QUESTIONS 60-90 THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL QUESTIONS 60-65 QUESTION WHAT IS A SACRAMENT? (EIGHT ARTICLES)

After considering those things that concern the mystery of the incarnate Word, we must consider the sacraments of the Church which derive their efficacy from the Word incarnate Himself. First we shall consider the sacraments in general; secondly, we shall consider specially each sacrament.

Concerning the first our consideration will be fivefold: (1) What is a sacrament? (2) Of the necessity of the sacraments; (3) of the effects of the sacraments; (4) Of their cause; (5) Of their number.

Under the first heading there are eight points of inquiry: (1) Whether a sacrament is a kind of sign? (2) Whether every sign of a sacred thing is a sacrament? (3) Whether a sacrament is a sign of one thing only, or of several? (4) Whether a sacrament is a sign that is something sensible? (5) Whether some determinate sensible thing is required for a sacrament? (6) Whether signification expressed by words is necessary for a sacrament? (7) Whether determinate words are required? (8) Whether anything may be added to or subtracted from these words?

P(3)- Q(60)- A(1) Whether a sacrament is a kind of sign?

P(3)- Q(60)- A(1)- O(1) —

It seems that a sacrament is not a kind of sign.

For sacrament appears to be derived from “sacring” [sacrando]; just as medicament, from “medicando” [healing]. But this seems to be of the nature of a cause rather than of a sign. Therefore a sacrament is a kind of cause rather than a kind of sign.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(1)- O(2) —

Further, sacrament seems to signify something hidden, according to Tobias 12:7: “It is good to hide the secret [sacramentum] of a king”; and Ephesians 3:9: “What is the dispensation of the mystery [sacramenti] which hath been hidden from eternity in God.”

But that which is hidden, seems foreign to the nature of a sign; for “a sign is that which conveys something else to the mind, besides the species which it impresses on the senses,” as Augustine explains (De Doctr.

Christ. ii). Therefore it seems that a sacrament is not a kind of sign.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(1)- O(3) —

Further, an oath is sometimes called a sacrament: for it is written in the Decretals (Caus. xxii, qu. 5): “Children who have not attained the use of reason must not be obliged to swear: and whoever has foresworn himself once, must no more be a witness, nor be allowed to take a sacrament,” i.e. an oath. But an oath is not a kind of sign, therefore it seems that a sacrament is not a kind of sign.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(1) —

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x): “The visible sacrifice is the sacrament, i.e. the sacred sign, of the invisible sacrifice.”

P(3)- Q(60)- A(1) —

I answer that, All things that are ordained to one, even in different ways, can be denominated from it: thus, from health which is in an animal, not only is the animal said to be healthy through being the subject of health: but medicine also is said to be healthy through producing health; diet through preserving it; and urine, through being a sign of health.

Consequently, a thing may be called a “sacrament,” either from having a certain hidden sanctity, and in this sense a sacrament is a “sacred secret”; or from having some relationship to this sanctity, which relationship may be that of a cause, or of a sign or of any other relation. But now we are speaking of sacraments in a special sense, as implying the habitude of sign: and in this way a sacrament is a kind of sign.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(1)- RO(1) —

Because medicine is an efficient cause of health, consequently whatever things are denominated from medicine are to be referred to some first active cause: so that a medicament implies a certain causality. But sanctity from which a sacrament is denominated, is not there taken as an efficient cause, but rather as a formal or a final cause.

Therefore it does not follow that a sacrament need always imply causality.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(1)- RO(2) —

This argument considers sacrament in the sense of a “sacred secret.” Now not only God’s but also the king’s, secret, is said to be sacred and to be a sacrament: because according to the ancients, whatever it was unlawful to lay violent hands on was said to be holy or sacrosanct, such as the city walls, and persons of high rank.

Consequently those secrets, whether Divine or human, which it is unlawful to violate by making them known to anybody whatever, are called “sacred secrets or sacraments.”

P(3)- Q(60)- A(1)- RO(3) —

Even an oath has a certain relation to sacred things, in so far as it consists in calling a sacred thing to witness. And in this sense it is called a sacrament: not in the sense in which we speak of sacraments now; the word “sacrament” being thus used not equivocally but analogically, i.e. by reason of a different relation to the one thing, viz. something sacred.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(2) Whether every sign of a holy thing is a sacrament?

P(3)- Q(60)- A(2)- O(1) —

It seems that not every sign of a sacred thing is a sacrament. For all sensible creatures are signs of sacred things; according to Romans 1:20: “The invisible things of God are clearly seen being understood by the things that are made.” And yet all sensible things cannot be called sacraments. Therefore not every sign of a sacred thing is a sacrament.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(2)- O(2) —

Further, whatever was done under the Old Law was a figure of Christ Who is the “Holy of Holies” ( Daniel 9:24), according to 1 Corinthians 10:11: “All (these) things happened to them in figure”; and Colossians 2:17: “Which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is Christ’s.” And yet not all that was done by the Fathers of the Old Testament, not even all the ceremonies of the Law, were sacraments, but only in certain special cases, as stated in the P(2a), Q(101), A(4) . Therefore it seems that not every sign of a sacred thing is a sacrament.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(2)- O(3) —

Further, even in the New Testament many things are done in sign of some sacred thing; yet they are not called sacraments; such as sprinkling with holy water, the consecration of an altar, and such like. Therefore not every sign of a sacred thing is a sacrament.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(2) —

On the contrary, A definition is convertible with the thing defined. Now some define a sacrament as being “the sign of a sacred thing”; moreover, this is clear from the passage quoted above ( A(1) ) from Augustine. Therefore it seems that every sign of a sacred thing is a sacrament.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(2) —

I answer that, Signs are given to men, to whom it is proper to discover the unknown by means of the known. Consequently a sacrament properly so called is that which is the sign of some sacred thing pertaining to man; so that properly speaking a sacrament, as considered by us now, is defined as being the “sign of a holy thing so far as it makes men holy.”

P(3)- Q(60)- A(2)- RO(1) —

Sensible creatures signify something holy, viz.

Divine wisdom and goodness inasmuch as these are holy in themselves; but not inasmuch as we are made holy by them. Therefore they cannot be called sacraments as we understand sacraments now.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(2)- RO(2) —

Some things pertaining to the Old Testament signified the holiness of Christ considered as holy in Himself. Others signified His holiness considered as the cause of our holiness; thus the sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb signified Christ’s Sacrifice whereby we are made holy: and such like are properly styled sacraments of the Old Law.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(2)- RO(3) —

Names are given to things considered in reference to their end and state of completeness. Now a disposition is not an end, whereas perfection is. Consequently things that signify disposition to holiness are not called sacraments, and with regard to these the objection is verified: only those are called sacraments which signify the perfection of holiness in man.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(3) Whether a sacrament is a sign of one thing only?

P(3)- Q(60)- A(3)- O(1) —

It seems that a sacrament is a sign of one thing only. For that which signifies many things is an ambiguous sign, and consequently occasions deception: this is clearly seen in equivocal words.

But all deception should be removed from the Christian religion, according to Colossians 2:8: “Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceit.” Therefore it seems that a sacrament is not a sign of several things.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(3)- O(2) —

Further, as stated above ( A(2) ), a sacrament signifies a holy thing in so far as it makes man holy. But there is only one cause of man’s holiness, viz. the blood of Christ; according to Hebrews 13:12: “Jesus, that He might sanctify the people by His own blood, suffered without the gate.” Therefore it seems that a sacrament does not signify several things.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(3)- O(3) —

Further, it has been said above ( A(2), ad 3) that a sacrament signifies properly the very end of sanctification. Now the end of sanctification is eternal life, according to Romans 6:22: “You have your fruit unto sanctification, and the end life everlasting.” Therefore it seems that the sacraments signify one thing only, viz. eternal life.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(3) —

On the contrary, In the Sacrament of the Altar, two things are signified, viz. Christ’s true body, and Christ’s mystical body; as Augustine says (Liber Sent. Prosper.).

P(3)- Q(60)- A(3) —

I answer that, As stated above ( A(2) ) a sacrament properly speaking is that which is ordained to signify our sanctification. In which three things may be considered; viz. the very cause of our sanctification, which is Christ’s passion; the form of our sanctification, which is grace and the virtues; and the ultimate end of our sanctification, which is eternal life. And all these are signified by the sacraments.

Consequently a sacrament is a sign that is both a reminder of the past, i.e. the passion of Christ; and an indication of that which is effected in us by Christ’s passion, i.e. grace; and a prognostic, that is, a foretelling of future glory.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(3)- RO(1) —

Then is a sign ambiguous and the occasion of deception, when it signifies many things not ordained to one another. But when it signifies many things inasmuch as, through being mutually ordained, they form one thing, then the sign is not ambiguous but certain: thus this word “man” signifies the soul and body inasmuch as together they form the human nature. In this way a sacrament signifies the three things aforesaid, inasmuch as by being in a certain order they are one thing.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(3)- RO(2) —

Since a sacrament signifies that which sanctifies, it must needs signify the effect, which is implied in the sanctifying cause as such.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(3)- RO(3) —

It is enough for a sacrament that it signify that perfection which consists in the form, nor is it necessary that it should signify only that perfection which is the end.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(4) Whether a sacrament is always something sensible?

P(3)- Q(60)- A(4)- O(1) —

It seems that a sacrament is not always something sensible. Because, according to the Philosopher (Prior. Anal. ii), every effect is a sign of its cause. But just as there are some sensible effects, so are there some intelligible effects; thus science is the effect of a demonstration. Therefore not every sign is sensible. Now all that is required for a sacrament is something that is a sign of some sacred thing, inasmuch as thereby man is sanctified, as stated above ( A(2) ). Therefore something sensible is not required for a sacrament.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(4)- O(2) —

Further, sacraments belong to the kingdom of God and the Divine worship. But sensible things do not seem to belong to the Divine worship: for we are told ( John 4:24) that “God is a spirit; and they that adore Him, must adore Him in spirit and in truth”; and ( Romans 14:17) that “the kingdom of God is not meat and drink.”

Therefore sensible things are not required for the sacraments.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(4)- O(3) —

Further. Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. ii) that “sensible things are goods of least account, since without them man can live aright.” But the sacraments are necessary for man’s salvation, as we shall show farther on ( Q(61), A(1) ): so that man cannot live aright without them. Therefore sensible things are not required for the sacraments.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(4) —

On the contrary, Augustine says (Tract. lxxx super Joan.): “The word is added to the element and this becomes a sacrament”; and he is speaking there of water which is a sensible element. Therefore sensible things are required for the sacraments.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(4) —

I answer that, Divine wisdom provides for each thing according to its mode; hence it is written (Wis. 8:1) that “she... ordereth all things sweetly”: wherefore also we are told ( Matthew 25:15) that she “gave to everyone according to his proper ability.” Now it is part of man’s nature to acquire knowledge of the intelligible from the sensible. But a sign is that by means of which one attains to the knowledge of something else.

Consequently, since the sacred things which are signified by the sacraments, are the spiritual and intelligible goods by means of which man is sanctified, it follows that the sacramental signs consist in sensible things: just as in the Divine Scriptures spiritual things are set before us under the guise of things sensible. And hence it is that sensible things are required for the sacraments; as Dionysius also proves in his book on the heavenly hierarchy (Coel. Hier. i).

P(3)- Q(60)- A(4)- RO(1) —

The name and definition of a thing is taken principally from that which belongs to a thing primarily and essentially: and not from that which belongs to it through something else. Now a sensible effect being the primary and direct object of man’s knowledge (since all our knowledge springs from the senses) by its very nature leads to the knowledge of something else: whereas intelligible effects are not such as to be able to lead us to the knowledge of something else, except in so far as they are manifested by some other thing, i.e. by certain sensibles.

It is for this reason that the name sign is given primarily and principally to things which are offered to the senses; hence Augustine says (De Doctr.

Christ. ii) that a sign “is that which conveys something else to the mind, besides the species which it impresses on the senses.” But intelligible effects do not partake of the nature of a sign except in so far as they are pointed out by certain signs. And in this way, too, certain things which are not sensible are termed sacraments as it were, in so far as they are signified by certain sensible things, of which we shall treat further on ( Q(63), A(1), ad 2; A(3), ad 2; Q(73), A(6) ; Q(74), A(1), ad 3).

P(3)- Q(60)- A(4)- RO(2) —

Sensible things considered in their own nature do not belong to the worship or kingdom of God: but considered only as signs of spiritual things in which the kingdom of God consists.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(4)- RO(3) —

Augustine speaks there of sensible things, considered in their nature; but not as employed to signify spiritual things, which are the highest goods.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(5) Whether determinate things are required for a sacrament?

P(3)- Q(60)- A(5)- O(1) —

It seems that determinate things are not required for a sacrament. For sensible things are required in sacraments for the purpose of signification, as stated above ( A(4) ). But nothing hinders the same thing being signified by divers sensible things: thus in Holy Scripture God is signified metaphorically, sometimes by a stone ( 2 Kings 22:2; Zechariah 3:9; 1 Corinthians 10:4; Revelation 4:3); sometimes by a lion ( Isaiah 31:4; Revelation 5:5); sometimes by the sun ( Isaiah 60:19,20; Malachi 4:2), or by something similar. Therefore it seems that divers things can be suitable to the same sacrament. Therefore determinate things are not required for the sacraments.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(5)- O(2) —

Further, the health of the soul is more necessary than that of the body. But in bodily medicines, which are ordained to the health of the body, one thing can be substituted for another which happens to be wanting. Therefore much more in the sacraments, which are spiritual remedies ordained to the health of the soul, can one thing be substituted for another when this happens to be lacking.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(5)- O(3) —

Further, it is not fitting that the salvation of men be restricted by the Divine Law: still less by the Law of Christ, Who came to save all. But in the state of the Law of nature determinate things were not required in the sacraments, but were put to that use through a vow, as appears from Genesis 28, where Jacob vowed that he would offer to God tithes and peace-offerings. Therefore it seems that man should not have been restricted, especially under the New Law, to the use of any determinate thing in the sacraments.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(5) —

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

P(3)- Q(60)- A(5) —

I answer that, In the use of the sacraments two things may be considered, namely, the worship of God, and the sanctification of man: the former of which pertains to man as referred to God, and the latter pertains to God in reference to man. Now it is not for anyone to determine that which is in the power of another, but only that which is in his own power. Since, therefore, the sanctification of man is in the power of God Who sanctifies, it is not for man to decide what things should be used for his sanctification, but this should be determined by Divine institution.

Therefore in the sacraments of the New Law, by which man is sanctified according to 1 Corinthians 6:11, “You are washed, you are sanctified,” we must use those things which are determined by Divine institution.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(5)- RO(1) —

Though the same thing can be signified by divers signs, yet to determine which sign must be used belongs to the signifier. Now it is God Who signifies spiritual things to us by means of the sensible things in the sacraments, and of similitudes in the Scriptures.

And consequently, just as the Holy Ghost decides by what similitudes spiritual things are to be signified in certain passages of Scripture, so also must it be determined by Divine institution what things are to be employed for the purpose of signification in this or that sacrament.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(5)- RO(2) —

Sensible things are endowed with natural powers conducive to the health of the body: and therefore if two of them have the same virtue, it matters not which we use. Yet they are ordained unto sanctification not through any power that they possess naturally, but only in virtue of the Divine institution. And therefore it was necessary that God should determine the sensible things to be employed in the sacraments.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(5)- RO(3) —

As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix), diverse sacraments suit different times; just as different times are signified by different parts of the verb, viz. present, past, and future. Consequently, just as under the state of the Law of nature man was moved by inward instinct and without any outward law, to worship God, so also the sensible things to be employed in the worship of God were determined by inward instinct. But later on it became necessary for a law to be given (to man) from without: both because the Law of nature had become obscured by man’s sins; and in order to signify more expressly the grace of Christ, by which the human race is sanctified. And hence the need for those things to be determinate, of which men have to make use in the sacraments. Nor is the way of salvation narrowed thereby: because the things which need to be used in the sacraments, are either in everyone’s possession or can be had with little trouble.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(6) Whether words are required for the signification of the sacraments?

P(3)- Q(60)- A(6)- O(1) —

It seems that words are not required for the signification of the sacraments. For Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix): “What else is a corporeal sacrament but a kind of visible word?” Wherefore to add words to the sensible things in the sacraments seems to be the same as to add words to words. But this is superfluous. Therefore words are not required besides the sensible things in the sacraments .

P(3)- Q(60)- A(6)- O(2) —

Further, a sacrament is some one thing, but it does not seem possible to make one thing of those that belong to different genera. Since, therefore, sensible things and words are of different genera, for sensible things are the product of nature, but words, of reason; it seems that in the sacraments, words are not required besides sensible things.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(6)- O(3) —

Further, the sacraments of the New Law succeed those of the Old Law: since “the former were instituted when the latter were abolished,” as Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix). But no form of words was required in the sacraments of the Old Law. Therefore neither is it required in those of the New Law.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(6) —

On the contrary, The Apostle says ( Ephesians 5:25,26): “Christ loved the Church, and delivered Himself up for it; that He might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life.”

And Augustine says (Tract. xxx in Joan.): “The word is added to the element, and this becomes a sacrament.”

P(3)- Q(60)- A(6) —

I answer that, The sacraments, as stated above ( AA(2),3 ), are employed as signs for man’s sanctification. Consequently they can be considered in three ways: and in each way it is fitting for words to be added to the sensible signs. For in the first place they can be considered in regard to the cause of sanctification, which is the Word incarnate: to Whom the sacraments have a certain conformity, in that the word is joined to the sensible sign, just as in the mystery of the Incarnation the Word of God is united to sensible flesh.

Secondly, sacraments may be considered on the part of man who is sanctified, and who is composed of soul and body: to whom the sacramental remedy is adjusted, since it touches the body through the sensible element, and the soul through faith in the words. Hence Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan.) on John 15:3, “Now you are clean by reason of the word,” etc.: “Whence hath water this so great virtue, to touch the body and wash the heart, but by the word doing it, not because it is spoken, but because it is believed?”

Thirdly, a sacrament may be considered on the part of the sacramental signification. Now Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. ii) that “words are the principal signs used by men”; because words can be formed in various ways for the purpose of signifying various mental concepts, so that we are able to express our thoughts with greater distinctness by means of words.

And therefore in order to insure the perfection of sacramental signification it was necessary to determine the signification of the sensible things by means of certain words. For water may signify both a cleansing by reason of its humidity, and refreshment by reason of its being cool: but when we say, “I baptize thee,” it is clear that we use water in baptism in order to signify a spiritual cleansing.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(6)- RO(1) —

The sensible elements of the sacraments are called words by way of a certain likeness, in so far as they partake of a certain significative power, which resides principally in the very words, as stated above. Consequently it is not a superfluous repetition to add words to the visible element in the sacraments; because one determines the other, as stated above.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(6)- RO(2) —

Although words and other sensible things are not in the same genus, considered in their natures, yet have they something in common as to the thing signified by them: which is more perfectly done in words than in other things. Wherefore in the sacraments, words and things, like form and matter, combine in the formation of one thing, in so far as the signification of things is completed by means of words, as above stated. And under words are comprised also sensible actions, such as cleansing and anointing and such like: because they have a like signification with the things.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(6)- RO(3) —

As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix), the sacraments of things present should be different from sacraments of things to come. Now the sacraments of the Old Law foretold the coming of Christ. Consequently they did not signify Christ so clearly as the sacraments of the New Law, which flow from Christ Himself, and have a certain likeness to Him, as stated above. Nevertheless in the Old Law, certain words were used in things pertaining to the worship of God, both by the priests, who were the ministers of those sacraments, according to Numbers 6:23,24: “Thus shall you bless the children of Israel, and you shall say to them: The Lord bless thee,” etc.; and by those who made use of those sacraments, according to Deuteronomy 26:3: “I profess this day before the Lord thy God,” etc.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(7) Whether determinate words are required in the sacraments?

P(3)- Q(60)- A(7)- O(1) —

It seems that determinate words are not required in the sacraments. For as the Philosopher says (Peri Herm. i), “words are not the same for all.” But salvation, which is sought through the sacraments, is the same for all. Therefore determinate words are not required in the sacraments.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(7)- O(2) —

Further, words are required in the sacraments forasmuch as they are the principal means of signification, as stated above ( A(6) ). But it happens that various words mean the same. Therefore determinate words are not required in the sacraments.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(7)- O(3) —

Further, corruption of anything changes its species. But some corrupt the pronunciation of words, and yet it is not credible that the sacramental effect is hindered thereby; else unlettered men and stammerers, in conferring sacraments, would frequently do so invalidly. Therefore it seems that determinate words are not required in the sacraments.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(7) —

On the contrary, our Lord used determinate words in consecrating the sacrament of the Eucharist, when He said ( Matthew 26:26): “This is My Body.” Likewise He commanded His disciples to baptize under a form of determinate words, saying ( Matthew 28:19): “Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

P(3)- Q(60)- A(7) —

I answer that, As stated above ( A(6), ad 2), in the sacraments the words are as the form, and sensible things are as the matter.

Now in all things composed of matter and form, the determining principle is on the part of the form, which is as it were the end and terminus of the matter. Consequently for the being of a thing the need of a determinate form is prior to the need of determinate matter: for determinate matter is needed that it may be adapted to the determinate form. Since, therefore, in the sacraments determinate sensible things are required, which are as the sacramental matter, much more is there need in them of a determinate form of words.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(7)- RO(1) —

As Augustine says (Tract. lxxx super Joan.), the word operates in the sacraments “not because it is spoken,” i.e. not by the outward sound of the voice, “but because it is believed” in accordance with the sense of the words which is held by faith. And this sense is indeed the same for all, though the same words as to their sound be not used by all. Consequently no matter in what language this sense is expressed, the sacrament is complete.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(7)- RO(2) —

Although it happens in every language that various words signify the same thing, yet one of those words is that which those who speak that language use principally and more commonly to signify that particular thing: and this is the word which should be used for the sacramental signification. So also among sensible things, that one is used for the sacramental signification which is most commonly employed for the action by which the sacramental effect is signified: thus water is most commonly used by men for bodily cleansing, by which the spiritual cleansing is signified: and therefore water is employed as the matter of baptism.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(7)- RO(3) —

If he who corrupts the pronunciation of the sacramental words — does so on purpose, he does not seem to intend to do what the Church intends: and thus the sacrament seems to be defective.

But if he do this through error or a slip of the tongue, and if he so far mispronounce the words as to deprive them of sense, the sacrament seems to be defective. This would be the case especially if the mispronunciation be in the beginning of a word, for instance, if one were to say “in nomine matris” instead of “in nomine Patris.” If, however, the sense of the words be not entirely lost by this mispronunciation, the sacrament is complete.

This would be the case principally if the end of a word be mispronounced; for instance, if one were to say “patrias et filias.” For although the words thus mispronounced have no appointed meaning, yet we allow them an accommodated meaning corresponding to the usual forms of speech. And so, although the sensible sound is changed, yet the sense remains the same.

What has been said about the various mispronunciations of words, either at the beginning or at the end, holds forasmuch as with us a change at the beginning of a word changes the meaning, whereas a change at the end generally speaking does not effect such a change: whereas with the Greeks the sense is changed also in the beginning of words in the conjugation of verbs.

Nevertheless the principle point to observe is the extent of the corruption entailed by mispronunciation: for in either case it may be so little that it does not alter the sense of the words; or so great that it destroys it. But it is easier for the one to happen on the part of the beginning of the words, and the other at the end.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(8) Whether it is lawful to add anything to the words in which the sacramental form consists?

P(3)- Q(60)- A(8)- O(1) —

It seems that it is not lawful to add anything to the words in which the sacramental form consists. For these sacramental words are not of less importance than are the words of Holy Scripture.

But it is not lawful to add anything to, or to take anything from, the words of Holy Scripture: for it is written ( Deuteronomy 4:2): “You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it”; and ( Revelation 22:18,19): “I testify to everyone that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: if any man shall add to these things, God shall add to him the plagues written in this book. And if any man shall take away... God shall take away his part out of the book of life.”

Therefore it seems that neither is it lawful to add anything to, or to take anything from, the sacramental forms.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(8)- O(2) —

Further, in the sacraments words are by way of form, as stated above ( A(6), ad 2; A(7) ). But any addition or subtraction in forms changes the species, as also in numbers (Metaph. viii). Therefore it seems that if anything be added to or subtracted from a sacramental form, it will not be the same sacrament.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(8)- O(3) —

Further, just as the sacramental form demands a certain number of words, so does it require that these words should be pronounced in a certain order and without interruption. If therefore, the sacrament is not rendered invalid by addition or subtraction of words, in like manner it seems that neither is it, if the words be pronounced in a different order or with interruptions.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(8) —

On the contrary, Certain words are inserted by some in the sacramental forms, which are not inserted by others: thus the Latins baptize under this form: “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”; whereas the Greeks use the following form: “The servant of God, N... is baptized in the name of the Father,” etc.

Yet both confer the sacrament validly. Therefore it is lawful to add something to, or to take something from, the sacramental forms.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(8) —

I answer that, With regard to all the variations that may occur in the sacramental forms, two points seem to call for our attention. one is on the part of the person who says the words, and whose intention is essential to the sacrament, as will be explained further on ( Q(64), A(8) ). Wherefore if he intends by such addition or suppression to perform a rite other from that which is recognized by the Church, it seems that the sacrament is invalid: because he seems not to intend to do what the Church does.

The other point to be considered is the meaning of the words. For since in the sacraments, the words produce an effect according to the sense which they convey, as stated above ( A(7), ad 1), we must see whether the change of words destroys the essential sense of the words: because then the sacrament is clearly rendered invalid. Now it is clear, if any substantial part of the sacramental form be suppressed, that the essential sense of the words is destroyed; and consequently the sacrament is invalid. Wherefore Didymus says (De Spir. Sanct. ii): “If anyone attempt to baptize in such a way as to omit one of the aforesaid names,” i.e. of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, “his baptism will be invalid.” But if that which is omitted be not a substantial part of the form, such an omission does not destroy the essential sense of the words, nor consequently the validity of the sacrament. Thus in the form of the Eucharist — ”For this is My Body,” the omission of the word “for” does not destroy the essential sense of the words, nor consequently cause the sacrament to be invalid; although perhaps he who makes the omission may sin from negligence or contempt.

Again, it is possible to add something that destroys the essential sense of the words: for instance, if one were to say: “I baptize thee in the name of the Father Who is greater, and of the Son Who is less,” with which form the Arians baptized: and consequently such an addition makes the sacrament invalid. But if the addition be such as not to destroy the essential sense, the sacrament is not rendered invalid. Nor does it matter whether this addition be made at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end:

For instance, if one were to say, “I baptize thee in the name of the Father Almighty, and of the only Begotten Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete,” the baptism would be valid; and in like manner if one were to say, “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”; and may the Blessed Virgin succour thee, the baptism would be valid.

Perhaps, however, if one were to say, “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and of the Blessed Virgin Mary,” the baptism would be void; because it is written ( 1 Corinthians 1:13): “Was Paul crucified for you or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” But this is true if the intention be to baptize in the name of the Blessed Virgin as in the name of the Trinity, by which baptism is consecrated: for such a sense would be contrary to faith, and would therefore render the sacrament invalid: whereas if the addition, “and in the name of the Blessed Virgin” be understood, not as if the name of the Blessed Virgin effected anything in baptism, but as intimating that her intercession may help the person baptized to preserve the baptismal grace, then the sacrament is not rendered void.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(8)- RO(1) —

It is not lawful to add anything to the words of Holy Scripture as regards the sense; but many words are added by Doctors by way of explanation of the Holy Scriptures. Nevertheless, it is not lawful to add even words to Holy Scripture as though such words were a part thereof, for this would amount to forgery. It would amount to the same if anyone were to pretend that something is essential to a sacramental form, which is not so.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(8)- RO(2) —

Words belong to a sacramental form by reason of the sense signified by them. Consequently any addition or suppression of words which does not add to or take from the essential sense, does not destroy the essence of the sacrament.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(8)- RO(3) —

If the words are interrupted to such an extent that the intention of the speaker is interrupted, the sacramental sense is destroyed, and consequently, the validity of the sacrament. But this is not the case if the interruption of the speaker is so slight, that his intention and the sense of the words is not interrupted.

The same is to be said of a change in the order of the words. Because if this destroys the sense of the words, the sacrament is invalidated: as happens when a negation is made to precede or follow a word. But if the order is so changed that the sense of the words does not vary, the sacrament is not invalidated, according to the Philosopher’s dictum: “Nouns and verbs mean the same though they be transposed” (Peri Herm. x).

QUESTION OF THE NECESSITY OF THE SACRAMENTS (FOUR ARTICLES)

We must now consider the necessity of the sacraments; concerning which there are four points of inquiry: (1) Whether sacraments are necessary for man’s salvation? (2) Whether they were necessary in the state that preceded sin? (3) Whether they were necessary in the state after sin and before Christ? (4) Whether they were necessary after Christ’s coming?

P(3)- Q(61)- A(1) Whether sacraments are necessary for man’s salvation?

P(3)- Q(61)- A(1)- O(1) —

It seems that sacraments are not necessary for man’s salvation. For the Apostle says ( 1 Timothy 4:8): “Bodily exercise is profitable to little.” But the use of sacraments pertains to bodily exercise; because sacraments are perfected in the signification of sensible things and words, as stated above ( Q(60), A(6) ). Therefore sacraments are not necessary for the salvation of man.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(1)- O(2) —

Further, the Apostle was told ( 2 Corinthians 12:9): “My grace is sufficient for thee.” But it would not suffice if sacraments were necessary for salvation. Therefore sacraments are not necessary for man’s salvation.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(1)- O(3) —

Further, given a sufficient cause, nothing more seems to be required for the effect. But Christ’s Passion is the sufficient cause of our salvation; for the Apostle says ( Romans 5:10): “If, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son: much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by His life.”

Therefore sacraments are not necessary for man’s salvation.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(1) —

On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix): “It is impossible to keep men together in one religious denomination, whether true or false, except they be united by means of visible signs or sacraments.” But it is necessary for salvation that men be united together in the name of the one true religion. Therefore sacraments are necessary for man’s salvation.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(1) —

I answer that, Sacraments are necessary unto man’s salvation for three reasons. The first is taken from the condition of human nature which is such that it has to be led by things corporeal and sensible to things spiritual and intelligible. Now it belongs to Divine providence to provide for each one according as its condition requires. Divine wisdom, therefore, fittingly provides man with means of salvation, in the shape of corporeal and sensible signs that are called sacraments.

The second reason is taken from the state of man who in sinning subjected himself by his affections to corporeal things. Now the healing remedy should be given to a man so as to reach the part affected by disease.

Consequently it was fitting that God should provide man with a spiritual medicine by means of certain corporeal signs; for if man were offered spiritual things without a veil, his mind being taken up with the material world would be unable to apply itself to them.

The third reason is taken from the fact that man is prone to direct his activity chiefly towards material things. Lest, therefore, it should be too hard for man to be drawn away entirely from bodily actions, bodily exercise was offered to him in the sacraments, by which he might be trained to avoid superstitious practices, consisting in the worship of demons, and all manner of harmful action, consisting in sinful deeds.

It follows, therefore, that through the institution of the sacraments man, consistently with his nature, is instructed through sensible things; he is humbled, through confessing that he is subject to corporeal things, seeing that he receives assistance through them: and he is even preserved from bodily hurt, by the healthy exercise of the sacraments.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(1)- RO(1) —

Bodily exercise, as such, is not very profitable: but exercise taken in the use of the sacraments is not merely bodily, but to a certain extent spiritual, viz. in its signification and in its causality.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(1)- RO(2) —

God’s grace is a sufficient cause of man’s salvation. But God gives grace to man in a way which is suitable to him.

Hence it is that man needs the sacraments that he may obtain grace.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(1)- RO(3) —

Christ’s Passion is a sufficient cause of man’s salvation. But it does not follow that the sacraments are not also necessary for that purpose: because they obtain their effect through the power of Christ’s Passion; and Christ’s Passion is, so to say, applied to man through the sacraments according to the Apostle ( Romans 6:3): “All we who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death.”

P(3)- Q(61)- A(2) Whether before sin sacraments were necessary to man?

P(3)- Q(61)- A(2)- O(1) —

It seems that before sin sacraments were necessary to man. For, as stated above ( A(1), ad 2) man needs sacraments that he may obtain grace. But man needed grace even in the state of innocence, as we stated in the P(1), Q(95), A(4)- (cf. P(2a), Q(109), A(2) ; P(2a), Q(114), A(2) ). Therefore sacraments were necessary in that state also.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(2)- O(2) —

Further, sacraments are suitable to man by reason of the conditions of human nature, as stated above ( A(1) ). But man’s nature is the same before and after sin. Therefore it seems that before sin, man needed the sacraments.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(2)- O(3) —

Further, matrimony is a sacrament, according to Ephesians 5:32: “This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the Church.” But matrimony was instituted before sin, as may be seen in Genesis 2. Therefore sacraments were necessary to man before sin.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(2) —

On the contrary, None but the sick need remedies, according to Matthew 9:12: “They that are in health need not a physician.” Now the sacraments are spiritual remedies for the healing of wounds inflicted by sin. Therefore they were not necessary before sin.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(2) —

I answer that, Sacraments were not necessary in the state of innocence. This can be proved from the rectitude of that state, in which the higher (parts of man) ruled the lower, and nowise depended on them: for just as the mind was subject to God, so were the lower powers of the soul subject to the mind, and the body to the soul. And it would be contrary to this order if the soul were perfected either in knowledge or in grace, by anything corporeal; which happens in the sacraments. Therefore in the state of innocence man needed no sacraments, whether as remedies against sin or as means of perfecting the soul.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(2)- RO(1) —

In the state of innocence man needed grace: not so that he needed to obtain grace by means of sensible signs, but in a spiritual and invisible manner.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(2)- RO(2) —

Man’s nature is the same before and after sin, but the state of his nature is not the same. Because after sin, the soul, even in its higher part, needs to receive something from corporeal things in order that it may be perfected: whereas man had no need of this in that state.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(2)- RO(3) —

Matrimony was instituted in the state of innocence, not as a sacrament, but as a function of nature. Consequently, however, it foreshadowed something in relation to Christ and the Church: just as everything else foreshadowed Christ.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(3) Whether there should have been sacraments after sin, before Christ?

P(3)- Q(61)- A(3)- O(1) —

It seems that there should have been no sacraments after sin, before Christ. For it has been stated that the Passion of Christ is applied to men through the sacraments: so that Christ’s Passion is compared to the sacraments as cause to effect. But effect does not precede cause. Therefore there should have been no sacraments before Christ’s coming.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(3)- O(2) —

Further, sacraments should be suitable to the state of the human race, as Augustine declares (Contra Faust. xix). But the state of the human race underwent no change after sin until it was repaired by Christ. Neither, therefore, should the sacraments have been changed, so that besides the sacraments of the natural law, others should be instituted in the law of Moses.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(3)- O(3) —

Further, the nearer a thing approaches to that which is perfect, the more like it should it be. Now the perfection of human salvation was accomplished by Christ; to Whom the sacraments of the Old Law were nearer than those that preceded the Law. Therefore they should have borne a greater likeness to the sacraments of Christ. And yet the contrary is the case, since it was foretold that the priesthood of Christ would be “according to the order of Melchisedech, and not... according to the order of Aaron” ( Hebrews 7:11). Therefore sacraments were unsuitably instituted before Christ.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(3) —

On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix) that “the first sacraments which the Law commanded to be solemnized and observed were announcements of Christ’s future coming.” But it was necessary for man’s salvation that Christ’s coming should be announced beforehand. Therefore it was necessary that some sacraments should be instituted before Christ.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(3) —

I answer that, Sacraments are necessary for man’s salvation, in so far as they are sensible signs of invisible things whereby man is made holy. Now after sin no man can be made holy save through Christ, “Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood, to the showing of His justice... that He Himself may be just, and the justifier of him who is of the faith of Jesus Christ” ( Romans 3:25,26).

Therefore before Christ’s coming there was need for some visible signs whereby man might testify to his faith in the future coming of a Saviour.

And these signs are called sacraments. It is therefore clear that some sacraments were necessary before Christ’s coming.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(3)- RO(1) —

Christ’s Passion is the final cause of the old sacraments: for they were instituted in order to foreshadow it. Now the final cause precedes not in time, but in the intention of the agent.

Consequently, there is no reason against the existence of sacraments before Christ’s Passion.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(3)- RO(2) —

The state of the human race after sin and before Christ can be considered from two points of view. First, from that of faith: and thus it was always one and the same: since men were made righteous, through faith in the future coming of Christ. Secondly, according as sin was more or less intense, and knowledge concerning Christ more or less explicit. For as time went on sin gained a greater hold on man, so much so that it clouded man’s reason, the consequence being that the precepts of the natural law were insufficient to make man live aright, and it became necessary to have a written code of fixed laws, and together with these certain sacraments of faith. For it was necessary, as time went on, that the knowledge of faith should be more and more unfolded, since, as Gregory says (Hom. vi in Ezech.): “With the advance of time there was an advance in the knowledge of Divine things.” Consequently in the old Law there was also a need for certain fixed sacraments significative of man’s faith in the future coming of Christ: which sacraments are compared to those that preceded the Law, as something determinate to that which is indeterminate: inasmuch as before the Law it was not laid down precisely of what sacraments men were to make use: whereas this was prescribed by the Law; and this was necessary both on account of the overclouding of the natural law, and for the clearer signification of faith.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(3)- RO(3) —

The sacrament of Melchisedech which preceded the Law is more like the Sacrament of the New Law in its matter: in so far as “he offered bread and wine” ( Genesis 14:18), just as bread and wine are offered in the sacrifice of the New Testament. Nevertheless the sacraments of the Mosaic Law are more like the thing signified by the sacrament, i.e. the Passion of Christ: as clearly appears in the Paschal Lamb and such like. The reason of this was lest, if the sacraments retained the same appearance, it might seem to be the continuation of one and the same sacrament, where there was no interruption of time.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(4) Whether there was need for any sacraments after Christ came?

P(3)- Q(61)- A(4)- O(1) —

It seems that there was no need for any sacraments after Christ came. For the figure should cease with the advent of the truth. But “grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” ( John 1:17).

Since, therefore, the sacraments are signs or figures of the truth, it seems that there was no need for any sacraments after Christ’s Passion.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(4)- O(2) —

Further, the sacraments consist in certain elements, as stated above ( Q(60), A(4) ). But the Apostle says ( Galatians 4:3,4) that “when we were children we were serving under the elements of the world”: but that now “when the fulness of time” has “come,” we are no longer children. Therefore it seems that we should not serve God under the elements of this world, by making use of corporeal sacraments.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(4)- O(3) —

Further, according to James 1:17 with God “there is no change, nor shadow of alteration.” But it seems to argue some change in the Divine will that God should give man certain sacraments for his sanctification now during the time of grace, and other sacraments before Christ’s coming. Therefore it seems that other sacraments should not have been instituted after Christ.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(4) —

On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix) that the sacraments of the Old Law “were abolished because they were fulfilled; and others were instituted, fewer in number, but more efficacious, more profitable, and of easier accomplishment.”

P(3)- Q(61)- A(4) —

I answer that, As the ancient Fathers were saved through faith in Christ’s future coming, so are we saved through faith in Christ’s past birth and Passion. Now the sacraments are signs in protestation of the faith whereby man is justified; and signs should vary according as they signify the future, the past, or the present; for as Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix), “the same thing is variously pronounced as to be done and as having been done: for instance the word ‘passurus’ [going to suffer] differs from ‘passus’ [having suffered].”

Therefore the sacraments of the New Law, that signify Christ in relation to the past, must needs differ from those of the Old Law, that foreshadowed the future.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(4)- RO(1) —

As Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v), the state of the New Law. is between the state of the Old Law, whose figures are fulfilled in the New, and the state of glory, in which all truth will be openly and perfectly revealed. Wherefore then there will be no sacraments.

But now, so long as we know “through a glass in a dark manner,” ( Corinthians 13:12) we need sensible signs in order to reach spiritual things: and this is the province of the sacraments.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(4)- RO(2) —

The Apostle calls the sacraments of the Old Law “weak and needy elements” ( Galatians 4:9) because they neither contained nor caused grace. Hence the Apostle says that those who used these sacraments served God “under the elements of this world”: for the very reason that these sacraments were nothing else than the elements of this world. But our sacraments both contain and cause grace: consequently the comparison does not hold.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(4)- RO(3) —

Just as the head of the house is not proved to have a changeable mind, through issuing various commands to his household at various seasons, ordering things differently in winter and summer; so it does not follow that there is any change in God, because He instituted sacraments of one kind after Christ’s coming, and of another kind at the time of the Law. because the latter were suitable as foreshadowing grace; the former as signifying the presence of grace, QUESTION OF THE SACRAMENTS’ PRINCIPAL EFFECT, WHICH IS GRACE (SIX ARTICLES) We have now to consider the effect of the sacraments. First of their principal effect, which is grace; secondly, of their secondary effect, which is a character. Concerning the first there are six points of inquiry: (1) Whether the sacraments of the New Law are the cause of grace? (2) Whether sacramental grace confers anything in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts? (3) Whether the sacraments contain grace? (4) Whether there is any power in them for the causing of grace? (5) Whether the sacraments derive this power from Christ’s Passion? (6) Whether the sacraments of the Old Law caused grace?

P(3)- Q(62)- A(1) Whether the sacraments are the cause of grace?

P(3)- Q(62)- A(1)- O(1) —

It seems that the sacraments are not the cause of grace. For it seems that the same thing is not both sign and cause: since the nature of sign appears to be more in keeping with an effect. But a sacrament is a sign of grace. Therefore it is not its cause.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(1)- O(2) —

Further, nothing corporeal can act on a spiritual thing: since “the agent is more excellent than the patient,” as Augustine says (Genesis ad lit. xii). But the subject of grace is the human mind, which is something spiritual. Therefore the sacraments cannot cause grace.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(1)- O(3) —

Further, what is proper to God should not be ascribed to a creature. But it is proper to God to cause grace, according to Psalm 83:12: “The Lord will give grace and glory.” Since, therefore, the sacraments consist in certain words and created things, it seems that they cannot cause grace.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(1) —

On the contrary, Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan.) that the baptismal water “touches the body and cleanses the heart.” But the heart is not cleansed save through grace. Therefore it causes grace: and for like reason so do the other sacraments of the Church.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(1) —

I answer that, We must needs say that in some way the sacraments of the New Law cause grace. For it is evident that through the sacraments of the New Law man is incorporated with Christ: thus the Apostle says of Baptism ( Galatians 3:27): “As many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ.” And man is made a member of Christ through grace alone.

Some, however, say that they are the cause of grace not by their own operation, but in so far as God causes grace in the soul when the sacraments are employed. And they give as an example a man who on presenting a leaden coin, receives, by the king’s command, a hundred pounds: not as though the leaden coin, by any operation of its own, caused him to be given that sum of money; this being the effect of the mere will of the king. Hence Bernard says in a sermon on the Lord’s Supper: “Just as a canon is invested by means of a book, an abbot by means of a crozier, a bishop by means of a ring, so by the various sacraments various kinds of grace are conferred.” But if we examine the question properly, we shall see that according to the above mode the sacraments are mere signs. For the leaden coin is nothing but a sign of the king’s command that this man should receive money. In like manner the book is a sign of the conferring of a canonry. Hence, according to this opinion the sacraments of the New Law would be mere signs of grace; whereas we have it on the authority of many saints that the sacraments of the New Law not only signify, but also cause grace.

We must therefore say otherwise, that an efficient cause is twofold, principal and instrumental. The principal cause works by the power of its form, to which form the effect is likened; just as fire by its own heat makes something hot. In this way none but God can cause grace: since grace is nothing else than a participated likeness of the Divine Nature, according to 2 Peter 1:4: “He hath given us most great and precious promises; that we may be [Vulg.: ‘you may be made’] partakers of the Divine Nature.”

But the instrumental cause works not by the power of its form, but only by the motion whereby it is moved by the principal agent: so that the effect is not likened to the instrument but to the principal agent: for instance, the couch is not like the axe, but like the art which is in the craftsman’s mind. And it is thus that the sacraments of the New Law cause grace: for they are instituted by God to be employed for the purpose of conferring grace. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix): “All these things,” viz. pertaining to the sacraments, “are done and pass away, but the power,” viz. of God, “which works by them, remains ever.” Now that is, properly speaking, an instrument by which someone works: wherefore it is written ( Titus 3:5): “He saved us by the laver of regeneration.”

P(3)- Q(62)- A(1)- RO(1) —

The principal cause cannot properly be called a sign of its effect, even though the latter be hidden and the cause itself sensible and manifest. But an instrumental cause, if manifest, can be called a sign of a hidden effect, for this reason, that it is not merely a cause but also in a measure an effect in so far as it is moved by the principal agent.

And in this sense the sacraments of the New Law are both cause and signs.

Hence, too, is it that, to use the common expression, “they effect what they signify.” From this it is clear that they perfectly fulfil the conditions of a sacrament; being ordained to something sacred, not only as a sign, but also as a cause.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(1)- RO(2) —

An instrument has a twofold action; one is instrumental, in respect of which it works not by its own power but by the power of the principal agent: the other is its proper action, which belongs to it in respect of its proper form: thus it belongs to an axe to cut asunder by reason of its sharpness, but to make a couch, in so far as it is the instrument of an art. But it does not accomplish the instrumental action save by exercising its proper action: for it is by cutting that it makes a couch. In like manner the corporeal sacraments by their operation, which they exercise on the body that they touch, accomplish through the Divine institution an instrumental operation on the soul; for example, the water of baptism, in respect of its proper power, cleanses the body, and thereby, inasmuch as it is the instrument of the Divine power, cleanses the soul: since from soul and body one thing is made. And thus it is that Augustine says (Genesis ad lit. xii) that it “touches the body and cleanses the heart.”

P(3)- Q(62)- A(1)- RO(3) —

This argument considers that which causes grace as principal agent; for this belongs to God alone, as stated above.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(2) Whether sacramental grace confers anything in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts?

P(3)- Q(62)- A(2)- O(1) —

It seems that sacramental grace confers nothing in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts. For the grace of the virtues and gifts perfects the soul sufficiently, both in its essence and in its powers; as is clear from what was said in the P(2a), Q(110), AA(3),4 . But grace is ordained to the perfecting of the soul. Therefore sacramental grace cannot confer anything in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(2)- O(2) —

Further, the soul’s defects are caused by sin.

But all sins are sufficiently removed by the grace of the virtues and gifts: because there is no sin that is not contrary to some virtue. Since, therefore, sacramental grace is ordained to the removal of the soul’s defects, it cannot confer anything in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(2)- O(3) —

Further, every addition or subtraction of form varies the species (Metaph. viii). If, therefore, sacramental grace confers anything in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts, it follows that it is called grace equivocally: and so we are none the wiser when it is said that the sacraments cause grace.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(2) —

On the contrary, If sacramental grace confers nothing in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts, it is useless to confer the sacraments on those who have the virtues and gifts. But there is nothing useless in God’s works. Therefore it seems that sacramental grace confers something in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(2) —

I answer that, As stated in the P(2a), Q(110), AA(3),4 , grace, considered in itself, perfects the essence of the soul, in so far as it is a certain participated likeness of the Divine Nature. And just as the soul’s powers flow from its essence, so from grace there flow certain perfections into the powers of the soul, which are called virtues and gifts, whereby the powers are perfected in reference to their actions. Now the sacraments are ordained unto certain special effects which are necessary in the Christian life: thus Baptism is ordained unto a certain spiritual regeneration, by which man dies to vice and becomes a member of Christ: which effect is something special in addition to the actions of the soul’s powers: and the same holds true of the other sacraments. Consequently just as the virtues and gifts confer, in addition to grace commonly so called, a certain special perfection ordained to the powers’ proper actions, so does sacramental grace confer, over and above grace commonly so called, and in addition to the virtues and gifts, a certain Divine assistance in obtaining the end of the sacrament. It is thus that sacramental grace confers something in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(2)- RO(1) —

The grace of the virtues and gifts perfects the essence and powers of the soul sufficiently as regards ordinary conduct: but as regards certain special effects which are necessary in a Christian life, sacramental grace is needed.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(2)- RO(2) —

Vices and sins are sufficiently removed by virtues and gifts, as to present and future time. in so far as they prevent man from sinning. But in regard to past sins, the acts of which are transitory whereas their guilt remains, man is provided with a special remedy in the sacraments.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(2)- RO(3) —

Sacramental grace is compared to grace commonly so called, as species to genus. Wherefore just as it is not equivocal to use the term “animal” in its generic sense, and as applied to a man, so neither is it equivocal to speak of grace commonly so called and of sacramental grace.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(3) Whether the sacraments of the New Law contain grace?

P(3)- Q(62)- A(3)- O(1) —

It seems that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain grace. For it seems that what is contained is in the container.

But grace is not in the sacraments; neither as in a subject, because the subject of grace is not a body but a spirit; nor as in a vessel, for according to Phys. iv, “a vessel is a movable place,” and an accident cannot be in a place. Therefore it seems that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain grace.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(3)- O(2) —

Further, sacraments are instituted as means whereby men may obtain grace. But since grace is an accident it cannot pass from one subject to another. Therefore it would be of no account if grace were in the sacraments.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(3)- O(3) —

Further, a spiritual thing is not contained by a corporeal, even if it be therein; for the soul is not contained by the body; rather does it contain the body. Since, therefore, grace is something spiritual, it seems that it cannot be contained in a corporeal sacrament.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(3) —

On the contrary, Hugh of S. Victor says (De Sacram. i) that “a sacrament, through its being sanctified, contains an invisible grace.”

P(3)- Q(62)- A(3) —

I answer that, A thing is said to be in another in various ways; in two of which grace is said to be in the sacraments. First, as in its sign; for a sacrament is a sign of grace. Secondly, as in its cause; for, as stated above ( A(1) ) a sacrament of the New Law is an instrumental cause of grace. Wherefore grace is in a sacrament of the New Law, not as to its specific likeness, as an effect in its univocal cause; nor as to some proper and permanent form proportioned to such an effect, as effects in non-univocal causes, for instance, as things generated are in the sun; but as to a certain instrumental power transient and incomplete in its natural being, as will be explained later on ( A(4) ).

P(3)- Q(62)- A(3)- RO(1) —

Grace is said to be in a sacrament not as in its subject; nor as in a vessel considered as a place, but understood as the instrument of some work to be done, according to Ezekiel 9:1: “Everyone hath a destroying vessel [Douay: ‘weapon’] in his hand.”

P(3)- Q(62)- A(3)- RO(2) —

Although an accident does not pass from one subject to another, nevertheless in a fashion it does pass from its cause into its subject through the instrument; not so that it be in each of these in the same way, but in each according to its respective nature.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(3)- RO(3) —

If a spiritual thing exist perfectly in something, it contains it and is not contained by it. But, in a sacrament, grace has a passing and incomplete mode of being: and consequently it is not unfitting to say that the sacraments contain grace.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(4) Whether there be in the sacraments a power of causing grace?

P(3)- Q(62)- A(4)- O(1) —

It seems that there is not in the sacraments a power of causing grace. For the power of causing grace is a spiritual power. But a spiritual power cannot be in a body; neither as proper to it, because power flows from a thing’s essence and consequently cannot transcend it; nor as derived from something else, because that which is received into anything follows the mode of the recipient. Therefore in the sacraments there is no power of causing grace.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(4)- O(2) —

Further, whatever exists is reducible to some kind of being and some degree of good. But there is no assignable kind of being to which such a power can belong; as anyone may see by running. through them all. Nor is it reducible to some degree of good; for neither is it one of the goods of least account, since sacraments are necessary for salvation: nor is it an intermediate good, such as are the powers of the soul, which are natural powers; nor is it one of the greater goods, for it is neither grace nor a virtue of the mind. Therefore it seems that in the sacraments there is no power of causing grace.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(4)- O(3) —

Further, if there be such a power in the sacraments, its presence there must be due to nothing less than a creative act of God. But it seems unbecoming that so excellent a being created by God should cease to exist as soon as the sacrament is complete. Therefore it seems that in the sacraments there is no power for causing grace.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(4)- O(4) —

Further, the same thing cannot be in several. But several things concur in the completion of a sacrament, namely, words and things: while in one sacrament there can be but one power. Therefore it seems that there is no power of causing grace in the sacraments.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(4) —

On the contrary, Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan.): “Whence hath water so great power, that it touches the body and cleanses the heart?” And Bede says that “Our Lord conferred a power of regeneration on the waters by the contact of His most pure body.”

P(3)- Q(62)- A(4) —

I answer that, Those who hold that the sacraments do not cause grace save by a certain coincidence, deny the sacraments any power that is itself productive of the sacramental effect, and hold that the Divine power assists the sacraments and produces their effect. But if we hold that a sacrament is an instrumental cause of grace, we must needs allow that there is in the sacraments a certain instrumental power of bringing about the sacramental effects. Now such power is proportionate to the instrument: and consequently it stands in comparison to the complete and perfect power of anything, as the instrument to the principal agent. For an instrument, as stated above ( A(1) ), does not work save as moved by the principal agent, which works of itself. And therefore the power of the principal agent exists in nature completely and perfectly: whereas the instrumental power has a being that passes from one thing into another, and is incomplete; just as motion is an imperfect act passing from agent to patient.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(4)- RO(1) —

A spiritual power cannot be in a corporeal subject, after the manner of a permanent and complete power, as the argument proves. But there is nothing to hinder an instrumental spiritual power from being in a body; in so far as a body can be moved by a particular spiritual substance so as to produce a particular spiritual effect; thus in the very voice which is perceived by the senses there is a certain spiritual power, inasmuch as it proceeds from a mental concept, of arousing the mind of the hearer. It is in this way that a spiritual power is in the sacraments, inasmuch as they are ordained by God unto the production of a spiritual effect.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(4)- RO(2) —

Just as motion, through being an imperfect act, is not properly in a genus, but is reducible to a genus of perfect act, for instance, alteration to the genus of quality: so, instrumental power, properly speaking, is not in any genus, but is reducible to a genus and species of perfect act.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(4)- RO(3) —

Just as an instrumental power accrues to an instrument through its being moved by the principal agent, so does a sacrament receive spiritual power from Christ’s blessing and from the action of the minister in applying it to a sacramental use. Hence Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (St. Maximus of Turin, Serm. xii): “Nor should you marvel, if we say that water, a corporeal substance, achieves the cleansing of the soul. It does indeed, and penetrates every secret hiding-place of the conscience. For subtle and clear as it is, the blessing of Christ makes it yet more subtle, so that it permeates into the very principles of life and searches the inner-most recesses of the heart.”

P(3)- Q(62)- A(4)- RO(4) —

Just as the one same power of the principal agent is instrumentally in all the instruments that are ordained unto the production of an effect, forasmuch as they are one as being so ordained: so also the one same sacramental power is in both words and things, forasmuch as words and things combine to form one sacrament.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(5) Whether the sacraments of the New Law derive their power from Christ’s Passion?

P(3)- Q(62)- A(5)- O(1) —

It seems that the sacraments of the New Law do not derive their power from Christ’s Passion. For the power of the sacraments is in the causing of grace which is the principle of spiritual life in the soul. But as Augustine says (Tract. xix in Joan.): “The Word, as He was in the beginning with God, quickens souls; as He was made flesh, quickens bodies.” Since, therefore, Christ’s Passion pertains to the Word as made flesh, it seems that it cannot cause the power of the sacraments.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(5)- O(2) —

Further, the power of the sacraments seems to depend on faith. for as Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan.), the Divine Word perfects the sacrament “not because it is spoken, but because it is believed.” But our faith regards not only Christ’s Passion, but also the other mysteries of His humanity, and in a yet higher measure, His Godhead. Therefore it seems that the power of the sacraments is not due specially to Christ’s Passion.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(5)- O(3) —

Further, the sacraments are ordained unto man’s justification, according to 1 Corinthians 6:11: “You are washed... you are justified.” Now justification is ascribed to the Resurrection, according to Romans 4:25: “(Who) rose again for our justification.” Therefore it seems that the sacraments derive their power from Christ’s Resurrection rather than from His Passion.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(5) —

On the contrary, on Romans 5:14: “After the similitude of the transgression of Adam,” etc., the gloss says: “From the side of Christ asleep on the Cross flowed the sacraments which brought salvation to the Church.” Consequently, it seems that the sacraments derive their power from Christ’s Passion.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(5) —

I answer that, As stated above ( A(1) ) a sacrament in causing grace works after the manner of an instrument. Now an instrument is twofold. the one, separate, as a stick, for instance; the other, united, as a hand. Moreover, the separate instrument is moved by means of the united instrument, as a stick by the hand. Now the principal efficient cause of grace is God Himself, in comparison with Whom Christ’s humanity is as a united instrument, whereas the sacrament is as a separate instrument.

Consequently, the saving power must needs be derived by the sacraments from Christ’s Godhead through His humanity.

Now sacramental grace seems to be ordained principally to two things: namely, to take away the defects consequent on past sins, in so far as they are transitory in act, but endure in guilt; and, further, to perfect the soul in things pertaining to Divine Worship in regard to the Christian Religion.

But it is manifest from what has been stated above ( Q(48), AA(1),2,6; Q(49), AA(1),3 ) that Christ delivered us from our sins principally through His Passion, not only by way of efficiency and merit, but also by way of satisfaction. Likewise by His Passion He inaugurated the Rites of the Christian Religion by offering “Himself — an oblation and a sacrifice to God” ( Ephesians 5:2). Wherefore it is manifest that the sacraments of the Church derive their power specially from Christ’s Passion, the virtue of which is in a manner united to us by our receiving the sacraments. It was in sign of this that from the side of Christ hanging on the Cross there flowed water and blood, the former of which belongs to Baptism, the latter to the Eucharist, which are the principal sacraments.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(5)- RO(1) —

The Word, forasmuch as He was in the beginning with God, quickens souls as principal agent; but His flesh, and the mysteries accomplished therein, are as instrumental causes in the process of giving life to the soul: while in giving life to the body they act not only as instrumental causes, but also to a certain extent as exemplars, as we stated above ( Q(56), A(1), ad 3).

P(3)- Q(62)- A(5)- RO(2) —

Christ dwells in us “by faith” ( Ephesians 3:17). Consequently, by faith Christ’s power is united to us. Now the power of blotting out sin belongs in a special way to His Passion. And therefore men are delivered from sin especially by faith in His Passion, according to Romans 3:25: “Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation through faith in His Blood.” Therefore the power of the sacraments which is ordained unto the remission of sins is derived principally from faith in Christ’s Passion.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(5)- RO(3) —

Justification is ascribed to the Resurrection by reason of the term “whither,” which is newness of life through grace. But it is ascribed to the Passion by reason of the term “whence,” i.e. in regard to the forgiveness of sin.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(6) Whether the sacraments of the Old Law caused grace?

P(3)- Q(62)- A(6)- O(1) —

It seems that the sacraments of the Old Law caused grace. For, as stated above ( A(5), ad 2) the sacraments of the New Law derive their efficacy from faith in Christ’s Passion. But there was faith in Christ’s Passion under the Old Law, as well as under the New, since we have “the same spirit of faith” ( 2 Corinthians 4:13). Therefore just as the sacraments of the New Law confer grace, so did the sacraments of the Old Law.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(6)- O(2) —

Further, there is no sanctification save by grace.

But men were sanctified by the sacraments of the Old Law: for it is written ( Leviticus 8:31): “And when he,” i.e. Moses, “had sanctified them,” i.e. Aaron and his sons, “in their vestments,” etc. Therefore it seems that the sacraments of the Old Law conferred grace.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(6)- O(3) —

Further, Bede says in a homily on the Circumcision: “Under the Law circumcision provided the same healthgiving balm against the wound of original sin, as baptism in the time of revealed grace.” But Baptism confers grace now. Therefore circumcision conferred grace; and in like manner, the other sacraments of the Law; for just as Baptism is the door of the sacraments of the New Law, so was circumcision the door of the sacraments of the Old Law: hence the Apostle says ( Galatians 5:3): “I testify to every man circumcising himself, that he is a debtor to the whole law.”

P(3)- Q(62)- A(6) —

On the contrary, It is written ( Galatians 4:9): “Turn you again to the weak and needy elements?” i.e. “to the Law,” says the gloss, “which is called weak, because it does not justify perfectly.” But grace justifies perfectly. Therefore the sacraments of the old Law did not confer grace.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(6) —

I answer that, It cannot be said that the sacraments of the Old Law conferred sanctifying grace of themselves, i.e. by their own power: since thus Christ’s Passion would not have been necessary, according to Galatians 2:21: “If justice be by the Law, then Christ died in vain.”

But neither can it be said that they derived the power of conferring sanctifying grace from Christ’s Passion. For as it was stated above ( A(5) ), the power of Christ’s Passion is united to us by faith and the sacraments, but in different ways; because the link that comes from faith is produced by an act of the soul; whereas the link that comes from the sacraments, is produced by making use of exterior things. Now nothing hinders that which is subsequent in point of time, from causing movement, even before it exists in reality, in so far as it pre-exists in an act of the soul: thus the end, which is subsequent in point of time, moves the agent in so far as it is apprehended and desired by him. On the other hand, what does not yet actually exist, does not cause movement if we consider the use of exterior things. Consequently, the efficient cause cannot in point of time come into existence after causing movement, as does the final cause. It is therefore clear that the sacraments of the New Law do reasonably derive the power of justification from Christ’s Passion, which is the cause of man’s righteousness; whereas the sacraments of the Old Law did not.

Nevertheless the Fathers of old were justified by faith in Christ’s Passion, just as we are. And the sacraments of the old Law were a kind of protestation of that faith, inasmuch as they signified Christ’s Passion and its effects. It is therefore manifest that the sacraments of the Old Law were not endowed with any power by which they conduced to the bestowal of justifying grace: and they merely signified faith by which men were justified.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(6)- RO(1) —

The Fathers of old had faith in the future Passion of Christ, which, inasmuch as it was apprehended by the mind, was able to justify them. But we have faith in the past Passion of Christ, which is able to justify, also by the real use of sacramental things as stated above.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(6)- RO(2) —

That sanctification was but a figure: for they were said to be sanctified forasmuch as they gave themselves up to the Divine worship according to the rite of the Old Law, which was wholly ordained to the foreshadowing of Christ’s Passion.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(6)- RO(3) —

There have been many opinions about Circumcision. For, according to some, Circumcision conferred no grace, but only remitted sin. But this is impossible; because man is not justified from sin save by grace, according to Romans 3:24: “Being justified freely by His grace.”

Wherefore others said that by Circumcision grace is conferred, as to the privative effects of sin, but not as to its positive effects. But this also appears to be false, because by Circumcision, children received the faculty of obtaining glory, which is the ultimate positive effect of grace. Moreover, as regards the order of the formal cause, positive effects are naturally prior to privative effects, though according to the order of the material cause, the reverse is the case: for a form does not exclude privation save by informing the subject.

Hence others say that Circumcision conferred grace also as regards a certain positive effect, i.e. by making man worthy of eternal life, but not so as to repress concupiscence which makes man prone to sin. And so at one time it seemed to me. But if the matter be considered carefully, this too appears to be untrue; because the very least grace is sufficient to resist any degree of concupiscence, and to merit eternal life.

And therefore it seems better to say that Circumcision was a sign of justifying faith: wherefore the Apostle says ( Romans 4:11) that Abraham “received the sign of Circumcision, a seal of the justice of faith.”

Consequently grace was conferred in Circumcision in so far as it was a sign of Christ’s future Passion, as will be made clear further on ( Q(70), A(4) ).

QUESTION OF THE OTHER EFFECT OF THE SACRAMENTS, WHICH IS A CHARACTER (SIX ARTICLES)

We have now to consider the other effect of the sacraments, which is a character: and concerning this there are six points of inquiry: (1) Whether by the sacraments a character is produced in the soul? (2) What is this character? (3) Of whom is this character? (4) What is its subject? (5) Is it indelible? (6) Whether every sacrament imprints a character?

P(3)- Q(63)- A(1) Whether a sacrament imprints a character on the soul?

P(3)- Q(63)- A(1)- O(1) —

It seems that a sacrament does not imprint a character on the soul. For the word “character” seems to signify some kind of distinctive sign. But Christ’s members are distinguished from others by eternal predestination, which does not imply anything in the predestined, but only in God predestinating, as we have stated in the P(1), Q(23), A(2) .

For it is written ( 2 Timothy 2:19): “The sure foundation of God standeth firm, having this seal:

The Lord knoweth who are His.”

Therefore the sacraments do not imprint a character on the soul.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(1)- O(2) —

Further, a character is a distinctive sign. Now a sign, as Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. ii) “is that which conveys something else to the mind, besides the species which it impresses on the senses.” But nothing in the soul can impress a species on the senses.

Therefore it seems that no character is imprinted on the soul by the sacraments.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(1)- O(3) —

Further, just as the believer is distinguished from the unbeliever by the sacraments of the New Law, so was it under the Old Law. But the sacraments of the Old Law did not imprint a character; whence they are called “justices of the flesh” ( Hebrews 9:10) by the Apostle. Therefore neither seemingly do the sacraments of the New Law.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(1) —

On the contrary, The Apostle says ( 2 Corinthians 1:21,22): “He... that hath anointed us is God; Who also hath sealed us, and given the pledge of the spirit in our hearts.”

But a character means nothing else than a kind of sealing. Therefore it seems that by the sacraments God imprints His character on us.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(1) —

I answer that, As is clear from what has been already stated ( Q(62), A(5) ) the sacraments of the New Law are ordained for a twofold purpose; namely, for a remedy against sins; and for the perfecting of the soul in things pertaining to the Divine worship according to the rite of the Christian life. Now whenever anyone is deputed to some definite purpose he is wont to receive some outward sign thereof; thus in olden times soldiers who enlisted in the ranks used to be marked with certain characters on the body, through being deputed to a bodily service. Since, therefore, by the sacraments men are deputed to a spiritual service pertaining to the worship of God, it follows that by their means the faithful receive a certain spiritual character. Wherefore Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii): “If a deserter from the battle, through dread of the mark of enlistment on his body, throws himself on the emperor’s clemency, and having besought and received mercy, return to the fight; is that character renewed, when the man has been set free and reprimanded? is it not rather acknowledged and approved? Are the Christian sacraments, by any chance, of a nature less lasting than this bodily mark?”

P(3)- Q(63)- A(1)- RO(1) —

The faithful of Christ are destined to the reward of the glory that is to come, by the seal of Divine Predestination.

But they are deputed to acts becoming the Church that is now, by a certain spiritual seal that is set on them, and is called a character.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(1)- RO(2) —

The character imprinted on the soul is a kind of sign in so far as it is imprinted by a sensible sacrament: since we know that a certain one has received the baptismal character, through his being cleansed by the sensible water. Nevertheless from a kind of likeness, anything that assimilates one thing to another, or discriminates one thing from another, even though it be not sensible, can be called a character or a seal; thus the Apostle calls Christ “the figure” or \charakter\ “of the substance of the Father” ( Hebrews 1:3).

P(3)- Q(63)- A(1)- RO(3) —

As stated above ( Q(62), A(6) ) the sacraments of the Old Law had not in themselves any spiritual power of producing a spiritual effect. Consequently in those sacraments there was no need of a spiritual character, and bodily circumcision sufficed, which the Apostle calls “a seal” ( Romans 4:11).

P(3)- Q(63)- A(2) Whether a character is a spiritual power?

P(3)- Q(63)- A(2)- O(1) —

It seems that a character is not a spiritual power. For “character” seems to be the same thing as “figure”; hence ( Hebrews 1:3), where we read “figure of His substance, “for “figure” the Greek has \charakter\. Now “figure” is in the fourth species of quality, and thus differs from power which is in the second species. Therefore character is not a spiritual power.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(2)- O(2) —

Further, Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. ii): “The Divine Beatitude admits him that seeks happiness to a share in Itself, and grants this share to him by conferring on him Its light as a kind of seal.”

Consequently, it seems that a character is a kind of light. Now light belongs rather to the third species of quality. Therefore a character is not a power, since this seems to belong to the second species.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(2)- O(3) —

Further, character is defined by some thus: “A character is a holy sign of the communion of faith and of the holy ordination conferred by a hierarch.” Now a sign is in the genus of “relation,” not of “power.” Therefore a character is not a spiritual power.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(2)- O(4) —

Further, a power is in the nature of a cause and principle (Metaph. v). But a “sign” which is set down in the definition of a character is rather in the nature of an effect. Therefore a character is not a spiritual power.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(2) —

On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. ii): “There are three things in the soul, power, habit, and passion.” Now a character is not a passion: since a passion passes quickly, whereas a character is indelible, as will be made clear further on ( A(5) ). In like manner it is not a habit: because no habit is indifferent to acting well or ill: whereas a character is indifferent to either, since some use it well, some ill. Now this cannot occur with a habit: because no one abuses a habit of virtue, or uses well an evil habit. It remains, therefore, that a character is a power.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(2) —

I answer that, As stated above ( A(1) ), the sacraments of the New Law produce a character, in so far as by them we are deputed to the worship of God according to the rite of the Christian religion.

Wherefore Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. ii), after saying that God “by a kind of sign grants a share of Himself to those that approach Him,” adds “by making them Godlike and communicators of Divine gifts.” Now the worship of God consists either in receiving Divine gifts, or in bestowing them on others. And for both these purposes some power is needed; for to bestow something on others, active power is necessary; and in order to receive, we need a passive power. Consequently, a character signifies a certain spiritual power ordained unto things pertaining to the Divine worship.

But it must be observed that this spiritual power is instrumental: as we have stated above ( Q(62), A(4) ) of the virtue which is in the sacraments.

For to have a sacramental character belongs to God’s ministers: and a minister is a kind of instrument, as the Philosopher says (Polit. i).

Consequently, just as the virtue which is in the sacraments is not of itself in a genus, but is reducible to a genus, for the reason that it is of a transitory and incomplete nature: so also a character is not properly in a genus or species, but is reducible to the second species of quality.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(2)- RO(1) —

Configuration is a certain boundary of quantity. Wherefore, properly speaking, it is only in corporeal things; and of spiritual things is said metaphorically. Now that which decides the genus or species of a thing must needs be predicated of it properly.

Consequently, a character cannot be in the fourth species of quality, although some have held this to be the case.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(2)- RO(2) —

The third species of quality contains only sensible passions or sensible qualities. Now a character is not a sensible light. Consequently, it is not in the third species of quality as some have maintained.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(2)- RO(3) —

The relation signified by the word “sign” must needs have some foundation. Now the relation signified by this sign which is a character, cannot be founded immediately on the essence of the soul: because then it would belong to every soul naturally. Consequently, there must be something in the soul on which such a relation is founded. And it is in this that a character essentially consists. Therefore it need not be in the genus “relation” as some have held.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(2)- RO(4) —

A character is in the nature of a sign in comparison to the sensible sacrament by which it is imprinted. But considered in itself, it is in the nature of a principle, in the way already explained.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(3) Whether the sacramental character is the character of Christ?

P(3)- Q(63)- A(3)- O(1) —

It seems that the sacramental character is not the character of Christ. For it is written ( Ephesians 4:30): “Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby you are sealed.” But a character consists essentially in some. thing that seals. Therefore the sacramental character should be attributed to the Holy Ghost rather than to Christ.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(3)- O(2) —

Further, a character has the nature of a sign. And it is a sign of the grace that is conferred by the sacrament. Now grace is poured forth into the soul by the whole Trinity; wherefore it is written ( Psalm 83:12): “The Lord will give grace and glory.” Therefore it seems that the sacramental character should not be attributed specially to Christ.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(3)- O(3) —

Further, a man is marked with a character that he may be distinguishable from others. But the saints are distinguishable from others by charity, which, as Augustine says (De Trin. xv), “alone separates the children of the Kingdom from the children of perdition”: wherefore also the children of perdition are said to have “the character of the beast” ( Revelation 13:16,17). But charity is not attributed to Christ, but rather to the Holy Ghost according to Romans 5:5: “The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost, Who is given to us”; or even to the Father, according to 2 Corinthians 13:13: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the charity of God.” Therefore it seems that the sacramental character should not be attributed to Christ.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(3) —

On the contrary, Some define character thus: “A character is a distinctive mark printed in a man’s rational soul by the eternal Character, whereby the created trinity is sealed with the likeness of the creating and re-creating Trinity, and distinguishing him from those who are not so enlikened, according to the state of faith.” But the eternal Character is Christ Himself, according to Hebrews 1:3: “Who being the brightness of His glory and the figure,” or character, “of His substance.” It seems, therefore, that the character should properly be attributed to Christ.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(3) —

I answer that, As has been made clear above ( A(1) ), a character is properly a kind of seal, whereby something is marked, as being ordained to some particular end: thus a coin is marked for use in exchange of goods, and soldiers are marked with a character as being deputed to military service. Now the faithful are deputed to a twofold end. First and principally to the enjoyment of glory. And for this purpose they are marked with the seal of grace according to Ezekiel 9:4: “Mark Thou upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and mourn”; and Revelation 7:3: “Hurt not the earth, nor the sea, nor the trees, till we sign the servants of our God in their foreheads.”

Secondly, each of the faithful is deputed to receive, or to bestow on others, things pertaining to the worship of God. And this, properly speaking, is the purpose of the sacramental character. Now the whole rite of the Christian religion is derived from Christ’s priesthood. Consequently, it is clear that the sacramental character is specially the character of Christ, to Whose character the faithful are likened by reason of the sacramental characters, which are nothing else than certain participations of Christ’s Priesthood, flowing from Christ Himself.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(3)- RO(1) —

The Apostle speaks there of that sealing by which a man is assigned to future glory, and which is effected by grace.

Now grace is attributed to the Holy Ghost, inasmuch as it is through love that God gives us something gratis, which is the very nature of grace: while the Holy Ghost is love. Wherefore it is written ( 1 Corinthians 12:4): “There are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit.”

P(3)- Q(63)- A(3)- RO(2) —

The sacramental character is a thing as regards the exterior sacrament, and a sacrament in regard to the ultimate effect.

Consequently, something can be attributed to a character in two ways.

First, if the character be considered as a sacrament: and thus it is a sign of the invisible grace which is conferred in the sacrament. Secondly, if it be considered as a character. And thus it is a sign conferring on a man a likeness to some principal person in whom is vested the authority over that to which he is assigned: thus soldiers who are assigned to military service, are marked with their leader’s sign, by which they are, in a fashion, likened to him. And in this way those who are deputed to the Christian worship, of which Christ is the author, receive a character by which they are likened to Christ. Consequently, properly speaking, this is Christ’s character.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(3)- RO(3) —

A character distinguishes one from another, in relation to some particular end, to which he, who receives the character is ordained: as has been stated concerning the military character ( A(1) ) by which a soldier of the king is distinguished from the enemy’s soldier in relation to the battle. In like manner the character of the faithful is that by which the faithful of Christ are distinguished from the servants of the devil, either in relation to eternal life, or in relation to the worship of the Church that now is. Of these the former is the result of charity and grace, as the objection runs; while the latter results from the sacramental character. Wherefore the “character of the beast” may be understood by opposition, to mean either the obstinate malice for which some are assigned to eternal punishment, or the profession of an unlawful form of worship.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(4) Whether the character be subjected in the powers of the soul?

P(3)- Q(63)- A(4)- O(1) —

It seems that the character is not subjected in the powers of the soul. For a character is said to be a disposition to grace.

But grace is subjected in the essence of the soul as we have stated in the P(2a), Q(110), A(4) . Therefore it seems that the character is in the essence of the soul and not in the powers.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(4)- O(2) —

Further, a power of the soul does not seem to be the subject of anything save habit and disposition. But a character, as stated above ( A(2) ), is neither habit nor disposition, but rather a power: the subject of which is nothing else than the essence of the soul. Therefore it seems that the character is not subjected in a power of the soul, but rather in its essence.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(4)- O(3) —

Further, the powers of the soul are divided into those of knowledge and those of appetite. But it cannot be said that a character is only in a cognitive power, nor, again, only in an appetitive power: since it is neither ordained to knowledge only, nor to desire only.

Likewise, neither can it be said to be in both, because the same accident cannot be in several subjects. Therefore it seems that a character is not subjected in a power of the soul, but rather in the essence.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(4) —

On the contrary, A character, according to its definition given above ( A(3) ), is imprinted in the rational soul “by way of an image.” But the image of the Trinity in the soul is seen in the powers.

Therefore a character is in the powers of the soul.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(4) —

I answer that, As stated above ( A(3) ), a character is a kind of seal by which the soul is marked, so that it may receive, or bestow on others, things pertaining to Divine worship. Now the Divine worship consists in certain actions: and the powers of the soul are properly ordained to actions, just as the essence is ordained to existence. Therefore a character is subjected not in the essence of the soul, but in its power.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(4)- RO(1) —

The subject is ascribed to an. accident in respect of that to which the accident disposes it proximately, but not in respect of that to which it disposes it remotely or indirectly. Now a character disposes the soul directly and proximately to the fulfilling of things pertaining to Divine worship: and because such cannot be accomplished suitably without the help of grace, since, according to John 4:24, “they that adore” God “must adore Him in spirit and in truth,” consequently, the Divine bounty bestows grace on those who receive the character, so that they may accomplish worthily the service to which they are deputed. Therefore the subject should be ascribed to a character in respect of those actions that pertain to the Divine worship, rather than in respect of grace.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(4)- RO(2) —

The subject of the natural power, which flows from the principles of the essence. Now a character is not a power of this kind. but a spiritual power coming from without. Wherefore, just as the essence of the soul, from which man has his natural life, is perfected by grace from which the soul derives spiritual life; so the natural power of the soul is perfected by a spiritual power, which is a character. For habit and disposition belong to a power of the soul, since they are ordained to actions of which the powers are the principles. And in like manner whatever is ordained to action, should be attributed to a power.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(4)- RO(3) —

As stated above, a character is ordained unto things pertaining to the Divine worship; which is a protestation of faith expressed by exterior signs. Consequently, a character needs to be in the soul’s cognitive power, where also is faith.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(5) Whether a character can be blotted out from the soul?

P(3)- Q(63)- A(5)- O(1) —

It seems that a character can be blotted out from the soul. Because the more perfect an accident is, the more firmly does it adhere to its subject. But grace is more perfect than a character; because a character is ordained unto grace as to a further end. Now grace is lost through sin. Much more, therefore, is a character so lost.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(5)- O(2) —

Further, by a character a man is deputed to the Divine worship, as stated above ( AA(3),4 ). But some pass from the worship of God to a contrary worship by apostasy from the faith. It seems, therefore, that such lose the sacramental character.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(5)- O(3) —

Further, when the end ceases, the means to the end should cease also: thus after the resurrection there will be no marriage, because begetting will cease, which is the purpose of marriage. Now the exterior worship to which a character is ordained, will not endure in heaven, where there will be no shadows, but all will be truth without a veil.

Therefore the sacramental character does not last in the soul for ever: and consequently it can be blotted out.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(5) —

On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii): “The Christian sacraments are not less lasting than the bodily mark” of military service. But the character of military service is not repeated, but is “recognized and approved” in the man who obtains the emperor’s forgiveness after offending him. Therefore neither can the sacramental character be blotted out.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(5) —

I answer that, As stated above ( A(3) ), in a sacramental character Christ’s faithful have a share in His Priesthood; in the sense that as Christ has the full power of a spiritual priesthood, so His faithful are likened to Him by sharing a certain spiritual power with regard to the sacraments and to things pertaining to the Divine worship. For this reason it is unbecoming that Christ should have a character: but His Priesthood is compared to a character, as that which is complete and perfect is compared to some participation of itself. Now Christ’s Priesthood is eternal, according to <19A904> Psalm 109:4: “Thou art a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech.” Consequently, every sanctification wrought by His Priesthood, is perpetual, enduring as long as the thing sanctified endures. This is clear even in inanimate things; for the consecration of a church or an altar lasts for ever unless they be destroyed.

Since, therefore, the subject of a character is the soul as to its intellective part, where faith resides, as stated above ( A(4), ad 3); it is clear that, the intellect being perpetual and incorruptible, a character cannot be blotted out from the soul.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(5)- RO(1) —

Both grace and character are in the soul, but in different ways. For grace is in the soul, as a form having complete existence therein: whereas a character is in the soul, as an instrumental power, as stated above ( A(2) ). Now a complete form is in its subject according to the condition of the subject. And since the soul as long as it is a wayfarer is changeable in respect of the free-will, it results that grace is in the soul in a changeable manner. But an instrumental power follows rather the condition of the principal agent: and consequently a character exists in the soul in an indelible manner, not from any perfection of its own, but from the perfection of Christ’s Priesthood, from which the character flows like an instrumental power.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(5)- RO(2) —

As Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii), “even apostates are not deprived of their baptism, for when they repent and return to the fold they do not receive it again; whence we conclude that it cannot be lost.” The reason of this is that a character is an instrumental power, as stated above (ad 1), and the nature of an instrument as such is to be moved by another, but not to move itself; this belongs to the will.

Consequently, however much the will be moved in the contrary direction, the character is not removed, by reason of the immobility of the principal mover.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(5)- RO(3) —

Although external worship does not last after this life, yet its end remains. Consequently, after this life the character remains, both in the good as adding to their glory, and in the wicked as increasing their shame: just as the character of the military service remains in the soldiers after the victory, as the boast of the conquerors, and the disgrace of the conquered.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(6) Whether a character is imprinted by each sacrament of the New Law?

P(3)- Q(63)- A(6)- O(1) —

It seems that a character is imprinted by all the sacraments of the New Law: because each sacrament of the New Law makes man a participator in Christ’s Priesthood. But the sacramental character is nothing but a participation in Christ’s Priesthood, as already stated ( AA(3),5 ). Therefore it seems that a character is imprinted by each sacrament of the New Law.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(6)- O(2) —

Further, a character may be compared to the soul in which it is, as a consecration to that which is consecrated. But by each sacrament of the New Law man becomes the recipient of sanctifying grace, as stated above ( Q(62), A(1) ). Therefore it seems that a character is imprinted by each sacrament of the New Law.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(6)- O(3) —

Further, a character is both a reality and a sacrament. But in each sacrament of the New Law, there is something which is only a reality, and something which is only a sacrament, and something which is both reality and sacrament. Therefore a character is imprinted by each sacrament of the New Law.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(6) —

On the contrary, Those sacraments in which a character is imprinted, are not reiterated, because a character is indelible, as stated above ( A(5) ): whereas some sacraments are reiterated, for instance, penance and matrimony. Therefore not all the sacraments imprint a character.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(6) —

I answer that, As stated above ( Q(62), AA(1),5 ), the sacraments of the New Law are ordained for a twofold purpose, namely, as a remedy for sin, and for the Divine worship. Now all the sacraments, from the fact that they confer grace, have this in common, that they afford a remedy against sin: whereas not all the sacraments are directly ordained to the Divine worship. Thus it is clear that penance, whereby man is delivered from sin, does not afford man any advance in the Divine worship, but restores him to his former state.

Now a sacrament may belong to the Divine worship in three ways: first in regard to the thing done; secondly, in regard to the agent; thirdly, in regard to the recipient. In regard to the thing done, the Eucharist belongs to the Divine worship, for the Divine worship consists principally therein, so far as it is the sacrifice of the Church. And by this same sacrament a character is not imprinted on man; because it does not ordain man to any further sacramental action or benefit received, since rather is it “the end and consummation of all the sacraments,” as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii).

But it contains within itself Christ, in Whom there is not the character, but the very plenitude of the Priesthood.

But it is the sacrament of order that pertains to the sacramental agents: for it is by this sacrament that men are deputed to confer sacraments on others: while the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the recipients, since it confers on man the power to receive the other sacraments of the Church; whence it is called the “door of the sacraments.” In a way Confirmation also is ordained for the same purpose, as we shall explain in its proper place ( Q(65), A(3) ). Consequently, these three sacraments imprint a character, namely, Baptism, Confirmation, and order.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(6)- RO(1) —

Every sacrament makes man of the a participator in Christ’s Priesthood, from the fact that it confers on him some effect thereof. But every sacrament does not depute a man to do or receive something pertaining to the worship of the priesthood of Christ: while it is just this that is required for a sacrament to imprint a character.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(6)- RO(2) —

Man is sanctified by each of the sacraments, since sanctity means immunity from sin, which is the effect of grace. But in a special way some sacraments, which imprint a character, bestow on man a certain consecration, thus deputing him to the Divine worship: just as inanimate things are said to be consecrated forasmuch as they are deputed to Divine worship.

P(3)- Q(63)- A(6)- RO(3) —

Although a character is a reality and a sacrament, it does not follow that whatever is a reality and a sacrament, is also a character. With regard to the other sacraments we shall explain further on what is the reality and what is the sacrament.

QUESTION OF THE CAUSES OF THE SACRAMENTS (TEN ARTICLES)

In the next place we have to consider the causes of the sacraments, both as to authorship and as to ministration. Concerning which there are ten points of inquiry: (1) Whether God alone works inwardly in the sacraments? (2) Whether the institution of the sacraments is from God alone? (3) Of the power which Christ exercised over the sacraments; (4) Whether He could transmit that power to others? (5) Whether the wicked can have the power of administering the sacraments? (6) Whether the wicked sin in administering the sacraments? (7) Whether the angels can be ministers of the sacraments? (8) Whether the minister’s intention is necessary in the sacraments? (9) Whether right faith is required therein; so that it be impossible for an unbeliever to confer a sacrament? (10) Whether a right intention is required therein?

P(3)- Q(64)- A(1) Whether God alone, or the minister also, works inwardly unto the sacramental effect?

P(3)- Q(64)- A(1)- O(1) —

It seems that not God alone, but also the minister, works inwardly unto the sacramental effect. For the inward sacramental effect is to cleanse man from sin and enlighten him by grace.

But it belongs to the ministers of the Church “to cleanse, enlighten and perfect,” as Dionysius explains (Coel. Hier. v). Therefore it seems that the sacramental effect is the work not only of God, but also of the ministers of the Church.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(1)- O(2) —

Further, certain prayers are offered up in conferring the sacraments. But the prayers of the righteous are more acceptable to God than those of any other, according to John 9:31: “If a man be a server of God, and doth His will, him He heareth.” Therefore it stems that a man obtains a greater sacramental effect if he receive it from a good minister. Consequently, the interior effect is partly the work of the minister and not of God alone.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(1)- O(3) —

Further, man is of greater account than an inanimate thing. But an inanimate thing contributes something to the interior effect: since “water touches the body and cleanses the soul,” as Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan.). Therefore the interior sacramental effect is partly the work of man and not of God alone.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(1) —

On the contrary, It is written ( Romans 8:33): “God that justifieth.” Since, then, the inward effect of all the sacraments is justification, it seems that God alone works the interior sacramental effect.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(1) —

I answer that, There are two ways of producing an effect; first, as a principal agent; secondly, as an instrument. In the former way the interior sacramental effect is the work of God alone: first, because God alone can enter the soul wherein the sacramental effect takes place; and no agent can operate immediately where it is not: secondly, because grace which is an interior sacramental effect is from God alone, as we have established in the P(2a), Q(112), A(1) ; while the character which is the interior effect of certain sacraments, is an instrumental power which flows from the principal agent, which is God. In the second way, however, the interior sacramental effect can be the work of man, in so far as he works as a minister. For a minister is of the nature of an instrument, since the action of both is applied to something extrinsic, while the interior effect is produced through the power of the principal agent, which is God.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(1)- RO(1) —

Cleansing in so far as it is attributed to the ministers of the Church is not a washing from sin: deacons are said to “cleanse,” inasmuch as they remove the unclean from the body of the faithful, or prepare them by their pious admonitions for the reception of the sacraments. In like manner also priests are said to “enlighten” God’s people, not indeed by giving them grace, but by conferring on them the sacraments of grace; as Dionysius explains (Coel. Hier. v).

P(3)- Q(64)- A(1)- RO(2) —

The prayers which are said in giving the sacraments, are offered to God, not on the part of the individual, but on the part of the whole Church, whose prayers are acceptable to God, according to Matthew 18:19: “If two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning anything whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by My Father.” Nor is there any reason why the devotion of a just man should not contribute to this effect. But that which is the sacramental effect is not impetrated by the prayer of the Church or of the minister, but through the merit of Christ’s Passion, the power of which operates in the sacraments, as stated above ( Q(62), A(5) ). Wherefore the sacramental effect is made no better by a better minister. And yet something in addition may be impetrated for the receiver of the sacrament through the devotion of the minister: but this is not the work of the minister, but the work of God Who hears the minister’s prayer.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(1)- RO(3) —

Inanimate things do not produce the sacramental effect, except instrumentally, as stated above. In like manner neither do men produce the sacramental effect, except ministerially, as also stated above.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(2) Whether the sacraments are instituted by God alone?

P(3)- Q(64)- A(2)- O(1) —

It seems that the sacraments are not instituted by God alone. For those things which God has instituted are delivered to us in Holy Scripture. But in the sacraments certain things are done which are nowhere mentioned in Holy Scripture; for instance, the chrism with which men are confirmed, the oil with which priests are anointed, and many others, both words and actions, which we employ in the sacraments.

Therefore the sacraments were not instituted by God alone.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(2)- O(2) —

Further, a sacrament is a kind of sign. Now sensible things have their own natural signification. Nor can it be said that God takes pleasure in certain significations and not in others; because He approves of all that He made. Moreover, it seems to be peculiar to the demons to be enticed to something by means of signs; for Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxi): “The demons are enticed... by means of creatures, which were created not by them but by God, by various means of attraction according to their various natures, not as an animal is enticed by food, but as a spirit is drawn by a sign.” It seems, therefore, that there is no need for the sacraments to be instituted by God.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(2)- O(3) —

Further, the apostles were God’s vicegerents on earth: hence the Apostle says ( 2 Corinthians 2:10): “For what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ,” i.e. as though Christ Himself had pardoned. Therefore it seems that the apostles and their successors can institute new sacraments.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(2) —

On the contrary, The institutor of anything is he who gives it strength and power: as in the case of those who institute laws. But the power of a sacrament is from God alone, as we have shown above ( A(1) ; Q(62), A(1) ). Therefore God alone can institute a sacrament.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(2) —

I answer that, As appears from what has been said above ( A(1) ; Q(62), A(1) ), the sacraments are instrumental causes of spiritual effects. Now an instrument has its power from the principal agent. But an agent in respect of a sacrament is twofold; viz. he who institutes the sacraments, and he who makes use of the sacrament instituted, by applying it for the production of the effect. Now the power of a sacrament cannot be from him who makes use of the sacrament: because he works but as a minister. Consequently, it follows that the power of the sacrament is from the institutor of the sacrament. Since, therefore, the power of the sacrament is from God alone, it follows that God alone can institute the sacraments.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(2)- RO(1) —

Human institutions observed in the sacraments are not essential to the sacrament; but belong to the solemnity which is added to the sacraments in order to arouse devotion and reverence in the recipients. But those things that are essential to the sacrament, are instituted by Christ Himself, Who is God and man. And though they are not all handed down by the Scriptures, yet the Church holds them from the intimate tradition of the apostles, according to the saying of the Apostle ( 1 Corinthians 11:34): “The rest I will set in order when I come.”

P(3)- Q(64)- A(2)- RO(2) —

From their very nature sensible things have a certain aptitude for the signifying of spiritual effects: but this aptitude is fixed by the Divine institution to some special signification. This is what Hugh of St. Victor means by saying (De Sacram. i) that “a sacrament owes its signification to its institution.” Yet God chooses certain things rather than others for sacramental signification, not as though His choice were restricted to them, but in order that their signification be more suitable to them.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(2)- RO(3) —

The apostles and their successors are God’s vicars in governing the Church which is built on faith and the sacraments of faith. Wherefore, just as they may not institute another Church, so neither may they deliver another faith, nor institute other sacraments: on the contrary, the Church is said to be built up with the sacraments “which flowed from the side of Christ while hanging on the Cross.”

P(3)- Q(64)- A(3) Whether Christ as man had the power of producing the inward sacramental effect?

P(3)- Q(64)- A(3)- O(1) —

It seems that Christ as man had the power of producing the interior sacramental effect. For John the Baptist said ( John 1:33): “He, Who sent me to baptize in water, said to me: He upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, He it is that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.”

But to baptize with the Holy Ghost is to confer inwardly the grace of the Holy Ghost. And the Holy Ghost descended upon Christ as man, not as God: for thus He Himself gives the Holy Ghost. Therefore it seems that Christ, as man, had the power of producing the inward sacramental effect.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(3)- O(2) —

Further, our Lord said ( Matthew 9:6): “That you may know that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins.”

But forgiveness of sins is an inward sacramental effect. Therefore it seems that Christ as man produces the inward sacramental effect.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(3)- O(3) —

Further, the institution of the sacraments belongs to him who acts as principal agent in producing the inward sacramental effect. Now it is clear that Christ instituted the sacraments.

Therefore it is He that produces the inward sacramental effect.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(3)- O(4) —

Further, no one can confer the sacramental effect without conferring the sacrament, except he produce the sacramental effect by his own power. But Christ conferred the sacramental effect without conferring the sacrament; as in the case of Magdalen to whom He said: “Thy sins are forgiven Thee” ( Luke 7:48). Therefore it seems that Christ, as man, produces the inward sacramental effect.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(3)- O(5) —

Further, the principal agent in causing the inward effect is that in virtue of which the sacrament operates. But the sacraments derive their power from Christ’s Passion and through the invocation of His Name; according to 1 Corinthians 1:13: “Was Paul then crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”

Therefore Christ, as man, produces the inward sacramental effect.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(3) —

On the contrary, Augustine (Isidore, Etym. vi) says: “The Divine power in the sacraments works inwardly in producing their salutary effect.” Now the Divine power is Christ’s as God, not as man.

Therefore Christ produces the inward sacramental effect, not as man but as God.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(3) —

I answer that, Christ produces the inward sacramental effect, both as God and as man, but not in the same way. For, as God, He works in the sacraments by authority: but, as man, His operation conduces to the inward sacramental effects meritoriously and efficiently, but instrumentally. For it has been stated ( Q(48), AA(1),6 ; Q(49), A(1) ) that Christ’s Passion which belongs to Him in respect of His human nature, is the cause of justification, both meritoriously and efficiently, not as the principal cause thereof, or by His own authority, but as an instrument, in so far as His humanity is the instrument of His Godhead, as stated above ( Q(13), AA(2),3 ; Q(19), A(1) ).

Nevertheless, since it is an instrument united to the Godhead in unity of Person, it has a certain headship and efficiency in regard to extrinsic instruments, which are the ministers of the Church and the sacraments themselves, as has been explained above ( A(1) ). Consequently, just as Christ, as God, has power of “authority” over the sacraments, so, as man, He has the power of ministry in chief, or power of “excellence.” And this consists in four things. First in this, that the merit and power of His Passion operates in the sacraments, as stated above ( Q(62), A(5) ). And because the power of the Passion is communicated to us by faith, according to Romans 3:25: “Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation through faith in His blood,” which faith we proclaim by calling on the name of Christ: therefore, secondly, Christ’s power of excellence over the sacraments consists in this, that they are sanctified by the invocation of His name. And because the sacraments derive their power from their institution, hence, thirdly, the excellence of Christ’s power consists in this, that He, Who gave them their power, could institute the sacraments. And since cause does not depend on effect, but rather conversely, it belongs to the excellence of Christ’s power, that He could bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the exterior sacrament. Thus it is clear how to solve the objections; for the arguments on either side are true to a certain extent, as explained above.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(4) Whether Christ could communicate to ministers the power which He had in the sacraments?

P(3)- Q(64)- A(4)- O(1) —

It seems that Christ could not communicate to ministers the power which He had in the sacraments. For as Augustine argues against Maximin, “if He could, but would not, He was jealous of His power.” But jealousy was far from Christ Who had the fulness of charity. Since, therefore, Christ did not communicate His power to ministers, it seems that He could not.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(4)- O(2) —

Further, on John 14:12: “Greater than these shall he do,” Augustine says (Tract. lxxii): “I affirm this to be altogether greater,” namely, for a man from being ungodly to be made righteous, “than to create heaven and earth.” But Christ could not communicate to His disciples the power of creating heaven and earth: neither, therefore, could He give them the power of making the ungodly to be righteous. Since, therefore, the justification of the ungodly is effected by the power that Christ has in the sacraments, it seems that He could not communicate that power to ministers.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(4)- O(3) —

Further, it belongs to Christ as Head of the Church that grace should flow from Him to others, according to John 1:16: “Of His fulness we all have received.” But this could not be communicated to others; since then the Church would be deformed, having many heads. Therefore it seems that Christ could not communicate His power to ministers.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(4) —

On the contrary, on John 1:31: “I knew Him not,” Augustine says (Tract. v) that “he did not know that our Lord having the authority of baptizing... would keep it to Himself.

But John would not have been in ignorance of this, if such a power were incommunicable. Therefore Christ could communicate His power to ministers.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(4) —

I answer that, As stated above ( A(3) ), Christ had a twofold power in the sacraments. one was the power of “authority,” which belongs to Him as God: and this power He could not communicate to any creature; just as neither could He communicate the Divine Essence.

The other was the power of “excellence,” which belongs to Him as man.

This power He could communicate to ministers; namely, by giving them such a fulness of grace — that their merits would conduce to the sacramental effect — that by the invocation of their names, the sacraments would be sanctified — and that they themselves might institute sacraments, and by their mere will confer the sacramental effect without observing the sacramental rite. For a united instrument, the more powerful it is, is all the more able to lend its power to the separated instrument; as the hand can to a stick.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(4)- RO(1) —

It was not through jealousy that Christ refrained from communicating to ministers His power of excellence, but for the good of the faithful; lest they should put their trust in men, and lest there should be various kinds of sacraments, giving rise to division in the Church; as may be seen in those who said: “I am of Paul, I am of Apollo, and I of Cephas” ( 1 Corinthians 1:12).

P(3)- Q(64)- A(4)- RO(2) —

This objection is true of the power of authority, which belongs to Christ as God. At the same time the power of excellence can be called authority in comparison to other ministers.

Whence on 1 Corinthians 1:13: “Is Christ divided?” the gloss says that “He could give power of authority in baptizing, to those to whom He gave the power of administering it.”

P(3)- Q(64)- A(4)- RO(3) —

It was in order to avoid the incongruity of many heads in the Church, that Christ was unwilling to communicate to ministers His power of excellence. If, however, He had done so, He would have been Head in chief; the others in subjection to Him.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(5) Whether the sacraments can be conferred by evil ministers?

P(3)- Q(64)- A(5)- O(1) —

It seems that the sacraments cannot be conferred by evil ministers. For the sacraments of the New Law are ordained for the purpose of cleansing from sin and for the bestowal of grace. Now evil men, being themselves unclean, cannot cleanse others from sin, according to Ecclus. 34:4: “Who [Vulg.: ‘What’] can be made clean by the unclean?”

Moreover, since they have not grace, it seems that they cannot give grace, for “no one gives what he has not.” It seems, therefore, that the sacraments cannot be conferred by wicked men.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(5)- O(2) —

Further, all the power of the sacraments is derived from Christ, as stated above ( A(3) ; Q(62), A(5) ). But evil men are cut off from Christ: because they have not charity, by which the members are united to their Head, according to 1 John 4:16: “He that abideth in charity, abideth in God, and God in him.” Therefore it seems that the sacraments cannot be conferred by evil men.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(5)- O(3) —

Further, if anything is wanting that is required for the sacraments, the sacrament is invalid; for instance, if the required matter or form be wanting. But the minister required for a sacrament is one who is without the stain of sin, according to Leviticus 21:17,18: “Whosoever of thy seed throughout their families, hath a blemish, he shall not offer bread to his God, neither shall he approach to minister to Him.”

Therefore it seems that if the minister be wicked, the sacrament has no effect.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(5) —

On the contrary, Augustine says on John 1:33: “He upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit,” etc. (Tract. v in Joan.), that “John did not know that our Lord, having the authority of baptizing, would keep it to Himself, but that the ministry would certainly pass to both good and evil men... What is a bad minister to thee, where the Lord is good?”

P(3)- Q(64)- A(5) —

I answer that, As stated above ( A(1) ), the ministers of the Church work instrumentally in the sacraments, because, in a way, a minister is of the nature of an instrument. But, as stated above ( Q(62), AA(1),4 ), an instrument acts not by reason of its own form, but by the power of the one who moves it. Consequently, whatever form or power an instrument has in addition to that which it has as an instrument, is accidental to it: for instance, that a physician’s body, which is the instrument of his soul, wherein is his medical art, be healthy or sickly; or that a pipe, through which water passes, be of silver or lead. Therefore the ministers of the Church can confer the sacraments, though they be wicked.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(5)- RO(1) —

The ministers of the Church do not by their own power cleanse from sin those who approach the sacraments, nor do they confer grace on them: it is Christ Who does this by His own power while He employs them as instruments. Consequently, those who approach the sacraments receive an effect whereby they are enlikened not to the ministers but to Christ.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(5)- RO(2) —

Christ’s members are united to their Head by charity, so that they may receive life from Him; for as it is written ( John 3:14): “He that loveth not abideth in death.” Now it is possible for a man to work with a lifeless instrument, and separated from him as to bodily union, provided it be united to him by some sort of motion: for a workman works in one way with his hand, in another with his axe.

Consequently, it is thus that Christ works in the sacraments, both by wicked men as lifeless instruments, and by good men as living instruments.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(5)- RO(3) —

A thing is required in a sacrament in two ways. First, as being essential to it: and if this be wanting, the sacrament is invalid; for instance, if the due form or matter be wanting. Secondly, a thing is required for a sacrament, by reason of a certain fitness. And in this way good ministers are required for a sacrament.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(6) Whether wicked men sin in administering the sacraments?

P(3)- Q(64)- A(6)- O(1) —

It seems that wicked men do not sin in administering the sacraments. For just as men serve God in the sacraments, so do they serve Him in works of charity; whence it is written ( Hebrews 13:16): “Do not forget to do good and to impart, for by such sacrifices God’s favor is obtained.”

But the wicked do not sin in serving God by works of charity: indeed, they should be persuaded to do so, according to Daniel 4:24: “Let my counsel be acceptable” to the king; “Redeem thou thy sins with alms.”

Therefore it seems that wicked men do not sin in administering the sacraments.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(6)- O(2) —

Further, whoever co-operates with another in his sin, is also guilty of sin, according to Romans 1:32: “He is [Vulg.: ‘They are’] worthy of death; not only he that commits the sin, but also he who consents to them that do them.”

But if wicked ministers sin in administering sacraments, those who receive sacraments from them, co-operate in their sin. Therefore they would sin also; which seems unreasonable.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(6)- O(3) —

Further, it seems that no one should act when in doubt, for thus man would be driven to despair, as being unable to avoid sin. But if the wicked were to sin in administering sacraments, they would be in a state of perplexity: since sometimes they would sin also if they did not administer sacraments; for instance, when by reason of their office it is their bounden duty to do so; for it is written ( 1 Corinthians 9:16): “For a necessity lieth upon me: Woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel.”

Sometimes also on account of some danger; for instance, if a child in danger of death be brought to a sinner for baptism. Therefore it seems that the wicked do not sin in administering the sacraments.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(6) —

On the contrary, Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. i) that “it is wrong for the wicked even to touch the symbols,” i.e. the sacramental signs. And he says in the epistle to Demophilus: “It seems presumptuous for such a man,” i.e. a sinner, “to lay hands on priestly things; he is neither afraid nor ashamed, all unworthy that he is, to take part in Divine things, with the thought that God does not see what he sees in himself: he thinks, by false pretenses, to cheat Him Whom he calls his Father; he dares to utter, in the person of Christ, words polluted by his infamy, I will not call them prayers, over the Divine symbols.”

P(3)- Q(64)- A(6) —

I answer that, A sinful action consists in this, that a man “fails to act as he ought to,” as the Philosopher explains (Ethic. ii).

Now it has been said ( A(5), ad 3) that it is fitting for the ministers of sacraments to be righteous; because ministers should be like unto their Lord, according to Leviticus 19:2: “Be ye holy, because I... am holy”; and Ecclus. 10:2: “As the judge of the people is himself, so also are his ministers.” Consequently, there can be no doubt that the wicked sin by exercising the ministry of God and the Church, by conferring the sacraments. And since this sin pertains to irreverence towards God and the contamination of holy things, as far as the man who sins is concerned, although holy things in themselves cannot be contaminated; it follows that such a sin is mortal in its genus.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(6)- RO(1) —

Works of charity are not made holy by some process of consecration, but they belong to the holiness of righteousness, as being in a way parts of righteousness. Consequently, when a man shows himself as a minister of God, by doing works of charity, if he be righteous, he will be made yet holier; but if he be a sinner, he is thereby disposed to holiness. On the other hand, the sacraments are holy in themselves owing to their mystical consecration. Wherefore the holiness of righteousness is required in the minister, that he may be suitable for his ministry: for which reason he acts unbecomingly and sins, if while in a state of sin he attempts to fulfil that ministry.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(6)- RO(2) —

He who approaches a sacrament, receives it from a minister of the Church, not because he is such and such a man, but because he is a minister of the Church. Consequently, as long as the latter is tolerated in the ministry, he that receives a sacrament from him, does not communicate in his sin, but communicates with the Church from. whom he has his ministry. But if the Church, by degrading, excommunicating, or suspending him, does not tolerate him in the ministry, he that receives a sacrament from him sins, because he communicates in his sin.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(6)- RO(3) —

A man who is in mortal sin is not perplexed simply, if by reason of his office it be his bounden duty to minister sacraments; because he can repent of his sin and so minister lawfully. But there is nothing unreasonable in his being perplexed, if we suppose that he wishes to remain in sin.

However, in a case of necessity when even a lay person might baptize, he would not sin in baptizing. For it is clear that then he does not exercise the ministry of the Church, but comes to the aid of one who is in need of his services. It is not so with the other sacraments, which are not so necessary as baptism, as we shall show further on ( Q(65), AA(3),4 ; Q(62), A(3) ).

P(3)- Q(64)- A(7) Whether angels can administer sacraments?

P(3)- Q(64)- A(7)- O(1) —

It seems that angels can administer sacraments.

Because a higher minister can do whatever the lower can; thus a priest can do whatever a deacon can: but not conversely. But angels are higher ministers in the hierarchical order than any men whatsoever, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. ix). Therefore, since men can be ministers of sacraments, it seems that much more can angels be.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(7)- O(2) —

Further, in heaven holy men are likened to the angels ( Matthew 22:30). But some holy men, when in heaven, can be ministers of the sacraments; since the sacramental character is indelible, as stated above ( Q(63), A(5) ). Therefore it seems that angels too can be ministers of sacraments.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(7)- O(3) —

Further, as stated above ( Q(8) , A(7) ), the devil is head of the wicked, and the wicked are his members. But sacraments can be administered by the wicked. Therefore it seems that they can be administered even by demons.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(7) —

On the contrary, It is written ( Hebrews 5:1): “Every high priest taken from among men, is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God.”

But angels whether good or bad are not taken from among men. Therefore they are not ordained ministers in the things that appertain to God, i.e. in the sacraments.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(7) —

I answer that, As stated above ( A(3) ; Q(62), A(5) ), the whole power of the sacraments flows from Christ’s Passion, which belongs to Him as man. And Him in their very nature men, not angels, resemble; indeed, in respect of His Passion, He is described as being “a little lower than the angels” ( Hebrews 2:9). Consequently, it belongs to men, but not to angels, to dispense the sacraments and to take part in their administration.

But it must be observed that as God did not bind His power to the sacraments, so as to be unable to bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the sacrament; so neither did He bind His power to the ministers of the Church so as to be unable to give angels power to administer the sacraments. And since good angels are messengers of truth; if any sacramental rite were performed by good angels, it should be considered valid, because it ought to be evident that this is being done by the will of God: for instance, certain churches are said to have been consecrated by the ministry of the angels [*See Acta S.S., September 29].

But if demons, who are “lying spirits,” were to perform a sacramental rite, it should be pronounced as invalid.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(7)- RO(1) —

What men do in a less perfect manner, i.e. by sensible sacraments, which are proportionate to their nature, angels also do, as ministers of a higher degree, in a more perfect manner, i.e. invisibly — by cleansing, enlightening, and perfecting.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(7)- RO(2) —

The saints in heaven resemble the angels as to their share of glory, but not as to the conditions of their nature: and consequently not in regard to the sacraments.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(7)- RO(3) —

Wicked men do not owe their power of conferring sacraments to their being members of the devil. Consequently, it does not follow that “a fortiori” the devil, their head, can do so.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(8) Whether the minister’s intention is required for the validity of a sacrament?

P(3)- Q(64)- A(8)- O(1) —

It seems that the minister’s intention is not required for the validity of a sacrament. For the minister of a sacrament works instrumentally. But the perfection of an action does not depend on the intention of the instrument, but on that of the principal agent.

Therefore the minister’s intention is not necessary for the perfecting of a sacrament.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(8)- O(2) —

Further, one man’s intention cannot be known to another. Therefore if the minister’s intention were required for the validity of a sacrament, he who approaches a sacrament could not know whether he has received the sacrament. Consequently he could have no certainty in regard to salvation; the more that some sacraments are necessary for salvation, as we shall state further on ( Q(65), A(4) ).

P(3)- Q(64)- A(8)- O(3) —

Further, a man’s intention cannot bear on that to which he does not attend. But sometimes ministers of sacraments do not attend to what they say or do, through thinking of something else.

Therefore in this respect the sacrament would be invalid through want of intention.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(8) —

On the contrary, What is unintentional happens by chance. But this cannot be said of the sacramental operation. Therefore the sacraments require the intention of the minister.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(8) —

I answer that, When a thing is indifferent to many uses, it must needs be determined to one, if that one has to be effected.

Now those things which are done in the sacraments, can be done with various intent; for instance, washing with water, which is done in baptism, may be ordained to bodily cleanliness, to the health of the body, to amusement, and many other similar things. Consequently, it needs to be determined to one purpose, i.e. the sacramental effect, by the intention of him who washes. And this intention is expressed by the words which are pronounced in the sacraments; for instance the words, “I baptize thee in the name of the Father,” etc.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(8)- RO(1) —

An inanimate instrument has no intention regarding the effect; but instead of the intention there is the motion whereby it is moved by the principal agent. But an animate instrument, such as a minister, is not only moved, but in a sense moves itself, in so far as by his will he moves his bodily members to act. Consequently, his intention is required, whereby he subjects himself to the principal agent; that is, it is necessary that he intend to do that which Christ and the Church do.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(8)- RO(2) —

On this point there are two opinions. For some hold that the mental intention of the minister is necessary; in the absence of which the sacrament is invalid: and that this defect in the case of children who have not the intention of approaching the sacrament, is made good by Christ, Who baptizes inwardly: whereas in adults, who have that intention, this defect is made good by their faith and devotion.

This might be true enough of the ultimate effect, i.e. justification from sins; but as to that effect which is both real and sacramental, viz. the character, it does not appear possible for it to be made good by the devotion of the recipient, since a character is never imprinted save by a sacrament.

Consequently, others with better reason hold that the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the whole Church, whose minister he is; while in the words uttered by him, the intention of the Church is expressed; and that this suffices for the validity of the sacrament, except the contrary be expressed on the part either of the minister or of the recipient of the sacrament.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(8)- RO(3) —

Although he who thinks of something else, has no actual intention, yet he has habitual intention, which suffices for the validity of the sacrament; for instance if, when a priest goes to baptize someone, he intends to do to him what the Church does. Wherefore if subsequently during the exercise of the act his mind be distracted by other matters, the sacrament is valid in virtue of his original intention.

Nevertheless, the minister of a sacrament should take great care to have actual intention. But this is not entirely in man’s power, because when a man wishes to be very intent on something, he begins unintentionally to think of other things, according to Psalm 39:18: “My heart hath forsaken me.”

P(3)- Q(64)- A(9) Whether faith is required of necessity in the minister of a sacrament?

P(3)- Q(64)- A(9)- O(1) —

It seems that faith is required of necessity in the minister of a sacrament. For, as stated above ( A(8) ), the intention of the minister is necessary for the validity of a sacrament. But “faith directs in intention” as Augustine says against Julian (In Psalm xxxi, cf. Contra Julian iv). Therefore, if the minister is without the true faith, the sacrament is invalid.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(9)- O(2) —

Further, if a minister of the Church has not the true faith, it seems that he is a heretic. But heretics, seemingly, cannot confer sacraments. For Cyprian says in an epistle against heretics (lxxiii): “Everything whatsoever heretics do, is carnal, void and counterfeit, so that nothing that they do should receive our approval.” And Pope Leo says in his epistle to Leo Augustus (clvi): “It is a matter of notoriety that the light of all the heavenly sacraments is extinguished in the see of Alexandria, by an act of dire and senseless cruelty. The sacrifice is no longer offered, the chrism is no longer consecrated, all the mysteries of religion have fled at the touch of the parricide hands of ungodly men.” Therefore a sacrament requires of necessity that the minister should have the true faith.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(9)- O(3) —

Further, those who have not the true faith seem to be separated from the Church by excommunication: for it is written in the second canonical epistle of John ( <431001> 10): “If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house, nor say to him; God speed you”: and ( Titus 3:10): “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition avoid.”

But it seems that an excommunicate cannot confer a sacrament of the Church: since he is separated from the Church, to whose ministry the dispensation of the sacraments belongs. Therefore a sacrament requires of necessity that the minister should have the true faith.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(9) —

On the contrary, Augustine says against the Donatist Petilian: “Remember that the evil lives of wicked men are not prejudicial to God’s sacraments, by rendering them either invalid or less holy.”

P(3)- Q(64)- A(9) —

I answer that, As stated above ( A(5) ), since the minister works instrumentally in the sacraments, he acts not by his own but by Christ’s power. Now just as charity belongs to a man’s own power so also does faith. Wherefore, just as the validity of a sacrament does not require that the minister should have charity, and even sinners can confer sacraments, as stated above ( A(5) ); so neither is it necessary that he should have faith, and even an unbeliever can confer a true sacrament, provided that the other essentials be there.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(9)- RO(1) —

It may happen that a man’s faith is defective in regard to something else, and not in regard to the reality of the sacrament which he confers: for instance, he may believe that it is unlawful to swear in any case whatever, and yet he may believe that baptism is an efficient cause of salvation. And thus such unbelief does not hinder the intention of conferring the sacrament. But if his faith be defective in regard to the very sacrament that he confers, although he believe that no inward effect is caused by the thing done outwardly, yet he does know that the Catholic Church intends to confer a sacrament by that which is outwardly done.

Wherefore, his unbelief notwithstanding, he can intend to do what the Church does, albeit he esteem it to be nothing. And such an intention suffices for a sacrament: because as stated above ( A(8), ad 2) the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the Church by whose faith any defect in the minister’s faith is made good.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(9)- RO(2) —

Some heretics in conferring sacraments do not observe the form prescribed by the Church: and these confer neither the sacrament nor the reality of the sacrament. But some do observe the form prescribed by the Church: and these confer indeed the sacrament but not the reality. I say this in the supposition that they are outwardly cut off from the Church; because from the very fact that anyone receives the sacraments from them, he sins; and consequently is hindered from receiving the effect of the sacrament. Wherefore Augustine (Fulgentius, De Fide ad Pet.) says: “Be well assured and have no doubt whatever that those who are baptized outside the Church, unless they come back to the Church, will reap disaster from their Baptism.” In this sense Pope Leo says that “the light of the sacraments was extinguished in the Church of Alexandria”; viz. in regard to the reality of the sacrament, not as to the sacrament itself.

Cyprian, however, thought that heretics do not confer even the sacrament: but in this respect we do not follow his opinion. Hence Augustine says (De unico Baptismo xiii): “Though the martyr Cyprian refused to recognize Baptism conferred by heretics or schismatics, yet so great are his merits, culminating in the crown of martyrdom, that the light of his charity dispels the darkness of his fault, and if anything needed pruning, the sickle of his passion cut it off.”

P(3)- Q(64)- A(9)- RO(3) —

The power of administering the sacraments belongs to the spiritual character which is indelible, as explained above ( Q(63), A(3) ). Consequently, if a man be suspended by the Church, or excommunicated or degraded, he does not lose the power of conferring sacraments, but the permission to use this power. Wherefore he does indeed confer the sacrament, but he sins in so doing. He also sins that receives a sacrament from such a man: so that he does not receive the reality of the sacrament, unless ignorance excuses him.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(10) Whether the validity of a sacrament requires a good intention in the minister?

P(3)- Q(64)- A(10) - O(1) —

It seems that the validity of a sacrament requires a good intention in the minister. For the minister’s intention should be in conformity with the Church’s intention, as explained above ( A(8), ad 1). But the intention of the Church is always good. Therefore the validity of a sacrament requires of necessity a good intention in the minister.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(10) - O(2) —

Further, a perverse intention seems worse than a playful one. But a playful intention destroys a sacrament: for instance, if someone were to baptize anybody not seriously but in fun. Much more, therefore, does a perverse intention destroy a sacrament: for instance, if somebody were to baptize a man in order to kill him afterwards.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(10) - O(3) —

Further, a perverse intention vitiates the whole work, according to Luke 11:34: “If thy eye be evil, thy” whole “body will be darksome.” But the sacraments of Christ cannot be contaminated by evil men; as Augustine says against Petilian (Cont. Litt. Petil ii).

Therefore it seems that, if the minister’s intention is perverse, the sacrament is invalid.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(10) —

On the contrary, A perverse intention belongs to the wickedness of the minister. But the wickedness of the minister does not annul the sacrament: neither, therefore, does his perverse intention.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(10) —

I answer that, The minister’s intention may be perverted in two ways. First in regard to the sacrament: for instance, when a man does not intend to confer a sacrament, but to make a mockery of it.

Such a perverse intention takes away the truth of the sacrament, especially if it be manifested outwardly.

Secondly, the minister’s intention may be perverted as to something that follows the sacrament: for instance, a priest may intend to baptize a woman so as to be able to abuse her; or to consecrate the Body of Christ, so as to use it for sorcery. And because that which comes first does not depend on that which follows, consequently such a perverse intention does not annul the sacrament; but the minister himself sins grievously in having such an intention.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(10) - RO(1) —

The Church has a good intention both as to the validity of the sacrament and as to the use thereof: but it is the former intention that perfects the sacrament, while the latter conduces to the meritorious effect. Consequently, the minister who conforms his intention to the Church as to the former rectitude, but not as to the latter, perfects the sacrament indeed, but gains no merit for himself.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(10) - RO(2) —

The intention of mimicry or fun excludes the first kind of right intention, necessary for the validity of a sacrament.

Consequently, there is no comparison.

P(3)- Q(64)- A(10) - RO(3) —

A perverse intention perverts the action of the one who has such an intention, not the action of another.

Consequently, the perverse intention of the minister perverts the sacrament in so far as it is his action: not in so far as it is the action of Christ, Whose minister he is. It is just as if the servant [minister] of some man were to carry alms to the poor with a wicked intention, whereas his master had commanded him with a good intention to do so.

QUESTION OF THE NUMBER OF THE SACRAMENTS (FOUR ARTICLES)

We have now to consider the number of the sacraments: and concerning this there are four points of inquiry: (1) Whether there are seven sacraments? (2) The order of the sacraments among themselves; (3) Their mutual comparison; (4) Whether all the sacraments are necessary for salvation?

P(3)- Q(65)- A(1) Whether there should be seven sacraments?

P(3)- Q(65)- A(1)- O(1) —

It seems that there ought not to be seven sacraments. For the sacraments derive their efficacy from the Divine power, and the power of Christ’s Passion. But the Divine power is one, and Christ’s Passion is one; since “by one oblation He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified” ( Hebrews 10:14). Therefore there should be but one sacrament.

P(3)- Q(65)- A(1)- O(2) —

Further, a sacrament is intended as a remedy for the defect caused by sin. Now this is twofold, punishment and guilt.

Therefore two sacraments would be enough.

P(3)- Q(65)- A(1)- O(3) —

Further, sacraments belong to the actions of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, as Dionysius explains (Eccl. Hier. v). But, as he says, there are three actions of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, namely, “to cleanse, to enlighten, to perfect.” Therefore there should be no more than three sacraments.

P(3)- Q(65)- A(1)- O(4) —

Further, Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix) that the “sacraments” of the New Law are “less numerous” than those of the Old Law. But in the Old Law there was no sacrament corresponding to Confirmation and Extreme Unction. Therefore these should not be counted among the sacraments of the New Law.

P(3)- Q(65)- A(1)- O(5) —

Further, lust is not more grievous than other sins, as we have made clear in the P(2a), Q(74), A(5) ; P(2b), Q(154), A(3) .

But there is no sacrament instituted as a remedy for other sins. Therefore neither should matrimony be instituted as a remedy for lust.

P(3)- Q(65)- A(1)- O(6) —

On the other hand, It seems that there should be more than seven sacraments. For sacraments are a kind of sacred sign. But in the Church there are many sanctifications by sensible signs, such as Holy Water the Consecration of Altars, and such like. Therefore there are more than seven sacraments.

P(3)- Q(65)- A(1)- O(7) —

Further, Hugh of St. Victor (De Sacram. i) says that the sacraments of the Old Law were oblations, tithes and sacrifices.

But the Sacrifice of the Church is one sacrament, called the Eucharist.

Therefore oblations also and tithes should be called sacraments.

P(3)- Q(65)- A(1)- O(8) —

Further, there are three kinds of sin, original, mortal and venial. Now Baptism is intended as a remedy against original sin, and Penance against mortal sin. Therefore besides the seven sacraments, there should be another against venial sin.

P(3)- Q(65)- A(1) —

I answer that, As stated above ( Q(62), A(5) ; Q(63), A(1) ), the sacraments of the Church were instituted for a twofold purpose: namely, in order to perfect man in things pertaining to the worship of God according to the religion of Christian life, and to be a remedy against the defects caused by sin. And in either way it is becoming that there should be seven sacraments.

For spiritual life has a certain conformity with the life of the body: just as other corporeal things have a certain likeness to things spiritual. Now a man attains perfection in the corporeal life in two ways: first, in regard to his own person; secondly, in regard to the whole community of the society in which he lives, for man is by nature a social animal. With regard to himself man is perfected in the life of the body, in two ways; first, directly [per se], i.e. by acquiring some vital perfection; secondly, indirectly [per accidens], i.e. by the removal of hindrances to life, such as ailments, or the like. Now the life of the body is perfected “directly,” in three ways. First, by generation whereby a man begins to be and to live: and corresponding to this in the spiritual life there is Baptism, which is a spiritual regeneration, according to Titus 3:5: “By the laver of regeneration,” etc.

Secondly, by growth whereby a man is brought to perfect size and strength: and corresponding to this in the spiritual life there is Confirmation, in which the Holy Ghost is given to strengthen us.

Wherefore the disciples who were already baptized were bidden thus: “Stay you in the city till you be endued with power from on high” ( Luke 24:49). Thirdly, by nourishment, whereby life and strength are preserved to man; and corresponding to this in the spiritual life there is the Eucharist. Wherefore it is said ( John 6:54): “Except you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you.”

And this would be enough for man if he had an impassible life, both corporally and spiritually; but since man is liable at times to both corporal and spiritual infirmity, i.e. sin, hence man needs a cure from his infirmity; which cure is twofold. one is the healing, that restores health: and corresponding to this in the spiritual life there is Penance, according to Psalm 40:5: “Heal my soul, for I have sinned against Thee.” The other is the restoration of former vigor by means of suitable diet and exercise: and corresponding to this in the spiritual life there is Extreme Unction, which removes the remainder of sin, and prepares man for final glory. Wherefore it is written ( James 5:15): “And if he be in sins they shall be forgiven him.”

In regard to the whole community, man is perfected in two ways. First, by receiving power to rule the community and to exercise public acts: and corresponding to this in the spiritual life there is the sacrament of order, according to the saying of Hebrews 7:27, that priests offer sacrifices not for themselves only, but also for the people. Secondly in regard to natural propagation. This is accomplished by Matrimony both in the corporal and in the spiritual life: since it is not only a sacrament but also a function of nature.

We may likewise gather the number of the sacraments from their being instituted as a remedy against the defect caused by sin. For Baptism is intended as a remedy against the absence of spiritual life; Confirmation, against the infirmity of soul found in those of recent birth; the Eucharist, against the soul’s proneness to sin; Penance, against actual sin committed after baptism; Extreme Unction, against the remainders of sins — of those sins, namely, which are not sufficiently removed by Penance, whether through negligence or through ignorance; order, against divisions in the community; Matrimony, as a remedy against concupiscence in the individual, and against the decrease in numbers that results from death.

Some, again, gather the number of sacraments from a certain adaptation to the virtues and to the defects and penal effects resulting from sin. They say that Baptism corresponds to Faith, and is ordained as a remedy against original sin; Extreme Unction, to Hope, being ordained against venial sin; the Eucharist, to Charity, being ordained against the penal effect which is malice. order, to Prudence, being ordained against ignorance; Penance to Justice, being ordained against mortal sin; Matrimony, to Temperance, being ordained against concupiscence; Confirmation, to Fortitude, being ordained against infirmity.

P(3)- Q(65)- A(1)- RO(1) —

The same principal agent uses various instruments unto various effects, in accordance with the thing to be done.

In the same way the Divine power and the Passion of Christ work in us through the various sacraments as through various instruments.

P(3)- Q(65)- A(1)- RO(2) —

Guilt and punishment are diversified both according to species, inasmuch as there are various species of guilt and punishment, and according to men’s various states and habitudes. And in this respect it was necessary to have a number of sacraments, as explained above.

P(3)- Q(65)- A(1)- RO(3) —

In hierarchical actions we must consider the agents, the recipients and the actions. The agents are the ministers of the Church; and to these the sacrament of order belongs. The recipients are those who approach the sacraments: and these are brought into being by Matrimony. The actions are “cleansing,” “enlightening,” and “perfecting.”

Mere cleansing, however, cannot be a sacrament of the New Law, which confers grace: yet it belongs to certain sacramentals, i.e. catechism and exorcism. But cleansing coupled with enlightening, according to Dionysius, belongs to Baptism; and, for him who falls back into sin, they belong secondarily to Penance and Extreme Unction. And perfecting, as regards power, which is, as it were, a formal perfection, belongs to Confirmation: while, as regards the attainment of the end, it belongs to the Eucharist.

P(3)- Q(65)- A(1)- RO(4) —

In the sacrament of Confirmation we receive the fulness of the Holy Ghost in order to be strengthened; while in Extreme Unction man is prepared for the immediate attainment of glory; and neither of these two purposes was becoming to the Old Testament.

Consequently, nothing in the old Law could correspond to these sacraments. Nevertheless, the sacraments of the old Law were more numerous, on account of the various kinds of sacrifices and ceremonies.

P(3)- Q(65)- A(1)- RO(5) —

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

P(3)- Q(65)- A(1)- RO(6) —

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

P(3)- Q(65)- A(1)- RO(7) —

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

P(3)- Q(65)- A(1)- RO(8) —

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

P(3)- Q(65)- A(2) Whether the order of the sacraments, as given above, is becoming?

P(3)- Q(65)- A(2)- O(1) —

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

P(3)- Q(65)- A(2)- O(2) —

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

P(3)- Q(65)- A(2)- O(3) —

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

P(3)- Q(65)- A(2)- O(4) —

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

P(3)- Q(65)- A(2)- O(5) —

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

P(3)- Q(65)- A(2) —

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

P(3)- Q(65)- A(2) —

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

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

P(3)- Q(65)- A(2)- RO(1) —

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

P(3)- Q(65)- A(2)- RO(2) —

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

P(3)- Q(65)- A(2)- RO(3) —

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

P(3)- Q(65)- A(2)- RO(4) —

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

P(3)- Q(65)- A(2)- RO(5) — Extreme Unction, for this very reason, is given the last place among those sacraments which are ordained to the perfection of the individual.

P(3)- Q(65)- A(3) Whether the Eucharist is the greatest of the sacraments?

P(3)- Q(65)- A(3)- O(1) —

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

P(3)- Q(65)- A(3)- O(2) —

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

P(3)- Q(65)- A(3)- O(3) —

Further, those sacraments are greater that have the greater power. But some of the sacraments imprint a character, viz.

Baptism, Confirmation and order; whereas the Eucharist does not.

Therefore those sacraments are greater.

P(3)- Q(65)- A(3)- O(4) —

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

P(3)- Q(65)- A(3) —

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

P(3)- Q(65)- A(3) —

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

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

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

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

P(3)- Q(65)- A(3)- RO(1) —

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

P(3)- Q(65)- A(3)- RO(2) —

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

P(3)- Q(65)- A(3)- RO(3) —

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

P(3)- Q(65)- A(3)- RO(4) —

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

P(3)- Q(65)- A(4) Whether all the sacraments are necessary for salvation?