No More Learning

Reply to Objection 4: In the sacrament of Confirmation we receive the
fulness of the Holy Ghost in order to be strengthened; while in Extreme
Unction man is prepared for the immediate attainment of glory; and
neither of these two purposes was becoming to the Old Testament.
Consequently, nothing in the old Law could correspond to these
sacraments. Nevertheless, the sacraments of the old Law were more
numerous, on account of the various kinds of sacrifices and ceremonies.

Reply to Objection 5: There was need for a special sacrament to be
applied as a remedy against venereal concupiscence: first because by
this concupiscence, not only the person but also the nature is defiled:
secondly, by reason of its vehemence whereby it clouds the reason.

Reply to Objection 6: Holy Water and other consecrated things are not
called sacraments, because they do not produce the sacramental effect,
which is the receiving of grace. They are, however, a kind of
disposition to the sacraments: either by removing obstacles. thus holy
water is ordained against the snares of the demons, and against venial
sins: or by making things suitable for the conferring of a sacrament;
thus the altar and vessels are consecrated through reverence for the
Eucharist.

Reply to Objection 7: Oblations and tithes, both the Law of nature and
in the Law of Moses, ere ordained not only for the sustenance of the
ministers and the poor, but also figuratively; and consequently they
were sacraments. But now they remain no longer as figures, and
therefore they are not sacraments.

Reply to Objection 8: The infusion of grace is not necessary for the
blotting out of venial sin. Wherefore, since grace is infused in each
of the sacraments of the New Law, none of them was instituted directly
against venial sin. This is taken away by certain sacramentals, for
instance, Holy Water and such like. Some, however, hold that Extreme
Unction is ordained against venial sin. But of this we shall speak in
its proper place ([4409]XP, Q[30], A[1]).
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the order of the sacraments, as given above, is becoming?

Objection 1: It seems that the order of the sacraments as given above
is unbecoming. For according to the Apostle (1 Cor. 15:46), "that was .
. . first . . . which is natural, afterwards that which is spiritual. "
But man is begotten through Matrimony by a first and natural
generation; while in Baptism he is regenerated as by a second and
spiritual generation. Therefore Matrimony should precede Baptism.

Objection 2: Further, through the sacrament of order man receives the
power of agent in sacramental actions. But the agent precedes his
action. Therefore order should precede Baptism and the other
sacraments.

Objection 3: Further, the Eucharist is a spiritual food; while
Confirmation is compared to growth. But food causes, and consequently
precedes, growth. Therefore the Eucharist precedes Confirmation.

Objection 4: Further, Penance prepares man for the Eucharist. But a
disposition precedes perfection. Therefore Penance should precede the
Eucharist.

Objection 5: Further, that which is nearer the last end comes after
other things. But, of all the sacraments, Extreme Unction is nearest to
the last end which is Happiness. Therefore it should be placed last
among the sacraments.

On the contrary, The order of the sacraments, as given above, is
commonly adopted by all.

I answer that, The reason of the order among the sacraments appears
from what has been said above [4410](A[1]). For just as unity precedes
multitude, so those sacraments which are intended for the perfection of
the individual, naturally precede those which are intended for the
perfection of the multitude; and consequently the last place among the
sacraments is given to order and Matrimony, which are intended for the
perfection of the multitude: while Matrimony is placed after order,
because it has less participation in the nature of the spiritual life,
to which the sacraments are ordained. Moreover, among things ordained
to the perfection of the individual, those naturally come first which
are ordained directly to the perfection of the spiritual life, and
afterwards, those which are ordained thereto indirectly, viz. by
removing some supervening accidental cause of harm; such are Penance
and Extreme Unction: while, of these, Extreme Unction is naturally
placed last, for it preserves the healing which was begun by Penance.

Of the remaining three, it is clear that Baptism which is a spiritual
regeneration, comes first; then Confirmation, which is ordained to the
formal perfection of power; and after these the Eucharist which is
ordained to final perfection.

Reply to Objection 1: Matrimony as ordained to natural life is a
function of nature. But in so far as it has something spiritual it is a
sacrament. And because it has the least amount of spirituality it is
placed last.

Reply to Objection 2: For a thing to be an agent it must first of all
be perfect in itself. Wherefore those sacraments by which a man is
perfected in himself, are placed before the sacrament of order, in
which a man is made a perfecter of others.

Reply to Objection 3: Nourishment both precedes growth, as its cause;
and follows it, as maintaining the perfection of size and power in man.
Consequently, the Eucharist can be placed before Confirmation, as
Dionysius places it (Eccl. Hier. iii, iv), and can be placed after it,
as the Master does (iv, 2,8).

Reply to Objection 4: This argument would hold if Penance were required
of necessity as a preparation to the Eucharist. But this is not true:
for if anyone be without mortal sin, he does not need Penance in order
to receive the Eucharist. Thus it is clear that Penance is an
accidental preparation to the Eucharist, that is to say, sin being
supposed. Wherefore it is written in the last chapter of the second
Book of Paralipomenon (cf. 2 Paral 33:18): "Thou, O Lord of the
righteous, didst not impose penance on righteous men. " [*The words
quoted are from the apocryphal Prayer of Manasses, which, before the
Council of Trent, was to be found inserted in some Latin copies of the
Bible. ]

Reply to Objection 5: Extreme Unction, for this very reason, is given
the last place among those sacraments which are ordained to the
perfection of the individual.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the Eucharist is the greatest of the sacraments?

Objection 1: It seems that the Eucharist is not the principal of the
sacraments. For the common good is of more account than the good of the
individual (1 Ethic. ii). But Matrimony is ordained to the common good
of the human race by means of generation: whereas the sacrament of the
Eucharist is ordained to the private good of the recipient. Therefore
it is not the greatest of the sacraments.

Objection 2: Further, those sacraments, seemingly, are greater, which
are conferred by a greater minister. But the sacraments of Confirmation
and order are conferred by a bishop only, who is a greater minister
than a mere minister such as a priest, by whom the sacraments of the
Eucharist is conferred. Therefore those sacraments are greater.

Objection 3: Further, those sacraments are greater that have the
greater power. But some of the sacraments imprint a character, viz.
Baptism, Confirmation and order; whereas the Eucharist does not.
Therefore those sacraments are greater.

Objection 4: Further, that seems to be greater, on which others depend
without its depending on them. But the Eucharist depends on Baptism:
since no one can receive the Eucharist except he has been baptized.
Therefore Baptism is greater than the Eucharist.

On the contrary, Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii) that "No one receives
hierarchical perfection save by the most God-like Eucharist. " Therefore
this sacrament is greater than all the others and perfects them.

I answer that, Absolutely speaking, the sacrament of the Eucharist is
the greatest of all the sacraments: and this may be shown in three
ways. First of all because it contains Christ Himself substantially:
whereas the other sacraments contain a certain instrumental power which
is a share of Christ's power, as we have shown above ([4411]Q[62],
A[4], ad 3, A[5] ). Now that which is essentially such is always of
more account than that which is such by participation.

Secondly, this is made clear by considering the relation of the
sacraments to one another. For all the other sacraments seem to be
ordained to this one as to their end. For it is manifest that the
sacrament of order is ordained to the consecration of the Eucharist:
and the sacrament of Baptism to the reception of the Eucharist: while a
man is perfected by Confirmation, so as not to fear to abstain from
this sacrament. By Penance and Extreme Unction man is prepared to
receive the Body of Christ worthily. And Matrimony at least in its
signification, touches this sacrament; in so far as it signifies the
union of Christ with the Church, of which union the Eucharist is a
figure: hence the Apostle says (Eph. 5:32): "This is a great sacrament:
but I speak in Christ and in the Church. "

Thirdly, this is made clear by considering the rites of the sacraments.
For nearly all the sacraments terminate in the Eucharist, as Dionysius
says (Eccl. Hier. iii): thus those who have been ordained receive Holy
Communion, as also do those who have been baptized, if they be adults.

The remaining sacraments may be compared to one another in several
ways. For on the ground of necessity, Baptism is the greatest of the
sacraments; while from the point of view of perfection, order comes
first; while Confirmation holds a middle place. The sacraments of
Penance and Extreme Unction are on a degree inferior to those mentioned
above; because, as stated above [4412](A[2]), they are ordained to the
Christian life, not directly, but accidentally, as it were, that is to
say, as remedies against supervening defects. And among these, Extreme
Unction is compared to Penance, as Confirmation to Baptism; in such a
way, that Penance is more necessary, whereas Extreme Unction is more
perfect.

Reply to Objection 1: Matrimony is ordained to the common good as
regards the body. But the common spiritual good of the whole Church is
contained substantially in the sacrament itself of the Eucharist.

Reply to Objection 2: By order and Confirmation the faithful of Christ
are deputed to certain special duties; and this can be done by the
prince alone. Consequently the conferring of these sacraments belongs
exclusively to a bishop, who is, as it were, a prince in the Church.
But a man is not deputed to any duty by the sacrament of the Eucharist,
rather is this sacrament the end of all duties, as stated above.

Reply to Objection 3: The sacramental character, as stated above
([4413]Q[63], A[3]), is a kind of participation in Christ's priesthood.
Wherefore the sacrament that unites man to Christ Himself, is greater
than a sacrament that imprints Christ's character.

Reply to Objection 4: This argument proceeds on the ground of
necessity. For thus Baptism, being of the greatest necessity, is the
greatest of the sacraments, just as order and Confirmation have a
certain excellence considered in their administration; and Matrimony by
reason of its signification. For there is no reason why a thing should
not be greater from a certain point of view which is not greater
absolutely speaking.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether all the sacraments are necessary for salvation?

Objection 1: It seems that all the sacraments are necessary for
salvation. For what is not necessary seems to be superfluous. But no
sacrament is superfluous, because "God does nothing without a purpose"
(De Coelo et Mundo i). Therefore all the sacraments are necessary for
salvation.

Objection 2: Further, just as it is said of Baptism (Jn. 3:5): "Unless
a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter in to
the kingdom of God," so of the Eucharist is it said (Jn. 6:54): "Except
you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink of His blood, you
shall not have life in you. " Therefore, just as Baptism is a necessary
sacrament, so is the Eucharist.

Objection 3: Further, a man can be saved without the sacrament of
Baptism, provided that some unavoidable obstacle, and not his contempt
for religion, debar him from the sacrament, as we shall state further
on ([4414]Q[68], A[2]). But contempt of religion in any sacrament is a
hindrance to salvation. Therefore, in like manner, all the sacraments
are necessary for salvation.

On the contrary, Children are saved by Baptism alone without the other
sacraments.

I answer that, Necessity of end, of which we speak now, is twofold.
First, a thing may be necessary so that without it the end cannot be
attained; thus food is necessary for human life. And this is simple
necessity of end. Secondly, a thing is said to be necessary, if,
without it, the end cannot be attained so becomingly: thus a horse is
necessary for a journey. But this is not simple necessity of end.

In the first way, three sacraments are necessary for salvation. Two of
them are necessary to the individual; Baptism, simply and absolutely;
Penance, in the case of mortal sin committed after Baptism; while the
sacrament of order is necessary to the Church, since "where there is no
governor the people shall fall" (Prov. 11:14).

But in the second way the other sacraments are necessary. For in a
sense Confirmation perfects Baptism; Extreme Unction perfects Penance;
while Matrimony, by multiplying them, preserves the numbers in the
Church.

Reply to Objection 1: For a thing not to be superfluous it is enough if
it be necessary either in the first or the second way. It is thus that
the sacraments are necessary, as stated above.

Reply to Objection 2: These words of our Lord are to be understood of
spiritual, and not of merely sacramental, eating, as Augustine explains
(Tract. xxvi super Joan. ).

Reply to Objection 3: Although contempt of any of the sacraments is a
hindrance to salvation, yet it does not amount to contempt of the
sacrament, if anyone does not trouble to receive a sacrament that is
not necessary for salvation. Else those who do not receive orders, and
those who do not contract Matrimony, would be guilty of contempt of
those sacraments.
__________________________________________________________________

OF THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM (TWELVE ARTICLES)

We have now to consider each sacrament specially: (1) Baptism; (2)
Confirmation; (3) the Eucharist; (4) Penance; (5) Extreme Unction; (6)
Order; (7) Matrimony.

Concerning the first, our consideration will be twofold: (1) of Baptism
itself; (2) of things preparatory to Baptism.

Concerning the first, four points arise for our consideration: (1)
Things pertaining to the sacrament of Baptism; (2) The minister of this
sacrament; (3) The recipients of this sacrament; (4) The effect of this
sacrament.

Concerning the first there are twelve points of inquiry:

(1) What is Baptism? Is it a washing?

(2) Of the institution of this sacrament;

(3) Whether water be the proper matter of this sacrament?

(4) Whether plain water be required?

(5) Whether this be a suitable form of this sacrament: "I baptize thee
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"?

(6) Whether one could baptize with this form: "I baptize thee in the
name of Christ? "

(7) Whether immersion is necessary for Baptism?

(8) Whether trine immersion is necessary?

(9) Whether Baptism can be reiterated?

(10) Of the Baptismal rite;

(11) Of the various kinds of Baptism;

(12) Of the comparison between various Baptisms.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether Baptism is the mere washing?

Objection 1: It seems that Baptism is not the mere washing. For the
washing of the body is something transitory: but Baptism is something
permanent. Therefore Baptism is not the mere washing; but rather is it
"the regeneration, the seal, the safeguarding, the enlightenment," as
Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv).

Objection 2: Further, Hugh of St. Victor says (De Sacram. ii) that
"Baptism is water sanctified by God's word for the blotting out of
sins. " But the washing itself is not water, but a certain use of water.

Objection 3: Further, Augustine says (Tract. lxxx super Joan. ): "The
word is added to the element, and this becomes a sacrament. " Now, the
element is the water. Therefore Baptism is the water and not the
washing.

On the contrary, It is written (Ecclus. 34:30): "He that washeth
himself [baptizatur] after touching the dead, if he touch him again,
what does his washing avail? " It seems, therefore, that Baptism is the
washing or bathing.

I answer that, In the sacrament of Baptism, three things may be
considered: namely, that which is "sacrament only"; that which is
"reality and sacrament"; and that which is "reality only. " That which
is sacrament only, is something visible and outward; the sign, namely,
of the inward effect: for such is the very nature of a sacrament. And
this outward something that can be perceived by the sense is both the
water itself and its use, which is the washing. Hence some have thought
that the water itself is the sacrament: which seems to be the meaning
of the passage quoted from Hugh of St. Victor. For in the general
definition of a sacrament he says that it is "a material element": and
in defining Baptism he says it is "water. "

But this is not true. For since the sacraments of the New Law effect a
certain sanctification, there the sacrament is completed where the
sanctification is completed. Now, the sanctification is not completed
in water; but a certain sanctifying instrumental virtue, not permanent
but transient, passes from the water, in which it is, into man who is
the subject of true sanctification. Consequently the sacrament is not
completed in the very water, but in applying the water to man, i. e. in
the washing. Hence the Master (iv, 3) says that "Baptism is the outward
washing of the body done together with the prescribed form of words. "

The Baptismal character is both reality and sacrament: because it is
something real signified by the outward washing; and a sacramental sign
of the inward justification: and this last is the reality only, in this
sacrament---namely, the reality signified and not signifying.

Reply to Objection 1: That which is both sacrament and reality---i. e.
the character---and that which is reality only---i. e. the inward
justification---remain: the character remains and is indelible, as
stated above ([4415]Q[63], A[5]); the justification remains, but can be
lost. Consequently Damascene defined Baptism, not as to that which is
done outwardly, and is the sacrament only; but as to that which is
inward. Hence he sets down two things as pertaining to the
character---namely, "seal" and "safeguarding"; inasmuch as the
character which is called a seal, so far as itself is concerned,
safeguards the soul in good. He also sets down two things as pertaining
to the ultimate reality of the sacrament---namely, "regeneration" which
refers to the fact that man by being baptized begins the new life of
righteousness; and "enlightenment," which refers especially to faith,
by which man receives spiritual life, according to Habac 2 (Heb. 10:38;
cf. Habac 2:4): "But (My) just man liveth by faith"; and Baptism is a
sort of protestation of faith; whence it is called the "Sacrament of
Faith. " Likewise Dionysius defined Baptism by its relation to the other
sacraments, saying (Eccl. Hier. ii) that it is "the principle that
forms the habits of the soul for the reception of those most holy words
and sacraments"; and again by its relation to heavenly glory, which is
the universal end of all the sacraments, when he adds, "preparing the
way for us, whereby we mount to the repose of the heavenly kingdom";
and again as to the beginning of spiritual life, when he adds, "the
conferring of our most sacred and Godlike regeneration. "

Reply to Objection 2: As already stated, the opinion of Hugh of St.
Victor on this question is not to be followed. Nevertheless the saying
that "Baptism is water" may be verified in so far as water is the
material principle of Baptism: and thus there would be "causal
predication. "

Reply to Objection 3: When the words are added, the element becomes a
sacrament, not in the element itself, but in man, to whom the element
is applied, by being used in washing him. Indeed, this is signified by
those very words which are added to the element, when we say: "I
baptize thee," etc.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether Baptism was instituted after Christ's Passion?
Objection 1: It seems that Baptism was instituted after Christ's
Passion. For the cause precedes the effect. Now Christ's Passion
operates in the sacraments of the New Law. Therefore Christ's Passion
precedes the institution of the sacraments of the New Law: especially
the sacrament of Baptism since the Apostle says (Rom. 6:3): "All we,
who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death," etc.

Objection 2: Further, the sacraments of the New Law derive their
efficacy from the mandate of Christ. But Christ gave the disciples the
mandate of Baptism after His Passion and Resurrection, when He said:
"Going, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father," etc. (Mat. 28:19). Therefore it seems that Baptism was
instituted after Christ's Passion.

Objection 3: Further, Baptism is a necessary sacrament, as stated above
([4416]Q[65] , A[4]): wherefore, seemingly, it must have been binding
on man as soon as it was instituted. But before Christ's Passion men
were not bound to be baptized: for Circumcision was still in force,
which was supplanted by Baptism. Therefore it seems that Baptism was
not instituted before Christ's Passion.

On the contrary, Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (Append.
Serm. , clxxxv): "As soon as Christ was plunged into the waters, the
waters washed away the sins of all. " But this was before Christ's
Passion. Therefore Baptism was instituted before Christ's Passion.

I answer that, As stated above ([4417]Q[62], A[1]), sacraments derive
from their institution the power of conferring grace. Wherefore it
seems that a sacrament is then instituted, when it receives the power
of producing its effect. Now Baptism received this power when Christ
was baptized. Consequently Baptism was truly instituted then, if we
consider it as a sacrament. But the obligation of receiving this
sacrament was proclaimed to mankind after the Passion and Resurrection.
First, because Christ's Passion put an end to the figurative
sacraments, which were supplanted by Baptism and the other sacraments
of the New Law. Secondly, because by Baptism man is "made conformable"
to Christ's Passion and Resurrection, in so far as he dies to sin and
begins to live anew unto righteousness. Consequently it behooved Christ
to suffer and to rise again, before proclaiming to man his obligation
of conforming himself to Christ's Death and Resurrection.

Reply to Objection 1: Even before Christ's Passion, Baptism, inasmuch
as it foreshadowed it, derived its efficacy therefrom; but not in the
same way as the sacraments of the Old Law. For these were mere figures:
whereas Baptism derived the power of justifying from Christ Himself, to
Whose power the Passion itself owed its saving virtue.

Reply to Objection 2: It was not meet that men should be restricted to
a number of figures by Christ, Who came to fulfil and replace the
figure by His reality. Therefore before His Passion He did not make
Baptism obligatory as soon as it was instituted; but wished men to
become accustomed to its use; especially in regard to the Jews, to whom
all things were figurative, as Augustine says (Contra Faust. iv). But
after His Passion and Resurrection He made Baptism obligatory, not only
on the Jews, but also on the Gentiles, when He gave the commandment:
"Going, teach ye all nations. "

Reply to Objection 3: Sacraments are not obligatory except when we are
commanded to receive them. And this was not before the Passion, as
stated above. For our Lord's words to Nicodemus (Jn. 3:5), "Unless a
man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the
kingdom of God, seem to refer to the future rather than to the
present. "
__________________________________________________________________

Whether water is the proper matter of Baptism?

Objection 1: It seems that water is not the proper matter of Baptism.
For Baptism, according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v) and Damascene (De
Fide Orth. iv), has a power of enlightening. But enlightenment is a
special characteristic of fire. Therefore Baptism should be conferred
with fire rather than with water: and all the more since John the
Baptist said when foretelling Christ's Baptism (Mat. 3:11): "He shall
baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire. "

Objection 2: Further, the washing away of sins is signified in Baptism.
But many other things besides water are employed in washing, such as
wine, oil, and such like. Therefore Baptism can be conferred with these
also; and consequently water is not the proper matter of Baptism.

Objection 3: Further, the sacraments of the Church flowed from the side
of Christ hanging on the cross, as stated above ([4418]Q[62], A[5]).
But not only water flowed therefrom, but also blood. Therefore it seems
that Baptism can also be conferred with blood. And this seems to be
more in keeping with the effect of Baptism, because it is written
(Apoc. 1:5): "(Who) washed us from our sins in His own blood. "

Objection 4: Further, as Augustine (cf. Master of the Sentences, iv, 3)
and Bede (Exposit. in Luc. iii, 21) say, Christ, by "the touch of His
most pure flesh, endowed the waters with a regenerating and cleansing
virtue. " But all waters are not connected with the waters of the Jordan
which Christ touched with His flesh. Consequently it seems that Baptism
cannot be conferred with any water; and therefore water, as such, is
not the proper matter of Baptism.

Objection 5: Further, if water, as such, were the proper matter of
Baptism, there would be no need to do anything to the water before
using it for Baptism. But in solemn Baptism the water which is used for
baptizing, is exorcized and blessed. Therefore it seems that water, as
such, is not the proper matter of Baptism.

On the contrary, our Lord said (Jn. 3:5): "Unless a man be born again
of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. "

I answer that, By Divine institution water is the proper matter of
Baptism; and with reason. First, by reason of the very nature of
Baptism, which is a regeneration unto spiritual life. And this answers
to the nature of water in a special degree; wherefore seeds, from which
all living things, viz. plants and animals are generated, are moist and
akin to water. For this reason certain philosophers held that water is
the first principle of all things.

Secondly, in regard to the effects of Baptism, to which the properties
of water correspond. For by reason of its moistness it cleanses; and
hence it fittingly signifies and causes the cleansing from sins. By
reason of its coolness it tempers superfluous heat: wherefore it
fittingly mitigates the concupiscence of the fomes. By reason of its
transparency, it is susceptive of light; hence its adaptability to
Baptism as the "sacrament of Faith. "

Thirdly, because it is suitable for the signification of the mysteries
of Christ, by which we are justified. For, as Chrysostom says (Hom. xxv
in Joan. ) on Jn. 3:5, "Unless a man be born again," etc. , "When we dip
our heads under the water as in a kind of tomb our old man is buried,
and being submerged is hidden below, and thence he rises again
renewed. "

Fourthly, because by being so universal and abundant, it is a matter
suitable to our need of this sacrament: for it can easily be obtained
everywhere.

Reply to Objection 1: Fire enlightens actively. But he who is baptized
does not become an enlightener, but is enlightened by faith, which
"cometh by hearing" (Rom. 10:17). Consequently water is more suitable,
than fire, for Baptism.

But when we find it said: "He shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and
fire," we may understand fire, as Jerome says (In Matth. ii), to mean
the Holy Ghost, Who appeared above the disciples under the form of
fiery tongues (Acts 2:3). Or we may understand it to mean tribulation,
as Chrysostom says (Hom. iii in Matth. ): because tribulation washes
away sin, and tempers concupiscence. Or again, as Hilary says (Super
Matth. ii) that "when we have been baptized in the Holy Ghost," we
still have to be "perfected by the fire of the judgment. "

Reply to Objection 2: Wine and oil are not so commonly used for
washing, as water. Neither do they wash so efficiently: for whatever is
washed with them, contracts a certain smell therefrom; which is not the
case if water be used. Moreover, they are not so universal or so
abundant as water.

Reply to Objection 3: Water flowed from Christ's side to wash us;
blood, to redeem us. Wherefore blood belongs to the sacrament of the
Eucharist, while water belongs to the sacrament of Baptism. Yet this
latter sacrament derives its cleansing virtue from the power of
Christ's blood.

Reply to Objection 4: Christ's power flowed into all waters, by reason
of, not connection of place, but likeness of species, as Augustine says
in a sermon on the Epiphany (Append. Serm. cxxxv): "The blessing that
flowed from the Saviour's Baptism, like a mystic river, swelled the
course of every stream, and filled the channels of every spring. "

Reply to Objection 5: The blessing of the water is not essential to
Baptism, but belongs to a certain solemnity, whereby the devotion of
the faithful is aroused, and the cunning of the devil hindered from
impeding the baptismal effect.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether plain water is necessary for Baptism?

Objection 1: It seems that plain water is not necessary for Baptism.
For the water which we have is not plain water; as appears especially
in sea-water, in which there is a considerable proportion of the
earthly element, as the Philosopher shows (Meteor. ii). Yet this water
may be used for Baptism. Therefore plain and pure water is not
necessary for Baptism.

Objection 2: Further, in the solemn celebration of Baptism, chrism is
poured into the water. But this seems to take away the purity and
plainness of the water. Therefore pure and plain water is not necessary
for Baptism.

Objection 3: Further, the water that flowed from the side of Christ
hanging on the cross was a figure of Baptism, as stated above (A[3], ad
3). But that water, seemingly, was not pure, because the elements do
not exist actually in a mixed body, such as Christ's. Therefore it
seems that pure or plain water is not necessary for Baptism.

Objection 4: Further, lye does not seem to be pure water, for it has
the properties of heating and drying, which are contrary to those of
water. Nevertheless it seems that lye can be used for Baptism; for the
water of the Baths can be so used, which has filtered through a
sulphurous vein, just as lye percolates through ashes. Therefore it
seems that plain water is not necessary for Baptism.

Objection 5: Further, rose-water is distilled from roses, just as
chemical waters are distilled from certain bodies. But seemingly, such
like waters may be used in Baptism; just as rain-water, which is
distilled from vapors. Since, therefore, such waters are not pure and
plain water, it seems that pure and plain water is not necessary for
Baptism.

On the contrary, The proper matter of Baptism is water, as stated above
[4419](A[3]). But plain water alone has the nature of water. Therefore
pure plain water is necessary for Baptism.

I answer that, Water may cease to be pure or plain water in two ways:
first, by being mixed with another body; secondly, by alteration. And
each of these may happen in a twofold manner; artificially and
naturally. Now art fails in the operation of nature: because nature
gives the substantial form, which art cannot give; for whatever form is
given by art is accidental; except perchance when art applies a proper
agent to its proper matter, as fire to a combustible; in which manner
animals are produced from certain things by way of putrefaction.

Whatever artificial change, then, takes place in the water, whether by
mixture or by alteration, the water's nature is not changed.
Consequently such water can be used for Baptism: unless perhaps such a
small quantity of water be mixed artificially with a body that the
compound is something other than water; thus mud is earth rather than
water, and diluted wine is wine rather than water.

But if the change be natural, sometimes it destroys the nature of the
water; and this is when by a natural process water enters into the
substance of a mixed body: thus water changed into the juice of the
grape is wine, wherefore it has not the nature of water. Sometimes,
however, there may be a natural change of the water, without
destruction of species: and this, both by alteration, as we may see in
the case of water heated by the sun; and by mixture, as when the water
of a river has become muddy by being mixed with particles of earth.

We must therefore say that any water may be used for Baptism, no matter
how much it may be changed, as long as the species of water is not
destroyed; but if the species of water be destroyed, it cannot be used
for Baptism.

Reply to Objection 1: The change in sea-water and in other waters which
we have to hand, is not so great as to destroy the species of water.
And therefore such waters may be used for Baptism.

Reply to Objection 2: Chrism does not destroy the nature of the water
by being mixed with it: just as neither is water changed wherein meat
and the like are boiled: except the substance boiled be so dissolved
that the liquor be of a nature foreign to water; in this we may be
guided by the specific gravity [spissitudine]. If, however, from the
liquor thus thickened plain water be strained, it can be used for
Baptism: just as water strained from mud, although mud cannot be used
for baptizing.

Reply to Objection 3: The water which flowed from the side of Christ
hanging on the cross, was not the phlegmatic humor, as some have
supposed. For a liquid of this kind cannot be used for Baptism, as
neither can the blood of an animal, or wine, or any liquid extracted
from plants. It was pure water gushing forth miraculously like the
blood from a dead body, to prove the reality of our Lord's body, and
confute the error of the Manichees: water, which is one of the four
elements, showing Christ's body to be composed of the four elements;
blood, proving that it was composed of the four humors.

Reply to Objection 4: Baptism may be conferred with lye and the waters
of Sulphur Baths: because such like waters are not incorporated,
artificially or naturally, with certain mixed bodies, and suffer only a
certain alteration by passing through certain bodies.

Reply to Objection 5: Rose-water is a liquid distilled from roses:
consequently it cannot be used for Baptism. For the same reason
chemical waters cannot be used, as neither can wine. Nor does the
comparison hold with rain-water, which for the most part is formed by
the condensing of vapors, themselves formed from water, and contains a
minimum of the liquid matter from mixed bodies; which liquid matter by
the force of nature, which is stronger than art, is transformed in this
process of condensation into real water, a result which cannot be
produced artificially. Consequently rain-water retains no properties of
any mixed body; which cannot be said of rose-water or chemical waters.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether this be a suitable form of Baptism: "I baptize thee in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"?

Objection 1: It seems that this is not a suitable form of Baptism: "I
baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost. " For action should be ascribed to the principal agent rather
than to the minister. Now the minister of a sacrament acts as an
instrument, as stated above ([4420]Q[64], A[1]); while the principal
agent in Baptism is Christ, according to Jn. 1:33, "He upon Whom thou
shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, He it is that
baptizeth. " It is therefore unbecoming for the minister to say, "I
baptize thee": the more so that "Ego" [I] is understood in the word
"baptizo" [I baptize], so that it seems redundant.

Objection 2: Further, there is no need for a man who does an action, to
make mention of the action done; thus he who teaches, need not say, "I
teach you. " Now our Lord gave at the same time the precepts both of
baptizing and of teaching, when He said (Mat. 28:19): "Going, teach ye
all nations," etc. Therefore there is no need in the form of Baptism to
mention the action of baptizing.

Objection 3: Further, the person baptized sometimes does not understand
the words; for instance, if he be deaf, or a child. But it is useless
to address such a one; according to Ecclus. 32:6: "Where there is no
hearing, pour not out words. " Therefore it is unfitting to address the
person baptized with these words: "I baptize thee. "

Objection 4: Further, it may happen that several are baptized by
several at the same time; thus the apostles on one day baptized three
thousand, and on another, five thousand (Acts 2, 4). Therefore the form
of Baptism should not be limited to the singular number in the words,
"I baptize thee": but one should be able to say, "We baptize you. "

Objection 5: Further, Baptism derives its power from Christ's Passion.
But Baptism is sanctified by the form. Therefore it seems that Christ's
Passion should be mentioned in the form of Baptism.

Objection 6: Further, a name signifies a thing's property. But there
are three Personal Properties of the Divine Persons, as stated in the
[4421]FP, Q[32], A[3]. Therefore we should not say, "in the name," but
"in the names of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. "

Objection 7: Further, the Person of the Father is designated not only
by the name Father, but also by that of "Unbegotten and Begetter"; and
the Son by those of "Word," "Image," and "Begotten"; and the Holy Ghost
by those of "Gift," "Love," and the "Proceeding One. " Therefore it
seems that Baptism is valid if conferred in these names.

On the contrary, our Lord said (Mat. 28:19): "Going . . . teach ye all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost. "

I answer that, Baptism receives its consecration from its form,
according to Eph. 5:26: "Cleansing it by the laver of water in the word
of life. " And Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo iv) that "Baptism is
consecrated by the words of the Gospel. " Consequently the cause of
Baptism needs to be expressed in the baptismal form. Now this cause is
twofold; the principal cause from which it derives its virtue, and this
is the Blessed Trinity; and the instrumental cause, viz. the minister
who confers the sacrament outwardly. Wherefore both causes should be
expressed in the form of Baptism. Now the minister is designated by the
words, "I baptize thee"; and the principal cause in the words, "in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. " Therefore
this is the suitable form of Baptism: "I baptize thee in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. "

Reply to Objection 1: Action is attributed to an instrument as to the
immediate agent; but to the principal agent inasmuch as the instrument
acts in virtue thereof. Consequently it is fitting that in the
baptismal form the minister should be mentioned as performing the act
of baptizing, in the words, "I baptize thee"; indeed, our Lord
attributed to the ministers the act of baptizing, when He said:
"Baptizing them," etc. But the principal cause is indicated as
conferring the sacrament by His own power, in the words, "in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost": for Christ does
not baptize without the Father and the Holy Ghost.

The Greeks, however, do not attribute the act of baptizing to the
minister, in order to avoid the error of those who in the past ascribed
the baptismal power to the baptizers, saying (1 Cor. 1:12): "I am of
Paul . . . and I of Cephas. " Wherefore they use the form: "May the
servant of Christ, N . . . , be baptized, in the name of the Father,"
etc. And since the action performed by the minister is expressed with
the invocation of the Trinity, the sacrament is validly conferred. As
to the addition of "Ego" in our form, it is not essential; but it is
added in order to lay greater stress on the intention.

Reply to Objection 2: Since a man may be washed with water for several
reasons, the purpose for which it is done must be expressed by the
words of the form. And this is not done by saying: "In the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"; because we are bound to
do all things in that Name (Col. 3:17). Wherefore unless the act of
baptizing be expressed, either as we do, or as the Greeks do, the
sacrament is not valid; according to the decretal of Alexander III: "If
anyone dip a child thrice in the water in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen, without saying, I baptize thee
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen,
the child is not baptized. "

Reply to Objection 3: The words which are uttered in the sacramental
forms, are said not merely for the purpose of signification, but also
for the purpose of efficiency, inasmuch as they derive efficacy from
that Word, by Whom "all things were made. " Consequently they are
becomingly addressed not only to men, but also to insensible creatures;
for instance, when we say: "I exorcize thee, creature salt" (Roman
Ritual).

Reply to Objection 4: Several cannot baptize one at the same time:
because an action is multiplied according to the number of the agents,
if it be done perfectly by each.