"
Since, then, the inward effect of all the sacraments is justification,
it seems that God alone works the interior sacramental effect.
Since, then, the inward effect of all the sacraments is justification,
it seems that God alone works the interior sacramental effect.
Summa Theologica
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.
I answer that, As stated above [4367](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 ([4368]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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the sacramental character is the character of Christ?
Objection 1: It seems that the sacramental character is not the
character of Christ. For it is written (Eph. 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.
Objection 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 (Ps. 83:12): "The Lord will give grace and glory. " Therefore it
seems that the sacramental character should not be attributed specially
to Christ.
Objection 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" (Apoc. 13:16,17). But charity is not attributed
to Christ, but rather to the Holy Ghost according to Rom. 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 Cor. 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.
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 Heb. 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.
I answer that, As has been made clear above [4369](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 Ezech. 9:4:
"Mark Thou upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and mourn"; and
Apoc. 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.
Reply to Objection 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 Cor. 12:4):
"There are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit. "
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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 [4370](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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the character be subjected in the powers of the soul?
Objection 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
[4371]FS, Q[110], A[4]. Therefore it seems that the character is in the
essence of the soul and not in the powers.
Objection 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 [4372](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.
Objection 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.
On the contrary, A character, according to its definition given above
[4373](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.
I answer that, As stated above [4374](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.
Reply to Objection 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 Jn. 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether a character can be blotted out from the soul?
Objection 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.
Objection 2: Further, by a character a man is deputed to the Divine
worship, as stated above ([4375]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.
Objection 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.
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.
I answer that, As stated above [4376](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 Ps. 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.
Reply to Objection 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 [4377](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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether a character is imprinted by each sacrament of the New Law?
Objection 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 ([4378]AA[3],5). Therefore it seems that a character is
imprinted by each sacrament of the New Law.
Objection 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 ([4379]Q[62], A[1]). Therefore it seems that a
character is imprinted by each sacrament of the New Law.
Objection 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.
On the contrary, Those sacraments in which a character is imprinted,
are not reiterated, because a character is indelible, as stated above
[4380](A[5]): whereas some sacraments are reiterated, for instance,
penance and matrimony. Therefore not all the sacraments imprint a
character.
I answer that, As stated above ([4381]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 ([4382]Q[65], A[3]).
Consequently, these three sacraments imprint a character, namely,
Baptism, Confirmation, and order.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
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?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether God alone, or the minister also, works inwardly unto the sacramental
effect?
Objection 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.
Objection 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 Jn. 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.
Objection 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.
On the contrary, It is written (Rom. 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.
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 [4383]FS, 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.
Reply to Objection 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).
Reply to Objection 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 Mat. 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 ([4384]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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the sacraments are instituted by God alone?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 3: Further, the apostles were God's vicegerents on earth:
hence the Apostle says (2 Cor. 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.
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 [4385](A[1];
Q[62], A[1]). Therefore God alone can institute a sacrament.
I answer that, As appears from what has been said above [4386](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.
Reply to Objection 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 Cor. 11:34): "The rest I will set in order when I come. "
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ as man had the power of producing the inward sacramental
effect?
Objection 1: It seems that Christ as man had the power of producing the
interior sacramental effect. For John the Baptist said (Jn. 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.
Objection 2: Further, our Lord said (Mat. 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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" (Lk. 7:48). Therefore it seems that
Christ, as man, produces the inward sacramental effect.
Objection 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 Cor. 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.
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.
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 ([4387]Q[48], AA[1],6;[4388]
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 ([4389]Q[13], AA[2],3;[4390]
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 [4391](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 Rom. 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ could communicate to ministers the power which He had in the
sacraments?
Objection 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.
Objection 2: Further, on Jn. 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.
Objection 3: Further, it belongs to Christ as Head of the Church that
grace should flow from Him to others, according to Jn. 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.
On the contrary, on Jn. 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.
I answer that, As stated above [4392](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.
Reply to Objection 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 Cor. 1:12).
Reply to Objection 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 Cor. 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. "
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the sacraments can be conferred by evil ministers?
Objection 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.
Objection 2: Further, all the power of the sacraments is derived from
Christ, as stated above [4393](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 Jn. 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.
Objection 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 Lev. 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.
On the contrary, Augustine says on Jn. 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? "
I answer that, As stated above [4394](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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 2: Christ's members are united to their Head by
charity, so that they may receive life from Him; for as it is written
(1 Jn. 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether wicked men sin in administering the sacraments?
Objection 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 (Heb. 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 Dan.
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.
Objection 2: Further, whoever co-operates with another in his sin, is
also guilty of sin, according to Rom. 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.
Objection 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
Cor. 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.
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. "
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 Lev. 19:2: "Be ye holy, because I . . .
one abuses a habit of virtue, or uses well an evil habit. It remains,
therefore, that a character is a power.
I answer that, As stated above [4367](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 ([4368]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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the sacramental character is the character of Christ?
Objection 1: It seems that the sacramental character is not the
character of Christ. For it is written (Eph. 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.
Objection 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 (Ps. 83:12): "The Lord will give grace and glory. " Therefore it
seems that the sacramental character should not be attributed specially
to Christ.
Objection 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" (Apoc. 13:16,17). But charity is not attributed
to Christ, but rather to the Holy Ghost according to Rom. 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 Cor. 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.
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 Heb. 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.
I answer that, As has been made clear above [4369](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 Ezech. 9:4:
"Mark Thou upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and mourn"; and
Apoc. 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.
Reply to Objection 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 Cor. 12:4):
"There are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit. "
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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 [4370](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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the character be subjected in the powers of the soul?
Objection 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
[4371]FS, Q[110], A[4]. Therefore it seems that the character is in the
essence of the soul and not in the powers.
Objection 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 [4372](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.
Objection 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.
On the contrary, A character, according to its definition given above
[4373](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.
I answer that, As stated above [4374](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.
Reply to Objection 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 Jn. 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether a character can be blotted out from the soul?
Objection 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.
Objection 2: Further, by a character a man is deputed to the Divine
worship, as stated above ([4375]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.
Objection 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.
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.
I answer that, As stated above [4376](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 Ps. 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.
Reply to Objection 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 [4377](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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether a character is imprinted by each sacrament of the New Law?
Objection 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 ([4378]AA[3],5). Therefore it seems that a character is
imprinted by each sacrament of the New Law.
Objection 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 ([4379]Q[62], A[1]). Therefore it seems that a
character is imprinted by each sacrament of the New Law.
Objection 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.
On the contrary, Those sacraments in which a character is imprinted,
are not reiterated, because a character is indelible, as stated above
[4380](A[5]): whereas some sacraments are reiterated, for instance,
penance and matrimony. Therefore not all the sacraments imprint a
character.
I answer that, As stated above ([4381]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 ([4382]Q[65], A[3]).
Consequently, these three sacraments imprint a character, namely,
Baptism, Confirmation, and order.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
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?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether God alone, or the minister also, works inwardly unto the sacramental
effect?
Objection 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.
Objection 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 Jn. 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.
Objection 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.
On the contrary, It is written (Rom. 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.
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 [4383]FS, 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.
Reply to Objection 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).
Reply to Objection 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 Mat. 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 ([4384]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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the sacraments are instituted by God alone?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 3: Further, the apostles were God's vicegerents on earth:
hence the Apostle says (2 Cor. 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.
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 [4385](A[1];
Q[62], A[1]). Therefore God alone can institute a sacrament.
I answer that, As appears from what has been said above [4386](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.
Reply to Objection 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 Cor. 11:34): "The rest I will set in order when I come. "
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ as man had the power of producing the inward sacramental
effect?
Objection 1: It seems that Christ as man had the power of producing the
interior sacramental effect. For John the Baptist said (Jn. 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.
Objection 2: Further, our Lord said (Mat. 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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" (Lk. 7:48). Therefore it seems that
Christ, as man, produces the inward sacramental effect.
Objection 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 Cor. 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.
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.
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 ([4387]Q[48], AA[1],6;[4388]
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 ([4389]Q[13], AA[2],3;[4390]
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 [4391](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 Rom. 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ could communicate to ministers the power which He had in the
sacraments?
Objection 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.
Objection 2: Further, on Jn. 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.
Objection 3: Further, it belongs to Christ as Head of the Church that
grace should flow from Him to others, according to Jn. 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.
On the contrary, on Jn. 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.
I answer that, As stated above [4392](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.
Reply to Objection 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 Cor. 1:12).
Reply to Objection 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 Cor. 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. "
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the sacraments can be conferred by evil ministers?
Objection 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.
Objection 2: Further, all the power of the sacraments is derived from
Christ, as stated above [4393](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 Jn. 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.
Objection 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 Lev. 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.
On the contrary, Augustine says on Jn. 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? "
I answer that, As stated above [4394](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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 2: Christ's members are united to their Head by
charity, so that they may receive life from Him; for as it is written
(1 Jn. 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether wicked men sin in administering the sacraments?
Objection 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 (Heb. 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 Dan.
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.
Objection 2: Further, whoever co-operates with another in his sin, is
also guilty of sin, according to Rom. 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.
Objection 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
Cor. 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.
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. "
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 Lev. 19:2: "Be ye holy, because I . . .
