Part I Chapter II §2: Internal Grace — Sacramental Effects

§2: Internal Grace — Sacramental Effects

SECTION 2 - INTERNAL GRACE, OR SACRAMENTAL EFFECTS In this Section we have to consider, not the efficacy of the Sacraments, nor the manner in which they produce their effects (modus eMciendi),1 but these effects themselves. The Catholic Church teaches : ( i ) that through the Sacraments “all true justice either begins, or, when already begun, is increased, or having been lost, is repaired;” 2 (2) that three Sacraments, viz.: Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders, imprint an indelible mark upon the soul. ARTICLE 1 EFFECTS COMMON TO ALL THE SACRAMENTS All the Sacraments confer sanctifying grace, but, in addition, each one confers a special grace peculiar to its object. This is commonly called gratia sacramentalis. The amount of sanctifying and special grace bestowed by a Sacrament depends chiefly on the disposition of the recipient. We shall demonstrate these statements in three distinct theses. 1 V. infra, Ch. Ill, pp. 121 sqq. vera iustitia vel incipif vel coepta 2 Concilium Trident., Sess. VII, augetur vel amissa reparatur,” Prooem. : ” Per sacramenta omnis 66 SACRAMENTAL EFFECTS 67 Thesis I: All the Sacraments confer sanctifying grace. This proposition embodies an article of faith. Proof. The Tridentine Council defines : “If anyone saith that grace, as far as God’s part is concerned, is not given through the said Sacraments always and to all men, even though they receive them rightly, but [only] sometimes and to some persons, let him be anathema.,, 8 Hence all the Sacraments without exception infallibly confer sanctifying grace when they are worthily received. a) This teaching can be demonstrated from Scripture and Tradition. Both the Bible and the Fathers designate “regeneration of God” as the principal effect of Baptism. “Regeneration” is identical with justification,4 which is produced by the infusion of sanctifying grace. Consequently, Baptism confers sanctifying grace. What is true of Baptism, must also be true of the other Sacraments, since they are essentially rites of the same nature.5 Besides grace, the Sacraments impart the three divine virtues of faith, hope, and charity, the infused moral virtues, and the other concomitants of sanctifying grace.6 3 Cone. Trident., Sess. VII, can. anathema sit,” (Denzinger-Bann7: “Si quis dixerit, non dari wart, n. 850). gratiam per huiusmodi sacramenta 4 See Pohle-Preuss, Grace, Actual semper et omnibus, quantum est and Habitual, pp. 314 sq. ex parte Dei, etiamsi rite ea su- 5 V, supra, Ch. I, Sect. 2. scipiant, sed aliquando et aliquibus, 6 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, op. cit., pp. 362 sqq. The well-known division into Sacraments of the living and Sacraments of the dead is based on the distinction between first and second justification, with which we have dealt in our treatise on Grace.7 The Sacraments of the living are : Confirmation, the Holy Eucharist, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, and Matrimony. The Sacraments of the dead: Baptism and Penance. For further information we must refer the reader to the special treatises following this introduction. b) Although the Sacraments of the living can be worthily received only in the state of grace, theologians have raised the question whether, and under what conditions, these Sacraments may confer the iustificatio prima, and thereby, at least indirectly {per accidens), produce the same effects as the Sacraments of the dead. It is certain that the Sacraments of the dead, when conferred on a person already justified by an act of perfect contrition, increase sanctifying grace and consequently effect the iustificatio secunda. Similarly, it is probable that the Sacraments of the living, under certain conditions, restore sanctifying grace, and consequently effect the iustificatio prima, St. Bonaventure and De Lugo deny this proposition, so far as the Holy Eucharist is concerned. But ranged against them are such eminent older theologians as Suarez, Viva, St. Thomas 8 7 Op. cit., pp. 388 sqq. 8 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 72, art. 7, ad 2. and his entire school, and nearly all modern authors. The controversy cannot be decided from Tradition, but there is a strong theological argument in favor of the Thomistic view. The Tridentine Council teaches : ” If anyone saith that the Sacraments of the New Law … do not confer grace on those who do not place an obstacle thereunto, … let him be anathema.” 9 Now it may easily happen that a sinner, believing himself to be in the state of grace, receives a Sacrament of the living with only imperfect contrition. Are we to assume that in such a case the Sacrament is utterly ineffective? There is no obstacle placed in the way of grace, since the sinner is in good faith and truly sorry for his sins. Hence, if the Sacrament has any effect at all, it must be to establish the state of grace. This can be easily shown of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. St. Thomas expressly asserts it of the Sacrament of Confirmation.10 It is equally true of Holy Orders and Matrimony, where good faith and attrition conjointly preclude the possibility of sacrilege and remove the obex. Is the Eucharist alone to form an exception, as De Lugo [contends ? St. Thomas emphatically denies it. ” This Sacrament,” he says, “can effect the forgiveness of sin in two ways. First of all, by being received, not actually, but in desire …; secondly, when received by one in mortal sin of which he is not conscious, and for which he has no attachment; for possibly he was not sufficiently contrite at first, but by approaching this Sacrament 9 Cone. T rident., Sess. VII, can. in peccato existens, cuius conscien6: “Si quis dixerit, sacrament a tiam non habet, vel si etiam non Novae Legis … gratiam ipsam non perfecte contritus [«. e. attritus] ponentibus obicem non conferre, accedat, dummodo non fictus acceanathema sit/* (Denzinger-Bann- dat, per gratiam collatam in hoc wart, n. 849). sacramento consequetur remissionem 10 Sumtna Theol., 3a?, qu. 72, peccatorum.* art. 7, ad 2: *Si aliquis adultus

devoutly and reverently, he obtains the grace of charity, which will perfect his [imperfect] contrition, and bring forgiveness of sin.” 11 Thesis II: Besides sanctifying grace, the Sacraments confer each a special, the so-called sacramental grace. This proposition may be qualified technically as sententia communis. Proof, a) The existence of a special sacramental grace can be shown in three ways. a) If the Sacraments produced no other effect than sanctifying grace, there would be no need of having seven of them. Yet the Church teaches that all seven are necessary unto salvation, though not for every individual. “If anyone saith that the Sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous, … though all are not indeed necessary for every individual, let him be anathema.” 12 P) If the Sacraments really “contain/’ i. e. effect, the grace which they “signify,” as the ll Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 79, art. 3: “Potest hoc sacramentum operari remissionem peccati dupliciter: uno modo non perceptum actu, sed voto …; alio modo etiam perceptum ab eo, qui est in peccato mortali, cuius conscientiam et affectum non habet. Forte enim primo non fuit suMcienter contritus, sed devote et reverenter accedens consequetur per hoc sacramentum gratiam caritatis, quae contritionem [scU. imperfectam] perficiet, et remissionem peccati,” Cfr. De Augustinis, De Re Sacramentaria, Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 275 sqq.; HeinrichGutberlet, Dogmatische Theologie, Vol. IV, § 493. 12 Cone. Trident., Sess. VII, can. 4: “Si quis dixerit, sacramenta Novae Legis non esse ad salutem necessaria, sed superAua, … licet omnia singulis necessaria nbn sintt anathema sit/* (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 847). SACRAMENTAL EFFECTS 71 Council of Trent declares,13 the different signs must effect different graces, there must be as many different graces as there are signs, and hence the grace of Baptism cannot be identical with the grace of Confirmation,14 and so forth. y) The Church teaches that the Sacraments differ in dignity and worth. “If anyone saith,” defines the same Council, “that these seven Sacraments are in such wise equal to each other as that one is not in any way worthier than another, let him be anathema.” 15 It would be difficult to conceive this inequality, if there were no difference in effect.16 b) Regarding the exact nature of the sacramental grace theologians are at variance. The majority hold that the sanctifying grace conferred by a Sacrament is of the same order and quality as that obtained by prayer, merit, and perfect charity. Aureolus, Paludanus, Eusebius Amort, and others have tried to explain the difference in the effects of the various Sacraments by assuming the existence of habits specifically distinct from sanctifying grace and its accompanying virtues. However, this assumption is gratuitous, ( 1 ) because sanctifying grace with its concomitant theological virtues provides sufficiently for the habitual life of the soul, and (2) is Cfr. Cone. Trident., Sess. VII, null& ratione aliud sit alio dignius, can. 6… continent gratiam, anathema sit.” (Denzinger-Bann* quam significant/’ wart, n. 846). 14 Cfr. Acts VIII, 16 sqq. 16 For a more detailed treatment 15 Cone. Trident., Sess. VII, can. of this point cfr. Pesch, Praelect. 3 : ” 5* quis dixerit, haec septem Dogmaticae, Vol. VI, 3rd ed„ pp. sacramenta esse inter se paria, ut 54 sqq. because there is no basis for any such assertion in Revelation. How, then, are we to conceive the graces peculiar to the different Sacraments? Billuart 17 and other Thomist theologians contend that sacramental grace consists in some mode of perfection which ordinary grace lacks. Suarez 18 thinks sacramental grace is a claim to those actual graces which correspond to the particular object of a Sacrament. In both hypotheses sanctifying grace is the font and well-spring of the gratia sacramentalis. The same grace (justification) is conferred by all the Sacraments, but it exercises a different function in each. In Baptism it effects regeneration, in Confirmation it confers spiritual manhood, in the Holy Eucharist it nourishes the soul, and so forth.19 The majority of modern theologians prefer to hold with Suarez that the gratia sacramentalis is simply a moral claim to actual graces, which are not conferred all at once, but one by one, as they are needed, though always with reference to the Sacrament of which they are the effects. However, there is nothing to prevent us from meeting Billuart halfway by defining sacramental grace as a permanent disposition or habit.20 17 De Sacramentis, diss. 3, art. 5. 18 De Sacramentis, disp. 7, sect. 3. 19 Decret. pro Armenis, in Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 695. Cfr. St. Bonaventure, Comment, in Sent., IV, dist. 1, p. 1, qu. 6: ” Gratia sacramentalis est eadem per essenHam cum gratia virtutum {i. e. sanctificante], licet gratia sacramentalis plures connotet effectus.** 20 Cfr. Heinrich-Gutberlet, Dogmat. Theol., Vol. IV, pp. 151 sqq.; Gihr, Die hi. Sakramente der kath. Kirche, Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 93 sqq. This teaching is based on that of St. Thomas; cfr. Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 62, art. 2 : ” Sicut igitur virtutes et dona addunt super gratiam communiter die tarn quondam perfectionem determinate ordinatam ad proprios actus potentiarum [scil. animae”, ita gratia sacramentalis addit super gratiam communiter dictam [». e. habitualem} et super virtutes et dona quoddam divinum auxilium ad consequendum sacramenti finem.” See also De Augustinis, De Re Sacramentaria, Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 278 sqq., and De Lugo, De Sacramentis, disp. 4, sect. 3. Thesis III: The amount of grace conferred by a Sacrament depends on the disposition of the recipient. This thesis is also sententia communis. Proof. The Tridentine Council, speaking of the justification of adult sinners, teaches: ”… and we are … just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one’s proper disposition and co-opef ation.” 21 That is to say, the amount of grace conferred by a Sacrament in each instance depends (i) on the eternal decree of God, who has endowed each Sacrament with a definite measure of grace, and (2) on the disposition and co-operation of the recipient. Note, however, that the Sacraments are efficacious ex opere operato, and consequently the disposition of the recipient is not the cause of grace, but merely a condition of a richer outpouring of the same, just as the dryness of a stick of wood is not the cause of its burning, but a condition of its being more rapidly consumed by the flames.22 a) The Tridentine teaching is in perfect conformity with the mind of the Fathers. St. Cyril admonishes his catechumens about to receive Baptism : ” Cleanse thine vessel, that it may receive a 21 Cone. Trident., Sess. VI,’ cap. cundum propriam cuiusque dispositi7: ”… iustitiam in nobis recipi- onem et cooperationem.” (Denentes, unusquisque suam secundum zinger-Bannwart, n. 799). mensuram, quam Spiritus Sanctus 22 Cfr. Franzelin, De Sacramentis partitur singulis prout vult. et se- in Genere, thes. 6.

greater measure of grace. Forgiveness of sins is granted to all alike, but the communication of the Holy Ghost is given to each according to the measure of his faith. If thine effort be but slight, thou wilt receive little; but if thou dost much, thine reward will be great.” 23 It is for this same reason that the Church constantly exhorts the faithful to serve God more ardently, in order that they may receive a richer reward. St. Thomas voices the conviction of the Schoolmen when he says : ” All children are equally disposed to Baptism, … all receive an equal effect in Baptism; whereas adults … are not equally disposed; for some approach with greater, some with less, devotion, and therefore some receive a greater, some a smaller share of the grace of renewal.” 24 b) Revelation does not tell us whether or not Sacraments of a different order (e. g. Baptism and the Holy Eucharist), all other things being equal, confer an equal amount of grace. Objectively the Holy Eucharist is the most perfect of the Sacraments, and consequently we may assume that from the nature of the case and regardless of the disposition of the recipient, it confers a larger share of grace than the others. Those theologians who, in addition to the disposition and co-operation of the recipient mentioned by the Tridentine Council, postulate other external condi28 Catech., I, cap. 5 (Migne, P. G.t XXXIII, 378). Other Patristic texts in Suarez, De Sacratn., disp. 7, sect. s. 24 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 69, art. 8: ”… omnes pueri aequaliter se habent ad baptismum, … omnes aequalem effectum percipiunt in baptismo. Adulti vero … non aequaliter se habent ad baptismum. Quid am enim cum maiore, quidam cum minore devotione ad baptismum accedunt, et ideo quidam plus, quidam minus de gratia novitatis accipiunt.” Cfr. De Augustinis, De Re Sacrament., Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 294 sqq.; Tepe, Inst, Theolog., Vol. IV, pp. 50 sqq. tions, merely voice their private opinion and speak without sufficient warrant. Paludanus25 engages in guesswork when he says that the amount of grace conferred by Baptism is unequal even in infants, because the number of human beings to be saved and the degree of happiness to be enjoyed by each in Heaven must correspond to the number and beatitude of the Angels. Scotus 26 and Gabriel Biel hold that God increases the amount of grace conferred by the Sacraments in some cases according to His absolute decree of predestination, or by reason of a special application of the merits of Jesus Christ, or in consideration of the personal worthiness of the minister of the Sacrament and those who happen to be present during its administration. Such greater lavishness on the part of God in regard to certain persons is, of course, possible, but there is nothing to show that it actually exists, and if it did, it would most assuredly be a special privilege outside the lex ordinaria.27 Cardinal Cajetan thinks that the amount of grace conferred by a Sacrament may be increased by personal sanctity and prayer on the part of the minister.28 No doubt it makes a difference who administers a Sacrament, whether he be a pious priest or one imbued with a worldly spirit. A saintly minister by his prayers, merits, and spiritual influence may procure many actual graces for the recipient, thus disposing him better personally and making him more receptive. But there is no warrant for asserting that the amount of sanctifying grace conferred by a Sacrament depends on the worthiness of the minister. 26 Comment, in Sent., IV, dist. 4, borated by De Lugo, De Sacraqu. 1. mentis, disp. 9, sect. 2. 26 Comment, in Sent., IV, dist. 4, 28 Comment, in S. Theol., Ill, qu. 7. qu. 64, art. 1. 27 This point is more fully ela 

ARTICLE 2 THE SACRAMENTAL CHARACTER PECULIAR TO BAPTISM, CONFIRMATION, AND HOLY ORDERS Character 1 in general signifies any mark or trait that distinguishes one person or object from others. In Catholic theology the term is used to designate certain indelible spiritual marks imprinted on the soul by the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders. i. The Existence of the Sacramental Character. — That there is such a thing as the sacramental character follows from the dogmatically defined truth that the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders each impress a special, supernatural, and ineffaceable mark upon the soul of the recipient. Wiclif claimed that this teaching cannot be substantiated from Revelation.2 The Protestant Reformers denied the existence of the sacramental character. Chemnitz asserted that the “character” had been invented by Pope Innocent III (d. 1216). The dogmatic teaching of the Church on this point is beyond cavil. The Council of Florence (A. D. 1439) declared: “Among these Sacraments there are three, i. e. Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders, that indelibly imprint upon the soul a character, i. e. a kind of spiritual 1 Signum, figura, xapaKTiJp. 2 Trial., IV, 15. THE mark, distinct from all others, and this is the reason why they are administered but once to the same person. The other four do not imprint a character and can be administered more than once.” 8 This definition was solemnly reiterated by the Council of Trent: “If anyone saith that in the three Sacraments of Baptism/ Confirmation, and Holy Orders, there is not imprinted on the soul a character, that is, a certain, spiritual and indelible sign, on account of which! they cannot be repeated, let him be anathema.” \ Hence it is of faith that there is a sacramental character, and that because of this character the three Sacraments in question cannot be repeated. a) Though this teaching is not directly de-l monstrable from Holy Scripture, it enables us to \ interpret satisfactorily certain passages in the j Epistles of St. Paul which would otherwise remain obscure. Thus, the Apostle says that God * hath sealed us, and given the pledge of the Spirit in our hearts.* 5 And 8 Decretum pro Armenis: ” Inter haec sacr amenta tria sunt: baptistnus, confirmatio et ordo, quae characterem, i, e. spirituale quoddam signum a caeteris distinctivum, imprimunt in anima indelebile, unde in eadem persona non reiterantur; reliqua vero quattuor characterem non imprimunt et reiterationem admittunt” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 695). 4 Cone, Trident, Sess. VII, can. 9: “Si quis dixerit, in tribus sacramentis, baptismo scil., confirmatione et ordine, non imprimi characterem in anima, hoc est signum quoddam spirituale et indelebile, unde ea iterari non possunt, anathema sit/’ (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 852). 5 2 Cor. I, 21 sq.: . . qui unxit nos Deus: qui et signavit nos (6 Kal ff

again : * In whom [i. e. Christ] … believing, you were signed with the holy Spirit of promise.,, 8 And again : * Grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby you are sealed unto the day of redemption.” 7 St. Paul here tells his hearers: (i) You are anointed, (2) you are sealed or signed, and (3) you have received the pledge of the Spirit. ” You are anointed ” is manifestly but another way of saying: You are justified (gratia creata). “You have received the pledge of the Holy Spirit” means: The Holy Spirit has descended upon you and dwells in you (gratia increata). That the signatio implied by the phrase ” who hath sealed us 99 must refer to the Sacraments, appears (a) from the general economy of divine grace, in which internal grace is ordinarily communicated through the instrumentality of external signs, and (b) from the expression ” unxit nos” which seems to imply an internal as well as an external unction ; just as ” ablutio J> in the writings of St. Paul implies both external and internal washing.8 This also explains what the Apostle means when he says that to grieve the Spirit of God is to break the ” seal of the Spirit,” by which we are sealed unto redemption. Sacred Scripture indicates quite unmistakably that Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders can be received but once.9 Some theologians hold that the ” pignus Spiritus ” does not refer to the sacramental character, but to the ” signum fidei ” 10 or to the charisma.11 But it is a noteworthy fact Christo] et credentes signati estis 9 For Baptism, cfr. Rom. VI, 10, (ifftppaylaOrire) Spiritu promissionis Eph. IV, 5, Heb. VI, 4 sq.; for TEph. IV, 30: ” Nolite contri- for Holy Orders, 2 Tim. I, 6. 6 Eph. I, 13: ”… in quo {scil. Sancto.” Confirmation, Acts XIX, 1 sqq.; stare Spiritum Sanctum Dei, in quo signati estis (ifftppaylaOriTe) in diem redemptionis,” 10 St. Thomas Aquinas. 11 Estius, Corncly. THE that the Church bases her traditional teaching of the character precisely on the Pauline passages which we have quoted. It is from them that the Greeks drew their theory of the baptismal ” sphragis,” which was all but universally received in the second century.12 b) A convincing argument for the existence of the “character sacramentalis” can be derived from Tradition. St. Augustine defended it as an essential part of the sacramental system of the Church. In his Letter to Boniface 18 he refers to the mark imprinted by Baptism as “character dominicus” i. e. a mark belonging to Christ, the Chief Shepherd of the flock and Leader of the Christian army.14 In his treatise on Baptism against the Donatists he says : ” Men put on Christ, sometimes so far as to receive the Sacrament, sometimes so much further as to receive holiness of life. And the first of these may be common to good and bad alike, but the second is peculiar to the good and pious.” And again : ” But which is worse, not to be baptized at all, or to be twice baptized, it is difficult to decide.” 16 Elsewhere St. Augustine compares the baptismal char12 Cfr. Pourrat, La Thkologie Sacramentaire, pp. 196 sqq.; English tr., pp. 217 sqq. 13 Ep., 98, n. 5: “Ckristianis baptismi sacrament urn . , . etiam apud haereticos valet et sufficit ad consecrationem, quamvis ad vitae aeternae participationem non sufficiat; quae consecratio reum quidem facit haereticum extra Domini gregem habentem Dominicum charocterem, corrigendum tamen admonet sand doctrind, non iterum similiter consecrandum.* 14 Cfr. Pourrat, Sacramental Theology, p. 229. 15 De Baptismo contra Donatistas, V, 24, 34: * Induunt homines Christum aliquando usque ad sacramenti perceptionem, aliquando et usque ad vitae sanctificationem. At que illud primum et bonis et malis potest esse communet hoc autern alterum proprium est bonorum et piorum.” — Op. cit, II, 14, 19: ” Quid sit autem perniciosius, utrum omnino non baptisari an rebaptistari, iudicare difficile est” 8o THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL acter to the badge of a soldier and says that the same simile may be applied to Confirmation and Holy Orders.16 Thus, contrary to Harnack’s claim,17 St. Augustine’s theory of the sacramental character is not an artificial makeshift framed for the sake of expediency, but, in the words of Pourrat,18 ” a living development of the sacramental principles laid down by the practice of the early Church, a development quite homogeneous with its starting-point.” 19 St. Ambrose teaches : ” Therefore we are sealed with the Holy Spirit, not by nature, but by God, because it is written : ’ God hath anointed us and hath also sealed us.’ We are sealed with the Spirit, in order that we may possess His splendor and image and grace, which is indeed a spiritual seal.” 20 St. Chrysostom says : ” Thus it happens that if you leave the ranks [as a deserter], you can be easily recognized by all ; for the Jews employ circumcision as a sign ; we, the pledge of the Spirit.” 21 St. Cyril of Jerusalem declares that the angels can tell 16 Contra Ep. Parmen., II, 13, 29: “An forte minus haerent sacramenta Christiana quam corporalis haec nota [». e. militum], quum videamus nec apostatas carere baptistnate, quibus utique per poenitentiam redeuntibus non restituitur et ideo amitti non posse iudicatur.”—Cir. Contra Lit. Petti., II, 104, 239: “Quod {sact amentum chrismatis] in genere visibilium signaculorum sacrosanctum est, sicut et ipse baptismus; sed potest esse et in hominibus pessimis.” — Contra Ep. Parmen., II, 13, 28: ” Utrumque [scil. baptismus et or do] sacramentum est et quadam consecratione utrumque homini datur, Mud quum baptisatur, Mud quum ordinatur; ideoque in catholica ecclesia utrumque non licet iterari.” 17 Dogmengeschichte, Vol. Ill, 3rd ed., pp. 140 sqq., Freiburg 1896. 18 Op. cit., p. 231. 19 Cfr. Pourrat, op. cit., pp. 226 sqq. 20 De Spiritu Sancto, I, 6, 79: ” Sancto igitur Spiritu signati sumus non naturd, sed a Deo, quia scriptum est: ‘Quia unxit nos Deus et qui signavit nos.* Spiritu signamur, ut splendorem atque imaginem eius et gratiam tenere poss* mus, quod est utique spirituale signaculum.* 21 Horn, in 2 Cor., 3, n. 7. THE a Christian by the sacramental character imprinted on his soul. * In battle,” he writes, ” the leaders distribute badges to the combatants, by which friends can recognize and help one another… . How is the Angel to recognize thee ? How is he to rescue thee from thine enemies, if he does not see thy badge? How canst thou say: I belong to God, if thou dost not wear His sign and badge? ” 22 St. Ephraem Syrus writes: “The Holy Ghost imprints His sign upon His sheep with oil. As a sealingring imprints an image on wax, so the secret sign of the Holy Spirit is imprinted by means of oil on a person when he is anointed in Baptism.” 23 c) For a better understanding of the sacramental character it will be well to study the question of its duration and the Scholastic distinction between sacramentum and res. a) Does the sacramental character endure in the life beyond? The Tridentine Council has defined that it outlasts mortal sin, i. e. the loss of sanctifying grace, whence we must conclude that it lasts at least till death. Theologians regard it as certain that the sacramental character survives after death, especially in the souls of the elect. St. Cyril speaks of “a sign indelible for eternity/‘25 and St. Thomas teaches: “The [sacramental] character remains after this life, 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.” 26 22 Procatech., n. 4. 25 Procatech., n. 17: acppayls 23Assemani, Biblioth. Orient., I, Ave£&\enrTO$ els robs alwvas. 95. 26 Summa TheoL, 3a, qu. 63, art. 24 Pastor Hermae, Sim. VIII, 6. 5, ad 3: “Post hanc vitam re 

The intrinsic reason for this indelibility is that there exists no contrary quality or entity which can destroy the sacramental character. God alone is able to destroy it by direct interposition; but God destroys no positive entity except when compelled by a moral motive, as when grace is destroyed by mortal sin. There is no such motive imaginable in regard to the sacramental character, for it can co-exist with mortal sin, and serves two further good purposes, — to enhance the glory of God and the reward of the elect in Heaven, and to shame the reprobate sinners and make their punishment more severe in hell.27 P) The Scholastic distinction between sacramentum and res arose in the twelfth century and is based on the fact that the sacramental character is a sign, like ” matter and form,” though invisible, while the latter are visible. The Schoolmen distinguish between ” sacramentum tantum/’ i. e. the external sign consisting of matter and form; “res tantum,” i. e, the internal grace effected by that sign ; 28 and ” res simul et sacramentum/’ i. e. the character, which is both the result of a sign and itself the sign of something else. In other words: In every sacrament that imprints an indelible mark on the soul, there is (i) something which merely signifies but is not itself signified (id quod significat et non significatur) , i. e. matter and form (sacramentum tantum) ; (2) something which is merely signified but does not itself signify anything (id quod significatur et non significat), i. e. internal grace (res tantum) ; (3) something which is both signified and itself signifies (id quod significatur et signimanei character et in bonis ad vicerunt ad gloriam et in his qui eorutn gloriam et in malis ad eorum sunt victi in poenam.” ignominiam, sicut etiam tnilitaris 27 Cfr. Billuart, De Sacram., diss. character manet in militibus post 4, art. 2. odtptam victoriam et in his qui 28 V. supra, pp. 59 sqq. and pp. 66 sqq.

THE SACRAMENTAL CHARACTER 83 Heat), i. e. the sacramental character (res simul et sacramentum). Considered as an effect of external grace the sacramental character, like sanctifying grace, is both signified and effected; considered as a spiritual mark, it merely signifies, but does not effect, the presence of sanctifying grace. Naturally (per se) the baptismal character postulates the grace of Baptism, the character of Confirmation postulates the grace conferred by that particular Sacrament, and the sacerdotal character imprinted by Holy Orders postulates the grace bestowed by ordination. Without sanctifying grace the sacramental character would be incomplete, crying by its very existence and purpose for the spiritual life.29 By way of analogy theologians have applied this distinction to the other sacraments, which do not confer a character, trying to find in them something which could take the part of res simul et sacramentum. This was easy enough in the Holy Eucharist. For in this Sacrament the external species may be regarded as sacramentum tantum in so far as they merely signify without themselves being signified, while the grace (produced by communion) is merely an effect but no sign, and hence there was no difficulty in designating the body of Our Lord, which both signifies (and effects) the internal grace, and is also signified by the species, as res simul et sacramentum. In the Sacrament of Matrimony the marriage bond may be called res simul et sacramentum, inasmuch as it is a passive sign, qua sacramental effect, and an active sign, qua symbol of Christ’s union with His Church. The sacramentum tantum of Matrimony is its matter and form, while the res tantum coincides with the internal grace conferred by the Sacrament. The problem is somewhat more difficult in the case of Extreme Unction. 29 Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol, 3a, qu. 66, art. x.

Suarez 80 admits both views, i. e. that which regards the “internal anointment” (viz,: the strengthening of the soul) and that which considers the “alleviation of the body” as the res et sacramentum. Perhaps it will be best to combine these two effects into one. Penance, too, offers a problem to the theologian who tries to apply to it the Scholastic distinction of which we are treating. De Lugo, after a critical examination of various theories, gives it as his opinion that the res simul et sacramentum of Penance, viewed in the light of the Tridentine teaching,81 is the ” peace of mind ” it effects.82 2. In What the Sacramental Character Consists. — With the possible exception of St. Augustine, the Fathers did not discuss the question: In what does the sacramental character consist? The Scholastics tried to deduce some definite conclusions from Patristic teaching and conciliary definitions, but despite their ingenuityit must be admitted that it is much easier to tell in what the character does not consist, than in what it consists. a) Durandus regarded the sacramental character as a purely logical relation, resulting from a divine ordinance or contract.88 But since the Tridentine Council has 80 De Sacram., disp. 41, sect 3. 31 Cone, Trident., Sess. XIV, cap. 3. 82 For a more exhaustive treatment of the topics dealt with in this subdivision see Billot, De Ecclesiae Sacramentis, Vol. I, 4th ed., thes. 6, Rome 1907; E. Lingens, Die innere Schdnheit des Christentums, pp. 122 sqq., Freiburg 1895; Scheeben, Die ‘Mysterien des Christen’ turns, 3rd ed., § 83, Freiburg 191a; Heinrich-Gutberlet, Dogmatische Theologie, Vol. IV, § 483, Mainz 1901. 38 Comment, in Sent., IV, dist. 4, qu. 1 : * Character non est nisi relatio rationis ex ordinatione vel pactione divino.* THE defined the character to be ” a spiritual and indelible sign imprinted on the soul,” we are not permitted to treat it as a mere figment of the mind. Nor does this theory sufficiently safeguard the Catholic teaching against certain heresies. There are few heretics who would not be willing to admit, for instance, that Baptism is the ground for a purely logical relation, inasmuch as one who has received this sacrament can never deny that he is “bapScotus and some of his followers have been accused of holding that the sacramental character is a real relation (relatio realis) or ” relative form.” In matter of fact Scotus himself treated this opinion merely as a hypothesis. His own idea was that the sacramental character is an “absolute form,” and this teaching was espoused by his immediate followers. The opinion attributed to Scotus is untenable, because every real relation presupposes a foundation that is real, and consequently cannot be conceived without a forma absoluta. St. Thomas demonstrates this as follows: “The relation signified by the word ’ sign ’ must needs have some foundation. Now the relation implied in 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, [i. e. in that case all souls would have a character ; Billuart] . Consequently, there must be something in the soul on which such a relation is founded; and this is the character itself. Therefore it need not be in the genus relation, as some have held.* 84 84 Sutntna Theol., 3a, qu. 63, art. sentiam animae, quia sic conveniret 2, ad 3: *Relatio quae importatur omni animae naturaliter. Et ideo in nomine signi, oportet quod super oportet aliquid poni in anima, super aliquid fundetur. Relatio autem quod fundetur talis relatio, et hoc huius signi, quod est character, non est essentia characteris. Unde non potest fundari immediate super es- oportebit quod sit in genere relatized;

b) From what we have said it follows that, like sanctifying grace,85 the sacramental character must be conceived as a real entity, and consequently is either a substance or an accident. It cannot be a substance, hence it must be an accident, and, since it is effected by a Sacrament and imprinted on the soul, it must be a supernatural accident. Such accidents belong to the category of “quality” (woborrjs). Consequently, the sacramental character may be defined as a permanent quality of the soul, and, in this respect, resembles sanctifying grace. The question, to which of the four Aristotelian species of quality the sacramental character belongs, has given rise to a variety of opinions.86 Suarez says it is an infused habit and reckons it among the ” first species ” of quality.87 Others regard it as a spiritual “figure or form ” belonging to the ” fourth species.” Neither theory is tenable. The sacramental character cannot be a figure or form, nor a habit, because, unlike sanctifying grace, it may be applied to both good and evil purposes. Some theologians 88 are inclined to define the character as a ” passibilis qualitas” (the third species of quality), because it is a sign or mark distinguishing certain men from others. But since the passible qualities are by nature transient 38 and have their proper place in the material world, this explanation, too, is unsatisfactory. The tionis, sicut quidam posuerunt.” The history of this controversy can be read in Pourrat, Theology of the Sacraments, French ed., pp. 223 sqq., English tr., pp. 204 sqq. 35Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Grace, Actual and Habitual, pp. 328 sqq. 36 Cfr. Lehmen, Lehrbuch der Philosophie auf aristotelisch-scholastischer Grundlage, Vol. II, 2nd ed., pp. 398 sqq. Freiburg 1904; Pohle-Preuss, Grace, Actual and Habitual, pp. 332 sq. 87 De Sacratn., disp. 6, sect. 3, n. 6. 88 E. g., Pesch, Praelect. Dogmat., Vol. VI, 3rd ed., p. 84. 89 Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 63, art. 3 : ” Character non est passio, quia passio cito transit, character autem indelebilis est/’ THE most acceptable theory is that of St. Thomas, who classes the sacramental character among the second species of quality. The sacramental character, he says, ” 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 the character is a power.” 40 Note, however, that the sacramental character does not confer a physical power. Those who are baptized, confirmed, and in Holy Orders can accomplish no more physically than others who have not received these three sacraments. The power which the character confers is, therefore, purely moral, and may be defined as a supernatural faculty ordained unto things pertaining to divine worship, according to the rite of the Christian religion, whether such worship (cultus) consist in receiving divine gifts or in bestowing them upon others (Billuart). Thus, God does not bestow the grace of another Sacrament on any one who does not wear the baptismal character, and He does not change bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ except at the bidding of one who has the sacramental character of Orders.41 Does the sacramental character reside in the substance of the soul or in some particular faculty thereof ? N This question also has given rise to a controversy. The Scotists, in accord with their general teaching, hold that the sacramental character resides in the will, while the Thom40 L. c: ” {Character} non est bus non contingit; nam habitu virtuhabitus, quia nullus habitus est, qui tis nullus utitur male et habitu se possit ad bene et male habere. malitiae nullus bene; ergo relinquiCharacter autem ad utrumque se tur quod character sit potential habet; utuntur enim eo quidam 41 Cfr. Billuart, De Sacram., diss. bene, alii veto male, quod in habiti- 4, art. 2.

ists assign it to the intellect. A character needs to be in the soul’s cognitive power, where also is faith, says St. Thomas.42 Others 48 teach that the sacramental character resides in the very substance of the soul, because the Tridentine Council employs the phrase, imprinted in the soul. As it is neither necessary nor advisable to accept St. Thomas’ radical distinction between the substance of the soul and its faculties, (in the adoption of which the Angelic Doctor was perhaps unduly influenced by his opposition to Scotism and Nominalism), we shall probably do best if we assign the sacramental character primarily to the substance of the soul and secondarily to its faculties or powers, i. e. the intellect and the will. This seems all the more acceptable in view of the fact that the object of the character (which is, to confer the ability to perform religious acts of worship) involves both the intellect and the will. 3. The Object of the Sacramental Character.— As God does nothing without a purpose, it is impossible to evade the question : For what purpose was the sacramental character instituted? To avoid useless speculation, we shall limit our discussion to the data furnished by divine Revelation. a) Recalling the passages previously quoted from St. Augustine,44 we say that the sacramental character implies on the part of the recipient a sort of ” consecration”— in the sense of objective sanctification (sacer, 42 Sutnma Theol., 3a, qu. 63, art. 43 Notably Bellarmine, Suarez, 4, ad 3 : ” Oportet quod character sit and De Lugo. in cognitiva potentia animae, in qua 44 V. supra, p. 79, notes 13, and est fides” 15.

THE ooxos), not subjective holiness (sanctus, ayios).45 St. Augustine, compelled by the Donatists to emphasize not only the distinction between, but the actual separability of, grace and character (sanctificatio and consecratio) , insisted that heretics may receive and sinners retain the sacramental character without grace. St. Thomas went a long step farther by defining consecratio as deputatio ad divinum cultum, i. e. a bestowal of the spiritual powei; necessary to perform acts of divine worship.46 This is plainly apparent in the Sacrament of Holy Orders. It is not so apparent in Baptism and Confirmation. But the passive receptivity which these Sacraments confer is really an active power, vis.: the power, through Baptism, to receive the other Sacraments, to participate in all the rights and duties of a child of the true Church, and to be a member of the mystic body of Christ ; and, through Confirmation, the power of professing the Catholic faith, if necessary at the risk of life, and of serving as a soldier in the army of the Lord. -All these functions constitute necessary parts of Christian worship. b) The very name character (xaPaKTlp)> an(* &s description as a stamp or seal (signaculum, o-^payfc, pdy«rfta), indicate that it may be a threefold sign, viz.: (a) signum distinctivum or a mark discriminating various objects; (2) signum obligativum, denoting a duty; (3) 45 The distinction between these two notions is explained in PohlePreuss, God: His Knowdbility, Essence, and Attributes, 2nd ed„ pp. 258 sq. 46 Cfr. Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 63, art. 1 : ” Sacramento Novae Legis ad duo ordinantur, vid. ad remedium contra peccatum et ad perficiendam animam in his quae pertinent ad cultum Dei secundum ritum christianae vitae. Quicunque autem ad aliquid certum deputatur, consuevit ad illud cdnsignari, sicut milites, qui adscribebantur ad militiam antiquitus, solebant quibusdam characteribus corporalibus insigniri, eo quod deputabantur ad aliquid corporate. Et ideo quum homines per Sacramento deputentur ad aliquid spiritual pertinens ad cultum Dei, consequens est quod per ea fideles aliquo spirituali charactere insigniantur.” 90 THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL signutn conHgurativum, marking similarity. The impress of a seal or stamp produces a triple effect : it renders an object recognizable, it marks the object as part of one’s property, and it produces in it a likeness of the owner. The sacramental character exercises all these functions, and in addition to them a fourth, namely, to prepare the soul for grace. In this last-mentioned respect it is called signum dispositivum. a) The sacramental character is, first, a signum distjnctivum or mark differentiating those who are baptized, confirmed or ordained, from those who have not received these Sacraments. No one can belong to the external organism or body of the Church except he wear the character of Baptism, and no one lacking the character of Holy Orders can perform the functions of a priest. The character conferred by the Sacrament of Confirmation is similar to that of Baptism, only perfected and developed. Though God and the angels require no sign to enable them to tell whether a man belongs to the true Church or to the priesthood, such a sign is by no means superfluous, since God not only appoints men to office, but also gives them the necessary interior qualification. An office that is to be actually exercised requires a real foundation, and it is this that the sacramental character supplies. But even for us, who are unable to perceive it, the character is not without meaning, because the visible reception of one of the three sacraments in question infallibly guarantees the possession of the invisible character.47 The sacramental character, therefore, retains its value as a distinc47 Cfr. Summa Theol., 3 a, qu. 63, art. 1, ad 2: “Character animae itnpressus habet rationem signi {distinctivi], inquantum per sensibile sacramentum imprimitur; per hoc enitn scitur aliquis esse baptismali charactere insignitus, quod est ablutus aqud sensibili.” THE tive sign also in the world to come, where it will enhance the happiness of the elect and add to the confusion of the damned. P) The sacramental character is, secondly, a signum obligativum, in so far as it marks a man as the inalienable property of Jesus Christ, unites him indissolubly with the God-man, whose sign and livery he wears, and lays upon him the obligation of performing those acts of divine worship which the Sacrament, by virtue of its character, imposes as an official duty. By Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders respectively, the recipient is officially marked and charged with certain specific duties. Baptism imposes the duties of a subject ; Confirmation, those of a soldier; Holy Orders, those of a minister of Jesus Christ.48 y) The sacramental character is, in the third place, a signum confiaurativum. inasmuch as it constitutes the soul an image of God.49 Not, of course, in the sense in which man is a natural likeness of the Creator ; nor in the sense in which he is a supernatural image of God by virtue of sanctifying grace. The sacramental character may be in the soul without grace. St. Thomas Aquinas adopts the technical definition of Peter Lombard : ” Character est distinctio a Charactere aeterno [Christo] impressa animae rationali secundum imaginem consignans trinitatem creatam [animam] Trinitati creanti et recreanti”60 This definition, however, can be accepted only with the reservation that every created effect (and the sacramental character is a created effect) in some way reflects the 48 Cfr. Farine, Der sakratnentale Charakter, pp. 18 sqq., Freiburg 1904. 49 Cfr. St. Bonaventure, Comment, in Sent., IV, dist. 6, p. i, qu. 3: Actus characteris, a quo nomen accepit, et principalis est configurare. 60 Comment, in Sent., IV, dist 4, qu. 1, art. 2, sol. 2. image of the Blessed Trinity.51 In contradistinction to sanctifying grace, the supernatural configuratio or assimilatio conferred by the sacramental character establishes a proper likeness to Christ, not indeed as if the soul participated in His Divine Sonship,52 but in the sense of sharing in His office of High Priest. By receiving the sacramental character, a man is designated, empowered, and placed under obligation to perform certain acts of worship which bear a special relation to our Divine Saviour’s sacerdotal office.58 Consequently, the sacramental character, considered as a signum configurativum, is not so much the character of the Holy Trinity, as that of Christ the High Priest. Hence such Patristic phrases as : character dominicus, (rriyfia Xpurrov, i. e. family mark of Christ.54 It would, however, be a mistake to suppose that the God-man Himself is a high priest only by virtue of a character in which He permits those who receive the sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders to share. Christ is our natural Mediator by virtue of the Hypostatic Union, and, consequently, a High Priest not by grace but by nature.55 It is only in the light of this teaching that i Pet. II, 9 : ” You are a chosen genBi Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural, pp. 38 sqq. 52 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Grace, Actual and Habitual, pp. 356 sqq. 58 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Soteriology, pp. in sqq. 54 Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 63, art. 3: ” Deputatur quisque fidelis ad recipiendum vel tradendum aliis ea quae pertinent ad cultum Dei, et ad hoc proprie deputatur character sacramentalis. Totus autem ritus christianae religionis derivatur a sacerdotio Christi. Et ideo manifestum est quod character sacrament alis specialiter est character Christi, cuius sacerdotio configurantur fideles secundum sacramentales characteres, qui nihil aliud sunt quam quae dam participationes sacerdotii Christi ab ipso Christo derwatae*’ 65 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Soteriology, pp. 127 sqq. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 63, art. 5: ” Christo non competit habere characterem, sed potestas sacerdotii eius comparatur ad characterem, sicut id quod est plenum et perfectum ad aliquam sui participationem.” THE eration, a kingly priesthood,” can be fully understood. 8) The sacramental character is, lastly, a siqnum dispositivum,^ sign disposing the soul for the reception of, and thereby bestowing a claim to, grace. Grace, as we have shown in a previous treatise,56 is either sanctifying or actual. The sacramental character, as a signum dispositivum for sanctifying grace, must not be conceived as a “physical predisposition” for, or a “preliminary stage” of, that grace {lumen semiplenum, diminutum) ,57 because it is not a form of sanctification. The connection between character and grace is purely moral, and may be described as a kind of affinity, inasmuch as the sacramental character, in view of its purpose, ought never to exist without sanctifying grace.58 It is in this light that the Fathers who wrote before St. Augustine regarded the sacramental character, when they said that it has an intrinsic relation to adoptive sonship, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the soul of the just, and the beatific vision of God in Heaven. Furthermore, the sacramental character confers a moral claim to all actual graces necessary for the worthy fulfilment of the office or dignity conferred by the respective Sacrament.59 De Lugo, following the Fathers, enumerates still another effect. The guardian angels, he says, watch with special solicitude over the bearer of this ” spiritual seal,” while the 66 Pohle-Preuss, Grace, Actual and Habitual.— V. supra Sect 2, Art 1, Theses I and II. 57 It is thus conceived by Alexander of Hales, St. Bonaventure, and the Franciscan school of theologians generally. 58Cfr. St. Bonaventure, Comment, in Sent., IV, dist. 6, p. 1, qu. 2, ad 3 : * Character significat gratiam, et quod ibi non sit, hoc est ex defectu suscipientis tantum.* 59 This is the teaching of St Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 63, art 3, ad 1 : ” Character out em directe et propinque disponit animam ad ea quae sunt divini cult us exe~ quenda. Et quia haec idonee non fiunt sine auxilio gratiae, … ex consequenti divina largitas recipientibus characterem largitur gratiam, per quam digne impleant ea, ad quae deputantur.” 94 THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL demons are constrained to moderate their attacks upon him.60 c) It remains to explain why only three of the Sacraments confer the character, while the other four do not. In declaring that Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders confer the sacramental character, the Council of Trent plainly intimates that the other four Sacraments do not confer it. This is indeed the common teaching, which can also be inferred from the fact that, according to the Decretum pro Armenis, the other four Sacraments can be received more than once for the reason that they do not imprint the sacramental character.61 But why do only Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders confer the character? The sacramental character, as we have seen, is intimately related to Christ’s office of High Priest. We know from Soteriology 62 that this office is inseparable from our Lord’s other offices of Prophet and King, and that the three interpenetrate and limit each other. Now, as there are three offices of the Redeemer, so there are three offices among those whom He has redeemed. Each of these has its special mark or character. Baptism stamps the recipient a subject of Christ as King; Confirmation marks him as a courageous pupil of Christ in His capacity of Prophet or Teacher; Holy Orders distinguishes him as a minister of the God-man in His capacity of High Priest. 60 De Lugo, De Sacram., disp. 6, sect. 3, n. 44. 61 Decret. pro Armen. : * Reliqua vero quattuor characterem non imprimunt et lideo] reiterationem admittunt.* (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 695). 62 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Soteriology, p. 158. THE SACRAMENTAL CHARACTER 95 The remaining four Sacraments do not thus empower those who receive them to perform acts of public worship. Penance and Extreme Unction are essentially medicinal ; the Holy Eucharist, though the most sublime of all the Sacraments, is rather a spiritual food and signifies the mystic union of the soul with Christ; Matrimony elevates to the sphere of grace, and thus sanctifies . and ennobles, the natural union between male and female. From a purely philosophical point of view there is no reason why this latter Sacrament should not confer a character. Like Holy Orders, it establishes a state of life and represents an important office in the Church, inasmuch as it supplies those whom she is commissioned to raise to the rank of children of God and citizens of Heaven. Nevertheless, there is not between Matrimony and the three offices of the Redeemer that intimate connection which we have shown to exist between those offices and the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders. Hence there is no place in the external organization of the Church for such a thing as a sacramental character conferred by Matrimony.68 Readings: — St. Thomas, Sutntna Theol, 3a, qu. 63, art. 2. — Billuart, De Sacramentis in Communi, diss. 3, art. 3-5. — *De Lugo, De Sacratn. in Genere, disp. 4, sect. 2-3. — *De Augustinis, De Re Sacratnentaria, Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 273 sqq., 294 sqq., Rome 1889. — Tepe, Instit. Theol, Vol. IV, pp. 50 sqq., Paris 1896. — Heinrich-Gutberlet, Dogmat. Theologie, Vol. IV, §492 sq., Mainz 1901. — N. Gihr, Die hi. Sakramente der kath. Kirche, Vol. I, 2nd ed., § 14 sq., Freiburg 1902. — De Bellevue, La Grace Sacramentelle, Paris 1900. On the dogma of the character cfr. : St. Thomas, Sumtna Theol., 3a, qu. 63, art. 1. — Billuart, De Sacramentis in Cotntnuni, 63 On the questions dealt with in Kxrche, Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 109 sqq., this subdivision of our treatise cfr. Freiburg 1902. Gihr, Die hi. Sakramente der kath.

diss. 4, art. 1-3. — Bellarmine, De Sacram. in Genere, 1. II, cap. 18-20. — De Lugo, De Sacram. in Genere, disp. 6, sect. 1-4. — *Franzelin, De Sacram. in Genere, thes. 12 sq., Rome 1888.— De Augustinis, De Re Sacramentaria, Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 308 sqq. — P. Schanz, Die Lehre von den hi. Sakramenten, § 10, Freiburg 1893. — *Lorinser, De Charactere Sacramentali, Oppolii 1844. — La Farine Der sakramentale Charakter, Freiburg 1904. — O. Laake, Der sakramentale Charakter, Miinster 1903. — F. Bronv mer, Die Lehre vom sakramentalen Charakter in der Scholastik bis Thomas v. Aquin inklusive, Paderborn 1908. — Garrett Pierse, “The Origin of the Doctrine of the Sacramental Character,” in the Irish Theological Quarterly, Vol. VI (1911), No. 2, pp. 196211.