Greco-Christian stream·Opera Omnia Sancti Thomae (Complete Works of Thomas Aquinas)·Summa Theologiae·Secunda Secundae·Q66. Theft and robbery
Source context
- Theme
- moral and legal analysis of theft and robbery as violations of commutative justice
- Soul-faculty
- Consciousness Soul
Steiner
not engaged in the GA corpus
Cross-tradition
- Aristotelian ethicsAquinas grounds his treatment of theft and robbery in Aristotelian commutative justice, distinguishing covert from violent taking of another's property — a distinction structurally present in Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics V.2–4.
- Roman lawThe Thomistic distinction between furtum (theft) and rapina (robbery) directly inherits Roman legal categories from the Digest, mapping juridical into moral-theological analysis.
- Hebrew Scripture / Mosaic lawAquinas cites the Decalogue prohibition against theft (Exodus 20:15) as the revealed foundation that his natural-law reasoning confirms and articulates further.
Q66. Theft and robbery
Article 1
[II-II.q.66.a.1.arg.1] It would seem that it is not natural for man to possess external things. For no man should ascribe to himself that which is God's. Now the dominion over all creatures is proper to God, according to Psalm 23:1, "The earth is the Lord's," etc. Therefore it is not natural for man to possess external things.
[II-II.q.66.a.1.arg.1] Ad primum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod baptismus non sit ipsa ablutio. Ablutio enim corporalis transit; baptismus autem permanet. Ergo baptismus non est ipsa ablutio, sed potius « regeneratio 4, et sigillum, et custodia, et illuminatio, » ut Damascenus dicit in IV lib. Orth. fid., cap. 1x, col. 1422, t. 1.
[II-II.q.66.a.1.arg.2] Further, Basil in expounding the words of the rich man (Luke 12:18), "I will gather all things that are grown to me, and my goods," says [Hom. in Luc. xii, 18]: "Tell me: which are thine? where did you take them from and bring them into being?" Now whatever man possesses naturally, he can fittingly call his own. Therefore man does not naturally possess external things.
[II-II.q.66.a.1.arg.2] 2. Præterea, Hugo de S. Victore dicit, lib. II De sacram., part. vi, cap. II, col. 443, t. 2, quod « baptismus est aqua diluendis criminibus sanctificata per verbum Dei. » Aqua autem non est ipsa ablutio, sed ablutio est quidam usus aquæ.
[II-II.q.66.a.1.arg.3] Further, according to Ambrose (De Trin. i [De Fide, ad Gratianum, i, 1) "dominion denotes power." But man has no power over external things, since he can work no change in their nature. Therefore the possession of external things is not natural to man.
[II-II.q.66.a.1.arg.3] 3. Præterea, Augustinus dicit Super Joan., tract. lxxx, § 3, col. 1840, t. 3: « Accedit verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum. » Elementum autem est ipsa aqua 2. Ergo baptismus est ipsa aqua, non autem ablutio.
[II-II.q.66.a.1.sc] It is written (Psalm 8:8): "Thou hast subjected all things under his feet."
[II-II.q.66.a.1.sc] Sed contra est quod dicitur Eccli., xxxiv, 30: Qui baptizatur a mortuo, et iterum tangit*mortuum, quid proficit lavatio ejus? Videtur ergo quod baptismus sit ipsa ablutio, sive lotio 5.
[II-II.q.66.a.1.co] External things can be considered in two ways. First, as regards their nature, and this is not subject to the power of man, but only to the power of God Whose mere will all things obey. Secondly, as regards their use, and in this way, man has a natural dominion over external things, because, by his reason and will, he is able to use them for his own profit, as they were made on his account: for the imperfect is always for the sake of the perfect, as stated above (Question 64, Article 1). It is by this argument that the Philosopher proves (Polit. i, 3) that the possession of external things is natural to man. Moreover, this natural dominion of man over other creatures, which is competent to man in respect of his reason wherein God's image resides, is shown forth in man's creation (Genesis 1:26) by the words: "Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea," etc.
[II-II.q.66.a.1.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod in sacramento baptismi est tria considerare; aliquid scilicet quod est sacramentum tanum, aliquid autem quod est res et sacramentum, aliquid vero quod est res tantum. Sacramentum tantum est aliquid visibile exterius existens, quod scilicet est signum interioris effectus, hoc enim per- Migne. tinet ad rationem sacramenti; exterius autem suppositum sensui est ipsa aqua, et ejus usus, qui est ablutio. Quidam ergo existimaverunt, quod ipsa aqua sit sacramentum; quod quidem sonare videntur verba Hugonis de S. Victore, nam ipse in communi definitione sacramenti, lib. I De sacram., p. 1x, cap. 11, col. 317, t. 2, dicit, quod « est materiale elementum: » et in definitione baptismi dicit, quod « est aqua. » Sed hoc non videtur esse verum: cum enim sacramenta novæ legis sanctificationem quamdam operentur, ibi perficitur sacramentum, ubi perficitur sanctificatio. In aqua autem non perficitur sanctificatio, sed est ibi quædam sanctificationis virtus instrumentalis, non permanens, sed fluens in hominem, qui est veræ sanctificationis subjectum: et ideo sacramentum non perficitur in ipsa aqua, sed in applicatione aquæ ad hominem, quæ est ablutio. Et ideo Magister in III Sent., dist. iv, dicit quod « baptismus est ablutio corporis exterior, facta sub forma præscripta verborum. » Res autem et sacramentum est character baptismalis, qui est res significata per exteriorem ablutionem; et est signum sacramentale interioris justificationis, quæ est res tantum hujus sacramenti, scilicet significata, et non significans.
[II-II.q.66.a.1.ad.1] God has sovereign dominion over all things: and He, according to His providence, directed certain things to the sustenance of man's body. For this reason man has a natural dominion over things, as regards the power to make use of them.
[II-II.q.66.a.1.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod et sacramentum et res, scilicet character, et id quod est res tantum, scilicet interior justificatio permanent: sed character permanet indelebiliter, ut supra dictum est: justificatio autem permanet, sed amissibiliter. Damascenus autem baptismum definivit, non quantum ad id quod exterius agitur, quod est sacramentum tantum, sed quantum ad id quod est interius. Unde posuit duo pertinentia ad characterem, scilicet « sigillum et custodiam, » inquantum ipse character qui sigillum dicitur, quantum est de se, custodit animam in bono. Duo etiam posuit pertinentia ad ultimam rem sacramenti, scilicet « regenerationem, » quæ ad hoc pertinet quod per baptismum homo inchoat novam vitam justitiæ, « et illuminationem, » quæ pertinet specialiter ad fidem, per quam homo spiritualem vitam accipit, secundum illud Habac., 11, quædam fidei protestatio; unde dici-tur « fidei sacramentum. » Et similiter Dionysius baptismum definivit per ordinem ad alia sacramenta, dicens, cap. 12 Eccles. hier., §1, col. 391, t. 1, quod est « quoddam principium sanctissimorum mandatorum sacræ actionis, ad eorum susceptivam opportunitatem formans nostros animales habitus. » Et iterum in ordine ad cælestem gloriam, quæ est ultimus finis sacramentorum, cum subdit: « Ad supercælestis quietis anagogem nostrum iter faciens; » et iterum quantum ad principium spiritualis vitæ, per hoc quod subdit: « Sacræ et divinissimæ nostræ regenerationis traditio. »
[II-II.q.66.a.1.ad.2] The rich man is reproved for deeming external things to belong to him principally, as though he had not received them from another, namely from God.
[II-II.q.66.a.1.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod, sicut dictum est, opinionem Hugonis de S. Victore in hac parte sequi non oportet. Potest tamen verificari ut baptismus dicatur esse aqua, quia aqua est materiale baptismi principium, et sic erit prædicatio per causam.
[II-II.q.66.a.1.ad.3] This argument considers the dominion over external things as regards their nature. Such a dominion belongs to God alone, as stated above.
[II-II.q.66.a.1.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod accedente verbo ad elementum, fit sacramentum, non quidem in ipso elemento, sed in homine, cui adhibetur elementum per usum ablutionis; et hoc etiam signat verbum, quod accedit ad elementum, cum dicitur, « Ego te baptizo, etc. »
Article 2
[II-II.q.66.a.2.arg.1] It would seem unlawful for a man to possess a thing as his own. For whatever is contrary to the natural law is unlawful. Now according to the natural law all things are common property: and the possession of property is contrary to this community of goods. Therefore it is unlawful for any man to appropriate any external thing to himself.
[II-II.q.66.a.2.arg.1] Ad secundum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod non liceat alicui rem aliquam quasi propriam possidere. Omne enim quod est contra jus naturale, est illicitum. Sed secundum jus naturale omnia sunt communia; cui quidem communitati contrariatur proprietas possessionum. Ergo illicitum est cuilibet homini appropriare sibi aliquam rem exteriorem.
[II-II.q.66.a.2.arg.2] Further, Basil in expounding the words of the rich man quoted above (1, Objection 2), says: "The rich who deem as their own property the common goods they have seized upon, are like to those who by going beforehand to the play prevent others from coming, and appropriate to themselves what is intended for common use." Now it would be unlawful to prevent others from obtaining possession of common goods. Therefore it is unlawful to appropriate to oneself what belongs to the community.
[II-II.q.66.a.2.arg.2] 2. Præterea, sacramenta novæ legis efficaciam habent ex mandato Christi. Sed Christus mandatum baptizandi dedit Ablutio hic sumitur ut motus simul includens actionem et passionem, vel ut passio tantum, secundum Soto et Nugno. Ita communiter optime. discipulis post passionem et resurrectionem suam, dicens: Euntes docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine Patris, etc., ut habetur Matth., ult., 19. Ergo videtur quod post passionem Christi baptismus fuerit institutus.
[II-II.q.66.a.2.arg.3] Further, Ambrose says [Serm. lxiv, de temp.], and his words are quoted in the Decretals [Dist. xlvii., Can. Sicut hi.]: "Let no man call his own that which is common property": and by "common" he means external things, as is clear from the context. Therefore it seems unlawful for a man to appropriate an external thing to himself.
[II-II.q.66.a.2.arg.3] 3. Præterea, baptismus est sacramentum necessitatis, ut supra dictum est, et ita videtur quod ex quo baptismus institutus fuit, homines obligarentur ad baptismum. Sed ante passionem Christi homines non obligabantur ad baptismum, quia adhuc circumcisio suam virtutem habebat, in cujus locum successit baptismus. Ergo videtur quod baptismus non fuerit institutus ante passionem Christi.
[II-II.q.66.a.2.sc] Augustine says (De Haeres., haer. 40): "The 'Apostolici' are those who with extreme arrogance have given themselves that name, because they do not admit into their communion persons who are married or possess anything of their own, such as both monks and clerics who in considerable number are to be found in the Catholic Church." Now the reason why these people are heretics was because severing themselves from the Church, they think that those who enjoy the use of the above things, which they themselves lack, have no hope of salvation. Therefore it is erroneous to maintain that it is unlawful for a man to possess property.
[II-II.q.66.a.2.sc] Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit in quodam Sermone de Epiphania, cxxxv in append., § 4, col. 2012, t. 5: « Ex quo Christus in aqua mergitur, ex eo omnium peccata abluit aqua. » Sed hoc fuit ante Christi passionem. Ergo 2 baptismus ante Christi passionem fuit institutus.
[II-II.q.66.a.2.co] Two things are competent to man in respect of exterior things. One is the power to procure and dispense them, and in this regard it is lawful for man to possess property. Moreover this is necessary to human life for three reasons. First because every man is more careful to procure what is for himself alone than that which is common to many or to all: since each one would shirk the labor and leave to another that which concerns the community, as happens where there is a great number of servants. Secondly, because human affairs are conducted in more orderly fashion if each man is charged with taking care of some particular thing himself, whereas there would be confusion if everyone had to look after any one thing indeterminately. Thirdly, because a more peaceful state is ensured to man if each one is contented with his own. Hence it is to be observed that quarrels arise more frequently where there is no division of the things possessed.
The second thing that is competent to man with regard to external things is their use. On this respect man ought to possess external things, not as his own, but as common, so that, to wit, he is ready to communicate them to others in their need. Hence the Apostle says (1 Timothy 6:17-18): "Charge the rich of this world . . . to give easily, to communicate to others," etc.
[II-II.q.66.a.2.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod, sicut dictum est supra, sacramenta ex sua institutione habent quod conferant gratiam. Unde tunc videtur aliquod sacramentum institui, quando accipit virtutem producendi suum effectum. Hanc autem virtutem accepit baptismus, quando Christus est baptizatus. Unde tunc vere baptismus institutus fuit quantum ad ipsum sacramentum. Sed necessitas utendi hoc sacramento indicta fuit hominibus post passionem et resurrectionem, tum quia in passione Christi terminata sunt figuralia sacramenta, quibus succedit baptismus, et alia sacramenta novæ legis; tum etiam quia per baptismum configuratur homo passioni et resurrectioni Christi, inquantum moritur peccato, et incipit novam justitiæ vitam. Et ideo oportuit Christum prius pati et resurgere, quam hominibus indicetur necessitas se configurandi morti et resurrectioni ejus.
[II-II.q.66.a.2.ad.1] Community of goods is ascribed to the natural law, not that the natural law dictates that all things should be possessed in common and that nothing should be possessed as one's own: but because the division of possessions is not according to the natural law, but rather arose from human agreement which belongs to positive law, as stated above (57, 2,3). Hence the ownership of possessions is not contrary to the natural law, but an addition thereto devised by human reason.
[II-II.q.66.a.2.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod etiam ante passionem Christi baptismus habet efficaciam a Christi passione, inquantum eam præfigurabat, aliter tamen quam sacramenta veteris legis: nam illa erant figuræ tantum; baptismus autem ab ipso Christo virtutem habebat justificandi, per cujus virtutem ipsa etiam passio salutifera fuit.
[II-II.q.66.a.2.ad.2] A man would not act unlawfully if by going beforehand to the play he prepared the way for others: but he acts unlawfully if by so doing he hinders others from going. On like manner a rich man does not act unlawfully if he anticipates someone in taking possession of something which at first was common property, and gives others a share: but he sins if he excludes others indiscriminately from using it. Hence Basil says (Hom. in Luc. xii, 18): "Why are you rich while another is poor, unless it be that you may have the merit of a good stewardship, and he the reward of patience?"
[II-II.q.66.a.2.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod homines non 5 debebant multiplicibus figuris arctari per Christum, qui venerat sua veritate figuras impletas auferre. Et ideo ante passionem suam baptismum institutum non posuit sub præcepto, sed voluit ad ejus exercitium homines assuefieri, et præcipue in populo Judæorum, apud quem omnia facta figuralia erant, ut Augustinus dicit Contra Faustum, lib. IV, cap. 11, col. 218, t. 8. Post passionem vero et resurrectionem non solum Judæis, sed etiam Gentilibus sub præcepto necessitatem baptismi imposuit, dicens Matth., ult., 19: Euntes docete omnes gentes.
[II-II.q.66.a.2.ad.3] When Ambrose says: "Let no man call his own that which is common," he is speaking of ownership as regards use, wherefore he adds: "He who spends too much is a robber."
[II-II.q.66.a.2.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod sacramenta non sunt obligatoria, nisi quando sub præcepto ponuntur, quod quidem non fuit ante passionem, ut dictum est. Quod enim Dominus ante passionem Nicodemo dixitJoan., 111, 5: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei, magis videtur ad futurum respicere quam ad præsens tempus.
Article 3
[II-II.q.66.a.3.arg.1] It would seem that it is not essential to theft to take another's thing secretly. For that which diminishes a sin, does not, apparently, belong to the essence of a sin. Now to sin secretly tends to diminish a sin, just as, on the contrary, it is written as indicating an aggravating circumstance of the sin of some (Isaiah 3:9): "They have proclaimed abroad their sin as Sodom, and they have not hid it." Therefore it is not essential to theft that it should consist in taking another's thing secretly.
[II-II.q.66.a.3.arg.1] Ad tertium sic proceditur. 4. Videtur quod aqua non sit propria materia baptismi. Baptismus enim secundum Dionysium, cap. 11 Eccl. hier., § 4, col. 399, t. 4, et Damascenum, lib. IV Orth. fid., cap. x, col. 4122, t. 4, habet vim illuminati-vam. Sed illuminatio maxime competit igni. Ergo baptismus magis debet fieri inigne quam in aqua; præsertim cum Joannes Baptista prænuntians Christi baptismum dicat, Matth., 111, 14: Ille vos baptizabit in Spiritu sancto et igni.
[II-II.q.66.a.3.arg.2] Further, Ambrose says [Serm. lxiv, de temp., 2, Objection 3, Can. Sicut hi.]: and his words are embodied in the Decretals [Dist. xlvii]: "It is no less a crime to take from him that has, than to refuse to succor the needy when you can and are well off." Therefore just as theft consists in taking another's thing, so does it consist in keeping it back.
[II-II.q.66.a.3.arg.2] 2. Præterea, in baptismo significatur ablutio peccatorum. Sed multa alia sunt 4 Colligitur ex pleniori textu. Sermo vero prædictus a recentioribus Augustino abjudicatur. 2 Parm: « videtur quod... fuerit. » 3 Variæ sunt opiniones de institutione baptismi. Quidam illam reponunt post Christi resurablutiva quam aqua; sicut vinum et oleum, et hujusmodi alia. Ergo etiam in his potest fieri baptismus. Non ergo aqua est propria materia baptismi.
[II-II.q.66.a.3.arg.3] Further, a man may take by stealth from another, even that which is his own, for instance a thing that he has deposited with another, or that has been taken away from him unjustly. Therefore it is not essential to theft that it should consist in taking another's thing secretly.
[II-II.q.66.a.3.arg.3] 3. Præterea, sacramenta Ecclesiæ fluxerunt de latere Christi pendentis in cruce, ut supra dictum est. Sed inde fluxit non solum aqua, sed etiam sanguis. Ergo videtur quod etiam in sanguine possit fieri baptismus; qui etiam videtur magis convenire cum causa et effectus baptismi, quia dicitur Apocal., 1, 5: Lavit nos a peccatis nostris in sanguine suo.
[II-II.q.66.a.3.sc] Isidore says (Etym. x): "'Fur' [thief] is derived from 'furvus' and so from 'fuscus' [dark], because he takes advantage of the night."
[II-II.q.66.a.3.sc] Sed contra est quod Dominus dicit, Joan., 11, 5: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei.
[II-II.q.66.a.3.co] Three things combine together to constitute theft. The first belongs to theft as being contrary to justice, which gives to each one that which is his, so that it belongs to theft to take possession of what is another's. The second thing belongs to theft as distinct from those sins which are committed against the person, such as murder and adultery, and in this respect it belongs to theft to be about a thing possessed: for if a man takes what is another's not as a possession but as a part (for instance, if he amputates a limb), or as a person connected with him (for instance, if he carry off his daughter or his wife), it is not strictly speaking a case of theft. The third difference is that which completes the nature of theft, and consists in a thing being taken secretly: and in this respect it belongs properly to theft that it consists in "taking another's thing secretly."
[II-II.q.66.a.3.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod ex institutione divina aqua est propria materia baptismi; et hoc convenienter, primo quidem quantum ad ipsam rationem baptismi, qui est regeneratio ad spiritualem vitam, quod maxime congruit aquæ. Unde semina ex quibus generantur omnia viventia, scilicet plantæ et animalia, humida sunt, et ad aquam pertinent. Propter quod quidam philosophi posuerunt aquam omnium rerum principium, sicut dicitur I Metaph., cap. 11, ut et lib. De sensu, cap. 11, secundo, quantum ad effectus baptismi, quibus competunt aquæ proprietates, quæ sua humiditate lavat, ex quo conveniens est ad significandam et causandam ablutionem peccatorum; sua frigiditate etiam temperat superfluitatem caloris, et ex hoc competit ad mitigandam concupiscentiam fomitis; sua diaphaneitate est luminis susceptiva, unde competit baptismo in quantum est fidei sacramentum. Tertio, quia convenit ad repræsentandum mysteria Christi, quibus justificamur. Ut enim dicit Chrysostomus super illud Joan. III, Nisi quis renatus fuerit, Hom. xxv in Joan., § 2, col. 448, t. 13, « sicut in quodam sepulcro in aqua submergentibus nobis capita vetus homo sepelitur, et submersus deorsum occultatur, et deinde novus rursus ascendit. » Quarto, quia ratione suæ communitatis et abundantiæ est conveniens materia necessitatis hujus sacramenti; potest enim ubique de facili haberi.
[II-II.q.66.a.3.ad.1] Secrecy is sometimes a cause of sin, as when a man employs secrecy in order to commit a sin, for instance in fraud and guile. On this way it does not diminish sin, but constitutes a species of sin: and thus it is in theft. On another way secrecy is merely a circumstance of sin, and thus it diminishes sin, both because it is a sign of shame, and because it removes scandal.
[II-II.q.66.a.3.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod illuminatio pertinet ad ignem active. Ille autem qui baptizatur non efficitur illuminans, sed illuminatus per fidem, quæ est ex auditu, ut dicitur Rom., x. Et ideo magis competit aqua baptismo, quam ignis. Quod autem dicitur: Baptizabit vos in Spiritu sancto et igni, potest per ignem, ut Hieronymus dicit, col. 30, t. 7, intelligi Spiritus sanctus, qui super discipulos in igneis linguis apparuit, ut dicitur Act., ii. Vel per ignem potest intelligi tribulatio, ut Chrysostomus dicit Super Matth., hom. III Op. 4 imperf., aliquant. a med., quia « tribulatio peccata purgat, et concupiscentiam diminuit. » Vel quia, ut Hilarius dicit Super Matth., cap. II, § 4, col. 926, t. 4, « baptizatis in Spiritu sancto reliquum est consummari igne judicii.»
[II-II.q.66.a.3.ad.2] To keep back what is due to another, inflicts the same kind of injury as taking a thing unjustly: wherefore an unjust detention is included in an unjust taking.
[II-II.q.66.a.3.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod vinum et oleum non communiter assumuntur ad usum ablutionis, sicut aqua; nec etiam ita perfecte abluunt, quia ex eorum ablutione remanet aliqua infectio saltem ad odorem, quod non contingit de aqua. Illa etiam non ita communiter et abundanter habentur, sicut aqua.
[II-II.q.66.a.3.ad.3] Nothing prevents that which belongs to one person simply, from belonging to another in some respect: thus a deposit belongs simply to the depositor, but with regard to its custody it is the depositary's, and the thing stolen is the thief's, not simply, but as regards its custody.
[II-II.q.66.a.3.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod ex latere Christi fluxit aqua ad abluendum, sanguis autem ad redimendum. Et ideo sanguis competit sacramento Eucharistia, aqua autem sacramento baptismi, qui tamen habet vim ablutivam ex virtute sanguinis Christi.
Article 4
[II-II.q.66.a.4.arg.1] It would seem that theft and robbery are not sins of different species. For theft and robbery differ as "secret" and "manifest": because theft is taking something secretly, while robbery is to take something violently and openly. Now in the other kinds of sins, the secret and the manifest do not differ specifically. Therefore theft and robbery are not different species of sin.
[II-II.q.66.a.4.arg.1] Ad quartum sic proceditur. 4. Videtur quod ad baptismum non requiratur aqua simplex. Aqua enim quæ apud nos est, non est aqua pura, quod præcipue apparet de aqua maris, in qua plurimum admiscetur de terrestri, ut patet per Philosophum in lib. II Meteor., cap. 111. Et tamen in tali aqua potest fieri baptismus. Ergo non requiritur aqua simplex et pura ad baptismum.
[II-II.q.66.a.4.arg.2] Further, moral actions take their species from the end, as stated above (I-II, 01, 3; 18, 6). Now theft and robbery are directed to the same end, viz. the possession of another's property. Therefore they do not differ specifically.
[II-II.q.66.a.4.arg.2] 2. Præterea, in solemni celebratione baptismi aquæ infunditur chrisma. Sed hoc videtur impedire puritatem et simplicitatem aquæ. Ergo aqua pura et simplex non requiritur ad baptismum.
[II-II.q.66.a.4.arg.3] Further, just as a thing is taken by force for the sake of possession, so is a woman taken by force for pleasure: wherefore Isidore says (Etym. x) that "he who commits a rape is called a corrupter, and the victim of the rape is said to be corrupted." Now it is a case of rape whether the woman be carried off publicly or secretly. Therefore the thing appropriated is said to be taken by force, whether it be done secretly or publicly. Therefore theft and robbery do not differ.
[II-II.q.66.a.4.arg.3] 3. Præterea, aqua fluens de latere Christi pendentis in cruce fuit significativa baptismi, ut dictum est. Sed aqua illa non videtur fuisse aqua pura, eo quod in corpore mixto cujusmodi fuit corpus Christi, non sunt elementa in actu. Ergo videtur quod non requiritur aqua pura vel simplex ad baptismum.
[II-II.q.66.a.4.sc] The Philosopher (Ethic. v, 2) distinguishes theft from robbery, and states that theft is done in secret, but that robbery is done openly.
[II-II.q.66.a.4.sc] Sed contra est quod propria materia baptismi est aqua, ut dictum est. Sed speciem aquæ non habet nisi aqua simplex. Ergo aqua pura et simplex de necessitate requiritur ad baptismum.
[II-II.q.66.a.4.co] Theft and robbery are vices contrary to justice, in as much as one man does another an injustice. Now "no man suffers an injustice willingly," as stated in Ethic. v, 9. Wherefore theft and robbery derive their sinful nature, through the taking being involuntary on the part of the person from whom something is taken. Now the involuntary is twofold, namely, through violence and through ignorance, as stated in Ethic. iii, 1. Therefore the sinful aspect of robbery differs from that of theft: and consequently they differ specifically.
[II-II.q.66.a.4.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod aqua suam puritatem et simplicitatem potest amittere dupliciter: uno modo per mixtionem alterius corporis; alio modo per alterationem. Utrumque autem horum contingit fieri dupliciter, scilicet per artem et per naturam. Ars autem deficit ab operatione naturæ, quia natura dat formam substantialem, quod ars facere non potest; sed omnes formæ artificiales sunt accidentales, nisi forte apponendo proprium agens ad propriam materiam, sicut ignem combustibili; per quem modum a quibusdam quædam animalia per putrefactionem generantur. Quæcumque igitur transmutatio circa aquam facta est per artem, sive commiscendo, sive alterando, non transmutatur species aquæ. Unde in tali aqua potest fieri baptismus; nisi forte aqua admisceatur per artem in tam parva quantitate alicui corpori, quod compositum magis sit aliud quam aqua, sicut lutum magis est terra quam aqua, et vinum lymphatum magis est vinum quam aqua. Sed transmutatio, quæ fit a natura, quandoque quidem speciem aquæ solvit; et hoc fit quando aqua efficitur per naturam de substantia alicujus corporis mixti, sicut aqua conversa in liquorem uvæ est vinum, unde non habet speciem aquæ, aliquando autem fit per naturam transmutatio aquæ sine solutione speciei; et hoc tam per alterationem, sicut patet de aqua calefacta a sole, quam etiam per mixtionem, sicut patet de aqua fluminis Ita Mss. Tarrac., Alcan., aliique editi passim. turbida ex permixtione terrestrium partium. Sic ergo dicendum est quod in qualibet aqua qualitercumque transmutata, dummodo non solvatur species aquæ, potest fieri baptismus; si vero solvatur species aquæ, non potest fieri baptismus.
[II-II.q.66.a.4.ad.1] In the other kinds of sin the sinful nature is not derived from something involuntary, as in the sins opposed to justice: and so where there is a different kind of involuntary, there is a different species of sin.
[II-II.q.66.a.4.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod transmutatio facta in aqua maris, et etiam in aliis aquis quæ species sunt, non est tanta quod solvat speciem aquæ. Et ideo in hujusmodi aquis potest fieri baptismus.
[II-II.q.66.a.4.ad.2] The remote end of robbery and theft is the same. But this is not enough for identity of species, because there is a difference of proximate ends, since the robber wishes to take a thing by his own power, but the thief, by cunning.
[II-II.q.66.a.4.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod admixtio chrismatis non solvit speciem aquæ, sicut nec etiam aqua decoctionis carnium aut aliorum hujusmodi; nisi forte sit facta tanta resolutio corporum lixatorum in aqua, quod liquor plus ha-beat de aliena substantia quam de aqua, quod ex spissitudine perspici potest. Si tamen ex liquore sic inspissato exprimatur aqua subtilis, potest in ea fieri baptismus sicut et in aqua quæ exprimitur ex luto, licet in luto baptismus fieri non possit.
[II-II.q.66.a.4.ad.3] The robbery of a woman cannot be secret on the part of the woman who is taken: wherefore even if it be secret as regards the others from whom she is taken, the nature of robbery remains on the part of the woman to whom violence is done.
[II-II.q.66.a.4.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod aqua fluens e latere Christi pendentis in cruce non fuit humorphlegmaticus, ut quidam dixerunt; in tali enim humore non posset fieri baptismus, sicut nec in sanguine animalis, aut in vino, aut quocumque liquore alicujus plantæ. Fuit autem aqua pura miraculose egrediens a corpore mortuo, sicut et sanguis, ad comprobandam veritatem dominici corporis, contra Manichæorum errorem, ut scilicet per aquam, quæ est unum quatuor elementorum, ostenderetur corpus Christi vere fuisse compositum ex quatuor elementis; per sanguinem vero ostenderetur esse compositum ex quatuor humoribus.
Article 5
[II-II.q.66.a.5.arg.1] It would seem that theft is not always a sin. For no sin is commanded by God, since it is written (Sirach 15:21): "He hath commanded no man to do wickedly." Yet we find that God commanded theft, for it is written (Exodus 12:35-36): "And the children of Israel did as the Lord had commanded Moses [Vulgate: 'as Moses had commanded']. . . and they stripped the Egyptians." Therefore theft is not always a sin.
[II-II.q.66.a.5.arg.1] Ad quintum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod hæc non sit conveniens forma baptismi: « Ego te baptizo in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti. » Actus enim magis debet attribui principali agenti quam ministro. Sed in sacramento minister agit ut instrumentum, ut supra dictum est: principale autem agens in baptismo est Christus, secundum illud Joan., 1, 33: Super quem videris Spiritum descendentem et manentem, hic est qui baptizat. Inconvenienter ergo minister dicit: « Ego te baptizo, » præsertim quia in hoc quod dicitur, « baptizo, » intelligitur « ego: » et sic videtur superflue apponi.
[II-II.q.66.a.5.arg.2] Further, if a man finds a thing that is not his and takes it, he seems to commit a theft, for he takes another's property. Yet this seems lawful according to natural equity, as the jurists hold. [See loc. cit. in Reply.] Therefore it seems that theft is not always a sin.
[II-II.q.66.a.5.arg.2] 2. Præterea, non oportet quod ille qui aliquem actum exercet, de actus exercitio faciat mentionem, sicut ille qui docet, non oportet quod dicat: Ego vos doceo. Dominus autem simul tradidit præceptum baptizandi et docendi, dicens Matth., ult., 19: Euntes docete omnes gentes, etc. Ergo non oportet quod in forma baptismi fiat mentio de actu baptismi.
[II-II.q.66.a.5.arg.3] Further, he that takes what is his own does not seem to sin, because he does not act against justice, since he does not destroy its equality. Yet a man commits a theft even if he secretly take his own property that is detained by or in the safe-keeping of another. Therefore it seems that theft is not always a sin.
[II-II.q.66.a.5.arg.3] 3. Præterea, ille qui baptizatur, quando non intelligit verba, puta si sit surdus aut puer. Frustra autem ad talem sermo dirigitur; secundum illud Eccli., xxxii, 6: Ubi auditus non est, non effundas sermonem. Ergo inconvenienter dicitur: « Ego te baptizo, » sermone directo ad eum qui baptizatur. cum cod. decimi
[II-II.q.66.a.5.sc] It is written (Exodus 20:15): "Thou shalt not steal."
[II-II.q.66.a.5.sc] Sed contra est quod Dominus dicit, Matth., ult., 19: Euntes docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti.
[II-II.q.66.a.5.co] If anyone consider what is meant by theft, he will find that it is sinful on two counts. First, because of its opposition to justice, which gives to each one what is his, so that for this reason theft is contrary to justice, through being a taking of what belongs to another. Secondly, because of the guile or fraud committed by the thief, by laying hands on another's property secretly and cunningly. Wherefore it is evident that every theft is a sin.
[II-II.q.66.a.5.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod baptismus per suam formam consecratur, secundum illud Ephes., v, 26: Mundans eam lavacro aquæ in verbo vitæ; et Augustinus dicit in lib. IV De unico baptismo, cap. xv, col. 468, t. 9, quod « baptismus verbis evangelicis consecratur. » Et ideo oportet quod in forma baptismi exprimatur causa baptismi. Est autem ejus duplex causa: una quidem principalis, a qua virtutem habet, quæ est sancta Trinitas; alia autem instrumentalis, scilicet minister, qui tradit exterius sacramentum. Et ideo oportet in forma baptismi de utraque fieri mentionem. Minister autem tangitur, cum dicitur: « Ego te baptizo; » causa autem principalis, cum dicitur: « In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti. » Unde hæc est conveniens forma baptismi: « Ego te baptizo in nomine Patris, et Filii et Spiritus sancti. Apostolici hæretici baptizabant in morte Christi; Marcosiani in nomine ignoti Patris universorum, in veritate matre omnium, in eo qui in Jesum descendit, in unione et redemptione et communione virtutum; Cataphryges in Patrem et Filium et Montanum seu Priscillam; Eunomiani et Ariani vel in hac forma: « Ego te baptizo in nomine Dei increati, et Spiritus Sancti baptizo in nomine Patris, et Filii et Spiritus sancti. »
[II-II.q.66.a.5.ad.1] It is no theft for a man to take another's property either secretly or openly by order of a judge who has commanded him to do so, because it becomes his due by the very fact that it is adjudicated to him by the sentence of the court. Hence still less was it a theft for the Israelites to take away the spoils of the Egyptians at the command of the Lord, Who ordered this to be done on account of the ill-treatment accorded to them by the Egyptians without any cause: wherefore it is written significantly (Wisdom 10:19): "The just took the spoils of the wicked."
[II-II.q.66.a.5.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod actio attribuitur instrumento, sicut immediate agenti; attribuitur autem hujusmodi actio principali agenti, sicut in cujus virtute instrumentum agit. Et ideo in forma baptismi convenienter significatur minister ut exercens actum baptismi, per hoc quod dicitur: « Ego te baptizo, » sicut et ipse Dominus baptizandi actum attribuit ministris, dicens Matth., ult., 19: Baptizantes eos, etc. Causa autem principalis significatur ut in cujus virtute sacramentum agitur per hoc quod dicitur: « In nomine Patris, et Filii et Spiritus Sancti; » non enim Christus baptizat sine Patre et Spiritu sancto. Græci autem non attribuunt actum baptismi ministris, ad evitandum antiquorum errorem qui virtutem baptismi baptizantibus attribuebant, dicentes I Cor., 1, 12: Ego sum Pauli, et ego Cephæ; et ideo dicunt: « Baptizetur servus Christi, in nomine Patris, etc. » Et quia exprimitur actus exercitus per ministrum cum invocatione Trinitatis, verum perficitur sacramentum. Quod autem additur « ego» in forma nostra, non est de substantia formæ, sed ponitur ad majorem expressionem intentionis.
[II-II.q.66.a.5.ad.2] With regard to treasure-trove a distinction must be made. For some there are that were never in anyone's possession, for instance precious stones and jewels, found on the seashore, and such the finder is allowed to keep [Dig. I, viii, De divis. rerum: Inst. II, i, De rerum divis.]. The same applies to treasure hidden underground long since and belonging to no man, except that according to civil law the finder is bound to give half to the owner of the land, if the treasure trove be in the land of another person [Inst. II, i, 39: Cod. X, xv, De Thesauris]. Hence in the parable of the Gospel (Matthew 13:44) it is said of the finder of the treasure hidden in a field that he bought the field, as though he purposed thus to acquire the right of possessing the whole treasure. On the other Land the treasure-trove may be nearly in someone's possession: and then if anyone take it with the intention, not of keeping it but of returning it to the owner who does not look upon such things as unappropriated, he is not guilty of theft. On like manner if the thing found appears to be unappropriated, and if the finder believes it to be so, although he keep it, he does not commit a theft [Inst. II, i, 47]. In any other case the sin of theft is committed [Dig. XLI, i, De acquirend, rerum dominio, 9: Inst. II, i, 48]: wherefore Augustine says in a homily (Serm. clxxviii; De Verb. Apost.): "If thou hast found a thing and not returned it, thou hast stolen it" (Dig. xiv, 5, can. Si quid invenisti).
[II-II.q.66.a.5.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod quia ablutio hominis in aqua propter multa fieri potest, oportet quod determinetur in verbis formæ, ad quid fiat: quod quidem non fit per hoc quod dicitur: « In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti, » quia omnia in tali nomine facere debemus, ut habetur Coloss., 111. Et ideo si non exprimatur actus baptismi vel per modum nostrum, vel per modum Græcorum, non perficitur sacramentum, secundum illam Decretalem Alexandri III, cap. « Si quis » de Baptismo et ejus Effect: « Si quis puerum ter in aqua immerserit in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti, amen, et non dixerit: Ego te baptizo in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti, amen, non est puer baptizatus. »
[II-II.q.66.a.5.ad.3] He who by stealth takes his own property which is deposited with another man burdens the depositary, who is bound either to restitution, or to prove himself innocent. Hence he is clearly guilty of sin, and is bound to ease the depositary of his burden. On the other hand he who, by stealth, takes his own property, if this be unjustly detained by another, he sins indeed; yet not because he burdens the retainer, and so he is not bound to restitution or compensation: but he sins against general justice by disregarding the order of justice and usurping judgment concerning his own property. Hence he must make satisfaction to God and endeavor to allay whatever scandal he may have given his neighbor by acting this way.
[II-II.q.66.a.5.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod verba quæ proferuntur in formis sacramentorum non pronuntiantur solum causa significandi, sanctificantis, et a procreato Filio procreati; vel in illa: « Ego te baptizo in nomine Patris per Filium in Spiritu sancto. » Sabelliani et Paulianistæ formam quoque adulterabant. Hæretici moderni docent baptismum sub quacumque forma collatum esse validum. Græci dicunt: « Baptizatur vel baptizetur talis, etc. » sed etiam causa efficiendi, inquantum habent efficaciam ab illo Verbo per quod facta sunt omnia, et ideo convenienter diriguntur non solum ad homines sed etiam ad creaturas insensibiles: ut cum dicitur: « Exorcizo te, creatura salis. »
Article 6
[II-II.q.66.a.6.arg.1] It would seem that theft is not a mortal sin. For it is written (Proverbs 6:30): "The fault is not so great when a man hath stolen." But every mortal sin is a great fault. Therefore theft is not a mortal sin.
[II-II.q.66.a.6.arg.1] Ad sextum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod in nomine Christi possit dari baptismus. Sicut enim una est fides, ita est unum baptisma, ut dicitur Ephes., iv. Sed Act., viii, 42, dicitur quod in nomine Christi baptizabantur viri ac mulieres. Ergo etiam nunc potest dari baptismus in nomine Christi.
[II-II.q.66.a.6.arg.2] Further, mortal sin deserves to be punished with death. But in the Law theft is punished not by death but by indemnity, according to Exodus 22:1, "If any man steal an ox or a sheep . . . he shall restore five oxen for one ox, and four sheep for one sheep." Therefore theft is not a mortal sin.
[II-II.q.66.a.6.arg.2] 2. Præterea, Ambrosius dicit, lib. I De Spiritu sancto, cap. iii, §44, col. 743, t. 3: « Si Christum dicas, et Patrem a quo uncus est, et ipsum qui unctus est, Filium, et Spiritum sanctum, quo unctus est, designasti. » Sed in nomine Trinitatis potest fieri baptismus. Ergo et in nomine Christi.
[II-II.q.66.a.6.arg.3] Further, theft can be committed in small even as in great things. But it seems unreasonable for a man to be punished with eternal death for the theft of a small thing such as a needle or a quill. Therefore theft is not a mortal sin.
[II-II.q.66.a.6.arg.3] 3. Præterea, Nicolaus I Papa, ad consulta Bulgarorum respondens, dicit cap. civ, et in Decr. cap. « Aquodam, » De consecrat., dist. iv, col. 1800: « Qui in nomine sanctæ Trinitatis, vel tantum in nomine Christi, sicut in Actibus Apostolorum legitur, baptizati sunt, unum quippe idemque est, ut sanctus ait Ambrosius, rebaptizari non debent. » Rebaptizarentur autem, si in hac forma baptizati sacramentum baptismi non reciperent. Ergo potest consecrari baptismus in nomine Christi sub hac forma: Ego te baptizo in nomine Christi.
[II-II.q.66.a.6.sc] No man is condemned by the Divine judgment save for a mortal sin. Yet a man is condemned for theft, according to Zechariah 5:3, "This is the curse that goeth forth over the face of the earth; for every thief shall be judged as is there written." Therefore theft is a mortal sin.
[II-II.q.66.a.6.sc] Sed contra est quod Pelagius Papa scribit Gaudentio Episcopo, Decr., cap. « Si revera, » De consecrat., dist. iv, col. 1803: « Si hi qui in locis dilectioni tuæ vicinis commorari dicuntur, se solummodo in nomine Domini baptizatos fuisse consitentur, sine cujuscumque dubitationis ambiguo, eos ad fidem catholicam venientes in sanctæ Trinitatis nomine baptizabis. » Didymus etiam dicit in lib. De Spiritu sancto, col. 123, t. 2 op. Hieron.: « Licet quis possit existere saxei, ut ita dicam, cordis, et penitus mentis alienæ, qui ita baptizare conetur, ut unum de prædictis nominibus, scilicet trium personarum, praetermittat, tamen sine perfectione baptizabit.
[II-II.q.66.a.6.co] As stated above, (Question 59, Article 4 and Prima Secundae Partis, Question 72, Article 5), a mortal sin is one that is contrary to charity as the spiritual life of the soul. Now charity consists principally in the love of God, and secondarily in the love of our neighbor, which is shown in our wishing and doing him well. But theft is a means of doing harm to our neighbor in his belongings; and if men were to rob one another habitually, human society would be undone. Therefore theft, as being opposed to charity, is a mortal sin.
[II-II.q.66.a.6.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod, sicut supra dictum est, sacramenta habent efficaciam ab institutione Christi. Et ideo si prætermittatur aliquid eorum quæ Christus instituit circa aliquod sacramentum, efficacia caret, nisi ex speciali dispensatione ejus qui virtutem suam sacramentis non alligavit. Christus autem instituit sacramentum baptismi dari cum invocatione Trinitatis. Et ideo quicquid desit ad plenam invocationem Trinitatis, tollit integritatem baptismi. Nec obstat quod in nomine unius personæ intelligitur alia, sicut in nomine Patris intelligitur Filius, aut quod ille qui nominat unam solam personam, potest habere rectam fidem de tribus: quia sicut ad sacramentum requiritur materia sensibilis, ita et forma sensibilis; unde non sufficit intellectus vel fides Trinitatis ad perfectionem sacramenti, nisi sensibilibus verbis Trinitas exprimatur. Unde et in baptismo Christi, ubi fuit origo sanctificationis nostri baptismi, affuit Trinitas in sensibilibus signis, scilicet Pater in voce, Filius in humana natura, Spiritus sanctus in columba.
[II-II.q.66.a.6.ad.1] The statement that theft is not a great fault is in view of two cases. First, when a person is led to thieve through necessity. This necessity diminishes or entirely removes sin, as we shall show further on (Question 66, Article 7). Hence the text continues: "For he stealeth to fill his hungry soul." Secondly, theft is stated not to be a great fault in comparison with the guilt of adultery, which is punished with death. Hence the text goes on to say of the thief that "if he be taken, he shall restore sevenfold . . . but he that is an adulterer . . . shall destroy his own soul."
[II-II.q.66.a.6.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod ex speciali Christi revelatione Apostoli in primitiva Ecclesia in nomine Christi baptizabant, ut nomen Christi, quod erat odiosum Judæis et Gentilibus, honorabile redderetur per hoc quod ad ejus invocationem Spiritus sanctus dabatur in baptismo.
[II-II.q.66.a.6.ad.2] The punishments of this life are medicinal rather than retributive. For retribution is reserved to the Divine judgment which is pronounced against sinners "according to the truth" (Rom. ii, 2). Wherefore, according to the judgment of the present life the death punishment is inflicted, not for every mortal sin, but only for such as inflict an irreparable harm, or again for such as contain some horrible deformity. Hence according to the present judgment the pain of death is not inflicted for theft which does not inflict an irreparable harm, except when it is aggravated by some grave circumstance, as in the case of sacrilege which is the theft of a sacred thing, of peculation, which is theft of common property, as Augustine states (Tract. 1, super Joan.), and of kidnaping which is stealing a man, for which the pain of death is inflicted (Exodus 21:16).
[II-II.q.66.a.6.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod Ambrosius assignat rationem quare convenienter talis dispensatio fieri potuit in primitiva Ecclesia, quia scilicet in nomine Christi tota Trinitas intelligitur. Et ideo servabatur ad minus integritate intelligibili forma quam Christus tradidit in Evangelio.
[II-II.q.66.a.6.ad.3] Reason accounts as nothing that which is little: so that a man does not consider himself injured in very little matters: and the person who takes such things can presume that this is not against the will of the owner. And if a person take such like very little things, he may be proportionately excused from mortal sin. Yet if his intention is to rob and injure his neighbor, there may be a mortal sin even in these very little things, even as there may be through consent in a mere thought.
[II-II.q.66.a.6.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod Nicolaus Papa dictum suum confirmat ex duobus præmissis. Et ideo ejus responsio patet ex primis duabus solutionibus.
Article 7
[II-II.q.66.a.7.arg.1] It would seem unlawful to steal through stress of need. For penance is not imposed except on one who has sinned. Now it is stated (Extra, De furtis, Cap. Si quis): "If anyone, through stress of hunger or nakedness, steal food, clothing or beast, he shall do penance for three weeks." Therefore it is not lawful to steal through stress of need.
[II-II.q.66.a.7.arg.1] Ad septimum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod immersio in aqua sit de necessitate baptismi. Ut enim dicitur Ephes., iv, 5, una fides, unum baptisma. Sed apud multos communis modus baptizandi est per immersionem. Ergo videtur quod non possit esse baptismus sine immersione.
[II-II.q.66.a.7.arg.2] Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 6) that "there are some actions whose very name implies wickedness," and among these he reckons theft. Now that which is wicked in itself may not be done for a good end. Therefore a man cannot lawfully steal in order to remedy a need.
[II-II.q.66.a.7.arg.2] 2. Præterea, Apostolus dicit Rom., vi, 3: Quicumque baptizati sumus in Christo Jesu, in morte ipsius baptizati sumus; consepulti enim sumus cum illo per baptismum in mortem. Sed hoc fit per immersionem; dicit enim Chrysostomus super illud Joan., III: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritus sancto, Hom. xxiv in Joan., a med.: « Sicut in quodam sepulcro in aqua submergentibus nobis capita, vetus homo sepelitur, et submersus deorsum occultatur, deinde novus rursus ascendit. » Ergo videtur quod immersio sit de necessitate baptismi.
[II-II.q.66.a.7.arg.3] Further, a man should love his neighbor as himself. Now, according to Augustine (Contra Mendac. vii), it is unlawful to steal in order to succor one's neighbor by giving him an alms. Therefore neither is it lawful to steal in order to remedy one's own needs.
[II-II.q.66.a.7.arg.3] 3. Præterea, si sine immersione totius corporis posset fieri baptismus, sequeretur quod pari ratione sufficeret quamlibet partem aqua perfundi. Sed hoc videtur inconveniens, quia originale peccatum, contra quod praecipue datur baptismus, non est in una tantum corporis parte. Ergo videtur quod requiratur immersio ad baptismum, et non sufficiat sola aspersio.
[II-II.q.66.a.7.sc] In cases of need all things are common property, so that there would seem to be no sin in taking another's property, for need has made it common.
[II-II.q.66.a.7.sc] Sed contra est quod Hebr., x, 22, dicitur: Accedamus cum vero corde in plenitudine fidei, aspersi corda a conscientia mala, et abluti corpus aqua munda.
[II-II.q.66.a.7.co] Things which are of human right cannot derogate from natural right or Divine right. Now according to the natural order established by Divine Providence, inferior things are ordained for the purpose of succoring man's needs by their means. Wherefore the division and appropriation of things which are based on human law, do not preclude the fact that man's needs have to be remedied by means of these very things. Hence whatever certain people have in superabundance is due, by natural law, to the purpose of succoring the poor. For this reason Ambrose [Loc. cit., 2, Objection 3] says, and his words are embodied in the Decretals (Dist. xlvii, can. Sicut ii): "It is the hungry man's bread that you withhold, the naked man's cloak that you store away, the money that you bury in the earth is the price of the poor man's ransom and freedom."
Since, however, there are many who are in need, while it is impossible for all to be succored by means of the same thing, each one is entrusted with the stewardship of his own things, so that out of them he may come to the aid of those who are in need. Nevertheless, if the need be so manifest and urgent, that it is evident that the present need must be remedied by whatever means be at hand (for instance when a person is in some imminent danger, and there is no other possible remedy), then it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by means of another's property, by taking it either openly or secretly: nor is this properly speaking theft or robbery.
[II-II.q.66.a.7.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod aqua assumitur in sacramento baptismi ad usum ablutionis corporalis, per quam significatur interior ablutio peccatorum. Ablutio autem fieri potest per aquam, non solum per modum immersionis, sed etiam per modum aspersionis vel effusionis. Et ideo quamvis tutius sit baptizare per modum immersionis, quia hoc habet communior usus, potest tamen fieri baptismus per modum aspersionis, vel etiam per modum effusionis, secundum illud Ezech., xxxv, 25: Effundam super vos Quidam contendunt baptismum in nomine Christi collatum esse etiam nunc validum. Probabilius est hunc baptismum aliquando valuisse, aquam mundam, sicut beatus Laurentius legitur baptizasse; et hoc praecipue propter necessitatem, vel quia est magna multitudo baptizandorum, ut patet Act., II et IV, ubi dicitur quod crediderunt una die tria millia, et alia die quinque millia. Quandoque autem potest imminere necessitas propter paucitatem aquæ, vel propter debilitatem ministri qui non potest sustentare baptizandum, vel propter debilitatem baptizandi, cui potest imminere periculum mortis ex immersione. Et ideo dicendum est quod immersio non est de necessitate baptismi.
[II-II.q.66.a.7.ad.1] This decretal considers cases where there is no urgent need.
[II-II.q.66.a.7.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod ea quæ sunt per accidens, non variant substantiam rei. Per se autem requiritu rad baptismum corporalis ablutio per aquam; unde et baptismus lavacrum nominatur, secundum illud Ephes., v, 26: Mundans eam lavacro aquæ in verbo vitæ. Sed quod fiat ablutio hoc vel illo modo, accidit baptismo. Et ideo talis diversitas non tollit unitatem baptismi.
[II-II.q.66.a.7.ad.2] It is not theft, properly speaking, to take secretly and use another's property in a case of extreme need: because that which he takes for the support of his life becomes his own property by reason of that need.
[II-II.q.66.a.7.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod in immersione expressius representatur figura sepulturæ Christi; et ideo hic modus baptizandi est communior et laudabilior. Sed in aliis modis baptizandi representatur aliquo modo, licet non ita expresse: nam quocumque modo fiat ablutio, corpus hominis, vel aliqua pars ejus aquæ supponitur, sicut corpus Christi sub terra fuit positum.
[II-II.q.66.a.7.ad.3] In a case of a like need a man may also take secretly another's property in order to succor his neighbor in need.
[II-II.q.66.a.7.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod principalis pars corporis praecipue quantum ad exteriora membra, est caput, in quo vigent omnes sensus et interiores et exteriores. Et ideo si totum corpus aqua non possit perfundi propter aquæ paucitatem, vel propter aliquam causam, oportet caput perfundere, in quo manifestatur principium animalis vitæ. Et licet per membra quæ generationi deserviunt, peccatum originale traducatur, non tamen sunt membra illa potius aspergenda quam caput, quia per baptismum non tollitur transmissio originalis in prolem per actum generationis, sed liberatur anima a macula et reatu peccati quod incurrit. Et ideo debet praecipue lavari illa pars corporis in qua manifestantur opera animæ. In veteri autem lege remedium contra originale peccatum institutum erat in membro generationis, quia adhuc ille per quem originale erat amovendum, nasciturus erat ex semine Abrahæ, cujus fidem circumcisio significabat, ut dicitur Rom., iv.
Article 8
[II-II.q.66.a.8.arg.1] It would seem that robbery may be committed without sin. For spoils are taken by violence, and this seems to belong to the essence of robbery, according to what has been said (4). Now it is lawful to take spoils from the enemy; for Ambrose says (De Patriarch. 4 [De Abraham i, 3): "When the conqueror has taken possession of the spoils, military discipline demands that all should be reserved for the sovereign," in order, to wit, that he may distribute them. Therefore in certain cases robbery is lawful.
[II-II.q.66.a.8.arg.1] Ad octavum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod trina immersio sit de necessitate baptismi. Dicit enim Augustinus in quodam Sermone de symbolo ad baptizatos, col. 1214, t. 6: «Recte tertio mersi estis qui accepistis baptismum in nomine sanctæ Trinitatis; recte tertio mersi estis qui accepistis baptismum in nomine Jesu Christi, qui etiam tertia die resurrexit a mortuis; illa enim tertio repetita immersio typum dominicæ exprimit sepulturæ, per quam Christo consepulti estis in baptismo. » Sed utrumque videtur ad necessitatem baptismi pertinere, scilicet et quod significetur in baptismo Trinitas personarum, et quod fiat configuratio ad sepulturam Christi. Ergo videtur quod trina immersio sit de necessitate baptismi.
[II-II.q.66.a.8.arg.2] Further, it is lawful to take from a man what is not his. Now the things which unbelievers have are not theirs, for Augustine says (Ep. ad Vincent. Donat. xciii.): "You falsely call things your own, for you do not possess them justly, and according to the laws of earthly kings you are commanded to forfeit them." Therefore it seems that one may lawfully rob unbelievers.
[II-II.q.66.a.8.arg.2] 2. Præterea, sacramenta ex mandato Christi efficaciam habent. Sed trina immersio est ex mandato Christi; scribit enim Pelagius Papa Gaudentio Episcopo, Decr., cap. «Multi sunt, » De consecrat., dist. IV, col. 1826: «Evangelicum praeceptum, ipso Domino Deo, et Salvatore nostro Jesu Christo tradente, nos admonet, in nomine Trinitatis trina immersione sanctum baptismum unicuique tribuere.» Ergo sicut baptizare in nomine Trinitatis est de necessitate baptismi, ita etiam baptizare trina immersione videtur esse de necessitate baptismi.
[II-II.q.66.a.8.arg.3] Further, earthly princes violently extort many things from their subjects: and this seems to savor of robbery. Now it would seem a grievous matter to say that they sin in acting thus, for in that case nearly every prince would be damned. Therefore in some cases robbery is lawful.
[II-II.q.66.a.8.arg.3] 3. Præterea, si trina immersio non sit de necessitate baptismi, ergo ad primam immersionem baptismi consequitur sacramentum. Si ergo addatur secunda vel tertia, videtur quod secundo vel tertio baptizetur; quod est inconveniens. Non ergo una immersio sufficit ad sacramen- Addit Migne «ad neophytos » tum baptismi; sed trina immersio videtur esse de necessitate ipsius.
[II-II.q.66.a.8.sc] Whatever is taken lawfully may be offered to God in sacrifice and oblation. Now this cannot be done with the proceeds of robbery, according to Isaiah 61:8, "I am the Lord that love judgment, and hate robbery in a holocaust." Therefore it is not lawful to take anything by robbery.
[II-II.q.66.a.8.sc] Sed contra est quod Gregorius dicit scribens Leandro Episcopo, in Regist., lib. I, epist. xliii, col. 498, t. 3: « Reprehensibile esse nullatenus potest infantem in baptismate vel ter vel semel mergere; quoniam et in tribus immersionibus personarum Trinitas, et in una potest Divinitatis singularitas designari. »
[II-II.q.66.a.8.co] Robbery implies a certain violence and coercion employed in taking unjustly from a man that which is his. Now in human society no man can exercise coercion except through public authority: and, consequently, if a private individual not having public authority takes another's property by violence, he acts unlawfully and commits a robbery, as burglars do. As regards princes, the public power is entrusted to them that they may be the guardians of justice: hence it is unlawful for them to use violence or coercion, save within the bounds of justice--either by fighting against the enemy, or against the citizens, by punishing evil-doers: and whatever is taken by violence of this kind is not the spoils of robbery, since it is not contrary to justice. On the other hand to take other people's property violently and against justice, in the exercise of public authority, is to act unlawfully and to be guilty of robbery; and whoever does so is bound to restitution.
[II-II.q.66.a.8.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod, sicut prius dictum est, ad baptismum per se requiritur ablutio aquæ, quæ est de necessitate sacramenti: modus autem ablutionis per accidens se habet ad sacramentum. Et ideo, sicut ex prædicta auctoritate Gregorii patet, quantum est de se, utrumque licite fieri potest, scilicet et semel et ter immergere; quia unica immersione significatur unitas mortis Christi et unitas Deitatis; per trinam autem immersionem significatur triduum sepulturæ Christi, et etiam Trinitas personarum. Sed diversis ex causis secundum ordinationem Ecclesiæ quandoque institutus est unus modus, quandoque alius; quia enim a principio nascentis Ecclesiæ quidam de Trinitate male sentiebant, Christum purum hominem esse aestimantes, nec dici Filium Dei et Deum nisi propter meritum ejus, quod præcipue fuit in morte, ideo non baptizabant in nomine Trinitatis, sed in commemoratione mortis Christi, et una immersione, quod reprobatum fuit in primitiva Ecclesia. Unde in Canonibus apostolicis, can. L, Decr. cap. Lxxix, De consecrat., dist. iv, col. 1825: « Si quis presbyter aut episcopus non trinam immersionem unius mysterii celebret, sed semel mergat in baptismate, quod dari a quibusdam jubetur in morte Domini, deponatur: non enim dixit nobis Dominus, In morte mea baptizate, sed: In nomine Patris; et Filii, et Spiritus sancti. » Postmodum vero inolevit quorumdam schismaticorum et hæreticorum error homines rebaptizantium, sicut de Donatistis Augustinus narrat, Super Joan., tract. v, etc., col. 1420, t. 3. Et ideo in detestationem erroris eorum fuit statutum in conc. Toletano IV, can. 6, Decr., cap. Lxxxv, De consecrat., dist. iv, col. 1828, quod fieret una sola immersio; ubì sic legitur: « Propter vitamum schismatis scandalum, vel hæretici dogmatis usum, simplam teneamus baptismi immersionem. » Sed cessante tali causa, communiter observatur in baptismo trina immersio. Et ideo graviter peccaret aliter baptizans, quasi ritum Ecclesiæ non observans; nihilominus tamen esset baptismus.
[II-II.q.66.a.8.ad.1] A distinction must be made in the matter of spoils. For if they who take spoils from the enemy, are waging a just war, such things as they seize in the war become their own property. This is no robbery, so that they are not bound to restitution. Nevertheless even they who are engaged in a just war may sin in taking spoils through cupidity arising from an evil intention, if, to wit, they fight chiefly not for justice but for spoil. For Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. xix; Serm. lxxxii) that "it is a sin to fight for booty." If, however, those who take the spoil, are waging an unjust war, they are guilty of robbery, and are bound to restitution.
[II-II.q.66.a.8.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod Trinitas est sicut agens principale in baptismo. Similitudo autem agentis pervenit ad effectum secundum formam, et non secundum materiam. Et ideo significatio Trinitatis fit in baptismo per verba formæ; nec est de necessitate quod significatur Trinitas per usum materiæ; sed sed hoc fit ad majorem expressionem. Similiter etiam mors Christi figuratur sufficienter in unica immersione. Triduum autem sepulturæ non est de necessitate salutis nostræ, quia etiamsi uno die fuisset sepultus vel mortuus, suffecisset ad perficiendam nostram redemptionem. Sed triduum illud ordinatur ad manifestandum veritatem mortis, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo patet quod trina immersio nec ex parte Trinitatis, nec ex parte passionis Christi est de necessitate sacramenti.
[II-II.q.66.a.8.ad.2] Unbelievers possess their goods unjustly in so far as they are ordered by the laws of earthly princes to forfeit those goods. Hence these may be taken violently from them, not by private but by public authority.
[II-II.q.66.a.8.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod Pelagius Papa intelligit trinam immersionem esse de mandato Christi in suo simili, in hoc scilicet quod Christus præcipit baptizari « in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti. » Non tamen est similis ratio de forma et de usu materiæ, ut dictum est.
[II-II.q.66.a.8.ad.3] It is no robbery if princes exact from their subjects that which is due to them for the safe-guarding of the common good, even if they use violence in so doing: but if they extort something unduly by means of violence, it is robbery even as burglary is. Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei iv, 4): "If justice be disregarded, what is a king but a mighty robber? since what is a robber but a little king?" And it is written (Ezekiel 22:27): "Her princes in the midst of her, are like wolves ravening the prey." Wherefore they are bound to restitution, just as robbers are, and by so much do they sin more grievously than robbers, as their actions are fraught with greater and more universal danger to public justice whose wardens they are.
[II-II.q.66.a.8.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod, sicut supra dictum est, intentio requiritur ad baptismum. Et ideo ex intentione ministri Ecclesiæ, qui intendit unum baptismum dare trina immersione, efficitur unum baptisma. Unde Hieronymus dicit Super IV ad Ephes. v. 5, col. 496, t. 7: « Licet ter baptizemur, id est, immergamur, propter mysterium Trinitatis, tamen unum baptisma reputatur. » Si vero intenderet ad unamquamque immersionem unum baptismum dare, ad singulas immersiones repetens verbaformæ, peccaret, quantum in se est, pluries baptizans.
JSON: /api/sources/opera-omnia-aquinas/summa-theologiae/secunda-secundae/q066.json