Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] Out. Para. 1/1

OF THE MINISTERS BY WHOM THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM IS CONFERRED (EIGHT 
ARTICLES)

 We have now to consider the ministers by whom the sacrament of Baptism 
is conferred. And concerning this there are eight points of inquiry:

 (1) Whether it belongs to a deacon to baptize?

 (2) Whether this belongs to a priest, or to a bishop only?

 (3) Whether a layman can confer the sacrament of Baptism?

 (4) Whether a woman can do this?

 (5) Whether an unbaptized person can baptize?

 (6) Whether several can at the same time baptize one and the same person?

 (7) Whether it is essential that someone should raise the person 
baptized from the sacred font?

 (8) Whether he who raises someone from the sacred font is bound to 
instruct him?


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether it is part of a deacon's duty to baptize?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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 Mt. 28:19: "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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 Eph. 5:26: "Cleansing it by the laver of water 
in the word of life." Therefore it seems that it belongs to a deacon to 
baptize.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[1] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether to baptize is part of the priestly office, or proper to that of 
bishops?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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 (Mt. 
28:19). 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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 Lk. 10:1: indeed, they even take the 
place of the apostles, of whom it is written (Ps. 44:17): "Thou shalt 
make them princes over all the earth." Therefore it seems that to baptize 
belongs exclusively to the office of bishops. 

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, Isidore says (De Officiis. ii): "It is certain that 
Baptism was entrusted to priests alone."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[2] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, Priests are consecrated for the purpose of celebrating 
the sacrament of Christ's Body, as stated above (Q[65], A[3]). Now that 
is the sacrament of ecclesiastical unity, according to the Apostle (1 
Cor. 10:17): "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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 (Acts 6:2): "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 (1 Cor. 1:17): "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; AA[5],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 (1 Cor. 1:14,16) that he 
had baptized some.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: In every commonwealth minor affairs are entrusted to lower 
officials, while greater affairs are restricted to higher officials; 
according to Ex. 18:22: "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 
 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 Luke 10.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: As stated above (Q[65], A[3]), 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether a layman can baptize?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It seems that a layman cannot baptize. Because, as stated above 
(A[2]), 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, Pope Gelasius I and Isidore say that "it is often 
permissible for Christian laymen to baptize, in cases of urgent 
necessity."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[3] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, It is due to the mercy of Him "Who will have all men to 
be saved" (1 Tim. 2:4) 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: As stated above (Q[65], AA[3],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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether a woman can baptize?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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 1 Cor. 14:35: 
"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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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 1 Tim. 2:12: "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, in the spiritual regeneration water seems to hold the 
place of the mother's womb, as Augustine says on Jn. 3:4, "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[4] Body Para. 1/2

 I answer that, Christ is the chief Baptizer, according to Jn. 1:33: "He 
upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, He 
it is that baptizeth." For it is written in Col. 3 (cf. Gal. 3:28), that 
in Christ there is neither male nor female. Consequently, just as a 
layman can baptize, as Christ's minister, so can a woman.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[4] Body Para. 2/2

 But since "the head of the woman is the man," and "the head of . . . 
man, is Christ" (1 Cor. 11:3), 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. 

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2

 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether one that is not baptized can confer the sacrament of Baptism?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[5] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether several can baptize at the same time?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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 Eph. 4:5: "one Faith, 
one Baptism."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[6] Body Para. 1/3

 I answer that, The Sacrament of Baptism derives its power principally 
from its form, which the Apostle calls "the word of life" (Eph. 5:26). 
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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[6] Body Para. 2/3

 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 (Eph. 4:5): "one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism." Consequently, 
an intention which is in opposition to this seems to annul the sacrament 
of Baptism.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[6] Body Para. 3/3

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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 Mt. 28:19: "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: As stated above (Q[66], A[1]), 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[7] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether in Baptism it is necessary for someone to raise the baptized from 
the sacred font?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[7] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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 Mt. 3:16, "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[7] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, Baptism is a spiritual regeneration, as stated above 
(A[3]). 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. 

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[7] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[7] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. ii) that "the priests 
taking the baptized hand him over to his sponsor and guide."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[7] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, The spiritual regeneration, which takes place in Baptism, 
is in a certain manner likened to carnal generation: wherefore it is 
written (1 Pt. 2:2): "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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[7] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[8] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether he who raises anyone from the sacred font is bound to instruct 
him?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[8] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[8] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[8] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[8] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[8] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, Every man is bound to fulfil those duties which he has 
undertaken to perform. Now it has been stated above (A[7]) 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[8] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: Just as spiritual generation is distinct from carnal 
generation, so is spiritual education distinct from that of  the body; 
according to Heb. 12:9: "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] Out. Para. 1/1

OF THOSE WHO RECEIVE BAPTISM (TWELVE ARTICLES)

 We have now to consider those who receive Baptism; concerning which 
there are twelve points of inquiry:

 (1) Whether all are bound to receive Baptism?

 (2) Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?

 (3) Whether Baptism should be deferred?

 (4) Whether sinners should be baptized?

 (5) Whether works of satisfaction should be enjoined on sinners that 
have been baptized?

 (6) Whether Confession of sins is necessary?

 (7) Whether an intention is required on the part of the one baptized?

 (8) Whether faith is necessary?

 (9) Whether infants should be baptized?

 (10) Whether the children of Jews should be baptized against the will of 
their parents?

 (11) Whether anyone should be baptized in the mother's womb?

 (12) Whether madmen and imbeciles should be baptized?


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether all are bound to receive Baptism?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 3:5): "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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[1] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, 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 (Rm. 5:18): "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 
(Gal. 3:27): "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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 
(Acts 4:12), "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 (Rm. 4:11): 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 Eph. 3:17: "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: As we have stated in the FS, Q[81], A[3], ad 2, those who 
are baptized are renewed in spirit by Baptism, while their body remains 
subject to the oldness of sin, according to Rm. 8:10: "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether a man can be saved without Baptism? 

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For our Lord 
said (Jn. 3:5): "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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" (Gal. 5:6). Therefore it seems that none can be saved 
without Baptism.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, as stated above (A[1]; 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[2] Body Para. 1/2

 I answer that, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[2] Body Para. 2/2

 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: As it is written (1 Kgs. 16:7), "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 (Rm. 2:29) that "the 
circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; 
whose praise is not of men but of God."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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 1 Cor. 3:15.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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 Ps. 
57).


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Baptism should be deferred?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, as we read in Is. 27:9, "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 Heb. 10:29: "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Ecclus. 5:8): "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[3] Body Para. 1/3

 I answer that, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[3] Body Para. 2/3

 On the other hand, adults have a remedy in the mere desire for Baptism, 
as stated above (A[2]). 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 1 Jn. 4:1: "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[3] Body Para. 3/3

 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 
(Acts 8); and Peter, Cornelius and those who were with him (Acts 10). 
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 (Q[66], A[11]).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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 1 Jn. 2:1,2: "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."


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether sinners should be baptized?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It seems that sinners should be baptized. For it is written 
(Zach. 13:1): "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, our Lord said (Mt. 9:12): "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[4] Body Para. 1/2

 I answer that, 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 Eph. 5:26: "Cleansing 
it by the laver of water in the word of life."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[4] Body Para. 2/2

 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 Gal. 3:27: "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 2 Cor. 6:14: 
"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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: The words quoted are to be understood of those sinners 
whose will is set on renouncing sin.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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" (Gal. 5:6), 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).


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether works of satisfaction should be enjoined on sinners that have 
been baptized?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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 Eccles. 12:14: "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. 

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, Ambrose commenting on Rm. 11:29: "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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[5] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, As the Apostle says (Rm. 6:3,4), "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 (Q[48], AA[2],4; Q[49], A[3]) that Christ's death 
satisfied sufficiently for sins, "not for ours only, but also for those 
of the whole world," according to 1 Jn. 2:2. 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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 (Is. 53:4): "Surely He hath 
borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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 Ps. 130:2: "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 Mt. 9:14,15: and the same is written 1 
Pt. 2:2: "As new-born babes desire . . . milk . . . that thereby you may 
grow unto salvation."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether sinners who are going to be baptized are bound to confess their 
sins?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It seems that sinners who are going to be baptized are bound to 
confess their sins. For it is written (Mt. 3:6) 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, it is written (Prov. 28:13): "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, Penance is required before Baptism, according to Acts 
2:38: "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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 Rm. 11:29, "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[6] Body Para. 1/3

 I answer that, 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[5]). 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. 

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[6] Body Para. 2/3

 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 Mt. 3:6, 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[6] Body Para. 3/3

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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 Rm. 11:29); and 
therefore there is no comparison.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: Confession is a part of sacramental Penance, which is not 
required before Baptism, as stated above: but the inward virtue of 
Penance is required.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[7] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether the intention of receiving the sacrament of Baptism is required 
on the part of the one baptized?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[7] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[7] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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 (Q[66], A[9], 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[7] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[7] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[7] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, By Baptism a man dies to the old life of sin, and begins 
a certain newness of life, according to Rm. 6:4: "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[7] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: Baptism is a remedy not only against original, but also 
against actual sins, which are caused by our will and intention.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[8] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether faith is required on the part of the one baptized?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[8] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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 (Mk. 16:16): 
"He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved." Therefore it seems 
that without faith there can be no sacrament of Baptism.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[8] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[8] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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 Eph. 
3:17: "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[8] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 4: Further, unbelief is a most grievous sin, as we have shown in the 
SS, Q[10], A[3]. But those who remain in sin should not be baptized: 
therefore neither should those who remain in unbelief.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[8] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[8] Body Para. 1/2

 I answer that, As appears from what has been said above (Q[63], A[6]; 
Q[66], A[9]) 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 Rm. 3:22, the justice of God is 
by faith of Jesus Christ.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[8] Body Para. 2/2

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[8] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: The Church's intention in Baptizing men is that they may be 
cleansed from sin, according to Is. 27:9: "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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[8] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 4: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[9] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether children should be baptized?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[9] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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[7]). 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[9] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, Baptism is the sacrament of faith, as stated above 
(Q[39], A[5]; Q[66], A[1], 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[9] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, it is written (1 Pt. 3:21) 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[9] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii): "Our heavenly 
guides," i.e. the Apostles, "approved of infants being admitted to 
Baptism."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[9] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, As the Apostle says (Rm. 5:17), "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 (Rm. 5:12). Much more, therefore, 
can children receive grace through Christ, so as to reign in eternal 
life. But our Lord Himself said (Jn. 3:5): "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 Prov. 22:5: "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).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[9] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[9] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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" Ezech. 18:4: "'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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[9] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[10] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether children of Jews or other unbelievers be baptized against the 
will of their parents?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[10] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[10] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[10] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[10] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[10] Body Para. 1/2

 I answer that, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[10] Body Para. 2/2

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[10] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[10] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: Jews are slaves of rulers by civil slavery, which does not 
exclude the order of the natural and Divine law.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[10] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[11] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether a child can be baptized while yet in its mother's womb?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[11] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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 (Rm. 5:15). 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[11] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[11] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[11] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 4: Further, it happens at times that some part of the child comes 
forth first, as we read in Gn. 38:27: "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. 

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[11] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[11] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, 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 (Q[66], A[1]). 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[11] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[11] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[11] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: We should "not do evil that there may come good" (Rm. 3:8). 
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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[11] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 4: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[12] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether madmen and imbeciles should be baptized?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[12] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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[7]). But since madmen and imbeciles lack the use of 
reason, they can have but a disorderly intention. Therefore they should 
not be baptized.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[12] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[12] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[12] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[12] Body Para. 1/4

 I answer that, 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).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[12] Body Para. 2/4

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[12] Body Para. 3/4

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[12] Body Para. 4/4

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[12] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[12] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[12] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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).


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] Out. Para. 1/1

OF THE EFFECTS OF BAPTISM (TEN ARTICLES)

 We must now consider the effects of Baptism, concerning which there are 
ten points of inquiry:

 (1) Whether all sins are taken away by Baptism?

 (2) Whether man is freed from all punishment by Baptism?

 (3) Whether Baptism takes away the penalties of sin that belong to this 
life?

 (4) Whether grace and virtues are bestowed on man by Baptism?

 (5) Of the effects of virtue which are conferred by Baptism?

 (6) Whether even children receive grace and virtues in Baptism?

 (7) Whether Baptism opens the gates of the heavenly kingdom to those who 
are baptized?

 (8) Whether Baptism produces an equal effect in all who are baptized?

 (9) Whether insincerity hinders the effect of Baptism?

 (10) Whether Baptism takes effect when the insincerity ceases?


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether all sins are taken away by Baptism?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, Penance is a sufficient cause of the remission of actual 
sins. But penance is required in adults before Baptism, according to Acts 
2:38: "Do penance and be baptized every one of you." Therefore Baptism 
has nothing to do with the remission of actual sins.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, various diseases demand various remedies: because as 
Jerome says on Mk. 9:27,28: "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Ezech. 36:25): "I will pour upon you 
clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[1] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, As the Apostle says (Rm. 6:3), "all we, who are baptized 
in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death." And further on he concludes 
(Rm. 6:11): "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: As the Apostle says (Rm. 5:15,16), 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: No sin can be forgiven save by the power of Christ's 
Passion: hence the Apostle says (Heb. 9:22) 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.

 

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether man is freed by Baptism from all debt of punishment due to sin?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It seems that man is not freed by Baptism from all debt of 
punishment due to sin. For the Apostle says (Rm. 13:1): "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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 (Q[62], A[1], 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, Ambrose, commenting on Rm. 11:29, "The gifts and the 
calling of God ate without repentance," says: "The grace of God in 
Baptism remits all, gratis."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[2] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, As stated above (Q[49], A[3], ad 2; Q[68], AA[1],4,5) by 
Baptism a man is incorporated in the Passion and death of Christ, 
according to Rm. 6:8: "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 (Q[68], A[5]), 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1 

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Baptism should take away the penalties of sin that belong to this 
life?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It seems that Baptism should take away the penalties of sin that 
belong to this life. For as the Apostle says (Rm. 5:15), the gift of 
Christ is farther-reaching than the sin of Adam. But through Adam's sin, 
as the Apostle says (Rm. 5:12), "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, on Rm. 6:6, "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[3] Body Para. 1/3

 I answer that, 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" (1 Cor. 15:54). And this is 
reasonable. First, because, by Baptism, man is incorporated in Christ, 
and is made His member, as stated above (A[3]; 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 (Rm. 8:11): "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 
(Rm. 8:17): "Heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if 
we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified with Him."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[3] Body Para. 2/3

 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 Rm. 6:6, 
"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 (Judges 3:1,2): 
"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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[3] Body Para. 3/3

 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 (1 Cor. 15:19): "If in 
this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: As a gloss says on Rm. 6:6, "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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: As we stated in the FS, Q[81], A[1]; FS, Q[82], A[1], 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether grace and virtues are bestowed on man by Baptism?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It seems that grace and virtues are not bestowed on man by 
Baptism. Because, as stated above (Q[62], A[1], 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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 (Acts 10:1,2): "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, The Apostle says (Titus 3:5,6): "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[4] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, 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 Jn. 
1:16: "Of His fulness we all have received." Hence it is clear that man 
receives grace and virtues in Baptism.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: As stated above (A[1], ad 2; Q[68], A[2]) 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 Ps. 22:2, "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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.



Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether certain acts of the virtues are fittingly set down as effects of 
Baptism, to wit---incorporation in Christ, enlightenment, and 
fruitfulness?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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 Mk. 16:16: "He that believeth and is 
baptized, shall be saved." But it is by faith that man is incorporated in 
Christ, according to Eph. 3:17: "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, enlightenment is caused by teaching, according to Eph. 
3:8,9: "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, fruitfulness pertains to active generation. But a man is 
regenerated spiritually by Baptism. Therefore fruitfulness is not an 
effect of Baptism.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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 Ps. 22:2, "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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[5] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, By Baptism man is born again unto the spiritual life, 
which is proper to the faithful of Christ, as the Apostle says (Gal. 
2:20): "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 (Jn. 1:14,16): "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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 Jn. 
6:45: "It is written in the prophets . . . They shall all be taught of 
God."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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 (1 Cor. 4:15): "In Christ Jesus by 
the Gospel I have begotten you."


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether children receive grace and virtue in Baptism?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, on Jn. 14:12, "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, it is written (Rm. 4:5): "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[6] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 4: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[6] Body Para. 1/2

 I answer that, 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 Rm. 6:23, "the grace of God is life everlasting." And 
consequently Baptism would not have profited them unto salvation.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[6] Body Para. 2/2

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1 

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[6] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 4: 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."


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[7] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether the effect of Baptism is to open the gates of the heavenly 
kingdom?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[7] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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 (Apoc. 4:1): "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[7] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, Baptism has had its effects ever since it was 
instituted. But some were baptized with Christ's Baptism, before His 
Passion, according to Jn. 3:22,26: 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 Mic. 2:13: "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[7] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, the baptized are still subject to death and the other 
penalties of the present life, as stated above (A[3]). 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[7] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, on Lk. 3:21, "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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[7] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, 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 (AA[1]
,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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[7] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[8] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Baptism has an equal effect in all?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[8] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[8] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[8] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[8] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 4: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[8] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Eph. 4:5): "One Faith, one Baptism." But 
a uniform cause has a uniform effect. Therefore Baptism has an equal 
effect in all.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[8] Body Para. 1/2

 I answer that, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[8] Body Para. 2/2

 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 Rm. 6:6, "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[8] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[8] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 4: Bodily health is not the essential effect of Baptism, but a 
miraculous work of Divine providence.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[9] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether insincerity hinders the effect of Baptism?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[9] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It seems that insincerity does not hinder the effect of Baptism. 
For the Apostle says (Gal. 3:27): "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[9] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[9] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[9] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Wis. 1:5): "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[9] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[9] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[9] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[9] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[10] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Baptism produces its effect when the insincerity ceases?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[10] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[10] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[10] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[10] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[10] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, As stated above (Q[66], A[9]), 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[10] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[10] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[10] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] Out. Para. 1/2

OF CIRCUMCISION (FOUR ARTICLES)

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] Out. Para. 2/2

 Concerning the first there are four points of inquiry:

 (1) Whether circumcision was a preparation for, and a figure of, Baptism?

 (2) Its institution;

 (3) Its rite;

 (4) Its effect.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether circumcision was a preparation for, and a figure of Baptism?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, the Apostle, speaking of the Fathers of old, says (1 
Cor. 10:2), 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, it was stated above (Q[38], AA[1],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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, The Apostle says (Col. 2:11,12): "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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[1] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, 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 (2 Cor. 4:13): 
"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" (1 Cor. 10:11); just as their faith regarded things to come.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether circumcision was instituted in a fitting manner?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It seems that circumcision was instituted in an unfitting manner. 
For as stated above (A[1]) 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 Rm. 3:25: "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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 (Gal. 5:3): "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

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1 

 OBJ 3: Further, circumcision was a figure of, and a preparation for, 
Baptism. But Baptism is offered to all nations, according to Mt. 28:19: 
"Going . . . teach ye all nations, baptizing them." Therefore 
circumcision should have been instituted as binding, not the Jews only, 
but also all nations.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[2] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 4: 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 Col. 3 [*Gal. 
3:28]. Therefore the institution of circumcision which concerns only 
males, was unfitting.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, We read (Gn. 17) that circumcision was instituted by 
God, Whose "works are perfect" (Dt. 32:4).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[2] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, As stated above (A[1]) 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" 
(Gn. 22:18). 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 (Gn. 13:1): "Go forth out of thy country and from thy 
kindred." Therefore circumcision was fittingly instituted in the person 
of Abraham.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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 FS, Q[90], A[2]. 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 (Gn. 18:19): "I know that he will command his children, 
and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord." 

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: Baptism contains in itself the perfection of salvation, to 
which God calls all men, according to 1 Tim. 2:4: "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[2] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 4: 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 FS, Q[81], A[5]. 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).


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether the rite of circumcision was fitting?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It seems that the rite of circumcision was unfitting. For 
circumcision, as stated above (AA[1],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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, The aforesaid rite of circumcision is fixed by a gloss 
on Rm. 4:11: "And he received the sign of circumcision."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[3] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, As stated above (A[2]), circumcision was established, as 
a sign of faith, by God "of" Whose "wisdom there is no number" (Ps. 
146:5). Now to determine suitable signs is a work of wisdom. 
Consequently, it must be allowed that the rite of circumcision was 
fitting.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1 

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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 (Ex. 4:25) we read that "Sephora took a very sharp 
stone and circumcised the foreskin of her son," and (Joshua 5:2): "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 (1 Cor. 10:4): "Now the rock was Christ."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/3

 Reply OBJ 3: 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 (Lev. 22:27): "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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 2/3

 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 Jn. 7:23: "(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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 3/3

 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 Prov. 4:3: 
"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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether circumcision bestowed sanctifying grace?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It seems that circumcision did not bestow sanctifying  grace. For 
the Apostle says (Gal. 2:21): "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 Gal. 5:3: "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, we read (Joshua 5:5,6) 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).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[4] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 4: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[4] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 5: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[4] Body Para. 1/4

 I answer that, 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 Rm. 4:11. But this is impossible, since guilt is 
not remitted except by grace, according to Rm. 3:2: "Being justified 
freely by His grace," etc.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[4] Body Para. 2/4

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[4] Body Para. 3/4

 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; Q[2], A[4]). 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" (Ps. 118:72).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[4] Body Para. 4/4

 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 (Rm. 4:11), 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: This argument would prove if justice were of circumcision 
otherwise than through faith in Christ's Passion.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2

 It seems, however, that none of the uncircumcised died in the desert, 
for it is written (Ps. 104:37): "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[4] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 4: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[4] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 5: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] Out. Para. 1/1

OF THE PREPARATIONS THAT ACCOMPANY BAPTISM (FOUR ARTICLES)

 We have now to consider the preparations that accompany Baptism: 
concerning which there are four points of inquiry:

 (1) Whether catechism should precede Baptism?

 (2) Whether exorcism should precede Baptism?

 (3) Whether what is done in catechizing and exorcizing, effects 
anything, or is a mere sign?

 (4) Whether those who are to be baptized should be catechized or 
exorcized by priests?


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether catechism should precede Baptism?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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. 

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[1] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, As stated above (Q[70], A[1]), 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 
Rm. 10:14: "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: Just as Mother Church, as stated above (Q[69], A[6], 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether exorcism should precede Baptism?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, so long as man is a subject of sin, the devil  has power 
over him, according to Jn. 8:34: "Whosoever committeth sin is the servant 
of sin." But sin is taken away by Baptism. Therefore men should not be 
exorcized before Baptism.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, Holy water was introduced in order to ward off the power 
of the demons. Therefore exorcism was not needed as a further remedy.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[2] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, Whoever purposes to do a work wisely, first removes the 
obstacles to his work; hence it is written (Jer. 4:3): "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2

 Reply OBJ 3: 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2

 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether what is done in the exorcism effects anything, or is a mere  sign?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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 (Mk. 16:16): "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." 
Therefore what is done in the exorcism effects nothing, but is a mere 
sign.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, nothing is required for a sacrament of the New Law, but 
that it should be a sign and a cause, as stated above (Q[62], A[1]). If, 
therefore, the things done in the exorcism effect anything, it seems that 
each of them is a sacrament.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[3] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 4: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[3] Body Para. 1/3

 I answer that, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[3] Body Para. 2/3

 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[3] Body Para. 3/3

 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/2

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 2/2

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[3] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 4: 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. 

™Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether it belongs to a priest to catechize and exorcize the person to be 
baptized?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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?"

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[4] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: The minister's operation in regard to the unclean is 
ministerial and, as it were, instrumental, but the priest's is principal. 

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: To readers and exorcists belongs the duty of catechizing 
and exorcizing, not, indeed, principally, but as ministers of the priest 
in these things.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] Out. Para. 1/1

CONFIRMATION (Q[72])


OF THE SACRAMENT OF CONFIRMATION (TWELVE ARTICLES)

 We have now to consider the Sacrament of Confirmation. Concerning this 
there are twelve points of inquiry:

 (1) Whether Confirmation is a sacrament?

 (2) Its matter;

 (3) Whether it is essential to the sacrament that the chrism should have 
been previously consecrated by a bishop?

 (4) Its form;

 (5) Whether it imprints a character?

 (6) Whether the character of Confirmation presupposes the character of 
Baptism?

 (7) Whether it bestows grace?

 (8) Who is competent to receive this sacrament?

 (9) In what part of the body?

 (10) Whether someone is required to stand for the person to be confirmed?

 (11) Whether this sacrament is given by bishops only?

 (12) Of its rite.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether confirmation is a sacrament?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It seems that Confirmation is not a sacrament. For sacraments 
derive their efficacy from the Divine institution, as stated above (Q[64]
, A[2]). But we read nowhere of Confirmation being instituted by Christ. 
Therefore it is not a sacrament.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, the sacraments of the New Law were foreshadowed in the 
Old Law; thus the Apostle says (1 Cor. 10:2-4), 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1 

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[1] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 4: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[1] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, 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 (1 Cor. 13:11): "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/2

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 2/2

 And therefore we must say that Christ instituted this sacrament not by 
bestowing, but by promising it, according to Jn. 16:7: "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 Jn.  7:39: "As yet the Spirit was not given, 
because Jesus was not yet glorified."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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" (Heb. 7:19).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: As stated above (Q[65], A[4]), 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[1] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 4: 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" (Jn. 
1:14). This fulness was made known at His Baptism, when "the Holy Ghost 
descended in a bodily shape . . . upon Him" (Lk. 3:22). Hence (Lk. 4:1) 
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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether chrism is a fitting matter for this sacrament?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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 (Acts 8:17) 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, Confirmation perfects, in a way, the sacrament of 
Baptism, as stated above (Q[65], AA[3],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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[2] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 4: Further, it has been stated above (Q[66], A[3]) 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[2] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, Chrism is the fitting matter of this sacrament. For, as 
stated above (A[1]), 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" (Ps. 
44:8), 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 (2 Cor. 2:15): "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 (Ecclus. 24:21): "My odor is as the 
purest balm."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/3

 Reply OBJ 1: 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" (Rm. 8:23). 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 2/3

 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 (Acts 11:15): "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 3/3

 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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 Wis. 7:22, "In her is the" Holy "Spirit . . . 
one, manifold"; and 1 Cor. 12:4, "There are diversities of graces, but 
the same Spirit." Consequently a compound matter is appropriate to this 
sacrament.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[2] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 4: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether it is essential to this sacrament that the chrism which is its 
matter be previously consecrated by a bishop?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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. 

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[3] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, The entire sanctification of the sacraments is derived 
from Christ, as stated above (Q[64], A[3]). 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 
Matth. 3:15) 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" (Mt. 26:26,27; Lk. 22:19, 20). 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" (Ps. 
44:8). 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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 
(Q[62], A[3]). And this sacramental matter is consecrated, either by 
Christ, or by a bishop, who, in the Church, impersonates Christ.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether the proper form of this sacrament is: "I sign thee with the sign 
of the cross," etc.?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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 (Rm. 6:3-8); 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, Is the authority of the Church, who always uses this 
form.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[4] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, 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 (AA[1],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. Col. 2:15).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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 (1 Cor. 11:34): "The 
rest I will set in order, when I come."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: Holiness is the cause of salvation. Therefore it comes to 
the same whether we say "chrism of salvation" or "of sanctification."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/3

 Reply OBJ 3: 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 2/3

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 3/3

 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[11]).


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether the sacrament of Confirmation imprints a character?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, it was stated above (Q[63], A[2]) 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[5] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, 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[1]; 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" (Acts 1:13,14); 
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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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 1 Jn. 
2:14: "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" (1 Pt. 
2:2).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1 

 Reply OBJ 3: The sacraments of the Old Law are called "justice of the 
flesh" (Heb. 9:10) 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether the character of Confirmation presupposes of necessity, the 
baptismal character?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, it is not related of the apostles that they were 
baptized; especially, since it is written (Jn. 4:2) 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, it is written (Acts 10:44-48) 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[6] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, 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[1]; 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: As Augustine says (Ep. cclxv), from our Lord's words, "'He 
that is washed, needeth not but to wash his feet' (Jn. 13:10), 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[7] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether sanctifying grace is bestowed in this sacrament?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[7] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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[6]) is given only to the baptized, who are 
cleansed from sin. Therefore sanctifying grace is not bestowed in this 
sacrament.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[7] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[7] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[7] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[7] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, In this sacrament, as stated above (AA[1],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 Acts 2; and just as He 
was given to the baptized by the imposition of the apostles' hands, as 
related in Acts 8:17. Now it has been proved in the FP, Q[43], A[3] 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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 (2 Cor. 12:9): "My 
grace is sufficient for thee": and he says of himself (1 Cor. 15:10): "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[7] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: As stated above (Q[62], A[2]), 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[8] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether this sacrament should be given to all?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[8] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[8] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[8] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[8] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 4: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[8] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Acts 2:2) 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[8] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, As stated above (A[1]), 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 (Dt. 32:4): "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[8] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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 (Wis. 4:8): "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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. 

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[8] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 4: 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 Eph. 4:13: "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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[9] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether this sacrament should be given to man on the forehead?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[9] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It seems that this sacrament should not be given to man on the 
forehead. For this sacrament perfects Baptism, as stated above (Q[65], 
AA[3],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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[9] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, this sacrament is given for spiritual strength, as 
stated above (AA[1],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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[9] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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 Rm. 10:10. Therefore this sacrament should be 
given about the mouth rather than on the forehead.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[9] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[9] Body Para. 1/2

 I answer that, As stated above (AA[1],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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[9] Body Para. 2/2 

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[9] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[9] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: The principle of fortitude is in the heart, but its sign 
appears on the forehead: wherefore it is written (Ezech. 3:8): "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 Ps. 103:15: "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[9] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[10] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether he who is confirmed needs one to stand* for him? [*Literally, "to 
hold him"]

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[10] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[10] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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[6]), 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[10] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, this sacrament is given for spiritual strength, which 
has more vigor in men than in women, according to Prov. 31:10: "Who shall 
find a valiant woman?" Therefore at least a woman should not stand for a 
man in confirmation.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[10] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, Are the following words of Pope Innocent, which are to 
be found in the Decretals (XXX, Q[4]): "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 .

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[10] Body Para. 1/2

 I answer that, As stated above (AA[1],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 Heb. 12:9: "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[10] Body Para. 2/2

 Likewise, since this sacrament bestows on man the perfection of 
spiritual age, as stated above (AA[2],5), therefore he who approaches 
this sacrament is upheld by another, as being spiritually a weakling and 
a child.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[10] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: Although he who is confirmed, be adult in body, 
nevertheless he is not yet spiritually adult.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[10] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[10] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: According to Col. 3 *(Gal. 3:28), "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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[11] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether only a bishop can confer this sacrament?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[11] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[11] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[11] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[11] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[11] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, 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 1 Cor. 3:9: 
"You are God's building"; and they are also "an epistle," as it were, 
"written with the Spirit of God," according to 2 Cor. 3:2,3. 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 (Acts 
8). 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[11] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[11] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[11] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[12] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether the rite of this sacrament is appropriate?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[12] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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; Q[65], AA[3],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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[12] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[12] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, chrism is a sign of the fulness of the Holy Ghost, as 
stated above (A[2]). But the fulness of the Holy Ghost was given to 
Christ's faithful on the day of Pentecost, as related in Acts 2:1. 
Therefore the chrism should be mixed and blessed on the day of Pentecost 
rather than on Maundy Thursday.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[12] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, Is the use of the Church, who is governed by the Holy 
Ghost.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[12] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, Our Lord promised His faithful (Mt. 18:20) 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[12] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[12] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[12] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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 
(Q[65], A[3]).


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] Out. Para. 1/2

EUCHARIST (QQ[73]-83)


OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST (SIX ARTICLES)

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] Out. Para. 2/2

 Under the first heading there are six points of inquiry:

 (1) Whether the Eucharist is a sacrament?

 (2) Whether it is one or several sacraments?

 (3) Whether it is necessary for salvation?

 (4) Its names;

 (5) Its institution;

 (6) Its figures.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether the Eucharist is a sacrament?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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 (Q[65], A[1]; Q[72], A[1]).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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 (Q[63], A[6]; Q[66], AA[1],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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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 (Q[78], A[1]). Therefore the Eucharist is not a sacrament.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is said in the Collect [*Postcommunion "pro vivis et 
defunctis"]: "May this Thy Sacrament not make us deserving of punishment."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[1] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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 Jn. 5:4, "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether the Eucharist is one sacrament or several?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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 (Q[60], A[1]), 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Cor. 10:17): "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[2] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: The bread and wine are materially several signs, yet 
formally and perfectively one, inasmuch as one refreshment is prepared 
therefrom.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: From the double consecration of the matter no more can be 
gathered than that the sacrament is several materially, as stated above.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether the Eucharist is necessary for salvation?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It seems that this sacrament is necessary for salvation. For our 
Lord said (Jn. 6:54): "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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 (1 Cor. 11:26): "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[3] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, 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 1 Pt. 3:20,21. And it has been said above (Q[68], 
A[2]), 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 (Q[68], A[2]). 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 (Q[63], 
A[6]): 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: As Augustine says, explaining Jn. 6:54, "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 1 Cor. 10:17): "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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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" (Col. 3:14).


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether this sacrament is suitably called by various names?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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[2]). Therefore, it ought not to be called by 
various names.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, is the use of these expressions by the faithful.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[4] Body Para. 1/4

 I answer that, 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 (Q[48], A[3]), and 
in this respect it is called a "Sacrifice."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[4] Body Para. 2/4

 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[4] Body Para. 3/4 

 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" (Rm. 6:23); or because it really contains Christ, 
Who is "full of grace."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[4] Body Para. 4/4

 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: There is nothing to hinder the same thing from being called 
by several names, according to its various properties or effects.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: What is common to all the sacraments is attributed 
antonomastically to this one on account of its excellence.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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" (Eph. 5:2).


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether the institution of this sacrament was appropriate?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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 (Q[8], 
AA[3],6). Therefore the institution of this sacrament should not have 
been postponed till the Lord's supper.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, this sacrament is called the memorial of our Lord's 
Passion, according to Mt. 26 (Lk. 22:19): "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[5] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 4: 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 Mt. 28:19. 
Therefore, this sacrament was not suitably instituted before Christ's 
Passion. 

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, This sacrament was instituted by Christ, of Whom it is 
said (Mk. 7:37) that "He did all things well."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[5] Body Para. 1/3

 I answer that, 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[5] Body Para. 2/3

 Secondly, because without faith in the Passion there could never be any 
salvation, according to Rm. 3:25: "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 (1 Cor. 5:7): "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).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[5] Body Para. 3/3

 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[5] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 4: 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 Jn. 3:22.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether the Paschal Lamb was the chief figure of this sacrament?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It seems that the Paschal Lamb was not the chief figure of this 
sacrament, because (Ps. 109:4) 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, the passage of the Red Sea was a figure of Baptism, 
according to 1 Cor. 10:2: "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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 Heb. 9. Consequently, it seems that that sacrifice was a more 
significant figure of this sacrament than was the Paschal Lamb.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Cor. 5:7,8): "Christ our Pasch is 
sacrificed; therefore let us feast . . . with the unleavened bread of 
sincerity and truth."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[6] Body Para. 1/3

 I answer that, 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" (Wis. 16:20), just as the grace of 
this sacrament refreshes the soul in all respects.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[6] Body Para. 2/3

 The Paschal Lamb foreshadowed this sacrament in these three ways. First 
of all, because it was eaten with unleavened loaves, according to Ex. 
12:8: "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[6] Body Para. 3/3

 From this the answer to the Objections is manifest.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] Out. Para. 1/2

OF THE MATTER OF THIS SACRAMENT (EIGHT ARTICLES)

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] Out. Para. 2/2

 Under the first heading there are eight points for inquiry:

 (1) Whether bread and wine are the matter of this sacrament?

 (2) Whether a determinate quantity of the same is required for the 
matter of this sacrament?

 (3) Whether the matter of this sacrament is wheaten bread?

 (4) Whether it is unleavened or fermented bread?

 (5) Whether the matter of this sacrament is wine from the grape?

 (6) Whether water should be mixed with it?

 (7) Whether water is of necessity for this sacrament?

 (8) Of the quantity of the water added.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether the matter of this sacrament is bread and wine?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[1] Body Para. 1/5

 I answer that, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[1] Body Para. 2/5

 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 Mt. 26. 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[1] Body Para. 3/5

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[1] Body Para. 4/5

 Thirdly, as to the effect, considered in each of the partakers. For, as 
Ambrose (Mag. Sent. iv, D, xi) says on 1 Cor. 11:20, 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 Lev. 17:14: "The life of the animal [Vulg.: 'of all flesh'] 
is in the blood."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[1] Body Para. 5/5

 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 1 Cor. 10:17: "We 
being many are . . . one body," etc.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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 
(Q[80], A[12]).


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether a determinate quantity of bread and wine is required for the 
matter of this sacrament?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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 2 Cor. 10:8: "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[2] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether wheaten bread is required for the matter of this sacrament?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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 Jn. 6. Therefore 
wheaten bread is not the proper matter of this sacrament.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[3] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 4: 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. 

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, Christ is contained in this sacrament, and He compares 
Himself to a grain of wheat, saying (Jn. 12:24): "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[3] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, As stated above (A[1]), 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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 (Q[83]): "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[3] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1 

 Reply OBJ 4: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether this sacrament ought to be made of unleavened bread?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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 Ex. 12, 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" (Jn. 13:1,4). Therefore we ought likewise to 
celebrate this sacrament with fermented bread.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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 Ex. 12. Therefore we ought not to use unfermented bread in 
this sacrament of grace.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, as stated above (Q[65], A[1]; Q[73], A[3]), 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 Mt. 13:33: "The kingdom of heaven is like unto 
leaven," etc. Therefore this sacrament ought to be made of leavened bread.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[4] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 4: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, According to the Decretals (Extra, De Celebr. Miss.), a 
priest is punished "for presuming to celebrate, using fermented bread and 
a wooden cup."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[4] Body Para. 1/3

 I answer that, 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[3]). It is not, however, necessary for the 
sacrament that the bread be unleavened  or leavened, since it can be 
celebrated in either.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[4] Body Para. 2/3

 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" (Mt. 26:17; Mk. 14:12; Lk. 22:7), on which day 
there ought to be nothing fermented in the houses of the Jews, as is 
stated in Ex. 12:15,19. 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 (Q[76], A[1], 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 1 Cor. 5:7: "Christ 
our Pasch is sacrificed: therefore let us feast . . . with the unleavened 
bread of sincerity and truth."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[4] Body Para. 3/3

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: As we read in Ex. 12, 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 (Q[46], A[9], ad 1).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[4] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 4: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether wine of the grape is the proper matter of this sacrament?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, As our Lord compared Himself to the grain of wheat, so 
also He compared Himself to the vine, saying (Jn. 15:1): "I am the true 
vine." But only bread from wheat is the matter of this sacrament, as 
stated above (A[3]). Therefore, only wine from the grape is the proper 
matter of this sacrament.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[5] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, 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 (Mt. 26:29): "I will not drink 
from henceforth of this fruit of the vine." Secondly, because, as stated 
above (A[3]), 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 (Ps. 103:15): "That wine may 
cheer the heart of man."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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. 

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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[3]).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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."


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether water should be mixed with the wine?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It seems that water ought not to be mixed with the wine, since 
Christ's sacrifice was foreshadowed by that of Melchisedech, who (Gn. 
14:18) is related to have offered up bread and wine only. Consequently it 
seems that water should not be added in this sacrament.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, Pope Alexander I writes (Ep. 1 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[6] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, 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 (Prov. 9:5): "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 (Ep. 1 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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 1 
Cor. 10:4: "But they drank of the spiritual rock which came after them."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: In Baptism water is used for the purpose of ablution: but 
in this sacrament it is used by way of refreshment, according to Ps. 
22:3: "He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: Bread is made of water and flour; and therefore, since 
water is mixed with the wine, neither is without water.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[7] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether the mixing with water is essential to this sacrament?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[7] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[7] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[7] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[7] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[7] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, 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[6]). 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[7] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[8] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether water should be added in great quantity?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[8] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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 (Jn. 19:35): "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[8] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[8] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[8] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[8] Body Para. 1/2

 I answer that, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[8] Body Para. 2/2

 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[8] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1 

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] Out. Para. 1/1

OF THE CHANGE OF BREAD AND WINE INTO THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST (EIGHT 
ARTICLES)

 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:

 (1) Whether the substance of bread and wine remain in this sacrament 
after the consecration?*

 (2) Whether it is annihilated?

 (3) Whether it is changed into the body and blood of Christ?

 (4) Whether the accidents remain after the change?

 (5) Whether the substantial form remains there?

 (6) Whether this change is instantaneous?

 (7) Whether it is more miraculous than any other change?

 (8) By what words it may be suitably expressed?

[*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.]


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether the body of Christ be in this sacrament in very truth, or merely 
as in a figure or sign?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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 (Jn. 6:54) 
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 Ps. 4 [*On Ps. 98:9]: 
"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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, our Lord said (Mt. 28:20): "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[1] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 4: 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 
Jn. 16:7: "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[1] Body Para. 1/5

 I answer that, 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 Lk. 22:19: "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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[1] Body Para. 2/5

 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 Heb. 10:1: "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[1] Body Para. 3/5

 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 
(Mt. 24:28): "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 (Jn. 6:57) 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[1] Body Para. 4/5

 Thirdly, it belongs to the perfection of faith, which concerns His 
humanity just as it does His Godhead, according to Jn. 14:1: "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[1] Body Para. 5/5

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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 Jn. 6:64: "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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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 (Mt. 26:11): "But Me you have not 
always." Nevertheless He is invisibly under the species of this 
sacrament, wherever this sacrament is performed.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[1] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 4: 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."


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether in this sacrament the substance of the bread and wine remains 
after the consecration?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[2] Body Para. 1/4

 I answer that, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[2] Body Para. 2/4

 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[2] Body Para. 3/4

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[2] Body Para. 4/4

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: The species which remain in this sacrament, as shall be 
said later (A[5]), suffice for its signification; because the nature of 
the substance is known by its accidents.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether the substance of the bread or wine is annihilated after the 
consecration of this sacrament, or dissolved into their original matter?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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[2]); 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, Augustine says (Q[83]): "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[3] Body Para. 1/2

 I answer that, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[3] Body Para. 2/2

 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[2]). 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether bread can be converted into the body of Christ?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1 

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[4] Body Para. 1/3

 I answer that, As stated above (A[2]), 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[4] Body Para. 2/3

 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 Jn. 6:64: "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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[4] Body Para. 3/3

 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 FP, Q[7], A[1]; 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether the accidents of the bread and wine remain in this sacrament 
after the change?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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 (FP, Q[1], A[6], 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. 

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[5] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 4: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[5] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/2

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 2/2

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[5] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 4: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether the substantial form of the bread remains in this sacrament after 
the consecration?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It seems that the substantial form of the bread remains in this 
sacrament after the consecration. For it has been said (A[5]) 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. 

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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 (AA[2],3,4). Therefore the substantial form of the bread 
does not remain.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[6] Body Para. 1/4

 I answer that, 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[6] Body Para. 2/4

 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[2]). 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[6] Body Para. 3/4

 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[5]).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[6] Body Para. 4/4

 And therefore it must be said that the substantial form of the bread 
does not remain.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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" (Ps. 103:15); 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; AA[5],6).


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[7] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether this change is wrought instantaneously?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[7] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[7] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[7] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[7] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, This change is effected by a power which is infinite, 
to which it belongs to operate in an instant.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[7] Body Para. 1/3

 I answer that, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[7] Body Para. 2/3

 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 (Mk. 7:34) that when Christ had said, 
"'Ephpheta,' which is 'Be thou opened,' immediately his ears were opened, 
and the string of his tongue was loosed."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[7] Body Para. 3/3

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 1/5

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 2/5

 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 FP, Q[53], A[3] 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 3/5

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 4/5

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 5/5

 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).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[7] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[8] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether this proposition is false: "The body of Christ is made out of 
bread"?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[8] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[8] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[8] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[8] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 4: 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[8] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): "When the consecration 
takes place, the body of Christ is made out of the bread."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[8] Body Para. 1/6

 I answer that, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[8] Body Para. 2/6

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[8] Body Para. 3/6

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[8] Body Para. 4/6

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[8] Body Para. 5/6

 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[8] Body Para. 6/6

 Nevertheless, since in this sacrament, after the change, something 
remains the same, namely, the accidents of the bread, as stated above 
(A[5]), 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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. 

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[8] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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 (Q[77]). 
Nevertheless the word "conversion" is admitted in this sacrament, but not 
in creation, as stated above.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[8] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 4: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] Out. Para. 1/1

OF THE WAY IN WHICH CHRIST IS IN THIS SACRAMENT (EIGHT ARTICLES)

 We have now to consider the manner in which Christ exists in this 
sacrament; and under this head there are eight points of inquiry:

 (1) Whether the whole Christ is under this sacrament?

 (2) Whether the entire Christ is under each species of the sacrament?

 (3) Whether the entire Christ is under every part of the species?

 (4) Whether all the dimensions of Christ's body are in this sacrament?

 (5) Whether the body of Christ is in this sacrament locally?

 (6) Whether after the consecration, the body of Christ is moved when the 
host or chalice is moved?

 (7) Whether Christ's body, as it is in this sacrament, can be seen by 
the eye?

 (8) Whether the true body of Christ remains in this sacrament when He is 
seen under the appearance of a child or of flesh?


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether the whole Christ is contained under this sacrament?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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 (Q[2], A[5]; Q[5],  AA[1],3), it seems that the 
entire Christ is not under this sacrament.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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 (Q[74], A[1]). But our Lord said (Jn. 6:56): "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Officiis): "Christ is in this 
sacrament."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[1] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/2

 Reply OBJ 1: 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 2/2

 On the other hand, His soul was truly separated from His body, as stated 
above (Q[50], A[5]). 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" 
(Rm. 6:9), 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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 (Jn. 
6:56): "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: As has been already stated (Q[75], A[5]), 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether the whole Christ is contained under each species of this 
sacrament?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, The gloss on 1 Cor. 11:25, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[2] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, After what we have said above (A[1]), 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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 (Q[74], A[1]) that "the body is offered for the salvation of 
the body, and the blood for the salvation of the soul."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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 Ex. 12:46: "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.

 

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ is entire under every part of the species of the bread and 
wine?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[3] Body Para. 1/2

 I answer that, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[3] Body Para. 2/2

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether the whole dimensive quantity of Christ's body is in this 
sacrament?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It seems that the whole dimensive quantity of Christ's body is 
not in this sacrament. For it was said (A[3]) 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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[2]). Consequently, it is impossible for the whole dimensive quantity 
of Christ's body to be in this sacrament.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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 (AA[1],3). Therefore the entire dimensive quantity of Christ's body 
is in this sacrament.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[4] Body Para. 1/2

 I answer that, As stated above (A[1]), 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[4] Body Para. 2/2

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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).


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ's body is in this sacrament as in a place?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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 (Q[75], A[2]); 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, as stated above (A[4]), 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[5] Body Para. 1/2

 I answer that, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[5] Body Para. 2/2

 Hence in no way is Christ's body locally in this sacrament.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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[1]; Q[15], A[2], 
sqq.).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: As stated above (A[4]), 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ's body is in this sacrament movably?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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 (Q[74], A[1]
). Therefore He is moved when it is moved.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, the truth ought to correspond with the figure. But, 
according to the commandment (Ex. 12:10), 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[6] Body Para. 1/3

 I answer that, 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[5]). 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[6] Body Para. 2/3

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[6] Body Para. 3/3

 Hence it is clear that Christ, strictly speaking is immovably in this 
sacrament.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[7] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether the body of Christ, as it is in this sacrament, can be seen by 
any eye, at least by a glorified one?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[7] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[7] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, the glorified bodies of the saints will be "made like to 
the body" of Christ's "glory," according to Phil. 3:21. But Christ's eye 
beholds Himself as He is in this sacrament. Therefore, for the same 
reason, every other glorified eye can see Him.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[7] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, in the resurrection the saints will be equal to the 
angels, according to Lk. 20:36. 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[7] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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 Is. 33:17: "(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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[7] Body Para. 1/2

 I answer that, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[7] Body Para. 2/2

 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 James 2:19: "The devils believe, and tremble."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[7] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[8] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ's body is truly there when flesh or a child appears 
miraculously in this sacrament?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[8] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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[6]). But when flesh or a child appears, the 
sacramental species cease to be present. Therefore Christ's body is not 
truly there.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[8] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[8] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, Christ's body begins to be in this sacrament by 
consecration and conversion, as was said above (Q[75], AA[2],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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[8] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[8] Body Para. 1/4

 I answer that, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[8] Body Para. 2/4

 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 (XP, Q[85], AA[2],3).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[8] Body Para. 3/4

 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 (Lk. 24:31) 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[8] Body Para. 4/4

 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 (Q[77], 
A[2]), the body of Christ truly remains in this sacrament.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[8] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: The dimensions of the consecrated bread and wine continue, 
while a miraculous change is wrought in the other accidents, as stated 
above.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] Out. Para. 1/1

OF THE ACCIDENTS WHICH REMAIN IN THIS SACRAMENT (EIGHT ARTICLES)

 We must now consider the accidents which remain in this sacrament; under 
which head there are eight points of inquiry:

 (1) Whether the accidents which remain are without a subject?

 (2) Whether dimensive quantity is the subject of the other  accidents?

 (3) Whether such accidents can affect an extrinsic body?

 (4) Whether they can be corrupted?

 (5) Whether anything can be generated from them?

 (6) Whether they can nourish?

 (7) Of the breaking of the consecrated bread?

 (8) Whether anything can be mixed with the consecrated wine?


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether the accidents remain in this sacrament without a subject?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[1] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 4: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[1] Body Para. 1/3

 I answer that, 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 (Q[75], A[2]); nor in the substantial form, for 
that does not remain (Q[75], A[6]), 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[1] Body Para. 2/3

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[1] Body Para. 3/3

 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).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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 (Q[75]
, A[5]).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[1] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 4: 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 FP, Q[50], A[2], ad 3; and besides they have 
composition of quantitative parts.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether in this sacrament the dimensive quantity of the bread or wine is 
the subject of the other accidents?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[2] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 4: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[2] Body Para. 1/2

 I answer that, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[2] Body Para. 2/2

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[2] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 4: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether the species remaining in this sacrament can change external 
objects?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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[1]). Therefore they 
cannot affect other matter by producing any form in it.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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 (Q[75], A[6]), it seems that the accidental 
forms which remain cannot act so as to change external matter.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[3] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, 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[1]), 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether the sacramental species can be corrupted?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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 (Q[75], A[2]). Therefore these species 
cannot be corrupted.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, We perceive by our senses that the consecrated hosts 
become putrefied and corrupted.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[4] Body Para. 1/4

 I answer that, Corruption is "movement from being into non-being" 
(Aristotle, Phys. v). Now it has been stated (A[3]) 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[4] Body Para. 2/4

 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[1]), it can likewise be the subject of their alteration, for 
instance, if the color or the savor of the bread or wine be altered.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[4] Body Para. 3/4

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[4] Body Para. 4/4

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: Although the sacramental species are forms not in matter, 
yet they have the being which they had in matter.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether anything can be generated from the sacramental species?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[5] Body Para. 1/5

 I answer that, 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[4]); 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[5] Body Para. 2/5

 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 (Q[75], AA[2],4,8).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[5] Body Para. 3/5

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[5] Body Para. 4/5

 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[4]; 
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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[5] Body Para. 5/5

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: Although no matter is there out of which a thing may be 
generated, nevertheless dimensive quantity supplies the place of matter, 
as stated above.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: Those sacramental species are indeed accidents, yet they 
have the act and power of substance, as stated above (A[3]).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.

 

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether the sacramental species can nourish?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, The Apostle speaking of this sacrament says (1 Cor. 
11:21): "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[6] Body Para. 1/3

 I answer that, 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[5]) 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[6] Body Para. 2/3

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[6] Body Para. 3/3

 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 (Q[75], A[6]): 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: Although the sacramental species are not a substance, still 
they have the virtue of a substance, as stated above.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[7] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether the sacramental species are broken in this sacrament?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[7] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[7] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[7] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, breaking and mastication are seemingly of the same 
object. But it is Christ's true body that is eaten, according to Jn. 
6:57: "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[7] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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. 

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[7] Body Para. 1/4

 I answer that, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[7] Body Para. 2/4

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[7] Body Para. 3/4

 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 (Q[76], A[3]), which is 
contrary to the nature of a thing broken.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[7] Body Para. 4/4

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: As rarity and density remain under the sacramental species, 
as stated above (A[2], ad 3), so likewise porousness remains, and in 
consequence breakableness.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[7] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: Hardness results from density; therefore, as density 
remains under the sacramental species, hardness remains there too, and 
the capability of sound as a consequence.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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 Jn. 
6:64, "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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[8] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether any liquid can be mingled with the consecrated wine?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[8] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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[1]). Therefore 
it seems that no liquid can be mingled with the sacramental species of 
the wine.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[8] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[8] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[8] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 4: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[8] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is evident to our senses that another liquid can be 
mixed with the wine after it is consecrated, just as before.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[8] Body Para. 1/4

 I answer that, The truth of this question is evident from what has been 
said already. For it was said above (A[3]; 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[8] Body Para. 2/4

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[8] Body Para. 3/4

 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).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[8] Body Para. 4/4

 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[4]; 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[8] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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[5]), 
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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[8] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 4: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] Out. Para. 1/1

OF THE FORM OF THIS SACRAMENT (SIX ARTICLES)

 We must now consider the form of this sacrament; concerning which there 
are six points of inquiry:

 (1) What is the form of this sacrament?

 (2) Whether the form for the consecration of the bread is appropriate?

 (3) Whether the form for the consecration of the blood is appropriate?

 (4) Of the power of each form?

 (5) Of the truth of the expression?

 (6) Of the comparison of the one form with the other?


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether this is the form of this sacrament: "This is My body," and "This 
is the chalice of My blood"?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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" (Mt. 26:26). 
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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[1] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 4: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[1] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/4

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 2/4

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 3/4

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 4/4

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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 (Q[74], A[7]). 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[1] R.O. 4 Para. 1/2

 Reply OBJ 4: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[1] R.O. 4 Para. 2/2

 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. Q[73], A[3], ad 1).


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether this is the proper form for the consecration of the bread: "This 
is My body"?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1 

 OBJ 3: 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[2] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 4: 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[2] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 5: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, our Lord used this form in consecrating, as is evident 
from Mt. 26:26.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[2] Body Para. 1/3

 I answer that, This is the proper form for the consecration of the 
bread. For it was said (A[1]) 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[2] Body Para. 2/3

 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 (Q[75], A[7]), 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[2] Body Para. 3/3

 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 (Q[76], 
A[1], ad 2). Hence this form is most appropriate: "This is My body."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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 Gn. 1:3: "Let 
there be light, and light was made."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[2] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 4: 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[1]).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[2] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 5: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether this is the proper form for the consecration of the wine: "This 
is the chalice of My blood," etc.?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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 (Q[76], AA[1],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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1 

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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" (Heb. 8:8). But a sacrament is an outward 
visible act. Therefore, in the form of the sacrament the words "of the 
New Testament" are improperly added.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 4: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 5: Further, occasions of error ought to be withheld from men, 
according to Is. 57:14: "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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] Obj. 6 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 6: Further, it was said above (Q[73], A[3], 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] Obj. 7 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 7: Further, the whole of this sacrament, both as to body and blood, 
is a memorial of our Lord's Passion, according to 1 Cor. 11:26: "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" 
(Lk. 22:19).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] Obj. 8 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 8: Further, as was already observed (Q[48], A[2]; Q[49], A[3]), 
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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] Obj. 9 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 9: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1 

 On the contrary, The Church, instructed by the apostles, uses this form.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] Body Para. 1/3

 I answer that, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] Body Para. 2/3

 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 Lk. 22:20, the 
words that follow are interposed with the preceding words: "This is the 
chalice, the new testament in My blood."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] Body Para. 3/3

 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[2]) 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 Heb. 10:19: "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 Rm. 3:25,26: "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 Heb. 
9:14: "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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/2

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 2/2

 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 Lam. 3:15: "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 (Mt. 26:39): "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: As was said above (ad 1; Q[76], A[2], 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2

 Reply OBJ 3: 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 Heb. 9:16: "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 
(Heb. 9:16): "Whereupon neither was the first indeed dedicated without 
blood," which is evident from this, that as related in Ex. 24:7,8, "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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2

 Secondly, it was shown in very truth; and this belongs to the New 
Testament. This is what the Apostle premises when he says (Rm. 9:15): 
"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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 4: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 5: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] R.O. 6 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 6: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] R.O. 7 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 7: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] R.O. 8 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 8: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] R.O. 9 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 9: 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 Lk. 
22:20, and 1 Cor. 11:25, 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 1 Cor. 11:23: "I have received of the Lord 
that which also I delivered unto you."


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether in the aforesaid words of the forms there be any created power 
which causes the consecration?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, miraculous works are wrought not by any created power, 
but solely by Divine power, as was stated in the FP, Q[110], A[4]. 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, the aforesaid words are not simple, but composed of 
many; nor are they uttered simultaneously, but successively. But, as 
stated above (Q[75], A[7]), 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[4] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, 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 (Q[62], A[1]
), 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 (Q[65], A[3]), 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 (Q[62], AA[3],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 (Q[48], A[6]; Q[56], A[1], ad 3).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether the aforesaid expressions are true? 

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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 (AA[1],4, ad 3; Q[75], AA[2],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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, These words are pronounced in the person of Christ, Who 
says of Himself (Jn. 14:6): "I am the truth."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[5] Body Para. 1/5

 I answer that, 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[5] Body Para. 2/5

 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. 

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[5] Body Para. 3/5

 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 (Q[85], A[1]).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[5] Body Para. 4/5

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[5] Body Para. 5/5

 Consequently, then, it remains to be said, as stated above (A[4]), 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: The term "this" points to a substance, yet  without 
determining its proper nature, as stated above.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether the form of the consecration of the bread accomplishes its effect 
before the form of the consecration of the wine be completed?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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 (Q[73], A[2]). Therefore the words whereby the bread is 
consecrated do not bring about their effect without the sacramental words 
whereby the wine is consecrated.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[6] Body Para. 1/3

 I answer that, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[6] Body Para. 2/3

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[6] Body Para. 3/3

 Hence it must be said that the first form does not await the second in 
its action, but has its effect on the instant.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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 (Q[76], A[2]).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: This sacrament is one in perfection, as stated above (Q[73]
, A[2]), 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] Out. Para. 1/1

OF THE EFFECTS OF THIS SACRAMENT (EIGHT ARTICLES)

 We must now consider the effects of this sacrament, and under this head 
there are eight points of inquiry:

 (1) Whether this sacrament bestows grace?

 (2) Whether the attaining of glory is an effect of this sacrament?

 (3) Whether the forgiveness of mortal sin is an effect of this sacrament?

 (4) Whether venial sin is forgiven by this sacrament?

 (5) Whether the entire punishment due for sin is forgiven by this 
sacrament?

 (6) Whether this sacrament preserves man from future sins?

 (7) Whether this sacrament benefits others besides the recipients? 

 (8) Of the obstacles to the effect of this sacrament.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether grace is bestowed through this sacrament?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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 (Q[72], A[1]). Consequently, grace is not 
bestowed through this sacrament.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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 FS, Q[110], A[4]. Therefore 
grace is not bestowed through this sacrament, at least so far as the body 
is concerned.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, Our Lord says (Jn. 6:52): "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[1] Body Para. 1/5

 I answer that, 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 Jn. 1:17: "Grace 
and truth came by Jesus Christ," so also, by coming sacramentally into 
man causes the life of grace, according to Jn. 6:58: "He that eateth Me, 
the same also shall live by Me." Hence Cyril says on Lk. 22:19: "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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[1] Body Para. 2/5

 Secondly, it is considered on the part of what is represented by this 
sacrament, which is Christ's Passion, as stated above (Q[74], A[1]; Q[76]
, A[2], 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" (Jn. 19:34): "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 (Mt. 26:28): "This 
is My blood . . . which shall be shed for many unto the remission of 
sins."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[1] Body Para. 3/5

 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 (Jn. 6:56): "My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is 
drink indeed."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[1] Body Para. 4/5

 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!"

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[1] Body Para. 5/5

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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 (Q[73], 
A[3]). 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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 (Is. 6:6): "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  2 Cor. 5:14: "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 Cant 5:1: "Eat, O 
friends, and drink, and be inebriated, my dearly beloved."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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 
(Q[76], A[2]). 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" (Rm. 6:13), and in the life to come our body will share in the 
incorruption and the glory of the soul.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether the attaining of glory is an effect of this sacrament?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 6:52): "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[2] Body Para. 1/3

 I answer that, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[2] Body Para. 2/3

 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 Heb. 9:15: "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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[2] Body Para. 3/3

 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" (Jn. 6:56): 
"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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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" (Rm. 
8:17), 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 3 Kgs. 19:8: "Elias ate and 
drank, and walked in the strength of that food forty days and forty 
nights unto the mount of God, Horeb."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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 (Q[77], A[3], ad 3).


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether the forgiveness of mortal sin is an effect of this sacrament?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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. 

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, this sacrament, like Baptism, works by the power of 
Christ's Passion. But mortal sins are forgiven by Baptism, as stated 
above (Q[69], A[1]). 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, grace is bestowed through this sacrament, as stated 
above (A[1]). But by grace a man is justified from mortal sins, according 
to Rm. 3:24: "Being justified freely by His grace." Therefore mortal sins 
are forgiven by this sacrament.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (1 Cor. 11:29): "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[3] Body Para. 1/3

 I answer that, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[3] Body Para. 2/3

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[3] Body Para. 3/3

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: We ask that this sacrament may be the "cleansing of 
crimes," or of those sins of which we are unconscious, according to Ps. 
18:13: "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether venial sins are forgiven through this sacrament?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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 FS, Q[88], AA[1],2; SS, Q[24], A[10]. Therefore, since contrary is 
taken away by its contrary, it seems that venial sins are not forgiven by 
this sacrament.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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 1 Jn. 1:8: "If we say 
that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves." Therefore no venial sin is 
forgiven by this sacrament.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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" (Jn. 6:50): "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, Innocent III says (De S. Alt. Myst. iv) that this 
sacrament "blots out venial sins, and wards off mortal sins."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[4] Body Para. 1/2

 I answer that, 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 SS, Q[24], 
A[10]. 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[4] Body Para. 2/2

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether the entire punishment due to sin is forgiven through this 
sacrament?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: 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 (AA[1],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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: 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 (Lev. 4,5): "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1 

 On the contrary, In that case no other punishment would have to be 
enjoined; just as none is imposed upon the newly baptized.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[5] Body Para. 1/3

 I answer that, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[5] Body Para. 2/3

 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 (Q[76], AA[1],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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[5] Body Para. 3/3

 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 (Mk. 12:43: cf. Lk. 21:4) 
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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether man is preserved by this sacrament from future sins?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1 

 OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, the Eucharist is the sacrament of charity, as stated 
above (A[4]). 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 SS, Q[24], A[11]. Therefore it seems that this sacrament 
does not preserve man from sin.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, the origin of sin within us is "the law of sin, which is 
in our members," as declared by the Apostle (Rm. 7:23). 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, our Lord said (Jn. 6:50): "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[6] Body Para. 1/2

 I answer that, 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[6] Body Para. 2/2

 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 Ps. 103:5: "(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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1 

 Reply OBJ 2: Even charity of itself keeps man from sin, according to Rm. 
13:10: "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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: 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 (Q[83]), "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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[7] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether this sacrament benefit others besides the recipients?

Aquin.: SM