No More Learning

I answer that, As appears from what has been said above ([4450]Q[63],
A[6];[4451] 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 Rom. 3:22,
the justice of God is by faith of Jesus Christ.

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.

Reply to Objection 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. "

Reply to Objection 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. "

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether children should be baptized?

Objection 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 [4452](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.

Objection 2: Further, Baptism is the sacrament of faith, as stated
above ([4453]Q[39], A[5];[4454] 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.

Objection 3: Further, it is written (1 Pet. 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.

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

I answer that, As the Apostle says (Rom. 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 (Rom.
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).

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________

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

Objection 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.

Objection 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.

Objection 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.

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. "

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.

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.

Reply to Objection 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.

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

Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________

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

Objection 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 (Rom.
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.

Objection 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.

Objection 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.

Objection 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.

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.

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 ([4455]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.

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 3: We should "not do evil that there may come good"
(Rom. 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.

Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether madmen and imbeciles should be baptized?

Objection 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 [4456](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.

Objection 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.

Objection 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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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).
__________________________________________________________________

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?
__________________________________________________________________

Whether all sins are taken away by Baptism?

Objection 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.

Objection 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.

Objection 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.

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. "

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

Reply to Objection 1: As the Apostle says (Rom. 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. "

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________

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

Objection 1: It seems that man is not freed by Baptism from all debt of
punishment due to sin. For the Apostle says (Rom. 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.

Objection 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 ([4457]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.

Objection 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.

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

I answer that, As stated above ([4458]Q[49], A[3], ad 2;[4459] Q[68],
AA[1],4,5) by Baptism a man is incorporated in the Passion and death of
Christ, according to Rom. 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 ([4460]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.

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________

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

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

Objection 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.

Objection 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.

On the contrary, on Rom. 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.

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 [4461](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 (Rom. 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 (Rom. 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. "

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 Rom.
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. "

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.