No More Learning

Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality
but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but
by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism.
And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on
account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of
"faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied
to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of
Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to
regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for. "

Reply to Objection 1: As it is written (1 Kings 16:7), "man seeth those
things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart. " Now a man who
desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is
regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Rom.
2:29) that "the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not
in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God. "

Reply to Objection 2: No man obtains eternal life unless he be free
from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is
given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which
reason is it stated that martyrdom "contains all the sacramental virtue
of Baptism," i. e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment.
Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else
he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without
"faith that worketh by charity"), such a one, were he to die, would not
forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his
past sins, "but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" as is
stated 1 Cor. 3:15.

Reply to Objection 3: The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary
for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least,
Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine,
Enarr. in Ps. 57).
__________________________________________________________________

Whether Baptism should be deferred?

Objection 1: It seems that Baptism should be deferred. For Pope Leo
says (Epist. xvi): "Two seasons," i. e. Easter and Whitsuntide, "are
fixed by the Roman Pontiff for the celebration of Baptism. Wherefore we
admonish your Beatitude not to add any other days to this custom. "
Therefore it seems that Baptism should be conferred not at once, but
delayed until the aforesaid seasons.

Objection 2: Further, we read in the decrees of the Council of Agde
(Can. xxxiv): "If Jews whose bad faith often "returns to the vomit,"
wish to submit to the Law of the Catholic Church, let them for eight
months enter the porch of the church with the catechumens; and if they
are found to come in good faith then at last they may deserve the grace
of Baptism. " Therefore men should not be baptized at once, and Baptism
should be deferred for a certain fixed time.

Objection 3: Further, as we read in Is. 27:9, "this is all the fruit,
that the sin . . . should be taken away. " Now sin seems to be taken
away, or at any rate lessened, if Baptism be deferred. First, because
those who sin after Baptism, sin more grievously, according to Heb.
10:29: "How much more, do you think, he deserveth worse punishments,
who hath . . . esteemed the blood of the testament," i. e. Baptism,
"unclean, by which he was sanctified? " Secondly, because Baptism takes
away past, but not future, sins: wherefore the more it is deferred, the
more sins it takes away. Therefore it seems that Baptism should be
deferred for a long time.

On the contrary, It is written (Ecclus. 5:8): "Delay not to be
converted to the Lord, and defer it not from day to day. " But the
perfect conversion to God is of those who are regenerated in Christ by
Baptism. Therefore Baptism should not be deferred from day to day.

I answer that, In this matter we must make a distinction and see
whether those who are to be baptized are children or adults. For if
they be children, Baptism should not be deferred. First, because in
them we do not look for better instruction or fuller conversion.
Secondly, because of the danger of death, for no other remedy is
available for them besides the sacrament of Baptism.

On the other hand, adults have a remedy in the mere desire for Baptism,
as stated above [4443](A[2]). And therefore Baptism should not be
conferred on adults as soon as they are converted, but it should be
deferred until some fixed time. First, as a safeguard to the Church,
lest she be deceived through baptizing those who come to her under
false pretenses, according to 1 Jn. 4:1: "Believe not every spirit, but
try the spirits, if they be of God. " And those who approach Baptism are
put to this test, when their faith and morals are subjected to proof
for a space of time. Secondly, this is needful as being useful for
those who are baptized; for they require a certain space of time in
order to be fully instructed in the faith, and to be drilled in those
things that pertain to the Christian mode of life. Thirdly, a certain
reverence for the sacrament demands a delay whereby men are admitted to
Baptism at the principal festivities, viz. of Easter and Pentecost, the
result being that they receive the sacrament with greater devotion.

There are, however, two reasons for forgoing this delay. First, when
those who are to be baptized appear to be perfectly instructed in the
faith and ready for Baptism; thus, Philip baptized the Eunuch at once
(Acts 8); and Peter, Cornelius and those who were with him (Acts 10).
Secondly, by reason of sickness or some kind of danger of death.
Wherefore Pope Leo says (Epist. xvi): "Those who are threatened by
death, sickness, siege, persecution, or shipwreck, should be baptized
at any time. " Yet if a man is forestalled by death, so as to have no
time to receive the sacrament, while he awaits the season appointed by
the Church, he is saved, yet "so as by fire," as stated above (A[2], ad
2). Nevertheless he sins if he defer being baptized beyond the time
appointed by the Church, except this be for an unavoidable cause and
with the permission of the authorities of the Church. But even this
sin, with his other sins, can be washed away by his subsequent
contrition, which takes the place of Baptism, as stated above
([4444]Q[66], A[11]).

Reply to Objection 1: This decree of Pope Leo, concerning the
celebration of Baptism at two seasons, is to be understood "with the
exception of the danger of death" (which is always to be feared in
children) as stated above.

Reply to Objection 2: This decree concerning the Jews was for a
safeguard to the Church, lest they corrupt the faith of simple people,
if they be not fully converted. Nevertheless, as the same passage reads
further on, "if within the appointed time they are threatened with
danger of sickness, they should be baptized. "

Reply to Objection 3: Baptism, by the grace which it bestows, removes
not only past sins, but hinders the commission of future sins. Now this
is the point to be considered---that men may not sin: it is a secondary
consideration that their sins be less grievous, or that their sins be
washed away, according to 1 Jn. 2:1,2: "My little children, these
things I write to you, that you may not sin. But if any man sin, we
have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the just; and He is the
propitiation for our sins. "
__________________________________________________________________

Whether sinners should be baptized?

Objection 1: It seems that sinners should be baptized. For it is
written (Zech. 13:1): "In that day there shall be a fountain open to
the House of David, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem: for the
washing of the sinner and of the unclean woman": and this is to be
understood of the fountain of Baptism. Therefore it seems that the
sacrament of Baptism should be offered even to sinners.

Objection 2: Further, our Lord said (Mat. 9:12): "They that are in
health need not a physician, but they that are ill. " But they that are
ill are sinners. Therefore since Baptism is the remedy of Christ the
physician of our souls, it seems that this sacrament should be offered
to sinners.

Objection 3: Further, no assistance should be withdrawn from sinners.
But sinners who have been baptized derive spiritual assistance from the
very character of Baptism, since it is a disposition to grace.
Therefore it seems that the sacrament of Baptism should be offered to
sinners.

On the contrary, Augustine says (Serm. clxix): "He Who created thee
without thee, will not justify thee without thee. " But since a sinner's
will is ill-disposed, he does not co-operate with God. Therefore it is
useless to employ Baptism as a means of justification.

I answer that, A man may be said to be a sinner in two ways. First, on
account of the stain and the debt of punishment incurred in the past:
and on sinners in this sense the sacrament of Baptism should be
conferred, since it is instituted specially for this purpose, that by
it the uncleanness of sin may be washed away, according to Eph. 5:26:
"Cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life. "

Secondly, a man may be called a sinner because he wills to sin and
purposes to remain in sin: and on sinners in this sense the sacrament
of Baptism should not be conferred. First, indeed, because by Baptism
men are incorporated in Christ, according to Gal. 3:27: "As many of you
as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ. " Now so long as a
man wills to sin, he cannot be united to Christ, according to 2 Cor.
6:14: "What participation hath justice with injustice? " Wherefore
Augustine says in his book on Penance (Serm. cccli) that "no man who
has the use of free-will can begin the new life, except he repent of
his former life. " Secondly, because there should be nothing useless in
the works of Christ and of the Church. Now that is useless which does
not reach the end to which it is ordained; and, on the other hand, no
one having the will to sin can, at the same time, be cleansed from sin,
which is the purpose of Baptism; for this would be to combine two
contradictory things. Thirdly, because there should be no falsehood in
the sacramental signs. Now a sign is false if it does not correspond
with the thing signified. But the very fact that a man presents himself
to be cleansed by Baptism, signifies that he prepares himself for the
inward cleansing: while this cannot be the case with one who purposes
to remain in sin. Therefore it is manifest that on such a man the
sacrament of Baptism is not to be conferred.

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

Reply to Objection 2: The physician of souls, i. e. Christ, works in two
ways. First, inwardly, by Himself: and thus He prepares man's will so
that it wills good and hates evil. Secondly, He works through
ministers, by the outward application of the sacraments: and in this
way His work consists in perfecting what was begun outwardly. Therefore
the sacrament of Baptism is not to be conferred save on those in whom
there appears some sign of their interior conversion: just as neither
is bodily medicine given to a sick man, unless he show some sign of
life.

Reply to Objection 3: Baptism is the sacrament of faith. Now dead faith
does not suffice for salvation; nor is it the foundation, but living
faith alone, "that worketh by charity" (Gal. 5:6), as Augustine says
(De Fide et oper. ). Neither, therefore, can the sacrament of Baptism
give salvation to a man whose will is set on sinning, and hence expels
the form of faith. Moreover, the impression of the baptismal character
cannot dispose a man for grace as long as he retains the will to sin;
for "God compels no man to be virtuous," as Damascene says (De Fide
Orth. ii).
__________________________________________________________________

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

Objection 1: It seems that works of satisfaction should be enjoined on
sinners that have been baptized. For God's justice seems to demand that
a man should be punished for every sin of his, according to Eccles.
12:14: "All things that are done, God will bring into judgment. " But
works of satisfaction are enjoined on sinners in punishment of past
sins. Therefore it seems that works of satisfaction should be enjoined
on sinners that have been baptized.

Objection 2: Further, by means of works of satisfaction sinners
recently converted are drilled into righteousness, and are made to
avoid the occasions of sin: "for satisfaction consists in extirpating
the causes of vice, and closing the doors to sin" (De Eccl. Dogm. iv).
But this is most necessary in the case of those who have been baptized
recently. Therefore it seems that works of satisfaction should be
enjoined on sinners.

Objection 3: Further, man owes satisfaction to God not less than to his
neighbor. But if those who were recently baptized have injured their
neighbor, they should be told to make reparation to God by works of
penance.

On the contrary, Ambrose commenting on Rom. 11:29: "The gifts and the
calling of God are without repentance," says: "The grace of God
requires neither sighs nor groans in Baptism, nor indeed any work at
all, but faith alone; and remits all, gratis. "

I answer that, As the Apostle says (Rom. 6:3,4), "all we who are
baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death: for we are buried
together with Him, by Baptism unto death"; which is to say that by
Baptism man is incorporated in the very death of Christ. Now it is
manifest from what has been said above ([4445]Q[48], AA[2],4;[4446]
Q[49], A[3]) that Christ's death satisfied sufficiently for sins, "not
for ours only, but also for those of the whole world," according to 1
Jn. 2:2. Consequently no kind of satisfaction should be enjoined on one
who is being baptized, for any sins whatever: and this would be to
dishonor the Passion and death of Christ, as being insufficient for the
plenary satisfaction for the sins of those who were to be baptized.

Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says in his book on Infant Baptism
(De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i), "the effect of Baptism is to make
those, who are baptized, to be incorporated in Christ as His members. "
Wherefore the very pains of Christ were satisfactory for the sins of
those who were to be baptized; just as the pain of one member can be
satisfactory for the sin of another member. Hence it is written (Is.
53:4): "Surely He hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows. "

Reply to Objection 2: Those who have been lately baptized should be
drilled into righteousness, not by penal, but by "easy works, so as to
advance to perfection by taking exercise, as infants by taking milk,"
as a gloss says on Ps. 130:2: "As a child that is weaned is towards his
mother. " For this reason did our Lord excuse His disciples from fasting
when they were recently converted, as we read in Mat. 9:14,15: and the
same is written 1 Pet. 2:2: "As new-born babes desire . . . milk . . .
that thereby you may grow unto salvation. "

Reply to Objection 3: To restore what has been ill taken from one's
neighbor, and to make satisfaction for wrong done to him, is to cease
from sin: for the very fact of retaining what belongs to another and of
not being reconciled to one's neighbor, is a sin. Wherefore those who
are baptized should be enjoined to make satisfaction to their neighbor,
as also to desist from sin. But they are not to be enjoined to suffer
any punishment for past sins.
__________________________________________________________________

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

Objection 1: It seems that sinners who are going to be baptized are
bound to confess their sins. For it is written (Mat. 3:6) that many
"were baptized" by John "in the Jordan confessing their sins. " But
Christ's Baptism is more perfect than John's. Therefore it seems that
there is yet greater reason why they who are about to receive Christ's
Baptism should confess their sins.

Objection 2: Further, it is written (Prov. 28:13): "He that hideth his
sins, shall not prosper; but he that shall confess and forsake them,
shall obtain mercy. " Now for this is a man baptized, that he may obtain
mercy for his sins. Therefore those who are going to be baptized should
confess their sins.

Objection 3: Further, Penance is required before Baptism, according to
Acts 2:38: "Do penance and be baptized every one of you. " But
confession is a part of Penance. Therefore it seems that confession of
sins should take place before Baptism.

On the contrary, Confession of sins should be sorrowful: thus Augustine
says (De Vera et Falsa Poenit. xiv): "All these circumstances should be
taken into account and deplored. " Now, as Ambrose says on Rom. 11:29,
"the grace of God requires neither sighs nor groans in Baptism. "
Therefore confession of sins should not be required of those who are
going to be baptized.

I answer that, Confession of sins is twofold. One is made inwardly to
God: and such confession of sins is required before Baptism: in other
words, man should call his sins to mind and sorrow for them; since "he
cannot begin the new life, except he repent of his former life," as
Augustine says in his book on Penance (Serm. cccli). The other is the
outward confession of sins, which is made to a priest; and such
confession is not required before Baptism. First, because this
confession, since it is directed to the person of the minister, belongs
to the sacrament of Penance, which is not required before Baptism,
which is the door of all the sacraments. Secondly, because the reason
why a man makes outward confession to a priest, is that the priest may
absolve him from his sins, and bind him to works of satisfaction, which
should not be enjoined on the baptized, as stated above [4447](A[5]).
Moreover those who are being baptized do not need to be released from
their sins by the keys of the Church, since all are forgiven them in
Baptism. Thirdly, because the very act of confession made to a man is
penal, by reason of the shame it inflicts on the one confessing:
whereas no exterior punishment is enjoined on a man who is being
baptized.

Therefore no special confession of sins is required of those who are
being baptized; but that general confession suffices which they make
when in accordance with the Church's ritual they "renounce Satan and
all his works. " And in this sense a gloss explains Mat. 3:6, saying
that in John's Baptism "those who are going to be baptized learn that
they should confess their sins and promise to amend their life. "

If, however, any persons about to be baptized, wish, out of devotion,
to confess their sins, their confession should be heard; not for the
purpose of enjoining them to do satisfaction, but in order to instruct
them in the spiritual life as a remedy against their vicious habits.

Reply to Objection 1: Sins were not forgiven in John's Baptism, which,
however, was the Baptism of Penance. Consequently it was fitting that
those who went to receive that Baptism, should confess their sins, so
that they should receive a penance in proportion to their sins. But
Christ's Baptism is without outward penance, as Ambrose says (on Rom.
11:29); and therefore there is no comparison.

Reply to Objection 2: It is enough that the baptized make inward
confession to God, and also an outward general confession, for them to
"prosper and obtain mercy": and they need no special outward
confession, as stated above.

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

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

Objection 1: It seems that the intention of receiving the sacrament of
Baptism is not required on the part of the one baptized. For the one
baptized is, as it were, "patient" in the sacrament. But an intention
is required not on the part of the patient but on the part of the
agent.
Therefore it seems that the intention of receiving Baptism is
not required on the part of the one baptized.

Objection 2: Further, if what is necessary for Baptism be omitted, the
Baptism must be repeated; for instance, if the invocation of the
Trinity be omitted, as stated above ([4448]Q[66], A[9], ad 3). But it
does not seem that a man should be rebaptized through not having had
the intention of receiving Baptism: else, since his intention cannot be
proved, anyone might ask to be baptized again on account of his lack of
intention. Therefore it seems that no intention is required on the part
of the one baptized, in order that he receive the sacrament.

Objection 3: Further, Baptism is given as a remedy for original sin.
But original sin is contracted without the intention of the person
born. Therefore, seemingly, Baptism requires no intention on the part
of the person baptized.

On the contrary, According to the Church's ritual, those who are to be
baptized ask of the Church that they may receive Baptism: and thus they
express their intention of receiving the sacrament.

I answer that, By Baptism a man dies to the old life of sin, and begins
a certain newness of life, according to Rom. 6:4: "We are buried
together with" Christ "by Baptism into death; that, as Christ is risen
from the dead . . . so we also may walk in newness of life. "
Consequently, just as, according to Augustine (Serm. cccli), he who has
the use of free-will, must, in order to die to the old life, "will to
repent of his former life"; so must he, of his own will, intend to lead
a new life, the beginning of which is precisely the receiving of the
sacrament. Therefore on the part of the one baptized, it is necessary
for him to have the will or intention of receiving the sacrament.

Reply to Objection 1: When a man is justified by Baptism, his
passiveness is not violent but voluntary: wherefore it is necessary for
him to intend to receive that which is given him.

Reply to Objection 2: If an adult lack the intention of receiving the
sacrament, he must be rebaptized. But if there be doubt about this, the
form to be used should be: "If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee. "

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

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

Objection 1: It seems that faith is required on the part of the one
baptized. For the sacrament of Baptism was instituted by Christ. But
Christ, in giving the form of Baptism, makes faith to precede Baptism
(Mk. 16:16): "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved. "
Therefore it seems that without faith there can be no sacrament of
Baptism.

Objection 2: Further, nothing useless is done in the sacraments of the
Church. But according to the Church's ritual, the man who comes to be
baptized is asked concerning his faith: "Dost thou believe in God the
Father Almighty? " Therefore it seems that faith is required for
Baptism.

Objection 3: Further, the intention of receiving the sacrament is
required for Baptism. But this cannot be without right faith, since
Baptism is the sacrament of right faith: for thereby men "are
incorporated in Christ," as Augustine says in his book on Infant
Baptism (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i); and this cannot be without
right faith, according to Eph. 3:17: "That Christ may dwell by faith in
your hearts. " Therefore it seems that a man who has not right faith
cannot receive the sacrament of Baptism.

Objection 4: Further, unbelief is a most grievous sin, as we have shown
in the [4449]SS, Q[10], A[3]. But those who remain in sin should not be
baptized: therefore neither should those who remain in unbelief.

On the contrary, Gregory writing to the bishop Quiricus says: "We have
learned from the ancient tradition of the Fathers that when heretics,
baptized in the name of the Trinity, come back to Holy Church, they are
to be welcomed to her bosom, either with the anointing of chrism, or
the imposition of hands, or the mere profession of faith. " But such
would not be the case if faith were necessary for a man to receive
Baptism.

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.