Ad quartum dicendum quod Christus non est usus Baptismo quem ipse instituit, sed est baptizatus Baptismo Ioannis, ut supra dictum est. Sed nec active usus est suo ministerio, quia ipse non baptizabat communiter, sed discipuli eius, ut dicitur Ioan. IV; quamvis credendum videtur quod discipulos baptizaverit, ut Augustinus dicit, ad Seleucianum. Usus autem huius sacramenti, ab eo instituti, nullo modo competebat, neque quantum ad hoc quod ipse poeniteret, in quo peccatum non fuit; neque quantum ad hoc quod hoc sacramentum aliis praeberet, quia, ad ostendendum misericordiam et virtutem suam, effectum huius sacramenti sine sacramento praebebat, ut supra dictum est. Sacramentum autem Eucharistiae et ipse sumpsit, et aliis dedit. Tum ad commendandam excellentiam huius sacramenti. Tum quia hoc sacramentum est memoriale suae passionis, inquantum Christus est sacerdos et hostia. Reply Obj. 4: Christ did not use the Baptism which He instituted, but was baptized with the baptism of John, as stated above (Q. 39, AA. 1, 2). Nor did He use it actively by administering it Himself, because He did not baptize as a rule, but His disciples did, as related in John 4:2, although it is to be believed that He baptized His disciples, as Augustine asserts (Ep. cclxv, ad Seleuc.). But with regard to His institution of this sacrament it was nowise fitting that He should use it, neither by repenting Himself, in Whom there was no sin, nor by administering the sacrament to others, since, in order to show His mercy and power, He was wont to confer the effect of this sacrament without the sacrament itself, as stated above (A. 5, ad 3). On the other hand, He both received and gave to others the sacrament of the Eucharist, both in order to commend the excellence of that sacrament, and because that sacrament is a memorial of His Passion, in which Christ is both priest and victim. Articulus 8 Article 8 Utrum poenitentia debeat durare usque ad finem vitae Whether penance should last till the end of life? Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod poenitentia non debeat durare usque ad finem vitae. Poenitentia enim ordinatur ad deletionem peccati. Sed poenitens statim consequitur remissionem peccatorum, secundum illud Ezech. XVIII, si poenitentiam egerit impius ab omnibus peccatis suis quae operatus est, vita vivet et non morietur. Ergo non oportet ulterius poenitentiam protendi. Objection 1: It would seem that penance should not last till the end of life. Because penance is ordained for the blotting out of sin. Now the penitent receives forgiveness of his sins at once, according to Ezech. 18:21: If the wicked do penance for all his sins which he hath committed . . . he shall live and shall not die. Therefore there is no need for penance to be further prolonged. Praeterea, agere poenitentiam pertinet ad statum incipientium. Sed homo de hoc statu debet procedere ad statum proficientium, et ulterius ad statum perfectorum. Ergo non debet homo poenitentiam agere usque ad finem vitae. Obj. 2: Further, penance belongs to the state of beginners. But man ought to advance from that state to the state of the proficient, and, from this, on to the state of the perfect. Therefore man need not do penance till the end of his life. Praeterea, sicut in aliis sacramentis homo debet conservare statuta Ecclesiae, ita et in hoc sacramento. Sed secundum canones determinata sunt tempora poenitendi, ut scilicet ille qui hoc vel illud peccatum commiserit, tot annis poeniteat. Ergo videtur quod non sit poenitentia extendenda usque ad finem vitae. Obj. 3: Further, man is bound to observe the laws of the Church in this as in the other sacraments. But the duration of repentance is fixed by the canons, so that, to wit, for such and such a sin one is bound to do penance for so many years. Therefore it seems that penance should not be prolonged till the end of life. Sed contra est quod dicit Augustinus, in libro de poenitentia, quid restat nobis nisi dolere in vita? Ubi enim dolor finitur, deficit poenitentia. Si vero poenitentia finitur, quid derelinquitur de venia? On the contrary, Augustine says in his book, De Poenitentia: What remains for us to do, save to sorrow ever in this life? For when sorrow ceases, repentance fails; and if repentance fails, what becomes of pardon? Respondeo dicendum quod duplex est poenitentia, scilicet interior, et exterior. Interior quidem poenitentia est qua quis dolet de peccato commisso. Et talis poenitentia debet durare usque ad finem vitae. Semper enim debet homini displicere quod peccavit, si enim ei placeret peccasse, iam ex hoc ipso peccatum incurreret, et fructus veniae perderet. Displicentia autem dolorem causat in eo qui est susceptivus doloris, qualis est homo in hac vita. Post hanc vitam autem sancti non sunt susceptivi doloris. Unde displicebunt eis peccata praeterita sine omni tristitia, secundum illud Isaiae LXV, oblivioni traditae sunt angustiae priores. I answer that, penance is twofold, internal and external. Internal penance is that whereby one grieves for a sin one has committed, and this penance should last until the end of life. Because man should always be displeased at having sinned, for if he were to be pleased thereat, he would for this very reason fall into sin and lose the fruit of pardon. Now displeasure causes sorrow in one who is susceptible to sorrow, as man is in this life; but after this life the saints are not susceptible to sorrow, wherefore they will be displeased at, without sorrowing for, their past sins, according to Isa. 65:16. The former distresses are forgotten. Poenitentia vero exterior est qua quis exteriora signa doloris ostendit, et verbotenus confitetur peccata sua sacerdoti absolventi, et iuxta eius arbitrium satisfacit. Et talis poenitentia non oportet quod duret usque ad finem vitae, sed usque ad determinatum tempus, secundum mensuram peccati. External penance is that whereby a man shows external signs of sorrow, confesses his sins verbally to the priest who absolves him, and makes satisfaction for his sins according to the judgment of the priest. Such penance need not last until the end of life, but only for a fixed time according to the measure of the sin. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod vera poenitentia non solum removet peccata praeterita, sed etiam praeservat eum a peccatis futuris. Quamvis igitur homo in primo instanti verae poenitentiae remissionem consequatur praeteritorum peccatorum, oportet tamen in homine perseverare poenitentiam, ne iterum incidat in peccatum. Reply Obj. 1: True penance not only removes past sins, but also preserves man from future sins. Consequently, although a man receives forgiveness of past sins in the first instant of his true penance, nevertheless he must persevere in his penance, lest he fall again into sin. Ad secundum dicendum quod agere poenitentiam interiorem simul et exteriorem pertinet ad statum incipientium, qui scilicet de novo redeunt a peccato. Sed poenitentia interior habet locum etiam in proficientibus et perfectis, secundum illud Psalmi, ascensiones in corde suo disposuit in valle lacrimarum. Unde et ipse Paulus dicebat, I Cor. XV, non sum dignus vocari apostolus, quoniam persecutus sum Ecclesiam Dei. Reply Obj. 2: To do penance both internal and external belongs to the state of beginners, of those, to wit, who are making a fresh start from the state of sin. But there is room for internal penance even in the proficient and the perfect, according to Ps. 83:7: In his heart he hath disposed to ascend by steps, in the vale of tears. Wherefore Paul says (1 Cor 15:9): I . . . am not worthy to be called an apostle because I persecuted the Church of God. Ad tertium dicendum quod illa tempora praefiguntur poenitentibus quantum ad actionem exterioris poenitentiae. Reply Obj. 3: These durations of time are fixed for penitents as regards the exercise of external penance. Articulus 9 Article 9 Utrum poenitentia possit esse continua Whether penance can be continuous? Ad nonum sic proceditur. Videtur quod poenitentia non possit esse continua. Dicitur enim Ierem. XXXI, quiescat vox tua a ploratu, et oculi tui a lacrimis. Sed hoc esse non posset si poenitentia continuaretur, quae consistit in ploratu et lacrimis. Ergo poenitentia non potest continuari. Objection 1: It would seem that penance cannot be continuous. For it is written (Jer 31:16): Let thy voice cease from weeping, and thy eyes from tears. But this would be impossible if penance were continuous, for it consists in weeping and tears. Therefore penance cannot be continuous. Praeterea, de quolibet bono opere debet homo gaudere, secundum illud Psalmi, servite domino in laetitia. Sed agere poenitentiam est bonum opus. Ergo de hoc ipso debet homo gaudere. Sed non potest homo simul tristari et gaudere, ut patet per philosophum, IX Ethic. Ergo non potest esse quod poenitens simul tristetur de peccatis praeteritis, quod pertinet ad rationem poenitentiae. Obj. 2: Further, man ought to rejoice at every good work, according to Ps. 99:1: Serve ye the Lord with gladness. Now to do penance is a good work. Therefore man should rejoice at it. But man cannot rejoice and grieve at the same time, as the Philosopher declares (Ethic. ix, 4). Therefore a penitent cannot grieve continually for his past sins, which is essential to penance. Therefore penance cannot be continuous. Praeterea, II ad Cor. II, apostolus dicit, consolemini, scilicet poenitentem, ne forte abundantiori tristitia absorbeatur qui est huiusmodi. Sed consolatio depellit tristitiam, quae pertinet ad rationem poenitentiae. Ergo poenitentia non debet esse continua. Obj. 3: Further, the Apostle says (2 Cor 2:7): Comfort him, viz. the penitent, lest perhaps such an one be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. But comfort dispels grief, which is essential to penance. Therefore penance need not be continuous. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro de poenitentia, dolor in poenitentia continue custodiatur. On the contrary, Augustine says in his book De Poenitentia: In doing penance grief should be continual. Respondeo dicendum quod poenitere dicitur dupliciter, scilicet secundum actum, et secundum habitum. Actu quidem impossibile est quod homo continue poeniteat, quia necesse est quod actus poenitentis, sive interior sive exterior, interpoletur, ad minus somno et aliis quae ad necessitatem corporis pertinent. Alio modo dicitur poenitere secundum habitum. Et sic oportet quod homo continue poeniteat, et quantum ad hoc quod homo nunquam aliquid contrarium faciat poenitentiae, per quod habitualis dispositio poenitentis tollatur; et quantum ad hoc quod debet in proposito gerere quod semper sibi peccata praeterita displiceant. I answer that, One is said to repent in two ways, actually and habitually. It is impossible for a man continually to repent actually, for the acts, whether internal or external, of a penitent must needs be interrupted by sleep and other things which the body needs. Second, a man is said to repent habitually. And thus he should repent continually, both by never doing anything contrary to penance, so as to destroy the habitual disposition of the penitent, and by being resolved that his past sins should always be displeasing to him. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ploratus et lacrimae ad actum exterioris poenitentiae pertinent, qui non solum non debet esse continuus, sed nec etiam oportet quod duret usque ad finem vitae, ut dictum est. Unde et signanter ibi subditur quod est merces operi tuo. Est autem merces operis poenitentis plena remissio peccati et quantum ad culpam et quantum ad poenam, post cuius consecutionem non est necesse quod homo ulterius exteriorem poenitentiam agat. Per hoc tamen non excluditur continuitas poenitentiae qualis dicta est. Reply Obj. 1: Weeping and tears belong to the act of external penance, and this act needs neither to be continuous, nor to last until the end of life, as stated above (A. 8): wherefore it is significantly added: For there is a reward for thy work. Now the reward of the penitent’s work is the full remission of sin both as to guilt and as to punishment; and after receiving this reward there is no need for man to proceed to acts of external penance. This, however, does not prevent penance being continual, as explained above. Ad secundum dicendum quod de dolore et gaudio dupliciter loqui possumus. Uno modo, secundum quod sunt passiones appetitus sensitivi. Et sic nullo modo possunt esse simul, eo quod sunt omnino contrariae, vel ex parte obiecti, puta cum sunt de eodem; vel saltem ex parte motus cordis, nam gaudium est cum dilatatione cordis, tristitia vero cum constrictione. Et hoc modo loquitur philosophus in IX Ethicorum. Alio modo loqui possumus de gaudio et tristitia secundum quod consistunt in simplici actu voluntatis, cui aliquid placet vel displicet. Et secundum hoc, non possunt habere contrarietatem nisi ex parte obiecti, puta cum sunt de eodem et secundum idem. Et sic non possunt simul esse gaudium et tristitia, quia non potest simul idem secundum idem placere et displicere. Si vero gaudium et tristitia sic accepta non sint de eodem et secundum idem, sed vel de diversis vel de eodem secundum diversa, sic non est contrarietas gaudii et tristitiae. Unde nihil prohibet hominem simul gaudere et tristari, puta, si videamus iustum affligi, simul placet nobis eius iustitia, et displicet afflictio. Et hoc modo potest alicui displicere quod peccavit, et placere quod hoc ei displicet cum spe veniae, ita quod ipsa tristitia sit materia gaudii. Unde et Augustinus dicit, in libro de poenitentia, semper doleat poenitens, et de dolore gaudeat. Reply Obj. 2: Of sorrow and joy we may speak in two ways: first, as being passions of the sensitive appetite; and thus they can nowise be together, since they are altogether contrary to one another, either on the part of the object (as when they have the same object), or at least on the part of the movement, for joy is with expansion of the heart, whereas sorrow is with contraction; and it is in this sense that the Philosopher speaks in Ethic. ix. Second, we may speak of joy and sorrow as being simple acts of the will, to which something is pleasing or displeasing. Accordingly, they cannot be contrary to one another, except on the part of the object, as when they concern the same object in the same respect, in which way joy and sorrow cannot be simultaneous, because the same thing in the same respect cannot be pleasing and displeasing. If, on the other hand, joy and sorrow, understood thus, be not of the same object in the same respect, but either of different objects, or of the same object in different respects, in that case joy and sorrow are not contrary to one another, so that nothing hinders a man from being joyful and sorrowful at the same time—for instance, if we see a good man suffer, we both rejoice at his goodness and at the same time grieve for his suffering. In this way a man may be displeased at having sinned, and be pleased at his displeasure together with his hope for pardon, so that his very sorrow is a matter of joy. Hence Augustine says: The penitent should ever grieve and rejoice at his grief. Si tamen tristitia nullo modo compateretur sibi gaudium, per hoc non tolleretur habitualis continuitas poenitentiae, sed actualis. If, however, sorrow were altogether incompatible with joy, this would prevent the continuance, not of habitual penance, but only of actual penance. Ad tertium dicendum quod, secundum philosophum, in II Ethic., ad virtutem pertinet tenere medium in passionibus. Tristitia autem quae in appetitu poenitentis sensitivo consequitur ex displicentia voluntatis, passio quaedam est. Unde moderanda est secundum virtutem, et eius superfluitas est vitiosa, quia inducit in desperationem. Quod significat apostolus ibidem dicens, ne maiori tristitia absorbeatur qui eiusmodi est. Et sic consolatio de qua ibi apostolus loquitur, est moderativa tristitiae, non autem totaliter ablativa. Reply Obj. 3: According to the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 3, 6, 7, 9) it belongs to virtue to establish the mean in the passions. Now the sorrow which, in the sensitive appetite of the penitent, arises from the displeasure of his will, is a passion; wherefore it should be moderated according to virtue, and if it be excessive it is sinful, because it leads to despair, as the Apostle teaches (2 Cor 2:7), saying: Lest such an one be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Accordingly comfort, of which the Apostle speaks, moderates sorrow but does not destroy it altogether. Articulus 10 Article 10 Utrum sacramentum poenitentiae debeat iterari Whether the sacrament of penance may be repeated? Ad decimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod sacramentum poenitentiae non debeat iterari. Dicit enim apostolus, Heb. VI, impossibile est eos qui semel illuminati sunt, et gustaverunt donum caeleste, et participes facti sunt spiritus sancti, et prolapsi sunt, rursus renovari ad poenitentiam. Sed quicumque poenituerunt, sunt illuminati, et acceperunt donum spiritus sancti. Ergo quicumque peccat post poenitentiam, non potest iterato poenitere. Objection 1: It would seem that the sacrament of penance should not be repeated. For the Apostle says (Heb 6:4, seqq.): It is impossible for those, who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit . . . and are fallen away, to be renewed again to penance. Now whosoever have done penance, have been illuminated, and have received the gift of the Holy Spirit. Therefore whosoever sin after doing penance, cannot do penance again. Praeterea, Ambrosius dicit, in libro de poenitentia, reperiuntur qui saepius agendam poenitentiam putant. Qui luxuriantur in Christo. Nam, si vere poenitentiam agerent, iterandam postea non putarent, quia, sicut unum est Baptisma, ita una poenitentia. Sed Baptismus non iteratur. Ergo nec poenitentia. Obj. 2: Further, Ambrose says (De Poenit. ii): Some are to be found who think they ought often to do penance, who take liberties with Christ: for if they were truly penitent, they would not think of doing penance over again, since there is but one penance even as there is but one Baptism. Now Baptism is not repeated. Neither, therefore, is penance to be repeated. Praeterea, miracula quibus dominus infirmitates corporales sanavit, significant sanationes spiritualium infirmitatum, quibus scilicet homines liberantur a peccatis. Sed non legitur quod dominus aliquem caecum bis illuminaverit, vel aliquem leprosum bis mundaverit, aut aliquem mortuum bis suscitaverit. Ergo videtur quod nec alicui peccatori bis per poenitentiam veniam largiatur. Obj. 3: Further, the miracles whereby our Lord healed bodily diseases, signify the healing of spiritual diseases, whereby men are delivered from sins. Now we do not read that our Lord restored the sight to any blind man twice, or that He cleansed any leper twice, or twice raised any dead man to life. Therefore it seems that He does not twice grant pardon to any sinner. Praeterea, Gregorius dicit, in homilia Quadragesimae, poenitentia est anteacta peccata deflere, et flenda iterum non committere. Et Isidorus dicit, in libro de summo bono, irrisor est, et non poenitens, qui adhuc agit quod poenitet. Si ergo aliquis vere poeniteat, iterum non peccabit. Ergo non potest quod poenitentia iteretur. Obj. 4: Further, Gregory says (Hom. xxxiv in Evang.): penance consists in deploring past sins, and in not committing again those we have deplored: and Isidore says (De Summo Bono ii): He is a mocker and no penitent who still does what he has repented of. If, therefore, a man is truly penitent, he will not sin again. Therefore penance cannot be repeated. Praeterea, sicut Baptismus habet efficaciam ex passione Christi, ita et poenitentia. Sed Baptismus non iteratur, propter unitatem passionis et mortis Christi. Ergo pari ratione et poenitentia non iteratur. Obj. 5: Further, just as Baptism derives its efficacy from the Passion of Christ, so does penance. Now Baptism is not repeated, on account of the unity of Christ’s Passion and death. Therefore in like manner penance is not repeated. Praeterea, Gregorius dicit, facilitas veniae incentivum praebet delinquendi. Si ergo Deus frequenter veniam praebet per poenitentiam, videtur quod ipse incentivum praebeat hominibus delinquendi, et sic videtur delectari in peccatis. Quod eius bonitati non congruit. Non ergo potest poenitentia iterari. Obj. 6: Further, Ambrose says on Ps. 118:58, I entreated Thy face, etc., that facility of obtaining pardon is an incentive to sin. If, therefore, God frequently grants pardon through penance, it seems that He affords man an incentive to sin, and thus He seems to take pleasure in sin, which is contrary to His goodness. Therefore penance cannot be repeated. Sed contra est quod homo inducitur ad misericordiam exemplo divinae misericordiae, secundum illud Luc. VI, estote misericordes, sicut et pater vester misericors est. Sed dominus hanc misericordiam discipulis imponit, ut saepius remittant fratribus contra se peccantibus, unde, sicut dicitur Matth. XVIII, Petro quaerenti, quoties peccaverit in me frater meus, dimittam ei usque septies? Respondit Iesus, non dico tibi usque septies, sed usque septuagesies septies. Ergo etiam Deus saepius per poenitentiam veniam peccantibus praebet, praesertim cum doceat nos petere, dimitte nobis debita nostra sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris. On the contrary, Man is induced to be merciful by the example of Divine mercy, according to Luke 6:36: Be ye . . . merciful, as your Father also is merciful. Now our Lord commanded His disciples to be merciful by frequently pardoning their brethren who had sinned against them; wherefore, as related in Matt. 18:21, when Peter asked: How often shall my brother offend against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus answered: I say not to thee, till seven times, but till seventy times seven times. Therefore also God over and over again, through penance, grants pardon to sinners, especially as He teaches us to pray (Matt 6:12): Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us. Respondeo dicendum quod circa poenitentiam erraverunt quidam dicentes non posse hominem per poenitentiam secundo consequi veniam peccatorum. Quorum quidam, scilicet Novatiani, hoc in tantum extenderunt quod dixerunt post primam poenitentiam quae agitur in Baptismo, peccantes non posse per poenitentiam iterato restitui. Alii vero fuerunt haeretici, ut Augustinus dicit, in libro de poenitentia, qui post Baptismum dicebant quidem esse utilem poenitentiam, non tamen pluries, sed semel tantum. I answer that, As regards penance, some have erred, saying that a man cannot obtain pardon of his sins through penance a second time. Some of these, viz. the Novatians, went so far as to say that he who sins after the first penance which is done in Baptism, cannot be restored again through penance. There were also other heretics who, as Augustine relates in De Poenitentia, said that, after Baptism, penance is useful, not many times, but only once. Videntur autem huiusmodi errores ex duobus processisse. Primo quidem, ex eo quod errabant circa rationem verae poenitentiae. Cum enim ad veram poenitentiam caritas requiratur, sine qua non delentur peccata, credebant quod caritas semel habita non possit amitti, et per consequens quod poenitentia, si sit vera, nunquam per peccatum tollatur, ut sit necesse eam iterari. Sed hoc improbatum est in secunda parte, ubi ostensum est quod caritas semel habita, propter libertatem arbitrii, potest amitti; et per consequens post veram poenitentiam potest aliquis peccare mortaliter. Secundo, ex eo quod errabant circa aestimationem gravitatis peccati. Putabant enim adeo grave esse peccatum quod aliquis committit post veniam impetratam, quod non sit possibile ipsum remitti. In quo quidem errabant et ex parte peccati, quod, etiam post remissionem consecutam, potest esse et gravius et levius etiam quam fuerit ipsum primum peccatum remissum, et multo magis contra infinitatem divinae misericordiae, quae est super omnem numerum et magnitudinem peccatorum, secundum illud Psalmi, miserere mei, Deus, secundum magnam misericordiam tuam, et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum, dele iniquitatem meam. Unde reprobatur verbum Caini dicentis, Genes. IV, maior est iniquitas mea quam ut veniam merear. Et ideo misericordia Dei peccantibus per poenitentiam veniam praebet absque ullo termino. Unde dicitur II Paralip. ult., immensa et investigabilis misericordia promissionis tuae super malitias hominum. Unde manifestum est quod poenitentia est pluries iterabilis. These errors seem to have arisen from a twofold source: first from not knowing the nature of true penance. For since true penance requires charity, without which sins are not taken away, they thought that charity once possessed could not be lost, and that, consequently, penance, if true, could never be removed by sin, so that it should be necessary to repeat it. But this was refuted in the Second Part (II, Q. 24, A. 11), where it was shown that on account of free-will charity, once possessed, can be lost, and that, consequently, after true penance, a man can sin mortally.—Second, they erred in their estimation of the gravity of sin. For they deemed a sin committed by a man after he had received pardon, to be so grave that it could not be forgiven. In this they erred not only with regard to sin which, even after a sin has been forgiven, can be either more or less grievous than the first, which was forgiven, but much more did they err against the infinity of Divine mercy, which surpasses any number and magnitude of sins, according to Ps. 50:1, 2: Have mercy on me, O God, according to Thy great mercy: and according to the multitude of Thy tender mercies, blot out my iniquity. Wherefore the words of Cain were reprehensible, when he said (Gen 4:13): My iniquity is greater than that I may deserve pardon. And so God’s mercy, through penance, grants pardon to sinners without any end, wherefore it is written (2 Chr 37): Thy merciful promise is unmeasurable and unsearchable . . . (and Thou repentest) for the evil brought upon man. It is therefore evident that penance can be repeated many times. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, quia apud Iudaeos erant secundum legem quaedam lavacra instituta, quibus pluries se ab immunditiis purgabant, credebant aliqui Iudaeorum quod etiam per lavacrum Baptismi aliquis pluries purificari possit. Ad quod excludendum, apostolus scribit Hebraeis quod impossibile est eos qui semel sunt illuminati, scilicet per Baptismum, rursum renovari ad poenitentiam, scilicet per Baptismum, qui est lavacrum regenerationis et renovationis spiritus sancti, ut dicitur ad Tit. III. Et rationem assignat ex hoc quod per Baptismum homo Christo commoritur, unde sequitur, rursum crucifigentes in semetipsis filium Dei. Reply Obj. 1: Some of the Jews thought that a man could be washed several times in the laver of Baptism, because among them the Law prescribed certain washing-places where they were wont to cleanse themselves repeatedly from their uncleannesses. In order to disprove this the Apostle wrote to the Hebrews that it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, viz. through Baptism, to be renewed again to penance, viz. through Baptism, which is the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Spirit, as stated in Titus 3:5: and he declares the reason to be that by Baptism man dies with Christ, wherefore he adds (Heb 6:6): Crucifying again to themselves the Son of God. Ad secundum dicendum quod Ambrosius loquitur de poenitentia solemni, quae in Ecclesia non iteratur, ut infra dicetur. Reply Obj. 2: Ambrose is speaking of solemn penance, which is not repeated in the Church, as we shall state further on (Suppl., Q. 28, A. 2).