<?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>