No More Learning

Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the sacraments of the Old Law caused grace?

Objection 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 Cor. 4:13). Therefore just as the
sacraments of the New Law confer grace, so did the sacraments of the
Old Law.

Objection 2: Further, there is no sanctification save by grace. But men
were sanctified by the sacraments of the Old Law: for it is written
(Lev. 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.

Objection 3: Further, Bede says in a homily on the Circumcision: "Under
the Law circumcision provided the same health-giving 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 (Gal. 5:3): "I
testify to every man circumcising himself, that he is a debtor to the
whole law. "

On the contrary, It is written (Gal. 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.

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
Gal. 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.

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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 Rom. 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 (Rom. 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
([4362]Q[70], A[4]).
__________________________________________________________________

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?
__________________________________________________________________

Whether a sacrament imprints a character on the soul?

Objection 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
[4363]FP, Q[23], A[2]. For it is written (2 Tim. 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.

Objection 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.

Objection 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" (Heb. 9:10) by the
Apostle. Therefore neither seemingly do the sacraments of the New Law.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (2 Cor. 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.

I answer that, As is clear from what has been already stated
([4364]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? "

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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" (Heb. 1:3).

Reply to Objection 3: As stated above ([4365]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" (Rom. 4:11).
__________________________________________________________________

Whether a character is a spiritual power?

Objection 1: It seems that a character is not a spiritual power. For
"character" seems to be the same thing as "figure"; hence (Heb. 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.

Objection 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.

Objection 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.

Objection 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.

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 [4366](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.

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.