Ad nonum dicendum quod Evangelistae non intendebant tradere formas sacramentorum, quas in primitiva Ecclesia oportebat esse occultas, ut dicit Dionysius, in fine ecclesiasticae hierarchiae. Sed intenderunt historiam de Christo texere. Et tamen omnia haec verba fere ex diversis Scripturae locis accipi possunt. Nam quod dicitur, hic est calix, habetur Luc. XXII et I Cor. XI. Matthaei autem XXVI dicitur, hic est sanguis meus novi testamenti, qui pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Quod autem additur, aeterni, et iterum, mysterium fidei, ex traditione domini habetur, quae ad Ecclesiam per apostolos pervenit, secundum illud I Cor. XI, ego accepi a domino quod et tradidi vobis. Reply Obj. 9: The Evangelists did not intend to hand down the forms of the sacraments, which in the primitive Church had to be kept concealed, as Dionysius observes at the close of his book on the ecclesiastical hierarchy; their object was to write the story of Christ. Nevertheless nearly all these words can be culled from various passages of the Scriptures. Because the words, This is the chalice, are found in Luke 22:20, and 1 Cor. 11:25, while Matthew says in chapter 26:28: This is My blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins. The words added, namely, eternal and mystery of faith, were handed down to the Church by the apostles, who received them from our Lord, according to 1 Cor. 11:23: I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you. Articulus 4 Article 4 Utrum praedictis verbis formarum insit aliqua vis creata effectiva consecrationis Whether in the aforesaid words of the forms there be any created power which causes the consecration? Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod praedictis verbis formarum non insit aliqua vis creata effectiva consecrationis. Dicit enim Damascenus, in IV libro, sola virtute spiritus sancti fit conversio panis in corpus Christi. Sed virtus spiritus sancti est virtus increata. Ergo nulla virtute creata horum verborum conficitur sacramentum hoc. Objection 1: It seems that in the aforesaid words of the forms there is no created power which causes the consecration. Because Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): The change of the bread into Christ’s body is caused solely by the power of the Holy Spirit. But the power of the Holy Spirit is uncreated. Therefore this sacrament is not caused by any created power of those words. Praeterea, opera miraculosa non fiunt aliqua virtute creata, sed sola virtute divina, ut in prima parte habitum est. Sed conversio panis et vini in corpus et sanguinem Christi est opus non minus miraculosum quam creatio rerum, vel etiam formatio corporis Christi in utero virginali, quae quidem nulla virtute creata fieri potuerunt. Ergo neque hoc sacramentum consecratur virtute creata aliqua dictorum verborum. Obj. 2: Further, miraculous works are wrought not by any created power, but solely by Divine power, as was stated in the First Part (Q. 110, A. 4). But the change of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood is a work not less miraculous than the creation of things, or than the formation of Christ’s body in the womb of a virgin: which things could not be done by any created power. Therefore, neither is this sacrament consecrated by any created power of the aforesaid words. Praeterea, praedicta verba non sunt simplicia, sed ex multis composita; nec simul, sed successive proferuntur. Conversio autem praedicta, ut supra dictum est, fit in instanti, unde oportet quod fiat per simplicem virtutem. Non ergo fit per virtutem horum verborum. Obj. 3: Further, the aforesaid words are not simple, but composed of many; nor are they uttered simultaneously, but successively. But, as stated above (Q. 75, A. 7), this change is wrought instantaneously. Hence it must be done by a simple power. Therefore it is not effected by the power of those words. Sed contra est quod Ambrosius dicit, in libro de sacramentis, si tanta est vis in sermone domini Iesu ut inciperet esse quod non erat, quanto magis operativus est ut sint quae erant, et in aliud commutentur? Et sic quod erat panis ante consecrationem, iam corpus Christi est post consecrationem, quia sermo Christi creaturam mutat. On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): If there be such might in the word of the Lord Jesus that things non-existent came into being, how much more efficacious is it to make things existing to continue, and to be changed into something else? And so, what was bread before consecration is now the body of Christ after consecration, because Christ’s word changes a creature into something different. Respondeo dicendum quod quidam dixerunt nullam virtutem creatam esse nec in praedictis verbis ad transubstantiationem faciendam, nec etiam in aliis sacramentorum formis, vel etiam in ipsis sacramentis ad inducendos sacramentorum effectus. Quod, sicut supra dictum est, et dictis sanctorum repugnat, et derogat dignitati sacramentorum novae legis. Unde, cum hoc sacramentum sit prae ceteris dignius, sicut supra dictum est, consequens est quod in verbis formalibus huius sacramenti sit quaedam virtus creata ad conversionem huius sacramenti faciendam, instrumentalis tamen, sicut et in aliis sacramentis, sicut supra dictum est. Cum enim haec verba ex persona Christi proferantur, ex eius mandato consequuntur virtutem instrumentalem a Christo, sicut et cetera eius facta vel dicta habent instrumentaliter salutiferam virtutem, ut supra habitum est. I answer that, Some have maintained that neither in the above words is there any created power for causing the transubstantiation, nor in the other forms of the sacraments, or even in the sacraments themselves, for producing the sacramental effects. This, as was shown above (Q. 62, A. 1), is both contrary to the teachings of the saints, and detracts from the dignity of the sacraments of the New Law. Hence, since this sacrament is of greater worth than the others, as stated above (Q. 65, A. 3), the result is that there is in the words of the form of this sacrament a created power which causes the change to be wrought in it: instrumental, however, as in the other sacraments, as stated above (Q. 62, AA. 3, 4). For since these words are uttered in the person of Christ, it is from His command that they receive their instrumental power from Him, just as His other deeds and sayings derive their salutary power instrumentally, as was observed above (Q. 48, A. 6; Q. 56, A. 1, ad 3). Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, cum dicitur sola virtute spiritus sancti panem in corpus Christi converti, non excluditur virtus instrumentalis quae est in forma huius sacramenti, sicut, cum dicitur quod solus faber facit cultellum, non excluditur virtus martelli. Reply Obj. 1: When the bread is said to be changed into Christ’s body solely by the power of the Holy Spirit, the instrumental power which lies in the form of this sacrament is not excluded: just as when we say that the smith alone makes a knife we do not deny the power of the hammer. Ad secundum dicendum quod opera miraculosa nulla creatura potest facere quasi agens principale, potest tamen ea facere instrumentaliter, sicut ipse tactus manus Christi sanavit leprosum. Et per hunc modum verba eius convertunt panem in corpus Christi. Quod quidem non potuit in conceptione corporis Christi, qua corpus Christi formabatur, ut aliquid a corpore Christi procedens haberet instrumentalem virtutem ad ipsius corporis formationem. In creatione etiam non fuit aliquod extremum in quod instrumentalis actio creaturae posset terminari. Unde non est simile. Reply Obj. 2: No creature can work miracles as the chief agent. Yet it can do so instrumentally, just as the touch of Christ’s hand healed the leper. And in this fashion Christ’s words change the bread into His body. But in Christ’s conception, whereby His body was fashioned, it was impossible for anything derived from His body to have the instrumental power of forming that very body. Likewise in creation there was no term wherein the instrumental action of a creature could be received. Consequently there is no comparison. Ad tertium dicendum quod praedicta verba quibus fit consecratio, sacramentaliter operantur. Unde vis conversiva quae est in formis horum sacramentorum, sequitur significationem, quae in prolatione ultimae dictionis terminatur. Et ideo in ultimo instanti prolationis verborum praedicta verba consequuntur hanc virtutem, in ordine tamen ad praecedentia. Et haec virtus est simplex ratione significati, licet in ipsis verbis exterius prolatis fit quaedam compositio. Reply Obj. 3: The aforesaid words, which work the consecration, operate sacramentally. Consequently, the converting power latent under the forms of these sacraments follows the meaning, which is terminated in the uttering of the last word. And therefore the aforesaid words have this power in the last instant of their being uttered, taken in conjunction with those uttered before. And this power is simple by reason of the thing signified, although there be composition in the words uttered outwardly. Articulus 5 Article 5 Utrum praedictae locutiones sunt verae Whether the aforesaid expressions are true? Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod praedictae locutiones non sunt verae. Cum enim dicitur, hoc est corpus meum, ly hoc est demonstrativum substantiae. Sed secundum praedicta, quando profertur hoc pronomen hoc, adhuc est substantia panis, quia transubstantiatio fit in ultimo prolationis verborum. Sed haec est falsa, panis est corpus Christi. Ergo etiam haec est falsa, hoc est corpus meum. Objection 1: It seems that the aforesaid expressions are not true. Because when we say: This is My body, the word this designates a substance. But according to what was said above (AA. 1, 4, ad 3; Q. 75, AA. 2, 7), when the pronoun this is spoken, the substance of the bread is still there, because the transubstantiation takes place in the last instant of pronouncing the words. But it is false to say: Bread is Christ’s body. Consequently this expression, This is My body, is false. Praeterea, hoc pronomen hoc facit demonstrationem ad sensum. Sed species sensibiles quae sunt in hoc sacramento neque sunt ipsum corpus Christi, neque sunt accidentia corporis Christi. Ergo haec locutio non potest esse vera, hoc est corpus meum. Obj. 2: Further, the pronoun this appeals to the senses. But the sensible species in this sacrament are neither Christ’s body nor even its accidents. Therefore this expression, This is My body, cannot be true. Praeterea, haec verba, sicut supra dictum est, sua significatione efficiunt conversionem panis in corpus Christi. Sed causa effectiva praeintelligitur effectui. Ergo significatio horum verborum praeintelligitur conversioni panis in corpus Christi. Sed ante conversionem haec est falsa, hoc est corpus meum. Ergo simpliciter est iudicandum quod sit falsa. Et eadem ratio est de hac locutione, hic est calix sanguinis mei et cetera. Obj. 3: Further, as was observed above (A. 4, ad 3), these words, by their signification, effect the change of the bread into the body of Christ. But an effective cause is understood as preceding its effect. Therefore the meaning of these words is understood as preceding the change of the bread into the body of Christ. But previous to the change this expression, This is My body, is false. Therefore the expression is to be judged as false simply; and the same reason holds good of the other phrase: This is the chalice of My blood, etc. Sed contra est quod haec verba proferuntur ex persona Christi, qui de se dicit, Ioan. XIV, ego sum veritas. On the contrary, These words are pronounced in the person of Christ, Who says of Himself (John 14:6): I am the truth. Respondeo dicendum quod circa hoc multiplex fuit opinio. Quidam enim dixerunt quod in hac locutione, hoc est corpus meum, haec dictio hoc importat demonstrationem ut conceptam, non ut exercitam, quia tota ista locutio sumitur materialiter, cum recitative proferatur; recitat enim sacerdos Christum dixisse, hoc est corpus meum. I answer that, There have been many opinions on this point. Some have said that in this expression, This is My body, the word this implies demonstration as conceived, and not as exercised, because the whole phrase is taken materially, since it is uttered by a way of narration: for the priest relates that Christ said: This is My body. Sed hoc stare non potest. Quia secundum hoc, verba non applicarentur ad materiam corporalem praesentem, et ita non perficeretur sacramentum, dicit enim Augustinus, super Ioan., accedit verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum. Et ex hoc totaliter non evitatur difficultas huius quaestionis, quia eaedem rationes manent circa primam prolationem qua Christus haec verba protulit; quia manifestum est quod non materialiter, sed significative sumebantur. Et ideo dicendum est quod etiam quando proferuntur a sacerdote, significative, et non tantum materialiter accipiuntur. Nec obstat quod sacerdos etiam recitative profert quasi a Christo dicta. Quia propter infinitam virtutem Christi, sicut ex contactu carnis suae vis regenerativa pervenit non solum ad illas aquas quae Christum tetigerunt, sed ad omnes ubique terrarum per omnia futura saecula; ita etiam ex prolatione ipsius Christi haec verba virtutem consecrativam sunt consecuta a quocumque sacerdote dicantur, ac si Christus ea praesentialiter proferret. But such a view cannot hold good, because then these words would not be applied to the corporeal matter present, and consequently the sacrament would not be valid: for Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan.): The word is added to the element, and this becomes a sacrament. Moreover this solution ignores entirely the difficulty which this question presents: for there is still the objection in regard to the first uttering of these words by Christ; since it is evident that then they were employed, not materially, but significatively. And therefore it must be said that even when spoken by the priest they are taken significatively, and not merely materially. Nor does it matter that the priest pronounces them by way of recital, as though they were spoken by Christ, because owing to Christ’s infinite power, just as through contact with His flesh the regenerative power entered not only into the waters which came into contact with Christ, but into all waters throughout the whole world and during all future ages, so likewise from Christ’s uttering these words they derived their consecrating power, by whatever priest they be uttered, as if Christ present were saying them. Et ideo alii dixerunt quod haec dictio hoc in hac locutione facit demonstrationem, non ad sensum, sed ad intellectum, ut sit sensus, hoc est corpus meum, idest, significatum per hoc est corpus meum. Sed nec hoc stare potest. Quia, cum in sacramentis hoc efficiatur quod significatur, non fieret per hanc formam ut corpus Christi sit in hoc sacramento secundum veritatem, sed solum sicut in signo. Quod est haereticum, ut supra dictum est. And therefore others have said that in this phrase the word this appeals, not to the senses, but to the intellect; so that the meaning is, This is My body—i.e., The thing signified by ‘this’ is My body. But neither can this stand, because, since in the sacraments the effect is that which is signified, from such a form it would not result that Christ’s body was in very truth in this sacrament, but merely as in a sign, which is heretical, as stated above (Q. 85, A. 1). Et ideo alii dixerunt quod haec dictio hoc facit demonstrationem ad sensum, sed intelligitur haec demonstratio non pro illo instanti locutionis quo profertur haec dictio, sed pro ultimo instanti locutionis, sicut, cum aliquis dicit, nunc taceo, hoc adverbium nunc facit demonstrationem pro instanti immediate sequenti locutionem; est enim sensus, statim dictis his verbis, taceo. Sed nec hoc stare potest. Quia secundum hoc, huius locutionis est sensus, corpus meum est corpus meum. Quod praedicta locutio non facit, quia hoc fuit etiam ante prolationem verborum. Unde neque hoc praedicta locutio significat. Consequently, others have said that the word this appeals to the senses; not at the precise instant of its being uttered, but merely at the last instant thereof; as when a man says, Now I am silent, this adverb now points to the instant immediately following the speech: because the sense is: Directly these words are spoken I am silent. But neither can this hold good, because in that case the meaning of the sentence would be: My body is My body, which the above phrase does not effect, because this was so even before the utterance of the words: hence neither does the aforesaid sentence mean this. Et ideo aliter dicendum est quod, sicut praedictum est, haec locutio habet virtutem factivam conversionis panis in corpus Christi. Et ideo comparatur ad alias locutiones, quae habent solum vim significativam et non factivam, sicut comparatur conceptio intellectus practici, quae est factiva rei, conceptioni intellectus nostri speculativi, quae est accepta a rebus, nam voces sunt signa intellectuum, secundum philosophum. Et ideo, sicut conceptio intellectus practici non praesupponit rem conceptam, sed facit eam, ita veritas huius locutionis non praesupponit rem significatam, sed facit eam, sic enim se habet verbum Dei ad res factas per verbum. Haec autem conversio non fit successive, sed in instanti, sicut dictum est. Et ideo oportet quidem intelligere praedictam locutionem secundum ultimum instans prolationis verborum, non tamen ita quod praesupponatur ex parte subiecti id quod est terminus conversionis, scilicet quod corpus Christi sit corpus Christi; neque etiam illud quod fuit ante conversionem, scilicet panis; sed id quod communiter se habet quantum ad utrumque, scilicet contentum in generali sub istis speciebus. Non enim faciunt haec verba quod corpus Christi sit corpus Christi; neque quod panis sit corpus Christi; sed quod contentum sub his speciebus, quod prius erat panis, sit corpus Christi. Et ideo signanter non dicit dominus, hic panis est corpus meum, quod esset secundum intellectum secundae opinionis; neque, hoc corpus meum est corpus meum, quod esset secundum intellectum tertiae; sed in generali, hoc est corpus meum, nullo nomine apposito ex parte subiecti, sed solo pronomine, quod significat substantiam in communi sine qualitate, idest forma determinata. Consequently, then, it remains to be said, as stated above (A. 4), that this sentence possesses the power of effecting the conversion of the bread into the body of Christ. And therefore it is compared to other sentences, which have power only of signifying and not of producing, as the concept of the practical intellect, which is productive of the thing, is compared to the concept of our speculative intellect which is drawn from things, because words are signs of concepts, as the Philosopher says (Peri Herm. i). And therefore as the concept of the practical intellect does not presuppose the thing understood, but makes it, so the truth of this expression does not presuppose the thing signified, but makes it; for such is the relation of God’s word to the things made by the Word. Now this change takes place not successively, but in an instant, as stated above (Q. 77, A. 7). Consequently one must understand the aforesaid expression with reference to the last instant of the words being spoken, yet not so that the subject may be understood to have stood for that which is the term of the conversion; viz. that the body of Christ is the body of Christ; nor again that the subject be understood to stand for that which it was before the conversion, namely, the bread, but for that which is commonly related to both, i.e., that which is contained in general under those species. For these words do not make the body of Christ to be the body of Christ, nor do they make the bread to be the body of Christ; but what was contained under those species, and was formerly bread, they make to be the body of Christ. And therefore expressly our Lord did not say: This bread is My body, which would be the meaning of the second opinion; nor This My body is My body, which would be the meaning of the third opinion: but in general: This is My body, assigning no noun on the part of the subject, but only a pronoun, which signifies substance in common, without quality, that is, without a determinate form. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod haec dictio hoc demonstrat substantiam, sed absque determinatione propriae naturae, sicut dictum est. Reply Obj. 1: The term this points to a substance, yet without determining its proper nature, as stated above. Ad secundum dicendum quod hoc pronomen hoc non demonstrat ipsa accidentia, sed substantiam sub accidentibus contentam, quae primo fuit panis, et postea est corpus Christi, quod, licet non informetur his accidentibus, tamen sub eis continetur. Reply Obj. 2: The pronoun this does not indicate the accidents, but the substance underlying the accidents, which at first was bread, and is afterwards the body of Christ, which body, although not informed by those accidents, is yet contained under them. Ad tertium dicendum quod significatio huius locutionis praeintelligitur rei significatae ordine naturae, sicut causa naturaliter est prior effectu, non tamen ordine temporis, quia haec causa simul habet secum suum effectum. Et hoc sufficit ad veritatem locutionis. Reply Obj. 3: The meaning of this expression is, in the order of nature, understood before the thing signified, just as a cause is naturally prior to the effect; but not in order of time, because this cause has its effect with it at the same time, and this suffices for the truth of the expression. Articulus 6 Article 6 Utrum forma consecrationis panis consequatur effectum suum quousque perficiatur forma consecrationis vini Whether the form of the consecration of the bread accomplishes its effect before the form of the consecration of the wine is completed? Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod forma consecrationis panis non consequatur effectum suum quousque perficiatur forma consecrationis vini. Sicut enim per consecrationem panis incipit esse corpus Christi sub hoc sacramento, ita per consecrationem vini incipit esse sanguis. Si ergo verba consecrationis panis haberent effectum suum ante consecrationem vini, sequeretur quod in hoc sacramento inciperet esse corpus Christi exsangue. Quod est inconveniens. Objection 1: It seems that the form of the consecration of the bread does not accomplish its effect until the form for the consecration of the wine be completed. For, as Christ’s body begins to be in this sacrament by the consecration of the bread, so does His blood come to be there by the consecration of the wine. If, then, the words for consecrating the bread were to produce their effect before the consecration of the wine, it would follow that Christ’s body would be present in this sacrament without the blood, which is improper. Praeterea, unum sacramentum unum habet complementum, unde, licet in Baptismo sint tres immersiones, non tamen prima immersio consequitur suum effectum quousque tertia fuerit terminata. Sed totum hoc sacramentum est unum, ut supra dictum est. Ergo verba quibus consecratur panis, non consequuntur suum effectum sine verbis sacramentalibus quibus consecratur vinum. Obj. 2: Further, one sacrament has one completion: hence although there be three immersions in Baptism, yet the first immersion does not produce its effect until the third be completed. But all this sacrament is one, as stated above (Q. 73, A. 2). Therefore the words whereby the bread is consecrated do not bring about their effect without the sacramental words whereby the wine is consecrated. Praeterea, in ipsa forma consecrationis panis sunt plura verba, quorum prima non consequuntur effectum nisi prolato ultimo, sicut dictum est. Ergo, pari ratione, nec verba quibus consecratur corpus Christi habent effectum, nisi prolatis verbis quibus sanguis Christi consecratur. Obj. 3: Further, there are several words in the form for consecrating the bread, the first of which do not secure their effect until the last be uttered, as stated above (A. 4, ad 3). Therefore, for the same reason, neither do the words for the consecration of Christ’s body produce their effect, until the words for consecrating Christ’s blood are spoken. Sed contra est quod, statim dictis verbis consecrationis panis, hostia consecrata proponitur populo adoranda. Quod non fieret si non esset ibi corpus Christi, quia hoc ad idololatriam pertineret. Ergo verba consecrationis suum effectum consequuntur antequam proferantur verba consecrationis vini. On the contrary, Directly the words are uttered for consecrating the bread, the consecrated host is shown to the people to be adored, which would not be done if Christ’s body were not there, for that would be an act of idolatry. Therefore the consecrating words of the bread produce their effect before the words are spoken for consecrating the wine. Respondeo dicendum quod quidam antiqui doctores dixerunt quod hae duae formae, scilicet consecrationis panis et vini, se invicem expectant in agendo, ita scilicet quod prima non perficit suum effectum antequam secunda proferatur. I answer that, Some of the earlier doctors said that these two forms, namely, for consecrating the bread and the wine, await each other’s action, so that the first does not produce its effect until the second be uttered. Sed hoc stare non potest. Quia, sicut dictum est, ad veritatem huius locutionis, hoc est corpus meum, requiritur, propter verbum praesentis temporis, quod res significata simul tempore sit cum ipsa significatione locutionis, alioquin, si in futurum expectaretur res significata, apponeretur verbum futuri temporis, non autem verbum praesentis; ita scilicet quod non diceretur, hoc est corpus meum, sed, hoc erit corpus meum. Significatio autem huius locutionis completur statim completa prolatione horum verborum. Et ideo oportet rem significatam statim adesse, quae quidem est effectus huius sacramenti, alioquin locutio non esset vera. Est etiam haec positio contra ritum Ecclesiae, quae statim post prolationem verborum corpus Christi adorat. But this cannot stand, because, as stated above (A. 5, ad 3), for the truth of this phrase, This is My body, wherein the verb is in the present tense, it is required for the thing signified to be present simultaneously in time with the signification of the expression used; otherwise, if the thing signified had to be awaited for afterwards, a verb of the future tense would be employed, and not one of the present tense, so that we should not say, This is My body, but This will be My body. But the signification of this speech is complete directly those words are spoken. And therefore the thing signified must be present instantaneously, and such is the effect of this sacrament; otherwise it would not be a true speech. Moreover, this opinion is against the rite of the Church, which forthwith adores the body of Christ after the words are uttered. Unde dicendum est quod prima forma non expectat secundam in agendo, sed statim habet suum effectum. Hence it must be said that the first form does not await the second in its action, but has its effect on the instant. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ex hac ratione videntur fuisse decepti illi qui praedictam positionem posuerunt. Unde intelligendum est quod, facta consecratione panis, est quidem corpus Christi ibi ex vi sacramenti, et sanguis ex reali concomitantia; sed postmodum, post consecrationem vini, fit ibi e converso sanguis Christi ex vi sacramenti, corpus autem Christi ex reali concomitantia; ita quod totus Christus est sub utraque specie, sicut supra dictum est. Reply Obj. 1: It is on this account that they who maintained the above opinion seem to have erred. Hence it must be understood that directly the consecration of the bread is complete, the body of Christ is indeed present by the power of the sacrament, and the blood by real concomitance; but afterwards by the consecration of the wine, conversely, the blood of Christ is there by the power of the sacrament, and the body by real concomitance, so that the entire Christ is under either species, as stated above (Q. 76, A. 2). Ad secundum dicendum quod hoc sacramentum est unum perfectione, sicut supra dictum est, inquantum scilicet constituitur ex duobus, scilicet ex cibo et potu, quorum utrumque per se habet suam perfectionem. Sed tres immersiones Baptismi ordinantur ad unum simplicem effectum. Et ideo non est simile. Reply Obj. 2: This sacrament is one in perfection, as stated above (Q. 73, A. 2), namely, inasmuch as it is made up of two things, that is, of food and drink, each of which of itself has its own perfection; but the three immersions of Baptism are ordained to one simple effect, and therefore there is no resemblance.