this sacrament at His last parting with His
+                     disciples, in order that it might be held in the greater veneration. And this is what Augustine says (Respons. ad Januar.
+                     i): "In order to commend more earnestly the death of this mystery, our Saviour willed this last act to be fixed in the hearts
+                     and memories of the disciples whom He was about to quit for the Passion."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A5-p10">
+                     <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
+                     which we are made come to us through generation, while the same, as nourishing us, come to us through being eaten. Hence,
+                     as we are new-born in Christ through Baptism, so through the Eucharist we eat Christ.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A5-p11">
+                     <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
+                     instituted before the Incarnation; but then there was room for only such sacraments as were prefigurative of the Lord's Passion.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A5-p12">
+                     <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.
+                     Hence He said expressively: "As often as ye shall do these things" [*Cf. Canon of the Mass], speaking of the future.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A5-p13">
+                     <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,
+                     is yet previous to it in intention; and therefore it behooved to be instituted first. or else it can be said that Baptism
+                     was already instituted in Christ's Baptism; hence some were already baptized with Christ's Baptism, as we read in
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q73_A5-p13.1" href="./asv.html#John.3.22" target="asv"> Jn. 3:22.</a>
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A5-p14"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A5-p15"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A6.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q73_A6" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q74.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q73_A6-p0.1">Whether the Paschal Lamb was the chief figure of this sacrament?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A6-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A6-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the Paschal Lamb was not the chief figure of this sacrament, because (
+                     <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,
+                     in offering bread and wine. But the expression of likeness causes one thing to be named from another. Therefore, it seems
+                     that Melchisedech's offering was the "principal" figure of this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A6-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the passage of the Red Sea was a figure of Baptism, according to 
+                     <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
+                     of the Red Sea, and the Manna came after it, just as the Eucharist follows Baptism. Therefore the Manna is a more expressive
+                     figure of this sacrament than the Paschal Lamb.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A6-p4">
+                     <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."
+                     But this was chiefly prefigured in the sacrament of expiation when the "high-priest entered once a year into the Holy of Holies
+                     with blood," as the Apostle proves in 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A6-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A6-p6">
+                     <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
+                     which is both reality and sacrament, to wit, Christ's true body; and lastly that which is reality only, namely, the effect
+                     of this sacrament. Consequently, in relation to what is sacrament only, the chief figure of this sacrament was the oblation
+                     of Melchisedech, who offered up bread and wine. In relation to Christ crucified, Who is
+                     contained in this sacrament, its figures were all the sacrifices of the Old Testament, especially the sacrifice of expiation,
+                     which was the most solemn of all. While with regard to its effect, the chief figure was the Manna, "having in it the sweetness
+                     of every taste" (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <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,
+                     according to 
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     Lamb on account of His innocence. As to the effect, because by the blood of the Paschal
+                     Lamb the children of Israel were preserved from the destroying Angel, and brought from the Egyptian captivity; and in this
+                     respect the Paschal Lamb is the chief figure of this sacrament, because it represents it in every respect.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A6-p8"> From this the answer to the Objections is manifest.</p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A6-p9"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q73_A6-p10"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q74.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q72_A12.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A1.html"></a>
+            </div>
+            <div id="TP_Q74" class="div3">
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A6.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A1.html"></a>
+               <h3 id="TP_Q74-p0.1">OF THE MATTER OF THIS SACRAMENT (EIGHT ARTICLES)</h3>
+               <p id="TP_Q74-p1"></p>
+               <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
+                  and wine into the body of Christ; thirdly, the manner in which Christ's body exists in this sacrament; fourthly, the accidents
+                  of bread and wine which continue in this sacrament.
+               </p>
+               <p id="TP_Q74-p3"> Under the first heading there are eight points for inquiry:</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q74-p4"> (1) Whether bread and wine are the matter of this sacrament?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q74-p5"> (2) Whether a determinate quantity of the same is required for the matter of this sacrament?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q74-p6"> (3) Whether the matter of this sacrament is wheaten bread?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q74-p7"> (4) Whether it is unleavened or fermented bread?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q74-p8"> (5) Whether the matter of this sacrament is wine from the grape?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q74-p9"> (6) Whether water should be mixed with it?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q74-p10"> (7) Whether water is of necessity for this sacrament?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q74-p11"> (8) Of the quantity of the water added.</p>
+               <div id="TP_Q74_A1" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q74.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A2.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q74_A1-p0.1">Whether the matter of this sacrament is bread and wine?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A1-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A1-p2">
+                     <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
+                     more fully than did the sacraments of the Old Law. But the flesh of animals, which was the matter of the sacraments under
+                     the Old Law, shows forth Christ's Passion more fully than bread and wine. Therefore the matter of this sacrament ought rather
+                     to be the flesh of animals than bread and wine.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A1-p3">
+                     <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
+                     wine is not to be found. Therefore bread and wine are not a suitable matter for this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A1-p4">
+                     <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
+                     ought not to be the matter of this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A1-p5">
+                     <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
+                     be offered."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A1-p6">
+                     <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
+                     (De Haeres. xxviii), "offer bread and cheese in this sacrament, contending that oblations were celebrated by men in the first
+                     ages, from fruits of the earth and sheep." Others, called Cataphrygae and Pepuziani, "are reputed to have made their Eucharistic
+                     bread with infants' blood drawn from tiny punctures over the entire body, and mixed
+                     with flour." Others, styled Aquarii, under guise of sobriety, offer nothing but water in this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     and wine, as is evident from 
+                     <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
+                     use of this sacrament, which is eating: for, as water is used in the sacrament of Baptism for the purpose of spiritual cleansing,
+                     since bodily cleansing is commonly done with water; so bread and wine,
+                     wherewith men are commonly fed, are employed in this sacrament for the use of spiritual eating.
+                  </p>
+                  <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,
+                     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
+                     sacrament of the blood.
+                  </p>
+                  <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 
+                     <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
+                     "for the health of the body, and the blood" under the species of wine "for the health of the soul," according to
+                     <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
+                     blood."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     of many grains, and wine flows from many grapes," as the gloss observes on 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A1-p11">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although the flesh of slaughtered animals represents the Passion more forcibly, nevertheless it is less suitable for the
+                     common use of this sacrament, and for denoting the unity of the Church.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A1-p12">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     it would not be a complete sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A1-p13">
+                     <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
+                     take Christ's body to partake also of His blood, as will be stated later (
+                     <a id="TP_Q74_A1-p13.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q80_A12.html">Q[80], A[12]</a>).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A1-p14"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A1-p15"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q74.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A2.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q74_A2" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A3.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q74_A2-p0.1">Whether a determinate quantity of bread and wine is required for the matter of this sacrament?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A2-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A2-p2">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     a reckoning of size and development" (De Anima ii). Consequently, in this sacrament, which is called "Eucharist," that is,
+                     "a good grace," a determinate quantity of the bread and wine is required.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A2-p3">
+                     <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
+                     His sacraments, according to 
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     cellar. Therefore he cannot do
+                     this.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A2-p4">
+                     <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
+                     wherewith the body of the baptized is cleansed. Therefore, neither in this sacrament can a superfluous quantity of bread be
+                     consecrated.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A2-p5">
+                     <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
+                     be consecrated. Therefore, neither is there any quantity, however great, which cannot be consecrated.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A2-p6">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     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
+                     as to adapt it for cutting. But the end of this sacrament is the use of the faithful.
+                     Consequently, the quantity of the matter of this sacrament must be determined by comparison with the use of the faithful.
+                     But this cannot be determined by comparison with the use of the faithful who are actually present; otherwise the parish priest
+                     having few parishioners could not consecrate many hosts. It remains, then, for the matter of this sacrament to be determined
+                     in reference to the number of the faithful absolutely. But the number of the faithful is not a determinate one. Hence it
+                     cannot be said that the quantity of the matter of this sacrament is restricted.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A2-p7">
+                     <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
+                     the faithful, for whose use this sacrament is ordained, is not a determinate one. Consequently there is no comparison.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A2-p8">
+                     <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
+                     the effect. But the second does not take away the first. Hence, if the priest intends to consecrate the body of Christ for
+                     an evil purpose, for instance, to make mockery of it, or to administer poison through it, he commits sin by his evil intention,
+                     nevertheless, on account of the power committed to him, he accomplishes the
+                     sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A2-p9">
+                     <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
+                     is used. But this sacrament is wrought in the consecration of the matter. Consequently there is no parallel.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A2-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A2-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A3.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q74_A3" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A4.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q74_A3-p0.1">Whether wheaten bread is required for the matter of this sacrament?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A3-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A3-p2">
+                     <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
+                     Lord's Passion. But barley bread seems to be more in keeping with the Passion than wheaten bread, as being more bitter, and
+                     because Christ used it to feed the multitudes upon the mountain, as narrated in 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A3-p3">
+                     <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
+                     which in some localities bread is made for the use of this sacrament. Therefore wheaten bread is not the proper matter of
+                     this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A3-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, mixing dissolves species. But wheaten flour is hardly to be found unmixed with some other species of grain, except
+                     in the instance of specially selected grain. Therefore it does not seem that wheaten bread is the proper matter for this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A3-p5">
+                     <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
+                     which no longer seems to be wheaten bread. Therefore, it seems that such bread is not the proper matter of this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A3-p6">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> Christ is contained in this sacrament, and He compares Himself to a grain of wheat, saying (
+                     <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
+                     bread, is the matter of this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A3-p7">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above 
+                     <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
+                     bread is more commonly used by men; since other breads seem to be employed when this fails. And consequently Christ is believed
+                     to have instituted this sacrament under this species of bread. Moreover this bread strengthens man, and so it denotes more
+                     suitably the effect of this sacrament.
+                     Consequently, the proper matter for this sacrament is wheaten bread.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A3-p8">
+                     <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
+                     Augustine says (
+                     <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
+                     given in such manner as to be vested in bodily sacraments; or else it denotes the people themselves, who were not yet despoiled
+                     of carnal desires, which clung to
+                     their hearts like fibre." But this sacrament belongs to Christ's "sweet yoke," and to the truth already manifested, and to
+                     a spiritual people. Consequently barley bread would not be a suitable matter for this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A3-p9">
+                     <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
+                     matter, or to weakness within the generative power. And therefore, if there be any cereals which can be grown from the seed
+                     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
+                     sacrament: and this does not obtain either in barley, or in spelt, or even in maize,
+                     which is of all grains the one most resembling the wheat grain. But the resemblance as to shape in such seems to denote closeness
+                     of species rather than identity; just as the resemblance in shape between the dog and the wolf goes to show that they are
+                     allied but not of the same species. Hence from such grains, which cannot in any way be generated from wheat grain, bread cannot
+                     be made such as to be the proper matter of this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A3-p10">
+                     <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,
+                     if a small quantity of another grain be mixed with a much greater quantity of wheat, bread may be made therefrom so as to
+                     be the proper matter of this sacrament; but if the mixing be notable, for instance, half and half; or nearly so, then such
+                     mixing alters the species; consequently, bread made therefrom will not be the proper
+                     matter of this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A3-p11">
+                     <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
+                     destroyed, and the taste, color, and other accidents are changed; hence the body of Christ may not be made from such matter.
+                     But sometimes there is not such corruption as to alter the species, but merely disposition towards corruption, which a slight
+                     change in the savor betrays, and from such bread the body of Christ may be made:
+                     but he who does so, sins from irreverence towards the sacrament. And because starch comes of corrupted wheat, it does not
+                     seem as if the body of Christ could be made of the bread made therefrom, although some hold the contrary.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A3-p12"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A3-p13"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A4.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q74_A4" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A5.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q74_A4-p0.1">Whether this sacrament ought to be made of unleavened bread?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A4-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A4-p2">
+                     <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
+                     institution. But Christ appears to have instituted this sacrament in fermented bread, because, as we have read in 
+                     <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
+                     day of the moon; and Christ instituted this sacrament at the supper which He celebrated
+                     "before the festival day of the Pasch" (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q74_A4-p2.2" href="./asv.html#John.13.1" target="asv">Jn. 13:1</a>, 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A4-p3">
+                     <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
+                     of the Law, as is clear from 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A4-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as stated above (
+                     <a id="TP_Q74_A4-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q65_A1.html">Q[65], A[1]</a>;
+                     <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
+                     by fermented bread, as is declared by the gloss on
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A4-p5">
+                     <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
+                     of Baptism no difference is observed regarding the variation of the accidents, as to whether it be salt or fresh, warm or
+                     cold water. Therefore neither ought any distinction to be observed, as to whether the bread be unleavened or leavened.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A4-p6">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> According to the Decretals (Extra, De Celebr. Miss.), a priest is punished "for presuming to celebrate, using fermented bread
+                     and a wooden cup."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A4-p7">
+                     <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
+                     necessary that the bread be wheaten, without which the sacrament is not valid, as stated above 
+                     <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
+                     either.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     there are various customs of the Churches: for, Gregory says: "The Roman Church offers unleavened bread, because our Lord
+                     took flesh without union of sexes: but the Greek Churches offer leavened bread, because the Word of the Father was clothed
+                     with flesh; as leaven is mixed with the flour." Hence, as a priest sins by celebrating with fermented bread in the
+                     Latin Church, so a Greek priest celebrating with unfermented bread in a church of the Greeks would also sin, as perverting
+                     the rite of his Church. Nevertheless the custom of celebrating with unleavened bread is more reasonable. First, on account
+                     of Christ's institution: for He instituted this sacrament "on the first day of the Azymes" (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q74_A4-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.26.17" target="asv">Mat. 26:17</a>;
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q74_A4-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Mark.14.12" target="asv"> Mk. 14:12</a>;
+                     <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
+                     the Jews, as is stated in
+                     <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
+                     His Godhead, as will be seen later (
+                     <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
+                     sacrament, according to 
+                     <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 . . .
+                     with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     in detestation of the heresy of the Nazarenes, who mixed up legal observances with the Gospel.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A4-p10">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As we read in 
+                     <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,
+                     Christ instituted this sacrament: hence this day is said by John to precede the day of the Pasch, while the other three Evangelists
+                     call it "the first day of the Azymes," when fermented bread was not found in the houses of the Jews, as stated above. Fuller
+                     mention was made of this in the treatise on our
+                     Lord's Passion (
+                     <a id="TP_Q74_A4-p10.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q46_A9.html">Q[46], A[9]</a>, ad 1).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A4-p11">
+                     <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
+                     to Christ's institution; so they are not Judaizing; otherwise those celebrating in fermented bread would be Judaizing, because
+                     the Jews offered up fermented bread for the first-fruits.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A4-p12">
+                     <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
+                     corruption from its very nature.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A4-p13">
+                     <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],
+                     ad 4); consequently, there is a wider difference between unleavened and leavened bread than between warm and cold baptismal
+                     water: because there might be such corruption of fermented bread that it could not be validly used for the sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A4-p14"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A4-p15"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A5.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q74_A5" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A6.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q74_A5-p0.1">Whether wine of the grape is the proper matter of this sacrament?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A5-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A5-p2">
+                     <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
+                     is wine the matter of this sacrament. But Baptism can be conferred with any kind of water. Therefore this sacrament can be
+                     celebrated in any kind of wine, such as of pomegranates, or of mulberries; since vines do not grow in some countries.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A5-p3">
+                     <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
+                     with vinegar. Therefore, it seems that wine from the grape is not the proper matter of this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A5-p4">
+                     <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
+                     appear that this sacrament may be made from such, according to what we read in the Sixth Council (Trull., Can. 28): "We have
+                     learned that in some churches the priests add grapes to the sacrifice of the oblation; and so they dispense both together
+                     to the people. Consequently we give order that no priest shall do this in future." And Pope
+                     Julius I rebukes some priests "who offer wine pressed from the grape in the sacrament of the Lord's chalice." Consequently,
+                     it seems that wine from the grape is not the proper matter of this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A5-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> As our Lord compared Himself to the grain of wheat, so also He compared Himself to the vine, saying (
+                     <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 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A5-p6">
+                     <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
+                     instituted this sacrament in wine from the grape, as is evident from His own words, in instituting this sacrament (
+                     <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 
+                     <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
+                     properly and universally considered as such. Now that is properly called wine, which is drawn from the grape, whereas other
+                     liquors are called wine from resemblance to the wine of the grape. Thirdly, because the wine from the grape is more in keeping
+                     with the effect of this sacrament, which is spiritual; because it is written (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A5-p7">
+                     <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
+                     countries wherein the grape-vine does not flourish, in a quantity sufficient for this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A5-p8">
+                     <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,
+                     just as this sacrament may not be made from bread which is utterly corrupt, so neither can it be made from vinegar. It can,
+                     however, be made from wine which is turning sour, just as from bread turning corrupt, although he who does so sins, as stated
+                     above 
+                     <a id="TP_Q74_A5-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q74_A3.html">(A[3])</a>.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A5-p9">
+                     <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
+                     which account it may not be used for this sacrament. Must, however, has already the species of wine, for its sweetness [*"Aut
+                     dulcis musti Vulcano decoquit humorem"; Virgil, Georg. i, 295] indicates fermentation which is "the result of its natural
+                     heat" (Meteor. iv); consequently this sacrament can be made from must. Nevertheless
+                     entire grapes ought not to be mixed with this sacrament, because then there would be something else besides wine. It is furthermore
+                     forbidden to offer must in the chalice, as soon as it has been squeezed from the grape, since this is unbecoming owing to
+                     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
+                     quoted in the argument: "If necessary, let the grape be pressed into the chalice."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A5-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A5-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A6.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q74_A6" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A7.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q74_A6-p0.1">Whether water should be mixed with the wine?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A6-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A6-p2">
+                     <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,
+                     who (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A6-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the various sacraments have their respective matters. But water is the matter of Baptism. Therefore it should not
+                     be employed as the matter of this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A6-p4">
+                     <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
+                     be added to the wine.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A6-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> Pope Alexander I writes (
+                     <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
+                     are to be offered in sacrifice."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A6-p6">
+                     <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
+                     it is believed with probability that our Lord instituted this sacrament in wine tempered with water according to the custom
+                     of that country: hence it is written (
+                     <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:
+                     hence Pope
+                     Alexander I says (
+                     <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
+                     that both flowed from His side in the Passion." Thirdly, because this is adapted for signifying the effect of this sacrament,
+                     since as Pope Julius says (Concil. Bracarens iii, Can. 1): "We see that the people are signified by the water, but Christ's
+                     blood by the wine. Therefore when water is mixed with the wine in the chalice, the people is made
+                     one with Christ." Fourthly, because this is appropriate to the fourth effect of this sacrament, which is the entering into
+                     everlasting life: hence Ambrose says (De Sacram. v): "The water flows into the chalice, and springs forth unto everlasting
+                     life."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A6-p7">
+                     <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
+                     signified by the water which flowed from the rock in the desert, according to 
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A6-p8">
+                     <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
+                     
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A6-p9">
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A6-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A6-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A7.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q74_A7" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A6.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A8.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q74_A7-p0.1">Whether the mixing with water is essential to this sacrament?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A7-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A7-p2">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     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
+                     is necessary for this sacrament. Consequently, for the like reason, so is the mixing of water
+                     with the wine.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A7-p3">
+                     <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
+                     is the sacrament of the blood, is necessary for this sacrament. For the same reason, therefore, so is water.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A7-p4">
+                     <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
+                     so water distilled from roses, or any other kind might be employed; which is contrary to the usage of the Church. Consequently
+                     water is essential to this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A7-p5">
+                     <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
+                     mixing water with the wine, "one may pardon his simplicity"; which would not be the case if water were essential to the sacrament,
+                     as the wine or the bread. Therefore the mingling of water with the wine is not essential to the sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A7-p6">
+                     <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
+                     of signifying the sharing of this sacrament by the faithful, in this respect that by the mixing of the water with the wine
+                     is signified the union of the people with Christ, as stated 
+                     <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
+                     denoted the cleansing from sins, which was the effect of Christ's Passion. Now it was observed above (Q[73], A[1], ad 3),
+                     that this sacrament is completed in the consecration of the matter: while the usage of the faithful is not essential to the
+                     sacrament, but only a consequence thereof. Consequently, then, the adding of water is not essential to the sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A7-p7">
+                     <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
+                     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,
+                     but not of the essence of wine.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A7-p8">
+                     <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
+                     body. But the flowing of the water was not necessary for the Passion; but merely to show its effect, which is to wash away
+                     sins, and to refresh us from the heat of concupiscence. And therefore the water is not offered apart from the wine in this
+                     sacrament, as the wine is offered apart from the bread; but the water is offered mixed
+                     with the wine to show that the wine belongs of itself to this sacrament, as of its very essence; but the water as something
+                     added to the wine.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A7-p9">
+                     <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
+                     sacrament, what kind of water is added to the wine, whether natural water, or artificial, as rose-water, although, as to the
+                     propriety of the sacrament, he would sin who mixes any other than natural and true water, because true water flowed from the
+                     side of Christ hanging on the cross, and not phlegm, as some have said, in order to
+                     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
+                     four humors, as Pope Innocent III says in a certain Decree. But because the mixing of water with flour is essential to this
+                     sacrament, as making the composition of bread, if rose-water, or any other liquor besides true water, be mixed with the flour,
+                     the sacrament would not be valid, because it would not be true bread.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A7-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A7-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A6.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A8.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q74_A8" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A7.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q75.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q74_A8-p0.1">Whether water should be added in great quantity?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A8-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A8-p2">
+                     <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:
+                     hence it is written (
+                     <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
+                     great quantity. Consequently it seems that water ought to be added in great quantity.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A8-p3">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     to add a little.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A8-p4">
+                     <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
+                     cask. But this seems ridiculous. Therefore it does not suffice for a small quantity to be added.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A8-p5">
+                     <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
+                     in greater quantity than the wine, in the sacrifice, where according to the reasonable custom of the entire Church more wine
+                     than water ought to be employed."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A8-p6">
+                     <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
+                     some say that the water remains by itself when the wine is changed into blood: but such an opinion cannot stand, because in
+                     the sacrament of the altar after the consecration there is nothing else save the body and the blood of Christ. Because, as
+                     Ambrose says in De Officiis (De Mysteriis ix): "Before the blessing it is another species that
+                     is named, after the blessing the Body is signified; otherwise it would not be adored with adoration of latria." And therefore
+                     others have said that as the wine is changed into blood, so the water is changed into the water which flowed from Christ's
+                     side. But this cannot be maintained reasonably, because according to this the water would be consecrated apart from the wine,
+                     as the wine is from the bread.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     that the water is changed into wine, and the wine into blood. Now, this could not be done unless so little water was used
+                     that it would be changed into wine. Consequently, it is always safer to add little water, especially if the wine be weak,
+                     because the sacrament could not be celebrated if there were such addition of water as to destroy the species of the
+                     wine. Hence Pope Julius I reprehends some who "keep throughout the year a linen cloth steeped in must, and at the time of
+                     sacrifice wash a part of it with water, and so make the offering."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A8-p8">
+                     <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:
+                     but it is not necessary for it to be sensible after the mingling.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A8-p9">
+                     <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
+                     that the people is incorporated with Christ.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A8-p10">
+                     <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
+                     to the wine at the actual celebration of the sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A8-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q74_A8-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A7.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q75.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q73_A6.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A1.html"></a>
+            </div>
+            <div id="TP_Q75" class="div3">
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A8.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A1.html"></a>
+               <h3 id="TP_Q75-p0.1">OF THE CHANGE OF BREAD AND WINE INTO THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST (EIGHT ARTICLES)</h3>
+               <p id="TP_Q75-p1"></p>
+               <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
+                  points of inquiry:
+               </p>
+               <p id="TP_Q75-p3"> (1) Whether the substance of bread and wine remain in this sacrament after the consecration?*</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q75-p4"> (2) Whether it is annihilated?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q75-p5"> (3) Whether it is changed into the body and blood of Christ?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q75-p6"> (4) Whether the accidents remain after the change?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q75-p7"> (5) Whether the substantial form remains there?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q75-p8"> (6) Whether this change is instantaneous?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q75-p9"> (7) Whether it is more miraculous than any other change?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q75-p10"> (8) By what words it may be suitably expressed?</p>
+               <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,
+                  in writing the Articles he introduced a new point of inquiry, that of the First Article; and substituted another division
+                  of the matter under discussion, as may be seen by referring to the titles of the various Articles. Most editions have ignored
+                  St. Thomas's original division, and give the one to which he subsequently adhered.]
+               </p>
+               <div id="TP_Q75_A1" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q75.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A2.html"></a>
+                  <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>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A1-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A1-p2">
+                     <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
+                     (
+                     <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
+                     of His disciples on hearing it said: 'this is a hard saying'": to whom He rejoined: "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the
+                     flesh profiteth nothing": as if He were to say, according to
+                     Augustine's exposition on 
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q75_A1-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.4" target="asv">Ps. 4</a> [*On
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     flesh profiteth nothing."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A1-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, our Lord said (
+                     <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
+                     (Tract. xxx in Joan.): "The Lord is on high until the world be ended; nevertheless the truth of the Lord is here with us;
+                     for the body, in which He rose again, must be in one place; but His truth is spread abroad everywhere." Therefore, the body
+                     of Christ is not in this
+                     sacrament in very truth, but only as in a sign.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A1-p4">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     very truth in the sacrament of the altar, but only as in a sign.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A1-p5">
+                     <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
+                     (xxviii in Evang.), the ruler is rebuked "for demanding Christ's bodily presence." Moreover the apostles were prevented from
+                     receiving the Holy Ghost because they were attached to His bodily presence, as Augustine says on 
+                     <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
+                     Christ is not in the sacrament of the altar according to His bodily presence.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A1-p6">
+                     <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
+                     own declaring and by our faith His flesh is truly food, and His blood is truly drink." And Ambrose says (De Sacram. vi): "As
+                     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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A1-p7">
+                     <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
+                     alone, which rests upon Divine authority. Hence, on
+                     <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
+                     Saviour's words with faith; for since He is the Truth, He lieth not."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     that true sacrifice of Christ's Passion, according to
+                     <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
+                     that the sacrifice of the New Law instituted by Christ should have something more, namely, that it should contain Christ Himself
+                     crucified, not merely
+                     in signification or figure, but also in very truth. And therefore this sacrament which contains Christ Himself, as Dionysius
+                     says (Eccl. Hier. iii), is perfective of all the other sacraments, in which Christ's virtue is participated.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     it is the special feature of friendship to live together with friends, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix), He promises us
+                     His bodily presence as a reward, saying (
+                     <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
+                     of His bodily presence; but unites us with
+                     Himself in this sacrament through the truth of His body and blood. Hence (
+                     <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
+                     of supreme charity, and the uplifter of our hope, from such familiar union of Christ with us.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     <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,
+                     so also in this sacrament He shows us His flesh in an invisible manner.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     except as in a sign, a thing to be rejected as heretical, since it is contrary to Christ's words. Hence Berengarius, who had
+                     been the first deviser of this heresy, was afterwards forced to withdraw his error, and to acknowledge the truth of the faith.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A1-p12">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     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
+                     you; in its spiritual sense it will quicken you," he intends not that the body of
+                     Christ is in this sacrament merely according to mystical signification, but "spiritually," that is, invisibly, and by the
+                     power of the spirit. Hence (Tract. xxvii), expounding
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     spirit draw nigh to the flesh . . . then the
+                     flesh profiteth very much: for if the flesh profiteth nothing, the Word had not been made flesh, that It might dwell among
+                     us."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A1-p13">
+                     <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;
+                     according as our Lord Himself says (
+                     <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
+                     is performed.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A1-p14">
+                     <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
+                     the place; but in a special manner which is proper to this sacrament. Hence we say that Christ's body is upon many altars,
+                     not as in different places, but "sacramentally": and thereby we do not understand that Christ is there only as in a sign,
+                     although a sacrament is a kind of sign; but that Christ's body is here after a
+                     fashion proper to this sacrament, as stated above.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A1-p15">
+                     <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
+                     visible appearance, but not as it is spiritually, that is, invisibly, after the manner and by the virtue of the spirit. Hence
+                     Augustine (Tract. xxvii in Joan.) says: "If thou hast understood" Christ's words spiritually concerning His flesh, "they are
+                     spirit and life to thee; if thou hast understood them carnally, they are also
+                     spirit and life, but not to thee."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A1-p16"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A1-p17"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q75.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A2.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q75_A2" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A3.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q75_A2-p0.1">Whether in this sacrament the substance of the bread and wine remains after the consecration?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A2-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A2-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the substance of the bread and wine does remain in this sacrament after the consecration: because Damascene
+                     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
+                     made them His body and blood": and further on: "The bread of communication is not simple bread, but is united to the Godhead."
+                     But wedding together belongs to things actually existing. Therefore the bread and wine are
+                     at the same time, in this sacrament, with the body and the blood of Christ.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A2-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, there ought to be conformity between the sacraments. But in the other sacraments the substance of the matter remains,
+                     like the substance of water in Baptism, and the substance of chrism in Confirmation. Therefore the substance of the bread
+                     and wine remains also in this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A2-p4">
+                     <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
+                     made from many grains and wine from many grapes," as Augustine says in his book on the Creed (Tract. xxvi in Joan.). But this
+                     belongs to the substance of bread and wine. Therefore, the substance of the bread and wine remains in this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A2-p5">
+                     <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
+                     to be believed to be nothing else than the body end blood of Christ."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A2-p6">
+                     <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
+                     cannot stand: first of all, because by such an opinion the truth of this sacrament is destroyed, to which it belongs that
+                     Christ's true body exists in this sacrament; which indeed was not there before the consecration. Now a thing cannot be in
+                     any place, where it was not previously, except by change of place, or by the conversion of
+                     another thing into itself; just as fire begins anew to be in some house, either because it is carried thither, or because
+                     it is generated there. Now it is evident that Christ's body does not begin to be present in this sacrament by local motion.
+                     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
+                     some place unless it quit the former one. Secondly, because every body moved locally passes through all intermediary spaces,
+                     which
+                     cannot be said here. Thirdly, because it is not possible for one movement of the same body moved locally to be terminated
+                     in different places at the one time, whereas the body of Christ under this sacrament begins at the one time to be in several
+                     places. And consequently it remains that Christ's body cannot begin to be anew in this sacrament except by change of the substance
+                     of bread into itself. But what is changed into another thing, no longer remains after such change. Hence the conclusion
+                     is that, saving the truth of this sacrament, the substance of the bread cannot remain after the consecration.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     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.
+                     Rather should one say in that case: "Here is My body."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     adored with adoration of latria.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     after bodily food, while it is nevertheless lawful to take one consecrated host after another. Hence this opinion is to be
+                     avoided as heretical.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A2-p10">
+                     <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
+                     in order that He may make from them His body and blood.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A2-p11">
+                     <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
+                     other sacraments, but not in this.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A2-p12">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The species which remain in this sacrament, as shall be said later 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A2-p13"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A2-p14"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A3.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q75_A3" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A4.html"></a>
+                  <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
+                     original matter?
+                  </h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A3-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A3-p2">
+                     <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
+                     matter. For whatever is corporeal must be somewhere. But the substance of bread, which is something corporeal, does not remain,
+                     in this sacrament, as stated above 
+                     <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
+                     annihilated, or
+                     dissolved into its original matter.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A3-p3">
+                     <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
+                     is changed into fire, the form of the air remains only in the potentiality of matter; and in like fashion when what is white
+                     becomes black. But in this sacrament the substance of the bread or of the wine is the term "wherefrom," while the body or
+                     the blood of Christ is the term "whereunto": for Ambrose says in De Officiis (De Myster. ix):
+                     "Before the blessing it is called another species, after the blessing the body of Christ is signified." Therefore, when the
+                     consecration takes place, the substance of the bread or wine no longer remains, unless perchance dissolved into its (original)
+                     matter.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A3-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, one of two contradictories must be true. But this proposition is false: "After the consecration the substance of
+                     the bread or wine is something." Consequently, this is true: "The substance of the bread or wine is nothing."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A3-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (
+                     <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
+                     the substance of the bread or wine is not annihilated.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A3-p6">
+                     <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
+                     substance of the bread and wine to be changed into Christ's flesh and blood, have maintained that by the consecration, the
+                     substance of the bread and wine is either dissolved into the original matter, or that it is annihilated.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     primary matter, so that a subject can exist without a form, since matter cannot exist without a form. But since after the
+                     consecration nothing remains under the sacramental species except the body and the blood of Christ, it will be necessary to
+                     say that the elements into which the substance of the bread and wine is dissolved, depart from thence by local
+                     motion, which would be perceived by the senses. In like manner also the substance of the bread or wine remains until the last
+                     instant of the consecration; but in the last instant of the consecration there is already present there the substance of the
+                     body or blood of Christ, just as the form is already present in the last instant of generation. Hence no instant can be assigned
+                     in which the original matter can be there. For it cannot be said that the substance of the bread or wine is dissolved
+                     gradually into the original matter, or that it successively quits the species, for if this began to be done in the last instant
+                     of its consecration, then at the one time under part of the host there would be the body of Christ together with the substance
+                     of bread, which is contrary to what has been said above 
+                     <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
+                     there will be neither the
+                     substance of bread nor the body of Christ, which is not fitting. They seem indeed to have taken this into careful consideration,
+                     wherefore they formulated their proposition with an alternative viz. that (the substance) may be annihilated. But even this
+                     cannot stand, because no way can be assigned whereby Christ's true body can begin to be in this sacrament, except by the change
+                     of the substance of bread into it, which change is excluded the moment we admit either annihilation of the substance
+                     of the bread, or dissolution into the original matter. Likewise no cause can be assigned for such dissolution or annihilation,
+                     since the effect of the sacrament is signified by the form: "This is My body." Hence it is clear that the aforesaid opinion
+                     is false.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A3-p8">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The substance of the bread or wine, after the consecration, remains neither under the sacramental species, nor elsewhere;
+                     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
+                     is generated, be not there or elsewhere, it does not follow that it is annihilated.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A3-p9">
+                     <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;
+                     and therefore the first form remains only in the potentiality of matter. But here the substance of the bread is changed into
+                     the body of Christ, as stated above. Hence the conclusion does not follow.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A3-p10">
+                     <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
+                     the substance of the bread is changed, is something, and consequently the substance of the bread is not annihilated.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A3-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A3-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A4.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q75_A4" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A5.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q75_A4-p0.1">Whether bread can be converted into the body of Christ?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A4-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A4-p2">
+                     <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
+                     there must be some subject, which from being previously in potentiality is now in act. because as is said in Phys. iii: "motion
+                     is the act of a thing existing in potentiality." But no subject can be assigned for the substance of the bread and of the
+                     body of Christ, because it is of the very nature of substance for it "not to be in a
+                     subject," as it is said in Praedic. iii. Therefore it is not possible for the whole substance of the bread to be converted
+                     into the body of Christ.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A4-p3">
+                     <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
+                     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;
+                     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
+                     the food. Therefore, if bread be changed into the body of Christ, the form of Christ's body
+                     must necessarily begin to be in the matter of the bread, which is false. Consequently, the bread is not changed into the substance
+                     of Christ's body.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A4-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, when two things are diverse, one never becomes the other, as whiteness never becomes blackness, as is stated in
+                     Phys. i. But since two contrary forms are of themselves diverse, as being the principles of formal difference, so two signate
+                     matters are of themselves diverse, as being the principles of material distinction. Consequently, it is not possible for this
+                     matter of bread to become this matter whereby Christ's body is individuated, and so it is
+                     not possible for this substance of bread to be changed into the substance of Christ's body.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A4-p5">
+                     <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
+                     changed into the substance of Christ."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A4-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above 
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     by conversion of the substance of bread into itself.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     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
+                     and woman: see therefore that against the established law and order a man is born of a Virgin": and] [*The passage in the
+                     brackets is not in the Leonine edition] (De Myster. iv): "It is clear that a Virgin begot beyond the order of
+                     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
+                     Lord Jesus was Himself brought forth of a Virgin beyond nature?" Chrysostom likewise (Hom. xlvii), commenting on
+                     <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
+                     nothing carnal, nor natural consequence; but they are rent from all such necessity which exists upon earth, and
+                     from the laws here established."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     of a determinate genus and species: and consequently the action of every created agent bears upon some determinate act. Now
+                     the determination of every thing in actual existence comes from its form. Consequently, no natural or created agent can act
+                     except by changing the form in something; and on this account every change made according to nature's laws is a
+                     formal change. But God is infinite act, as stated in the 
+                     <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
+                     that diverse forms succeed each other in the same subject; but also the change of all being, so that, to wit, the whole substance
+                     of one thing be changed into the whole substance of another. And this is done by Divine power in this sacrament; for the whole
+                     substance of the bread
+                     is changed into the whole substance of Christ's body, and the whole substance of the wine into the whole substance of Christ's
+                     blood. Hence this is not a formal, but a substantial conversion; nor is it a kind of natural movement: but, with a name of
+                     its own, it can be called "transubstantiation."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A4-p9">
+                     <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
+                     it does not hold good in respect of the change of the entire substance. Hence, since this substantial change implies a certain
+                     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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A4-p10">
+                     <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
+                     or subject. But this is not so in a change of the entire substance; for in this case no subject is possible.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A4-p11">
+                     <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
+                     made by the power of an infinite agent, which has control over all being, because the nature of being is common to both forms
+                     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
+                     in the other, withdrawing that whereby it was distinguished from the other.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A4-p12"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A4-p13"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A5.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q75_A5" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A6.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q75_A5-p0.1">Whether the accidents of the bread and wine remain in this sacrament after the change?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A5-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A5-p2">
+                     <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,
+                     that which follows is also taken away. But substance is naturally before accident, as is proved in Metaph. vii. Since, then,
+                     after consecration, the substance of the bread does not remain in this sacrament, it seems that its accidents cannot remain.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A5-p3">
+                     <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,
+                     that human judgment is deceived, if, while the accidents remain, the substance of the bread does not. Consequently this is
+                     unbecoming to this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A5-p4">
+                     <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
+                     beginning of this work (
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     this sacrament for the
+                     accidents of bread to remain subject to the senses, and for the substance of bread not to remain.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A5-p5">
+                     <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
+                     bread remain after the change has been effected, it seems that the accidents are the subject of the change. But this is impossible;
+                     for "an accident cannot have an accident" (Metaph. iii). Therefore the accidents of the bread and wine ought not to remain
+                     in this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A5-p6">
+                     <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
+                     we behold, of bread and wine, we honor invisible things, i.e. flesh and blood."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A5-p7">
+                     <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
+                     done by Divine providence. First of all, because it is not customary, but horrible, for men to eat human flesh, and to drink
+                     blood. And therefore Christ's flesh and blood are set before us to be partaken of under the species of those things which
+                     are the more commonly used by men, namely, bread and wine. Secondly, lest this sacrament
+                     might be derided by unbelievers, if we were to eat our Lord under His own species. Thirdly, that while we receive our Lord's
+                     body and blood invisibly, this may redound to the merit of faith.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A5-p8">
+                     <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,
+                     which is the first cause of all things, it is possible for that which follows to remain, while that which is first is taken
+                     away.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A5-p9">
+                     <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,
+                     whose proper object is substance as is said in De Anima iii, is preserved by faith from deception.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     sense does not reach.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A5-p11">
+                     <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
+                     resemblance of a subject.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A5-p12"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A5-p13"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A6.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q75_A6" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A7.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q75_A6-p0.1">Whether the substantial form of the bread remains in this sacrament after the consecration?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A6-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A6-p2">
+                     <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 
+                     <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
+                     it remains after the consecration.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A6-p3">
+                     <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
+                     which has life in potentiality". But it cannot be said that the substantial form of the bread is changed into the soul. Therefore
+                     it appears that it remains after the consecration.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A6-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the proper operation of a things follows its substantial form. But what remains in this sacrament, nourishes, and
+                     performs every operation which bread would do were it present. Therefore the substantial form of the bread remains in this
+                     sacrament after the consecration.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A6-p5">
+                     <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,
+                     as stated above (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A6-p6">
+                     <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.
+                     But this cannot be. First of all, because if the substantial form of the bread were to remain, nothing of the bread would
+                     be changed into the body of Christ, excepting the matter; and so it would follow that it would be changed, not into the whole
+                     body of Christ, but into its matter, which is repugnant to the form of the sacrament,
+                     wherein it is said: "This is My body."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     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
+                     remain, which is against what was said above 
+                     <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
+                     separate from matter, it would
+                     then be an actually intelligible form, and also an intelligence; for all forms separated from matter are such.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     the body of Christ may be seen under them, and not under its proper species, as stated above 
+                     <a id="TP_Q75_A6-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q75_A5.html">(A[5])</a>.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A6-p9"> And therefore it must be said that the substantial form of the bread does not remain.</p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A6-p10">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     way it produces the substantial forms of bread, by the power of fire baking the matter made up of flour and water.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A6-p11">
+                     <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,
+                     and so on. Therefore the form of the bread is changed into the form of Christ's body, according as the latter gives corporeal
+                     being, but not according as it bestows animated being.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A6-p12">
+                     <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
+                     found in the species of the bread after the consecration on account of the accidents which remain. But some other operations
+                     follow the bread either by reason of the matter, such as that it is changed into something else, or else by reason of the
+                     substantial form, such as an operation consequent upon its species, for instance,
+                     that it "strengthens man's heart" (
+                     <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
+                     miraculously upon the accidents themselves, as will be said later (Q[77], A[3], ad 2,3; 
+                     <a id="TP_Q75_A6-p12.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q75_A5.html">AA[5]</a>,6).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A6-p13"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A6-p14"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A7.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q75_A7" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A6.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A8.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q75_A7-p0.1">Whether this change is wrought instantaneously?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A7-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A7-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that this change is not wrought instantaneously, but successively. For in this change there is first the substance
+                     of bread, and afterwards the substance of Christ's body. Neither, then, is in the same instant, but in two instants. But there
+                     is a mid-time between every two instants. Therefore this change must take place according to the succession of time, which
+                     is between the last instant in which the bread is there, and the first instant in which
+                     the body of Christ is present.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A7-p3">
+                     <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
+                     one time for, what is "in becoming," is not yet, whereas what is "in being," already is. Consequently, there is a before and
+                     an after in such change: and so necessarily the change cannot be instantaneous, but successive.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A7-p4">
+                     <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
+                     successively. Therefore the change takes place successively.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A7-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> This change is effected by a power which is infinite, to which it belongs to operate in an instant.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A7-p6">
+                     <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.
+                     For, if it be a form that receives more and less, it is acquired by its subject successively, such as health; and therefore
+                     because a substantial form does not receive more and less, it follows that its introduction into matter is instantaneous.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     successively. When, however, the subject itself is in the ultimate disposition for receiving the form, it receives it suddenly,
+                     as a transparent body is illuminated suddenly. Thirdly on the part of the agent, which possesses infinite power: wherefore
+                     it can instantly dispose the matter for the form. Thus it is written (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q75_A7-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.7.34" target="asv">Mk. 7:34</a>) that
+                     when Christ had said, "'Ephpheta,' which is 'Be thou opened,' immediately his ears were opened, and the string of his tongue
+                     was loosed."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     of this conversion, does not receive more or less. Secondly, because in this conversion there is no subject to be disposed
+                     successively. Thirdly, because it is effected by God's infinite power.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A7-p9">
+                     <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
+                     between every two instants. For they say that this is true of two instants referring to the same movement, but not if they
+                     refer to different things. Hence between the instant that marks the close of rest, and another which marks the beginning of
+                     movement, there is no mid-time. But in this they are mistaken, because the unity
+                     of time and of instant, or even their plurality, is not taken according to movements of any sort, but according to the first
+                     movement of the heavens, which is the measure of all movement and rest.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     some movements which are not dependent on the movement of the heavens, nor measured by it, as was said in the 
+                     <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
+                     this is not to the point, because although the change in question has no relation of
+                     itself to the movement of the heavens, still it follows the pronouncing of the words, which (pronouncing) must necessarily
+                     be measured by the movement of the heavens. And therefore there must of necessity be a mid-time between every two signate
+                     instants in connection with that change.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     indeed two in comparison with the things measured, but are one comparatively to the time measuring; as when two lines touch,
+                     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
+                     is no likeness, because instant and time is not the intrinsic measure of particular movements, as a line and
+                     point are of a body, but only the extrinsic measure, as place is to bodies.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     that things really opposite would exist together; for diversity of reason does not change a thing objectively.
+                  </p>
+                  <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,
+                     so that the last instant of pronouncing the words is the first instant in which Christ's body is in the sacrament; and that
+                     the substance of the bread is there during the whole preceding time. Of this time no instant is to be taken as proximately
+                     preceding the last one, because time is not made up of successive instants, as is proved in Phys. vi. And
+                     therefore a first instant can be assigned in which Christ's body is present; but a last instant cannot be assigned in which
+                     the substance of bread is there, but a last time can be assigned. And the same holds good in natural changes, as is evident
+                     from the Philosopher (Phys. viii).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A7-p14">
+                     <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
+                     be actually illuminated are simultaneous: for in such, a thing is said to be "in being" according as it now is; but to be
+                     "in becoming," according as it was not before.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A7-p15">
+                     <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
+                     of the words is finished, which meaning is efficacious in the forms of the sacraments. And therefore it does not follow that
+                     this change is successive.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A7-p16"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A7-p17"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A6.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A8.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q75_A8" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A7.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q76.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q75_A8-p0.1">Whether this proposition is false: "The body of Christ is made out of bread"?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A8-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A8-p2">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     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
+                     is made out of a man, as is shown in Phys. i. If it be true, then, that Christ's body is made
+                     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
+                     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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A8-p3">
+                     <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
+                     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."
+                     Therefore it seems that not even this is true: "The body of Christ is made out of bread."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A8-p4">
+                     <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
+                     to be false: "The bread is converted into the body of Christ," because such conversion seems to be more miraculous than the
+                     creation of the world, in which it is not said that non-being is converted into being. Therefore it seems that this proposition
+                     likewise is false: "The body of Christ is made out of bread."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A8-p5">
+                     <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
+                     Christ." Therefore this is likewise false: "The body of Christ is made out of bread."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A8-p6">
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A8-p7">
+                     <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
+                     in some respect differs from both. For the order of the terms is common to these three; that is, that after one thing there
+                     is another (for, in creation there is being after non-being; in this sacrament, Christ's body after the substance of bread;
+                     in natural transmutation white after black, or fire after air); and that the aforesaid
+                     terms are not coexistent.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     subject belonging to either of the extremes; the contrary of which appears in every natural transmutation.
+                  </p>
+                  <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.
+                     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
+                     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
+                     the whole substance of the bread passes into the whole body of Christ; whereas in natural
+                     transmutation the matter of the one receives the form of the other, the previous form being laid aside. Secondly, they have
+                     this in common, that on both sides something remains the same; whereas this does not happen in creation: yet differently;
+                     for the same matter or subject remains in natural transmutation; whereas in this sacrament the same accidents remain.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     three things are the extremes coexistent, therefore in none of them can one extreme be predicated of the other by the substantive
+                     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,
+                     "White is black." Yet because of the relationship of the extremes in all of them we can use the
+                     preposition "ex" [out of], which denotes order; for we can truly and properly say that "being is made out of non-being," and
+                     "out of bread, the body of Christ," and "out of air, fire," and "out of white, black." But because in creation one of the
+                     extremes does not pass into the other, we cannot use the word "conversion" in creation, so as to say that "non-being is converted
+                     into being": we can, however, use the word in this sacrament, just as in natural transmutation. But since in this
+                     sacrament the whole substance is converted into the whole substance, on that account this conversion is properly termed transubstantiation.
+                  </p>
+                  <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,
+                     are not to be granted in this conversion. And in the first place indeed it is evident that potentiality to the opposite follows
+                     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
+                     so proper as the former: for the subject of whiteness, in which there is potentiality to blackness, is
+                     the whole substance of the white thing; since whiteness is not a part thereof; whereas the subject of the form of air is part
+                     thereof: hence when it is said, "Air can be fire," it is verified by synecdoche by reason of the part. But in this conversion,
+                     and similarly in creation, because there is no subject, it is not said that one extreme can be the other, as that "non-being
+                     can be being," or that "bread can be the body of Christ": and for the same reason it cannot be properly said that "being
+                     is made of [de] non-being," or that "the body of Christ is made of bread," because this preposition "of" [de] denotes a consubstantial
+                     cause, which consubstantiality of the extremes in natural transmutations is considered according to something common in the
+                     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
+                     of Christ," just as it is not granted in creation that "non-being will be being," or that "non-being may become
+                     being," because this manner of speaking is verified in natural transmutations by reason of the subject: for instance, when
+                     we say that "a white thing becomes black," or "a white thing will be black."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A8-p12"> Nevertheless, since in this sacrament, after the change, something remains the same, namely, the accidents of the bread,
+                     as stated above 
+                     <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
+                     be the body of Christ," or "the body of Christ is made of bread"; provided that by the word "bread" is not understood the
+                     substance of bread, but in general "that which is contained under
+                     the species of bread," under which species there is first contained the substance of bread, and afterwards the body of Christ.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A8-p13">
+                     <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,
+                     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,
+                     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,
+                     "that morning becomes the day." So likewise in the matter in hand, although it
+                     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
+                     of Christ," except by similitude, as was said above.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A8-p14">
+                     <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
+                     there is no subject of this change, the comparison does not hold.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A8-p15">
+                     <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
+                     is made out of nothing; yet this belongs to the proper mode of production of the first cause, which presupposes nothing else.
+                     But in this conversion not only is it difficult for this whole to be changed into that whole, so that nothing of the former
+                     may remain (which does not belong to the common mode of production of a cause),
+                     but furthermore it has this difficulty that the accidents remain while the substance is destroyed, and many other difficulties
+                     of which we shall treat hereafter (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A8-p16">
+                     <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
+                     it is not granted that bread can be the body of Christ: for this conversion does not come about by the passive potentiality
+                     of the creature, but solely by the active power of the Creator.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A8-p17"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q75_A8-p18"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A7.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q76.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q74_A8.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A1.html"></a>
+            </div>
+            <div id="TP_Q76" class="div3">
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A8.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A1.html"></a>
+               <h3 id="TP_Q76-p0.1">OF THE WAY IN WHICH CHRIST IS IN THIS SACRAMENT (EIGHT ARTICLES)</h3>
+               <p id="TP_Q76-p1"></p>
+               <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
+                  inquiry:
+               </p>
+               <p id="TP_Q76-p3"> (1) Whether the whole Christ is under this sacrament?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q76-p4"> (2) Whether the entire Christ is under each species of the sacrament?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q76-p5"> (3) Whether the entire Christ is under every part of the species?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q76-p6"> (4) Whether all the dimensions of Christ's body are in this sacrament?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q76-p7"> (5) Whether the body of Christ is in this sacrament locally?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q76-p8"> (6) Whether after the consecration, the body of Christ is moved when the host or chalice is moved?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q76-p9"> (7) Whether Christ's body, as it is in this sacrament, can be seen by the eye?</p>
+               <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>
+               <div id="TP_Q76_A1" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q76.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A2.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q76_A1-p0.1">Whether the whole Christ is contained under this sacrament?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A1-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A1-p2">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     of Christ. Since therefore Christ exists in three substances, namely, the Godhead, soul and body, as shown above (
+                     <a id="TP_Q76_A1-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q2_A5.html">Q[2], A[5]</a>;
+                     <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
+                     entire Christ is not under this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A1-p3">
+                     <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
+                     and drink, as stated above (
+                     <a id="TP_Q76_A1-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q74_A1.html">Q[74], A[1]</a>). But our Lord said (
+                     <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
+                     this sacrament. But there are many other parts of Christ's body, for instance, the nerves, bones, and
+                     such like. Therefore the entire Christ is not contained under this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A1-p4">
+                     <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
+                     is much smaller than the measure of Christ's body. Therefore it is impossible that the entire Christ be contained under this
+                     sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A1-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> Ambrose says (De Officiis): "Christ is in this sacrament."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A1-p6">
+                     <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
+                     know that there is something of Christ in this sacrament in a twofold manner: first, as it were, by the power of the sacrament;
+                     secondly, from natural concomitance. By the power of the sacrament, there is under the species of this sacrament that into
+                     which the pre-existing substance of the bread and wine is changed, as expressed by the
+                     words of the form, which are effective in this as in the other sacraments; for instance, by the words: "This is My body,"
+                     or, "This is My blood." But from natural concomitance there is also in this sacrament that which is really united with that
+                     thing wherein the aforesaid conversion is terminated. For if any two things be really united, then wherever the one is really,
+                     there must the other also be: since things really united together are only distinguished by an operation of the mind.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A1-p7">
+                     <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
+                     that the Godhead or the soul of Christ is in this sacrament not by the power of the sacrament, but from real concomitance.
+                     For since the Godhead never set aside the assumed body, wherever the body of Christ is, there, of necessity, must the Godhead
+                     be; and therefore it is necessary for the Godhead to be in this sacrament
+                     concomitantly with His body. Hence we read in the profession of faith at Ephesus (P. I., chap. xxvi): "We are made partakers
+                     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
+                     life-giving flesh of the Word Himself."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A1-p8"> On the other hand, His soul was truly separated from His body, as stated above (
+                     <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
+                     have been there, neither by the power of the sacrament, nor from real concomitance. But since "Christ rising from the dead
+                     dieth now no more" (
+                     <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
+                     sacrament the body indeed of Christ is present by the power of the sacrament, but His soul from real concomitance.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A1-p9">
+                     <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
+                     body of Christ, that is, the bones the nerves, and the like. And this is apparent from the form of this sacrament, wherein
+                     it is not said: "This is My flesh," but "This is My body." Accordingly, when our Lord said (
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     like.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A1-p10">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As has been already stated (
+                     <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.
+                     From which it is evident that the dimensions of the bread or wine are not changed into the dimensions of the body of Christ,
+                     but substance into substance. And so the substance of Christ's body or blood is under this sacrament by the power of the sacrament,
+                     but not
+                     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,"
+                     and not by way of quantity. But the proper totality of substance is contained indifferently in a small or large quantity;
+                     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.
+                     Wherefore, after the consecration, the whole substance of Christ's body and blood is contained in this sacrament, just as
+                     the
+                     whole substance of the bread and wine was contained there before the consecration.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A1-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A1-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q76.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A2.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q76_A2" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A3.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q76_A2-p0.1">Whether the whole Christ is contained under each species of this sacrament?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A2-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A2-p2">
+                     <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
+                     the salvation of the faithful, not by virtue of the species, but by virtue of what is contained under the species, because
+                     the species were there even before the consecration, from which comes the power of this sacrament. If nothing, then, be contained
+                     under one species, but what is contained under the other, and if the whole Christ be
+                     contained under both, it seems that one of them is superfluous in this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A2-p3">
+                     <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,
+                     are comprised under the name of flesh. But the blood is one of the parts of the human body, as Aristotle proves (De Anima
+                     Histor. i). If, then, Christ's blood be contained under the species of bread, just as the other parts of the body are contained
+                     there, the blood ought not to be consecrated apart, just as no other part of the body is
+                     consecrated separately.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A2-p4">
+                     <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
+                     by the consecration of the bread. Therefore, it cannot begin again to be there by the consecration of the wine; and so Christ's
+                     body will not be contained under the species of the wine, and accordingly neither the entire Christ. Therefore the whole Christ
+                     is not contained under each species.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A2-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> The gloss on 
+                     <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";
+                     and thus it seems that Christ is entire under each species.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A2-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> After what we have said above 
+                     <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
+                     of Christ is indeed present under the species of bread by the power of the sacrament, while the blood is there from real concomitance,
+                     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
+                     by the power of
+                     the sacrament, and His body by real concomitance, as is also His soul and Godhead: because now Christ's blood is not separated
+                     from His body, as it was at the time of His Passion and death. Hence if this sacrament had been celebrated then, the body
+                     of Christ would have been under the species of the bread, but without the blood; and, under the species of the wine, the blood
+                     would have been present without the body, as it was then, in fact.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A2-p7">
+                     <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
+                     represent Christ's Passion, in which the blood was separated from the body; hence in the form for the consecration of the
+                     blood mention is made of its shedding. Secondly, it is in keeping with the use of this sacrament, that Christ's body be shown
+                     apart to the faithful as food, and the blood as drink. Thirdly, it is in keeping with
+                     its effect, in which sense it was stated above (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A2-p8">
+                     <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
+                     blood was, but the body remained entire, according to
+                     <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
+                     no other part is consecrated separately from the rest.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A2-p9">
+                     <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:
+                     and therefore by the consecration of the wine the body of Christ is not there of itself, but concomitantly.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A2-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A2-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A2-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A3.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q76_A3" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A4.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q76_A3-p0.1">Whether Christ is entire under every part of the species of the bread and wine?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A3-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A3-p2">
+                     <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
+                     infinitely. If therefore Christ be entirely under every part of the said species, it would follow that He is in this sacrament
+                     an infinite number of times: which is unreasonable; because the infinite is repugnant not only to nature, but likewise to
+                     grace.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A3-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, since Christ's is an organic body, it has parts determinately distant. for a determinate distance of the individual
+                     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
+                     not be so, if Christ were entire under every part of the species; for every part would have to be under every other part,
+                     and so where one part would be, there another part would be. It cannot be then that the entire
+                     Christ is under every part of the host or of the wine contained in the chalice.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A3-p4">
+                     <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
+                     of a body for it to be "quantity having position" (Predic. iv). But it belongs to the nature of this quantity that the various
+                     parts exist in various parts of place. Therefore, apparently it is impossible for the entire Christ to be under every part
+                     of the species.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A3-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says in a sermon (Gregory, Sacramentarium): "Each receives Christ the Lord, Who is entire under every morsel, nor
+                     is He less in each portion, but bestows Himself entire under each."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A3-p6">
+                     <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,
+                     while dimensive quantity is there by reason of real concomitance, consequently Christ's body is in this sacrament substantively,
+                     that is, in the way in which substance is under dimensions, but not after the manner of dimensions, which means, not in the
+                     way in which the dimensive quantity of a body is under the dimensive quantity of
+                     place.
+                  </p>
+                  <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;
+                     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
+                     this indifferently, whether the dimensions be actually divided (as when the air is divided or the bread cut), or whether they
+                     be actually undivided, but potentially divisible. And therefore it is manifest that the entire Christ is under
+                     every part of the species of the bread, even while the host remains entire, and not merely when it is broken, as some say,
+                     giving the example of an image which appears in a mirror, which appears as one in the unbroken mirror, whereas when the mirror
+                     is broken, there is an image in each part of the broken mirror: for the comparison is not perfect, because the multiplying
+                     of such images results in the broken mirror on account of the various reflections in the various parts of the mirror; but
+                     here
+                     there is only one consecration, whereby Christ's body is in this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A3-p8">
+                     <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
+                     several times under its proper dimensions, nor is Christ's body several times under the dimensions of the bread; and consequently
+                     not an infinite number of times, but just as many times as it is divided into parts.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A3-p9">
+                     <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
+                     even dimensive quantity. And since the conversion of the substance of the bread is terminated at the substance of the body
+                     of Christ, and since according to the manner of substance the body of Christ is properly and directly in this sacrament; such
+                     distance of parts is indeed in Christ's true body, which, however, is not
+                     compared to this sacrament according to such distance, but according to the manner of its substance, as stated above (A[1],
+                     ad 3).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A3-p10">
+                     <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
+                     body is compared with this sacrament not by reason of dimensive quantity, but by reason of its substance, as already stated.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A3-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A3-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A4.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q76_A4" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A5.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q76_A4-p0.1">Whether the whole dimensive quantity of Christ's body is in this sacrament?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A4-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A4-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the whole dimensive quantity of Christ's body is not in this sacrament. For it was said 
+                     <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
+                     in any whole, and in its every part. Therefore it is impossible for the entire dimensive quantity of Christ's body to be there.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A4-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is impossible for two dimensive quantities to be together, even though one be separate from its subject, and
+                     the other in a natural body, as is clear from the Philosopher (Metaph. iii). But the dimensive quantity of the bread remains
+                     in this sacrament, as is evident to our senses. Consequently, the dimensive quantity of Christ's body is not there.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A4-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if two unequal dimensive quantities be set side by side, the greater will overlap the lesser. But the dimensive
+                     quantity of Christ's body is considerably larger than the dimensive quantity of the consecrated host according to every dimension.
+                     Therefore, if the dimensive quantity of Christ's body be in this sacrament together with the dimensive quantity of the host,
+                     the dimensive quantity of Christ's body is extended beyond the quantity of the host,
+                     which nevertheless is not without the substance of Christ's body. Therefore, the substance of Christ's body will be in this
+                     sacrament even outside the species of the bread, which is unreasonable, since the substance of Christ's body is in this sacrament,
+                     only by the consecration of the bread, as stated above 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A4-p5">
+                     <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
+                     sacrament the entire substance of Christ's body is present, as stated above (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A4-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above 
+                     <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.
+                     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
+                     that is present in this sacrament, whereat the conversion is terminated. But the conversion which takes place in this sacrament
+                     is terminated directly
+                     at the substance of Christ's body, and not at its dimensions; which is evident from the fact that the dimensive quantity of
+                     the bread remains after the consecration, while only the substance of the bread passes away.
+                  </p>
+                  <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,
+                     hence it comes that by reason of real concomitance the whole dimensive quantity of Christ's body and all its other accidents
+                     are in this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A4-p8">
+                     <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
+                     with it: thus an object is present to the sight, according as it is white, and not according as it is sweet, although the
+                     same object may be both white and sweet; hence sweetness is in the sight after the manner of whiteness, and not after that
+                     of sweetness. Since, then, the substance of Christ's body is present on the
+                     altar by the power of this sacrament, while its dimensive quantity is there concomitantly and as it were accidentally, therefore
+                     the dimensive quantity of Christ's body is in this sacrament, not according to its proper manner (namely, that the whole is
+                     in the whole, and the individual parts in individual parts), but after the manner of substance, whose nature is for the whole
+                     to be in the whole, and the whole in every part.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A4-p9">
+                     <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
+                     proper manner of dimensive quantity. But in this sacrament the dimensive quantity of the bread is there after its proper manner,
+                     that is, according to commensuration: not so the dimensive quantity of Christ's body, for that is there after the manner of
+                     substance, as stated above (ad 1).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A4-p10">
+                     <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
+                     to which it belongs for the greater to be extended beyond the lesser; but in the way mentioned above (ad 1,2).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A4-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A4-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A5.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q76_A5" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A6.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q76_A5-p0.1">Whether Christ's body is in this sacrament as in a place?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A5-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A5-p2">
+                     <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
+                     belongs to being in a place. But Christ's body seems to be definitively in this sacrament, because it is so present where
+                     the species of the bread and wine are, that it is nowhere else upon the altar: likewise it seems to be there circumscriptively,
+                     because it is so contained under the species of the consecrated host, that it neither
+                     exceeds it nor is exceeded by it. Therefore Christ's body is in this sacrament as in a place.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A5-p3">
+                     <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
+                     there, as stated above (
+                     <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
+                     locally. Therefore the body of Christ is in this sacrament locally.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A5-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as stated above 
+                     <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
+                     an accident of a body; hence "where" is numbered among the nine kinds of accidents. Therefore Christ's body is in this sacrament
+                     locally.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A5-p5">
+                     <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
+                     is, is much less than the body of Christ. Therefore Christ's body is not in this sacrament as in a place.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A5-p6">
+                     <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,
+                     but rather after the manner of substance. But every body occupying a place is in the place according to the manner of dimensive
+                     quantity, namely, inasmuch as it is commensurate with the place according to its dimensive quantity. Hence it remains that
+                     Christ's body is not in this sacrament as in a place, but after the manner of substance,
+                     that is to say, in that way in which substance is contained by dimensions; because the substance of Christ's body succeeds
+                     the substance of bread in this sacrament: hence as the substance of bread was not locally under its dimensions, but after
+                     the manner of substance, so neither is the substance of Christ's body. Nevertheless the substance of Christ's body is not
+                     the subject of those dimensions, as was the substance of the bread: and therefore the substance of the bread was there locally
+                     by
+                     reason of its dimensions, because it was compared with that place through the medium of its own dimensions; but the substance
+                     of Christ's body is compared with that place through the medium of foreign dimensions, so that, on the contrary, the proper
+                     dimensions of Christ's body are compared with that place through the medium of substance; which is contrary to the notion
+                     of a located body.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A5-p7"> Hence in no way is Christ's body locally in this sacrament.</p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A5-p8">
+                     <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
+                     is performed: whereas it is in heaven under its own species, and on many other altars under the sacramental species. Likewise
+                     it is evident that it is not in this sacrament circumscriptively, because it is not there according to the commensuration
+                     of its own quantity, as stated above. But that it is not outside the
+                     superficies of the sacrament, nor on any other part of the altar, is due not to its being there definitively or circumscriptively,
+                     but to its being there by consecration and conversion of the bread and wine, as stated above 
+                     <a id="TP_Q76_A5-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q76_A1.html">(A[1];</a> Q[15], A[2], sqq.).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A5-p9">
+                     <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
+                     is not there locally, as stated above; but it is filled with the sacramental species, which have to fill the place either
+                     because of the nature of dimensions, or at least miraculously, as they also subsist miraculously after the fashion of substance.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A5-p10">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As stated above 
+                     <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
+                     which are intrinsic to it are in this sacrament. But to be in a place is an accident when compared with the extrinsic container.
+                     And therefore it is not necessary for Christ to be in this sacrament as in a place.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A5-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A5-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A6.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q76_A6" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A7.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q76_A6-p0.1">Whether Christ's body is in this sacrament movably?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A6-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A6-p2">
+                     <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,
+                     the things within us are moved": and this is true even of the soul's spiritual substance. "But Christ is in this sacrament,"
+                     as shown above (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A6-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the truth ought to correspond with the figure. But, according to the commandment (
+                     <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,
+                     if this sacrament be reserved until morning, will Christ's body be there; and so it is not immovably in this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A6-p4">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     body is not dependent on those species. Yet Christ does not remain in this sacrament for all coming time. It seems, then,
+                     that straightway on the morrow, or after a short time, He ceases to be under this
+                     sacrament. And so it seems that Christ is in this sacrament movably.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A6-p5">
+                     <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.
+                     But Christ's body is at rest in heaven. Therefore it is not movably in this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A6-p6">
+                     <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,
+                     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
+                     it can be moved as to its whiteness, and yet continue unmoved as to its magnitude. But in Christ, being in Himself and being
+                     under the sacrament are not the same thing, because when we say that He is under this
+                     sacrament, we express a kind of relationship to this sacrament. According to this being, then, Christ is not moved locally
+                     of Himself, but only accidentally, because Christ is not in this sacrament as in a place, as stated above 
+                     <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
+                     is.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     whatever, as for instance, that it ceases to be under this sacrament: because whatever possesses unfailing existence of itself,
+                     cannot be the principle of failing; but when something else fails, then it ceases to be in it; just as God, Whose existence
+                     is unfailing and immortal, ceases to be in some corruptible creature because such corruptible creature ceases
+                     to exist. And in this way, since Christ has unfailing and incorruptible being, He ceases to be under this sacrament, not because
+                     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
+                     sacramental species cease to exist.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A6-p8"> Hence it is clear that Christ, strictly speaking is immovably in this sacrament.</p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A6-p9">
+                     <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
+                     can of themselves be in a place, like bodies, it is otherwise than with things which cannot of themselves be in a place, such
+                     as forms and spiritual substances. And to this mode can be reduced what we say of Christ, being moved accidentally, according
+                     to the existence which He has in this sacrament, in which He is not present as in
+                     a place.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A6-p10">
+                     <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
+                     if it be reserved until the morrow. It is against these that Cyril says (Ep. lxxxiii): "Some are so foolish as to say that
+                     the mystical blessing departs from the sacrament, if any of its fragments remain until the next day: for Christ's consecrated
+                     body is not changed, and the power of the blessing, and the life-giving grace is
+                     perpetually in it." Thus are all other consecrations irremovable so long as the consecrated things endure; on which account
+                     they are not repeated. And although the truth corresponds with the figure, still the figure cannot equal it.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A6-p11">
+                     <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
+                     species remain: and when they cease, Christ's body ceases to be under them, not because it depends on them, but because the
+                     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
+                     ceases to exist.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A6-p12"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A6-p13"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A7.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q76_A7" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A6.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A8.html"></a>
+                  <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>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A7-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A7-p2">
+                     <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
+                     eyes are hindered from beholding Christ's body in this sacrament, on account of the sacramental species veiling it. But the
+                     glorified eye cannot be hindered by anything from seeing bodies as they are. Therefore, the glorified eye can see Christ's
+                     body as it is in this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A7-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the glorified bodies of the saints will be "made like to the body" of Christ's "glory," according to
+                     <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
+                     see Him.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A7-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, in the resurrection the saints will be equal to the angels, according to
+                     <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,
+                     and to fear it. Therefore, for like reason, the glorified eye can see Christ as He is in this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A7-p5">
+                     <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
+                     eye sees Christ always, as He is in His own species, according to
+                     <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
+                     this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A7-p6">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     about an alteration in the medium, through its accidents. Now the accidents of Christ's body are in this sacrament by means
+                     of the substance; so that the accidents of Christ's body have no immediate relationship
+                     either to this sacrament or to adjacent bodies; consequently they do not act on the medium so as to be seen by any corporeal
+                     eye. Secondly, because, as stated above (A[1], ad 3; A[3]), Christ's body is substantially present in this sacrament. But
+                     substance, as such, is not visible to the bodily eye, nor does it come under any one of the senses, nor under the imagination,
+                     but solely under the intellect, whose object is "what a thing is" (De Anima iii). And therefore, properly speaking, Christ's
+                     body, according to the mode of being which it has in this sacrament, is perceptible neither by the sense nor by the imagination,
+                     but only by the intellect, which is called the spiritual eye.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     supernatural, it is visible in itself to a supernatural, i.e. the Divine, intellect, and consequently to a beatified intellect,
+                     of angel or of man, which, through the participated glory of the Divine intellect, sees all supernatural things in the vision
+                     of the Divine Essence. But it can be seen by a wayfarer through faith alone, like other supernatural
+                     things. And not even the angelic intellect of its own natural power is capable of beholding it; consequently the devils cannot
+                     by their intellect perceive Christ in this sacrament, except through faith, to which they do not pay willing assent; yet they
+                     are convinced of it from the evidence of signs, according to
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A7-p8">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     body bears a relation to the medium surrounding this sacrament, not through its own accidents, but through the sacramental
+                     species.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A7-p9">
+                     <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
+                     sacrament, because that belongs to the intellect. But it is not the same with any other glorified eye, because Christ's eye
+                     is under this sacrament, in which no other glorified eye is conformed to it.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A7-p10">
+                     <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,
+                     as is evident from what was said above.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A7-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A7-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A6.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A8.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q76_A8" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A7.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q77.html"></a>
+                  <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>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A8-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A8-p2">
+                     <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
+                     body ceases to be under this sacrament when the sacramental species cease to be present, as stated above 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A8-p3">
+                     <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
+                     apparitions occur, it is evident that Christ is not present under His own species, because the entire Christ is contained
+                     in this sacrament, and He remains entire under the form in which He ascended to heaven: yet what appears miraculously in this
+                     sacrament is sometimes seen as a small particle of flesh, or at times as a small child. Now
+                     it is evident that He is not there under the sacramental species, which is that of bread or wine. Consequently, it seems that
+                     Christ's body is not there in any way.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A8-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Christ's body begins to be in this sacrament by consecration and conversion, as was said above (
+                     <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
+                     and blood. Therefore the body or the blood of Christ is not under those species.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A8-p5">
+                     <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
+                     were not truly there, to Whom we show reverence of "latria." Therefore, when such apparition occurs, Christ is under the sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A8-p6">
+                     <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
+                     it happens on the part of the beholders, whose eyes are so affected as if they outwardly saw flesh, or blood, or a child,
+                     while no change takes place in the sacrament. And this seems to happen when to one person it is seen under the species of
+                     flesh or of a child, while to others it is seen as before under the species of bread; or when
+                     to the same individual it appears for an hour under the appearance of flesh or a child, and afterwards under the appearance
+                     of bread. Nor is there any deception there, as occurs in the feats of magicians, because such species is divinely formed in
+                     the eye in order to represent some truth, namely, for the purpose of showing that Christ's body is truly under this sacrament;
+                     just as Christ without deception appeared to the disciples who were going to Emmaus. For Augustine says (De Qq. Evang. ii)
+                     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
+                     no change is made in the sacrament, it is manifest that, when such apparition occurs, Christ does not cease to be under this
+                     sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     which really exists outwardly. And this indeed is seen to happen when it is beheld by everyone under such an appearance, and
+                     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
+                     Christ's body. Nor does it matter that sometimes Christ's entire body is not seen there, but part of His
+                     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
+                     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
+                     guise, as will be said later (
+                     <a id="TP_Q76_A8-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q85_A2.html">XP, Q[85], AA[2]</a>,3).
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     it is definitively contained. Hence since it is seen in its proper species, and is adored in heaven, it is not seen under
+                     its proper species in this sacrament. Secondly, because a glorified body, which appears at will, disappears when it wills
+                     after the apparition; thus it is related (
+                     <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
+                     the disciples. But that which appears under the likeness of flesh in this sacrament, continues for a long time; indeed, one
+                     reads of its being sometimes enclosed, and, by order of many bishops, preserved in a pyx, which it would be wicked to think
+                     of Christ under His proper semblance.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     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
+                     already, this is not deception, because it is done "to represent the truth," namely, to show by this miraculous apparition
+                     that Christ's body and blood are truly in this sacrament. And thus it is clear that as the dimensions remain,
+                     which are the foundation of the other accidents, as we shall see later on (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A8-p10">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> When such apparition takes place, the sacramental species sometimes continue entire in themselves; and sometimes only as
+                     to that which is principal, as was said above.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A8-p11">
+                     <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
+                     in the eyes of the beholders, or in the sacramental dimensions themselves, as was said above.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A8-p12">
+                     <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
+                     stated above.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A8-p13"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q76_A8-p14"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A7.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q77.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q75_A8.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A1.html"></a>
+            </div>
+            <div id="TP_Q77" class="div3">
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A8.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A1.html"></a>
+               <h3 id="TP_Q77-p0.1">OF THE ACCIDENTS WHICH REMAIN IN THIS SACRAMENT (EIGHT ARTICLES)</h3>
+               <p id="TP_Q77-p1"></p>
+               <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>
+               <p id="TP_Q77-p3"> (1) Whether the accidents which remain are without a subject?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q77-p4"> (2) Whether dimensive quantity is the subject of the other accidents?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q77-p5"> (3) Whether such accidents can affect an extrinsic body?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q77-p6"> (4) Whether they can be corrupted?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q77-p7"> (5) Whether anything can be generated from them?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q77-p8"> (6) Whether they can nourish?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q77-p9"> (7) Of the breaking of the consecrated bread?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q77-p10"> (8) Whether anything can be mixed with the consecrated wine?</p>
+               <div id="TP_Q77_A1" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q77.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A2.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q77_A1-p0.1">Whether the accidents remain in this sacrament without a subject?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A1-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A1-p2">
+                     <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
+                     or deceitful in this sacrament of truth. But for accidents to be without a subject is contrary to the order which God established
+                     in nature; and furthermore it seems to savor of deceit, since accidents are naturally the signs of the nature of the subject.
+                     Therefore the accidents are not without a subject in this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A1-p3">
+                     <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
+                     to it; for instance, that, while man remains a man, he can be an irrational animal. For it would follow that contradictories
+                     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
+                     to the definition of an accident for it to be in a subject, while the definition of
+                     substance is that it must subsist of itself, and not in another. Therefore it cannot come to pass, even by miracle, that the
+                     accidents exist without a subject in this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A1-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, an accident is individuated by its subject. If therefore the accidents remain in this sacrament without a subject,
+                     they will not be individual, but general, which is clearly false, because thus they would not be sensible, but merely intelligible.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A1-p5">
+                     <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the accidents after the consecration of this sacrament do not obtain any composition. But before the consecration
+                     they were not composed either of matter and form, nor of existence [quo est] and essence [quod est]. Therefore, even after
+                     consecration they are not composite in either of these ways. But this is unreasonable, for thus they would be simpler than
+                     angels, whereas at the same time these accidents are perceptible to the senses. Therefore, in
+                     this sacrament the accidents do not remain without a subject.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A1-p6">
+                     <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
+                     things which were there before, namely, of the bread and wine." Therefore since the substance of the bread and the wine does
+                     not remain, it seems that these species remain without a subject.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A1-p7">
+                     <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
+                     not subjected in the substance of the bread and wine, for that does not remain, as stated above (
+                     <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 (
+                     <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
+                     manifest that these accidents are not subjected in the substance of Christ's body and blood, because the substance of the
+                     human body cannot in any way be affected by such accidents; nor is it possible for Christ's glorious and impassible body to
+                     be altered so as to receive these qualities.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     place, because atmosphere is not susceptive of such accidents. Secondly, because these accidents are not where the atmosphere
+                     is, nay more, the atmosphere is displaced by the motion of these species. Thirdly, because accidents do not pass from subject
+                     to subject, so that the same identical accident which was first in one subject be afterwards in another;
+                     because an accident is individuated by the subject; hence it cannot come to pass for an accident remaining identically the
+                     same to be at one time in one subject, and at another time in another. Fourthly, since the atmosphere is not deprived of its
+                     own accidents, it would have at the one time its own accidents and others foreign to it. Nor can it be maintained that this
+                     is done miraculously in virtue of the consecration, because the words of consecration do not signify this, and they effect
+                     only
+                     what they signify.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     since an effect depends more upon the first cause than on the second, God Who is the first cause both of substance and accident,
+                     can by His unlimited power preserve an accident in existence when the substance is withdrawn whereby it was preserved in existence
+                     as by its proper cause, just as without natural causes He can produce other effects of natural
+                     causes, even as He formed a human body in the Virgin's womb, "without the seed of man" (Hymn for Christmas, First Vespers).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A1-p10">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     thus in human affairs, to some individuals some things are granted by special privilege which are outside the common law.
+                     And so, even though it be according to the common law of nature for an accident to be
+                     in a subject, still for a special reason, according to the order of grace, the accidents exist in this sacrament without a
+                     subject, on account of the reasons given above (
+                     <a id="TP_Q77_A1-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q75_A5.html">Q[75] , A[5]</a>).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A1-p11">
+                     <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
+                     definition of substance is not---"a being of itself without a subject," nor is the definition of accident---"a being in a
+                     subject"; but it belongs to the quiddity or essence of substance "to have existence not in a subject"; while it belongs to
+                     the quiddity or essence of accident "to have existence in a subject." But in this
+                     sacrament it is not in virtue of their essence that accidents are not in a subject, but through the Divine power sustaining
+                     them; and consequently they do not cease to be accidents, because neither is the definition of accident withdrawn from them,
+                     nor does the definition of substance apply to them.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A1-p12">
+                     <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
+                     the body and blood of Christ, they remain in that individuated being which they possessed before, hence they are individual
+                     and sensible.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A1-p13">
+                     <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
+                     their subjects had "such" being through them, just as snow is "white" through whiteness. But after the consecration the accidents
+                     which remain have being; hence they are compounded of existence and essence, as was said of the angels, in the 
+                     <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
+                     quantitative parts.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A1-p14"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A1-p15"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q77.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A2.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q77_A2" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A3.html"></a>
+                  <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>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A2-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A2-p2">
+                     <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
+                     accident is not the subject of accident; because no form can be a subject, since to be a subject is a property of matter.
+                     But dimensive quantity is an accident. Therefore dimensive quantity cannot be the subject of the other accidents.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A2-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, just as quantity is individuated by substance, so also are the other accidents. If, then, the dimensive quantity
+                     of the bread or wine remains individuated according to the being it had before, in which it is preserved, for like reason
+                     the other accidents remain individuated according to the existence which they had before in the substance. Therefore they
+                     are not in dimensive quantity as in a subject, since every accident is individuated by its own
+                     subject.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A2-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, among the other accidents that remain, of the bread and wine, the senses perceive also rarity and density, which
+                     cannot be in dimensive quantity existing outside matter; because a thing is rare which has little matter under great dimensions.
+                     while a thing is dense which has much matter under small dimensions, as is said in Phys. iv. It does not seem, then, that
+                     dimensive quantity can be the subject of the accidents which remain in this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A2-p5">
+                     <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, quantity abstract from matter seems to be mathematical quantity, which is not the subject of sensible qualities.
+                     Since, then, the remaining accidents in this sacrament are sensible, it seems that in this sacrament they cannot be subjected
+                     in the dimensive quantity of the bread and wine that remains after consecration.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A2-p6">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> Qualities are divisible only accidentally, that is, by reason of the subject. But the qualities remaining in this sacrament
+                     are divided by the division of dimensive quantity, as is evident through our senses. Therefore, dimensive quantity is the
+                     subject of the accidents which remain in this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A2-p7">
+                     <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
+                     the bread and wine that remains: first of all, because something having quantity and color and affected by other accidents
+                     is perceived by the senses; nor is sense deceived in such. Secondly, because the first disposition of matter is dimensive
+                     quantity, hence Plato also assigned "great" and "small" as the first differences of matter
+                     (Aristotle, Metaph. iv). And because the first subject is matter, the consequence is that all other accidents are related
+                     to their subject through the medium of dimensive quantity; just as the first subject of color is said to be the surface, on
+                     which account some have maintained that dimensions are the substances of bodies, as is said in Metaph. iii. And since, when
+                     the subject is withdrawn, the accidents remain according to the being which they had before, it follows that all accidents
+                     remain
+                     founded upon dimensive quantity.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     as the subject of some accidents to be somehow the principle of individuation: for it is of the very notion of an individual
+                     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
+                     this way immaterial separated forms, subsisting of themselves, are also individuals of themselves. Secondly,
+                     because a form, be it substantial or accidental, is naturally in someone indeed, not in several, as this whiteness, which
+                     is in this body. As to the first, matter is the principle of individuation of all inherent forms, because, since these forms,
+                     considered in themselves, are naturally in something as in a subject, from the very fact that one of them is received in matter,
+                     which is not in another, it follows that neither can the form itself thus existing be in another. As to the second, it
+                     must be maintained that the principle of individuation is dimensive quantity. For that something is naturally in another one
+                     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
+                     that substance can be divided, as is said in Phys. i. And therefore dimensive quantity itself is a particular principle of
+                     individuation in forms of this kind, namely, inasmuch as forms numerically distinct are in different parts of the matter.
+                     Hence also dimensive quantity has of itself a kind of individuation, so that we can imagine several lines of the same species,
+                     differing in position, which is included in the notion of this quantity; for it belongs to dimension for it to be "quantity
+                     having position" (Aristotle, Categor. iv), and therefore dimensive quantity can be the subject of the other accidents, rather
+                     than the other way about.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A2-p9">
+                     <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
+                     is received in another thing, one is said to be the subject of the other, inasmuch as one is received in a subject through
+                     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
+                     be of itself the subject of another.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A2-p10">
+                     <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
+                     stated above. And therefore dimensive quantity is the subject of the other accidents remaining in this sacrament, rather than
+                     conversely.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A2-p11">
+                     <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;
+                     just as all other accidents likewise follow from the principles of substance. And consequently, as the accidents are preserved
+                     by Divine power when the substance is withdrawn, so, when matter is withdrawn, the qualities which go with matter, such as
+                     rarity and density, are preserved by Divine power.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A2-p12">
+                     <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
+                     is termed sensible because it underlies sensible qualities. And therefore it is manifest that the dimensive quantity, which
+                     remains in this sacrament without a subject, is not mathematical quantity.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A2-p13"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A2-p14"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A3.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q77_A3" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A4.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q77_A3-p0.1">Whether the species remaining in this sacrament can change external objects?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A3-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A3-p2">
+                     <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
+                     forms which are in matter are produced by forms that are in matter, but not from forms which are without matter, because like
+                     makes like. But the sacramental species are species without matter, since they remain without a subject, as is evident from
+                     what was said above 
+                     <a id="TP_Q77_A3-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q77_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. Therefore they cannot affect other
+                     matter by producing any form in it.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A3-p3">
+                     <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
+                     rests, the hammer is moved no longer. But all accidental forms act instrumentally in virtue of the substantial form as the
+                     principal agent. Therefore, since the substantial form of the bread and wine does not remain in this sacrament, as was shown
+                     above (
+                     <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
+                     remain cannot act so as to change external matter.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A3-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, nothing acts outside its species, because an effect cannot surpass its cause. But all the sacramental species are
+                     accidents. Therefore they cannot change external matter, at least as to a substantial form.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A3-p5">
+                     <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
+                     sensible thing, as is said in De Anima ii.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A3-p6">
+                     <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
+                     to action as it does to being. Therefore, because, according to what was said above 
+                     <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
+                     of the bread and wine was present, it follows that they continue in their action. Consequently they
+                     retain every action which they had while the substance of the bread and wine remained, now that the substance of the bread
+                     and wine has passed into the body and blood of Christ. Hence there is no doubt but that they can change external bodies.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A3-p7">
+                     <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
+                     in matter, and therefore as to their being they are like forms which are in matter.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A3-p8">
+                     <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
+                     upon the being of substance; and therefore, as it is an effect of Divine power that the sacramental species exist without
+                     substance, so is it an effect of Divine power that they can act without a substantial form, because every action of a substantial
+                     or accidental form depends upon God as the first agent.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A3-p9">
+                     <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
+                     and passive qualities, which act in virtue of the substantial form. But by Divine power this instrumental energy is retained
+                     in the sacramental species, just as it was before: and consequently their action can be directed to a substantial form instrumentally,
+                     just in the same way as anything can act outside its species, not as
+                     by its own power, but by the power of the chief agent.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A3-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A3-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A4.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q77_A4" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A5.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q77_A4-p0.1">Whether the sacramental species can be corrupted?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A4-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A4-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the sacramental species cannot be corrupted, because corruption comes of the separation of the form from the
+                     matter. But the matter of the bread does not remain in this sacrament, as is clear from what was said above (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A4-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, no form is corrupted except accidentally, that is, when its subject is corrupted; hence self-subsisting forms are
+                     incorruptible, as is seen in spiritual substances. But the sacramental species are forms without a subject. Therefore they
+                     cannot be corrupted.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A4-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if they be corrupted, it will either be naturally or miraculously. But they cannot be corrupted naturally, because
+                     no subject of corruption can be assigned as remaining after the corruption has taken place. Neither can they be corrupted
+                     miraculously, because the miracles which occur in this sacrament take place in virtue of the consecration, whereby the sacramental
+                     species are preserved: and the same thing is not the cause of preservation and of
+                     corruption. Therefore, in no way can the sacramental species be corrupted.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A4-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> We perceive by our senses that the consecrated hosts become putrefied and corrupted.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A4-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> Corruption is "movement from being into non-being" (Aristotle, Phys. v). Now it has been stated 
+                     <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,
+                     as the being of those accidents could be corrupted while the substance of the bread and wine was present, so likewise they
+                     can be corrupted now that the substance has passed away.
+                  </p>
+                  <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.
+                     They could be corrupted of themselves, as by alteration of the qualities, and increase or decrease of the quantity, not in
+                     the way in which increase or decrease is found only in animated bodies, such as the substances of the bread and wine are not,
+                     but by addition or division; for, as is said in Metaph. iii, one dimension is dissolved by division, and two
+                     dimensions result; while on the contrary, by addition, two dimensions become one. And in this way such accidents can be corrupted
+                     manifestly after consecration, because the dimensive quantity which remains can receive division and addition; and since it
+                     is the subject of sensible qualities, as stated above 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     after consecration; for although the subject does not remain, still the being which they had in the subject does remain, which
+                     being is proper, and suited to the subject. And therefore such being can be corrupted by a contrary agent, as the substance
+                     of the bread or wine was subject to corruption, and, moreover, was not corrupted except by a preceding
+                     alteration regarding the accidents.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     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
+                     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
+                     under this sacrament on account of such change, whether the change be on the part of the quality, as for
+                     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
+                     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
+                     that the substance of the bread or wine would have been corrupted, then Christ's body and blood do not remain under this sacrament;
+                     and this either on the part of the qualities, as when the color, savor, and other qualities of the bread and wine
+                     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,
+                     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
+                     remain.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A4-p10">
+                     <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,
+                     it results that by corruption the form is separated from the matter. But if such being were not in matter, yet like such being
+                     as is in matter, it could be taken away by corruption, even where there is no matter; as takes place in this sacrament, as
+                     is evident from what was said above.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A4-p11">
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A4-p12">
+                     <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
+                     consecration, namely, that those sacramental species retain without a subject, the same being as they had in a subject; just
+                     as a blind man, to whom sight is given miraculously, sees naturally.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A4-p13"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A4-p14"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A5.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q77_A5" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A6.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q77_A5-p0.1">Whether anything can be generated from the sacramental species?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A5-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A5-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that nothing can be generated from the sacramental species: because, whatever is generated, is generated out of
+                     some matter: for nothing is generated out of nothing, although by creation something is made out of nothing. But there is
+                     no matter underlying the sacramental species except that of Christ's body, and that body is incorruptible. Therefore it seems
+                     that nothing can be generated from the sacramental species.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A5-p3">
+                     <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
+                     accident and substance differ generically. Therefore, since the sacramental species are accidents, it seems that no substance
+                     can be generated from them.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A5-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if any corporeal substance be generated from them, such substance will not be without accident. Therefore, if any
+                     corporeal substance be generated from the sacramental species, then substance and accident would be generated from accident,
+                     namely, two things from one, which is impossible. Consequently, it is impossible for any corporeal substance to be generated
+                     out of the sacramental species.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A5-p5">
+                     <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
+                     if they putrefy, or dust if they be crushed.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A5-p6">
+                     <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
+                     the sacramental species if they be corrupted, as stated above 
+                     <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
+                     sensible manifestly succeeds to them.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     out of the body and blood of Christ which are truly there, because these are incorruptible. But if the substance, or even
+                     the matter, of the bread and wine were to remain in this sacrament, then, as some have maintained, it would be easy to account
+                     for this sensible object which succeeds to them. But that supposition is false, as was stated above (
+                     <a id="TP_Q77_A5-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q75_A2.html">Q[75], AA[2]</a>,4,8).
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     atmosphere. But this can be shown in many ways to be impossible. In the first place, because when a thing is generated from
+                     another, the latter at first appears changed and corrupted; whereas no alteration or corruption appeared previously in the
+                     adjacent atmosphere; hence the worms or ashes are not generated therefrom. Secondly, because the nature
+                     of the atmosphere is not such as to permit of such things being generated by such alterations. Thirdly, because it is possible
+                     for many consecrated hosts to be burned or putrefied; nor would it be possible for an earthen body, large enough to be generated
+                     from the atmosphere, unless a great and, in fact, exceedingly sensible condensation of the atmosphere took place. Fourthly,
+                     because the same thing can happen to the solid bodies surrounding them, such as iron or stone, which remain entire
+                     after the generation of the aforesaid things. Hence this opinion cannot stand, because it is opposed to what is manifest to
+                     our senses.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     so from the returning substance of the bread and wine, ashes or worms or something of the kind are generated. But this explanation
+                     seems an impossible one. First of all, because if the substance of the bread and wine be converted into the body and blood
+                     of Christ, as was shown above (Q[75], AA[2],4), the substance of the bread and wine cannot return, except
+                     the body and blood of Christ be again changed back into the substance of bread and wine, which is impossible: thus if air
+                     be turned into fire, the air cannot return without the fire being again changed into air. But if the substance of bread or
+                     wine be annihilated, it cannot return again, because what lapses into nothing does not return numerically the same. Unless
+                     perchance it be said that the said substance returns, because God creates anew another new substance to replace the first.
+                     Secondly, this seems to be impossible, because no time can be assigned when the substance of the bread returns. For, from
+                     what was said above 
+                     <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
+                     of Christ, which are not present together with the substance of the bread and wine in this sacrament, according to what was
+                     stated above (Q[75], A[2]). Hence the substance of the bread and wine cannot
+                     return while the sacramental species remain; nor, again, when these species pass away; because then the substance of the bread
+                     and wine would be without their proper accidents, which is impossible. Unless perchance it be said that in the last instant
+                     of the corruption of the species there returns (not, indeed, the substance of bread and wine, because it is in that very instant
+                     that they have the being of the substance generated from the species, but) the matter of the bread and wine; which,
+                     matter, properly speaking, would be more correctly described as created anew, than as returning. And in this sense the aforesaid
+                     position might be held.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     of the consecration itself, which does not imply either creation or return of matter, it seems better to say that in the actual
+                     consecration it is miraculously bestowed on the dimensive quantity of the bread and wine to be the subject of subsequent forms.
+                     Now this is proper to matter; and therefore as a consequence everything which goes with matter is
+                     bestowed on dimensive quantity; and therefore everything which could be generated from the matter of bread or wine, if it
+                     were present, can be generated from the aforesaid dimensive quantity of the bread or wine, not, indeed, by a new miracle,
+                     but by virtue of the miracle which has already taken place.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A5-p11">
+                     <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
+                     matter, as stated above.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A5-p12">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Those sacramental species are indeed accidents, yet they have the act and power of substance, as stated above 
+                     <a id="TP_Q77_A5-p12.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q77_A3.html">(A[3])</a>.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A5-p13">
+                     <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
+                     substance; and therefore it can pass to both, that is, into substance and dimension.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A5-p14"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A5-p15"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A5-p16"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A6.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q77_A6" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A7.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q77_A6-p0.1">Whether the sacramental species can nourish?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A6-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A6-p2">
+                     <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
+                     enters into our body, but the bread of everlasting life, which supports the substance of our soul." But whatever nourishes
+                     enters into the body. Therefore this bread does not nourish: and the same reason holds good of the wine.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A6-p3">
+                     <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
+                     are accidents, whereas man is not made of accidents, because accident is not a part of substance. Therefore it seems that
+                     the sacramental species cannot nourish.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A6-p4">
+                     <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
+                     reason of its quantity." But the sacramental species are not a substance. Consequently they cannot nourish.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A6-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle speaking of this sacrament says (
+                     <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
+                     of the sacred mystery, and after the consecration of the bread and wine, claimed their oblations, and not sharing them with
+                     others, took the whole, so as even to become intoxicated thereby." But this could not happen if the sacramental species did
+                     not nourish. Therefore
+                     the sacramental species do nourish.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A6-p6">
+                     <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,
+                     food nourishes by being converted into the substance of the individual nourished. Now it has been stated 
+                     <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
+                     body for the same reason as they can into ashes or worms. Consequently, it is
+                     evident that they nourish.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     into the human body, but merely refresh and hearten by acting upon the senses (as a man is heartened by the odor of meat,
+                     and intoxicated by the fumes of wine). Because such refreshment does not suffice long for a man, whose body needs repair owing
+                     to constant waste: and yet a man could be supported for long if he were to take hosts and consecrated wine
+                     in great quantity.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     remaining substantial form of the bread and wine: both because the form does not remain, as stated above (
+                     <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
+                     the form of the nourishment passes away: hence it is said in De Anima ii that nourishment is at
+                     first unlike, but at the end is like.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A6-p9">
+                     <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
+                     name of the previous substance, as Gregory says in an Easter Homily (Lanfranc, De Corp. et Sang. Dom. xx). Secondly, Christ's
+                     very body can be called bread, since it is the mystical bread "coming down from heaven." Consequently, Ambrose uses the word
+                     "bread" in this second meaning, when he says that "this bread does not pass into
+                     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
+                     bread taken in the first acceptation.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A6-p10">
+                     <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
+                     things stated above.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A6-p11">
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A6-p12"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A6-p13"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A7.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q77_A7" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A6.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A8.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q77_A7-p0.1">Whether the sacramental species are broken in this sacrament?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A7-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A7-p2">
+                     <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
+                     are breakable owing to a certain disposition of the pores; a thing which cannot be attributed to the sacramental species.
+                     Therefore the sacramental species cannot be broken.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A7-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, breaking is followed by sound. But the sacramental species emit no sound: because the Philosopher says (De Anima
+                     ii), that what emits sound is a hard body, having a smooth surface. Therefore the sacramental species are not broken.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A7-p4">
+                     <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
+                     to 
+                     <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
+                     it is said in the confession of Berengarius: "I agree with the Holy Catholic Church, and with heart and lips I profess, that
+                     the bread and wine which are placed on the altar, are the true body and blood of
+                     Christ after consecration, and are truly handled and broken by the priest's hands, broken and crushed by the teeth of believers."
+                     Consequently, the breaking ought not to be ascribed to the sacramental species.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A7-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> Breaking arises from the division of that which has quantity. But nothing having quantity except the sacramental species
+                     is broken here, because neither Christ's body is broken, as being incorruptible, nor is the substance of the bread, because
+                     it no longer remains. Therefore the sacramental species are broken.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A7-p6">
+                     <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,
+                     but merely in the eyes of the beholders. But this contention cannot stand, because in this sacrament of truth the sense is
+                     not deceived with regard to its proper object of judgment, and one of these objects is breaking, whereby from one thing arise
+                     many: and these are common sensibles, as is stated in De Anima ii.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     our senses; because a quantitative body is seen in this sacrament, which formerly was one, and is now divided into many, and
+                     this must be the subject of the breaking.
+                  </p>
+                  <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,
+                     because it is entire under every part, as was shown above (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <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.
+                     And as the sacramental species are the sacrament of Christ's true body, so is the breaking of these species the sacrament
+                     of our Lord's Passion, which was in Christ's true body.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A7-p10">
+                     <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,
+                     and in consequence breakableness.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A7-p11">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Hardness results from density; therefore, as density remains under the sacramental species, hardness remains there too, and
+                     the capability of sound as a consequence.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A7-p12">
+                     <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
+                     under its proper, but under the sacramental species. Hence in explaining 
+                     <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
+                     understood carnally: "for they understood the flesh, thus, as it is divided piecemeal, in a dead body, or as sold in the
+                     shambles." Consequently, Christ's very body is not broken, except according to its sacramental species. And the confession
+                     made by Berengarius is to be understood in this sense, that the breaking and the crushing with the teeth is to be referred
+                     to the sacramental species, under which the body of Christ truly is.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A7-p13"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A7-p14"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A6.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A8.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q77_A8" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A7.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q78.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q77_A8-p0.1">Whether any liquid can be mingled with the consecrated wine?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A8-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A8-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that no liquid can be mingled with the consecrated wine, because everything mingled with another partakes of its
+                     quality. But no liquid can share in the quality of the sacramental species, because those accidents are without a subject,
+                     as stated above 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A8-p3">
+                     <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
+                     result from the liquid, which is a substance, and the sacramental species, which are accidents; nor from the liquid and Christ's
+                     blood, which owing to its incorruptibility suffers neither increase nor decrease. Therefore no liquid can be mixed with the
+                     consecrated wine.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A8-p4">
+                     <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
+                     to holy-water becomes holy. But the consecrated wine is truly Christ's blood. Therefore the liquid added would likewise be
+                     Christ's blood otherwise than by consecration, which is unbecoming. Therefore no liquid can be mingled with the consecrated
+                     wine.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A8-p5">
+                     <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
+                     that the entire species of the sacramental wine is corrupted, so that the blood of Christ ceases to be beneath it; both because
+                     great and little are difference of quantity, and alter it, as white and black cause a difference of color; and because the
+                     liquid mixed, as having no obstacle, seems to permeate the whole, and so Christ's blood
+                     ceases to be there, since it is not there with any other substance. Consequently, no liquid can be mixed with the consecrated
+                     wine.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A8-p6">
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A8-p7">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> The truth of this question is evident from what has been said already. For it was said above 
+                     <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
+                     consecration, so likewise do they obtain the mode of acting and of being acted upon, so that they can do or receive whatever
+                     their substance could do or receive, were it there present. But it is evident that if
+                     the substance of wine were there present, then some other liquid could be mingled with it.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     the liquid. For if sufficient liquid were mixed so as to spread itself all through the wine, then the whole would be a mixed
+                     substance. Now what is made up of things mixed is neither of them, but each passes into a third resulting from both: hence
+                     it would result that the former wine would remain no longer. But if the liquid added were of another species, for
+                     instance, if water were mixed, the species of the wine would be dissolved, and there would be a liquid of another species.
+                     But if liquid of the same species were added, of instance, wine with wine, the same species would remain, but the wine would
+                     not be the same numerically, as the diversity of the accidents shows: for instance, if one wine were white and the other red.
+                  </p>
+                  <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,
+                     but only part of it, which would not remain the same numerically owing to the blending of extraneous matter: still it would
+                     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
+                     species, since a drop of water blended with much wine passes into the species of wine (De Gener.
+                     i).
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     same, as stated above 
+                     <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
+                     added be so much in quantity as to permeate the whole of the consecrated wine, and be mixed with it throughout, the result
+                     would be something numerically distinct, and the blood of
+                     Christ will remain there no longer. But if the quantity of the liquid added be so slight as not to permeate throughout, but
+                     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
+                     under the rest.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A8-p11">
+                     <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
+                     is added, it takes the savor of the wine. The result is, then, that the accidents change the subject, just as subject changes
+                     accidents; for nature yields to miracle, and power works beyond custom." But this must not be understood as if the same identical
+                     accident, which was in the wine previous to consecration, is afterwards in
+                     the wine that is added; but such change is the result of action; because the remaining accidents of the wine retain the action
+                     of substance, as stated above, and so they act upon the liquid added, by changing it.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A8-p12">
+                     <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
+                     with the sacramental species, yet so that after such mixing the aforesaid species are corrupted entirely or in part, after
+                     the way mentioned above 
+                     <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,
+                     because the whole will be
+                     uniform. But if they be corrupted in part, there will be one dimension according to the continuity of quantity, but not one
+                     according to the mode of being, because one part thereof will be without a subject while the other is in a subject; as in
+                     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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A8-p13">
+                     <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
+                     into the blood, nor is it mingled with the blood, but, mixed with the accidents of the previous wine, it is diffused throughout
+                     the body which underlies them, yet without wetting what surrounds it." Now this is to be understood when there is not sufficient
+                     mixing of extraneous liquid to cause the blood of Christ to cease to
+                     be under the whole; because a thing is said to be "diffused throughout," not because it touches the body of Christ according
+                     to its proper dimensions, but according to the sacramental dimensions, under which it is contained. Now it is not the same
+                     with holy water, because the blessing works no change in the substance of the water, as the consecration of the wine does.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A8-p14">
+                     <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
+                     the whole, and for the reason given above (OBJ[4]); which, however, is not a cogent one; because "more" or "less" diversify
+                     dimensive quantity, not as to its essence, but as to the determination of its measure. In like manner the liquid added can
+                     be so small as on that account to be hindered from permeating the whole, and not
+                     simply by the dimensions; which, although they are present without a subject, still they are opposed to another liquid, just
+                     as substance would be if it were present, according to what was said at the beginning of the article.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A8-p15"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q77_A8-p16"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A7.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q78.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q76_A8.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A1.html"></a>
+            </div>
+            <div id="TP_Q78" class="div3">
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A8.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A1.html"></a>
+               <h3 id="TP_Q78-p0.1">OF THE FORM OF THIS SACRAMENT (SIX ARTICLES)</h3>
+               <p id="TP_Q78-p1"></p>
+               <p id="TP_Q78-p2"> We must now consider the form of this sacrament; concerning which there are six points of inquiry:</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q78-p3"> (1) What is the form of this sacrament?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q78-p4"> (2) Whether the form for the consecration of the bread is appropriate?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q78-p5"> (3) Whether the form for the consecration of the blood is appropriate?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q78-p6"> (4) Of the power of each form?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q78-p7"> (5) Of the truth of the expression?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q78-p8"> (6) Of the comparison of the one form with the other?</p>
+               <div id="TP_Q78_A1" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q78.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A2.html"></a>
+                  <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>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A1-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A1-p2">
+                     <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
+                     those words seem to belong to the form of this sacrament, wherewith Christ consecrated His body and blood. But Christ first
+                     blessed the bread which He took, and said afterwards: "Take ye and eat; this is My body" (
+                     <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
+                     holds good of the words which go with the consecration of the blood.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A1-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Eusebius Emissenus (Pseudo-Hieron: Ep. xxix; Pseudo-Isid.: Hom. iv) says: "The invisible Priest changes visible
+                     creatures into His own body, saying: 'Take ye and eat; this is My body.'" Therefore, the whole of this seems to belong to
+                     the form of this sacrament: and the same hold good of the works appertaining to the blood.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A1-p4">
+                     <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
+                     words set forth above there is no mention made either of the minister or of his act. Therefore the form of the sacrament is
+                     not a suitable one.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A1-p5">
+                     <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the form of the sacrament suffices for its perfection; hence the sacrament of Baptism can be performed sometimes
+                     by pronouncing the words of the form only, omitting all the others. Therefore, if the aforesaid words be the form of this
+                     sacrament, it would seem as if this sacrament could be performed sometimes by uttering those words alone, while leaving out
+                     all the others which are said in the mass; yet this seems to be false, because, were the other
+                     words to be passed over, the said words would be taken as spoken in the person of the priest saying them, whereas the bread
+                     and wine are not changed into his body and blood. Consequently, the aforesaid words are not the form of this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A1-p6">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): "The consecration is accomplished by the words and expressions of the Lord Jesus. Because,
+                     by all the other words spoken, praise is rendered to God, prayer is put up for the people, for kings, and others; but when
+                     the time comes for perfecting the sacrament, the priest uses no longer his own words, but the words of Christ. Therefore,
+                     it is Christ's words that perfect this sacrament."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A1-p7">
+                     <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
+                     by the consecration of the matter, while the rest are perfected in the use of the consecrated matter. Secondly, because in
+                     the other sacraments the consecration of the matter consists only in a blessing, from which the matter consecrated derives
+                     instrumentally a spiritual power, which through the priest who is an animated instrument,
+                     can pass on to inanimate instruments. But in this sacrament the consecration of the matter consists in the miraculous change
+                     of the substance, which can only be done by God; hence the minister in performing this sacrament has no other act save the
+                     pronouncing of the words. And because the form should suit the thing, therefore the form of this sacrament differs from the
+                     forms of the other sacraments in two respects. First, because the form of the other sacraments implies the use of the matter,
+                     as for instance, baptizing, or signing; but the form of this sacrament implies merely the consecration of the matter, which
+                     consists in transubstantiation, as when it is said, "This is My body," or, "This is the chalice of My blood." Secondly, because
+                     the forms of the other sacraments are pronounced in the person of the minister, whether by way of exercising an act, as when
+                     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
+                     order, "Take the power," etc.; or by way of entreaty, as when in the sacrament of Extreme Unction it is said, "By this anointing
+                     and our intercession," etc. But the form of this sacrament is pronounced as if Christ were speaking in person, so that it
+                     is given to be understood that the minister does nothing in perfecting this sacrament, except to pronounce the words of Christ.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A1-p8">
+                     <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
+                     this sacrament without using any form of words, and that afterwards He pronounced the words under which others were to consecrate
+                     thereafter. And the words of Pope Innocent III seem to convey the same sense (De Sacr. Alt. Myst. iv), where he says: "In
+                     good sooth it can be said that Christ accomplished this sacrament by His
+                     Divine power, and subsequently expressed the form under which those who came after were to consecrate." But in opposition
+                     to this view are the words of the Gospel in which it is said that Christ "blessed," and this blessing was effected by certain
+                     words. Accordingly those words of Innocent are to be considered as expressing an opinion, rather than determining the point.
+                  </p>
+                  <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,
+                     because the blessing of the consecration is now performed by reciting the things which were then accomplished; hence, if the
+                     consecration was not performed then by these words, neither would it be now.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     them twice, at first secretly, in order to consecrate, and afterwards openly, to instruct others. But even this will not hold
+                     good, because the priest in consecrating uses these words, not as spoken in secret, but as openly pronounced. Accordingly,
+                     since these words have no power except from Christ pronouncing them, it seems that Christ also consecrated by
+                     pronouncing them openly.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     things actually happened, as is seen from Augustine (De Consens. Evang. ii). Hence it is to be understood that the order of
+                     what took place can be expressed thus: "Taking the bread He blessed it, saying: This is My body, and then He broke it, and
+                     gave it to His disciples." But the same sense can be had even without changing the words of the Gospel; because
+                     the participle "saying" implies sequence of the words uttered with what goes before. And it is not necessary for the sequence
+                     to be understood only with respect to the last word spoken, as if Christ had just then pronounced those words, when He gave
+                     it to His disciples; but the sequence can be understood with regard to all that had gone before; so that the sense is: "While
+                     He was blessing, and breaking, and giving it to His disciples, He spoke the words, 'Take ye,'" etc.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A1-p12">
+                     <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
+                     sacrament, as stated above (
+                     <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
+                     matter belongs to a certain perfection of the sacrament, in the same way as operation is not the first but the second perfection
+                     of a thing,
+                     consequently, the whole perfection of this sacrament is expressed by all those words: and it was in this way that Eusebius
+                     understood that the sacrament was accomplished by those words, as to its first and second perfection.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A1-p13">
+                     <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
+                     sacrament: such is not the case in this sacrament; hence there is no parallel.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A1-p14">
+                     <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,
+                     especially the words in the Canon of the Mass. But that this is false can be seen both from Ambrose's words quoted above,
+                     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
+                     introduced by various people.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     this sacrament, this sacrament would be valid because the intention would cause these words to be understood as spoken in
+                     the person of Christ, even though the words were pronounced without those that precede. The priest, however, would sin gravely
+                     in consecrating the sacrament thus, as he would not be observing the rite of the Church. Nor does the
+                     comparison with Baptism prove anything; for it is a sacrament of necessity: whereas the lack of this sacrament can be supplied
+                     by the spiritual partaking thereof, as Augustine says (cf.
+                     <a id="TP_Q78_A1-p15.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q73_A3.html"> Q[73], A[3]</a>, ad 1).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A1-p16"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A1-p17"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q78.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A2.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q78_A2" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A3.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q78_A2-p0.1">Whether this is the proper form for the consecration of the bread: "This is My body"?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A2-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A2-p2">
+                     <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
+                     expressed in its form. But the effect of the consecration of the bread is the change of the substance of the bread into the
+                     body of Christ, and this is better expressed by the word "becomes" than by "is." Therefore, in the form of the consecration
+                     we ought to say: "This becomes My body."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A2-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv), "Christ's words consecrate this sacrament. What word of Christ? This word, whereby
+                     all things are made. The Lord commanded, and the heavens and earth were made. " Therefore, it would be a more proper form
+                     of this sacrament if the imperative mood were employed, so as to say: "Be this My body."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A2-p4">
+                     <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
+                     predicate. But just as that into which the change is made is something determinate, for the change is into nothing else but
+                     the body of Christ, so also that which is converted is determinate, since only bread is converted into the body of Christ.
+                     Therefore, as a noun is inserted on the part of the predicate, so also should a noun be
+                     inserted in the subject, so that it be said: "This bread is My body."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A2-p5">
+                     <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.
+                     Consequently, in order to determine the person, it ought to be said: "This is the body of Christ."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A2-p6">
+                     <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, nothing ought to be inserted in the form except what is substantial to it. Consequently, the conjunction "for" is
+                     improperly added in some books, since it does not belong to the substance of the form.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A2-p7">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> our Lord used this form in consecrating, as is evident from
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q78_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.26.26" target="asv"> Mat. 26:26.</a>
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A2-p8">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> This is the proper form for the consecration of the bread. For it was said 
+                     <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
+                     to denote what is done in the sacrament. Consequently the form for the consecration of the bread ought to signify the actual
+                     conversion of the bread into the body of Christ. And herein are three things to be considered: namely,
+                     the actual conversion, the term "whence," and the term "whereunto."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     to be signified in this form as in "becoming," but as in "being." First, because such conversion is not successive, as was
+                     said above (
+                     <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
+                     forms bear the same relation to the signification of the
+                     sacramental effect as artificial forms to the representation of the effect of art. Now an artificial form is the likeness
+                     of the ultimate effect, on which the artist's intention is fixed ;. just as the art-form in the builder's mind is principally
+                     the form of the house constructed, and secondarily of the constructing. Accordingly, in this form also the conversion ought
+                     to be expressed as in "being," to which the intention is referred.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     signified as they exist in the fact of conversion. But then the term "whereunto" has the proper nature of its own substance;
+                     whereas the term "whence" does not remain in its own substance, but only as to the accidents whereby it comes under the senses,
+                     and can be determined in relation to the senses. Hence the term "whence" of the conversion is conveniently
+                     expressed by the demonstrative pronoun, relative to the sensible accidents which continue; but the term "whereunto" is expressed
+                     by the noun signifying the nature of the thing which terminates the conversion, and this is Christ's entire body, and not
+                     merely His flesh; as was said above (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A2-p11">
+                     <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
+                     be given to this in the form.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A2-p12">
+                     <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
+                     fashion: because here it operates effectively and sacramentally, that is, in virtue of its signification. And consequently
+                     the last effect of the consecration must needs be signified in this sentence by a substantive verb of the indicative mood
+                     and present time. But in the creation of things it worked merely effectively, and
+                     such efficiency is due to the command of His wisdom; and therefore in the creation of things the Lord's word is expressed
+                     by a verb in the imperative mood, as in
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A2-p13">
+                     <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.
+                     Therefore there is no parallel.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A2-p14">
+                     <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
+                     person, in Whose person these words are uttered, as stated above 
+                     <a id="TP_Q78_A2-p14.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q78_A1.html">(A[1])</a>.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A2-p15">
+                     <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;
+                     and this on account of the sequence with the words preceding: and therefore it is not part of the form, just as the words
+                     preceding the form are not.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A2-p16"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A2-p17"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A3.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q78_A3" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A4.html"></a>
+                  <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>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p2">
+                     <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
+                     and Eternal Testament, the Mystery of Faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins." For as
+                     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
+                     from what was said above (
+                     <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
+                     consecration of the bread, the body of Christ is expressly mentioned, without any addition. Therefore in this form the blood
+                     of Christ is improperly expressed in the oblique case, and the chalice in the nominative, when it is said: "This is the chalice
+                     of My blood."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the words spoken in the consecration of the bread are not more efficacious than those spoken in the consecration
+                     of the wine, since both are Christ's words. But directly the words are spoken---"This is My body," there is perfect consecration
+                     of the bread. Therefore, directly these other words are uttered---"This is the chalice of My blood," there is perfect consecration
+                     of the blood; and so the words which follow do not appeal to be of the substance
+                     of the form, especially since they refer to the properties of this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p4">
+                     <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
+                     (31:31): "I will perfect unto the house of Israel a New Testament . . . I will give My laws into their mind" (
+                     <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
+                     improperly added.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p5">
+                     <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
+                     its existence. Therefore it is incorrect to say "of the New and Eternal," because it seems to savor of a contradiction.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p6">
+                     <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, occasions of error ought to be withheld from men, according to
+                     <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
+                     body and blood are only mystically present in this sacrament. Therefore it is out of place to add "the mystery of faith."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p7">
+                     <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, it was said above (
+                     <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
+                     the word "charity" ought rather to be used than "faith."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p8">
+                     <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 
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     the consecration of the body, especially since our Lord said: "This
+                     is My body, which shall be delivered up for you" (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q78_A3-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.22.19" target="asv">Lk. 22:19</a>).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p9">
+                     <b>Objection 8:</b> Further, as was already observed (
+                     <a id="TP_Q78_A3-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q48_A2.html">Q[48], A[2]</a>;
+                     <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:
+                     "Which shall be shed for all," or else "for many," without adding, "for you."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p10">
+                     <b>Objection 9:</b> Further, the words whereby this sacrament is consecrated draw their efficacy from Christ's institution. But no Evangelist
+                     narrates that Christ spoke all these words. Therefore this is not an appropriate form for the consecration of the wine.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p11">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> The Church, instructed by the apostles, uses this form.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p12">
+                     <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
+                     belong to the substance of this form, but not those words which follow. Now this seems incorrect, because the words which
+                     follow them are determinations of the predicate, that is, of Christ's blood. consequently they belong to the integrity of
+                     the expression.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     words, "As often as ye shall do this," which belong to the use of this sacrament, and consequently do not belong to the substance
+                     of the form. Hence it is that the priest pronounces all these words, under the same rite and manner, namely, holding the chalice
+                     in his hands. Moreover, in
+                     <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
+                     the preceding words: "This is the chalice, the new testament in My blood."
+                  </p>
+                  <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,
+                     "This is the chalice of My blood," the change of the wine into blood is denoted, as explained above 
+                     <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
+                     the Passion, which power works in this sacrament, and is ordained for three purposes. First and
+                     principally for securing our eternal heritage, according to
+                     <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
+                     New and Eternal Testament." Secondly, for justifying by grace, which is by faith according to
+                     <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
+                     of him who is of the faith of
+                     Jesus Christ": and on this account we add, "The Mystery of Faith." Thirdly, for removing sins which are the impediments to
+                     both of these things, according to 
+                     <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,
+                     "which shall be shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p15">
+                     <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
+                     figure of metonymy; because the container is put for the contained, so that the meaning is: "This is My blood contained in
+                     the chalice"; of which mention is now made, because Christ's blood is consecrated in this sacrament, inasmuch as it is the
+                     drink of the faithful, which is not implied under the notion of blood; consequently this
+                     had to be denoted by the vessel adapted for such usage.
+                  </p>
+                  <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,
+                     because, like a cup, it inebriates, according to
+                     <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
+                     a chalice, when He said (
+                     <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."
+                     This is denoted by the blood being consecrated apart from the body; because it was by the Passion that the blood was separated
+                     from the body.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p17">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As was said above (ad 1;
+                     <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
+                     the Passion in the consecration of the blood rather than in that of the body, since the body is the subject of the Passion.
+                     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
+                     Passion for you."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p18">
+                     <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
+                     of the blood of Jesus Christ; because, according to
+                     <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
+                     in two ways. First of all in figure, and this belongs to the Old Testament; consequently the Apostle concludes
+                     (
+                     <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
+                     <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
+                     the testament which the Lord hath enjoined unto you."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     (
+                     <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
+                     promise of eternal inheritance." Consequently, we say here, "The blood of the New Testament," because it is shown now not
+                     in figure but in truth; and therefore we add, "which shall be shed for you." But
+                     the internal inspiration has its origin in the power of this blood, according as we are justified by Christ's Passion.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p20">
+                     <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
+                     pre-ordination, as well as on account of the eternal heritage which is prepared by this testament. Moreover, Christ's Person
+                     is eternal, in Whose blood this testament is appointed.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p21">
+                     <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
+                     blood is in this sacrament in a hidden manner, and His Passion was dimly foreshadowed in the Old Testament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p22">
+                     <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
+                     blood in this sacrament. Moreover Christ's Passion justifies by faith. Baptism is called the "Sacrament of Faith" because
+                     it is a profession of faith. This is called the "Sacrament of Charity," as being figurative and effective thereof.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p23">
+                     <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
+                     made of Christ's Passion and its fruits, in the consecration of the blood rather than in that of the body.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p24">
+                     <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
+                     was exhibited, but also in the Gentiles; nor only in priests who consecrate this sacrament, and in those others who partake
+                     of it; but likewise in those for whom it is offered. And therefore He says expressly, "for you," the Jews, "and for many,"
+                     namely the Gentiles; or, "for you" who eat of it, and "for many," for whom it is
+                     offered.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p25">
+                     <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,
+                     as Dionysius observes at the close of his book on the ecclesiastical hierarchy; their object was to write the story of Christ.
+                     Nevertheless nearly all these words can be culled from various passages of the Scriptures. Because the words, "This is the
+                     chalice," are found in 
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q78_A3-p25.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.22.20" target="asv">Lk. 22:20</a>, and 
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q78_A3-p25.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.11.25" target="asv">1 Cor. 11:25,
+                        
+                     </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
+                     of sins." The words added, namely, "eternal" and "mystery of faith," were handed down to the Church by the apostles, who received
+                     them from our Lord, according to 
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p26"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A3-p27"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A4.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q78_A4" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A5.html"></a>
+                  <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>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A4-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A4-p2">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     the power of the Holy Ghost is uncreated. Therefore this sacrament is not caused by any created power of those words.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A4-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, miraculous works are wrought not by any created power, but solely by Divine power, as was stated in the 
+                     <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,
+                     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,
+                     neither is this sacrament consecrated by any created
+                     power of the aforesaid words.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A4-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the aforesaid words are not simple, but composed of many; nor are they uttered simultaneously, but successively.
+                     But, as stated above (
+                     <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
+                     of those words.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A4-p5">
+                     <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,
+                     how much more efficacious is it to make things existing to continue, and to be changed into something else? And so, what was
+                     bread before consecration is now the body of Christ after consecration, because Christ's word changes a creature into something
+                     different."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A4-p6">
+                     <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
+                     the other forms of the sacraments, or even in the sacraments themselves, for producing the sacramental effects. This, as was
+                     shown above (
+                     <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,
+                     since this sacrament is of greater worth
+                     than the others, as stated above (
+                     <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
+                     in it: instrumental, however, as in the other sacraments, as stated above (
+                     <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
+                     power from Him, just as His other deeds and sayings derive their
+                     salutary power instrumentally, as was observed above (
+                     <a id="TP_Q78_A4-p6.4" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q48_A6.html">Q[48], A[6]</a>;
+                     <a id="TP_Q78_A4-p6.5" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q56_A1.html"> Q[56], A[1]</a>, ad 3).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A4-p7">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     the power of the hammer.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A4-p8">
+                     <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
+                     the leper. And in this fashion Christ's words change the bread into His body. But in Christ's conception, whereby His body
+                     was fashioned, it was impossible for anything derived from His body to have the instrumental power of forming that very body.
+                     Likewise in creation there was no term wherein the instrumental action of a
+                     creature could be received. Consequently there is no comparison.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A4-p9">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The aforesaid words, which work the consecration, operate sacramentally. Consequently, the converting power latent under
+                     the forms of these sacraments follows the meaning, which is terminated in the uttering of the last word. And therefore the
+                     aforesaid words have this power in the last instant of their being uttered, taken in conjunction with those uttered before.
+                     And this power is simple by reason of the thing signified, although there be
+                     composition in the words uttered outwardly.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A4-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A4-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A5.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q78_A5" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A6.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q78_A5-p0.1">Whether the aforesaid expressions are true? </h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A5-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A5-p2">
+                     <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
+                     a substance. But according to what was said above (
+                     <a id="TP_Q78_A5-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q78_A1.html">AA[1]</a>,4, ad 3;
+                     <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
+                     in the last instant of pronouncing the words. But it is false to say: "Bread is Christ's
+                     body." Consequently this expression, "This is My body," is false.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A5-p3">
+                     <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
+                     even its accidents. Therefore this expression, "This is My body," cannot be true.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A5-p4">
+                     <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
+                     body of Christ. But an effective cause is understood as preceding its effect. Therefore the meaning of these words is understood
+                     as preceding the change of the bread into the body of Christ. But previous to the change this expression, "This is My body,"
+                     is false. Therefore the expression is to be judged as false simply; and the same reason
+                     holds good of the other phrase: "This is the chalice of My blood," etc.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A5-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> These words are pronounced in the person of Christ, Who says of Himself (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A5-p6">
+                     <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
+                     demonstration as conceived, and not as exercised, because the whole phrase is taken materially, since it is uttered by a way
+                     of narration: for the priest relates that Christ said: "This is My body."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     the sacrament would not be valid: for Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan.): "The word is added to the element, and this becomes
+                     a sacrament." Moreover this solution ignores entirely the difficulty which this question presents: for there is still the
+                     objection in regard to the first uttering of these words by Christ; since it is evident that then they
+                     were employed, not materially, but significatively. And therefore it must be said that even when spoken by the priest they
+                     are taken significatively, and not merely materially. Nor does it matter that the priest pronounces them by way of recital,
+                     as though they were spoken by Christ, because owing to Christ's infinite power, just as through contact with His flesh the
+                     regenerative power entered not only into the waters which came into contact with Christ, but into all waters throughout the
+                     whole
+                     world and during all future ages, so likewise from Christ's uttering these words they derived their consecrating power, by
+                     whatever priest they be uttered, as if Christ present were saying them.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     the meaning is, "This is My body"---i.e. "The thing signified by 'this' is My body." But neither can this stand, because,
+                     since in the sacraments the effect is that which is signified, from such a form it would not result that Christ's body was
+                     in very truth in this sacrament, but merely as in a sign, which is heretical, as stated above (
+                     <a id="TP_Q78_A5-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q85_A1.html">Q[85], A[1]</a>).
+                  </p>
+                  <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,
+                     but merely at the last instant thereof; as when a man says, "Now I am silent," this adverb "now" points to the instant immediately
+                     following the speech: because the sense is: "Directly these words are spoken I am silent." But neither can this hold good,
+                     because in that case the meaning of the sentence would be: "My body is My body," which the above phrase
+                     does not effect, because this was so even before the utterance of the words: hence neither does the aforesaid sentence mean
+                     this.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A5-p10"> Consequently, then, it remains to be said, as stated above 
+                     <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
+                     is compared to other sentences, which have power only of signifying and not of producing, as the concept of the practical
+                     intellect, which is productive of the thing, is compared to the concept of our speculative intellect which is drawn from things.
+                     because "words are
+                     signs of concepts," as the Philosopher says (Peri Herm. i). And therefore as the concept of the practical intellect does not
+                     presuppose the thing understood, but makes it, so the truth of this expression does not presuppose the thing signified, but
+                     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,
+                     but in an instant, as stated above (Q[77], A[7]). Consequently one must understand the aforesaid expression with reference
+                     to the last instant of the words being spoken, yet not so that the subject may be understood to have stood for that which
+                     is the term of the conversion; viz. that the body of Christ is the body of Christ; nor again that the subject be understood
+                     to stand for that which it was before the conversion, namely, the bread. but for that which is commonly related to both, i.e.
+                     that which is contained in general under those species. For these words do not make the body of Christ to be the body of
+                     Christ, nor do they make the bread to be the body of Christ; but what was contained under those species, and was formerly
+                     bread, they make to be the body of Christ. And therefore expressly our Lord did not say: "This bread is My body," which would
+                     be the meaning of the second opinion; nor "This My body is My body," which would be the meaning of the third opinion: but
+                     in general: "This is My body," assigning no noun on the part of the subject, but only a pronoun, which signifies substance
+                     in
+                     common, without quality, that is, without a determinate form.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A5-p11">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The term "this" points to a substance, yet without determining its proper nature, as stated above.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A5-p12">
+                     <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,
+                     and is afterwards the body of Christ, which body, although not informed by those accidents, is yet contained under them.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A5-p13">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     for the truth of the expression.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A5-p14"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A5-p15"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A6.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q78_A6" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q79.html"></a>
+                  <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
+                     be completed?
+                  </h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A6-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A6-p2">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     blood come to be there by the consecration of the wine. If, then, the words for consecrating the bread were to produce their
+                     effect before the consecration of the wine, it would follow that Christ's body would be
+                     present in this sacrament without the blood, which is improper.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A6-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, one sacrament has one completion: hence although there be three immersions in Baptism, yet the first immersion does
+                     not produce its effect until the third be completed. But all this sacrament is one, as stated above (
+                     <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
+                     the wine is consecrated.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A6-p4">
+                     <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
+                     the last be uttered, as stated above (A[4], ad 3). Therefore, for the same reason, neither do the words for the consecration
+                     of Christ's body produce their effect, until the words for consecrating Christ's blood are spoken.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A6-p5">
+                     <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
+                     would not be done if Christ's body were not there, for that would be an act of idolatry. Therefore the consecrating words
+                     of the bread produce their effect before. the words are spoken for consecrating the wine.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A6-p6">
+                     <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
+                     action, so that the first does not produce its effect until the second be uttered.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     verb is in the present tense, it is required for the thing signified to be present simultaneously in time with the signification
+                     of the expression used; otherwise, if the thing signified had to be awaited for afterwards, a verb of the future tense would
+                     be employed, and not one of the present tense, so that we should not say, "This is My body," but "This
+                     will be My body." But the signification of this speech is complete directly those words are spoken. And therefore the thing
+                     signified must be present instantaneously, and such is the effect of this sacrament; otherwise it would not be a true speech.
+                     Moreover, this opinion is against the rite of the Church, which forthwith adores the body of Christ after the words are uttered.
+                  </p>
+                  <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>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A6-p9">
+                     <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
+                     the consecration of the bread is complete, the body of Christ is indeed present by the power of the sacrament, and the blood
+                     by real concomitance; but afterwards by the consecration of the wine, conversely, the blood of Christ is there by the power
+                     of the sacrament, and the body by real concomitance, so that the entire Christ
+                     is under either species, as stated above (
+                     <a id="TP_Q78_A6-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q76_A2.html">Q[76], A[2]</a>).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A6-p10">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This sacrament is one in perfection, as stated above (
+                     <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;
+                     but the three immersions of Baptism are ordained to one simple effect, and therefore there is no resemblance.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A6-p11">
+                     <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
+                     forms do not, and consequently there is no parallel.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A6-p12"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q78_A6-p13"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q79.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q77_A8.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A1.html"></a>
+            </div>
+            <div id="TP_Q79" class="div3">
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A6.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A1.html"></a>
+               <h3 id="TP_Q79-p0.1">OF THE EFFECTS OF THIS SACRAMENT (EIGHT ARTICLES)</h3>
+               <p id="TP_Q79-p1"></p>
+               <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>
+               <p id="TP_Q79-p3"> (1) Whether this sacrament bestows grace?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q79-p4"> (2) Whether the attaining of glory is an effect of this sacrament?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q79-p5"> (3) Whether the forgiveness of mortal sin is an effect of this sacrament?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q79-p6"> (4) Whether venial sin is forgiven by this sacrament?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q79-p7"> (5) Whether the entire punishment due for sin is forgiven by this sacrament?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q79-p8"> (6) Whether this sacrament preserves man from future sins?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q79-p9"> (7) Whether this sacrament benefits others besides the recipients?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q79-p10"> (8) Of the obstacles to the effect of this sacrament.</p>
+               <div id="TP_Q79_A1" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q79.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A2.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q79_A1-p0.1">Whether grace is bestowed through this sacrament?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A1-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A1-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that grace is not bestowed through this sacrament. For this sacrament is spiritual nourishment. But nourishment
+                     is only given to the living. Therefore since the spiritual life is the effect of grace, this sacrament belongs only to one
+                     in the state of grace. Therefore grace is not bestowed through this sacrament for it to be had in the first instance. In like
+                     manner neither is it given so as grace may be increased, because spiritual growth belongs to
+                     the sacrament of Confirmation, as stated above (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A1-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, this sacrament is given as a spiritual refreshment. But spiritual refreshment seems to belong to the use of grace
+                     rather than to its bestowal. Therefore it seems that grace is not given through this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A1-p4">
+                     <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
+                     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 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A1-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> Our Lord says (
+                     <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
+                     grace is bestowed through this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A1-p6">
+                     <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,
+                     which is Christ; Who, just as by coming into the world, He visibly bestowed the life of grace upon the world, according to
+                     <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
+                     <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
+                     also shall live by Me." Hence Cyril says on
+                     <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
+                     He should be united somehow with bodies through His sacred flesh and precious blood, which we receive in a life-giving blessing
+                     in the bread and wine."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     (
+                     <a id="TP_Q79_A1-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q74_A1.html">Q[74], A[1]</a>;
+                     <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
+                     says on the words, "Immediately there came out blood and water" (
+                     <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,
+                     when you draw nigh to the awe-inspiring chalice, so approach as if you were going to drink from Christ's own side." Hence
+                     our Lord Himself says (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     of food and drink. And therefore this sacrament does for the spiritual life all that material food does for the bodily life,
+                     namely, by sustaining, giving increase, restoring, and giving delight. Accordingly, Ambrose says (De Sacram. v): "This is
+                     the bread of everlasting life, which supports the substance of our soul." And Chrysostom says (Hom. xlvi in
+                     Joan.): "When we desire it, He lets us feel Him, and eat Him, and embrace Him." And hence our Lord says (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <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.
+                     xxvi in Joan.): "Our Lord betokened His body and blood in things which out of many units are made into some one whole: for
+                     out of many grains is one thing made," viz. bread; "and many grapes flow into one thing," viz. wine. And therefore he observes
+                     elsewhere (Tract. xxvi in Joan.): "O sacrament of piety, O sign of unity, O bond of charity!"
+                  </p>
+                  <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,
+                     it is clear from all that has been set forth that this sacrament bestows grace.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A1-p11">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     of children, as stated above (
+                     <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
+                     to lead the spiritual
+                     life. It remains, then, that when the sacrament itself is really received, grace is increased, and the spiritual life perfected:
+                     yet in different fashion from the sacrament of Confirmation, in which grace is increased and perfected for resisting the outward
+                     assaults of Christ's enemies. But by this sacrament grace receives increase, and the spiritual life is perfected, so that
+                     man may stand perfect in himself by union with God.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A1-p12">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This sacrament confers grace spiritually together with the virtue of charity. Hence Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv) compares
+                     this sacrament to the burning coal which Isaias saw (
+                     <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
+                     united with the Godhead." But as Gregory observes in a Homily for Pentecost, "God's love is never idle; for, wherever it is
+                     it does great works." And consequently through this sacrament, as far as its power is concerned, not only is the habit of
+                     grace and of virtue bestowed, but it is furthermore aroused to act, according to 
+                     <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,
+                     by being spiritually gladdened, and as it were inebriated with the sweetness of the Divine goodness, according to
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q79_A1-p12.3" href="./asv.html#Song.5.1" target="asv"> Cant
+                        5:1
+                     </a>: "Eat, O friends, and drink, and be inebriated, my dearly beloved."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A1-p13">
+                     <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
+                     said that in this sacrament "the body is offered for the salvation of the body, and the blood for the salvation of the soul,"
+                     although each works for the salvation of both, since the entire Christ is under each, as stated above (
+                     <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
+                     the effect of grace flows into the body while in the present life we present "our [Vulg.: 'your'] members" as "instruments
+                     of justice unto God" (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A1-p14"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A1-p15"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q79.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A2.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q79_A2" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A3.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q79_A2-p0.1">Whether the attaining of glory is an effect of this sacrament?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A2-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A2-p2">
+                     <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
+                     this sacrament belongs to "wayfarers" [viatoribus], and hence it is termed "Viaticum." Since, then, wayfarers are not yet
+                     capable of glory, it seems that this sacrament does not cause the attaining of glory.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A2-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, given sufficient cause, the effect follows. But many take this sacrament who will never come to glory, as Augustine
+                     declares (De Civ. Dei xxi). Consequently, this sacrament is not the cause of attaining unto glory.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A2-p4">
+                     <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
+                     to receive Christ under a strange species, which happens in this sacrament, than to enjoy Him in His own species, which belongs
+                     to glory. Therefore this sacrament does not cause the attaining of glory.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A2-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
+                     <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
+                     of glory is an effect of this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A2-p6">
+                     <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
+                     Passion represented by it; and that through which it works its effect, namely, the use of the sacrament, and its species.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     that Christ opened to us the approach to eternal life, according to
+                     <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
+                     of eternal inheritance." Accordingly in the form of this sacrament it is said: "This is the chalice of My blood, of the New
+                     and Eternal
+                     Testament."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     in the present life, although imperfectly. but perfectly in the state of glory. Hence Augustine says on the words, "My flesh
+                     is meat indeed" (
+                     <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
+                     this meat and drink which maketh them who partake thereof to be
+                     immortal and incorruptible, in the fellowship of the saints, where shall be peace, and unity, full and perfect."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A2-p9">
+                     <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
+                     that we are thereby forthwith admitted to glory, but we must first "suffer with Him in order that we may also be glorified"
+                     afterwards "with Him" (
+                     <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
+                     is called "Viaticum," a figure whereof we read in
+                     
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A2-p10">
+                     <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
+                     come to glory through this sacrament who receive it unworthily. Hence Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan.), expounding the same
+                     passage, observes: "The sacrament is one thing, the power of the sacrament another. Many receive it from the altar . . . and
+                     by receiving" . . . die . . . Eat, then, spiritually the heavenly "bread, bring
+                     innocence to the altar." It is no wonder, then, if those who do not keep innocence, do not secure the effect of this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A2-p11">
+                     <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
+                     is nothing to prevent an instrumental cause from producing a more mighty effect, as is evident from what was said above (
+                     <a id="TP_Q79_A2-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q77_A3.html">Q[77], A[3]</a>, ad 3).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A2-p12"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A2-p13"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A3.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q79_A3" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A4.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q79_A3-p0.1">Whether the forgiveness of mortal sin is an effect of this sacrament?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A3-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A3-p2">
+                     <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,
+                     Pro vivis et defunctis): "May this sacrament be a cleansing from crimes." But mortal sins are called crimes. Therefore mortal
+                     sins are blotted out by this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A3-p3">
+                     <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
+                     stated above (
+                     <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
+                     shall be shed for many unto the forgiveness of sins."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A3-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, grace is bestowed through this sacrament, as stated above 
+                     <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
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A3-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
+                     <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
+                     the following commentary: "He eats and drinks unworthily who is in the state of sin, or who handles (the sacrament) irreverently;
+                     and such a one eats and drinks judgment, i.e. damnation, unto himself." Therefore, he that is in mortal sin, by taking the
+                     sacrament heaps sin upon sin,
+                     rather than obtains forgiveness of his sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A3-p6">
+                     <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
+                     Passion the power of forgiving all sins, since the Passion is the fount and cause of the forgiveness of sins.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     in him an obstacle to receiving the fruit of this sacrament. Now whoever is conscious of mortal sin, has within him an obstacle
+                     to receiving the effect of this sacrament; since he is not a proper recipient of this sacrament, both because he is not alive
+                     spiritually, and so he ought not to eat the spiritual nourishment, since nourishment is confined to the
+                     living; and because he cannot be united with Christ, which is the effect of this sacrament, as long as he retains an attachment
+                     towards mortal sin. Consequently, as is said in the book De Eccles. Dogm.: "If the soul leans towards sin, it is burdened
+                     rather than purified from partaking of the Eucharist." Hence, in him who is conscious of mortal sin, this sacrament does not
+                     cause the forgiveness of sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <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,
+                     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
+                     conscious, and for which he has no attachment; since possibly he was not sufficiently contrite at first, but by approaching
+                     this sacrament devoutly and reverently he obtains the grace of charity, which will perfect his contrition and bring
+                     forgiveness of sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A3-p9">
+                     <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 
+                     <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
+                     strength be bestowed on us to avoid sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A3-p10">
+                     <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
+                     of ablution. Consequently, in both respects he who is conscious of mortal sin does not improperly approach Baptism. But in
+                     this sacrament man receives Christ within himself by way of spiritual nourishment, which is unbecoming to one that lies dead
+                     in his sins. Therefore the comparison does not hold good.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A3-p11">
+                     <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
+                     on the sinner. But it is not given so in this sacrament. Hence the argument does not prove.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A3-p12"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A3-p13"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A4.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q79_A4" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A5.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q79_A4-p0.1">Whether venial sins are forgiven through this sacrament?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A4-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A4-p2">
+                     <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
+                     (Tract. xxvi in Joan.). But venial sins are not contrary to charity, as was shown in the 
+                     <a id="TP_Q79_A4-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q88_A1.html">FS, Q[88], AA[1]</a>,2; 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A4-p3">
+                     <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
+                     does not appear that all are forgiven, because thus one might frequently be without any venial sin, against what is said in
+                     
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A4-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, contraries mutually exclude each other. But venial sins do not forbid the receiving of this sacrament: because Augustine
+                     says on the words, "If any man eat of it he shall [Vulg.: 'may'] not die for ever" (
+                     <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
+                     sins taken away by this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A4-p5">
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A4-p6">
+                     <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
+                     from both that this sacrament has the power of forgiving venial sins. For this sacrament is received under the form of nourishing
+                     food. Now nourishment from food is requisite for the body to make good the daily waste caused by the action of natural heat.
+                     But something is also lost daily of our spirituality from the heat of
+                     concupiscence through venial sins, which lessen the fervor of charity, as was shown in the 
+                     <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
+                     is taken "as a remedy against daily infirmity."
+                  </p>
+                  <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;
+                     and by this means venial sins are forgiven. Consequently, it is manifest that venial sins are forgiven by the power of this
+                     sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A4-p8">
+                     <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
+                     kindled by this sacrament; by reason of which act venial sins are blotted out.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A4-p9">
+                     <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
+                     the just do not pass through this life without committing venial sins.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A4-p10">
+                     <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
+                     away venial sins, which nevertheless cannot entirely hinder the act of charity. And the same holds good of this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A4-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A4-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A5.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q79_A5" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A6.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q79_A5-p0.1">Whether the entire punishment due to sin is forgiven through this sacrament?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A5-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A5-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the entire punishment due to sin is forgiven through this sacrament. For through this sacrament man receives
+                     the effect of Christ's Passion within himself as stated above (
+                     <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
+                     Christ's Passion, which satisfied sufficiently for all sins, as was explained above (Q[69], A[2] ). Therefore it seems the
+                     whole debt of punishment is forgiven through this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A5-p3">
+                     <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."
+                     But man satisfied for his sins by the sacrifices of the old Law: for it is written (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q79_A5-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.4" target="asv">Lev. 4</a>, 
+                     <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
+                     much more for the forgiveness of all punishment.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A5-p4">
+                     <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
+                     enjoined upon a man, by way of satisfaction, to have masses said for himself. But if one part of the punishment is forgiven,
+                     for the same reason is the other forgiven: owing to Christ's infinite power contained in this sacrament. Consequently, it
+                     seems that the whole punishment can be taken away by this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A5-p5">
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A5-p6">
+                     <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
+                     has the nature of a sacrament inasmuch as it is received. And therefore it has the effect of a sacrament in the recipient,
+                     and the effect of a sacrifice in the offerer, or in them for whom it is offered.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     the sacrament; secondly as by a kind of concomitance, as was said above regarding what is contained in the sacrament (
+                     <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
+                     not for satisfaction, but for nourishing spiritually through union between Christ
+                     and His members, as nourishment is united with the person nourished. But because this union is the effect of charity, from
+                     the fervor of which man obtains forgiveness, not only of guilt but also of punishment, hence it is that as a consequence,
+                     and by concomitance with the chief effect, man obtains forgiveness of the punishment, not indeed of the entire punishment,
+                     but according to the measure of his devotion and fervor.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     rather than the quantity of the offering. Hence our Lord says (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q79_A5-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.12.43" target="asv">Mk. 12:43</a>: cf.
+                     <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
+                     own quantity to satisfy for all punishment, yet it becomes satisfactory for them for whom it is offered,
+                     or even for the offerers, according to the measure of their devotion, and not for the whole punishment.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A5-p9">
+                     <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
+                     is given to man as dying with Christ, whereas the Eucharist is given as by way of nourishing and perfecting him through Christ.
+                     Consequently there is no parallel.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A5-p10">
+                     <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
+                     the thing offered, as this sacrament does, nor as to personal devotion; from which it comes to pass that even here the whole
+                     punishment is not taken away.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A5-p11">
+                     <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
+                     power, but on the part of man's devotion.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A5-p12"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A5-p13"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A6.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q79_A6" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A7.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q79_A6-p0.1">Whether man is preserved by this sacrament from future sins?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A6-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A6-p2">
+                     <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,
+                     who afterwards fall into sin. Now this would not happen if this sacrament were to preserve them from future sins. Consequently,
+                     it is not an effect of this sacrament to preserve from future sins.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A6-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Eucharist is the sacrament of charity, as stated above 
+                     <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
+                     was stated in the 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A6-p4">
+                     <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 (
+                     <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
+                     Baptism. Therefore preservation from sin is not an effect of this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A6-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> our Lord said (
+                     <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
+                     be understood of the death of the body. Therefore it is to be understood that this sacrament preserves from spiritual death,
+                     which is through sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A6-p6">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     inner decay, and so by means of food and medicine he is preserved from death. Secondly, by being guarded against outward assaults;
+                     and thus he is protected by means of arms by which he defends his body.
+                  </p>
+                  <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,
+                     it strengthens his spiritual life, as spiritual food and spiritual medicine, according to
+                     <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
+                     without fear; it is bread, not poison." Secondly, inasmuch as it is a sign of Christ's Passion, whereby the
+                     devils are conquered, it repels all the assaults of demons. Hence Chrysostom says (Hom. xlvi in Joan.): "Like lions breathing
+                     forth fire, thus do we depart from that table, being made terrible to the devil."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A6-p8">
+                     <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
+                     effect is received in matter according to the condition of the matter. But such is the condition of man on earth that his
+                     free-will can be bent to good or evil. Hence, although this sacrament of itself has the power of preserving from sin, yet
+                     it does not take away from man the possibility of sinning.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A6-p9">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Even charity of itself keeps man from sin, according to 
+                     <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
+                     charity, just as after receiving this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A6-p10">
+                     <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
+                     it increases charity, because, as Augustine says (
+                     <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
+                     is also preserved from sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A6-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A6-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A7.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q79_A7" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A6.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A8.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q79_A7-p0.1">Whether this sacrament benefit others besides the recipients?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A7-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A7-p2">
+                     <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,
+                     being one of those into which that genus is divided. But the other sacraments only benefit the recipients; thus the baptized
+                     person alone receives effect of Baptism. Therefore, neither does this sacrament benefit others than the recipients.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A7-p3">
+                     <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
+                     sin. If therefore this sacrament were to produce its effects in others besides the recipients, a man might happen to acquire
+                     grace and glory and forgiveness of sin without doing or receiving anything himself, through another receiving or offering
+                     this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A7-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, when the cause is multiplied, the effect is likewise multiplied. If therefore this sacrament benefit others besides
+                     the recipients, it would follow that it benefits a man more if he receive this sacrament through many hosts being consecrated
+                     in one mass, whereas this is not the Church's custom: for instance, that many receive communion for the salvation of one individual.
+                     Consequently, it does not seem that this sacrament benefits anyone but the
+                     recipient.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A7-p5">
+                     <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
+                     not beneficial to others. Therefore, this sacrament is beneficial not merely to them who receive it.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A7-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above 
+                     <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
+                     sacrament Christ's Passion is represented, whereby Christ "offered Himself a Victim to God" (
+                     <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.
+                     So, then, this sacrament benefits recipients by
+                     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
+                     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
+                     with all heavenly benediction and grace."
+                  </p>
+                  <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.
+                     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
+                     who offer up to Thee, this sacrifice of praise for themselves and for all their own, for the redemption of their souls, for
+                     the hope of their safety and salvation." And our Lord expressed both ways, saying (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q79_A7-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.26.28" target="asv">Mat. 26:28,
+                        
+                     </a>with
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A7-p8">
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A7-p9">
+                     <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
+                     effect except in those who are united with Christ's Passion through faith and charity, so likewise this sacrifice, which is
+                     the memorial of our Lord's Passion, has no effect except in those who are united with this sacrament through faith and charity.
+                     Hence Augustine says to Renatus (De Anima et ejus origine i): "Who may offer
+                     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
+                     outside the pale of the Church. But it benefits them who are members, more or less, according to the measure of their devotion.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A7-p10">
+                     <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
+                     or even several receive the body of Christ, no help accrues to others. In like fashion even when the priest consecrates several
+                     hosts in one mass, the effect of this sacrament is not increased, since there is only one sacrifice; because there is no more
+                     power in several hosts than in one, since there is only one Christ present
+                     under all the hosts and under one. Hence, neither will any one receive greater effect from the sacrament by taking many consecrated
+                     hosts in one mass. But the oblation of the sacrifice is multiplied in several masses, and therefore the effect of the sacrifice
+                     and of the sacrament is multiplied.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A7-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A7-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A6.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A8.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q79_A8" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A7.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q79_A8-p0.1">Whether the effect of this sacrament is hindered by venial sin?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A8-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A8-p2">
+                     <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
+                     on
+                     <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,
+                     though they be daily, let them not be deadly." From this it is evident that venial sins, which are called daily sins, do not
+                     prevent spiritual eating. But they who eat spiritually,
+                     receive the effect of this sacrament. Therefore, venial sins do not hinder the effect of this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A8-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, this sacrament is not less powerful than Baptism. But, as stated above (
+                     <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 
+                     <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
+                     do venial sins hinder the effect of this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A8-p4">
+                     <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
+                     away by this sacrament. Therefore, they do not hinder its effect.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A8-p5">
+                     <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.
+                     this sacrament, "will consume our sins, and enlighten our hearts, so that we shall be inflamed and made godlike." But the
+                     fire of our desire or love is hindered by venial sins, which hinder the fervor of charity, as was shown in the 
+                     <a id="TP_Q79_A8-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q81_A4.html">FS, Q[81], A[4]</a>; 
+                     <a id="TP_Q79_A8-p5.2" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q24_A10.html">SS, Q[24], A[10]</a>. Therefore venial
+                     sins hinder the effect of this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A8-p6">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     a man may approach devoutly to this sacrament and fully secure its effect. Considered in the second way venial sins do not
+                     utterly hinder the effect of this sacrament, but merely in part. For, it has been stated above
+                     
+                     <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
+                     of spiritual sweetness: which is indeed hindered if anyone approach to this sacrament with mind distracted through venial
+                     sins; but the increase of habitual grace or of charity is not taken away.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A8-p7">
+                     <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
+                     he shares in the habitual effect of the sacrament, but not in its actual effect.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A8-p8">
+                     <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
+                     regeneration, through which the first perfection is acquired, which is a habit or form; but this sacrament is spiritual eating,
+                     which has actual delight.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A8-p9">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This argument deals with past venial sins, which are taken away by this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A8-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q79_A8-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A7.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q78_A6.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A1.html"></a>
+            </div>
+            <div id="TP_Q80" class="div3">
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A8.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A1.html"></a>
+               <h3 id="TP_Q80-p0.1">OF THE USE OR RECEIVING OF THIS SACRAMENT IN GENERAL (TWELVE ARTICLES) </h3>
+               <p id="TP_Q80-p1"></p>
+               <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>
+               <p id="TP_Q80-p3"> Under the first heading there are twelve points of inquiry:</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q80-p4"> (1) Whether there are two ways of eating this sacrament, namely, sacramentally and spiritually?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q80-p5"> (2) Whether it belongs to man alone to eat this sacrament spiritually?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q80-p6"> (3) Whether it belongs to the just man only to eat it sacramentally?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q80-p7"> (4) Whether the sinner sins in eating it sacramentally?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q80-p8"> (5) Of the degree of this sin;</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q80-p9"> (6) Whether this sacrament should be refused to the sinner that approaches it?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q80-p10"> (7) Whether nocturnal pollution prevents man from receiving this sacrament?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q80-p11"> (8) Whether it is to be received only when one is fasting?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q80-p12"> (9) Whether it is to be given to them who lack the use of reason?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q80-p13"> (10) Whether it is to be received daily?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q80-p14"> (11) Whether it is lawful to refrain from it altogether?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q80-p15"> (12) Whether it is lawful to receive the body without the blood?</p>
+               <div id="TP_Q80_A1" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A2.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q80_A1-p0.1">Whether there are two ways to be distinguished of eating Christ's body?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A1-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A1-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that two ways ought not to be distinguished of eating Christ's body, namely, sacramentally and spiritually. For,
+                     as Baptism is spiritual regeneration, according to
+                     <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,
+                     speaking of this sacrament, says (
+                     <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
+                     no two distinct ways of receiving Baptism, namely, sacramentally and spiritually. Therefore neither ought this distinction
+                     to be made regarding this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A1-p3">
+                     <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
+                     to one another, because the one derives its species from the other. But sacramental eating is ordained for spiritual eating
+                     as its end. Therefore sacramental eating ought not to be divided in contrast with spiritual eating.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A1-p4">
+                     <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
+                     that no one can eat spiritually without eating sacramentally; otherwise the fathers of old would have eaten this sacrament
+                     spiritually. Moreover, sacramental eating would be to no purpose, if the spiritual eating could be had without it. Therefore
+                     it is not right to distinguish a twofold eating, namely, sacramental and spiritual.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A1-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> The gloss says on 
+                     <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
+                     other spiritual."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A1-p6">
+                     <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
+                     we have already spoken of both (QQ[73],79). The perfect way, then, of receiving this sacrament is when one takes it so as
+                     to partake of its effect. Now, as was stated above (
+                     <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
+                     sacrament is an imperfect one. Therefore, as the perfect is divided against the imperfect, so sacramental eating, whereby
+                     the sacrament only is received without its effect, is divided against spiritual eating, by which one receives the effect of
+                     this sacrament, whereby a man is spiritually united with Christ through faith and charity.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A1-p7">
+                     <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
+                     receive the sacrament and the reality of the sacrament. However, there is a difference, because, since the other sacraments
+                     are accomplished in the use of the matter, the receiving of the sacrament is the actual perfection of the sacrament; whereas
+                     this sacrament is accomplished in the consecration of the matter: and consequently
+                     both uses follow the sacrament. On the other hand, in Baptism and in the other sacraments that imprint a character, they who
+                     receive the sacrament receive some spiritual effect, that is, the character. which is not the case in this sacrament. And
+                     therefore, in this sacrament, rather than in Baptism, the sacramental use is distinguished from the spiritual use.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A1-p8">
+                     <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
+                     under it; but that sacramental eating which does not secure the effect, is divided in contrast with spiritual eating; just
+                     as the imperfect, which does not attain the perfection of its species, is divided in contrast with the perfect.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A1-p9">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As stated above (
+                     <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,
+                     just as some are baptized with the Baptism of desire, through their desire of baptism, before being baptized in the Baptism
+                     of water; so likewise some eat this sacrament spiritually ere they receive it sacramentally. Now this happens in two ways.
+                     First of all, from desire of
+                     receiving the sacrament itself, and thus are said to be baptized, and to eat spiritually, and not sacramentally, they who
+                     desire to receive these sacraments since they have been instituted. Secondly, by a figure: thus the Apostle says (
+                     <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 .
+                     . . drank . . . spiritual drink." Nevertheless sacramental eating is not without avail, because the actual
+                     receiving of the sacrament produces more fully the effect of the sacrament than does the desire thereof, as stated above of
+                     Baptism (
+                     <a id="TP_Q80_A1-p9.3" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q69_A4.html">Q[69] , A[4]</a>, ad 2).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A1-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A1-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A2.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q80_A2" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A3.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q80_A2-p0.1">Whether it belongs to man alone to eat this sacrament spiritually?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A2-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A2-p2">
+                     <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
+                     <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
+                     not be so unless the angels were to eat Christ spiritually. Therefore the angels eat Christ spiritually.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A2-p3">
+                     <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
+                     His body and members, which is the Church in His predestinated ones." But not only men, but also the holy angels belong to
+                     that fellowship. Therefore the holy angels eat of it spiritually.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A2-p4">
+                     <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:
+                     '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
+                     to the holy angels, in whom Christ dwells by charity, and they in Him. Consequently, it seems that to eat Christ spiritually
+                     is not for men only, but also for the angels.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A2-p5">
+                     <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
+                     do not approach the altar as for the purpose of taking something therefrom. Therefore the angels do not eat spiritually.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A2-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> Christ Himself is contained in this sacrament, not under His proper species, but under the sacramental species. Consequently
+                     there are two ways of eating spiritually. First, as Christ Himself exists under His proper species, and in this way the angels
+                     eat Christ spiritually inasmuch as they are united with Him in the enjoyment of perfect charity, and in clear vision (and
+                     this is the bread we hope for in heaven), and not by faith, as we are united with Him
+                     here.
+                  </p>
+                  <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,
+                     while desiring to receive this sacrament; and this is not merely to eat Christ spiritually, but likewise to eat this sacrament;
+                     which does not fall to the lot of the angels. And therefore although the angels feed on Christ spiritually, yet it does not
+                     belong to them to eat this sacrament spiritually.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A2-p8">
+                     <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
+                     angels enjoy it; and since the means are gauged by the end, hence it is that such eating of Christ whereby we receive Him
+                     under this sacrament, is, as it were, derived from that eating whereby the angels enjoy Christ in heaven. Consequently, man
+                     is said to eat the "bread of angels," because it belongs to the angels to do so
+                     firstly and principally, since they enjoy Him in his proper species; and secondly it belongs to men, who receive Christ under
+                     this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A2-p9">
+                     <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
+                     are proportioned to faith, through which the truth is seen "through a glass" and "in a dark manner." And therefore, properly
+                     speaking, it does not belong to angels, but to men, to eat this sacrament spiritually.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A2-p10">
+                     <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.
+                     Consequently the comparison does not hold, as stated above (ad 2).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A2-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A2-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A3.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q80_A3" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A4.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q80_A3-p0.1">Whether the just man alone may eat Christ sacramentally?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A3-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A3-p2">
+                     <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.
+                     Tract. in Joan. xxv, n. 12; xxvi, n. 1): "Why make ready tooth and belly? Believe, and thou hast eaten . . . For to believe
+                     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
+                     which it belongs to believe "in God," as stated above in the 
+                     <a id="TP_Q80_A3-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q2_A2.html">SS, Q[2],
+                        A[2]
+                     </a>; 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A3-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, this sacrament is specially called "the sacrament of charity," as stated above (
+                     <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
+                     sacrament, since in the sacramental form it is called the "Mystery of Faith." Therefore, for like reason, the sinner cannot
+                     eat Christ's body sacramentally.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A3-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the sinner is more abominable before God than the irrational creature: for it is said of the sinner (
+                     <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
+                     irrational animal, such as a mouse or a dog, cannot receive this sacrament, just as it cannot receive the sacrament of Baptism.
+                     Therefore it seems that for the like reason neither may sinners eat this
+                     sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A3-p5">
+                     <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
+                     from the altar, and by receiving die: whence the Apostle saith, 'eateth and drinketh judgment to himself.'" But only sinners
+                     die by receiving. Therefore sinners eat the body of Christ sacramentally, and not the just only.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A3-p6">
+                     <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
+                     directly the body is touched by the lips of sinners, it ceases to be under the sacramental species.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     species last, Christ's body does not cease to be under them, as stated above (
+                     <a id="TP_Q80_A3-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q76_A6.html">Q[76], A[6]</a>, ad 3;
+                     <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 (
+                     <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
+                     taken by a sinner does not at once cease to be, but it continues until digested by natural heat: hence Christ's body remains
+                     just as long under the sacramental species when taken by sinners. Hence it must be said that the sinner, and not merely the
+                     just, can eat Christ's body.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A3-p8">
+                     <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,
+                     it is from such expressions being misunderstood that the above error seems to have arisen, through ignorance of the distinction
+                     between corporeal and spiritual eating.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A3-p9">
+                     <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
+                     eat Christ sacramentally, if the word "sacramentally" qualify the verb on the part of the thing eaten. But if it qualify the
+                     verb on the part of the one eating, then, properly speaking, he does not eat sacramentally, because he uses what he takes,
+                     not as a sacrament, but as simple food. Unless perchance the unbeliever were to
+                     intend to receive what the Church bestows; without having proper faith regarding the other articles, or regarding this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A3-p10">
+                     <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
+                     the species, so long as those species remain, and that is, so long as the substance of bread would have remained; just as
+                     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
+                     by sinners without detracting from His dignity; especially since the mouse or dog
+                     does not touch Christ's body in its proper species, but only as to its sacramental species. Some, however, have said that
+                     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
+                     of the sacrament, as stated above. None the less it must not be said that the irrational animal eats the body of Christ sacramentally;
+                     since it is incapable of using it as a sacrament. Hence it eats Christ's body "accidentally," and not sacramentally,
+                     just as if anyone not knowing a host to be consecrated were to consume it. And since no genus is divided by an accidental
+                     difference, therefore this manner of eating Christ's body is not set down as a third way besides sacramental and spiritual
+                     eating.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A3-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A3-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A4.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q80_A4" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A5.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q80_A4-p0.1">Whether the sinner sins in receiving Christ's body sacramentally?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A4-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A4-p2">
+                     <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
+                     the sacramental species than under His own. But sinners did not sin when they touched Christ's body under its proper species;
+                     nay, rather they obtained forgiveness of their sins, as we read in 
+                     <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 (
+                     <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
+                     healed." Therefore, they do not sin, but rather obtain salvation, by receiving the body of Christ.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A4-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, this sacrament, like the others, is a spiritual medicine. But medicine is given to the sick for their recovery,
+                     according to
+                     <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
+                     sacrament can be received by them without sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A4-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, this sacrament is one of our greatest gifts, since it contains Christ. But according to Augustine (De Lib. Arb.
+                     ii), the greatest gifts are those "which no one can abuse." Now no one sins except by abusing something. Therefore no sinner
+                     sins by receiving this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A4-p5">
+                     <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
+                     the sacrament, it seems that he would sin by beholding it, which is manifestly untrue, since the Church exposes this sacrament
+                     to be seen and adored by all. Therefore the sinner does not sin by eating this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A4-p6">
+                     <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
+                     the body of Christ, for according to this all who receive it would sin, as exposing themselves to danger, since the Apostle
+                     says (
+                     <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,
+                     does not appear to be guilty of sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A4-p7">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
+                     <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:
+                     "He eats and drinks unworthily who is in sin, or who handles it irreverently." Therefore, if anyone, while in mortal sin,
+                     receives this sacrament, he purchases damnation, by sinning mortally.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A4-p8">
+                     <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
+                     twofold reality of this sacrament, as stated above (
+                     <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
+                     mystical body, which is the fellowship of the saints. Therefore, whoever receives this sacrament, expresses thereby that he
+                     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
+                     sin. And therefore it is manifest that whoever receives this sacrament while in mortal sin, is guilty of lying to this sacrament,
+                     and consequently of sacrilege, because he profanes the sacrament: and therefore he sins mortally.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A4-p9">
+                     <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
+                     with Himself, as He gives Himself to be received in this sacrament. And therefore sinners in touching Him under His proper
+                     species did not incur the sin of lying to Godlike things, as sinners do in receiving this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     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,
+                     for her faith in Him was defective, according to
+                     <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.).
+                     And therefore sinners, who
+                     lack living faith regarding Christ are not allowed to touch this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A4-p11">
+                     <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
+                     be hurtful to them if given while yet in their feverish condition. So likewise Baptism and Penance are as purgative medicines,
+                     given to take away the fever of sin; whereas this sacrament is a medicine given to strengthen, and it ought not to be given
+                     except to them who are quit of sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A4-p12">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     are proud of their virtues. So likewise this sacrament, so far as the sacrament is concerned, is not the principle of an evil
+                     use, but the object thereof. Hence Augustine says (Tract. lxii in Joan.): "Many
+                     receive Christ's body unworthily; whence we are taught what need there is to beware of receiving a good thing evilly . . .
+                     For behold, of a good thing, received evilly, evil is wrought": just as on the other hand, in the Apostle's case, "good was
+                     wrought through evil well received," namely, by bearing patiently the sting of Satan.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A4-p13">
+                     <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
+                     Christ's body, but only to the sacramental species, as stated above (
+                     <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,
+                     no one is forbidden to behold Christ's body, when once he has received Christ's sacrament, namely,
+                     Baptism: whereas the non-baptized are not to be allowed even to see this sacrament, as is clear from Dionysius (Eccl. Hier.
+                     vii). But only those are to be allowed to share in the eating who are united with Christ not merely sacramentally, but likewise
+                     really.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A4-p14">
+                     <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
+                     through ignorance of the law (which ignorance does not excuse him), he thinks something not to be sinful which is a sin, as
+                     for example if one guilty of fornication were to deem simple fornication not to be a mortal sin; or because he neglects to
+                     examine his conscience, which is opposed to what the Apostle says (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A4-p14.1" 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." And in this way nevertheless the
+                     sinner who receives Christ's body commits sin, although unconscious thereof, because the very ignorance is a sin on his part.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     contrite: and in such a case he does not sin in receiving the body of Christ, because a man cannot know for certain whether
+                     he is truly contrite. It suffices, however, if he find in himself the marks of contrition, for instance, if he "grieve over
+                     past sins," and "propose to avoid them in the future" [*Cf. Rule of Augustine]. But if he be ignorant that
+                     what he did was a sinful act, through ignorance of the fact, which excuses, for instance, if a man approach a woman whom he
+                     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
+                     forgotten his sin, general contrition suffices for blotting it out, as will be said hereafter (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A4-p16"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A4-p17"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A5.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q80_A5" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A6.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q80_A5-p0.1">Whether to approach this sacrament with consciousness of sin is the gravest of all sins?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A5-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A5-p2">
+                     <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 (
+                     <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
+                     of the Lord": upon which the gloss observes: "He shall be punished as though he slew Christ." But the sin of them who slew
+                     Christ seems to have been most grave. Therefore this sin,
+                     whereby a man approaches Christ's table with consciousness of sin, appears to be the gravest.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A5-p3">
+                     <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
+                     altar?" [*The remaining part of the quotation is not from St. Jerome]. Say, priest, say, cleric, how dost thou kiss the Son
+                     of God with the same lips wherewith thou hast kissed the daughter of a harlot? "Judas, thou betrayest the Son of Man with
+                     a kiss!" And thus it appears that the fornicator approaching Christ's table sins as Judas did,
+                     whose sin was most grave. But there are many other sins which are graver than fornication, especially the sin of unbelief.
+                     Therefore the sin of every sinner approaching Christ's table is the gravest of all.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A5-p4">
+                     <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
+                     or a cess-pool, his sin would be reputed a most grave one. Therefore, he sins more deeply by receiving it with sin, which
+                     is spiritual uncleanness, upon his soul.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A5-p5">
+                     <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
+                     Joan.), that this is to be understood of the sin of unbelief, "in which all sins are comprised," and so the greatest of all
+                     sins appears to be, not this, but rather the sin of unbelief.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A5-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As stated in the 
+                     <a id="TP_Q80_A5-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q73_A3.html">FS, Q[73], AA[3]</a>,6; 
+                     <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,
+                     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
+                     is greater. And since Christ's Godhead is greater than His humanity, and His humanity greater than the
+                     sacraments of His humanity, hence it is that those are the gravest sins which are committed against the Godhead, such as unbelief
+                     and blasphemy. The second degree of gravity is held by those sins which are committed against His humanity: hence it is written
+                     (
+                     <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
+                     Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the world to come."
+                     In the third place come sins committed against the sacraments, which belong to Christ's humanity; and after these are the
+                     other sins committed against mere creatures.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     or of weakness is lighter than one arising from contempt, or from sure knowledge; and the same reason holds good of other
+                     circumstances. And according to this, the above sin can be graver in some, as happens in them who from actual contempt and
+                     with consciousness of sin approach this sacrament: but in others it is less grave; for instance, in those who
+                     from fear of their sin being discovered, approach this sacrament with consciousness of sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <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>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A5-p9">
+                     <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
+                     against Christ's body; but not according to the degree of the crime. Because the sin of Christ's slayers was much graver,
+                     first of all, because their sin was against Christ's body in its own species, while this sin is against it under sacramental
+                     species; secondly, because their sin came of the intent of injuring Christ,
+                     while this does not.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A5-p10">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     resemblance in crime applies no less to other sinners than to fornicators: because by other mortal sins, sinners act against
+                     the charity of Christ, of which this sacrament is the sign, and all the more
+                     according as their sins are graver. But in a measure the sin of fornication makes one more unfit for receiving this sacrament,
+                     because thereby especially the spirit becomes enslaved by the flesh, which is a hindrance to the fervor of love required for
+                     this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     severs a man from the unity of the Church, simply speaking, makes him to be utterly unfit for receiving this sacrament; because
+                     it is the sacrament of the Church's unity, as stated above (
+                     <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
+                     contempt towards Christ Who is in the sacrament, especially if he does not believe Christ to be truly in this sacrament; because,
+                     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
+                     the sacrament in itself. But the believer who receives the sacrament with consciousness of sin, by receiving it unworthily
+                     despises the sacrament, not in itself, but in its use. Hence the Apostle (
+                     <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
+                     sin, says, "not discerning the body of the Lord," that is, not distinguishing it from other food: and this is what he does
+                     who disbelieves Christ's presence in this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A5-p12">
+                     <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
+                     fully conscious of mortal sin. First of all, because he would intend to outrage the sacrament, whereas the sinner receiving
+                     Christ's body unworthily has no such intent; secondly, because the sinner is capable of grace; hence he is more capable of
+                     receiving this sacrament than any irrational creature. Hence he would make a
+                     most revolting use of this sacrament who would throw it to dogs to eat, or fling it in the mire to be trodden upon.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A5-p13"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A5-p14"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A6.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q80_A6" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A7.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q80_A6-p0.1">Whether the priest ought to deny the body of Christ to the sinner seeking it?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A6-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A6-p2">
+                     <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
+                     for the sake of avoiding scandal or on account of infamy to anyone. But (
+                     <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
+                     this sacrament to sinners. Therefore, neither on account of avoiding scandal or infamy should this sacrament be
+                     administered to the sinner who asks for it.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A6-p3">
+                     <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
+                     unconsecrated host be given to him; than for him to sin mortally by receiving the body of Christ. Consequently, it seems that
+                     the course to be adopted is either that the sinner seeking the body of Christ be exposed to infamy, or that an unconsecrated
+                     host be given to him.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A6-p4">
+                     <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
+                     in the Decretals: "It often happens that thefts are perpetrated in monasteries of monks; wherefore we command that when the
+                     brethren have to exonerate themselves of such acts, that the abbot shall celebrate Mass, or someone else deputed by him, in
+                     the presence of the community; and so, when the Mass is over, all shall communicate under
+                     these words: 'May the body of Christ prove thee today.'" And further on: "If any evil deed be imputed to a bishop or priest,
+                     for each charge he must say Mass and communicate, and show that he is innocent of each act imputed." But secret sinners must
+                     not be disclosed, for, once the blush of shame is set aside, they will indulge the more in sin, as Augustine says (De Verbis.
+                     Dom.; cf. Serm. lxxxii). Consequently, Christ's body is not to be given to occult sinners, even if they ask for it.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A6-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> on
+                     <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
+                     the earth," i.e. sinners, "from eating at the table of the Lord."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A6-p6">
+                     <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
+                     usurers, or public robbers, or from being denounced as evil men by some ecclesiastical or civil tribunal. Therefore Holy Communion
+                     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
+                     to consider that I ought to be consulted regarding actors, end that magician who
+                     continues to practice his disgraceful arts among you; as to whether I thought that Holy Communion ought to be given to such
+                     with the other Christians. I think that it is beseeming neither the Divine majesty, nor Christian discipline, for the Church's
+                     modesty and honor to be defiled by such shameful and infamous contagion."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     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
+                     some open cause. Hence on 
+                     <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,
+                     except he has openly confessed, or has been named and convicted by
+                     some ecclesiastical or lay tribunal." Nevertheless a priest who has knowledge of the crime can privately warn the secret sinner,
+                     or warn all openly in public, from approaching the Lord's table, until they have repented of their sins and have been reconciled
+                     to the Church; because after repentance and reconciliation, Communion must not be refused even to public sinners, especially
+                     in the hour of death. Hence in the (3rd) Council of Carthage (Can. xxxv) we read: "Reconciliation is not to be
+                     denied to stage-players or actors, or others of the sort, or to apostates, after their conversion to God."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A6-p8">
+                     <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,
+                     but are to be left to the Divine judgment.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A6-p9">
+                     <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
+                     for the priest administering the body of Christ it is worse to commit mortal sin by unjustly defaming the hidden sinner than
+                     that the sinner should sin mortally; because no one ought to commit mortal sin in order to keep another out of mortal sin.
+                     Hence Augustine says (Quaest. super 
+                     <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,
+                     for us to do evil lest another perpetrate a greater evil." But the secret sinner ought rather to prefer infamy than approach
+                     the Lord's table unworthily.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     as he is concerned, makes others, either the bystanders or the communicant, commit idolatry by believing that it is a consecrated
+                     host; because, as Augustine says on
+                     <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)
+                     it is said: "Although he who reputes
+                     himself unworthy of the Sacrament, through consciousness of his sin, sins gravely, if he receive; still he seems to offend
+                     more deeply who deceitfully has presumed to simulate it."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A6-p11">
+                     <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
+                     Canons do not allow of a confession being extorted from any person by trial made by burning iron or boiling water; it belongs
+                     to our government to judge of public crimes committed, and that by means of confession made spontaneously, or by proof of
+                     witnesses: but private and unknown crimes are to be left to Him Who alone knows
+                     the hearts of the sons of men." And the same is found in the Decretals (Extra, De Purgationibus, Ch. Ex tuarum). Because in
+                     all such practices there seems to be a tempting of God; hence such things cannot be done without sin. And it would seem graver
+                     still if anyone were to incur judgment of death through this sacrament, which was instituted as a means of salvation. Consequently,
+                     the body of Christ should never be given to anyone suspected of crime, as by way of examination.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A6-p12"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A6-p13"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A7.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q80_A7" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A6.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A8.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q80_A7-p0.1">Whether the seminal loss that occurs during sleep hinders anyone from receiving this sacrament?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A7-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A7-p2">
+                     <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
+                     the body of Christ except on account of sin. But seminal loss happens without sin: for Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii) that
+                     "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
+                     unable to distinguish the image from the reality, and is moved carnally and with the
+                     result that usually follows such motions; and there is as little sin in this as there is in speaking and therefore thinking
+                     about such things." Consequently these motions do not prevent one from receiving this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A7-p3">
+                     <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
+                     from lust, but from desire to have children, should be left to their own judgment, as to whether they should enter the church
+                     and receive the mystery of our Lord's body, after such intercourse: because they ought not to be forbidden from receiving
+                     it, since they have passed through the fire unscorched."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     of Christ. Consequently, much less is it in the case of one asleep.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A7-p5">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, these movements of the flesh seem to bring with them only bodily uncleanness. But there are other bodily defilements
+                     which according to the Law forbade entrance into the holy places, yet which under the New Law do not prevent receiving this
+                     sacrament: as, for instance, in the case of a woman after child-birth, or in her periods, or suffering from issue of blood,
+                     as Gregory writes to Augustine, Bishop of the English (Regist. xi). Therefore it seems
+                     that neither do these movements of the flesh hinder a man from receiving this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A7-p6">
+                     <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, venial sin is no hindrance to receiving the sacrament, nor is mortal sin after repentance. But even supposing that
+                     seminal loss arises from some foregoing sin, whether of intemperance, or of bad thoughts, for the most part such sin is venial;
+                     and if occasionally it be mortal, a man may repent of it by morning and confess it. Consequently, it seems that he ought not
+                     to be prevented from receiving this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A7-p7">
+                     <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
+                     the Fifth or Seventh or any other Commandment, he is not on that account debarred from receiving this sacrament. Therefore
+                     it seems that much less should he be debarred through defilement resulting from a dream against the Sixth Commandment.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A7-p8">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
+                     <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
+                     no approaching to the sacraments. Therefore, it seems that owing to such defilement of the flesh a man is debarred from taking
+                     this which is the greatest of the sacraments.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A7-p9">
+                     <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
+                     man from receiving this sacrament; the other, on account of which they do so, not of necessity, but from a sense of propriety.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A7-p10"> Mortal sin alone necessarily prevents anyone from partaking of this sacrament: and although these movements during sleep,
+                     considered in themselves, cannot be a mortal sin, nevertheless, owing to their cause, they have mortal sin connected with
+                     them; which cause, therefore, must be investigated. Sometimes they are due to an external spiritual cause, viz. the deception
+                     of the demons, who can stir up phantasms, as was stated in the 
+                     <a id="TP_Q80_A7-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q111_A3.html">FP, Q[111], A[3]</a>,
+                     through the apparition of which, these movements occasionally follow. Sometimes they are due to an internal spiritual cause,
+                     such as previous thoughts. At other times they arise from some internal corporeal cause, as from abundance or weakness of
+                     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
+                     venial sin, or with mortal sin. If it be without sin, or with venial sin, it does not necessarily prevent the receiving of
+                     this
+                     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
+                     of necessity.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     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
+                     this sacrament. So we read in the Conferences of the Fathers (Cassian, Collat. xxii) that when a certain one always suffered
+                     thus on those feast-days on which he had to receive Communion, his superiors, discovering that there was
+                     no fault on his part, ruled that he was not to refrain from communicating on that account, and the demoniacal illusion ceased.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     on account of lecturing or debating; and if it be done without concupiscence and delectation, the thoughts will not be unclean
+                     but honest; and yet defilement can come of such thoughts, as is clear from the authority of Augustine (OBJ[1]). At other times
+                     such thoughts come of concupiscence and delectation, and should there be consent, it will be a mortal sin:
+                     otherwise it will be a venial sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     suffer seminal loss without sin even in their wakeful hours; or it can come from the abundance of nature: for, just as blood
+                     can flow without sin, so also can the semen which is superfluity of the blood, according to the Philosopher (De Gener. Animal.
+                     i). But occasionally it is with sin, as when it is due to excess of food or drink. And this also can be
+                     either venial or mortal sin; although more frequently the sin is mortal in the case of evil thoughts on account of the proneness
+                     to consent, rather than in the case of consumption of food and drink. Hence Gregory, writing to Augustine, Bishop of the English
+                     (Regist. xi), says that one ought to refrain from Communion when this arises from evil thoughts, but not when it arises from
+                     excess of food or drink, especially if necessity call for Communion. So, then, one must judge from its cause whether
+                     such bodily defilement of necessity hinders the receiving of this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     defilement, with which, out of reverence for the sacrament, it is unbecoming to approach the altar (and hence those who wish
+                     to touch any sacred object, wash their hands): except perchance such uncleanness be perpetual or of long standing, such as
+                     leprosy or issue of blood, or anything else of the kind. The other reason is the mental distraction which
+                     follows after the aforesaid movements, especially when they take place with unclean imaginings. Now this obstacle, which arises
+                     from a sense of decency, can be set aside owing to any necessity, as Gregory says (Regist. xi): "As when perchance either
+                     a festival day calls for it, or necessity compels one to exercise the ministry because there is no other priest at hand."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A7-p15">
+                     <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
+                     be hindered through other causes, as stated above.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A7-p16">
+                     <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
+                     the marriage debt), does not prevent the receiving of this sacrament for any other reason than do those movements in question
+                     which happen without sin, as stated above; namely, on account of the defilement to the body and distraction to the mind. On
+                     this account Jerome expresses himself in the following terms in his commentary on
+                     Matthew (Epist. xxviii, among St. Jerome's works): "If the loaves of Proposition might not be eaten by them who had known
+                     their wives carnally, how much less may this bread which has come down from heaven be defiled and touched by them who shortly
+                     before have been in conjugal embraces? It is not that we condemn marriages, but that at the time when we are going to eat
+                     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,
+                     and
+                     not of necessity, Gregory says that such a person "is to be left to his own judgment." "But if," as Gregory says (Regist.
+                     xi), "it be not desire of begetting offspring, but lust that prevails," then such a one should be forbidden to approach this
+                     sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A7-p17">
+                     <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
+                     polluted figuratively, which the people of the New Law understand spiritually. Hence such bodily uncleannesses, if perpetual
+                     or of long standing, do not hinder the receiving of this saving sacrament, as they prevented approaching those figurative
+                     sacraments; but if they pass speedily, like the uncleanness of the aforesaid
+                     movements, then from a sense of fittingness they hinder the receiving of this sacrament during the day on which it happens.
+                     Hence it is written (
+                     <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
+                     return before he be washed with water in the evening."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A7-p18">
+                     <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,
+                     nor the mental distraction which follows therefrom.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A7-p19">
+                     <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
+                     delectation; still if the dream of homicide comes of a cause sinful in itself, especially if it be mortal sin, then owing
+                     to its cause it hinders the receiving of this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A7-p20"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A7-p21"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A6.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A8.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q80_A8" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A7.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A9.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q80_A8-p0.1">Whether food or drink taken beforehand hinders the receiving of this sacrament?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A8-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A8-p2">
+                     <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
+                     by our Lord at the supper. But when the supper was ended our Lord gave the sacrament to His disciples, as is evident from
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A8-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.22.20" target="asv"> Lk. 22:20, </a> and from 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A8-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is written (
+                     <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":
+                     and thus it seems that after eating at home a man may eat Christ's body in the Church.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A8-p4">
+                     <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
+                     who are fasting, with the exception of the anniversary day on which the Lord's Supper is celebrated." Therefore, at least
+                     on that day, one may receive the body of Christ after partaking of other food.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A8-p5">
+                     <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
+                     continuing in the mouth, neither breaks the Church's fast, nor takes away the sobriety required for reverently receiving this
+                     sacrament. Consequently, one is not prevented by the above things from receiving this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A8-p6">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     and afterwards receive this sacrament about the ninth hour, since also there is occasionally a longer interval of time. Consequently,
+                     it seems that such taking of food beforehand does not keep one from this
+                     sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A8-p7">
+                     <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
+                     after receiving the sacrament. Therefore one may do so before receiving it.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A8-p8">
+                     <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
+                     Lord's body should enter the mouth of a Christian before other foods."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A8-p9">
+                     <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
+                     to what is signified by this sacrament, as stated above 
+                     <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
+                     food or drink, for three reasons. First, as Augustine says (Resp. ad Januar., Ep. liv), "out of respect for this sacrament,"
+                     so
+                     that it may enter into a mouth not yet contaminated by any food or drink. Secondly, because of its signification. i.e. to
+                     give us to understand that Christ, Who is the reality of this sacrament, and His charity, ought to be first of all established
+                     in our hearts, according to
+                     <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
+                     over-indulging in food, as the Apostle says (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A8-p9.3" href="./asv.html#iCor.11.21" target="asv">1 Cor.
+                        11:21
+                     </a>): "One, indeed, is hungry, and another is drunk."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     there be any doubt as to their danger, lest they die without Communion, because necessity has no law. Hence it is said in
+                     the Canon de Consecratione: "Let the priest at once take Communion to the sick person, lest he die without Communion."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A8-p11">
+                     <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
+                     should assemble after dinner or supper in order to partake of it, or receive it at meal-time, as did those whom the Apostle
+                     reproves and corrects. For our Saviour, in order the more strongly to commend the depth of this mystery, wished to fix it
+                     closely in the hearts and memories of the disciples. and on that account He gave
+                     no command for it to be received in that order, leaving this to the apostles, to whom He was about to entrust the government
+                     of the churches."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A8-p12">
+                     <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
+                     food at home, that is, let him fill himself with earthly bread, without partaking of the Eucharist afterwards."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A8-p13">
+                     <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
+                     day after breaking their fast, so as to represent the Lord's supper. But this is now abrogated, because as Augustine says
+                     (Resp. ad Januar., Ep. liv), it is customary throughout the whole world for Christ's body to be received before breaking the
+                     fast.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A8-p14">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> As stated in the 
+                     <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
+                     by way of food or drink: and such fast is required for this sacrament for the reasons given above. And therefore it is never
+                     lawful to take this sacrament after taking water, or other food or drink, or even medicine, no matter how small the quantity
+                     be. Nor does it
+                     matter whether it nourishes or not, whether it be taken by itself or with other things, provided it be taken by way of food
+                     or drink. But the remains of food left in the mouth, if swallowed accidentally, do not hinder receiving this sacrament, because
+                     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
+                     wine wherewith the mouth is rinsed, provided they be not swallowed in great quantity, but mixed with saliva.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     mentioned (in the objection), because they do not give much nourishment, but are taken rather as an alterative.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A8-p16">
+                     <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
+                     of all time, otherwise he who had once eaten or drunk could never afterwards take this sacrament: but it must be understood
+                     of the same day; and although the beginning of the day varies according to different systems of reckoning (for some begin
+                     their day at noon, some at sunset, others at midnight, and others at sunrise), the Roman
+                     Church begins it at midnight. Consequently, if any person takes anything by way of food or drink after midnight, he may not
+                     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
+                     the precept is concerned, whether he has slept after taking food or drink, or whether he has digested it; but it does matter
+                     as to the mental disturbance which one suffers from want of sleep or from indigestion, for, if the mind be much disturbed,
+                     one
+                     becomes unfit for receiving this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A8-p17">
+                     <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
+                     sacrament is bestowed, and such devotion is hindered more by what goes before it than by what comes after it. And therefore
+                     it was ordained that men should fast before receiving the sacrament rather than after. Nevertheless there ought to be some
+                     interval between receiving this sacrament and taking other food. Consequently, both the
+                     Postcommunion prayer of thanksgiving is said in the Mass, and the communicants say their own private prayers.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     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
+                     or fourth hour, they shall fast until evening." For in olden times, the priest celebrated Mass less frequently, and with greater
+                     preparation: but now, because the sacred mysteries have to be celebrated oftener, the same could not be
+                     easily observed, and so it has been abrogated by contrary custom.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A8-p19"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A8-p20"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A7.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A9.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q80_A9" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A8.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A10.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q80_A9-p0.1">Whether those who have not the use of reason ought to receive this sacrament?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A9-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A9-p2">
+                     <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
+                     approach this sacrament with devotion and previous self-examination, according to 
+                     <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
+                     who are devoid of reason. Therefore this sacrament should not be given to them.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A9-p3">
+                     <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
+                     from even beholding this sacrament, according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. iii). Therefore this sacrament ought not to be given
+                     to those who have not the use of reason.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A9-p4">
+                     <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
+                     to children. Therefore much less should it be given to others deprived of the use of reason.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A9-p5">
+                     <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
+                     pertain to piety are to be given to the insane": and consequently, since this is the "sacrament of piety," it must be given
+                     to them.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A9-p6">
+                     <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
+                     to see: and since such persons can conceive some devotion towards this sacrament, it is not to be denied them.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     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
+                     devotion towards the sacrament: or else, they were not always devoid of reason, and then, if when they formerly had their
+                     wits they showed devotion towards this sacrament, it ought to be given to them in the hour of death;
+                     unless danger be feared of vomiting or spitting it out. Hence we read in the acts of the Fourth Council of Carthage (Canon
+                     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,
+                     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,
+                     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
+                     shortly, let him be reconciled by imposition of hands, and let the Eucharist be placed in his mouth."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A9-p8">
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A9-p9">
+                     <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
+                     thrives in them through the presence of original sin. But as to baptized persons who are vexed in body by unclean spirits,
+                     the same reason holds good of them as of others who are demented. Hence Cassian says (Collat. vii): "We do not remember the
+                     most Holy Communion to have ever been denied by our elders to them who are vexed by
+                     unclean spirits."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A9-p10">
+                     <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
+                     sacred mysteries are not to be given to them. Although certain Greeks do the contrary, because Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier.
+                     ii) that Holy Communion is to be given to them who are baptized; not understanding that Dionysius is speaking there of the
+                     Baptism of adults. Nor do they suffer any loss of life from the fact of our Lord
+                     saying (
+                     <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
+                     writes to Boniface (Pseudo-Beda, Comment. in 
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     some
+                     devotion for the sacrament, then it can be given to them.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A9-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A9-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A8.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A10.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q80_A10" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A9.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A11.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q80_A10-p0.1">Whether it is lawful to receive this sacrament daily?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A10-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A10-p2">
+                     <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
+                     does this sacrament. Now one may not be baptized several times, but only once, because "Christ died once" only "for our sins,"
+                     according to 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A10-p3">
+                     <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
+                     was said above (
+                     <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
+                     the memorial. It seems, then, that it is lawful to receive this sacrament not daily, but only once in the year.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A10-p4">
+                     <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
+                     from receiving this sacrament; hence the Centurion is praised for saying (
+                     <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 (
+                     <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
+                     daily.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A10-p5">
+                     <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
+                     it would be. But there would be greater frequency if one were to receive it several. times daily; and yet this is not the
+                     custom of the Church. Consequently, it does not seem praiseworthy to receive it daily.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A10-p6">
+                     <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
+                     Communion once a year; hence it is enacted (Extra, De Poenit. et Remiss. xii): "Let every person of either sex devoutly receive
+                     the sacrament of the Eucharist at least at Easter; unless by the advice of his parish priest, and for some reasonable cause,
+                     he considers he ought to refrain from receiving for a time." Consequently, it is not
+                     praiseworthy to receive this sacrament daily.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A10-p7">
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A10-p8">
+                     <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,
+                     the virtue of which gives health to men; and consequently it is profitable to receive it daily so as to receive its fruits
+                     daily. Hence Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): "If, whenever Christ's blood is shed, it is shed for the forgiveness of sins, I
+                     who sin often, should receive it often: I need a frequent remedy." The second thing to be
+                     considered is on the part of the recipient, who is required to approach this sacrament with great reverence and devotion.
+                     Consequently, if anyone finds that he has these dispositions every day, he will do well to receive it daily. Hence, Augustine
+                     after saying, "Receive daily, that it may profit thee daily," adds: "So live, as to deserve to receive it daily." But because
+                     many persons are lacking in this devotion, on account of the many drawbacks both spiritual and corporal from which they
+                     suffer, it is not expedient for all to approach this sacrament every day; but they should do so as often as they find themselves
+                     properly disposed. Hence it is said in De Eccles. Dogmat. liii: "I neither praise nor blame daily reception of the Eucharist."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A10-p9">
+                     <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
+                     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;
+                     He receives Christ Himself, Whose virtue endures for ever. Hence it is written (
+                     <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
+                     man has daily need of Christ's health-giving virtue, he may commendably receive this sacrament every day.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     to be reborn spiritually but once, as Augustine says (Tract. xi in Joan.), commenting on
+                     <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
+                     taken every day, so is it a good thing to receive this sacrament every day. Hence it is that our Lord
+                     (
+                     <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.
+                     xxviii): "If you receive it," i.e. this sacrament, every day, "every day is today for thee, and Christ rises again every day
+                     in thee, for when Christ riseth it is today."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A10-p11">
+                     <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
+                     partaken of once a year only, since Christ died but once. And on this account the Church celebrates once a year the remembrance
+                     of Christ's Passion. But in this sacrament the memorial of His Passion is given by way of food which is partaken of daily;
+                     and therefore in this respect it is represented by the manna which was given
+                     daily to the people in the desert.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A10-p12">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Reverence for this sacrament consists in fear associated with love; consequently reverential fear of God is called filial
+                     fear, as was said in the 
+                     <a id="TP_Q80_A10-p12.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q67_A4.html">FS, Q[67], A[4]</a>, ad 2; 
+                     <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,
+                     each of these belongs to the reverence due to this sacrament; both as to receiving it daily, and
+                     as to refraining from it sometimes. Hence Augustine says (Ep. liv): "If one says that the Eucharist should not be received
+                     daily, while another maintains the contrary, let each one do as according to his devotion he thinketh right; for Zaccheus
+                     and the Centurion did not contradict one another while the one received the Lord with joy, whereas the other said: 'Lord I
+                     am not worthy that Thou shouldst enter under my roof'; since both honored our Saviour, though not in the same way." But love
+                     and
+                     hope, whereunto the Scriptures constantly urge us, are preferable to fear. Hence, too, when Peter had said, "Depart from me,
+                     for I am a sinful man, O Lord," Jesus answered: "Fear not."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A10-p13">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Because our Lord said (
+                     <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
+                     the unity of Christ's Passion is set forth.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A10-p14">
+                     <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
+                     the Christian faith was more flourishing, it was enacted that the faithful should communicate daily: hence Pope Anaclete says
+                     (Ep. i): "When the consecration is finished, let all communicate who do not wish to cut themselves off from the Church; for
+                     so the apostles have ordained, and the holy Roman Church holds." Later on, when the
+                     fervor of faith relaxed, Pope Fabian (Third Council of Tours, Canon 1) gave permission "that all should communicate, if not
+                     more frequently, at least three times in the year, namely, at Easter, Pentecost, and Christmas." Pope Soter likewise (Second
+                     Council of Chalon, Canon xlvii) declares that Communion should be received "on Holy Thursday," as is set forth in the Decretals
+                     (De Consecratione, dist. 2). Later on, when "iniquity abounded and charity grew cold" (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q80_A10-p14.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.24.12" target="asv">Mat. 24:12</a>),
+                     Pope Innocent III commanded that the faithful should communicate "at least once a year," namely, "at Easter." However, in
+                     De Eccles. Dogmat. xxiii, the faithful are counseled "to communicate on all Sundays."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A10-p15"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A10-p16"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A9.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A11.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q80_A11" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A10.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A12.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q80_A11-p0.1">Whether it is lawful to abstain altogether from communion?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A11-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A11-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems to be lawful to abstain altogether from Communion. Because the Centurion is praised for saying (
+                     <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
+                     Communion can be compared to the Centurion, as stated above (A[10], ad 3). Therefore, since we do not read of Christ entering
+                     his house, it seems to be lawful for any individual to abstain from Communion his
+                     whole life long.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A11-p3">
+                     <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
+                     for salvation, as was stated above (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A11-p4">
+                     <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
+                     all communicate thrice each year," adds: "Except those who are hindered by grievous crimes." Consequently, if those who are
+                     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.
+                     Therefore, it seems lawful even for the godly to refrain from Communion.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A11-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> Our Lord said (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A11-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above 
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     eating comprises the desire or yearning for receiving this sacrament, as was said above (A[1], ad 3, A[2]). Therefore, a man
+                     cannot be saved without desiring to
+                     receive this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     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
+                     (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A11-p8">
+                     <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
+                     is not praiseworthy if anyone abstains altogether from Communion against the precept of Christ and the Church. Again the Centurion
+                     was not commanded to receive Christ into his house.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A11-p9">
+                     <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,
+                     but not without the sacrament of Baptism: both, however, are of necessity with regard to adults.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A11-p10">
+                     <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;
+                     and although while continuing in their sins they are not on that account excused from transgressing the precept, nevertheless,
+                     as Pope Innocent III says, penitents, "who refrain on the advice of their priest," are excused.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A11-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A11-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A10.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A12.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q80_A12" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A11.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q81.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q80_A12-p0.1">Whether it is lawful to receive the body of Christ without the blood?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A12-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A12-p2">
+                     <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
+                     learned that some persons after taking only a portion of the sacred body, abstain from the chalice of the sacred blood. I
+                     know not for what superstitious motive they do this: therefore let them either receive the entire sacrament, or let them be
+                     withheld from the sacrament altogether." Therefore it is not lawful to receive the body of Christ
+                     without His blood.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A12-p3">
+                     <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
+                     above (
+                     <a id="TP_Q80_A12-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q73_A2.html">Q[73], A[2]</a>;
+                     <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
+                     sacrilege; hence Pope Gelasius adds (cf. De Consecr. ii), "because the dividing of one and the same mystery cannot happen
+                     without a great
+                     sacrilege."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A12-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, this sacrament is celebrated in memory of our Lord's Passion, as stated above (
+                     <a id="TP_Q80_A12-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q73_A4.html">Q[73], AA[4]</a>,5;
+                     <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
+                     stated above (
+                     <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
+                     the
+                     blood. Therefore, such as approach this sacrament ought not to take Christ's body without His blood.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A12-p5">
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A12-p6">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     of the sacrament lies in both, and consequently, since it is the priest's duty both to consecrate and finish the sacrament,
+                     he ought on no account to receive Christ's body without the blood.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     of so great a mystery. Now this could especially happen in receiving the blood, for, if incautiously handled, it might easily
+                     be spilt. And because the multitude of the Christian people increased, in which there are old, young, and children, some of
+                     whom have not enough discretion to observe due caution in using this sacrament, on that account it is a
+                     prudent custom in some churches for the blood not to be offered to the reception of the people, but to be received by the
+                     priest alone.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A12-p8">
+                     <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.
+                     For, as we read in the (Twelfth) Council of Toledo, "What kind of a sacrifice is that, wherein not even the sacrificer is
+                     known to have a share?"
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A12-p9">
+                     <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
+                     there is nothing derogatory to the perfection of this sacrament; if the people receive the body without the blood, provided
+                     that the priest who consecrates receive both.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A12-p10">
+                     <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
+                     without the blood. But the body can be received by the people without the blood: nor is this detrimental to the sacrament.
+                     Because the priest both offers and consumes the blood on behalf of all; and Christ is fully contained under either species,
+                     as was shown above (
+                     <a id="TP_Q80_A12-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q76_A2.html">Q[76], A[2]</a>).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A12-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q80_A12-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A11.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q81.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q79_A8.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A1.html"></a>
+            </div>
+            <div id="TP_Q81" class="div3">
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A12.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q81_A1.html"></a>
+               <h3 id="TP_Q81-p0.1">OF THE USE WHICH CHRIST MADE OF THIS SACRAMENT AT ITS INSTITUTION (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3>
+               <p id="TP_Q81-p1"></p>
+               <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
+                  points of inquiry:
+               </p>
+               <p id="TP_Q81-p3"> (1) Whether Christ received His own body and blood?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q81-p4"> (2) Whether He gave it to Judas?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q81-p5"> (3) What kind of body did He receive or give, namely, was it passible or impassible?</p>
+               <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
+                  the three days He lay dead?
+               </p>
+               <div id="TP_Q81_A1" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q81.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q81_A2.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q81_A1-p0.1">Whether Christ received His own body and blood?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A1-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A1-p2">
+                     <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
+                     or sayings, which is not handed down by the authority of Sacred Scripture. But it is not narrated in the gospels that He ate
+                     His own body or drank His own blood. Therefore we must not assert this as a fact.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A1-p3">
+                     <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
+                     is stated in Phys. iv. But what is eaten and drunk is in the eater and drinker. Therefore, since the entire Christ is under
+                     each species of the sacrament, it seems impossible for Him to have received this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A1-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the receiving of this sacrament is twofold, namely, spiritual and sacramental. But the spiritual was unsuitable
+                     for Christ, as He derived no benefit from the sacrament. and in consequence so was the sacramental, since it is imperfect
+                     without the spiritual, as was observed above (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A1-p5">
+                     <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
+                     eaten."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A1-p6">
+                     <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.
+                     But this seems improbable. Because Christ Himself was the first to fulfill what He required others to observe: hence He willed
+                     first to be baptized when imposing Baptism upon others: as we read in
+                     <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
+                     be taken by the disciples. And hence the gloss upon
+                     <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
+                     body and blood. Hence, 'because the children partook [*Vulg.: 'are partakers' (
+                     <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.'"
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A1-p7">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     said to the disciples, "Take ye and eat," and again, "Take ye and drink," it is to be understood that He Himself, in taking
+                     it, both ate and drank. Hence some have composed this rhyme:
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A1-p8"> "The King at supper sits,</p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A1-p9"> The twelve as guests He greets,</p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A1-p10"> Clasping Himself in His hands,</p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A1-p11"> The food Himself now eats."</p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A1-p12">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As was said above (
+                     <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
+                     to the dimensions of the sacramental species; so that Christ is Himself in every place where those species are. And because
+                     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.
+                     Now this could not come
+                     to pass were His relation to place to be according to His proper dimensions.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A1-p13">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As was stated above (
+                     <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
+                     of spiritual sweetness. But although grace was not increased in Christ through His receiving this sacrament, yet He had a
+                     certain spiritual delectation from the new institution of this sacrament. Hence He Himself said (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q81_A1-p13.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.22.15" target="asv">Lk. 22:15</a>): "With desire I
+                     have desired to eat this Pasch with you," which words Eusebius explains of the new mystery of the New Testament, which He
+                     gave to the disciples. And therefore He ate it both spiritually and sacramentally, inasmuch as He received His own body under
+                     the sacrament which sacrament of His own body He both understood and prepared; yet differently from others who partake of
+                     it both sacramentally and spiritually, for these receive an increase of grace, and they have need of the sacramental signs
+                     for
+                     perceiving its truth.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A1-p14"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A1-p15"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q81.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q81_A2.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q81_A2" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q81_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q81_A3.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q81_A2-p0.1">Whether Christ gave His body to Judas?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A2-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A2-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that Christ did not give His body to Judas. Because, as we read (
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     to whom He had given His body and blood were to drink of it again with Him. But Judas did not drink of it
+                     afterwards with Him. Therefore he did not receive Christ's body and blood with the other disciples.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A2-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, what the Lord commanded, He Himself fulfilled, as is said in
+                     <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 (
+                     <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
+                     and blood.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A2-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is distinctly related (
+                     <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
+                     morsel, especially since we read (
+                     <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
+                     learn how we should beware of receiving a good thing in an evil way . . . For if he be 'chastised' who does
+                     'not discern,' i.e. distinguish, the body of the Lord from other meats, how must he be 'condemned' who, feigning himself a
+                     friend, comes to His table a foe?" But (Judas) did not receive our Lord's body with the dipped morsel; thus Augustine commenting
+                     on
+                     <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
+                     Simon]," says (Tract. lxii in Joan.): "Judas did not receive Christ's body then, as some
+                     think who read carelessly." Therefore it seems that Judas did not receive the body of Christ.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A2-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> Chrysostom says (Hom. lxxxii in Matth.): "Judas was not converted while partaking of the sacred mysteries: hence on both
+                     sides his crime becomes the more heinous, both because imbued with such a purpose he approached the mysteries, and because
+                     he became none the better for approaching, neither from fear, nor from the benefit received, nor from the honor conferred
+                     on him."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A2-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> Hilary, in commenting on
+                     <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
+                     be considered. But since Christ was to serve us as a pattern of justice, it was not in keeping with His teaching authority
+                     to sever Judas, a hidden sinner, from Communion with the others without an accuser and evident proof. lest the Church's prelates
+                     might have an example for doing
+                     the like, and lest Judas himself being exasperated might take occasion of sinning. Therefore, it remains to be said that Judas
+                     received our Lord's body and blood with the other disciples, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii), and Augustine (Tract. lxii
+                     in Joan.).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A2-p7">
+                     <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
+                     to the disciples, from whose company Judas separated himself: and it was not Christ that excluded him. Therefore Christ for
+                     His part drinks the wine even with Judas in the kingdom of God; but Judas himself repudiated this banquet.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A2-p8">
+                     <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,
+                     Christ did not repel Judas from Communion; so as to furnish an example that such secret sinners are not to be repelled by
+                     other priests.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A2-p9">
+                     <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
+                     (Tract. lxii in Joan.), "perchance the feigning of Judas is denoted by the dipping of the bread; just as some things are dipped
+                     to be dyed. If, however, the dipping signifies here anything good" (for instance, the sweetness of the Divine goodness, since
+                     bread is rendered more savory by being dipped), "then, not undeservedly, did
+                     condemnation follow his ingratitude for that same good." And owing to that ingratitude, "what is good became evil to him,
+                     as happens to them who receive Christ's body unworthily."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     of His body and blood to all His disciples, among whom was Judas also, as Luke narrates: and after that, we came to this,
+                     where, according to the relation of John, our Lord, by dipping and handing the morsel, does most openly declare His betrayer."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A2-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A2-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q81_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q81_A3.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q81_A3" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q81_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q81_A4.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q81_A3-p0.1">Whether Christ received and gave to the disciples His impassible body?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A3-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A3-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that Christ both received and gave to the disciples His impassible body. Because on
+                     <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
+                     nature, but neither mortal nor passible." And again, on 
+                     <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
+                     being
+                     eaten, which before the Passion did not seem so suited." But Christ gave His body as suited for eating. Therefore He gave
+                     it just as it was after the Passion, that is, impassible and immortal.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A3-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, every passible body suffers by contact and by being eaten. Consequently, if Christ's body was passible, it would
+                     have suffered both from contact and from being eaten by the disciples.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A3-p4">
+                     <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
+                     Christ Himself. But now by virtue of the sacramental words it is Christ's impassible and immortal body which is consecrated
+                     upon the altar. Therefore, much more so was it then.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A3-p5">
+                     <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
+                     passible and a mortal body. Therefore, He gave a passible and mortal body to the disciples.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A3-p6">
+                     <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
+                     times the four properties of a glorified body ---namely, subtlety in His birth, when He came forth from the closed womb of
+                     the Virgin; agility, when He walked dryshod upon the sea; clarity, in the Transfiguration; and impassibility at the Last Supper,
+                     when He gave His body to the disciples to be eaten. And according to this He gave His
+                     body in an impassible and immortal condition to His disciples.
+                  </p>
+                  <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 (
+                     <a id="TP_Q81_A3-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q28_A2.html">Q[28], A[2]</a>, ad 3;
+                     <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
+                     which was then seen by the disciples in its own species, was received by them under the sacramental species. But as seen in
+                     its own species it was not
+                     impassible; nay more, it was ready for the Passion. Therefore, neither was Christ's body impassible when given under the sacramental
+                     species.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     invisibly which of itself was visible. For as sight requires that the body seen be in contact with the adjacent medium of
+                     sight, so does passion require contact of the suffering body with the active agents. But Christ's body, according as it is
+                     under the sacrament, as stated above (A[1], ad 2;
+                     <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
+                     surroundings through the intermediary of its own dimensions, whereby bodies touch each other, but through the dimensions of
+                     the bread and wine; consequently, it is those species which are acted upon and are seen, but not Christ's own body.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A3-p9">
+                     <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
+                     fashion. But the Cross made His flesh adapted for eating, inasmuch as this sacrament represents Christ's Passion.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A3-p10">
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A3-p11">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As stated above (
+                     <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
+                     the substance of Christ's body comes to be there. And therefore the power of the sacramental words extends to this, that the
+                     body, i.e. Christ's, is under this sacrament, whatever accidents really exist in it.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A3-p12"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A3-p13"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q81_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q81_A4.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q81_A4" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q81_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q82.html"></a>
+                  <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,
+                     Christ Himself would have died there?
+                  </h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A4-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A4-p2">
+                     <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
+                     by one of the apostles, that Christ would not have died there. For Christ's death happened through His Passion. But even then
+                     He was in this sacrament in an impassible manner. Therefore, He could not die in this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A4-p3">
+                     <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.
+                     Therefore He could not die in this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A4-p4">
+                     <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
+                     in this sacrament. Therefore Christ could not die in this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A4-p5">
+                     <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
+                     sacrament had been reserved, He would have died therein.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A4-p6">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     this sacrament, as stated above 
+                     <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
+                     as He exists in the
+                     sacrament; such as to live, to die, to grieve, to be animate or inanimate, and the like; while all that belongs to Him in
+                     relation to outward bodies, can be attributed to Him as He exists in His proper species, but not as He is in this sacrament;
+                     such as to be mocked, to be spat upon, to be crucified, to be scourged, and the rest. Hence some have composed this verse:
+                  </p>
+                  <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>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A4-p8">
+                     <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
+                     in this sacrament, cannot suffer; yet He can die.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A4-p9">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As was said above (
+                     <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
+                     wine. But now that His blood is not really separated from His body; by real concomitance, both His blood is present with the
+                     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
+                     Christ suffered, when His
+                     blood was really separated from His body, if this sacrament had been consecrated, then the body only would have been present
+                     under the species of the bread, and the blood only under the species of the wine.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A4-p10">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As was observed above (
+                     <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
+                     in virtue of the consecration. And therefore, if this sacrament had been consecrated then, or reserved, when His soul was
+                     really separated from His body, Christ's soul would not have been under this sacrament, not from any defect in the form of
+                     the words, but owing to the
+                     different dispositions of the thing contained.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A4-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q81_A4-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q81_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q82.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q80_A12.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q81_A1.html"></a>
+            </div>
+            <div id="TP_Q82" class="div3">
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q81_A4.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A1.html"></a>
+               <h3 id="TP_Q82-p0.1">OF THE MINISTER OF THIS SACRAMENT (TEN ARTICLES)</h3>
+               <p id="TP_Q82-p1"></p>
+               <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>
+               <p id="TP_Q82-p3"> (1) Whether it belongs to a priest alone to consecrate this sacrament?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q82-p4"> (2) Whether several priests can at the same time consecrate the same host?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q82-p5"> (3) Whether it belongs to the priest alone to dispense this sacrament?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q82-p6"> (4) Whether it is lawful for the priest consecrating to refrain from communicating?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q82-p7"> (5) Whether a priest in sin can perform this sacrament?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q82-p8"> (6) Whether the Mass of a wicked priest is of less value than that of a good one?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q82-p9"> (7) Whether those who are heretics, schismatics, or excommunicated, can perform this sacrament?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q82-p10"> (8) Whether degraded priests can do so?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q82-p11"> (9) Whether communicants receiving at their hands are guilty of sinning?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q82-p12"> (10) Whether a priest may lawfully refrain altogether from celebrating?</p>
+               <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
+                  after Article 4 (Cf. Leonine edition).]
+               </p>
+               <div id="TP_Q82_A1" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q82.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A2.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q82_A1-p0.1">Whether the consecration of this sacrament belongs to a priest alone?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A1-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A1-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the consecration of this sacrament does not belong exclusively to a priest. Because it was said above (
+                     <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
+                     changed, whether spoken by a priest or by anyone else. Therefore, it seems that not only a priest, but anyone else, can consecrate
+                     this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A1-p3">
+                     <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.
+                     Therefore, it seems that even a layman can perform this sacrament. Hence Chrysostom (Opus imperfectum in Matth., Hom. xliii)
+                     says that "every holy man is a priest."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A1-p4">
+                     <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
+                     (
+                     <a id="TP_Q82_A1-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q74_A1.html">Q[74], A[1]</a> ;
+                     <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 (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A1-p5">
+                     <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, this sacrament is completed in the consecration of the matter. But the consecration of other matters such as the
+                     chrism, the holy oil, and blessed oil, belongs exclusively to a bishop; yet their consecration does not equal the dignity
+                     of the consecration of the Eucharist, in which the entire Christ is contained. Therefore it belongs, not to a priest, but
+                     only to a bishop, to perform this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A1-p6">
+                     <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
+                     Lord's body and blood upon God's altar."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A1-p7">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     by Christ to the baptized person, so likewise the power of consecrating this sacrament on Christ's behalf is bestowed upon
+                     the priest at his ordination: for
+                     thereby he is put upon a level with them to whom the Lord said (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A1-p8">
+                     <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
+                     the water. Accordingly the consecrating power is not merely in the words, but likewise in the power delivered to the priest
+                     in his consecration and ordination, when the bishop says to him: "Receive the power of offering up the Sacrifice in the Church
+                     for the living as well as for the dead." For instrumental power lies in several
+                     instruments through which the chief agent acts.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A1-p9">
+                     <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
+                     he has a spiritual priesthood for offering spiritual sacrifices, of which it is said (
+                     <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 (
+                     <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 (
+                     <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
+                     sacrifices."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A1-p10">
+                     <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
+                     (
+                     <a id="TP_Q82_A1-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q65_A3.html">Q[65], AA[3]</a>,4;
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A1-p11">
+                     <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
+                     no such power in his consecration, although he may have it by commission from the bishop. Consequently all such things as
+                     do not belong to the mystical body are not reserved to the bishop, such as the consecration of this sacrament. But it belongs
+                     to the bishop to deliver, not only to the people, but likewise to priests, such
+                     things as serve them in the fulfillment of their respective duties. And because the blessing of the chrism, and of the holy
+                     oil, and of the oil of the sick, and other consecrated things, such as altars, churches, vestments, and sacred vessels, makes
+                     such things fit for use in performing the sacraments which
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     order.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A1-p13"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A1-p14"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q82.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A2.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q82_A2" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A3.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q82_A2-p0.1">Whether several priests can consecrate one and the same host?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A2-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A2-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that several priests cannot consecrate one and the same host. For it was said above (
+                     <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
+                     of a man baptizing. Therefore, several priests cannot consecrate one host at the same time.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A2-p3">
+                     <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.
+                     Since, then, one is sufficient for consecrating, it seems that several cannot consecrate one host.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A2-p4">
+                     <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
+                     unity. Therefore it seems inconsistent with the sacrament for several priests to consecrate the same host.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A2-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> It is the custom of some Churches for priests newly ordained to co-celebrate with the bishop ordaining them.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A2-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above 
+                     <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.
+                     And therefore, according to the custom of some Churches, as the apostles supped when Christ supped, so the newly ordained
+                     co-celebrate with the ordaining bishop. Nor is the consecration, on that account, repeated over the same host, because as
+                     Innocent III says (De Sacr. Alt. Myst. iv), the
+                     intention of all should be directed to the same instant of the consecration.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A2-p7">
+                     <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
+                     is no parallel.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A2-p8">
+                     <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.
+                     But whereas the priest does not consecrate except as in Christ's stead; and since many are "one in Christ" (
+                     <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
+                     must be observed.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A2-p9">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The Eucharist is the sacrament of ecclesiastical unity, which is brought about by many being "one in Christ."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A2-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A2-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A3.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q82_A3" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A4.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q82_A3-p0.1">Whether dispensing of this sacrament belongs to a priest alone?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A3-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A3-p2">
+                     <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
+                     no less than His body. But Christ's blood is dispensed by deacons: hence the blessed Lawrence said to the blessed Sixtus (Office
+                     of St. Lawrence, Resp. at Matins): "Try whether you have chosen a fit minister, to whom you have entrusted the dispensing
+                     of the Lord's blood." Therefore, with equal reason the dispensing of Christ's body
+                     does not belong to priests only.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A3-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, priests are the appointed ministers of the sacraments. But this sacrament is completed in the consecration of the
+                     matter, and not in the use, to which the dispensing belongs. Therefore it seems that it does not belong to a priest to dispense
+                     the Lord's body.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A3-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii, iv) that this sacrament, like chrism, has the power of perfecting. But it belongs,
+                     not to priests, but to bishops, to sign with the chrism. Therefore likewise, to dispense this sacrament belongs to the bishop
+                     and not to the priest.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A3-p5">
+                     <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
+                     or to a woman to carry it to the sick: The synod therefore forbids such presumption to continue; and let the priest himself
+                     communicate the sick."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A3-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> The dispensing of Christ's body belongs to the priest for three reasons. First, because, as was said above 
+                     <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
+                     to be partaken of by them. Accordingly, as the consecration of Christ's body belongs to the priest, so likewise does the dispensing
+                     belong to him. Secondly, because the priest is the appointed
+                     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
+                     to deliver consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this sacrament, nothing touches it,
+                     but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching
+                     this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it except from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall
+                     upon
+                     the ground, or else in some other case of urgency.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A3-p7">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     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.
+                     Secondly, because the blood denotes the redemption derived by the people from
+                     Christ; hence it is that water is mixed with the blood, which water denotes the people. And because deacons are between priest
+                     and people, the dispensing of the blood is in the competency of deacons, rather than the dispensing of the body.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A3-p8">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> For the reason given above, it belongs to the same person to dispense and to consecrate this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A3-p9">
+                     <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
+                     blood. so the priest shares in the "perfective dispensing" (Eccl. Hier. v) of the bishop, inasmuch as he dispenses this sacrament
+                     whereby man is perfected in himself by union with Christ. But other perfections whereby a man is perfected in relation to
+                     others, are reserved to the bishop.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A3-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A3-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A4.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q82_A4" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A5.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q82_A4-p0.1">Whether the priest who consecrates is bound to receive this sacrament?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A4-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A4-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the priest who consecrates is not bound to receive this sacrament. Because, in the other consecrations, he
+                     who consecrates the matter does not use it, just as the bishop consecrating the chrism is not anointed therewith. But this
+                     sacrament consists in the consecration of the matter. Therefore, the priest performing this sacrament need not use the same,
+                     but may lawfully refrain from receiving it.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A4-p3">
+                     <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
+                     stated above (
+                     <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
+                     ought not to receive it at his own hands.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A4-p4">
+                     <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
+                     guise of blood; which are unsuited for food and drink: hence, as was said above (
+                     <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
+                     the priest who consecrates is not always bound to receive this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A4-p5">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     of Christ's body and blood."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A4-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
+                     <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,
+                     because the outward sacrifice he offers is a sign of the inner sacrifice whereby he offers himself to God, as Augustine says
+                     (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
+                     dispensing the sacrifice to
+                     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
+                     says (Eccl. Hier. iii). Consequently, he ought to receive before dispensing it to the people. Accordingly we read in the chapter
+                     mentioned above (Twelfth Council of Toledo, Can. v): "What kind of sacrifice is that wherein not even the sacrificer is known
+                     to have a share?" But it is by partaking of the sacrifice that he has a share in it, as the Apostle says
+                     (
+                     <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
+                     he consecrates, to receive this sacrament in its integrity.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A4-p7">
+                     <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
+                     there is no parallel.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A4-p8">
+                     <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
+                     same person cannot be active and passive in a sacrament. Hence neither in this sacrament does the priest consecrate himself,
+                     but he consecrates the bread and wine, in which consecration the sacrament is completed. But the use thereof follows the sacrament,
+                     and therefore there is no parallel.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A4-p9">
+                     <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
+                     is not to be received. For Jerome says upon Leviticus (cf. De Consecr., dist. 2): "It is lawful to eat of this sacrifice which
+                     is wonderfully performed in memory of Christ: but it is not lawful for anyone to eat of that one which Christ offered on the
+                     altar of the cross." Nor does the priest transgress on that account, because
+                     miraculous events are not subject to human laws. Nevertheless the priest would be well advised to consecrate again and receive
+                     the Lord's body and blood.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A4-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A4-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A5.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q82_A5" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A6.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q82_A5-p0.1">Whether a wicked priest can consecrate the Eucharist?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A5-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A5-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that a wicked priest cannot consecrate the Eucharist. For Jerome, commenting on Sophon. iii, 4, says: "The priests
+                     who perform the Eucharist, and who distribute our Lord's blood to the people, act wickedly against Christ's law, in deeming
+                     that the Eucharist is consecrated by a prayer rather than by a good life; and that only the solemn prayer is requisite, and
+                     not the priest's merits: of whom it is said: 'Let not the priest, in whatever defilement he
+                     may be, approach to offer oblations to the Lord'" (
+                     <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
+                     a sinful priest cannot consecrate the Eucharist.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A5-p3">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     Holy Spirit, when invoked, come for the consecration of the Divine Mystery, if the priest invoking him be proved full of guilty
+                     deeds?" Consequently, the Eucharist cannot be consecrated by a wicked priest.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A5-p4">
+                     <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
+                     this sacrament, since it is written (
+                     <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
+                     has completely fallen away from the priestly order; and I wonder that such a man dare to employ his hands in priestly actions,
+                     and in
+                     the person of Christ to utter, over the Divine symbols, his unclean infamies, for I will not call them prayers."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A5-p5">
+                     <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,
+                     nothing greater is done by a good priest, nothing less by an evil priest, because it is not by the merits of the consecrator
+                     that the sacrament is accomplished, but by the Creator's word, and by the power of the Holy Spirit."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A5-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As was said above (
+                     <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
+                     this sacrament. But from the fact of being wicked he does not cease to be Christ's minister; because our Lord has good and
+                     wicked ministers or servants. Hence (
+                     <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:
+                     "But if that evil servant shall say in his heart," etc. And the Apostle (
+                     <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
+                     of anything; yet am I not hereby justified." He was therefore certain that he was Christ's minister; yet he was not certain
+                     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
+                     to Christ's excellence,
+                     Whom, as the true God, things both good and evil serve, since they are ordained by His providence for His glory. Hence it
+                     is evident that priests, even though they be not godly, but sinners, can consecrate the Eucharist.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A5-p7">
+                     <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
+                     the mere fact of being priests, even though they were sinners; and Jerome condemns this from the fact that persons defiled
+                     are forbidden to approach the altar; but this does not prevent the sacrifice, which they offer, from being a true sacrifice,
+                     if they do approach.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A5-p8">
+                     <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
+                     discipline, claims for itself such reverence that no one may dare to approach it except with clean conscience." From this
+                     it is evident that his meaning is that the priest who is a sinner ought not to approach this sacrament. Hence when he resumes,
+                     "How shall the Holy Spirit come when summoned," it must be understood that He
+                     comes, not through the priest's merits, but through the power of Christ, Whose words the priest utters.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A5-p9">
+                     <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
+                     of the master; so the blessing of a sinful priest, inasmuch as he acts unworthily is deserving of a curse, and is reputed
+                     an infamy and a blasphemy, and not a prayer; whereas, inasmuch as it is pronounced in the person of Christ, it is holy and
+                     efficacious. Hence it is said with significance: "I will curse your blessings."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A5-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A5-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A6.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q82_A6" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A7.html"></a>
+                  <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>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A6-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A6-p2">
+                     <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:
+                     "Alas, into what a great snare they fall who believe that the Divine and hidden mysteries can be sanctified more by some than
+                     by others; since it is the one and the same Holy Ghost Who hallows those mysteries in a hidden and invisible manner." But
+                     these hidden mysteries are celebrated in the mass. Therefore the mass of a sinful
+                     priest is not of less value than the mass of a good priest.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A6-p3">
+                     <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
+                     in the person of Christ. But Baptism is no better when conferred by a better priest, as was said above (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A6-p4">
+                     <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
+                     good and bad. Consequently, if the mass of a better priest be itself better, it follows that the mass of a bad priest must
+                     be bad. Now this is unreasonable, because the malice of the ministers cannot affect Christ's mysteries, as Augustine says
+                     in his work on Baptism (Contra Donat. xii). Therefore neither is the mass of a better priest
+                     the better.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A6-p5">
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A6-p6">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     priest is not of less value than that of a good priest, because the same sacrifice is offered by both.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     the devotion of the priest interceding, and in this respect there is no doubt but that the mass of the better priest is the
+                     more fruitful. In another respect, inasmuch as the prayer is said by the priest in the mass in the place of the entire Church,
+                     of which the priest is the minister; and this ministry remains even in sinful men, as was said above
+                     
+                     <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
+                     he utters in the mass, but likewise all those he recites in the ecclesiastical offices, wherein he takes the place of the
+                     Church. on the other hand, his private prayers are not fruitful, according to
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A6-p8">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Gregory is speaking there of the holiness of the Divine sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A6-p9">
+                     <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
+                     in this respect. There is, however, a resemblance as to the effect of the sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A6-p10">
+                     <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
+                     being united in charity, the private blessing in the mass of a good priest is fruitful to others. But the private evil of
+                     one man cannot hurt another, except the latter, in some way, consent, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A6-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A6-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A7.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q82_A7" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A6.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A8.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q82_A7-p0.1">Whether heretics, schismatics, and excommunicated persons can consecrate?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A7-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A7-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that heretics, schismatics, and excommunicated persons are not able to consecrate the Eucharist. For Augustine says
+                     (Liber sentent. Prosperi xv) that "there is no such thing as a true sacrifice outside the Catholic Church": and Pope Leo I
+                     says (Ep. lxxx; cf. Decretal i, q. 1): Elsewhere "(i.e. than in the Church which is Christ's body) there is neither valid
+                     priesthood nor true sacrifice." But heretics, schismatics, and excommunicated persons are
+                     severed from the Church. Therefore they are unable to offer a true sacrifice.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A7-p3">
+                     <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
+                     pestilential persons, if they seem to repent, it does not follow that their clergy have the dignity of the priesthood or of
+                     any other ministerial office, for we allow them to confer nothing save Baptism." But none can consecrate the Eucharist, unless
+                     he have the dignity of the priesthood. Therefore heretics and the like cannot consecrate the
+                     Eucharist.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A7-p4">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     the person of the Church. Therefore, it seems that those who are outside the Church, such as those who are heretics, schismatics,
+                     and excommunicate, are not able to consecrate the Eucharist.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A7-p5">
+                     <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,
+                     "so do their orders remain intact." Now, by the power of his ordination, a priest can consecrate the Eucharist. Therefore,
+                     it seems that heretics, schismatics, and those who are excommunicate, can consecrate the Eucharist, since their orders remain
+                     entire.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A7-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> Some have contended that heretics, schismatics, and the excommunicate, who are outside the pale of the Church, cannot perform
+                     this sacrament. But herein they are deceived, because, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii), "it is one thing to lack something
+                     utterly, and another to have it improperly"; and in like fashion, "it is one thing not to bestow, and quite another to bestow,
+                     but not rightly." Accordingly, such as, being within the Church, received the
+                     power of consecrating the Eucharist through being ordained to the priesthood, have such power rightly indeed; but they use
+                     it improperly if afterwards they be separated from the Church by heresy, schism, or excommunication. But such as are ordained
+                     while separated from the Church, have neither the power rightly, nor do they use it rightly. But that in both cases they have
+                     the power, is clear from what Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii), that when they return to the unity of the Church, they are
+                     not re-ordained, but are received in their orders. And since the consecration of the Eucharist is an act which follows the
+                     power of order, such persons as are separated from the Church by heresy, schism, or excommunication, can indeed consecrate
+                     the Eucharist, which on being consecrated by them contains Christ's true body and blood; but they act wrongly, and sin by
+                     doing so; and in consequence they do not receive the fruit of the sacrifice, which is a spiritual sacrifice.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A7-p7">
+                     <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.
+                     Hence outside the Church there can be no spiritual sacrifice that is a true sacrifice with the truth of its fruit, although
+                     it be a true sacrifice with the truth of the sacrament; thus it was stated above (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A7-p8">
+                     <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;
+                     but in no case can they lawfully consecrate the Eucharist, or confer the other sacraments.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A7-p9">
+                     <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
+                     the sacrament he speaks as in the person of Christ, Whose place he holds by the power of his orders. Consequently, if a priest
+                     severed from the unity of the Church celebrates mass, not having lost the power of order, he consecrates Christ's true body
+                     and blood; but because he is severed from the unity of the Church, his prayers
+                     have no efficacy.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A7-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A7-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A6.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A8.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q82_A8" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A7.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A9.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q82_A8-p0.1">Whether a degraded priest can consecrate this sacrament?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A8-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A8-p2">
+                     <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
+                     power of consecrating. But the priest "who has been degraded has no power of consecrating, although he has the power of baptizing"
+                     (App. Gratiani). Therefore it seems that a degraded priest cannot consecrate the Eucharist.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A8-p3">
+                     <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
+                     he can take it away by degrading him.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A8-p4">
+                     <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
+                     merely the use, for thus the degraded one would lose no more than one excommunicated, who also lacks the use. Therefore it
+                     seems that he loses the power to consecrate, and in consequence that he cannot perform this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A8-p5">
+                     <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
+                     "it is not restored to them when they return repentant; and therefore it is deemed that it cannot be lost." But in like fashion,
+                     if the degraded man be restored, he has not to be ordained over again. Consequently, he has not lost the power of consecrating,
+                     and so the degraded priest can perform this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A8-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> The power of consecrating the Eucharist belongs to the character of the priestly order. But every character is indelible,
+                     because it is given with a kind of consecration, as was said above (
+                     <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
+                     power of consecrating is not lost by degradation. For, again, Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii): "Both are
+                     sacraments," namely Baptism and order, "and both are given to a man with a kind of consecration; the former, when he is baptized;
+                     the latter when he is ordained; and therefore it is not lawful for Catholics to repeat either of them." And thus it is evident
+                     that the degraded priest can perform this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A8-p7">
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A8-p8">
+                     <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
+                     its effect cannot be taken away by man, according to
+                     <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
+                     can he who baptizes take away the baptismal character.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A8-p9">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Excommunication is medicinal. And therefore the ministry of the priestly power is not taken away from the excommunicate,
+                     as it were, perpetually, but only for a time, that they may mend; but the exercise is withdrawn from the degraded, as though
+                     condemned perpetually.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A8-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A8-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A7.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A9.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q82_A9" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A8.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A10.html"></a>
+                  <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
+                     them?
+                  </h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A9-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A9-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that one may lawfully receive Communion from heretical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, and to hear mass
+                     said by them. Because, as Augustine says (Contra Petilian. iii), "we should not avoid God's sacraments, whether they be given
+                     by a good man or by a wicked one." But priests, even if they be sinful, or heretics, or excommunicate, perform a valid sacrament.
+                     Therefore it seems that one ought not to refrain from receiving Communion at their
+                     hands, or from hearing their mass.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A9-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Christ's true body is figurative of His mystical body, as was said above (
+                     <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
+                     body can communicate in their sacrifices.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A9-p4">
+                     <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.
+                     Therefore, it ought not to be forbidden to hear the masses of priests guilty of this sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A9-p5">
+                     <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,
+                     Gregory says (Dial. iii) that "the faithless father sent an Arian bishop to his son, for him to receive sacrilegiously the
+                     consecrated Communion at his hands. But, when the Arian bishop arrived, God's devoted servant rebuked him, as was right for
+                     him to do."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A9-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As was said above (
+                     <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,
+                     yet they do not make a proper use of it; on the contrary, they sin by using it. But whoever communicates with another who
+                     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,
+                     God speed you, communicateth with his
+                     wicked works." Consequently, it is not lawful to receive Communion from them, or to assist at their mass.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A9-p7"> Still there is a difference among the above, because heretics, schismatics, and excommunicates, have been forbidden, by the
+                     Church's sentence, to perform the Eucharistic rite. And therefore whoever hears their mass or receives the sacraments from
+                     them, commits sin. But not all who are sinners are debarred by the Church's sentence from using this power: and so, although
+                     suspended by the Divine sentence, yet they are not suspended in regard to others by any ecclesiastical
+                     sentence: consequently, until the Church's sentence is pronounced, it is lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to
+                     hear their mass. Hence on 
+                     <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
+                     by his fellow man on arbitrary suspicion, or even by usurped extraordinary judgment, but rather by God's law, according to
+                     the Church's ordering, whether he confess of his own accord, or whether he be accused
+                     and convicted."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A9-p8">
+                     <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;
+                     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
+                     be reserved, it can be consumed by a lawful priest): but what we shun is the sin of the unworthy ministers.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A9-p9">
+                     <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
+                     deprived of the fruit, as was said above 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A9-p10">
+                     <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,
+                     this sin is specially inhibited to priests by the Church, lest anyone hear the mass of one living in concubinage. However,
+                     this is to be understood of one who is notorious, either from being convicted and sentenced, or from having acknowledged his
+                     guilt in legal form, or from it being impossible to conceal his guilt by any
+                     subterfuge.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A9-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A9-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A8.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A10.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q82_A10" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A9.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q83.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q82_A10-p0.1">Whether it is lawful for a priest to refrain entirely from consecrating the Eucharist?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A10-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A10-p2">
+                     <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
+                     to consecrate the Eucharist, so it is likewise to baptize and administer the other sacraments. But the priest is not bound
+                     to act as a minister of the other sacraments, unless he has undertaken the care of souls. Therefore, it seems that likewise
+                     he is not bound to consecrate the Eucharist except he be charged with the care of
+                     souls.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A10-p3">
+                     <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
+                     the priest who is in a state of sin, or excommunicate, to consecrate the Eucharist, as was said above 
+                     <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
+                     by their fault.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A10-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the priestly dignity is not lost by subsequent weakness: because Pope Gelasius I says (cf. Decretal, Dist. 55):
+                     "As the canonical precepts do not permit them who are feeble in body to approach the priesthood, so if anyone be disabled
+                     when once in that state, he cannot lose that he received at the time he was well." But it sometimes happens that those who
+                     are already ordained as priests incur defects whereby they are hindered from celebrating, such as
+                     leprosy or epilepsy, or the like. Consequently, it does not appear that priests are bound to celebrate.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A10-p5">
+                     <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
+                     pure hands; but it is graver still if while shunning sins we also fail to offer our sacrifice."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A10-p6">
+                     <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
+                     the sacraments to the people, by reason of his being entrusted with the care of souls.
+                  </p>
+                  <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,
+                     according to 
+                     <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
+                     merely in relation to the faithful of Christ to whom the sacraments must be administered, but chiefly with regard to God to
+                     Whom the sacrifice of this sacrament is offered by consecrating. Hence, it is not lawful
+                     for the priest, even though he has not the care of souls, to refrain altogether from celebrating; and he seems to be bound
+                     to celebrate at least on the chief festivals, and especially on those days on which the faithful usually communicate. And
+                     hence it is that (
+                     <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
+                     and neglecting the sacrifices."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A10-p8">
+                     <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
+                     has undertaken the care of souls. But this sacrament is performed in the consecration of the Eucharist, whereby a sacrifice
+                     is offered to God, to which the priest is bound from the order he has received.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A10-p9">
+                     <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
+                     of offering sacrifice; consequently, the obligation lapses. But if not deprived of the power of celebrating, the obligation
+                     is not removed; nor is he in two minds, because he can repent of his sin and then celebrate.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A10-p10">
+                     <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
+                     exercising them, as to the consecration of the Eucharist: sometimes by making it impossible to exercise them, as, for example,
+                     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
+                     from epilepsy, or indeed any disease of the mind; and sometimes, on account of
+                     loathsomeness, as is evident in the case of a leper, who ought not to celebrate in public: he can, however, say mass privately,
+                     unless the leprosy has gone so far that it has rendered him incapable owing to the wasting away of his limbs.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A10-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q82_A10-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A9.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q83.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q81_A4.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A1.html"></a>
+            </div>
+            <div id="TP_Q83" class="div3">
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A10.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A1.html"></a>
+               <h3 id="TP_Q83-p0.1">OF THE RITE OF THIS SACRAMENT (SIX ARTICLES)</h3>
+               <p id="TP_Q83-p1"></p>
+               <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>
+               <p id="TP_Q83-p3"> (1) Whether Christ is sacrificed in the celebration of this mystery?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q83-p4"> (2) Of the time of celebrating;</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q83-p5"> (3) Of the place and other matters relating to the equipment for this celebration;</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q83-p6"> (4) Of the words uttered in celebrating this mystery;</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q83-p7"> (5) Of the actions performed in celebrating this mystery.</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q83-p8"> (6) Of the defects which occur in the celebration of this sacrament.</p>
+               <div id="TP_Q83_A1" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q83.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A2.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q83_A1-p0.1">Whether Christ is sacrificed in this sacrament?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A1-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A1-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that Christ is not sacrificed in the celebration of this sacrament. For it is written (
+                     <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
+                     Christ is not sacrificed in the celebration of this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A1-p3">
+                     <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
+                     God for an odor of sweetness," as is said in
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A1-p4">
+                     <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
+                     celebration of this sacrament the priest and the victim are not the same. Therefore, the celebration of this sacrament is
+                     not a sacrifice of Christ.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A1-p5">
+                     <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
+                     daily in the Sacrament."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A1-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> The celebration of this sacrament is called a sacrifice for two reasons. First, because, as Augustine says (Ad Simplician.
+                     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
+                     or a fresco, we say, 'This is Cicero and that is Sallust.'" But, as was said above (
+                     <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
+                     true sacrifice. Accordingly the celebration of this sacrament is called Christ's sacrifice. Hence it is that Ambrose, in commenting
+                     on
+                     <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
+                     every day in memory of His death?" Secondly it is called a sacrifice, in respect of the effect of His Passion: because, to
+                     wit, by this sacrament, we are made partakers of the fruit of our Lord's Passion.
+                     Hence in one of the Sunday Secrets (Ninth Sunday after Pentecost) we say: "Whenever the commemoration of this sacrifice is
+                     celebrated, the work of our redemption is enacted." Consequently, according to the first reason, it is true to say that Christ
+                     was sacrificed, even in the figures of the Old Testament: hence it is stated in the Apocalypse (13:8): "Whose names are not
+                     written in the Book of Life of the Lamb, which was slain from the beginning of the world." But according to the second
+                     reason, it is proper to this sacrament for Christ to be sacrificed in its celebration.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A1-p7">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As Ambrose says (commenting on
+                     <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
+                     was offered but once: and this latter sacrifice is the pattern of the former. For, just as what is offered everywhere is one
+                     body, and not many bodies, so also is it but one sacrifice."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A1-p8">
+                     <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
+                     itself, upon which Christ was sacrificed in His proper species.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A1-p9">
+                     <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
+                     the words of consecration, as is evident from what was said above (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A1-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A1-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q83.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A2.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q83_A2" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A3.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q83_A2-p0.1">Whether the time for celebrating this mystery has been properly determined?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A2-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A2-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the time for celebrating this mystery has not been properly determined. For as was observed above 
+                     <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
+                     once in the year: because Augustine says (Enarr. ii in 
+                     <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
+                     place in
+                     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
+                     ought to be celebrated but once a year.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A2-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Christ's Passion is commemorated in the Church on the Friday before Easter, and not on Christmas Day. Consequently,
+                     since this sacrament is commemorative of our Lord's Passion, it seems unsuitable for this sacrament to be celebrated thrice
+                     on Christmas Day, and to be entirely omitted on Good Friday.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A2-p4">
+                     <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
+                     that Christ consecrated this sacrament. Therefore it seems that this sacrament ought to be celebrated at that time of day.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A2-p5">
+                     <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
+                     "it is permissible to celebrate mass in the first part of the day." But the day begins at midnight, as was said above (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A2-p6">
+                     <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
+                     these mysteries." But there will be greater frequency if the priest celebrates several times a day. Therefore it seems that
+                     the priest ought not to be hindered from celebrating several times daily.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A2-p7"> On the contrary is the custom which the Church observes according to the statutes of the Canons.</p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A2-p8">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above 
+                     <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
+                     of its fruits; and the time suitable for the celebration of this mystery ought to be determined by each of these considerations.
+                     Now since, owing to our daily defects, we stand in daily need of the fruits of our Lord's Passion, this sacrament is offered
+                     regularly every day in the
+                     Church. Hence our Lord teaches us to pray (
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     every day."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     by the Church in that part of the day.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A2-p10">
+                     <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
+                     Passion is recalled inasmuch as it was wrought in Him Who is our Head. This took place but once; whereas the faithful receive
+                     daily the fruits of His Passion: consequently, the former is commemorated but once in the year, whereas the latter takes place
+                     every day, both that we may partake of its fruit and in order that we may
+                     have a perpetual memorial.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A2-p11">
+                     <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,
+                     as stated above. And therefore on the day on which our Lord's Passion is recalled as it was really accomplished, this sacrament
+                     is not consecrated. Nevertheless, lest the Church be deprived on that day of the fruit of the Passion offered to us by this
+                     sacrament, the body of Christ consecrated the day before is reserved to be
+                     consumed on that day; but the blood is not reserved, on account of danger, and because the blood is more specially the image
+                     of our Lord's Passion, as stated above (
+                     <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
+                     into it. Because this cannot be done otherwise than by consecration under the due form of words.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     birth, which is hidden in our regard. and therefore one mass is sung in the night, in the "Introit" of which we say: "The
+                     Lord said unto Me: Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee." The second is His nativity in time, and the spiritual
+                     birth, whereby Christ rises "as the day-star in our [Vulg.: 'your'] hearts" (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A2-p12.1" href="./asv.html#iiPet.1.19" target="asv">2 Pet. 1:19</a>),
+                     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
+                     Christ's temporal and bodily birth, according as He went forth from the virginal womb, becoming visible to us through being
+                     clothed with flesh: and on that account the third mass is sung in broad daylight, in the "Introit" of which we say: "A child
+                     is born to us." Nevertheless, on the other hand, it can be said that His eternal generation, of itself, is in the full light,
+                     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,
+                     He was literally born during the night, as a sign that He came to the darknesses of our infirmity; hence also in the midnight
+                     mass we say the gospel of Christ's nativity in the flesh.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     one day, as for instance, one for the feast, and another for a fast or for the dead.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A2-p14">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As already observed (
+                     <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
+                     disciples; and therefore it was after supper, at the close of day, that He consecrated this sacrament and gave it to His disciples.
+                     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
+                     by the tongues
+                     of the Jews (
+                     <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 (
+                     <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 (
+                     <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 (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A2-p14.5" href="./asv.html#Matt.27.46" target="asv">Mat. 27:46</a>, 
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A2-p14.6" href="./asv.html#Matt.27.50" target="asv">50</a>).
+                  </p>
+                  <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;
+                     both on account of the length of the office, and also because orders belong to the Sunday, as is set forth in the Decretals
+                     (dist. 75).
+                  </p>
+                  <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.
+                     1.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A2-p17">
+                     <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 (
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     not to be taken from midnight; nor from sunrise, that is,
+                     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
+                     risen when the brightness of his beams appears. Accordingly it is written (
+                     <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 (
+                     <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.
+                     iii).
+                  </p>
+                  <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.,
+                     dist. 1). And in like manner it is celebrated on Holy Saturday towards the beginning of the night, since our Lord rose in
+                     the night, that is, "when it was yet dark, before the sun's rising was manifest."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A2-p19">
+                     <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
+                     to celebrate one mass each day, because Christ suffered once and redeemed the whole world; and very happy is he who can worthily
+                     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
+                     that those escape condemnation who presume to celebrate several masses daily,
+                     either for the sake of money, or to gain flattery from the laity." And Pope Innocent III says (Extra, De Celebr. Miss., chap.
+                     Consuluisti) that "except on the day of our Lord's birth, unless necessity urges, it suffices for a priest to celebrate only
+                     one mass each day."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A2-p20"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A2-p21"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A3.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q83_A3" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A4.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q83_A3-p0.1">Whether this sacrament ought to be celebrated in a house and with sacred vessels?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p2">
+                     <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
+                     of our Lord's Passion. But Christ did not suffer in a house, but outside the city gate, according to
+                     <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
+                     ought not to be celebrated in a house, but rather in the open air.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p3">
+                     <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
+                     house wherein Christ first wrought this sacrament was not consecrated, but merely an ordinary supper-room prepared by the
+                     master of the house, as related in 
+                     <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 (
+                     <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
+                     house to house, they took their meat with gladness." Consequently, there is no need for houses, in which this sacrament is
+                     celebrated, to be consecrated.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p4">
+                     <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
+                     useless to consecrate a church, or an altar, or such like inanimate things, since they are not capable of receiving grace
+                     or spiritual virtue. Therefore it is unbecoming for such consecrations to be performed in the Church.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p5">
+                     <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, only Divine works ought to be recalled with solemnity, according to
+                     <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
+                     the consecration of the chalice, and of the ministers, and of other such things. But these latter consecrations are not commemorated
+                     in the Church. Therefore neither ought the consecration of a church or of an altar to be commemorated
+                     with solemnity.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p6">
+                     <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
+                     was not made of hewn stones: for, it is written (
+                     <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
+                     hewn stones." Again, the altar is commanded to be made of "setim-wood," covered "with brass" (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A3-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Exod.27.1" target="asv">Ex. 27:1,2</a>), or "with
+                     gold" (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p7">
+                     <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.
+                     Consequently, the chalice ought to be of stone, and not of gold or of silver or tin.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p8">
+                     <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
+                     among other cloths. Consequently, since the chalice is of gold, the altar cloths ought to be made of silk and not of linen.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p9">
+                     <b>Objection 8:</b> Further, the dispensing and ordering of the sacraments belong to the Church's ministers, just as the ordering of temporal
+                     affairs is subject to the ruling of secular princes; hence the Apostle says (
+                     <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
+                     against the ordinances of princes it is deemed void. Therefore, if the various items mentioned above are suitably commanded
+                     by the
+                     Church's prelates, it seems that the body of Christ could not be consecrated unless they be observed; and so it appears to
+                     follow that Christ's words are not sufficient of themselves for consecrating this sacrament: which is contrary to the fact.
+                     Consequently, it does not seem fitting for such ordinances to be made touching the celebration of this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p10">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> The Church's ordinances are Christ's own ordinances; since He said (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p11">
+                     <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
+                     of the events connected with our Lord's Passion; while the other is connected with the reverence due to the sacrament, in
+                     which Christ is contained verily, and not in figure only.
+                  </p>
+                  <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,
+                     and in order to represent the holiness which is the effect of the Passion of Christ, according to
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p13">
+                     <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 
+                     <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."
+                     Because "outside the Church there is no place for the true sacrifice," as Augustine says (Liber Sentent. Prosp. xv). And because
+                     the Church was not to be confined within the territories of the
+                     Jewish people, but was to be established throughout the whole world, therefore Christ's Passion was not celebrated within
+                     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,
+                     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
+                     in a tent, if there be a consecrated altar-table to hand, and the other requisites belonging to the sacred function."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p14">
+                     <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,
+                     both to represent the holiness which the Church acquired from the Passion, as well as to denote the holiness required of them
+                     who have to receive this sacrament. By the altar Christ Himself is signified, of Whom the Apostle says (
+                     <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
+                     consecration of the altar signifies Christ's holiness, of which it was said (
+                     <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
+                     for the altars to be consecrated not merely with the anointing of chrism, but likewise with the priestly blessing."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     (De Consecr., dist. 1): "Let no priest presume to say mass except in places consecrated by the bishop." And furthermore because
+                     pagans and other unbelievers are not members of the Church, therefore we read (De Consecr., dist. 1): "It is not lawful to
+                     bless a church in which the bodies of unbelievers are buried, but if it seem suitable for consecration, then,
+                     after removing the corpses and tearing down the walls or beams, let it be rebuilt. If, however, it has been already consecrated,
+                     and the faithful lie in it, it is lawful to celebrate mass therein." Nevertheless in a case of necessity this sacrament can
+                     be performed in houses which have not been consecrated, or which have been profaned; but with the bishop's consent. Hence
+                     we read in the same distinction: "We deem that masses are not to be celebrated everywhere, but in places consecrated by the
+                     bishop, or where he gives permission." But not without a portable altar consecrated by the bishop: hence in the same distinction
+                     we read: "We permit that, if the churches be devastated or burned, masses may be celebrated in chapels, with a consecrated
+                     altar." For because Christ's holiness is the fount of all the Church's holiness, therefore in necessity a consecrated altar
+                     suffices for performing this sacrament. And on this account a church is never consecrated without consecrating the altar.
+                     Yet sometimes an altar is consecrated apart from the church, with the relics of the saints, "whose lives are hidden with Christ
+                     in God" (
+                     <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
+                     enclosed, be thrown down, if possible, by the bishops presiding over such places."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p16">
+                     <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
+                     because they acquire special spiritual virtue from the consecration, whereby they are rendered fit for the Divine worship,
+                     so that man derives devotion therefrom, making him more fitted for Divine functions, unless this be hindered by want of reverence.
+                     Hence it is written (
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     place."
+                  </p>
+                  <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.
+                     And for the same reason churches defiled by shedding of blood or seed are reconciled: because some machination of the enemy
+                     is apparent on account of the sin committed there. And for this reason we read in the same distinction: "Wherever you find
+                     churches of the Arians, consecrate them as Catholic churches without delay by means of devout prayers and
+                     rites." Hence, too, it is that some say with probability, that by entering a consecrated church one obtains forgiveness of
+                     venial sins, just as one does by the sprinkling of holy water; alleging the words of
+                     <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
+                     the virtue acquired by a church's consecration, the consecration is never repeated. Accordingly we find in the same distinction
+                     the
+                     following words quoted from the Council of Nicaea: "Churches which have once been consecrated, must not be consecrated again,
+                     except they be devastated by fire, or defiled by shedding of blood or of anyone's seed; because, just as a child once baptized
+                     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,
+                     once dedicated to God, to be consecrated again, except owing to the causes mentioned above; provided that the consecrators
+                     held faith in the Holy Trinity": in fact, those outside the Church cannot consecrate. But, as we read in the same distinction:
+                     "Churches or altars of doubtful consecration are to be consecrated anew."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     "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
+                     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
+                     the laity." We read there, too, that "the altar covering, chair, candlesticks, and veil, are to be burned when
+                     warn out; and their ashes are to be placed in the baptistery, or in the walls, or else cast into the trenches beneath the
+                     flag-stones, so as not to be defiled by the feet of those that enter."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p19">
+                     <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
+                     Church, therefore the consecration of a church or of an altar is more fittingly commemorated. And on this account the solemnity
+                     of a church dedication is observed for eight days, in order to signify the happy resurrection of Christ and of the Church's
+                     members. Nor is the consecration of a church or altar man's doing only, since
+                     it has a spiritual virtue. Hence in the same distinction (De Consecr.) it is said: "The solemnities of the dedication of churches
+                     are to be solemnly celebrated each year: and that dedications are to be kept up for eight days, you will find in the third
+                     book of Kings" (8:66).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p20">
+                     <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
+                     this is in keeping with the signification of this sacrament; both because the altar signifies Christ, for in 
+                     <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
+                     with the use of the sacrament. Because stone is solid, and may be
+                     found everywhere. which was not necessary in the old Law, when the altar was made in one place. As to the commandment to make
+                     the altar of earth, or of unhewn stones, this was given in order to remove idolatry.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p21">
+                     <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
+                     ordered the mass to be said with glass patens; and subsequently Pope Urban had everything made of silver." Afterwards it was
+                     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
+                     not to be made of brass, or copper, because the action of the wine thereon produces
+                     verdigris, and provokes vomiting. But no one is to presume to sing mass with a chalice of wood or of glass," because as the
+                     wood is porous, the consecrated blood would remain in it; while glass is brittle and there might arise danger of breakage;
+                     and the same applies to stone. Consequently, out of reverence for the sacrament, it was enacted that the chalice should be
+                     made of the aforesaid materials.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p22">
+                     <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
+                     Christ's Passion. But there was not so much danger regarding the body which is placed on the corporal, as there is with the
+                     blood contained in the chalice. And consequently, although the chalice is not made of stone, yet the corporal is made of linen,
+                     since Christ's body was wrapped therein. Hence we read in an Epistle of Pope
+                     Silvester, quoted in the same distinction: "By a unanimous decree we command that no one shall presume to celebrate the sacrifice
+                     of the altar upon a cloth of silk, or dyed material, but upon linen consecrated by the bishop; as Christ's body was buried
+                     in a clean linen winding-sheet." Moreover, linen material is becoming, owing to its cleanness, to denote purity of conscience,
+                     and, owing to the manifold labor with which it is prepared, to denote Christ's Passion.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p23">
+                     <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,
+                     the Church's ministers can make no ordinances regarding the form of the consecration, and the manner of celebrating. And therefore,
+                     if the priest pronounces the words of consecration over the proper matter with the intention of consecrating, then, without
+                     every one of the things mentioned above---namely, without house, and
+                     altar, consecrated chalice and corporal, and the other things instituted by the Church---he consecrates Christ's body in very
+                     truth; yet he is guilty of grave sin, in not following the rite of the Church.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p24"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A3-p25"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A4.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q83_A4" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A5.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q83_A4-p0.1">Whether the words spoken in this sacrament are properly framed?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p2">
+                     <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
+                     is consecrated with Christ's own words. Therefore no other words besides Christ's should be spoken in this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p3">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     this sacrament: and similarly it is said in the Gospel: "Take ye and eat" [comedite] without the addition of the word "all,"
+                     whereas in celebrating this sacrament we say: "Lifting up His eyes to heaven," and
+                     again, "Take ye and eat [manducate] of this." Therefore such words as these are out of place when spoken in the celebration
+                     of this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p4">
+                     <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
+                     sacraments there is no common prayer put up for the salvation of all the faithful and of the departed. Consequently it is
+                     unbecoming in this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p5">
+                     <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, Baptism especially is called the sacrament of faith. Consequently, the truths which belong to instruction in the
+                     faith ought rather to be given regarding Baptism than regarding this sacrament, such as the doctrine of the apostles and of
+                     the Gospels.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p6">
+                     <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, devotion on the part of the faithful is required in every sacrament. Consequently, the devotion of the faithful
+                     ought not to be stirred up in this sacrament more than in the others by Divine praises and by admonitions, such as, "Lift
+                     up your hearts."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p7">
+                     <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, the minister of this sacrament is the priest, as stated above (
+                     <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,
+                     and some by the choir.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p8">
+                     <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
+                     of this sacrament, saying: "Which oblation do thou, O God, in all," etc.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p9">
+                     <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
+                     for the priest to pray that this sacrifice may be as acceptable as the sacrifice of Abel, Abraham, and Melchisedech.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p10">
+                     <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 (
+                     <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
+                     borne by the hands of thy holy angel unto Thine altar on high."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p11">
+                     <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
+                     of Caesarea, edited the rite of celebrating the mass": and from their authority it is manifest that whatever words are employed
+                     in this matter, are chosen becomingly.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p12">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> Since the whole mystery of our salvation is comprised in this sacrament, therefore is it performed with greater solemnity
+                     than the other sacraments. And since it is written (
+                     <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 (
+                     <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
+                     that we may perform worthily that
+                     which follows after. The first part of this preparation is Divine praise, and consists in the "Introit": according to
+                     <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
+                     is taken for the most part from the Psalms, or, at least, is sung with a Psalm, because, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii):
+                     "The Psalms comprise by way of praise whatever is contained in Sacred Scripture."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     on us," thrice for the Person of the Father, and "Christ, have mercy on us," thrice for the Person of the Son, and "Lord,
+                     have mercy on us," thrice for the Person of the Holy Ghost; against the threefold misery of ignorance, sin, and punishment;
+                     or else to express the "circuminsession" of all the Divine Persons.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     the words, "Glory be to God on high," which are sung on festival days, on which the heavenly glory is commemorated, but are
+                     omitted in those sorrowful offices which commemorate our unhappy state.
+                  </p>
+                  <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>
+                  <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
+                     stated above (
+                     <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
+                     of the prophets and apostles: after this "lesson," the choir sing the "Gradual," which signifies progress in life; then the
+                     "Alleluia" is intoned, and this denotes spiritual joy; or in
+                     mournful offices the "Tract", expressive of spiritual sighing; for all these things ought to result from the aforesaid teaching.
+                     But the people are instructed "perfectly" by Christ's teaching contained in the Gospel, which is read by the higher ministers,
+                     that is, by the Deacons. And because we believe Christ as the Divine truth, according to
+                     <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
+                     people show that they assent by faith to Christ's doctrine. And it is sung on those festivals of which mention is made therein,
+                     as on the festivals of Christ, of the Blessed Virgin, and of the apostles, who laid the foundations of this faith, and on
+                     other such days.
+                  </p>
+                  <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,
+                     which is both offered as a sacrifice, and consecrated and received as a sacrament: since first we have the oblation; then
+                     the consecration of the matter offered; and thirdly, its reception.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     of the offerers, and the priest's prayer asking for the people's oblation to be made acceptable to God. Hence David said (
+                     <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
+                     are here present, offer Thee their offerings": and then he makes the following
+                     prayer: "O Lord God . . . keep . . . this will."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     "Preface," hence they are admonished "to lift up their hearts to the Lord," and therefore when the "Preface" is ended the
+                     people devoutly praise Christ's Godhead, saying with the angels: "Holy, Holy, Holy"; and His humanity, saying with the children:
+                     "Blessed is he that cometh." In the next place the priest makes a "commemoration," first of those for whom
+                     this sacrifice is offered, namely, for the whole Church, and "for those set in high places" (
+                     <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
+                     their patronage for those mentioned above, when he says: "Communicating with, and honoring the memory," etc. Thirdly, he concludes
+                     the petition when he says: "Wherefore that this oblation," etc., in order that the oblation may be salutary to
+                     them for whom it is offered.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     oblation do Thou, O God," etc. Secondly, he performs the consecration using our Saviour's words, when he says: "Who the day
+                     before," etc. Thirdly, he makes excuse for his presumption in obeying Christ's command, saying: "Wherefore, calling to mind,"
+                     etc. Fourthly, he asks that the sacrifice accomplished may find favor with God, when he says: "Look down
+                     upon them with a propitious," etc. Fifthly, he begs for the effect of this sacrifice and sacrament, first for the partakers,
+                     saying: "We humbly beseech Thee"; then for the dead, who can no longer receive it, saying: "Be mindful also, O Lord," etc.;
+                     thirdly, for the priests themselves who offer, saying: "And to us sinners," etc.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     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
+                     prayer, which the priest puts up specially for the people, when he says: "Deliver us, we beseech Thee, O Lord," etc. Secondly,
+                     the people are prepared by the "Pax" which is given with the words, "Lamb of God," etc., because this is
+                     the sacrament of unity and peace, as stated above (
+                     <a id="TP_Q83_A4-p21.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q73_A4.html">Q[73], A[4]</a>;
+                     <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
+                     "Pax" is omitted.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii), he who gives Divine things to others, ought first to partake thereof himself.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     this is the meaning of the singing after the Communion); and the priest returning thanks by prayer, as Christ, at the close
+                     of the supper with His disciples, "said a hymn" (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A4-p23.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.26.30" target="asv">Mat. 26:30</a>).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p24">
+                     <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
+                     it, as stated above.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p25">
+                     <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
+                     Evangelists; and among them is the uplifting of His eyes to heaven at the supper; nevertheless the Roman Church had it by
+                     tradition from the apostles. For it seems reasonable that He Who lifted up His eyes to the Father in raising Lazarus to life,
+                     as related in
+                     <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
+                     disciples (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <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,
+                     especially since those words are no part of the form, as stated above (
+                     <a id="TP_Q83_A4-p26.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q78_A1.html">Q[78], A[1]</a>, ad 2,4).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p27"> The additional word "all" is understood in the Gospels, although not expressed, because He had said (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p28">
+                     <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,
+                     mention ought to be made of all that belongs to the salvation of the entire Church.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p29">
+                     <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
+                     catechumens, and such instruction is given in connection with Baptism. The other is the instruction of the faithful who take
+                     part in this sacrament; and such instruction is given in connection with this sacrament. Nevertheless catechumens and unbelievers
+                     are not excluded therefrom. Hence in De Consecr., dist. 1, it is laid down:
+                     "Let the bishop hinder no one from entering the church, and hearing the word of God, be they Gentiles, heretics, or Jews,
+                     until the mass of the Catechumens begins," in which the instruction regarding the Faith is contained.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p30">
+                     <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.
+                     Moreover, this sacrament requires a more general devotion, i.e. on the part of the whole people, since for them it is offered;
+                     and not merely on the part of the recipients, as in the other sacraments. Hence Cyprian observes (De Orat. Domin. 31), "The
+                     priest, in saying the Preface, disposes the souls of the brethren by saying,
+                     'Lift up your hearts,' and when the people answer---'We have lifted them up to the Lord,' let them remember that they are
+                     to think of nothing else but God."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p31">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     inspiring the entire people with them; and there are other words which the priest begins and the people take up, the priest
+                     then acting as in the person of God; to show that the things they denote have come to
+                     the people through Divine revelation, such as faith and heavenly glory; and therefore the priest intones the "Creed" and the
+                     "Gloria in excelsis Deo." Other words are uttered by the ministers, such as the doctrine of the Old and New Testament, as
+                     a sign that this doctrine was announced to the peoples through ministers sent by God. And there are other words which the
+                     priest alone recites, namely, such as belong to his personal office, "that he may offer up gifts and prayers for the people"
+                     (
+                     <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";
+                     other words, however, belong to the priest alone, such as the oblation and the consecration; consequently, the prayers that
+                     are said in connection with these have to be said by the priest in secret. Nevertheless, in both he calls the people to attention
+                     by saying: "The Lord be with you," and he waits for them to assent by saying "Amen." And
+                     therefore before the secret prayers he says aloud, "The Lord be with you," and he concludes, "For ever and ever." Or the priest
+                     secretly pronounces some of the words as a token that regarding Christ's Passion the disciples acknowledged Him only in secret.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p32">
+                     <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
+                     asking of God for what we know He will do, just as Christ (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A4-p32.1" href="./asv.html#John.17.1" target="asv">Jn. 17:1</a>, 
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A4-p32.2" href="./asv.html#John.17.5" target="asv">5</a>) asked for His glorification.
+                  </p>
+                  <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,
+                     hence he says expressively: "That it may become 'to us' the body and the blood." Again, the words preceding these have that
+                     meaning, when he says: "Vouchsafe to make this oblation blessed," i.e. according to Augustine (Paschasius, De Corp. et Sang.
+                     Dom. xii), "that we may receive a blessing," namely, through grace; "'enrolled,' i.e. that we may be enrolled
+                     in heaven; 'ratified,' i.e. that we may be incorporated in Christ; 'reasonable,' i.e. that we may be stripped of our animal
+                     sense; 'acceptable,' i.e. that we who in ourselves are displeasing, may, by its means, be made acceptable to His only Son."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p34">
+                     <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
+                     acceptable to God on account of their devotion. Consequently the priest asks that this sacrifice may be accepted by God through
+                     the devotion of the offerers, just as the former sacrifices were accepted by Him.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p35">
+                     <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
+                     thither, for it does not cease to be there; but he offers this prayer for Christ's mystical body, which is signified in this
+                     sacrament, that the angel standing by at the Divine mysteries may present to God the prayers of both priest and people, according
+                     to
+                     <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
+                     prayers of the saints ascended up before God, from the hand of the angel." But God's "altar on high" means either the Church
+                     triumphant, unto which we pray to be translated, or else God Himself, in Whom we ask to share; because it is said of this
+                     altar (
+                     <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
+                     we are to understand Christ Himself, Who is the "Angel of great counsel" (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q83_A4-p35.3" href="./asv.html#Isa.9.6" target="asv">Is.
+                        9:6
+                     </a>: Septuagint), Who unites His mystical body with God the Father and the Church triumphant.
+                  </p>
+                  <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,
+                     as the people do through the priest. or else because Christ is the victim sent [missa] to us: accordingly the deacon on festival
+                     days "dismisses" the people at the end of the mass, by saying: "Ite, missa est," that is, the victim has been sent [missa
+                     est] to God through the angel, so that it may be accepted by God.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p37"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A4-p38"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A5.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q83_A5" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A6.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q83_A5-p0.1">Whether the actions performed in celebrating this sacrament are becoming?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p2">
+                     <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
+                     sacrament belongs to the New Testament. But under the New Testament the ceremonies of the old are not to be observed, such
+                     as that the priests and ministers were purified with water when they drew nigh to offer up the sacrifice: for we read (
+                     <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
+                     they are going into the tabernacle of the testimony . . . and when they are to come to the altar." Therefore it is not fitting
+                     that the priest should wash his hands when celebrating mass.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, (
+                     <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
+                     action was part of the ceremonies of the Old Law. Therefore it is not fitting for the priest to use incense during mass.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the ceremonies performed in the sacraments of the Church ought not to be repeated. Consequently it is not proper
+                     for the priest to repeat the sign of the cross many times over this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p5">
+                     <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the Apostle says (
+                     <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
+                     the consecration, is much greater than the priest. Therefore quite unseemingly the priest, after the consecration, blesses
+                     this sacrament, by signing it with the cross.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p6">
+                     <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
+                     perform gestures, e.g. for the priest to stretch out his arms at times, to join his hands, to join together his fingers, and
+                     to bow down. Consequently, such things ought not to be done in this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p7">
+                     <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,
+                     such things ought not to be done in the celebration of this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p8">
+                     <b>Objection 7:</b> Further, the Apostle (
+                     <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
+                     proper for the priest to divide the host.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p9">
+                     <b>Objection 8:</b> Further, the ceremonies performed in this sacrament represent Christ's Passion. But during the Passion Christ's body was
+                     divided in the places of the five wounds. Therefore Christ's body ought to be broken into five parts rather than into three.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p10">
+                     <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
+                     particle of the body to be mixed with the blood.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p11">
+                     <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
+                     Christ's body no other bodily food is added in the celebration of the mass. Therefore, it is out of place for the priest,
+                     after taking Christ's blood, to receive other wine which is not consecrated.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p12">
+                     <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,
+                     it was commanded that nothing of it should "remain until the morning." It is improper therefore for consecrated hosts to be
+                     reserved, and not consumed at once.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p13">
+                     <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,
+                     "Let us return thanks." But it is out of keeping to address one individual in the plural number, especially an inferior. Consequently
+                     it seems unfitting for a priest to say mass with only a single server present. Therefore in the celebration of this sacrament
+                     it seems that some of the things done are out of place.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p14">
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p15">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As was said above (
+                     <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
+                     may thus be more perfect. Now, in the celebration of this sacrament words are used to signify things pertaining to Christ's
+                     Passion, which is represented in this sacrament; or again, pertaining to Christ's mystical body, which is signified therein;
+                     and again, things pertaining to the
+                     use of this sacrament, which use ought to be devout and reverent. Consequently, in the celebration of this mystery some things
+                     are done in order to represent Christ's Passion, or the disposing of His mystical body, and some others are done which pertain
+                     to the devotion and reverence due to this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p16">
+                     <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:
+                     first, because we are not wont to handle precious objects except the hands be washed; hence it seems indecent for anyone to
+                     approach so great a sacrament with hands that are, even literally, unclean. Secondly, on account of its signification, because,
+                     as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii), the washing of the extremities of the limbs
+                     denotes cleansing from even the smallest sins, according to
+                     <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;
+                     and this is denoted by the confession which is made before the "Introit" of the mass. Moreover, this was signified by the
+                     washing of the priests under the Old Law, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii). However, the Church observes this ceremony,
+                     not because it was prescribed under the
+                     Old Law, but because it is becoming in itself, and therefore instituted by the Church. Hence it is not observed in the same
+                     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
+                     done more readily, and suffices far denoting perfect cleansing. For, since the hand is the "organ of organs" (De Anima iii),
+                     all works are attributed to the hands: hence it is said in
+                     <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
+                     innocent."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p17">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     to this sacrament, i.e. in order by its good odor, to remove any disagreeable smell that may be about the place; secondly,
+                     it serves to show the effect of grace, wherewith Christ was filled as with a good
+                     odor, according to
+                     <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
+                     His ministers, according to 
+                     <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
+                     been incensed on every side, then all are incensed in their proper order.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p18">
+                     <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
+                     the cross. Now, Christ's Passion was accomplished in certain stages. First of all there was Christ's betrayal, which was the
+                     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,
+                     these presents, these holy unspotted sacrifices."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     this the threefold sign of the cross is repeated, at the words, "blessed, enrolled, ratified." Or again, to signify the price
+                     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
+                     the Blood," etc., to signify the person of Judas the seller, and of Christ Who was sold.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     made, one in consecrating the body, the other in consecrating the blood; each time while saying, "He blessed."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     a fivefold signing of the cross at the words, "a pure Victim, a holy Victim, a spotless Victim, the holy bread of eternal
+                     life, and the cup of everlasting salvation."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     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,"
+                     etc.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     them"; the second for deliverance from death, when He cried, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" the third referring
+                     to His entrance into glory, when He said, "Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit"; and in order to denote these there
+                     is a triple signing with the cross made at the words, "Thou dost sanctify, quicken, bless."
+                  </p>
+                  <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;
+                     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."
+                  </p>
+                  <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>
+                  <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
+                     Lord be ever with you."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     from the virtue of the cross of Christ, and therefore wherever mention is made of these, the priest makes use of the sign
+                     of the cross.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p28">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     3).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p29">
+                     <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
+                     else. The priest in extending his arms signifies the outstretching of Christ's arms upon the cross. He also lifts up his hands
+                     as he prays, to point out that his prayer is directed to God for the people, according to 
+                     <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":
+                     and
+                     <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
+                     and humbly, denotes the humility and obedience of Christ, out of which He suffered. He closes his fingers, i.e. the thumb
+                     and first finger, after the consecration, because, with them, he had touched the consecrated body of Christ; so that if any
+                     particle cling to the fingers, it may not be scattered: and this belongs to the reverence for
+                     this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p30">
+                     <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
+                     of His Resurrection, as stated above in the treatise on Christ's Resurrection (
+                     <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
+                     turning round, namely, when he says, "The Lord be with you" before the "Preface," and
+                     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.
+                     But a bishop, when he celebrates on festival days, in his first greeting says, "Peace be to you," which was our Lord's greeting
+                     after Resurrection, Whose person the bishop chiefly represents.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p31">
+                     <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,
+                     the distinction of His mystical body according to its various states; and thirdly, the distribution of the graces which flow
+                     from Christ's Passion, as Dionysius observes (Eccl. Hier. iii). Hence this breaking does not imply severance in Christ.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p32">
+                     <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
+                     part offered and put into the chalice signifies Christ's risen body," namely, Christ Himself, and the Blessed Virgin, and
+                     the other saints, if there be any, who are already in glory with their bodies. "The part consumed denotes those still walking
+                     upon earth," because while living upon earth they are united together by this
+                     sacrament; and are bruised by the passions, just as the bread eaten is bruised by the teeth. "The part reserved on the altar
+                     till the close of the mass, is His body hidden in the sepulchre, because the bodies of the saints will be in their graves
+                     until the end of the world": though their souls are either in purgatory, or in heaven. However, this rite of reserving one
+                     part on the altar till the close of the mass is no longer observed, on account of the danger; nevertheless, the same meaning
+                     of
+                     the parts continues, which some persons have expressed in verse, thus:
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p33"> "The host being rent---</p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p34"> What is dipped, means the blest;</p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p35"> What is dry, means the living;</p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p36"> What is kept, those at rest."</p>
+                  <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
+                     the chalice denotes those fully blessed both in soul and body; while the part consumed means the others.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p38">
+                     <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
+                     to this, by the part put into the chalice are denoted those who are still sharers of Christ's sufferings; secondly, the enjoyment
+                     of the Blessed can be signified, which is likewise foreshadowed in this sacrament; and therefore those whose bodies are already
+                     in full beatitude, are denoted by the part put into the chalice. And it
+                     is to be observed that the part put into the chalice ought not to be given to the people to supplement the communion, because
+                     Christ gave dipped bread only to Judas the betrayer.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p39">
+                     <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
+                     this sacrament, lest any particles remain: and this belongs to reverence for the sacrament. Hence (Extra, De Celebratione
+                     missae, chap. Ex parte), it is said: "The priest should always cleanse his mouth with wine after receiving the entire sacrament
+                     of Eucharist: except when he has to celebrate another mass on the same day,
+                     lest from taking the ablution-wine he be prevented from celebrating again"; and it is for the same reason that wine is poured
+                     over the fingers with which he had touched the body of Christ.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p40">
+                     <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
+                     the priest and ministers or even the people communicate, ought not to be reserved until the day following. Hence, as is laid
+                     down (De Consecr., dist. ii), Pope Clement I ordered that "as many hosts are to be offered on the altar as shall suffice for
+                     the people; should any be left over, they are not to be reserved until the
+                     morrow, but let the clergy carefully consume them with fear and trembling." Nevertheless, since this sacrament is to be received
+                     daily, whereas the Paschal Lamb was not, it is therefore necessary for other hosts to be reserved for the sick. Hence we read
+                     in the same distinction: "Let the priest always have the Eucharist ready, so that, when anyone fall sick, he may take Communion
+                     to him at once, lest he die without it."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p41">
+                     <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):
+                     "It has also been ordained, that no priest is to presume to celebrate solemn mass, unless two others be present answering
+                     him, while he himself makes the third; because when he says in the plural, 'The Lord be with you,' and again in the Secrets,
+                     'Pray ye for me,' it is most becoming that they should answer his greeting." Hence it
+                     is for the sake of greater solemnity that we find it decreed (De Consecr. dist. 1) that a bishop is to solemnize mass with
+                     several assistants. Nevertheless, in private masses it suffices to have one server, who takes the place of the whole Catholic
+                     people, on whose behalf he makes answer in the plural to the priest.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p42"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A5-p43"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A6.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q83_A6" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q84.html"></a>
+                  <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>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A6-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A6-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the defects occurring during the celebration of this sacrament cannot be sufficiently met by observing the
+                     statutes of the Church. For it sometimes happens that before or after the consecration the priest dies or goes mad, or is
+                     hindered by some other infirmity from receiving the sacrament and completing the mass. Consequently it seems impossible to
+                     observe the Church's statute, whereby the priest consecrating must communicate of his own
+                     sacrifice.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A6-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it sometimes happens that, before the consecration, the priest remembers that he has eaten or drunk something, or
+                     that he is in mortal sin, or under excommunication, which he did not remember previously. Therefore, in such a dilemma a man
+                     must necessarily commit mortal sin by acting against the Church's statute, whether he receives or not.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A6-p4">
+                     <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.
+                     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
+                     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
+                     not take it, he sins by acting against the Church's statute. Consequently, he seems
+                     to be perplexed, and under necessity of sinning, which is not becoming.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A6-p5">
+                     <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,
+                     and that the priest discovers this. Therefore he seems to be perplexed likewise in this case, whether he receives the body
+                     without the blood, thus making the sacrifice to be incomplete, or whether he receives neither the body nor the blood.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A6-p6">
+                     <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, it sometimes happens that the priest cannot remember having said the words of consecration, or other words which
+                     are uttered in the celebration of this sacrament. In this case he seems to sin, whether he repeats the words over the same
+                     matter, which words possibly he has said before, or whether he uses bread and wine which are not consecrated, as if they were
+                     consecrated.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A6-p7">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     the breaking, or else as to this, that only a third part is put into the chalice.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A6-p8">
+                     <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
+                     the sacrament received, or that the consecrated hosts are kept so long that they become corrupt, or that they are nibbled
+                     by mice, or lost in any manner whatsoever; in which cases it does not seem possible for due reverence to be shown towards
+                     this sacrament, as the Church's ordinances require. It does not seem then that such defects or
+                     dangers can be met by keeping to the Church's statutes.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A6-p9">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> Just as God does not command an impossibility, so neither does the Church.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A6-p10">
+                     <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:
+                     secondly, by dealing with them in such a way, that what may have happened amiss is put right, either by employing a remedy,
+                     or at least by repentance on his part who has acted negligently regarding this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A6-p11">
+                     <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
+                     for it to be completed by another. But if this happens after the consecration is begun, for instance, when the body has been
+                     consecrated and before the consecration of the blood, or even after both have been consecrated, then the celebration of the
+                     mass ought to be finished by someone else. Hence, as is laid down (Decretal vii,
+                     q. 1), we read the following decree of the (Seventh) Council of Toledo: "We consider it to be fitting that when the sacred
+                     mysteries are consecrated by priests during the time of mass, if any sickness supervenes, in consequence of which they cannot
+                     finish the mystery begun, let it be free for the bishop or another priest to finish the consecration of the office thus begun.
+                     For nothing else is suitable for completing the mysteries commenced, unless the consecration be completed either by the
+                     priest who began it, or by the one who follows him: because they cannot be completed except they be performed in perfect order.
+                     For since we are all one in Christ, the change of persons makes no difference, since unity of faith insures the happy issue
+                     of the mystery. Yet let not the course we propose for cases of natural debility, be presumptuously abused: and let no minister
+                     or priest presume ever to leave the Divine offices unfinished, unless he be absolutely prevented from continuing. If
+                     anyone shall have rashly presumed to do so, he will incur sentence of excommunication."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A6-p12">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Where difficulty arises, the less dangerous course should always be followed. But the greatest danger regarding this sacrament
+                     lies in whatever may prevent its completion, because this is a heinous sacrilege; while that danger is of less account which
+                     regards the condition of the receiver. Consequently, if after the consecration has been begun the priest remembers that he
+                     has eaten or drunk anything, he ought nevertheless to complete the sacrifice and
+                     receive the sacrament. Likewise, if he recalls a sin committed, he ought to make an act of contrition, with the firm purpose
+                     of confessing and making satisfaction for it: and thus he will not receive the sacrament unworthily, but with profit. The
+                     same applies if he calls to mind that he is under some excommunication; for he ought to make the resolution of humbly seeking
+                     absolution; and so he will receive absolution from the invisible High Priest Jesus Christ for his act of completing the Divine
+                     mysteries.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     the mass begun, especially if he has broken his fast, or is under excommunication, unless grave scandal were to be feared.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A6-p14">
+                     <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
+                     to be poured out, and after purifying the chalice, fresh wine should be served for consecration. But if anything of the sort
+                     happen after the consecration, the insect should be caught carefully and washed thoroughly, then burned, and the "ablution,"
+                     together with the ashes, thrown into the sacrarium. If it be discovered that the
+                     wine has been poisoned, the priest should neither receive it nor administer it to others on any account, lest the life-giving
+                     chalice become one of death, but it ought to be kept in a suitable vessel with the relics: and in order that the sacrament
+                     may not remain incomplete, he ought to put other wine into the chalice, resume the mass from the consecration of the blood,
+                     and complete the sacrifice.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A6-p15">
+                     <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
+                     the water is absent, then he ought at once to add them and consecrate. But if after the words of consecration he discover
+                     that the water is absent, he ought notwithstanding to proceed straight on, because the addition of the water is not necessary
+                     for the sacrament, as stated above (
+                     <a id="TP_Q83_A6-p15.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q74_A7.html">Q[74], A[7]</a>):
+                     nevertheless the person responsible for the neglect ought to be punished. And on no account should water be mixed with the
+                     consecrated wine, because corruption of the sacrament would ensue in part, as was said above (
+                     <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
+                     before receiving the body, then rejecting the water, he ought to pour in wine with water, and begin over again the
+                     consecrating words of the blood. But if he notice it after receiving the body, he ought to procure another host which must
+                     be consecrated together with the blood; and I say so for this reason, because if he were to say only the words of consecration
+                     of the blood, the proper order of consecrating would not be observed; and, as is laid down by the Council of Toledo, quoted
+                     above (ad 1), sacrifices cannot be perfect, except they be performed in perfect order. But if he were to begin from the
+                     consecration of the blood, and were to repeat all the words which follow, it would not suffice, unless there was a consecrated
+                     host present, since in those words there are things to be said and done not only regarding the blood, but also regarding the
+                     body; and at the close he ought once more to receive the consecrated host and blood, even if he had already taken the water
+                     which was in the chalice, because the precept of the completing this sacrament is of greater weight than the precept of
+                     receiving the sacrament while fasting, as stated above (
+                     <a id="TP_Q83_A6-p15.3" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q80_A8.html">Q[80], A[8]</a>).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A6-p16">
+                     <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
+                     on that account; for a man who utters many words cannot recall to mind all that he has said; unless perchance in uttering
+                     them he adverts to something connected with the consecration; for so it is impressed on the memory. Hence, if a man pays attention
+                     to what he is saying, but without adverting to the fact that he is saying these
+                     particular words, he remembers soon after that he has said them; for, a thing is presented to the memory under the formality
+                     of the past (De Mem. et Remin. i).
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     that he ought not to repeat them on that account, changing the order of the sacrifice, but that he ought to proceed: but if
+                     he is certain that he has left out any of those that are necessary for the sacrament, namely, the form of the consecration,
+                     since the form of the consecration is necessary for the sacrament, just as the matter is, it seems that the
+                     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
+                     with the form of the consecration, and repeat the other things in order, lest the order of the sacrifice be altered.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A6-p18">
+                     <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
+                     as the mixing with water signifies the people, and therefore the omission of either of them causes no such imperfection in
+                     the sacrifice, as calls for repetition regarding the celebration of this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A6-p19">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     not a board, let the ground be scraped, and the scrapings burned, and the ashes buried inside the altar and let the priest
+                     do penance for forty days. But if a drop fall from the chalice on to the altar, let the
+                     minister suck up the drop, and do penance during three days; if it falls upon the altar cloth and penetrates to the second
+                     altar cloth, let him do four days' penance; if it penetrates to the third, let him do nine days' penance; if to the fourth,
+                     let him do twenty days' penance; and let the altar linens which the drop touched be washed three times by the priest, holding
+                     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
+                     it might be rejected from nausea. Some persons go further, and cut out that part of the linen, which they burn, putting the
+                     ashes in the altar or down the sacrarium. And the Decretal continues with a quotation from the Penitential of Bede the Priest:
+                     "If, owing to drunkenness or gluttony, anyone vomits up the Eucharist, let him do forty days' penance, if he be a layman;
+                     but let clerics or monks, deacons and priests, do seventy days' penance; and let a bishop do ninety days'. But if they vomit
+                     from sickness, let them do penance for seven days." And in the same distinction, we read a decree of the (Fourth) Council
+                     of Arles: "They who do not keep proper custody over the sacrament, if a mouse or other animal consume it, must do forty days'
+                     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
+                     to deserve the same penance, who from neglect allows the hosts to putrefy. And on those days the one doing penance ought to
+                     fast, and abstain from Communion. However, after weighing the circumstances of the fact and of the person, the said penances
+                     may be lessened or increased. But it must be observed that wherever the species are found to be entire, they must be preserved
+                     reverently, or consumed; because Christ's body is there so long as the species last, as stated above (
+                     <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
+                     put in the sacrarium, as was said of the scrapings of the altar-table, here above.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A6-p20"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q83_A6-p21"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q84.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q82_A10.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A1.html"></a>
+            </div>
+            <div id="TP_Q84" class="div3">
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A6.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A1.html"></a>
+               <h3 id="TP_Q84-p0.1">OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE (TEN ARTICLES)</h3>
+               <p id="TP_Q84-p1"></p>
+               <p id="TP_Q84-p2"></p>
+               <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
+                  recipients of this sacrament; (5) The power of the ministers, which pertains to the keys; (6) The solemnization of this sacrament.
+               </p>
+               <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>
+               <p id="TP_Q84-p5"> Under the first head there are ten points of inquiry:</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q84-p6"> (1) Whether Penance is a sacrament?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q84-p7"> (2) Of its proper matter;</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q84-p8"> (3) Of its form;</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q84-p9"> (4) Whether imposition of hands is necessary for this sacrament?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q84-p10"> (5) Whether this sacrament is necessary for salvation?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q84-p11"> (6) Of its relation to the other sacraments;</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q84-p12"> (7) Of its institution;</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q84-p13"> (8) Of its duration;</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q84-p14"> (9) Of its continuance;</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q84-p15"> (10) Whether it can be repeated?</p>
+               <div id="TP_Q84_A1" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q84.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A2.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q84_A1-p0.1">Whether Penance is a sacrament?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A1-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A1-p2">
+                     <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,
+                     Chrism, and the Body and Blood of Christ; which are called sacraments because under the veil of corporeal things the Divine
+                     power works out salvation in a hidden manner." But this does not happen in Penance, because therein corporeal things are not
+                     employed that, under them, the power of God may work our salvation. Therefore Penance is
+                     not a sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A1-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the sacraments of the Church are shown forth by the ministers of Christ, according to 
+                     <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
+                     conferred by the ministers of Christ, but is inspired inwardly into man by God, according to
+                     <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
+                     sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A1-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, in the sacraments of which we have already spoken above, there is something that is sacrament only, something that
+                     is both reality and sacrament, and something that is reality only, as is clear from what has been stated (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A1-p5">
+                     <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 (
+                     <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 (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A1-p6">
+                     <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
+                     understand it to signify the holiness which it confers." Now it is evident that in Penance something is done so that something
+                     holy is signified both on the part of the penitent sinner, and on the part of the priest absolving, because the penitent sinner,
+                     by deed and word, shows his heart to have renounced sin, and in like manner the
+                     priest, by his deed and word with regard to the penitent, signifies the work of God Who forgives his sins. Therefore it is
+                     evident that Penance, as practiced in the Church, is a sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A1-p7">
+                     <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
+                     water is to Baptism, or chrism to Confirmation. But it is to be observed that in those sacraments, whereby an exceptional
+                     grace surpassing altogether the proportion of a human act, is conferred, some corporeal matter is employed externally, e.g.
+                     in Baptism, which confers full remission of all sins, both as to guilt and as to
+                     punishment, and in Confirmation, wherein the fulness of the Holy Ghost is bestowed, and in Extreme Unction, which confers
+                     perfect spiritual health derived from the virtue of Christ as from an extrinsic principle. Wherefore, such human acts as are
+                     in these sacraments, are not the essential matter of the sacrament, but are dispositions thereto. On the other hand, in those
+                     sacraments whose effect corresponds to that of some human act, the sensible human act itself takes the place of matter, as
+                     in
+                     the case of Penance and Matrimony, even as in bodily medicines, some are applied externally, such as plasters and drugs, while
+                     others are acts of the person who seeks to be cured, such as certain exercises.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A1-p8">
+                     <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
+                     in the place of Christ, which denotes that the excellence of the power which operates in the sacraments is from Christ. But
+                     in the sacrament of Penance, as stated above (ad 1), human actions take the place of matter, and these actions proceed from
+                     internal inspiration, wherefore the matter is not applied by the minister, but by
+                     God working inwardly; while the minister furnishes the complement of the sacrament, when he absolves the penitent.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A1-p9">
+                     <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,
+                     and by the priest in giving absolution; that which is reality and sacrament is the sinner's inward repentance; while that
+                     which is reality, and not sacrament, is the forgiveness of sin. The first of these taken altogether is the cause of the second;
+                     and the first and second together are the cause of the third.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A1-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A1-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q84.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A2.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q84_A2" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A3.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q84_A2-p0.1">Whether sins are the proper matter of this sacrament?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A2-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A2-p2">
+                     <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
+                     by the utterance of certain words, and being thus hallowed produces the sacramental effect. Now sins cannot be hallowed, for
+                     they are opposed to the effect of the sacrament, viz. grace which blots out sin. Therefore sins are not the proper matter
+                     of this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A2-p3">
+                     <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
+                     old." Now not only sins but also the penalties of the present life belong to the old life. Therefore sins are not the proper
+                     matter of Penance.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A2-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, sin is either original, mortal or venial. Now the sacrament of Penance is not ordained against original sin, for
+                     this is taken away by Baptism, [nor against mortal sin, for this is taken away by the sinner's confession]*, nor against venial
+                     sin, which is taken away by the beating of the breast and the sprinkling of holy water and the like. Therefore sins are not
+                     the proper matter of Penance. [*The words in brackets are omitted in the Leonine
+                     edition].
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A2-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A2-p6">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     penitent, the matter of which acts are the sins over which he grieves, which he confesses, and for which he satisfies. Hence
+                     it follows that sins are the remote matter of Penance, as a matter, not for approval, but
+                     for detestation, and destruction.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A2-p7">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This argument considers the proximate matter of a sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A2-p8">
+                     <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
+                     connected with it.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A2-p9">
+                     <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
+                     and chiefly; properly, since, properly speaking, we are said to repent of what we have done of our own will; chiefly, since
+                     this sacrament was instituted chiefly for the blotting out of mortal sin. Penance regards venial sins, properly speaking indeed,
+                     in so far as they are committed of our own will, but this was not the chief
+                     purpose of its institution. But as to original sin, Penance regards it neither chiefly, since Baptism, and not Penance, is
+                     ordained against original sin, nor properly, because original sin is not done of our own will, except in so far as Adam's
+                     will is looked upon as ours, in which sense the Apostle says (
+                     <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
+                     any detestation of something past: in
+                     which sense Augustine uses the term in his book De Poenitentia (Serm. cccli).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A2-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A2-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A3.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q84_A3" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A4.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q84_A3-p0.1">Whether the form of this sacrament is: "I absolve thee"?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A3-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A3-p2">
+                     <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
+                     from Christ's institution and the Church's custom. But we do not read that Christ instituted this form. Nor is it in common
+                     use; in fact in certain absolutions which are given publicly in church (e.g. at Prime and Compline and on Maundy Thursday),
+                     absolution is given not in the indicative form by saying: "I absolve thee," but In the
+                     deprecatory form, by saying: "May Almighty God have mercy on you," or: "May Almighty God grant you absolution and forgiveness."
+                     Therefore the form of this sacrament is not: "I absolve thee."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A3-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Pope Leo says (Ep. cviii) that God's forgiveness cannot be obtained without the priestly supplications: and he is
+                     speaking there of God's forgiveness granted to the penitent. Therefore the form of this sacrament should be deprecatory.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A3-p4">
+                     <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
+                     sin, as Augustine says (Contra Donatist. v, 21). Therefore it seems that God alone absolves from sin. Therefore the priest
+                     should say not: "I absolve thee," as neither does he say: "I remit thy sins."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A3-p5">
+                     <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
+                     infirmities," "to cast out devils," and "to cure diseases" (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.10.1" target="asv">Mat. 10:1</a>;
+                     <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']
+                     thee," as Peter said to the palsied man (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A3-p5.3" href="./asv.html#Acts.9.34" target="asv">Acts 9:34</a>). Therefore since
+                     priests have the power which Christ gave His apostles, it seems that they should not use the form: "I absolve thee," but:
+                     "May Christ absolve thee."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A3-p6">
+                     <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."
+                     But neither can this be done by a priest unless it be revealed to him by God, wherefore, as we read in
+                     <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 (
+                     <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
+                     to thee, but My Father Who is in heaven." Therefore it seems presumptuous for a priest, who has received no revelation on
+                     the matter, to say: "I absolve thee," even if this be explained to mean: "I declare thee absolved."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A3-p7">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> As our Lord said to His disciples (
+                     <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 (
+                     <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
+                     baptize thee." Therefore on the same authority he should say in this sacrament: "I absolve thee."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A3-p8">
+                     <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
+                     by that which is done by the priest. Wherefore the part taken by the penitent, whether it consist of words or deeds, must
+                     needs be the matter of this sacrament, while the part taken by the priest, takes the place of the form.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A3-p9"> Now since the sacraments of the New Law accomplish what they signify, as stated above (
+                     <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.
+                     Hence the form of Baptism is: "I baptize thee," and the form of Confirmation is: "I sign thee with the sign of the cross,
+                     and I confirm thee with the chrism of salvation," because these sacraments are perfected in the use of their
+                     matter: while in the sacrament of the Eucharist, which consists in the very consecration of the matter, the reality of the
+                     consecration is expressed in the words: "This is My Body."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     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
+                     explained above 
+                     <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
+                     <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
+                     is fast bound with the ropes of his own sins." Wherefore it is evident that this is the most fitting form of this sacrament:
+                     "I absolve thee."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A3-p11">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This form is taken from Christ's very words which He addressed to Peter (
+                     <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
+                     such absolutions as are given in public are not sacramental, but are prayers for the remission of venial sins. Wherefore in
+                     giving sacramental absolution it would not suffice to say: "May Almighty God have mercy on thee," or:
+                     "May God grant thee absolution and forgiveness," because by such words the priest does not signify the giving of absolution,
+                     but prays that it may be given. Nevertheless the above prayer is said before the sacramental absolution is given, lest the
+                     sacramental effect be hindered on the part of the penitent, whose acts are as matter in this sacrament, but not in Baptism
+                     or Confirmation.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A3-p12">
+                     <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
+                     pronounces absolution.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A3-p13">
+                     <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
+                     priest in this sacrament work as instruments of the Divine power, as in the other sacraments: because it is the Divine power
+                     that works inwardly in all the sacramental signs, be they things or words, as shown above (
+                     <a id="TP_Q84_A3-p13.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q62_A4.html">Q[62], A[4]</a>;
+                     <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:
+                     for He said to Peter (
+                     <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 (
+                     <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
+                     thee thy sins," because it is more in keeping with the words of our Lord, by expressing the power of the keys whereby priests
+                     absolve. Nevertheless, since the priest absolves ministerially, something is suitably added in
+                     reference to the supreme authority of God, by the priest saying: "I absolve thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
+                     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
+                     the words of Christ, as it is for Baptism, this addition is left to the discretion of the priest.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A3-p14">
+                     <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
+                     of the apostles: whereas power was given to them to work instrumentally or ministerially in the sacraments; wherefore they
+                     could express their own agency in the sacramental forms rather than in the healing of infirmities. Nevertheless in the latter
+                     case they did not always use the deprecatory form, but sometimes employed the
+                     indicative or imperative: thus we read (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A3-p15">
+                     <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.
+                     Because the sacraments of the New Law not only signify, but effect what they signify. Wherefore, just as the priest in baptizing
+                     anyone, declares by deed and word that the person is washed inwardly, and this not only significatively but also effectively,
+                     so also when he says: "I absolve thee," he declares the man to be absolved
+                     not only significatively but also effectively. And yet he does not speak as of something uncertain, because just as the other
+                     sacraments of the New Law have, of themselves, a sure effect through the power of Christ's Passion, which effect, nevertheless,
+                     may be impeded on the part of the recipient, so is it with this sacrament. Hence Augustine says (De Adult. Conjug. ii): "There
+                     is nothing disgraceful or onerous in the reconciliation of husband and wife, when adultery committed has been washed
+                     away, since there is no doubt that remission of sins is granted through the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Consequently there
+                     is no need for a special revelation to be made to the priest, but the general revelation of faith suffices, through which
+                     sins are forgiven. Hence the revelation of faith is said to have been made to Peter.
+                  </p>
+                  <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>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A3-p17"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A3-p18"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A4.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q84_A4" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A5.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q84_A4-p0.1">Whether the imposition of the priest's hands is necessary for this sacrament?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A4-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A4-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the imposition of the priest's hands is necessary for this sacrament. For it is written (
+                     <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
+                     this sacrament. Therefore an imposition of hands should be made in this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A4-p3">
+                     <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
+                     (
+                     <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
+                     imposition of hands; for we read (
+                     <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 (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A4-p3.3" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.13" target="asv">Mat. 19:13</a>)
+                     that "little children were presented" to our Lord, "that He should impose hands upon them." Therefore an imposition of hands
+                     should be made in this sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A4-p4">
+                     <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
+                     words of the minister do not suffice, unless he perform some action: thus, in Baptism, the priest while saying: "I baptize
+                     thee," has to perform a bodily washing. Therefore, also while saying: "I absolve thee," the priest should perform some action
+                     in regard to the penitent, by laying hands on him.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A4-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> When our Lord said to Peter (
+                     <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
+                     all the apostles (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A4-p6">
+                     <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
+                     on whom the hands are laid being, as it were, united to the ministers in whom grace should be plentiful. Wherefore an imposition
+                     of hands is made in the sacrament of Confirmation, wherein the fulness of the Holy Ghost is conferred; and in the sacrament
+                     of order, wherein is bestowed a certain excellence of power over the Divine mysteries;
+                     hence it is written (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     away; and therefore no imposition of hands is required for this sacrament, as neither is there for Baptism, wherein nevertheless
+                     a fuller remission of sins is bestowed.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A4-p8">
+                     <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
+                     a sanctified man's hand, even bodily infirmity might be removed; even as we read of our Lord (
+                     <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 (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A4-p9">
+                     <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
+                     Holy Ghost, without any imposition of hands: it is at the reception of the fulness of the Holy Ghost which belongs to Confirmation
+                     that an imposition of hands is required.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A4-p10">
+                     <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
+                     of the sacrament, e.g. in Baptism, Confirmation, and Extreme Unction; whereas this sacrament does not consist in the use of
+                     matter employed outwardly, the matter being supplied by the part taken by the penitent: wherefore, just as in the Eucharist
+                     the priest perfects the sacrament by merely pronouncing the words over the
+                     matter, so the mere words which the priest while absolving pronounces over the penitent perfect the sacrament of absolution.
+                     If, indeed, any bodily act were necessary on the part of the priest, the sign of the cross, which is employed in the Eucharist,
+                     would not be less becoming than the imposition of hands, in token that sins are forgiven through the blood of Christ crucified;
+                     and yet this is not essential to this sacrament as neither is it to the Eucharist.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A4-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A4-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A5.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q84_A5" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A6.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q84_A5-p0.1">Whether this sacrament is necessary for salvation?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A5-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A5-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that this sacrament is not necessary for salvation. Because on
+                     <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."
+                     But sorrow is essential to Penance, according to 
+                     <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
+                     for salvation.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A5-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is written (
+                     <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 (
+                     <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
+                     one has charity, faith, and mercy, one can obtain salvation, without the sacrament of Penance.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A5-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the sacraments of the Church take their origin from the institution of Christ. But according to 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A5-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> our Lord said (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A5-p6">
+                     <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
+                     for salvation, if no one can obtain salvation without it, as, for example, the grace of Christ, and the sacrament of Baptism,
+                     whereby a man is born again in Christ. The sacrament of Penance is necessary on a supposition, for it is necessary, not for
+                     all, but for those who are in sin. For it is written (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q84_A5-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iiChr.37" target="asv">2 Paral 37</a> [*The prayer of
+                     Manasses, among the Apocrypha]), "Thou, Lord, God of the righteous, hast not appointed repentance to the righteous, to Abraham,
+                     Isaac and Jacob, nor to those who sinned not against Thee." But "sin, when it is completed, begetteth death" (
+                     <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
+                     sacrament of Penance, wherein the power of Christ's Passion operates through the priest's absolution and
+                     the acts of the penitent, who co-operates with grace unto the destruction of his sin. For as Augustine says (Tract. lxxii
+                     in Joan. [*Implicitly in the passage referred to, but explicitly Serm. xv de verb Apost.]), "He Who created thee without thee,
+                     will not justify thee without thee." Therefore it is evident that after sin the sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation,
+                     even as bodily medicine after man has contracted a dangerous disease.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A5-p7">
+                     <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
+                     has no cause for sorrow: but as soon as the good will is forfeited through sin, it cannot be restored without that sorrow
+                     whereby a man sorrows for his past sin, and which belongs to Penance.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A5-p8">
+                     <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
+                     demands that a man should grieve for the offense committed against his friend, and that he should be anxious to make satisfaction
+                     to his friend; faith requires that he should seek to be justified from his sins through the power of Christ's Passion which
+                     operates in the sacraments of the Church; and well-ordered pity necessitates
+                     that man should succor himself by repenting of the pitiful condition into which sin has brought him, according to
+                     <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 (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A5-p9">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> It was due to His power of "excellence," which He alone had, as stated above (
+                     <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
+                     the sacrament of Penance, although not without internal repentance, which He operated in her by grace.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A5-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A5-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A6.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q84_A6" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A7.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q84_A6-p0.1">Whether Penance is a second plank after shipwreck?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A6-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A6-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Penance is not a second plank after shipwreck. Because on
+                     <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."
+                     Now Penance does not hide sins, but reveals them. Therefore Penance is not a second plank.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A6-p3">
+                     <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
+                     foundation, according to
+                     <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
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A6-p4">
+                     <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
+                     the sacraments, as is clear from what has been said above (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A6-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> Jerome says (Ep. cxxx) that "Penance is a second plank after shipwreck."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A6-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> That which is of itself precedes naturally that which is accidental, as substance precedes accident. Now some sacraments
+                     are, of themselves, ordained to man's salvation, e.g. Baptism, which is the spiritual birth, Confirmation which is the spiritual
+                     growth, the Eucharist which is the spiritual food; whereas Penance is ordained to man's salvation accidentally as it were,
+                     and on something being supposed, viz. sin: for unless man were to sin actually, he would
+                     not stand in need of Penance and yet he would need Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist; even as in the life of the body,
+                     man would need no medical treatment, unless he were ill, and yet life, birth, growth, and food are, of themselves, necessary
+                     to man.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     aforesaid sacraments, so that it is called metaphorically "a second plank after shipwreck." For just as the first help for
+                     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
+                     to a plank; so too the first help in this life's ocean is that man safeguard his integrity, while the second help
+                     is, if he lose his integrity through sin, that he regain it by means of Penance.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A6-p8">
+                     <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,
+                     both because a public sinner seems to sin more from contempt, and because by sinning he gives scandal to others. Consequently
+                     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
+                     plank after shipwreck"; not that it takes away sin, as Penance does, but
+                     because it makes the sin less grievous. Secondly, one hides one's sin previously committed, by neglecting to confess it: this
+                     is opposed to Penance, and to hide one's sins thus is not a second plank, but is the reverse, since it is written (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A6-p9">
+                     <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
+                     foundation in the second building which is accomplished by destroying sin, because man, on his return to God, needs Penance
+                     first. However, the Apostle is speaking there of the foundation of spiritual doctrine. Moreover, the penance which precedes
+                     Baptism is not the sacrament of Penance.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A6-p10">
+                     <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
+                     to which Penance is called a second plank.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A6-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A6-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A7.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q84_A7" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A6.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A8.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q84_A7-p0.1">Whether this sacrament was suitably instituted in the New Law?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A7-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A7-p2">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     impossible to love good without grieving for its contrary. Therefore Penance was unsuitably instituted in the New Law.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A7-p3">
+                     <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
+                     the Lord complains (
+                     <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
+                     instituted in the New Law.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A7-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Penance comes after Baptism, since it is a second plank, as stated above 
+                     <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
+                     said (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A7-p5">
+                     <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the sacraments of the New Law were instituted by Christ, by Whose power they work, as stated above (
+                     <a id="TP_Q84_A7-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q62_A5.html">Q[62], A[5]</a>;
+                     <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
+                     He instituted. Therefore this sacrament was unsuitably instituted in the New Law.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A7-p6">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> our Lord said (
+                     <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
+                     be preached in His name unto all nations."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A7-p7">
+                     <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
+                     priest, who works as Christ's minister, is the formal and completive element of the sacrament. Now in the other sacraments
+                     the matter pre-exists, being provided by nature, as water, or by art, as bread: but that such and such a matter be employed
+                     for a sacrament requires to be decided by the institution; while the sacrament derives its
+                     form and power entirely from the institution of Christ, from Whose Passion the power of the sacraments proceeds.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     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
+                     that way. Wherefore at the outset of His preaching, our Lord admonished men, not only to repent, but also to "do penance,"
+                     thus pointing to the particular manner of actions required for this sacrament. As to the part to be taken by the
+                     ministers, this was fixed by our Lord when He said to Peter (
+                     <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
+                     efficacy of this sacrament and the source of its power, when He said (
+                     <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
+                     resurrection. Because it is from the power of the name of Jesus
+                     Christ suffering and rising again that this sacrament is efficacious unto the remission of sins.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A7-p9"> It is therefore evident that this sacrament was suitably instituted in the New Law.</p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A7-p10">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     read in 
+                     <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
+                     as they did these things in the hope that they would receive pardon from
+                     God, according as we read (
+                     <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
+                     as other matters which are of the natural law were fixed in detail by the institution of the Divine law, as we have stated
+                     in the 
+                     <a id="TP_Q84_A7-p10.3" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q91_A4.html">FS, Q[91], A[4]</a>; 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A7-p11">
+                     <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
+                     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,
+                     that it should be in the heart rather than in external signs, according to 
+                     <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
+                     sorrow, that they should in some way confess their sins, at least in general, to God's ministers. Wherefore the Lord said
+                     (
+                     <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
+                     measure and estimation of the sin, and the priest shall pray for him, because he did it ignorantly, and it shall be forgiven
+                     him"; since by the very fact of making an offering for his sin, a man, in a fashion,
+                     confessed his sin to the priest. And accordingly it is written (
+                     <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,
+                     however, was the power of the keys instituted, which is derived from Christ's Passion, and consequently it was not yet ordained
+                     that a man should grieve for his sin, with the purpose of submitting himself by confession and satisfaction to the keys of
+                     the Church, in the hope of
+                     receiving forgiveness through the power of Christ's Passion.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A7-p12">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> If we note carefully what our Lord said about the necessity of Baptism (
+                     <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 (
+                     <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 (
+                     <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
+                     prison.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     Baptism some kind of penance is required, according to the words of Peter (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A7-p14">
+                     <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 (
+                     <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,
+                     as related in
+                     <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
+                     to His
+                     institution of this sacrament it was nowise fitting that He should use it, neither by repenting Himself, in Whom there was
+                     no sin, nor by administering the sacrament to others, since, in order to show His mercy and power, He was wont to confer the
+                     effect of this sacrament without the sacrament itself, as stated above (A[5], ad 3). On the other hand, He both received and
+                     gave to others the sacrament of the Eucharist, both in order to commend the excellence of that sacrament, and because that
+                     sacrament is a memorial of His Passion, in which Christ is both priest and victim.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A7-p15"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A7-p16"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A6.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A8.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q84_A8" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A7.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A9.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q84_A8-p0.1">Whether Penance should last till the end of life?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A8-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A8-p2">
+                     <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.
+                     Now the penitent receives forgiveness of his sins at once, according to
+                     <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
+                     is no need for Penance to be further prolonged.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A8-p3">
+                     <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,
+                     and, from this, on to the state of the perfect. Therefore man need not do Penance till the end of his life.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A8-p4">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     seems that Penance should not be prolonged till the end of life.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A8-p5">
+                     <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
+                     for us to do, save to sorrow ever in this life? For when sorrow ceases, repentance fails; and if repentance fails, what becomes
+                     of pardon?"
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A8-p6">
+                     <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
+                     this penance should last until the end of life. Because man should always be displeased at having sinned, for if he were to
+                     be pleased thereat, he would for this very reason fall into sin and lose the fruit of pardon. Now displeasure causes sorrow
+                     in one who is susceptible to sorrow, as man is in this life; but after this life the saints
+                     are not susceptible to sorrow, wherefore they will be displeased at, without sorrowing for, their past sins, according to
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     him, and makes satisfaction for his sins according to the judgment of the priest. Such penance need not last until the end
+                     of life, but only for a fixed time according to the measure of the sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A8-p8">
+                     <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
+                     of past sins in the first instant of his true penance, nevertheless he must persevere in his penance, lest he fall again into
+                     sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A8-p9">
+                     <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
+                     from the state of sin. But there is room for internal penance even in the proficient and the perfect, according to
+                     <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 (
+                     <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
+                     persecuted the Church of God."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A8-p10">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> These durations of time are fixed for penitents as regards the exercise of external penance.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A8-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A8-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A7.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A9.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q84_A9" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A8.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A10.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q84_A9-p0.1">Whether Penance can be continuous?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A9-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A9-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that penance cannot be continuous. For it is written (
+                     <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
+                     it consists in weeping and tears. Therefore penance cannot be continuous.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A9-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, man ought to rejoice at every good work, according to 
+                     <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
+                     rejoice and grieve at the same time, as the Philosopher declares (Ethic. ix, 4). Therefore a penitent cannot grieve continually
+                     for his past sins, which is essential to penance. Therefore penance cannot be continuous.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A9-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the Apostle says (
+                     <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
+                     grief, which is essential to penance. Therefore penance need not be continuous.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A9-p5">
+                     <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
+                     grief should be continual."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A9-p6">
+                     <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
+                     the acts, whether internal or external, of a penitent must needs be interrupted by sleep and other things which the body needs.
+                     Secondly, a man is said to repent habitually. and thus he should repent continually, both by never doing anything contrary
+                     to penance, so as to destroy the habitual disposition of the penitent, and by being
+                     resolved that his past sins should always be displeasing to him.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A9-p7">
+                     <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
+                     end of life, as stated above 
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     to acts of external
+                     penance. This, however, does not prevent penance being continual, as explained above.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A9-p8">
+                     <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
+                     be together, since they are altogether contrary to one another, either on the part of the object (as when they have the same
+                     object), or at least on the part of the movement, for joy is with expansion [*Cf. 
+                     <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
+                     Philosopher speaks in Ethic. ix. Secondly, we may speak of joy and sorrow as being simple acts of the will, to which something
+                     is pleasing or displeasing. Accordingly, they cannot be contrary to one another, except on the part of the object, as when
+                     they concern the same object in the same respect, in which way joy and sorrow cannot be simultaneous, because the same thing
+                     in the same respect cannot be pleasing and displeasing. If, on the other hand, joy and sorrow, understood thus, be not of
+                     the same object in the same respect, but either of different objects, or of the same object in different respects, in that
+                     case joy and sorrow are not contrary to one another, so that nothing hinders a man from being joyful and sorrowful at the
+                     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
+                     suffering. In this way a man may be displeased at having sinned, and be pleased at his displeasure together with his hope
+                     for
+                     pardon, so that his very sorrow is a matter of joy. Hence Augustine says [*De vera et falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of
+                     which is unknown]: "The penitent should ever grieve and rejoice at his grief."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A9-p9"> If, however, sorrow were altogether incompatible with joy, this would prevent the continuance, not of habitual penance, but
+                     only of actual penance.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A9-p10">
+                     <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
+                     which, in the sensitive appetite of the penitent, arises from the displeasure of his will, is a passion; wherefore it should
+                     be moderated according to virtue, and if it be excessive it is sinful, because it leads to despair, as the Apostle teaches
+                     (
+                     <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
+                     overmuch sorrow." Accordingly comfort, of which the Apostle speaks, moderates sorrow but does not destroy it altogether.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A9-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A9-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A8.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A10.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q84_A10" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A9.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q85.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q84_A10-p0.1">Whether the sacrament of Penance may be repeated?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A10-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A10-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the sacrament of Penance should not be repeated. For the Apostle says (
+                     <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
+                     of the Holy Ghost . . . and are fallen away, to be renewed again to penance." Now whosoever have done penance, have been illuminated,
+                     and have received the gift of the Holy Ghost. Therefore whosoever sin after doing
+                     penance, cannot do penance again.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A10-p3">
+                     <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
+                     with Christ: for if they were truly penitent, they would not think of doing penance over again, since there is but one Penance
+                     even as there is but one Baptism." Now Baptism is not repeated. Neither, therefore, is Penance to be repeated.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A10-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the miracles whereby our Lord healed bodily diseases, signify the healing of spiritual diseases, whereby men are
+                     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
+                     twice, or twice raised any dead man to life. Therefore it seems that He does not twice grant pardon to any sinner.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A10-p5">
+                     <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, Gregory says (Hom. xxxiv in Evang.): "Penance consists in deploring past sins, and in not committing again those
+                     we have deplored": and Isidore says (De Summo Bono ii): "He is a mocker and no penitent who still does what he has repented
+                     of." If, therefore, a man is truly penitent, he will not sin again. Therefore Penance cannot be repeated.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A10-p6">
+                     <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
+                     account of the unity of Christ's Passion and death. Therefore in like manner Penance is not repeated.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A10-p7">
+                     <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, Ambrose says on
+                     <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
+                     pardon through Penance, it seems that He affords man an incentive to sin, and thus He seems to take pleasure in sin, which
+                     is contrary to His goodness. Therefore Penance cannot be repeated.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A10-p8">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> Man is induced to be merciful by the example of Divine mercy, according to
+                     <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
+                     pardoning their brethren who had sinned against them; wherefore, as related in
+                     <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:
+                     "I say not to thee, till seven times, but till seventy times seven times." Therefore also God over and over again, through
+                     Penance, grants pardon to sinners, especially as He teaches us to pray (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A10-p9">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     be restored again through Penance. There were also other heretics who, as Augustine relates in De Poenitentia [*De vera et
+                     falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown], said that, after Baptism, Penance
+                     is useful, not many times, but only once.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     Penance requires charity, without which sins are not taken away, they thought that charity once possessed could not be lost,
+                     and that, consequently, Penance, if true, could never be removed by sin, so that it should be necessary to repeat it. But
+                     this was refuted in the 
+                     <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
+                     free-will charity, once possessed, can be lost, and that, consequently, after true Penance, a man can sin mortally. Secondly,
+                     they erred in their estimation of the gravity of sin. For they deemed a sin committed by a man after he had received pardon,
+                     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
+                     forgiven, can be either more or less grievous than the first, which was forgiven, but much more did they err against the
+                     infinity of Divine mercy, which surpasses any number and magnitude of sins, according to
+                     <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
+                     iniquity." Wherefore the words of Cain were reprehensible, when he said (
+                     <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
+                     without any end, wherefore it
+                     is written (
+                     <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.]):
+                     "Thy merciful promise is unmeasurable and unsearchable . . . (and Thou repentest) for the evil brought upon man." It is therefore
+                     evident that Penance can be repeated many times.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A10-p11">
+                     <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
+                     certain washing-places where they were wont to cleanse themselves repeatedly from their uncleannesses. In order to disprove
+                     this the Apostle wrote to the Hebrews that "it is impossible for those who were once illuminated," viz. through Baptism, "to
+                     be renewed again to penance," viz. through Baptism, which is "the laver of
+                     regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost," as stated in
+                     <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 (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A10-p12">
+                     <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 (
+                     <a id="TP_Q84_A10-p12.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q28_A2.html">XP, Q[28], A[2]</a>).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A10-p13">
+                     <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
+                     men at various times, and strength to many infirm, thereby showing, in these different men, that the same sins are repeatedly
+                     forgiven, at one time healing a man from leprosy and afterwards from blindness. For this reason He healed so many stricken
+                     with fever, so many feeble in body, so many lame, blind, and withered, that the
+                     sinner might not despair; for this reason He is not described as healing anyone but once, that every one might fear to link
+                     himself with sin; for this reason He declares Himself to be the physician welcomed not of the hale, but of the unhealthy.
+                     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
+                     physician to heal him a hundred times: and if he failed where others succeed, he would be a poor physician in comparison with
+                     them."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A10-p14">
+                     <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
+                     we have to deplore. Because a man is a mocker and not a penitent, who, "while doing penance," does what he repents having
+                     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
+                     afterwards either by act or intention, this does not destroy the fact that his
+                     former penance was real, because the reality of a former act is never destroyed by a subsequent contrary act: for even as
+                     he truly ran who afterwards sits, so he truly repented who subsequently sins.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A10-p15">
+                     <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.
+                     Now "it is appointed unto man once to die" (
+                     <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
+                     Passion, as a spiritual medicine, which can be repeated frequently.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A10-p16">
+                     <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
+                     God exceedingly, for He is always ready to destroy them, lest what He created should perish, and what He loved be lost," viz.
+                     by despair.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A10-p17"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q84_A10-p18"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A9.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q85.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q83_A6.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A1.html"></a>
+            </div>
+            <div id="TP_Q85" class="div3">
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A10.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A1.html"></a>
+               <h3 id="TP_Q85-p0.1">OF PENANCE AS A VIRTUE (SIX ARTICLES)</h3>
+               <p id="TP_Q85-p1"></p>
+               <p id="TP_Q85-p2"> We must now consider penance as a virtue, under which head there are six points of inquiry:</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q85-p3"> (1) Whether penance is a virtue?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q85-p4"> (2) Whether it is a special virtue?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q85-p5"> (3) To what species of virtue does it belong?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q85-p6"> (4) Of its subject;</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q85-p7"> (5) Of its cause;</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q85-p8"> (6) Of its relation to the other virtues.</p>
+               <div id="TP_Q85_A1" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q85.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A2.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q85_A1-p0.1">Whether Penance is a virtue?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A1-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A1-p2">
+                     <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
+                     above (
+                     <a id="TP_Q85_A1-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q84_A1.html">Q[84], A[1]</a>;
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A1-p3">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     no place in a virtuous man. Now, in like manner, penance is a passion accompanied by a bodily alteration, viz. tears, according
+                     to Gregory, who says (Hom. xxxiv in Evang.) that "penance consists in deploring past
+                     sins": moreover it is about evil deeds, viz. sins, which have no place in a virtuous man. Therefore penance is not a virtue.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A1-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 3), "no virtuous man is foolish." But it seems foolish to deplore what
+                     has been done in the past, since it cannot be otherwise, and yet this is what we understand by penance. Therefore penance
+                     is not a virtue.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A1-p5">
+                     <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,
+                     1). But there is a precept about penance in the Divine law, according to 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A1-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (OBJ[2];
+                     <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 (
+                     <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
+                     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,
+                     it must, of necessity, be
+                     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
+                     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
+                     to grieve. And this is observed in the penance of which we are speaking now; since the penitent assumes a moderated grief
+                     for his past sins, with the intention of removing them. Hence it is evident that the penance of which we are speaking now,
+                     is either a virtue or the act of a virtue.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A1-p7">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As stated above (Q[84], A[1], ad 1; 
+                     <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.
+                     Wherefore, since virtue is a principle of an act, penance is either a virtue or accompanies a virtue, rather than Baptism
+                     or Confirmation.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A1-p8">
+                     <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.
+                     On the other hand, it is a virtue, according as it includes a right choice on the part of the will; which, however, applies
+                     to penance rather than to shame. Because shame regards the evil deed as present, whereas penance regards the evil deed as
+                     past. Now it is contrary to the perfection of virtue that one should have an
+                     evil deed actually present, of which one ought to be ashamed; whereas it is not contrary to the perfection of virtue that
+                     we should have previously committed evil deeds, of which it behooves us to repent, since a man from being wicked becomes virtuous.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A1-p9">
+                     <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
+                     the penitent does not intend this: for his sorrow is displeasure or disapproval with regard to the past deed, with the intention
+                     of removing its result, viz. the anger of God and the debt of punishment: and this is not foolish.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A1-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A1-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q85.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A2.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q85_A2" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A3.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q85_A2-p0.1">Whether Penance is a special virtue?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A2-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A2-p2">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     praiseworthy emotion proceeding from charity, as Augustine states (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7,8,9): wherefore the Apostle says (
+                     <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
+                     truth." Therefore, in like manner, neither is penance, which is sorrow for past sins, a special virtue, but an emotion resulting
+                     from charity.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A2-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, every special virtue has its special matter, because habits are distinguished by their acts, and acts by their objects.
+                     But penance has no special matter, because its matter is past sins in any matter whatever. Therefore penance is not a special
+                     virtue.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A2-p4">
+                     <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
+                     consequently is not a special virtue.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A2-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> The Law has a special precept about penance, as stated above (
+                     <a id="TP_Q85_A2-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q84_A5.html">Q[84], AA[5]</a>,7).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A2-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As stated in the 
+                     <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
+                     special reason for being praiseworthy, there must needs be a special habit. Now it is evident that there is a special reason
+                     for praising the act of penance, because it aims at the destruction of past sin, considered as an offense against God, which
+                     does not apply to any other
+                     virtue. We must therefore conclude that penance is a special virtue.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A2-p7">
+                     <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
+                     than charity, e.g. to love the good, to rejoice therein, and to grieve for what is opposed to it. Secondly, an act springs
+                     from charity, being, so to speak, commanded by charity; and thus, since charity commands all the virtues, inasmuch as it directs
+                     them to its own end, an act springing from charity may belong even to another
+                     special virtue. Accordingly, if in the act of the penitent we consider the mere displeasure in the past sin, it belongs to
+                     charity immediately, in the same way as joy for past good acts; but the intention to aim at the destruction of past sin requires
+                     a special virtue subordinate to charity.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A2-p8">
+                     <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,
+                     inasmuch as they can be remedied by an act of man in co-operating with God for his justification.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A2-p9">
+                     <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:
+                     but penance removes every sin effectively, inasmuch as it works for the destruction of sins, according as they are pardonable
+                     through the grace of God if man co-operate therewith. Wherefore it does not follow that it is a general virtue.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A2-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A2-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A3.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q85_A3" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A4.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q85_A3-p0.1">Whether the virtue of penance is a species of justice?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A3-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A3-p2">
+                     <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,
+                     as was shown in the 
+                     <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,
+                     it reconciles the sinner. Therefore it seems that penance is not a species of justice.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A3-p3">
+                     <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
+                     the extreme, according to
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A3-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, there are two species of justice, as stated in Ethic. v, 4, viz. "distributive" and "commutative." But penance does
+                     not seem to be contained under either of them. Therefore it seems that penance is not a species of justice.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A3-p5">
+                     <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, a gloss on
+                     <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
+                     of heavenly things." But weeping is an act of penance. Therefore penance is a species of prudence rather than of justice.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A3-p6">
+                     <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
+                     of the sorrowful, ever punishing in them what they are sorry for having done." But to take vengeance is an act of justice,
+                     wherefore Tully says (De Inv. Rhet. ii) that one kind of justice is called vindictive. Therefore it seems that penance is
+                     a species of justice.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A3-p7">
+                     <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
+                     suffice for that), but also because the penitent grieves for the sin he has committed, inasmuch as it is an offense against
+                     God, and purposes to amend. Now amendment for an offense committed against anyone is not made by merely ceasing to offend,
+                     but it is necessary to make some kind of compensation, which obtains in offenses committed
+                     against another, just as retribution does, only that compensation is on the part of the offender, as when he makes satisfaction,
+                     whereas retribution is on the part of the person offended against. Each of these belongs to the matter of justice, because
+                     each is a kind of commutation. Wherefore it is evident that penance, as a virtue, is a part of justice.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     and relatively. A thing is just simply when it is between equals, since justice is a kind of equality, and he calls this the
+                     politic or civil just, because all citizens are equal, in the point of being immediately under the ruler, retaining their
+                     freedom. But a thing is just relatively when it is between parties of whom one is subject to the other, as a
+                     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.
+                     Wherefore the penitent has recourse to God with a purpose of amendment, as a servant to his master, according to
+                     <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
+                     have mercy on us"; and as a son to his father, according to 
+                     <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
+                     heaven and before thee"; and as a wife to her husband, according to
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A3-p9">
+                     <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
+                     to whom justice is due as the thing which is the subject of distribution or commutation. Hence the matter of penance is not
+                     God, but human acts, whereby God is offended or appeased; whereas God is as one to whom justice is due. Wherefore it is evident
+                     that penance is not a theological virtue, because God is not its matter or
+                     object.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A3-p10">
+                     <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
+                     in certain cases perfect equality cannot be established, on account of the excellence of one, as between father and son, God
+                     and man, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. viii, 14), wherefore in such cases, he that falls short of the other must do whatever
+                     he can. Yet this will not be sufficient simply, but only according to the
+                     acceptance of the higher one; and this is what is meant by ascribing excess to penance.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A3-p11">
+                     <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
+                     in the matter of offenses, when, on account of an offense committed against another, a man is either punished against his
+                     will, which pertains to vindictive justice, or makes amends of his own accord, which belongs to penance, which regards the
+                     person of the sinner, just as vindictive justice regards the person of the judge.
+                     Therefore it is evident that both are comprised under commutative justice.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A3-p12">
+                     <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;
+                     for inasmuch as there is a justice of man towards God, it must have a share in matter pertaining to the theological virtues,
+                     the object of which is God. Consequently penance comprises faith in Christ's Passion, whereby we are cleansed of our sins,
+                     hope for pardon, and hatred of vice, which pertains to charity. Inasmuch as it is a
+                     moral virtue, it has a share of prudence, which directs all the moral virtues: but from the very nature of justice, it has
+                     not only something belonging to justice, but also something belonging to temperance and fortitude, inasmuch as those things
+                     which cause pleasure, and which pertain to temperance, and those which cause terror, which fortitude moderates, are objects
+                     of commutative justice. Accordingly it belongs to justice both to abstain from pleasure, which belongs to temperance, and
+                     to
+                     bear with hardships, which belongs to fortitude.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A3-p13"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A3-p14"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A4.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q85_A4" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A5.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q85_A4-p0.1">Whether the will is properly the subject of penance?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A4-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A4-p2">
+                     <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
+                     the concupiscible part, even as joy is. Therefore penance is in the concupiscible faculty.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A4-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, penance is a kind of vengeance, as Augustine states in De Poenitentia [*De vera et falsa Poenitentia, the authorship
+                     of which is unknown]. But vengeance seems to regard the irascible faculty, since anger is the desire for vengeance. Therefore
+                     it seems that penance is in the irascible part.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A4-p4">
+                     <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
+                     past, as stated above (A[1], ad 2, ad 3). Therefore penance is subjected in the memory.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A4-p5">
+                     <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
+                     power of the soul, and not only in the will.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A4-p6">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> Penance is a kind of sacrifice, according to
+                     <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
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A4-p7">
+                     <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
+                     the concupiscible part as its subject; secondly, in so far as it is a virtue, and thus, as stated above 
+                     <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 
+                     <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
+                     far as it is a virtue, is subjected in the will, and its proper act is the purpose of amending what was committed against
+                     God.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A4-p8">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This argument considers penance as a passion.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A4-p9">
+                     <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
+                     or on another, through reason, belongs to the will.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A4-p10">
+                     <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,
+                     which presupposes an act of the apprehension. Wherefore penance is not in the memory, but presupposes it.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A4-p11">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The will, as stated above (
+                     <a id="TP_Q85_A4-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q82_A4.html">FP, Q[82], A[4]</a>; 
+                     <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
+                     produce an effect in each power of the soul.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A4-p12"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A4-p13"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A5.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q85_A5" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A6.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q85_A5-p0.1">Whether penance originates from fear?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A5-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A5-p2">
+                     <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
+                     charity, as stated above 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A5-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, men are induced to do penance, through the expectation of the heavenly kingdom, according to
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q85_A5-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.3.2" target="asv"> Mat. 3:2 </a>and
+                     <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
+                     from hope rather than from fear.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A5-p4">
+                     <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
+                     operation of God, according to
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A5-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
+                     <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
+                     we become," by penance, to wit; and according to another [*The Septuagint] version the text continues: "Through fear of Thee,
+                     O Lord, we have conceived, and been as it were in labor, and have brought forth the spirit of salvation," i.e. of salutary
+                     penance, as is clear from what precedes.
+                     Therefore penance results from fear.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A5-p6">
+                     <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
+                     as principal agents, but not without our co-operating dispositively by certain acts. Secondly, we may speak of penance, with
+                     regard to the acts whereby in penance we co-operate with God operating, the first principle [*Cf. FS, Q[113]] of which acts
+                     is the operation of God in turning the heart, according to
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q85_A5-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Lam.5.21" target="asv"> Lam.
+                        5:21
+                     </a>: "Convert us, O Lord, to Thee, and we shall be converted"; the second, an act of faith; the third, a movement of servile
+                     fear, whereby a man is withdrawn from sin through fear of punishment; the fourth, a movement of hope, whereby a man makes
+                     a purpose of amendment, in the hope of obtaining pardon; the fifth, a movement of charity, whereby sin is displeasing to man
+                     for its own sake and no longer for the sake of the punishment; the sixth, a movement of filial fear whereby a man,
+                     of his own accord, offers to make amends to God through fear of Him.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     this direction and from filial fear as from its immediate and proper principle.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A5-p8">
+                     <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
+                     him on account of its being an offense against God, or on account of its wickedness, which pertains to charity.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A5-p9">
+                     <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
+                     also to punish. Wherefore John the Baptist said (
+                     <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?"
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A5-p10">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Even the movement of fear proceeds from God's act in turning the heart; wherefore it is written (
+                     <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
+                     resulting from the act of God in turning the heart.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A5-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A5-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A6.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q85_A6" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q86.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q85_A6-p0.1">Whether penance is the first of the virtues?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A6-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A6-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that penance is the first of the virtues. Because, on
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A6-p3">
+                     <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
+                     to a term, because they all direct man to do good; whereas penance seems to direct him to withdraw from evil. Therefore it
+                     seems that penance precedes all the other virtues.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A6-p4">
+                     <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
+                     precedes penance, which is itself the first of all and opens the door to the others by expelling sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A6-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> Penance results from faith, hope, and charity, as already stated (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A6-p6">
+                     <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
+                     connected with one another, as stated in the 
+                     <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
+                     depends on the order of their acts, in so far as the act of one virtue presupposes the act of another. Accordingly, then,
+                     one
+                     must say that, even in the order of time, certain praiseworthy acts can precede the act and the habit of penance, e.g. acts
+                     of dead faith and hope, and an act of servile fear; while the act and habit of charity are, in point of time, simultaneous
+                     with the act and habit of penance, and with the habits of the other virtues. For, as was stated in the 
+                     <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
+                     faith quickened by charity, and the movement of the free-will towards sin, which is the act of penance, are simultaneous.
+                     Yet of these two acts, the former naturally precedes the latter, because the act of the virtue of penance is directed against
+                     sin, through love of God; where the first-mentioned act is the reason and cause of the second.
+                  </p>
+                  <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,
+                     in the order of nature, the theological virtues precede it simply. Nevertheless, in a certain respect, it is the first of
+                     the other virtues in the order of time, as regards its act, because this act is the first in the justification of the ungodly;
+                     whereas in the order of nature, the other virtues seem to precede, as that which is natural precedes that
+                     which is accidental; because the other virtues seem to be necessary for man's good, by reason of their very nature, whereas
+                     penance is only necessary if something, viz. sin, be presupposed, as stated above (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A6-p8">
+                     <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
+                     the other virtues.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A6-p9">
+                     <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
+                     of nature, if we consider the subject, i.e. the order of the material cause; but if we consider the order of the efficient
+                     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
+                     order which we consider chiefly in the acts of the soul, as stated in Phys. ii.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A6-p10">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     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,
+                     and with grace all the virtues, as stated in the 
+                     <a id="TP_Q85_A6-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q65_A3.html">FS,
+                        Q[65], AA[3]
+                     </a>,5.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A6-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q85_A6-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q86.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q84_A10.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A1.html"></a>
+            </div>
+            <div id="TP_Q86" class="div3">
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A6.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A1.html"></a>
+               <h3 id="TP_Q86-p0.1">OF THE EFFECT OF PENANCE, AS REGARDS THE PARDON OF MORTAL SIN (SIX ARTICLES)</h3>
+               <p id="TP_Q86-p1"></p>
+               <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
+                  sins; (3) as regards the return of sins which have been pardoned; (4) as regards the recovery of the virtues.
+               </p>
+               <p id="TP_Q86-p3"> Under the first head there are six points of inquiry:</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q86-p4"> (1) Whether all mortal sins are taken away by Penance?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q86-p5"> (2) Whether they can be taken away without Penance?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q86-p6"> (3) Whether one can be taken away without the other?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q86-p7"> (4) Whether Penance takes away the guilt while the debt remains?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q86-p8"> (5) Whether any remnants of sin remain?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q86-p9"> (6) Whether the removal of sin is the effect of Penance as a virtue, or as a sacrament?</p>
+               <div id="TP_Q86_A1" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q86.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A2.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q86_A1-p0.1">Whether all sins are taken away by Penance?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A1-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A1-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that not all sins are taken away by Penance. For the Apostle says (
+                     <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
+                     found no place of pardon and blessing through Penance": and it is related (
+                     <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
+                     seem that all sins are taken away by Penance.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A1-p3">
+                     <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
+                     to the knowledge of God through the grace of Christ, resists fraternal charity, and by the brands of envy combats grace itself)
+                     that he is unable to humble himself in prayer, although he is forced by his wicked conscience to acknowledge and confess his
+                     sin." Therefore not every sin can be taken away by Penance.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A1-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, our Lord said (
+                     <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."
+                     Therefore not every sin can be pardoned through Penance.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A1-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A1-p6">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     are lost, cannot be blotted out by Penance, because their will is confirmed in evil, so that sin cannot displease them as
+                     to its guilt, but only as to the punishment which they suffer, by reason of which they have
+                     a kind of repentance, which yet is fruitless, according to
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     there is any sin of which one cannot repent, is erroneous, first, because this would destroy free-will, secondly, because
+                     this would be derogatory to the
+                     power of grace, whereby the heart of any sinner whatsoever can be moved to repent, according to
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     mercy, of which it is written (
+                     <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
+                     would be overcome by man, if man wished a sin to be blotted out, which God were unwilling to blot out. Secondly, because this
+                     would be derogatory to the power of Christ's
+                     Passion, through which Penance produces its effect, as do the other sacraments, since it is written (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <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>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A1-p9">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Esau did not truly repent. This is evident from his saying (
+                     <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
+                     truly; since he grieved for his past sin, not because he had offended God thereby, but on account of the sickness which he
+                     suffered in his body.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A1-p10">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     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"
+                     (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q86_A1-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.67.23" target="asv">Ps. 67:23</a>).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A1-p11">
+                     <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
+                     altogether unpardonable, because after this life is ended, there is no pardon of sins. or, if by the blasphemy against the
+                     Holy Ghost, we understand sin committed through certain malice, this means either that the blasphemy itself against the Holy
+                     Ghost is unpardonable, i.e. not easily pardonable, or that such a sin does not
+                     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
+                     explained in the 
+                     <a id="TP_Q86_A1-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q14_A3.html">SS, Q[14], A[3]</a>.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A1-p12"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A1-p13"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q86.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A2.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q86_A2" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A3.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q86_A2-p0.1">Whether sin can be pardoned without Penance?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A2-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A2-p2">
+                     <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
+                     to children. But He pardons the sins of children without Penance. Therefore He also pardons adults without penance.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A2-p3">
+                     <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
+                     without Penance.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A2-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, God's mercy is greater than man's. Now man sometimes forgives another for offending him, without his repenting:
+                     wherefore our Lord commanded us (
+                     <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
+                     their repenting.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A2-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> The Lord said (
+                     <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
+                     to do them," so that, on the other hand, if man "do not penance," it seems that God will not pardon him his sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A2-p6">
+                     <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
+                     is an offense against God, He pardons sin in the same way as he pardons an offense committed against Him. Now an offense is
+                     directly opposed to grace, since one man is said to be offended with another, because he excludes him from his grace. Now,
+                     as stated in the 
+                     <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
+                     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,
+                     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
+                     "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
+                     someone, without any change in the latter's will; but it is impossible that God pardon a man for an offense, without
+                     his will being changed. Now the offense of mortal sin is due to man's will being turned away from God, through being turned
+                     to some mutable good. Consequently, for the pardon of this offense against God, it is necessary for man's will to be so changed
+                     as to turn to God and to renounce having turned to something else in the aforesaid manner, together with a purpose of amendment;
+                     all of which belongs to the nature of penance as a virtue. Therefore it is impossible for a sin to be pardoned anyone
+                     without penance as a virtue.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A2-p7"> But the sacrament of Penance, as stated above (
+                     <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
+                     the adulterous woman, as related in 
+                     <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:
+                     for as Gregory states (Hom. xxxiii in Evang.), "He drew inwardly by grace," i.e. by penance, "her whom He
+                     received outwardly by His mercy."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A2-p8">
+                     <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
+                     of nature, as explained in the 
+                     <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,
+                     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
+                     actual
+                     disorder of the will, there is no remission of sins, even in Baptism, without an actual change of the will, which is the effect
+                     of Penance.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A2-p9">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This argument takes Penance as a sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A2-p10">
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A2-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A2-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A3.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q86_A3" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A4.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q86_A3-p0.1">Whether by Penance one sin can be pardoned without another? </h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A3-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A3-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that by Penance one sin can be pardoned without another. For it is written (
+                     <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
+                     whereupon I rained not, withered." These words are expounded by Gregory, who says (Hom. x super Ezech.): "When a man who hates
+                     his neighbor, breaks himself of other vices, rain falls on one part of the city, leaving the
+                     other part withered, for there are some men who, when they prune some vices, become much more rooted in others." Therefore
+                     one sin can be forgiven by Penance, without another.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A3-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Ambrose in commenting on 
+                     <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
+                     "the first consolation is that God is mindful to have mercy; and the second, that He punishes, for although faith be wanting,
+                     punishment makes satisfaction and raises us up." Therefore a man can be raised up from one sin, while the sin of unbelief
+                     remains.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A3-p4">
+                     <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
+                     
+                     <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
+                     Penance without another being taken away.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A3-p5">
+                     <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,"
+                     etc. Now man sometimes forgives one debt without forgiving another. Therefore God also, by Penance, forgives one sin without
+                     another.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A3-p6">
+                     <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, man's sins are forgiven him through the love of God, according to
+                     <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
+                     hinder God from loving a man in one respect, while being offended with him in another, even as He loves the sinner as regards
+                     his nature, while hating him for his sin. Therefore it seems possible for God, by Penance, to pardon one sin
+                     without another.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A3-p7">
+                     <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
+                     repent having sinned, but not completely; for they except certain things which give them pleasure, forgetting that our Lord
+                     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
+                     all sins."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A3-p8">
+                     <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
+                     offense against God. Wherefore it was stated in the 
+                     <a id="TP_Q86_A3-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q109_A7.html">FS, Q[109], A[7]</a>; 
+                     <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
+                     for one sin to be pardoned without another. Secondly, because, as shown
+                     above 
+                     <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,
+                     which is common to all mortal sins: and where the same reason applies, the result will be the same. Consequently a man cannot
+                     be truly penitent, if he repent of one sin and not of another. For if one particular sin were displeasing to him, because
+                     it is against the love of God above all things (which motive is necessary for true
+                     repentance), it follows that he would repent of all. Whence it follows that it is impossible for one sin to be pardoned through
+                     Penance, without another. Thirdly, because this would be contrary to the perfection of God's mercy, since His works are perfect,
+                     as stated in
+                     <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
+                     of which is unknown], that "it is irreverent and heretical to expect half
+                     a pardon from Him Who is just and justice itself."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A3-p9">
+                     <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
+                     who has been wont to commit several kinds of sin, renounces one and not the other; which is indeed due to God's assistance,
+                     but does not reach to the pardon of the sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A3-p10">
+                     <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
+                     <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
+                     others": but it stands for consciousness, because sometimes a man receives pardon for a sin of which he is not conscious,
+                     through the punishment which he bears patiently.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A3-p11">
+                     <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
+                     away from the immutable Good, which applies to all mortal sins in common. and it is thus that they have the character of an
+                     offense which needs to be removed by Penance.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A3-p12">
+                     <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
+                     can be condoned without another. On the other hand, the debt of sin is opposed to friendship, and so one sin or offense is
+                     not pardoned without another; for it would seem absurd for anyone to ask even a man to forgive him one offense and not another.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A3-p13">
+                     <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
+                     sin. but the love of grace, whereby mortal sin is forgiven, ordains man to eternal life, according to
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A3-p14"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A3-p15"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A4.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q86_A4" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A5.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q86_A4-p0.1">Whether the debt of punishment remains after the guilt has been forgiven through Penance? </h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A4-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A4-p2">
+                     <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
+                     removed, the effect is removed. But the guilt is the cause of the debt of punishment: since a man deserves to be punished
+                     because he has been guilty of a sin. Therefore when the sin has been forgiven, no debt of punishment can remain.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A4-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, according to the Apostle (
+                     <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
+                     of punishment. Much more therefore, by the gift of grace, is the guilt forgiven and at the same time the debt of punishment
+                     remitted.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A4-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the forgiveness of sins is effected in Penance through the power of Christ's Passion, according to
+                     <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
+                     Passion made satisfaction sufficient for all sins, as stated above (QQ[48],49,79, A[5]). Therefore after the guilt has been
+                     pardoned, no debt of punishment remains.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A4-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> It is related (
+                     <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
+                     away thy sin, thou shalt not die. Nevertheless . . . the child that is born to thee shall surely die," which was to punish
+                     him for the sin he had committed, as stated in the same place. Therefore a debt of some punishment remains after the guilt
+                     has been forgiven.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A4-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As stated in the 
+                     <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.
+                     Accordingly, in so far as mortal sin turns away from the immutable Good, it induces a debt of eternal punishment, so that
+                     whosoever sins against the eternal Good should be punished eternally. Again, in so far as mortal sin turns inordinately to
+                     a mutable good, it gives rise to a
+                     debt of some punishment, because the disorder of guilt is not brought back to the order of justice, except by punishment:
+                     since it is just that he who has been too indulgent to his will, should suffer something against his will, for thus will equality
+                     be restored. Hence it is written (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <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.
+                     Wherefore, if man turns inordinately to a mutable good, without turning from God, as happens in venial sins, he incurs a debt,
+                     not of eternal but of temporal punishment. Consequently when guilt is pardoned through grace, the soul ceases to be turned
+                     away from God, through being united to God by grace: so that at the same time, the debt of punishment is taken
+                     away, albeit a debt of some temporal punishment may yet remain.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A4-p8">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Mortal sin both turns away from God and turns to a created good. But, as stated in the 
+                     <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
+                     anything be removed, the species is taken away: thus, if you take away rational, you take away the human species. Consequently
+                     mortal sin is said to be pardoned from the very fact that, by means of grace,
+                     the aversion of the mind from God is taken away together with the debt of eternal punishment: and yet the material element
+                     remains, viz. the inordinate turning to a created good, for which a debt of temporal punishment is due.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A4-p9">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As stated in the 
+                     <a id="TP_Q86_A4-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q109_A7.html">FS, Q[109], AA[7]</a>,8; 
+                     <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
+                     done. Consequently the forgiveness of guilt and of the debt of eternal punishment belongs to operating grace, while the remission
+                     of the debt of temporal punishment belongs to co-operating grace, in so far as man, by bearing
+                     punishment patiently with the help of Divine grace, is released also from the debt of temporal punishment. Consequently just
+                     as the effect of operating grace precedes the effect of co-operating grace, so too, the remission of guilt and of eternal
+                     punishment precedes the complete release from temporal punishment, since both are from grace, but the former, from grace alone,
+                     the latter, from grace and free-will.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A4-p10">
+                     <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
+                     released from the debt of punishment according to the measure of his share in the power of Christ's Passion. Now in Baptism
+                     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
+                     again in Him to a new life, so that, in Baptism, man receives the remission of all
+                     debt of punishment. In Penance, on the other hand, man shares in the power of Christ's Passion according to the measure of
+                     his own acts, which are the matter of Penance, as water is of Baptism, as stated above (
+                     <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
+                     is remitted, but only when all the acts of Penance have been completed.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A4-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A4-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A5.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q86_A5" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A6.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q86_A5-p0.1">Whether the remnants of sin are removed when a mortal sin is forgiven?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A5-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A5-p2">
+                     <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
+                     [*De vera et falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown]: "Our Lord never healed anyone without delivering him
+                     wholly; for He wholly healed the man on the Sabbath, since He delivered his body from all disease, and his soul from all taint."
+                     Now the remnants of sin belong to the disease of sin. Therefore it does not seem possible
+                     for any remnants of sin to remain when the guilt has been pardoned.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A5-p3">
+                     <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
+                     of some good." Now, by sinning, man incurs the taint of sin all at once. Much more, therefore, by repenting, is he delivered
+                     also from all remnants of sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A5-p4">
+                     <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
+                     are removed. Much more, therefore, are they taken away by the remission of guilt, which is a work of God.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A5-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> We read (
+                     <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 (
+                     <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."
+                     Now the enlightenment of the blind man signifies the delivery of the sinner. Therefore after the first remission of sin, whereby
+                     the sinner is restored to spiritual sight, there
+                     still remain in him some remnants of his past sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A5-p6">
+                     <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,
+                     if the acts be repeated frequently. Now it has been said above 
+                     <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
+                     which is on the part of the aversion has been taken away by grace, that which is on the part of the inordinate turning
+                     to a mutable good can remain, since this may happen to be without the other, as stated above 
+                     <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
+                     not remain, which are called the remnants of sin. Yet they remain weakened and diminished, so as not to domineer over man,
+                     and they are after the manner of dispositions rather than of habits, like the "fomes" which remains after Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A5-p7">
+                     <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,
+                     so that "rising she ministered to them" (
+                     <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 (
+                     <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 (
+                     <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,
+                     not only the guilt being pardoned, but all remnants of sin being removed as was the case with Magdalen (
+                     <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,
+                     removes the remnants of sin by degrees.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A5-p8">
+                     <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,
+                     the result of many acts.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A5-p9">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     end in being good as to acquired virtue." But God's grace does this much more effectively, whether by one or by several acts.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A5-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A5-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A6.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q86_A6" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q87.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q86_A6-p0.1">Whether the forgiveness of guilt is an effect of Penance?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A6-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A6-p2">
+                     <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,
+                     in so far as it is a principle of a human action. But human action does nothing towards the remission of guilt, since this
+                     is an effect of operating grace. Therefore the forgiveness of guilt is not an effect of penance as a virtue.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A6-p3">
+                     <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
+                     any other virtue. Neither, therefore, is it the effect of penance as a virtue.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A6-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, there is no forgiveness of sin except through the power of Christ's Passion, according to
+                     <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
+                     Christ's Passion, even as the other sacraments do, as was shown above (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A6-p5">
+                     <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
+                     forgiveness of sin can come from God without the sacrament of Penance, but not without the virtue of penance, as stated above
+                     (
+                     <a id="TP_Q86_A6-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q84_A5.html">Q[84], A[5]</a>, ad 3;
+                     <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
+                     forgiveness of sin is chiefly the effect of penance as a virtue.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A6-p6">
+                     <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
+                     sinner, are the material element in the sacrament of Penance. Moreover every sacrament produces its effect, in virtue not
+                     only of its form, but also of its matter. because both these together make the one sacrament, as stated above (
+                     <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
+                     virtue not only of the form (but also of the matter, viz. water, albeit chiefly in virtue of the form) [*The words in brackets
+                     are omitted in the Leonine edition] from which the water receives its power---and, similarly, the forgiveness of sin is the
+                     effect of Penance, chiefly by the power of the keys, which is vested in the ministers, who furnish the formal part of the
+                     sacrament, as stated above (
+                     <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
+                     penitent which pertain to the virtue of penance, but only in so far as such acts are, in some way, subordinate to the keys
+                     of the Church. Accordingly it is evident that the forgiveness of sin is the effect of penance as a virtue, but still more
+                     of Penance as a sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A6-p7">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The effect of operating grace is the justification of the ungodly (as stated in the 
+                     <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 (
+                     <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
+                     of faith quickened by charity, and a movement of the free-will against sin, which is the act of penance. Yet these human acts
+                     are there as the
+                     effects of operating grace, and are produced at the same time as the forgiveness of sin. Consequently the forgiveness of sin
+                     does not take place without an act of the virtue of penance, although it is the effect of operating grace.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A6-p8">
+                     <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:
+                     
+                     <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,
+                     of faith and charity.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A6-p9">
+                     <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
+                     Church; and so, in both ways, it causes the forgiveness of sin, by the power of Christ's Passion.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     of sin, through being an inseparable effect of grace, whereby chiefly is sin pardoned, and which produces its effect in all
+                     the sacraments. Consequently it only follows that grace is a higher cause of the forgiveness of sin than the sacrament of
+                     Penance. Moreover, it must be observed that, under the Old Law and the law of nature, there was a sacrament of
+                     Penance after a fashion, as stated above (
+                     <a id="TP_Q86_A6-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q84_A7.html">Q[84], A[7]</a>, ad 2).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A6-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q86_A6-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q87.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q85_A6.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A1.html"></a>
+            </div>
+            <div id="TP_Q87" class="div3">
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A6.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q87_A1.html"></a>
+               <h3 id="TP_Q87-p0.1">OF THE REMISSION OF VENIAL SIN (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3>
+               <p id="TP_Q87-p1"></p>
+               <p id="TP_Q87-p2"> We must now consider the forgiveness of venial sins, under which head there are four points of inquiry:</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q87-p3"> (1) Whether venial sin can be forgiven without Penance?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q87-p4"> (2) Whether it can be forgiven without the infusion of grace?</p>
+               <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
+                  Lord's Prayer, and the like?
+               </p>
+               <p id="TP_Q87-p6"> (4) Whether a venial sin can be taken away without a mortal sin?</p>
+               <div id="TP_Q87_A1" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q87.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q87_A2.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q87_A1-p0.1">Whether venial sin can be forgiven without Penance?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A1-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A1-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that venial sin can be forgiven without penance. For, as stated above (
+                     <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
+                     to avoid them for the future. Now venial sins are forgiven without any such purpose, for it is certain that man cannot lead
+                     the present life without committing venial sins. Therefore venial sins can be forgiven
+                     without penance.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A1-p3">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     heaven at once, which would not happen if his venial sins remained. Therefore venial sins can be forgiven without penance.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A1-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, venial sins are contrary to the fervor of charity, as stated in the 
+                     <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
+                     be without actual displeasure at venial sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A1-p5">
+                     <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
+                     which is done for venial sins in the Church every day" which would be useless if venial sins could be forgiven without Penance.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A1-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> Forgiveness of sin, as stated above (
+                     <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
+                     mortal sin, and incomplete by venial sin: because, by mortal sin, the mind through acting against charity is altogether turned
+                     away from God; whereas by venial sin man's affections are clogged, so that they are slow in tending towards God. Consequently
+                     both kinds of
+                     sin are taken away by penance, because by both of them man's will is disordered through turning inordinately to a created
+                     good; for just as mortal sin cannot be forgiven so long as the will is attached to sin, so neither can venial sin, because
+                     while the cause remains, the effect remains.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     sin which he committed, so far as lies in his power, that is to say, he should endeavor to remember each single mortal sin,
+                     in order to detest each one. But this is, not required for the forgiveness of venial sins; although it does not suffice to
+                     have habitual displeasure, which is included in the habit of charity or of penance as a virtue, since then
+                     venial sin would be incompatible with charity, which is evidently untrue. Consequently it is necessary to have a certain virtual
+                     displeasure, so that, for instance, a man's affections so tend to God and Divine things, that whatever might happen to him
+                     to hamper that tendency would be displeasing to him, and would grieve him, were he to commit it, even though he were not to
+                     think of it actually: and this is not sufficient for the remission of mortal sin, except as regards those sins which he
+                     fails to remember after a careful examination.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A1-p8">
+                     <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,
+                     but not all, as was explained in the 
+                     <a id="TP_Q87_A1-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q74_A8.html">FS, Q[74], A[8]</a>, ad 2; 
+                     <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
+                     for venial sins requires man to purpose abstaining from each, but not from all,
+                     because the weakness of this life does not allow of this. Nevertheless he needs to have the purpose of taking steps to commit
+                     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
+                     obstacles to spiritual progress, such as venial sins are.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A1-p9">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Death for Christ's sake, as stated above (
+                     <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
+                     to sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A1-p10">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The fervor of charity implies virtual displeasure at venial sins, as stated above (
+                     <a id="TP_Q87_A1-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q79_A4.html">Q[79], A[4]</a>).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A1-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A1-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q87.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q87_A2.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q87_A2" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q87_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q87_A3.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q87_A2-p0.1">Whether infusion of grace is necessary for the remission of venial sins?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A2-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A2-p2">
+                     <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
+                     its proper cause. Now the proper cause of the remission of sins is grace; for man's sins are not forgiven through his own
+                     merits; wherefore it is written (
+                     <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
+                     us together in Christ,
+                     by Whose grace you are saved." Therefore venial sins are not forgiven without infusion of grace.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A2-p3">
+                     <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
+                     New Law. Therefore venial sins are not forgiven without infusion of grace.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A2-p4">
+                     <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
+                     of the soul. Therefore it seems that venial sins are not forgiven without infusion of grace.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A2-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> The advent of venial sin neither destroys nor diminishes grace, as stated in the 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A2-p6">
+                     <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,
+                     through man being too much attached to a created good, albeit not in opposition to God, as stated in the 
+                     <a id="TP_Q87_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q88_A1.html">FS, Q[88], A[1]</a>; 
+                     <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
+                     or charity suffices for
+                     its forgiveness.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     of grace without an actual movement of the free-will towards God and against sin, consequently whenever grace is infused anew,
+                     venial sins are forgiven.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A2-p8">
+                     <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
+                     any habit infused anew into the soul.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A2-p9">
+                     <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 
+                     <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
+                     stated above (Q[87], A[2]). Hence it does not follow that infusion of grace is required for the forgiveness of venial sin,
+                     for although this infusion takes place in every sacrament, it does
+                     not occur in every act of virtue.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A2-p10">
+                     <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
+                     color or the due proportion of members, and another by the introduction of some hindrance to beauty, e.g. mud or dust; so
+                     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
+                     inordinate inclination of the affections to some temporal thing, and this is the
+                     result of venial sin. Consequently, an infusion of grace is necessary for the removal of mortal sin, but in order to remove
+                     venial sin, it is necessary to have a movement proceeding from grace, removing the inordinate attachment to the temporal thing.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A2-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A2-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q87_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q87_A3.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q87_A3" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q87_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q87_A4.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q87_A3-p0.1">Whether venial sins are removed by the sprinkling of holy water and the like?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A3-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A3-p2">
+                     <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
+                     sins are not forgiven without Penance, as stated above 
+                     <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
+                     of venial sins.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A3-p3">
+                     <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
+                     venial sin is remitted, it follows that in like manner all are remitted, so that by beating his breast once, or by being sprinkled
+                     once with holy water, a man would be delivered from all his venial sins, which seems unreasonable.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A3-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, venial sins occasion a debt of some punishment, albeit temporal; for it is written (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q87_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.3.12" target="asv">1 Cor. 3:12</a>, 
+                     <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
+                     sins are said to be taken away, contain either no punishment at all, or very little. Therefore they do not suffice for the
+                     full remission of venial sins.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A3-p5">
+                     <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:
+                     Forgive us our trespasses," and so it seems that striking one's breast, and the Lord's Prayer cause the remission of venial
+                     sins: and the same seems to apply to the other things.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A3-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above 
+                     <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
+                     grace, in detestation of that venial sin, either explicit or at least implicit, as when one is moved fervently to God. Hence,
+                     for three reasons, certain things cause the remission of venial sins: first, because they imply the infusion of grace, since
+                     the infusion of grace removes venial
+                     sins, as stated above 
+                     <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
+                     conferred, venial sins are remitted. Secondly, because they imply a movement of detestation for sin, and in this way the general
+                     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
+                     conduce to the remission of venial sins, for we ask in the Lord's
+                     Prayer: "Forgive us our trespasses." Thirdly, because they include a movement of reverence for God and Divine things; and
+                     in this way a bishop's blessing, the sprinkling of holy water, any sacramental anointing, a prayer said in a dedicated church,
+                     and anything else of the kind, conduce to the remission of venial sins.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A3-p7">
+                     <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.,
+                     the implicit or explicit detestation of one's sins.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A3-p8">
+                     <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
+                     as regards certain venial sins, to which the mind is still actually attached, even as insincerity sometimes impedes the effect
+                     of Baptism.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A3-p9">
+                     <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,
+                     and through the virtue of charity whose movement is aroused by such things.
+                  </p>
+                  <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,
+                     whoever was entirely free from mortal sin, would go straight to heaven if sprinkled with holy water: but the debt of punishment
+                     is remitted by means of the above, according to the movement of fervor towards God, which fervor is aroused by such things,
+                     sometimes more, sometimes less.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A3-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A3-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q87_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q87_A4.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q87_A4" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q87_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q88.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q87_A4-p0.1">Whether venial sin can be taken away without mortal sin?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A4-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A4-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that venial sin can be taken away without mortal sin. For, on
+                     <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
+                     of mortal sin: for venial offenses were forgiven them through the legal ceremonies." Therefore venial sin can be taken away
+                     without mortal sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A4-p3">
+                     <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
+                     sin. Therefore venial sin can be taken away without mortal sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A4-p4">
+                     <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
+                     another, as stated above (A[3], ad 2;
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A4-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
+                     <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,
+                     "till thou repay the last farthing," by which venial sin is denoted. Therefore a venial sin is not forgiven without mortal
+                     sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A4-p6">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
+                     <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 (
+                     <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
+                     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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A4-p7">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Venial offenses, in the passage quoted, denote the irregularities or uncleannesses which men contracted in accordance with
+                     the Law.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A4-p8">
+                     <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
+                     some act of grace, which cannot be in one who is a subject of mortal sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A4-p9">
+                     <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
+                     the habit of grace, without which no sin, either mortal or venial, is remitted. Hence the comparison fails.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A4-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q87_A4-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q87_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q88.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q86_A6.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q87_A1.html"></a>
+            </div>
+            <div id="TP_Q88" class="div3">
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q87_A4.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q88_A1.html"></a>
+               <h3 id="TP_Q88-p0.1">OF THE RETURN OF SINS WHICH HAVE BEEN TAKEN AWAY BY PENANCE (FOUR ARTICLES) </h3>
+               <p id="TP_Q88-p1"></p>
+               <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
+                  inquiry:
+               </p>
+               <p id="TP_Q88-p3"> (1) Whether sins which have been taken away by Penance return simply through a subsequent sin?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q88-p4"> (2) Whether more specially as regards certain sins they return, in a way, on account of ingratitude?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q88-p5"> (3) Whether the debt of punishment remains the same for sins thus returned?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q88-p6"> (4) Whether this ingratitude, on account of which sins return, is a special sin?</p>
+               <div id="TP_Q88_A1" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q88.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q88_A2.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q88_A1-p0.1">Whether sins once forgiven return through a subsequent sin?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A1-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A1-p2">
+                     <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):
+                     "Our Lord teaches most explicitly in the Gospel that sins which have been forgiven return, when fraternal charity ceases,
+                     in the example of the servant from whom his master exacted the payment of the debt already forgiven, because he had refused
+                     to forgive the debt of his fellow-servant." Now fraternal charity is destroyed through each
+                     mortal sin. Therefore sins already taken away through Penance, return through each subsequent mortal sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A1-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, on
+                     <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
+                     explain it away lest through carelessness we give place to the sin which we thought to have been taken away, and become its
+                     slave once more." Now this would not be so unless it returned. Therefore a sin returns after once being taken away by Penance.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A1-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the Lord said (
+                     <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
+                     be remembered." Now among the other "justices" which he had done, is also his previous penance, since it was said above (
+                     <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
+                     forgiveness of his sins, is not imputed to him. Therefore his sins return.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A1-p5">
+                     <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, past sins are covered by grace, as the Apostle declares (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q88_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.4.7" target="asv">Rom. 4:7</a>) where he quotes
+                     <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.
+                     Therefore the sins committed previously, become uncovered: and so, seemingly, they return.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A1-p6">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
+                     <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
+                     the sins which have been taken away do not return through a subsequent sin, as though God repented His gift of forgiveness.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A1-p7"> Moreover, Augustine says (Lib. Resp. Prosperi i [*Cf. Prosper, Responsiones ad Capitula Gallorum ii]): "When he that turns
+                     away from Christ, comes to the end of this life a stranger to grace, whither does he go, except to perdition? Yet he does
+                     not fall back into that which had been forgiven, nor will he be condemned for original sin."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A1-p8">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
+                     <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
+                     to the aversion, is, considered in itself, common to all mortal sins, since man turns away from God by every mortal sin, so
+                     that, in consequence, the stain resulting from the privation of grace, and the debt of everlasting punishment are common to
+                     all mortal sins. This is what is
+                     meant by what is written (
+                     <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
+                     are different from, and sometimes contrary to one another. Hence it is evident, that on the part of the adherence, a subsequent
+                     mortal sin does not cause the return of mortal sins previously dispelled, else it would follow that by a sin of wastefulness
+                     a man would be brought back to the habit or disposition of
+                     avarice previously dispelled, so that one contrary would be the cause of another, which is impossible. But if in mortal sins
+                     we consider that which attaches to the aversion absolutely, then a subsequent mortal sin [causes the return of that which
+                     was comprised in the mortal sins before they were pardoned, in so far as the subsequent mortal sin] [*The words in brackets
+                     are omitted in the Leonine edition.] deprives man of grace, and makes him deserving of everlasting punishment, just as he
+                     was
+                     before. Nevertheless, since the aversion of mortal sin is [in a way, caused by the adherence, those things which attach to
+                     the aversion are*] diversified somewhat in relation to various adherences, as it were to various causes, so that there will
+                     be a different aversion, a different stain, a different debt of punishment, according to the different acts of mortal sin
+                     from which they arise; hence the question is moved whether the stain and the debt of eternal punishment, as caused by acts
+                     of sins
+                     previously pardoned, return through a subsequent mortal sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     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
+                     undone by man's subsequent sin, according to
+                     <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?"
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     afterwards sin again, not according to His foreknowledge, but only according to His present justice: since He foresees that
+                     He will punish such a man eternally for his sins, and yet, by His grace, He makes him righteous for the present. But this
+                     cannot stand: because if a cause be placed absolutely, its effect is placed absolutely; so that if the remission of
+                     sins were effected by grace and the sacraments of grace, not absolutely but under some condition dependent on some future
+                     event, it would follow that grace and the sacraments of grace are not the sufficient causes of the remission of sins, which
+                     is erroneous, as being derogatory to God's grace.
+                  </p>
+                  <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,
+                     as caused by those acts. Yet it may happen that a subsequent sinful act virtually contains the debt of punishment due to the
+                     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,
+                     as stated in
+                     <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
+                     thyself wrath against the day of wrath," from the mere fact, namely, that God's goodness, which waits for us to repent, is
+                     despised. And so much the more is God's goodness despised, if the first sin is committed a second time after having been forgiven,
+                     as it is a greater favor for the sin to be forgiven than for the sinner to be endured.
+                  </p>
+                  <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,
+                     not as caused by those sins already forgiven but as caused by this last sin being committed, on account of its being aggravated
+                     in view of those previous sins. This means that those sins return, not simply, but in a restricted sense, viz., in so far
+                     as they are virtually contained in the subsequent sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A1-p13">
+                     <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,
+                     namely, that he who sins after doing penance incurs a debt of eternal punishment, just as before, but not altogether for the
+                     same "reason." Wherefore Augustine, after saying (Lib. Resp. Prosperi i [*Cf. Prosper, Responsiones ad Capitula Gallorum ii])
+                     that "he does not fall back into that which was forgiven, nor will he be condemned
+                     for original sin," adds: "Nevertheless, for these last sins he will be condemned to the same death, which he deserved to suffer
+                     for the former," because he incurs the punishment of eternal death which he deserved for his previous sins.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A1-p14">
+                     <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,
+                     but by the repetition of his act.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A1-p15">
+                     <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
+                     life, but not in so far as they were a hindrance to sin. Consequently if a man sins mortally after making restitution, he
+                     does not become guilty as though he had not paid back what he owed; and much less is penance previously done forgotten as
+                     to the pardon of the guilt, since this is the work of God rather than of man.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A1-p16">
+                     <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,
+                     God deprive man of grace, and judge him deserving of eternal punishment; and what grace has once done, endures for ever.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A1-p17"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A1-p18"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q88.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q88_A2.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q88_A2" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q88_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q88_A3.html"></a>
+                  <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>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A2-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A2-p2">
+                     <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
+                     one's neighbor, apostasy from faith, contempt of confession and regret for past repentance, and which have been expressed
+                     in the following verse:
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A2-p3"> "Fratres odit, apostata fit, spernitque, fateri,</p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A2-p4"> Poenituisse piget, pristina culpa redit."</p>
+                  <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.
+                     But there are sins more grievous than these, such as blasphemy against God, and the sin against the Holy Ghost. Therefore
+                     it seems that sins already pardoned do not return through ingratitude as manifested in these sins, any more than as shown
+                     in other sins.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A2-p6">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Rabanus says: "God delivered the wicked servant to the torturers, until he should pay the whole debt, because a
+                     man will be deemed punishable not only for the sins he commits after Baptism, but also for original sin which was taken away
+                     when he was baptized." Now venial sins are reckoned among our debts, since we pray in their regard: "Forgive us our trespasses
+                     [debita]." Therefore they too return through ingratitude; and, in like manner seemingly,
+                     sins already pardoned return through venial sins, and not only through those sins mentioned above.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A2-p7">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, ingratitude is all the greater, according as one sins after receiving a greater favor. Now innocence whereby one
+                     avoids sin is a Divine favor, for Augustine says (Confess. ii): "Whatever sins I have avoided committing, I owe it to Thy
+                     grace." Now innocence is a greater gift, than even the forgiveness of all sins. Therefore the first sin committed after innocence
+                     is no less an ingratitude to God, than a sin committed after repentance, so that seemingly
+                     ingratitude in respect of the aforesaid sins is not the chief cause of sins returning.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A2-p8">
+                     <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
+                     hearts the offenses committed against us, we become once more accountable for what we rejoiced in as forgiven through Penance":
+                     so that ingratitude implied in the hatred of one's brother is a special cause of the return of sins already forgiven: and
+                     the same seems to apply to the others.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A2-p9">
+                     <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above 
+                     <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
+                     contained in the subsequent sin. Now one may be guilty of ingratitude in two ways: first by doing something against the favor
+                     received, and, in this way, man is ungrateful to God in every mortal sin whereby he offends God Who forgave his sins, so that
+                     by every subsequent mortal sin,
+                     the sins previously pardoned return, on account of the ingratitude. Secondly, one is guilty of ingratitude, by doing something
+                     not only against the favor itself, but also against the form of the favor received. If this form be considered on the part
+                     of the benefactor, it is the remission of something due to him; wherefore he who does not forgive his brother when he asks
+                     pardon, and persists in his hatred, acts against this form. If, however, this form be taken in regard to the penitent who
+                     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
+                     God, and is an act of faith quickened by charity; and against this a man acts by apostatizing from the faith. The second is
+                     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],
+                     AA[2],5) in man's detestation of his past sins; and against this a man acts when he regrets having done penance.
+                     Secondly, the act of penance consists in the penitent purposing to subject himself to the keys of the Church by confession,
+                     according to
+                     <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
+                     this a man acts when he scorns to confess as he had purposed to do.
+                  </p>
+                  <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>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A2-p11">
+                     <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
+                     to the favor of the forgiveness of sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A2-p12">
+                     <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
+                     by God in forgiving those sins is despised. A man does not, however, incur ingratitude by committing a venial sin, because
+                     by sinning venially man does not act against God, but apart from Him, wherefore venial sins nowise cause the return of sins
+                     already forgiven.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A2-p13">
+                     <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
+                     from God than penance, which is called the second plank after shipwreck (cf.
+                     <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
+                     on him, so that he is the more ungrateful if he scorns it. In this way the favor of the pardon
+                     of sins is greater when bestowed on one who is altogether unworthy, so that the ingratitude which follows is all the greater.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A2-p14"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A2-p15"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q88_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q88_A3.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q88_A3" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q88_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q88_A4.html"></a>
+                  <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
+                     previously pardoned?
+                  </h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A3-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A3-p2">
+                     <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
+                     of the sins previously pardoned. Because the greatness of the favor of the pardon of sins is according to the greatness of
+                     the sin pardoned, and so too, in consequence, is the greatness of the ingratitude whereby this favor is scorned. But the greatness
+                     of the consequent debt of punishment is in accord with the greatness of the ingratitude.
+                     Therefore the debt of punishment arising through ingratitude in respect of a subsequent sin is as great as the debt of punishment
+                     due for all the previous sins.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A3-p3">
+                     <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
+                     state of slavery from which he was freed, or even to a worse state. Much more therefore he that sins against God after being
+                     freed from sin, returns to the debt of as great a punishment as he had incurred before.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A3-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is written (
+                     <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,
+                     until he paid all the debt." But this would not be so unless the debt of punishment incurred through ingratitude were as great
+                     as that incurred through all previous sins. Therefore an equal debt of punishment returns through ingratitude.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A3-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
+                     <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
+                     of punishment does not arise from a slight sin. But sometimes a subsequent mortal sin is much less grievous than any one of
+                     those previously pardoned. Therefore the debt of punishment incurred through subsequent sins is not equal to that of sins
+                     previously forgiven.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A3-p6">
+                     <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
+                     that of the sins previously pardoned, in addition to the debt proper to this subsequent sin. But there is no need for this,
+                     because, as stated above 
+                     <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
+                     of the subsequent sin. Wherefore
+                     the amount of the debt that returns must be according to the gravity of the subsequent sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     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
+                     fornication, while the previous sins were adulteries, murders, or sacrileges); or of the gravity which it incurs through the
+                     ingratitude connected with it. For it is not necessary that the measure of ingratitude should be exactly equal
+                     to the measure of the favor received, which latter is measured according to the greatness of the sins previously pardoned.
+                     Because it may happen that in respect of the same favor, one man is very ungrateful, either on account of the intensity of
+                     his scorn for the favor received, or on account of the gravity of the offense committed against the benefactor, while another
+                     man is slightly ungrateful, either because his scorn is less intense, or because his offense against the benefactor is less
+                     grave. But the measure of ingratitude is proportionately equal to the measure of the favor received: for supposing an equal
+                     contempt of the favor, or an equal offense against the benefactor, the ingratitude will be so much the greater, as the favor
+                     received is greater.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     sins; but it must be in proportion thereto, so that the more numerous or the greater the sins previously pardoned, the greater
+                     must be the debt of punishment incurred by any subsequent mortal sin whatever.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A3-p9">
+                     <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
+                     of ingratitude does not take its absolute quantity from the measure of the favor bestowed, but from the measure of the contempt
+                     or of the offense, as stated above: and so the objection does not prove.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A3-p10">
+                     <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,
+                     but only when this is grave.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A3-p11">
+                     <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
+                     of his previous sins is contained proportionally in his subsequent ingratitude, but not absolutely, as stated above.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A3-p12"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A3-p13"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q88_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q88_A4.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q88_A4" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q88_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q89.html"></a>
+                  <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>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A4-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A4-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the ingratitude, whereby a subsequent sin causes the return of sins previously forgiven, is a special
+                     sin. For the giving of thanks belongs to counterpassion which is a necessary condition of justice, as the Philosopher shows
+                     (Ethic. v, 5). But justice is a special virtue. Therefore this ingratitude is a special sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A4-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Tully says (De Inv. Rhet. ii) that thanksgiving is a special virtue. But ingratitude is opposed to thanksgiving.
+                     Therefore ingratitude is a special sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A4-p4">
+                     <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,
+                     of sins already forgiven. Therefore ingratitude is a special sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A4-p5">
+                     <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,
+                     as evidenced from what has been said 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A4-p6">
+                     <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
+                     sins in common committed against God. For a sin takes its species according to the sinner's intention, wherefore the Philosopher
+                     says (Ethic. v, 2) that "he who commits adultery in order to steal is a thief rather than an adulterer."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     of ingratitude, and in this way a sinner's ingratitude is a special sin. If, however, a man, while intending to commit a sin,
+                     e.g. murder or adultery, is not withheld from it on account of its implying contempt of God, his ingratitude will not be a
+                     special sin, but will be drawn to the species of the other sin, as a circumstance thereof. And, as Augustine
+                     observes (De Nat. et Grat. xxix), not every sin implies contempt of God in His commandments. Therefore it is evident that
+                     the sinner's ingratitude is sometimes a special sin, sometimes not.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     sin; while the last objection proves that ingratitude, as included in every sin, is not a special sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A4-p9"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q88_A4-p10"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q88_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q89.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q87_A4.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q88_A1.html"></a>
+            </div>
+            <div id="TP_Q89" class="div3">
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q88_A4.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A1.html"></a>
+               <h3 id="TP_Q89-p0.1">OF THE RECOVERY OF VIRTUE BY MEANS OF PENANCE (SIX ARTICLES)</h3>
+               <p id="TP_Q89-p1"></p>
+               <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>
+               <p id="TP_Q89-p3"> (1) Whether virtues are restored through Penance?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q89-p4"> (2) Whether they are restored in equal measure?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q89-p5"> (3) Whether equal dignity is restored to the penitent?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q89-p6"> (4) Whether works of virtue are deadened by subsequent sin?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q89-p7"> (5) Whether works deadened by sin revive through Penance?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q89-p8"> (6) Whether dead works, i.e. works that are done without charity, are quickened by Penance?</p>
+               <div id="TP_Q89_A1" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q89.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A2.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q89_A1-p0.1">Whether the virtues are restored through Penance?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A1-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A1-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the virtues are not restored through penance. Because lost virtue cannot be restored by penance, unless
+                     penance be the cause of virtue. But, since penance is itself a virtue, it cannot be the cause of all the virtues, and all
+                     the more, since some virtues naturally precede penance, viz., faith, hope, and charity, as stated above (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A1-p3">
+                     <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:
+                     for Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. ii, 18: In 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A1-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, he that has virtue performs works of virtue with ease and pleasure: wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 8)
+                     that "a man is not just if he does not rejoice in just deeds." Now many penitents find difficulty in performing deeds of virtue.
+                     Therefore the virtues are not restored through Penance.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A1-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> We read (
+                     <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.
+                     vii), is the "mantle of wisdom," from which all the virtues flow together, according to
+                     <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
+                     in life." Therefore all the virtues are restored
+                     through Penance.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A1-p6">
+                     <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
+                     infusion of grace. Wherefore it follows that grace is infused into man through Penance. Now all the gratuitous virtues flow
+                     from grace, even as all the powers result from the essence of the soul; as stated in the 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A1-p7">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Penance restores the virtues in the same way as it causes grace, as stated above (
+                     <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
+                     of grace. Consequently it does not follow that penance, as a virtue, needs to be the cause of all the other virtues, but that
+                     the habit of penance together with the habits of the other virtues is caused through
+                     the sacrament of Penance.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A1-p8">
+                     <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
+                     of the keys. Consequently the power of the keys causes grace and virtue effectively indeed, but instrumentally; and the first
+                     act of the penitent, viz., contrition, stands as ultimate disposition to the reception of grace, while the subsequent acts
+                     of Penance proceed from the grace and virtues which are already there.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A1-p9">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As stated above (
+                     <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
+                     by previous acts, the result being that the penitent finds difficulty in doing deeds of virtue. Nevertheless, so far as the
+                     inclination itself of charity and of the other virtues is concerned, the penitent performs works of virtue with pleasure and
+                     ease. even as a virtuous man
+                     may accidentally find it hard to do an act of virtue, on account of sleepiness or some indisposition of the body.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A1-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A1-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q89.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A2.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q89_A2" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A3.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q89_A2-p0.1">Whether, after Penance, man rises again to equal virtue?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A2-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A2-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that, after Penance, man rises again to equal virtue. For the Apostle says (
+                     <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,
+                     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
+                     if he rose again to lesser virtue. Therefore it seems that a penitent never rises again to
+                     lesser virtue.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A2-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Ambrose says [*Cf. Hypognosticon iii, an anonymous work falsely ascribed to St. Augustine] that "Penance is a very
+                     good thing, for it restores every defect to a state of perfection." But this would not be true unless virtues were recovered
+                     in equal measure. Therefore equal virtue is always recovered through Penance.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A2-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, on
+                     <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
+                     is that to which we rise again." Now the morning light is greater than the evening light. Therefore a man rises to greater
+                     grace or charity than that which he had before; which is confirmed by the Apostle's words (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A2-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> Charity whether proficient or perfect is greater than incipient charity. But sometimes a man falls from proficient charity,
+                     and rises again to incipient charity. Therefore man always rises again to less virtue.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A2-p6">
+                     <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,
+                     is the ultimate disposition to grace; so that in the same instant there is infusion of grace together with the aforesaid movement
+                     of the free-will, as stated in the 
+                     <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
+                     being
+                     more or less, become intense or remiss, according to the different dispositions of the subject, as stated in the 
+                     <a id="TP_Q89_A2-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q52_A1.html">FS, Q[52], AA[1]</a>,2; 
+                     <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
+                     receives greater or lesser grace. Now the intensity of the penitent's movement may be proportionate sometimes to a greater
+                     grace than that from which man fell by sinning,
+                     sometimes to an equal grace, sometimes to a lesser. Wherefore the penitent sometimes arises to a greater grace than that which
+                     he had before, sometimes to an equal, sometimes to a lesser grace: and the same applies to the virtues, which flow from grace.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A2-p7">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     as according to His purpose are called to be saints," viz. the predestined, who, however often they may fall, yet rise again
+                     finally. Consequently good comes of their falling, not that they always rise again to
+                     greater grace, but that they rise to more abiding grace, not indeed on the part of grace itself, because the greater the grace,
+                     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.
+                     Hence the same gloss adds that "their fall conduces to their good, because they rise more humble and more enlightened."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A2-p8">
+                     <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
+                     state; but this is sometimes hindered on the part of man, whose movement towards God and in detestation of sin is too remiss,
+                     just as in Baptism adults receive a greater or a lesser grace, according to the various ways in which they prepare themselves.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A2-p9">
+                     <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
+                     of night follows after the evening light, and the light of day after the light of morning, but not on account of a likeness
+                     of greater or lesser quantity. Again, this saying of the Apostle refers to the grace of Christ, which abounds more than any
+                     number of man's sins. Nor is it true of all, that the more their sins abound,
+                     the more abundant grace they receive, if we measure habitual grace by the quantity. Grace is, however, more abundant, as regards
+                     the very notion of grace, because to him who sins more a more "gratuitous" favor is vouchsafed by his pardon; although sometimes
+                     those whose sins abound, abound also in sorrow, so that they receive a more abundant habit of grace and virtue, as was the
+                     case with Magdalen.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     than incipient grace, but this is not necessarily the case in different men, for one begins with a greater grace than another
+                     has in the state of proficiency: thus Gregory says (Dial. ii, 1): "Let all, both now and hereafter, acknowledge how perfectly
+                     the boy Benedict turned to the life of grace from the very beginning."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A2-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A2-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A3.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q89_A3" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A4.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q89_A3-p0.1">Whether, by Penance, man is restored to his former dignity?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A3-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A3-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that man is not restored by Penance to his former dignity: because a gloss on
+                     <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
+                     not rise; because the sheep that has once strayed, although the shepherd bring it back on his shoulder, has not the same glory
+                     as if it had never strayed." Therefore man does not, through Penance, recover his former
+                     dignity.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A3-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Jerome says: "Whoever fail to preserve the dignity of the sacred order, must be content with saving their souls;
+                     for it is a difficult thing to return to their former degree." Again, Pope Innocent I says (Ep. vi ad Agapit.) that "the canons
+                     framed at the council of Nicaea exclude penitents from even the lowest orders of clerics." Therefore man does not, through
+                     Penance, recover his former dignity.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A3-p4">
+                     <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,
+                     for it is written (
+                     <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q89_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Ezek.44.10" target="asv">Ezech. 44:10</a>, 
+                     <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":
+                     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
+                     Altar fall suddenly into some
+                     deplorable weakness of the flesh, and by God's mercy do proper penance, let them return to their duties, yet so as not to
+                     receive further promotion." Therefore Penance does not restore man to his former dignity.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A3-p5">
+                     <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
+                     proper satisfaction, he may return to his honorable position": and moreover we read in the acts of the council of Agde: "Contumacious
+                     clerics, so far as their position allows, should be corrected by their bishops. so that when Penance has reformed them, they
+                     may recover their degree and dignity."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A3-p6">
+                     <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
+                     loses a twofold dignity. one is his principal dignity, whereby he was counted among the children of God, and this he recovers
+                     by Penance, which is signified (
+                     <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
+                     with a ring and shoes. The
+                     other is his secondary dignity, viz. innocence, of which, as we read in the same chapter, the elder son boasted saying (
+                     <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
+                     cannot recover. Nevertheless he recovers something greater sometimes; because as Gregory says (Hom. de centum Ovibus, 34 in
+                     Evang.), "those who acknowledge themselves to have strayed away from God, make up for their past
+                     losses, by subsequent gains: so that there is more joy in heaven on their account, even as in battle, the commanding officer
+                     thinks more of the soldier who, after running away, returns and bravely attacks the foe, than of one who has never turned
+                     his back, but has done nothing brave."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     of the ecclesiastical dignity. This he is debarred from recovering: first, because he fails to repent; wherefore Isidore wrote
+                     to the bishop Masso, and as we read in the Distinction quoted above (OBJ[3]): "The canons order those to be restored to their
+                     former degree, who by repentance have made satisfaction for their sins, or have made worthy
+                     confession of them. On the other hand, those who do not mend their corrupt and wicked ways are neither allowed to exercise
+                     their order, nor received to the grace of communion."
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     those who show no signs of humble compunction, or of earnest prayer, who avoid fasting or study, would exercise their former
+                     duties with great negligence if they were restored to them."
+                  </p>
+                  <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]),
+                     quoting the council of Pope Martin [*Martin, bishop of Braga]: "If a man marry a widow or the relict of another, he must not
+                     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
+                     anyone after Baptism be guilty of homicide, whether by deed, or by command, or by counsel, or in
+                     self-defense." But this is in consequence not of sin, but of irregularity.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     or caught in the act of perjury, robbery, fornication, and of such like crimes, according to the prescription of the sacred
+                     canons must be deprived of the exercise of their respective orders, because it is a scandal to God's people that such persons
+                     should be placed over them. But those who commit such sins occultly and confess them secretly to a
+                     priest, may be retained in the exercise of their respective orders, with the assurance of God's merciful forgiveness, provided
+                     they be careful to expiate their sins by fasts and alms, vigils and holy deeds." The same is expressed (Extra, De Qual. Ordinand.):
+                     "If the aforesaid crimes are not proved by a judicial process, or in some other way made notorious, those who are guilty of
+                     them must not be hindered, after they have done penance, from exercising the orders they have received, or from
+                     receiving further orders, except in cases of homicide."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A3-p11">
+                     <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
+                     in the sight of God.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A3-p12">
+                     <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
+                     after having sinned, because this is allowed to none but those who repent perfectly, as stated above. To those canonical statutes,
+                     which seem to forbid this, Augustine replies in his letter to Boniface (Ep. clxxxv): "If the law of the Church forbids anyone,
+                     after doing penance for a crime, to become a cleric, or to return to his
+                     clerical duties, or to retain them the intention was not to deprive him of the hope of pardon, but to preserve the rigor of
+                     discipline; else we should have to deny the keys given to the Church, of which it was said: 'Whatsoever you shall loose on
+                     earth shall be loosed in heaven.'" And further on he adds: "For holy David did penance for his deadly crimes, and yet he retained
+                     his dignity; and Blessed Peter by shedding most bitter tears did indeed repent him of having denied his Lord, and yet he
+                     remained an apostle. Nevertheless we must not deem the care of later teachers excessive, who without endangering a man's salvation,
+                     exacted more from his humility, having, in my opinion, found by experience, that some assumed a pretended repentance through
+                     hankering after honors and power."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A3-p13">
+                     <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.
+                     For Peter, after his denial, was made shepherd of Christ's sheep, as appears from
+                     <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:
+                     for whereas, at the supper, he durst not ask Him, but deputed John to ask in his stead,
+                     afterwards he was placed at the head of his brethren, and not only did not depute another to ask for him, what concerned him,
+                     but henceforth asks the Master instead of John."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A3-p14"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A3-p15"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A4.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q89_A4" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A5.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q89_A4-p0.1">Whether virtuous deeds done in charity can be deadened?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A4-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A4-p2">
+                     <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
+                     deadened is to be changed from life to death. Since therefore virtuous deeds, after being done, are no more, it seems that
+                     they cannot afterwards be deadened.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A4-p3">
+                     <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
+                     it is an injustice, which cannot be ascribed to God. Therefore it is not possible for virtuous deeds done in charity to be
+                     deadened by a subsequent sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A4-p4">
+                     <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
+                     (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A4-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
+                     <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."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A4-p6">
+                     <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
+                     deadened when it is hindered from producing its proper effect or operation.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     mortal sin, inasmuch as it takes away grace. Wherefore deeds done in charity are said to be deadened by a subsequent mortal
+                     sin.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A4-p8">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     from receiving his reward.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A4-p9">
+                     <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
+                     fault, since at times a man justly forfeits through his own fault, even that which he has already received.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A4-p10">
+                     <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
+                     of the freedom of the will which can be turned away from good to evil.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A4-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A4-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A5.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q89_A5" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A6.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q89_A5-p0.1">Whether deeds deadened by sin, are revived by Penance?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A5-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A5-p2">
+                     <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
+                     Penance, so are deeds previously done in charity, deadened by subsequent sin. But sins remitted by Penance do not return,
+                     as stated above (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A5-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, deeds are said to be deadened by comparison with animals who die, as stated above 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A5-p4">
+                     <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
+                     through Penance to lesser grace or charity. Therefore he does not receive glory according to the merit of his previous works;
+                     so that it seems that deeds deadened by sin are not revived.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A5-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> on
+                     <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
+                     which you lost when your soul was disturbed." But this fruit is the merit of good works which was lost through sin. Therefore
+                     meritorious deeds done before are revived by Penance.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A5-p6">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     they are conducive to eternal life (wherein their life consists) not only as actually existing, but also after they cease
+                     to exist actually, and as abiding in the Divine acceptance. Now, they abide thus, so
+                     far as they are concerned, even after they have been deadened by sin, because those works, according as they were done, will
+                     ever be acceptable to God and give joy to the saints, according to
+                     <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
+                     them, to eternal life, is due to the impediment of the supervening sin whereby he is become unworthy of eternal life. But
+                     this impediment is removed by
+                     Penance, inasmuch as sins are taken away thereby. Hence it follows that deeds previously deadened, recover, through Penance,
+                     their efficacy in bringing him, who did them, to eternal life, and, in other words, they are revived. It is therefore evident
+                     that deadened works are revived by Penance.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A5-p7">
+                     <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
+                     is incurred on their account: on the other hand, works done in charity are not removed by God, since they abide in His acceptance,
+                     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
+                     works, be removed, God on His side fulfills what those works deserved.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A5-p8">
+                     <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
+                     on the part of the man who does them. On the other hand, an animal dies in itself, through being deprived of the principle
+                     of life: so that the comparison fails.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A5-p9">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     in his subsequent charity: and this joy belongs to the accidental reward.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A5-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A5-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A4.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A6.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q89_A6" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q90.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q89_A6-p0.1">Whether the effect of subsequent Penance is to quicken even dead works?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A6-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A6-p2">
+                     <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.
+                     For it seems more difficult to bring to life that which has been deadened, since this is never done naturally, than to quicken
+                     that which never had life, since certain living things are engendered naturally from things without life. Now deadened works
+                     are revived by Penance, as stated above 
+                     <a id="TP_Q89_A6-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q89_A5.html">(A[5])</a>. Much more,
+                     therefore, are dead works revived.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A6-p3">
+                     <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
+                     without charity, was the lack of charity and grace. which lack is removed by Penance. Therefore dead works are quickened by
+                     charity.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A6-p4">
+                     <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
+                     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."
+                     Now this seems to be the case chiefly when past evil "deeds" are removed by Penance. Therefore it seems that through Penance,
+                     God rewards the former deeds done in the state of sin, which implies that they are
+                     quickened.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A6-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
+                     <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,
+                     it profiteth me nothing." But this would not be true, if, at least by subsequent Penance, they were quickened. Therefore Penance
+                     does not quicken works which before were dead.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A6-p6">
+                     <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
+                     works are said to be dead, according to
+                     <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
+                     by Penance, according to
+                     <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
+                     be dead privatively, because, to wit, they lack spiritual life, which is founded on charity, whereby the soul is united to
+                     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
+                     to be dead, according to
+                     <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
+                     without charity, inasmuch as they fail to proceed from the principle of
+                     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
+                     relation to the principle from which they proceed. But works cannot proceed a second time from a principle, because they are
+                     transitory, and the same identical deed cannot be resumed. Therefore it is impossible for dead works to be quickened by Penance.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A6-p7">
+                     <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
+                     in relation to the principle whence they proceeded, but in relation to an extrinsic impediment; while they are said to be
+                     dead in relation to a principle. Consequently there is no comparison.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A6-p8">
+                     <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.
+                     Now the subsequent Penance does not supply that want, so as to make them proceed from such a principle. Hence the argument
+                     does not prove.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A6-p9">
+                     <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
+                     to living works, i.e. those done from charity, but by a temporal reward: thus Gregory declares (Hom. de Divite et Lazaro,
+                     41 in Evang.) that "unless that rich man had done some good deed, and had received his reward in this world, Abraham would
+                     certainly not have said to him: 'Thou didst receive good things in thy lifetime.'" Or
+                     again, this may mean that he will be judged less severely: wherefore Augustine says (De Patientia xxvi): "We cannot say that
+                     it would be better for the schismatic that by denying Christ he should suffer none of those things which he suffered by confessing
+                     Him; but we must believe that he will be judged with less severity, than if by denying Christ, he had suffered none of those
+                     things. Thus the words of the Apostle, 'If I should deliver my body to be burned and have not charity, it profiteth me
+                     nothing,' refer to the obtaining of the kingdom of heaven, and do not exclude the possibility of being sentenced with less
+                     severity at the last judgment."
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A6-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q89_A6-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A5.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q90.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q88_A4.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A1.html"></a>
+            </div>
+            <div id="TP_Q90" class="div3">
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A6.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q90_A1.html"></a>
+               <h3 id="TP_Q90-p0.1">OF THE PARTS OF PENANCE, IN GENERAL (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3>
+               <p id="TP_Q90-p1"></p>
+               <p id="TP_Q90-p2"> We must now consider the parts of Penance: (1) in general. (2) each one in particular.</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q90-p3"> Under the first head there are four points of inquiry:</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q90-p4"> (1) Whether Penance has any parts?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q90-p5"> (2) Of the number of its parts;</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q90-p6"> (3) What kind of parts are they?</p>
+               <p id="TP_Q90-p7"> (4) Of its division into subjective parts.</p>
+               <div id="TP_Q90_A1" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q90.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q90_A2.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q90_A1-p0.1">Whether Penance should be assigned any parts?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A1-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A1-p2">
+                     <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
+                     in the sacraments. Now the Divine power is one and simple. Therefore Penance, being a sacrament, should have no parts assigned
+                     to it.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A1-p3">
+                     <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,
+                     which is a simple quality of the mind. In like manner, it seems that parts should not be assigned to Penance as a sacrament,
+                     because no parts are assigned to Baptism and the other sacraments. Therefore no parts at all should be assigned to Penance.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A1-p4">
+                     <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the matter of Penance is sin, as stated above (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A1-p5">
+                     <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,
+                     viz. contrition, confession, and satisfaction. Therefore Penance has parts.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A1-p6">
+                     <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
+                     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
+                     (Phys. ii). Accordingly wherever, on the part of matter, we find a kind of plurality, there we shall find a reason for assigning
+                     parts.
+                  </p>
+                  <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,
+                     since several actions are requisite for the perfection of Penance, viz., contrition, confession, and satisfaction, as we shall
+                     show further on 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A1-p8">
+                     <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
+                     that it can operate both through one and through many, and by reason of these many, parts may be assigned to a particular
+                     sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A1-p9">
+                     <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
+                     to the habit of virtue, not as its parts, but as its effects. It follows, therefore, that parts are assigned to Penance as
+                     a sacrament, to which the human acts are related as matter: whereas in the other sacraments the matter does not consist of
+                     human acts, but of some one external thing, either simple, as water or oil, or compound,
+                     as chrism, and so parts are not assigned to the other sacraments.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A1-p10">
+                     <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
+                     proper matter of Penance as a sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A1-p11"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A1-p12"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q90.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q90_A2.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q90_A2" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q90_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q90_A3.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q90_A2-p0.1">Whether contrition, confession, and satisfaction are fittingly assigned as parts of Penance?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A2-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A2-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that contrition, confession, and satisfaction are not fittingly assigned as parts of Penance. For contrition
+                     is in the heart, and so belongs to interior penance; while confession consists of words, and satisfaction in deeds; so that
+                     the two latter belong to interior penance. Now interior penance is not a sacrament, but only exterior penance which is perceptible
+                     by the senses. Therefore these three parts are not fittingly assigned to the sacrament
+                     of Penance.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A2-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, grace is conferred in the sacraments of the New Law, as stated above (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A2-p4">
+                     <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
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A2-p5">
+                     <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 
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A2-p6">
+                     <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
+                     the matter, but also the soul, which is his form. But the aforesaid three, being the acts of the penitent, stand as matter,
+                     while the priestly absolution stands as form. Therefore the priestly absolution should be assigned as a fourth part of Penance.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A2-p7">
+                     <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
+                     genus and the difference. In this way, each sacrament is divided into matter and form as its essential parts. Hence it has
+                     been said above (Q[60], AA[5],6) that sacraments consist of things and words. But since quantity is on the part of matter,
+                     quantitative parts are parts of matter: and, in this way, as stated above
+                     
+                     <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
+                     sacrament.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A2-p8"> Now it has been said above (
+                     <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
+                     is made according to the judge's decision, and not according to the discretion of the offender or of the person offended;
+                     whereas, in Penance, the offense is atoned according to the will of the sinner, and the judgment of God against Whom the sin
+                     was committed, because in the latter case we
+                     seek not only the restoration of the equality of justice, as in vindictive justice, but also and still more the reconciliation
+                     of friendship, which is accomplished by the offender making atonement according to the will of the person offended. Accordingly
+                     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
+                     submit to the judgment of the priest standing in God's place, and this is done in confession; and the third is that he
+                     atone according to the decision of God's minister, and this is done in satisfaction: and so contrition, confession, and satisfaction
+                     are assigned as parts of Penance.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A2-p9">
+                     <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,
+                     inasmuch as it implies the purpose of confessing and making satisfaction.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A2-p10">
+                     <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,
+                     just as Baptism does in adults, as stated above (
+                     <a id="TP_Q90_A2-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q68_A2.html">Q[68], A[2]</a>;
+                     <a id="TP_Q90_A2-p10.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q69_A8.html"> Q[69], A[8]</a>).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A2-p11">
+                     <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Satisfaction is a part of Penance as a sacrament, and a fruit of penance as a virtue.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A2-p12">
+                     <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
+                     single defect," as Dionysius states (Div. Nom. iv). And thus, although sin is completed in the consent of the heart, yet the
+                     perfection of Penance requires contrition of the heart, together with confession in word and satisfaction in deed.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A2-p13"> The Reply to the Fifth Objection is clear from what has been said.</p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A2-p14"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A2-p15"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q90_A1.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q90_A3.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q90_A3" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q90_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q90_A4.html"></a>
+                  <h4 id="TP_Q90_A3-p0.1">Whether these three are integral parts of Penance?</h4>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A3-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A3-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that these three are not integral parts of Penance. For, as stated above (
+                     <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,
+                     because sin is predicated of each one of them. Therefore in Penance also, contrition in thought, confession in word, and satisfaction
+                     in deed are not integral parts.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A3-p3">
+                     <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, no integral part includes within itself another that is condivided with it. But contrition includes both confession
+                     and satisfaction in the purpose of amendment. Therefore they are not integral parts.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A3-p4">
+                     <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
+                     parts. But such is not the case here. Therefore these are not integral parts of Penance.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A3-p5">
+                     <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
+                     by these three. Therefore they are integral parts of Penance.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A3-p6">
+                     <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
+                     whole is present in each subjective part at the same time and equally, just as the entire power of an animal, as such, is
+                     assured to each animal species, all of which species divide the animal genus at the same time and equally: which does not
+                     apply to the point in question. Wherefore others have said that these are potential parts: yet
+                     neither can this be true, since the whole is present, as to the entire essence, in each potential part, just as the entire
+                     essence of the soul is present in each of its powers: which does not apply to the case in point. Therefore it follows that
+                     these three are integral parts of Penance, the nature of which is that the whole is not present in each of the parts, either
+                     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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A3-p7">
+                     <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
+                     is completed in thought alone, is a special kind of sin. Another species is the sin that is completed in thought and word:
+                     and yet a third species is the sin that is completed in thought, word, and deed; and the quasi-integral parts of this last
+                     sin, are that which is in thought, that which is in word, and that which is in deed.
+                     Wherefore these three are the integral parts of Penance, which is completed in them.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A3-p8">
+                     <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
+                     the whole building. In this way contrition includes virtually the whole of Penance.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A3-p9">
+                     <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
+                     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,
+                     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
+                     first of which is the heart, the others in a certain order being dependent on one
+                     another: and thirdly some are related in the order of time: as the parts of time and movement. Accordingly the parts of Penance
+                     are related to one another in the order of power and time, since they are actions, but not in the order of position, since
+                     they do not occupy a place.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A3-p10"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A3-p11"></p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q90_A2.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q90_A4.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <div id="TP_Q90_A4" class="div4">
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q90_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.XP.html"></a>
+                  <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>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A4-p1"></p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A4-p2">
+                     <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that penance is unfittingly divided into penance before Baptism, penance for mortal, and penance for venial
+                     sins. For Penance is the second plank after shipwreck, as stated above (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A4-p3">
+                     <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
+                     regards mortal sins regards also venial sins. Therefore they should not be considered as different species of penance.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A4-p4">
+                     <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
+                     sins is distinct from penance for mortal sins after Baptism, in like manner they should be distinguished before Baptism. Therefore
+                     penance is not fittingly divided into these species.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A4-p5">
+                     <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says in De Poenitentia [*Cf. Hom. 30 inter 1] that these three are species of Penance.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A4-p6">
+                     <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,
+                     as also in keeping with other due circumstances, wherefore the virtue of penance has its act at this time, according to the
+                     requirements of the New Law.
+                  </p>
+                  <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,
+                     which is the end, so to speak, of penance. And since moral matters take their species from the end, as stated in the 
+                     <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
+                     the penitent.
+                  </p>
+                  <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
+                     belongs to that penance which precedes Baptism. The second is by reforming one's past life after it has been already destroyed,
+                     and this belongs to penance for mortal sins committed after Baptism. The third is by changing to a more perfect operation
+                     of life, and this belongs to penance for venial sins, which are remitted through a fervent act of charity, as
+                     stated above (
+                     <a id="TP_Q90_A4-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q87_A2.html">Q[87], AA[2]</a>,3).
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A4-p9">
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A4-p10">
+                     <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
+                     two species of penance are related to one another as perfect and imperfect.
+                  </p>
+                  <p id="TP_Q90_A4-p11">
+                     <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,
+                     as stated above (
+                     <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.
+                  </p>
+                  <a href="summa.TP_Q90_A3.html"></a>
+                  <a href="summa.XP.html"></a>
+               </div>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q89_A6.html"></a>
+               <a href="summa.TP_Q90_A1.html"></a>
+            </div>
+            <a href="summa.TP_Q59_A6.html"></a>
+            <a href="summa.TP_Q60.html"></a>
+         `
+     </div>
\ No newline at end of file