Scotus Academicus, Tomus nonus: De Sacramentis in genere

Note 1. Concerning the institution of the Sacraments, two powers can be distinguished: one indeed of authority, the other of ministry. The power of authority is called that which is independent of any other and, by its own virtue, chooses certain signs and confers upon them the power and efficacy of producing grace. The power of ministry, however, is that delegated virtue from the principal cause for either the confection or the administration of the Sacraments. Moreover, the power of ministry is established as twofold: one indeed principal of excellence, the other common. The principal power of excellence is that which belongs to someone with a singular prerogative above the other causes that can concur either in the designation or in the confection of the Sacraments. The power of ministry, commonly so called, is that which belongs to any minister insofar as he is merely a minister of the Sacraments, that is, an administrator and dispenser. Hence a twofold difficulty arises: first, whether God alone can confer upon some creature the power of authority to institute Sacraments, for example upon Christ's humanity; or whether the Lord Christ, insofar as he is man, possessed from his own virtue the principal power of excellence.

Note 2. From the Doctor in distinction 1, question 3, number 1: that it is one thing to institute a practical sign for producing grace, and another to render that sign certain and efficacious for producing the same grace.

For it is possible, says the Doctor, for someone at times who is not truthful to use that sign: for it has its signification from institution; but that it be certain it has only from the determination of some cause operating upon that sign in order to cause the thing signified; for example, if some legislator should institute in his polity the touching of hands, or something of the sort, as a sign of peace, although from this imposition that sign has the property of practically signifying peace, nevertheless, if another who is not truthful can use this sign, that sign is not certain from the legislator's imposition, but remains equivocal: at one time true, namely when it has the thing signified accompanying it, at another false; for the false person uses this sign, or thing signified, just as he would use a speculative sign, or thing signified, saying, “I grant you my affection,” while having something else, namely the opposite, in his heart.

These are the Doctor's words, by which he indicates that two things must be distinguished in the institution of the Sacraments: first, the designation of a sensible sign for signifying and conferring grace; second, the virtue and efficacy of that sign, by reason of which it is said to signify and confer grace certainly and infallibly, insofar as it is in itself. The first, however, is related only incompletely and imperfectly to the institution of a Sacrament, since it belongs to its very nature not merely to be a sign of sanctifying grace, but to be a certain and efficacious sign of it; and this it cannot obtain except from him who has the physical power of producing grace and attaching that production to this sign.

Note 3. Sacraments can be considered instituted by God in two ways, namely either immediately by himself, or mediately through some Angel or man. Immediately, for example, if God designated some sensible sign, at whose application he would certainly and infallibly produce and confer grace. This can indeed happen in two ways: either immediately by God as God, or by God insofar as he is God-man, that is, insofar as the divine person who immediately instituted those Sacraments subsists in assumed humanity. This again can be conceived in two ways: first, so that the whole designation of the Sacramental sign, and the power attached to it of producing grace, is referred back to the divine person, while only its manifestation would take place through the assumed humanity; or so that the assumed humanity itself has received from the divine person the communicated power of instituting signs of this sort effectively, as though it were proper to it, so that it is considered the principal cause of this institution. Likewise, God can be conceived as instituting Sacraments mediately in two ways: namely either incompletely, if he were to grant some creature the faculty of designating and assuming some sensible sign, at whose presence and placement he himself would certainly and infallibly produce grace; or completely, if he were also to grant the creature to whom he grants the faculty of instituting a sign the power and efficacy of producing grace.

With these preliminaries, three things remain to be established: first, that God alone has the power of authority and the principal power of instituting Sacraments properly so called, so proper and peculiar to himself that he cannot delegate it to any creature; second, that the Lord Christ, insofar as he is man, is not the principal and physical cause, but the moral cause, of the institution of the Sacraments; third, that he instituted all the Sacraments immediately insofar as he is God.

First conclusion. — GOD ALONE CAN COMPLETELY AND PROPERLY INSTITUTE SACRAMENTS. This is the Doctor's position in the passage praised above, number 5, where he says:

As regards signification, it would be possible for a Sacrament to be instituted by some creature, because just as a man could impose a speculative sign of God's effect, as is clear from this proposition, “God causes grace in the soul,” so he could impose a sign that would practically signify God acting invisibly; but he could not give that sign what would make it regularly certain: for he cannot give certainty to any practical sign unless it is in his power to be able to cause the thing signified by that sign; but God alone can determine himself to cause an effect proper to himself: therefore God alone can give certainty to the practical sign of his effect. Thus it is clear that a Sacrament can be instituted by God alone, as regards a certain sign.

And below, number 6, there:

if this certain sign belongs to the nature of a Sacrament, as seems to follow from that expression, efficacious, it follows that, according to its properly speaking nature, it can be instituted by God alone. But if it belongs to its nature, etc.

By these words the Doctor teaches quite openly that God alone can institute a Sacrament, since he alone has the power to produce grace infallibly upon the application and placement of some sign, although he could entrust to a pure creature the designation of some practical sign, at whose presence he himself would confer sanctifying grace. This designation, however, as we said, would be merely an imperfect Sacrament on the part of the one designating it; for whoever determined such a sign would not have from himself the power to make that sign efficacious and practical, but this would necessarily have to be supplied by God, and consequently God alone can institute Sacraments authoritatively. — The argument can indeed be formed as follows: only he can institute Sacraments authoritatively who can confer virtue upon a Sacrament and produce through it the effect signified; but God alone can confer virtue upon a Sacrament and produce its effect, namely sanctifying grace and remission of sin; therefore, etc. The major is evident. The minor is proved by all those texts of Scripture in which God is asserted to be the sole author of sanctifying grace and justification. Thus Job 14: “Who can make clean what was conceived from unclean seed? Is it not you, who alone are?” And Psalm 83: “The Lord will give grace and glory,” etc.

You will say 1: The Sacraments of the law of nature were signs to be assumed at will by faithful men as a protestation of their faith; but the Sacraments of the written law, like the Mosaic law itself, had been delivered through Angels: therefore Sacraments can be instituted by creatures. — I answer the first, that from this it follows only that the determination of Sacramental signs was from the human will, not that the institution of the Sacraments depended upon it: for God willed and immediately by himself instituted that, in the time of the law of nature, men should assume sensible signs for their sanctification, at whose placement he himself would produce grace, but not that men should attribute to those signs the power of producing grace. To the second I say that the law and the Sacraments of the Mosaic law are said to have been delivered through Angels, not because they established that law or instituted those Sacraments by their own authority, but only because they were their promulgators.

You will say 2: Whoever can produce the effect of a Sacrament can also institute a Sacrament; but the Ministers of the Church can produce the effects of the Sacraments: therefore, etc.

The major is evident from what was said. The minor is proved as follows: the effect of the Sacraments is that man is cleansed from sins, enlightened, and perfected through grace; but cleansing, enlightening, and perfecting belong to the Ministers of the Church, as Saint Dionysius teaches in book On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapter 5: therefore, etc. — I deny the minor, and I distinguish its proof: cleansing, enlightening, and perfecting per se and immediately is the effect of the Sacraments, I concede; merely mediately, I deny. Likewise, with the minor distinguished, the consequence must be denied: for the cleansing attributed to the Ministers of the Church is not immediate; they are said to cleanse for this reason, that they cast out unclean spirits from the assembly of the faithful and dispose them to receive the Sacraments through catechisms and sacred admonitions. Likewise they enlighten God's people, not by enlightening the souls of individuals per se or infusing grace, but by preaching the things of God and administering the Sacraments.

You will say 3: From Saint Augustine, Tractate 6 on John, about the middle: John's Baptism was the baptism of a man; but John's Baptism was a true Sacrament: therefore man can institute a true Sacrament. The major is Saint Augustine's own; for he says:

It is one thing, he says, to baptize through ministry, another through power; for a baptism is such as he is in whose power it is given, not such as he is through whose ministry it is given. Such was John's baptism, such as John was: nevertheless, the baptism of a just man, but one who received from God such grace that he was worthy to go before the Judge; but such was the Lord's baptism as the Lord was, etc.

— I answer by denying the minor: for John's Baptism did not have the power of conferring sanctifying grace or remitting sins, as we shall prove when treating of Baptism.

You will say finally: A creature can designate some sign at whose presence God would infallibly produce grace; but this suffices for the nature of a Sacrament: therefore a creature can institute a Sacrament.

The major is proved by the authority of Saint Augustine in the passage praised above, where he says:

Now our Lord Jesus Christ could, if he wished to give some servant of his the power to give his baptism as though it were that servant's, and to transfer from himself the power of baptizing, and establish it in some servant of his, and give baptism, transferred to the servant, as much power as the baptism given by the Lord himself would have, etc.

— I answer the minor with the Doctor in the passage praised above, number 6: if these things suffice for the nature of a Sacrament, then indeed a pure creature could, by God's commission, institute Sacraments; and in this way the Doctor's position could be reconciled with the opinion of the Angelic and Seraphic Doctors, who assert that God can entrust a creature the virtue and faculty of instituting Sacraments, if this institution is taken precisely only as the designation of sensible form and matter, and as abstracting from certainty and efficacy with respect to the effect. This is indeed clear, because some thus hold that the remedy of the law of nature was instituted so that it would be in anyone's power to assume any thing as a protestation of faith. Thus Christ instituted the Sacraments by the power of excellence, as man; and just as the power of instituting the rites and solemnities of the Sacraments was given to the Church, so the power of designating the matter and form could have been entrusted to it. Yet certainty and efficacy would not follow from this for the instituted sign, but from God's decree by which he determined to concur infallibly in producing the signified effect. Therefore signs instituted in this way would indeed have their designation from a pure creature, but their effect from God; and thus the creature would be the author of the institution of the sign, while God would be the author of the signified effect. — Nor did Saint Augustine certainly intend anything else by the words cited in the objection, as is clear from what follows; for he says:

He did not want the hope of those to be in him who were being baptized, from whom they recognized themselves as baptized. Therefore he wanted the servant to place hope in the servant. For this reason the Apostle cried out when he saw people, in their worship, placing hope in himself: “Was Paul crucified for you, or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” Therefore he baptized as a minister, not as power itself. But the Lord baptized as power.

From these words it is clear that Saint Augustine did not want that primary and absolute power of sanctifying inwardly through the Sacraments to have been communicable to a servant. Indeed, if such power were granted, nothing absurd at all would follow if someone placed his hope in him. Thus he wanted only the Sacramental power of confecting and administering in the proper name of the one conferring, for example, I baptize you in the name of Claudius, or I confer my baptism upon you, to be able indeed to be conferred upon a servant, but not to be suitable, lest the servant, deceived by the very words, should place his hope in the baptizer rather than in God, the principal cause.

Second conclusion. — THE LORD CHRIST, INSOFAR AS HE IS MAN, WAS ONLY THE MORAL AND MERITORIOUS CAUSE OF THE INSTITUTION OF THE SACRAMENTS.

Proof: The Lord Christ had some causality concerning the institution of the Sacraments; but he did not have physical causality; therefore, moral causality.

The major is clear because, as will be proved in the following conclusion, he himself instituted all the Sacraments. The minor is proved: physical causality is either principal or instrumental; but he had neither. Not principal, indeed: first, because God alone is the principal cause of justification, as is gathered from these texts of Scripture, Job 14: “Who can make clean what was conceived from unclean seed? Is it not you, who alone are?” Isaiah 43 and Hosea 13: “There is no savior besides you.” Nor is it resolved by saying that those texts merely imply that God is the first cause of justification; for although God is the first cause of heating, it would nevertheless be absurd to say, “Who can make heat? Is it not you, who alone are?” when fire likewise concurs in forming heat. Second, because if Christ's humanity were the principal cause of the grace produced through the Sacraments, this would be either from its innate virtue or from a virtue divinely infused.

Not the first: since his humanity is of the same species and natural order as the others, whereas grace is of the supernatural order and exceeds the powers of every nature. Nor the second: for it would have this either from habitual grace or from the hypostatic union. Not the first; otherwise every just person could have such firmness, since he has Christ's grace, graciously similar in species. Nor does the greater intensity of Christ's grace stand in the way, because it does not change the nature and power of causing; for a more intense form has only this, that it can produce a more intense effect, which a less intense form would not produce because of greater resistance in the subject, and this has no place in the present case. Nor the second, because through that union the nature is not substantially changed and consequently receives no physical power that it would not have from itself; rather, by reason of the union God merely assists it, and through that divine assistance and union it comes about that the humanity is the moral, meritorious, and impetratory cause of a grace that another just person could not impetrate and obtain by reason of his works and his grace. This moral causality ought not to change Christ's humanity physically; it suffices that God, through an extrinsic relation, makes it worthy to obtain what it requests, just as royal dignity does not physically change the nature of a queen, who obtains something from the law by reason of such dignity that would not be granted to another, for example Esther. Thus Christ was heard because of his reverence, says the Apostle; but for him to be a secondary and physical efficient cause by reason of the hypostatic union, something real and physical would have to flow into it from the union itself; otherwise, remaining physically unchanged, he would obtain no physical activity from the union.

You will say 1: That is the principal cause to which the effect must be assimilated per se; but our justification consists in this, that it assimilates us to Christ's humanity, according to Romans 8: “He predestined us to be conformed to the image” (that is, to the humanity) “of his Son.” Therefore, etc. — I deny the major; for God can use the grace of one just person as an instrument for producing grace in another just person; and then the effect would be similar to that moral cause, and that cause would not be principal.

You will say 2: Whatever is the universal principle of our justification is its principal cause; but Christ is such a principle, for from his fullness we have all received. — I deny the major; and to the minor I say that Christ is called the universal cause of justification in the sense that, as man, he merited every grace which, as God, he produces.

You will insist: From this several absurdities follow: first, it follows that Christ does not differ from the other ministers, who are also instrumental causes; second, if he were only a moral instrument, he would not first have to be just and pleasing to God—for an instrument ought not to have the form that it produces in another—with the result that even a Priest, although he is in mortal sin, confers grace and absolves from sins, because he is merely an instrument; third, it would follow that our grace is more perfect than Christ's grace and justification, for the effect is always nobler than the instrument by which it is produced. — I deny all these consequences.

The first, indeed, because although they do not differ through instrumental virtue, he nevertheless differs because by true merit of condignity he impetrates grace from God; the others, however, produce grace through no merit of their own, but through the virtue of the Sacrament. The second likewise, because grace and holiness are truly prerequired in Christ for him to impetrate truly; otherwise, if he ministered merely as a Priest those things through whose conferral grace is infallibly conferred. The third, finally, because this is true of physical instruments, not of moral and impetratory ones: since the Most High does not approve the gifts of the wicked, nor hear sinners, it follows that whoever is to receive what he asks from God must be just and pleasing to him.

You will say 3: Christ is just by essence, for he has holiness from what is his own, not through participation; but what is such by essence is the principal cause of other things that are such through participation. — I distinguish the major: insofar as the God-man has holiness from himself, not begged from another, I concede; as though his humanity had justice from itself and not borrowed from the divinity, I deny. Likewise the major must be distinguished: things that are such by their own nature, I concede; things that are so only from another, I deny. Christ's humanity, however, is not holy by its own nature, but through internal habitual grace and through the external assistance of God flowing from the union; these do not change it physically and consequently do not confer any physical efficacy upon it.

Nor is it a physical instrumental cause: first, because, as was said, the humanity has no physical activity toward grace; second, because, as will be said more fully below, no creature can have natural efficacy toward grace and things that are of the supernatural order. — It remains therefore to infer that Christ is only a moral and meritorious cause. Meritorious, I say, since, as the Doctor says in distinction 2 of book 4, question 1, number 7, he is the meritorious cause of the Sacraments who, through signs instituted by himself, merited the efficacy of producing grace; but Christ, as man, merited this. Proof: God, offended by men, had decreed not to pardon such an offense, nor to grant any help for expiating it, unless divine honor were first repaired and satisfaction had been made to divine justice by the offering of someone who gave God as much honor as human sin had taken away; but Christ did this, offering himself to redeem us from all iniquity; indeed, so that where sin abounded, grace might abound more, so that redemption might be plentiful with him: therefore, etc. — It is confirmed, for all the efficacy of the Sacraments comes from Christ's Passion: therefore it is their meritorious cause. The antecedent is proved: the Sacraments have their efficacy from him from whom they have it that grace is regularly and infallibly produced upon their conferral; but they have this meritoriously from Christ's Passion. The major is evident, since the efficacy of the Sacraments is nothing else. The minor is proved: all grace to be conferred upon men is conferred solely in view of and through the virtue of Christ's merits. Hence Saint John: Grace and truth through Jesus Christ, and again: From whose fullness we have all received: therefore especially by reason of Christ's completed merits; but Christ's merits were not complete except through his death and Passion, which was not only the fitting terminus of his passibility, but also the seal and completion of his merit. Although the name Jesus was imposed upon him at the Circumcision and foretold by the Angel before he was born, nevertheless it was in his Passion alone that he attained the perfect power of that name, according to the Apostle: Christ humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross; for which reason, etc. Since, therefore, he attained the name of Savior perfectly only through death, it must be inferred that from his death the means of our salvation, such as the Sacraments, derived their power and origin. The same is indicated by all those sacred passages in which Christ is said to have washed us from our sins in his Blood and to have redeemed us not with corruptible gold or silver, but with most precious Blood, etc.

You will say 1: An effect in act comes only from a cause in act, according to Aristotle, Metaphysics 5, chapter 2; but Christ's Passion is not in act: therefore it cannot confer the efficacy that the Sacraments actually possess. — The Doctor distinguishes the major: an efficient and physical cause, I concede; a moral and meritorious cause, I deny; for we have actually conferred many benefits because of past services, whose memory alone endures.

You will say 2: The Sacraments would have that efficacy from Christ's Passion either as past or as future. Not the first, otherwise Baptism and the Eucharist would not have that efficacy, since they were instituted before the Passion. Nor the second, otherwise the Sacraments of the Old Law could have had equal efficacy. Therefore, etc. — The Doctor answers that they had it from the Passion exhibited not indeed in an external act, but in an interior one, by which Christ from the moment of his Conception adjudged himself to the cross and death, according to: In the head of the book it is written, etc. And: I have a baptism with which I must be baptized, and how constrained I am until it is completed! I answer 2 that if they had been administered while Christ was alive, they would have had less efficacy, both because they would not have opened heaven to those receiving them, and because, if from the whole of Christ's life one offering for our redemption was contracted and integrated, from which our Sacraments drew their efficacy, it is most certain that it was not so fruitful from the incomplete offering as it was from the offering completed through the Passion.

You say 3: If the Sacraments had that efficacy from Christ’s Passion, chiefly either as from a meritorious cause or as from a principal cause. Not in the second way, because nothing can be the principal and efficient cause of the Sacraments unless it can be the cause of the effect signified through the Sacraments; but only God can be the efficient and principal cause of grace. Nor in the first way either, because grace has no meritorious cause: for if it were from merits, it would no longer be grace, as Paul argues in Romans 9. Hence St. Augustine speaks mystically, and by a certain likeness between the things that flowed from Christ’s side and the Sacraments. For blood is likened to the species of wine in the Eucharist, and the water that flowed forth is likened to baptismal water; hence St. Augustine says that these two Sacraments flowed from Christ’s side.

Third conclusion. — ALL THE SACRAMENTS OF THE NEW LAW WERE INSTITUTED IMMEDIATELY BY THE LORD CHRIST. This seems to be a matter of faith determined in the Council of Trent, Session 7, Canon 1, in these words: If anyone should say that the Sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Christ, let him be anathema. Although the particle “immediately” is not explicitly present there, it is nevertheless plainly gathered that the Canon must be understood of immediate institution. First, because otherwise the Council would not have issued this Canon if it concerned only mediate institution; for everyone readily admits that, since it is certain that the Church prescribes nothing, especially in matters concerning the confection and administration of the Sacraments, except through the authority delegated to it by the Lord Christ. Second, because this Canon was added especially against the Lutherans, who contended that only the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist were instituted by the Lord Christ, and consequently affirmed that the others were indeed sacred rites ordered by the Church, but denied that they were Sacraments properly so called. Third, because in Session 21, chapter 2, the Holy Synod declares that this power has perpetually been in the Church, so that in the dispensation of the Sacraments, with their substance preserved, it might establish or change those things that it judged more expedient for the benefit of those receiving them or for the veneration of the Sacraments themselves, according to the variety of things, times, and places. But this exception, “with their substance preserved,” would be added in vain if they had been instituted not by Christ but by the Church; for if the Church had instituted them, it could also change their substance, since the same power belongs both to establish the laws of an earthly commonwealth and to approve them. Fourth and finally, if there were difficulty concerning the immediate institution of some Sacrament by the Lord Christ, it would especially concern Extreme Unction, which some contend was instituted by Saint James from chapter 5 of his Canonical Epistle. But the Council of Trent, Session 14, Canon 1, On the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, decreed: If anyone should say that Extreme Unction is not truly and properly a Sacrament instituted by our Lord Christ and promulgated by Blessed James, but only a rite received from the Fathers or a human invention, let him be anathema.

This truth is likewise gathered from Sacred Scripture; for Saint Paul says in 1 Corinthians 4: “Let a man regard us as Ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God,” that is, of the Sacraments; but if the Apostles had instituted some Sacraments, they would not be merely dispensers, but also authors and institutors of God's mysteries: therefore, etc. Further, in Acts 1 the Lord Christ is said after the Resurrection to have appeared to the disciples for forty days, conversing and speaking with them about the kingdom of God, that is, about the Church to be built and administered; but the Sacraments pertain above all to the building and administration of the Church. Hence Saint Leo writes splendidly in Sermon 1, On the Ascension of the Lord:

Those days that flowed between the Lord's Resurrection and Ascen> sion did not pass in an idle course, but great Sacraments were contained in them, great mysteries were revealed. This same point the Subtle Doctor clearly confirms in distinction 2 of book 4, question 1, number 1, where he says:

All the Sacraments were instituted by Christ, or by God, for the time of this Law. I briefly show this here, because each will appear more fully in its proper place. Of Baptism it is clear that it was instituted by Christ while he was living, because the disciples baptized, as is clear in John 3, and it was commanded that it be preached publicly, Matthew, last chapter: “Go, teach all nations, baptizing them,” etc. — Of the Eucharist its widespread preaching is clear in John 6, but its institution was at the Supper, Matthew 26. — Of Confirmation its institution is clear in John 20: “Receive the Holy Spirit,” etc., or on the day of Pentecost, Acts 2. — Of Penance it is said that it was instituted in James 5: “Confess to one another,” etc. But this does not seem probable from the progress of the text, because it immediately follows: “Pray for one another,” etc. For it is manifest that by what follows he did not intend to institute or promulgate any Sacrament; nor did James have the authority to institute any Sacrament, as will be touched upon below in the argument to be given for this conclusion. It is better, therefore, to say that it was instituted in John 20: “Receive the Holy Spirit: whose sins you forgive,” etc., and promised in Matthew 16: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind,” etc. For this power was not principally that of forgiving sins, which is proper to God, but of judging concerning the remission of sin, with a judgment approved by God; and to judge in this way is, in the forum of Penance, to loose or bind. — Of Extreme Unction it is said in James 5: “Is anyone among you sick?” etc. But although he promulgated the Sacrament there, it is better to say that it was instituted by Christ. For we read in Mark 6 that the Apostles anointed many sick people with oil, and they were healed; but it is clear that they did this only in the virtue of Christ, who had instituted that efficacious anointing. — Of Matrimony it appears in Matthew 19: “Have you not read” (Christ says) “that he made them male and female?” namely, God, and said, namely, through the mouth of Adam: “For this reason a man will leave,” etc.; where Christ approves and ratifies what God, in the state of innocence, published through Adam's mouth. — Of Order, Matthew 26: “Do this in remembrance of me.” And John 20: “Whose sins you forgive,” etc. For these two things pertain to the Priestly Order, namely, power with respect to the true Body of Christ and power with respect to Christ's mystical body, as will be said in the treatment of Order. — That all these were instituted by God alone is clear from what was touched upon generally concerning the institution of a Sacrament. No one is competent to institute a practical sign except either with respect to some act of his own or with respect to someone subject to him as regards that act; but a Sacrament is a practical sign properly with respect to God's effect, and God cannot be subject to another in an act proper to himself: therefore, etc. These are the Doctor's words.

The Holy Fathers teach the same truth, especially Saint Dionysius, who says in Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapter 1: The Apostles received the forms of the Sacraments; they did not invent them; but they could not have received them from elsewhere than from Christ: therefore, etc. — Likewise Saint Ambrose says in book 4, On the Sacraments, chapter 4: Who is the author of the Sacraments, except the Lord Jesus! And

Saint Augustine, book On True Religion, chapter 17: Where, he says, will be the time of grace, where the very wisdom of God, having assumed man, through whom we were created for freedom, established certain most salutary Sacraments, etc. This is also urged by three arguments, or fittingnesses. For it was fitting that all the Sacraments, which are efficacious means for attaining salvation, should derive their origin from him who is truly the Mediator of God and men, lest men place their hope in anyone other than the Mediator himself. Second, lest division and schism arise in the Church because of different Sacraments instituted by different persons: for if a contention had arisen among the faithful because those who had been baptized by the Apostles considered themselves preferable to those who had received Baptism merely from the disciples, as the Apostle observes in 1 Corinthians 1, rebuking them for saying, I indeed am of Paul, but I am of Apollos, and I of Cephas, although all had been baptized in Christ's baptism, how much more would they have been divided from one another if they had received different baptisms from different persons? Finally, since it belongs to the head of a commonwealth to enact fundamental laws, and laws that have force throughout the commonwealth, such as sacramental laws, by the very fact that there were several institutors of the Sacraments, there would also be several heads in the Church, which would certainly be absurd and dangerous.

You will say 1: Addressing the disciples in John 20, the Lord Christ says: As the Father sent me, so I send you. But he was sent by the Father in such a way that he had the power of instituting Sacraments: therefore he delegated the same power to the Apostles. — I distinguish the major: as regards something, namely the office of reconciling men and extending the remission of sins, I concede, because, as Saint Paul said, “We act as ambassadors for Christ”; as regards the complete fullness of authority, I deny. Otherwise it would follow that, just as the Lord Christ could remit sins without any intervention of the Sacraments, so the Apostles too could remit sins in that way.

You will say 2: Whoever the author of the Sermon at the Supper is, in Saint Cyprian, treating of the washing of feet, says: “He himself, the supreme Priest, is the institutor and author of his Sacrament. In the others, men had the Holy Spirit as teacher; and just as the dignity of the Holy Spirit and Christ is equal, so authority and power are equal in their institutions. What the Apostles handed down at the dictation of the Holy Spirit is no less ratified than what the Lord himself handed down and commanded to be done in his memory.” Therefore he judges that the Lord Christ instituted only the Eucharist immediately. — I answer first, denying the consequence: Christ is called the institutor and author of the Eucharist above the other Sacraments because he celebrated it first; he not only instituted it, but also exhibited and received it; the other Sacraments were not so. For the Apostles conferred and received these, already instituted by Christ. I answer second: that author understands by Christ's Sacrament not only the Eucharist, but also the other Sacraments; and by “in the others” he understands the ceremonial rites, which were instituted not immediately by Christ but by the Church, as Bellarmine, Gravina, and others explain. I add that the authority cited above does not favor the heretics, since they teach that not only the Eucharist but also Baptism was instituted immediately by Christ.

You will say 3: From Saint Augustine, Letter 115: Christ sustained us with his easy yoke and light burden; hence with very few Sacraments, easiest in observance, most excellent in signification, he bound together the society of the new people, such as Baptism, communion of his Body and Blood, and whatever is commended in the canonical Scriptures. But those things that we preserve not written but handed down, which are observed throughout the whole world, are to be understood as commended and established either by the Apostles themselves or by plenary Councils, whose authority in the Church is most salutary, and are to be retained as established. Therefore Christ instituted immediately only those Sacraments that are commended in Scripture; the others were instituted by the Apostles. — I deny the consequence, for all the Sacraments are commended in Scripture, at least implicitly. Second, Christ immediately handed on to the Apostles, and they to their Successors, many things concerning the matter and forms of the Sacraments that they did not wish to write down, lest they be cheapened among the unlearned and profane. For, from Saint Augustine, Letter 57: “You know in what sacrifice it is said: Let us give thanks to the Lord our God.” From Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 3: See that you do not number the Holy of Holies, but rather revere it; and do not hand on less perfect things, but communicate them only to those who are sacred. And chapter 7: It is sacrilegious to interpret the consecrated invocations by themselves and to bring into public their secret meaning and the rites through which God secretly works in them. Therefore the things that Saint Augustine says are preserved as established by the Apostles or Councils are ecclesiastical ceremonies, for example that the Lord's Passion, Resurrection, Ascension into heaven, and the coming of the Holy Spirit from heaven be celebrated with an annual solemnity, and whatever else the universal Church observes.

You will insist: The same Saint Augustine, book 3 of On Christian Doctrine, chapter 19, says:

After the manifest sign of our freedom shone forth in Christ's Resurrection, we are not burdened even with those signs whose operation we now understand as a heavy burden, but, in place of many, the Lord himself and Apostolic discipline handed on to us a few signs, easy in faith, most august in understanding, and most chaste in observance.

Therefore, in his view, not only Christ but also the Apostles handed on and instituted Sacraments. — I distinguish the major: “the Lord himself and Apostolic discipline handed on,” namely the Lord by instituting, but Apostolic discipline by commending and dispensing what Christ instituted, I concede; as though Christ himself instituted only certain Sacraments, while Apostolic discipline instituted the rest, I deny. And likewise, with the minor distinguished, I deny the consequence.

You will say 4: There are many Catholic Doctors who expressly assert that some Sacraments were instituted either by the Apostles or in Councils. For Hugh of Saint Victor, book 2 of On the Sacraments, part 1, chapter 5, says in express terms: The Sacrament of Extreme Unction of the sick is read as having been instituted by the Apostles; for the Apostle James, writing in his Epistle, says: Is anyone among you sick? etc. Saint Bonaventure likewise holds this concerning the Sacrament of Confession, in distinction 17 of book 4, article 1, question 3:

Confession, he says, was suggested by the Lord and instituted by the Apostles, promulgated by Saint James, Bishop of Jerusalem, in his Epistle, chapter 5, where he says: Confess your sins to one another.

He proves this assertion as follows:

Because, he says, confession is a purely human work; hence the virtue of the Sacrament was not given to Confession itself, but to Absolution; therefore the institution was rightly reserved to pure men.

From what has been said, four reasons can be drawn why the Lo> rd did not immediately and expressly institute Confession: first, because it was not necessary; second, because he taught that in this it ought to be voluntary; third, because it is the Sacrament of those who relapse; fourth, because in itself it is a human work. Hence I believe that he did not institute it per se, although he is said to have instituted it; this is to be understood as suggesting it and giving authority.

Moreover, our Alensis says in the question On the Sacrament of Confirmation, member 1:

Some say that this Sacrament was instituted and conferred by the Lord, for example when he placed his hands upon children, Matthew 19. But since in that imposition of hands nothing is expressed concerning the form of the words or the matter through which this Sacrament would be exercised, it is clear that it was not instituted by the Lord. Others say that this Sacrament was instituted, conferred, and administered by the Apostles; this is not true, and it is clear from the fact that the Apostles confirmed by the mere imposition of hands, without anointing and without the form of words used by the Church. For this reason it must be said, without prejudice, that the Lord neither instituted this Sacrament as a Sacrament, nor dispensed it, nor did the Apostles. It must therefore be understood that after the Lord's Ascension it was fitting that the Apostles be confirmed and that the Holy Spirit be given to them for strength; hence the Holy Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus had not yet been glorified. I say, not in fullness or for strength; but he was given on the day of Pentecost. Hence the Apostles were confirmed immediately by the Holy Spirit without a mystery and Sacrament, and they themselves afterward confirmed without a Sacrament. Why this? It is clear within. But after the Apostles, who were the foundations of the Church, who had been appointed by the Lord and confirmed by the Holy Spirit, had failed, this Sacrament was instituted by the impulse of the Holy Spirit in the Council of Meaux, as regards the form of words and the elemental matter, and the Holy Spirit also conferred upon it the power of sanctifying.

Saint Bonaventure teaches the same in distinction 7 of book 4. — I answer first, that those authors understood by the name “institution of the Sacraments” their promulgation and administration. But what some, together with Alensis, judged concerning Confirmation, namely that it was instituted in the Council of Meaux celebrated in the year 844, can be confirmed by no reason, since not even a single word of institution or promulgation is found in the Canons of that Council. If we look at the Acts of the Council as they are reported in volume 3 of the Councils of Gaul, there are only Canons concerning Chrism, namely 4 and 16. In the first it is forbidden that anyone receive any gift on account of the sacred chrism; in the second, that anyone presume to make sacred chrism except on Holy Thursday of Holy Week. But if we attend to the chapter That Bishops, cited by Gratian from the Council of Meaux in On Consecration, distinction 5, it is merely prescribed that Bishops, fasting, should give the Holy Spirit through the imposition of hands. No mention is made of institution. I answer second, as Saint Augustine once answered the Donatists when they objected with Saint Cyprian's authority concerning the invalidity of Baptism conferred by heretics, book 2 against Cresconius, chapter 30: I do not accept, he says, what Blessed Cyprian thought concerning the baptism of heretics and schismatics, because the Church for which Blessed Cyprian shed his blood does not accept it.