Reply to Objection 1: The least baptismal grace
suffices
to blot out
all sins.
all sins.
Summa Theologica
" 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. "
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. "
Reply to Objection 1: As a gloss says on Rom. 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. "
Reply to Objection 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. "
Reply to Objection 3: As we stated in the [4462]FS, Q[81], A[1];
[4463]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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether grace and virtues are bestowed on man by Baptism?
Objection 1: It seems that grace and virtues are not bestowed on man by
Baptism. Because, as stated above ([4464]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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
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.
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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 2: As stated above (A[1], ad 2;[4465] 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. "
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether certain acts of the virtues are fittingly set down as effects of
Baptism, to wit---incorporation in Christ, enlightenment, and fruitfulness?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 3: Further, fruitfulness pertains to active generation. But a
man is regenerated spiritually by Baptism. Therefore fruitfulness is
not an effect of Baptism.
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. "
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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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. "
Reply to Objection 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. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether children receive grace and virtue in Baptism?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 3: Further, it is written (Rom. 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.
Objection 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.
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.
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 Rom. 6:23, "the grace of God is life
everlasting. " And consequently Baptism would not have profited them
unto salvation.
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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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).
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the effect of Baptism is to open the gates of the heavenly kingdom?
Objection 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.
Objection 2: Further, Baptism has had its effects ever since it was
instituted. But some were baptized with Christ's Baptism, before His
Passion, according toJn. 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.
Objection 3: Further, the baptized are still subject to death and the
other penalties of the present life, as stated above [4466](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.
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. "
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
([4467]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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Baptism has an equal effect in all?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
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.
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.
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 Rom. 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 4: Bodily health is not the essential effect of
Baptism, but a miraculous work of Divine providence.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether insincerity hinders the effect of Baptism?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
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.
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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Baptism produces its effect when the insincerity ceases?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
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. "
I answer that, As stated above ([4468]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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
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.
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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether circumcision was a preparation for, and a figure of Baptism?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 3: Further, it was stated above ([4469]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.
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. "
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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether circumcision was instituted in a fitting manner?
Objection 1: It seems that circumcision was instituted in an unfitting
manner. For as stated above [4470](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 Rom. 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.
Objection 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
Objection 3: Further, circumcision was a figure of, and a preparation
for, Baptism. But Baptism is offered to all nations, according to Mat.
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.
Objection 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.
On the contrary, We read (Gn. 17) that circumcision was instituted by
God, Whose "works are perfect" (Dt. 32:4).
I answer that, As stated above [4471](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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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
[4472]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. "
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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 [4473]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).
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the rite of circumcision was fitting?
Objection 1: It seems that the rite of circumcision was unfitting. For
circumcision, as stated above ([4474]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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
On the contrary, The aforesaid rite of circumcision is fixed by a gloss
on Rom. 4:11: "And he received the sign of circumcision. "
I answer that, As stated above [4475](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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
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. "
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. "
Reply to Objection 1: As a gloss says on Rom. 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. "
Reply to Objection 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. "
Reply to Objection 3: As we stated in the [4462]FS, Q[81], A[1];
[4463]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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether grace and virtues are bestowed on man by Baptism?
Objection 1: It seems that grace and virtues are not bestowed on man by
Baptism. Because, as stated above ([4464]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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
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.
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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 2: As stated above (A[1], ad 2;[4465] 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. "
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether certain acts of the virtues are fittingly set down as effects of
Baptism, to wit---incorporation in Christ, enlightenment, and fruitfulness?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 3: Further, fruitfulness pertains to active generation. But a
man is regenerated spiritually by Baptism. Therefore fruitfulness is
not an effect of Baptism.
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. "
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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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. "
Reply to Objection 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. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether children receive grace and virtue in Baptism?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 3: Further, it is written (Rom. 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.
Objection 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.
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.
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 Rom. 6:23, "the grace of God is life
everlasting. " And consequently Baptism would not have profited them
unto salvation.
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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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).
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the effect of Baptism is to open the gates of the heavenly kingdom?
Objection 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.
Objection 2: Further, Baptism has had its effects ever since it was
instituted. But some were baptized with Christ's Baptism, before His
Passion, according toJn. 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.
Objection 3: Further, the baptized are still subject to death and the
other penalties of the present life, as stated above [4466](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.
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. "
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
([4467]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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Baptism has an equal effect in all?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
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.
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.
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 Rom. 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 4: Bodily health is not the essential effect of
Baptism, but a miraculous work of Divine providence.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether insincerity hinders the effect of Baptism?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
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.
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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Baptism produces its effect when the insincerity ceases?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
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. "
I answer that, As stated above ([4468]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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
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.
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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether circumcision was a preparation for, and a figure of Baptism?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 3: Further, it was stated above ([4469]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.
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. "
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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether circumcision was instituted in a fitting manner?
Objection 1: It seems that circumcision was instituted in an unfitting
manner. For as stated above [4470](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 Rom. 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.
Objection 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
Objection 3: Further, circumcision was a figure of, and a preparation
for, Baptism. But Baptism is offered to all nations, according to Mat.
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.
Objection 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.
On the contrary, We read (Gn. 17) that circumcision was instituted by
God, Whose "works are perfect" (Dt. 32:4).
I answer that, As stated above [4471](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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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
[4472]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. "
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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 [4473]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).
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the rite of circumcision was fitting?
Objection 1: It seems that the rite of circumcision was unfitting. For
circumcision, as stated above ([4474]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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
On the contrary, The aforesaid rite of circumcision is fixed by a gloss
on Rom. 4:11: "And he received the sign of circumcision. "
I answer that, As stated above [4475](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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
