Question One. Whether the Idea Definitive of a Sacrament is what the Master Posits: ‘A Sacrament is the Visible Form of an Invisible Grace’

174. Whether the definitive idea of a sacrament is what the Master posits: “A sacrament is the visible form of an invisible grace.”

175. It seems that it is not:

For a definition is only of that which is per se one, Metaphysics 7.12.1037b25-26. A sacrament is not per se one, because according to Augustine On John homily 80 n.3 (and it is in Gratian Decretum p.2 cause 1 q.1 ch.54), “A word is applied to the element and it becomes a sacrament” [n.3]; but word and element do not make something per se one, for the second is permanent and the first successive. Likewise, a definition is made of genus and differences [Metaphysics 7.12.1037b29-30].

176. Again, second, if a sacrament is a form, then it is either a form that is the other part of a composite or it is an exemplar form, for thus is ‘form’ divided. But it is not a form in the first way, because a sacrament is not a part of grace, nor in the second way because the example imitates the exemplar and participates it, but not so grace and sacrament.

177. Again, third as follows: that in certain sacraments there is only the words, which are not a visible but only an audible sign, as is shown below in the sacraments of penance and marriage [IV d.14 q.4 nn.2-3, d.27 q.2 n.2]; therefore a sacrament is wrongly called ‘visible’.

178. Again, I ask as follows: of one thing there is only one proper definition; but of sacrament other definitions are assigned, as is plain from the Master in the text and Hugo of St. Victor, On the Sacraments of the Christian Faith I p.9 ch.2. “A sacrament is a bodily or material element, proposed outwardly in perceptible way, representing by likeness and signifying by institution and containing by sanctification some invisible and spiritual grace;” and Augustine, City of God 10.5, “A sacrament is a sign of a sacred thing.”

179. To the contrary:

The Master in the text, “A sacrament is the visible form of an invisible grace.”

I. To the Question

180. Here one must consider, first, what there can and what there cannot be a definition of; second, from the first, whether there can be a definition of a sacrament; third, if this definition is the one that is here in question.

A. What there Can and Cannot be a Definition of

181. As to the first, one must note that anything at all (whether being or nonbeing) that can be conceived and signified can have some account given of its name, which name would make explicitly and distinctly explicit what the name implicitly and confusedly means, and any such account can be called a definition. So Metaphysics 4.7.1012a23-24, “The account that a name signifies is a definition,” by extension of the name ‘definition’. But a definition strictly speaking is only a statement signifying the true ‘what it is to be’ of a thing (Topics 1.4.101b39, “Now a term, that is, a definition, is a statement signifying the ‘what it is to be’,” that is, of the thing defined). And so not any account of a name is a definition, but an account by which is distinctly indicated the true ‘what it is to be’ of a thing.

182. There is no definition properly of non-being, and that whether ‘non-being’ is taken properly for what is impossible (which includes contradiction) or for what is pure negation or privation, because non-being does not have a ‘what it is’.

183. Nor is there an account either of that which is not per se one, as is plain in Metaphysics 7, as was argued for the opposite [n.175]. But by ‘per se one’ I mean either what is simple or what is composed of what is per se actual and per se potential. Nor does this unity prevent the defined thing from including in it something as the term per se of its dependence (as accident includes substance, or as something that is naturally simultaneous with it the way relative includes correlative). But what is prevented is that nothing is included in it as a per se part that is not disposed to something else in the same thing (as per se act is disposed to per se potency, or as a part of the same act, or of the same potency, to another part).

184. Nor, third, is there a definition of a being of reason, which is only a diminished being, because a ‘what’, just as also being, only properly belongs to real being, as is plain in Metaphysics 5.7-8.1017a22-7b26, 6.2.1026a33-35. And I do not mean here by ‘being of reason’ what is in the intellect as object (for thus every universal is in the soul), nor what is only in the intellect as in a subject (for thus intellection and knowledge are in the soul, which knowledge, however, and consideration are real forms and in the genus of quality). But I mean by being of reason a being in the soul as considered secondarily, and not as considered primarily (and to this consideration the soul is first moved by something outside); rather I mean a being in that which is primarily a considered thing qua considered. And such, to speak summarily, is only a relation of reason, because nothing has being precisely in being considered qua being considered, save the comparison by which the considered thing is compared to something else by the act of the considerer. So diminished being, as it is taken here, is universally a being of reason.

185. Fourth, there is no ‘what’, expressible in a definition, in the case of something that one can only have a simply simple concept of, for according to the Philosopher, Metaphysics 8.3.1043b25-26, “a definition is a long statement” and “the term must be a long statement” expressing the ‘what’ and the ‘what sort of’; for a definition distinctly explains what the defined thing implicitly imports. Therefore it must be the case that more than one concept can be formed of the defined thing, namely a quidditative and a qualitative concept, by which the defined thing is explained.

186. Fifth, definition is not of a singular, because there cannot be a statement expressing the quiddity of a singular without that statement explaining something that does not belong to the ‘what it was to be’, as is plain in Ord. II d.3 nn.192-193, 204-206.

187. From these points follows that a definition properly speaking is of a positive being [n.182], that is per se one [n.183], real [n.184], really composite [n.185], at least as to the universal concept and as to such alone [n.186].

B. Whether there Can be a Definition of a Sacrament

188. About the second main point [n.180] one must consider in order whether any of the five conditions [n.187] prevents a sacrament from having a definition properly speaking. And in this regard, this second article has five conditions [n.187].

1. About a Definition’s First Condition

189. The first condition does not get in the way [sc. of a sacrament’s having a definition], which I show by conclusions arranged in order.

190. The first is this: it is possible for God to cause some invisible effect pertaining to the salvation of man as wayfarer. There is no need to prove this, because it is manifest to a theologian from divine omnipotence.

191. Secondly I say that it is possible for God to impose some sign to signify the invisible effect. This is plain because we can impose signs to signify whatever is intelligible by us. But since a sign is divided into memorial sign (which is of the past) and prognostic sign (which is of the future) and demonstrative sign (which is of the present), it is possible for God to institute any of these signs to signify his effects. There is also the proof that we can institute any of these signs to signify our effects; for thus are oaths instituted by us, and promises and signs of this sort that impose obligations, to signify a future effect of ours - and assertoric signs to signify a past or present effect of ours.

192. I further posit that it is possible for God to determine and dispose himself to cooperate with any sign (instituted by himself) so as to cause the effect signified, unless it is impeded by the indisposition of him to whom it is applied. - This is plain because it would be thus possible among us that someone, by instituting a sign of his effect, would dispose himself always to cooperate with this sort of sign unless impeded by him to whom it was applied (as that if someone were to institute as a sign of peace or kindness the touch of the hand or the raising of the finger or something of the sort, he would be able, by instituting such a sign, to determine himself always to cooperate for the signified effect, unless the indisposition of him to whom it was applied got in the way). But such a sign, with which the institutor disposes himself always to cooperate, can be called a ‘true’ or ‘certain’ sign, to distinguish it from an uncertain or equivocal sign which as equally brings with it cooperation with the thing signified or the opposite. But a sign is properly called efficacious if, when the sign is used, the thing signified follows in order of nature and not conversely, for if a sign followed the thing it signified in order of nature, although it could be a certain sign if it never lacked the preceding signified thing, yet it would not be efficacious, because in no way would its being posited have efficacy with respect to the thing signified, but conversely.

193. Lastly I say that it is possible for God to institute some sensible sign to signify the aforesaid effect and in the aforesaid way, namely with certainty and efficacy. - This is clear because we too can institute some sensible sign for signifying our effect with the other aforesaid conditions. And not only can some single sensible sign be instituted but also one including in itself several sensible elements, and sensible either to the same sense or to different senses. For just as we, in order to signify the divine perfection which is the simplest essence, can institute this statement ‘God is perfectly infinite’, which statement is constituted of many audible syllables, so we could institute some audible things and some visible things to be together a sign of our concept (as that some definite words, along with some movement of the hand and a kiss, would signify an act of benevolence).

194. From these points follows this conclusion, that the following whole statement is not in itself false (in the way that the Philosopher talks of a statement false in itself in Metaphysics 5.29.1024b26-25a2, 6.1015b16-34): ‘A sensible sign efficaciously signifying, by divine institution, the grace of God or his gratuitous effect - an effect, I say, ordered to the salvation of man the wayfarer’. For it is plain from what has been said that no particle of this statement is repugnant to another; and a statement is not false in itself (according to the Philosopher ibid.) unless the parts are contradictory with each other. This statement, then, is not about pure non-being, that is, about a pure impossible, because nothing is a pure impossible unless its account is false in itself, as is plain in Ord. I d.2 nn.70, 133. It is also plain that this account is not about a pure negation or privation, because it per se includes certain positive things. But if it is posited that this account is an account of this word ‘sacrament’, it follows that a sacrament is not a pure non-being, neither as impossible nor as negation.

195. But that this account is the account of this word ‘sacrament’ cannot be proved but must be assumed from the use of those who speak about sacrament, in the way that the signification of words must be assumed from use.

2. About a Definition’s Second Condition

196. One must consider then the second condition [n.187], namely per se unity, whether it prevents there being a definition properly speaking of a sacrament, or of what has the account of this sort of name. - But that a being that is not per se one is not definable can be understood in two ways, namely that it consists of beings either of the same genus or of different genus that however are not of a nature to constitute something per se one. The first has the name of an aggregated being (as a mound or heap), and the second is properly called a being per accidens, as is plain from Metaphysics 5.6.1015b16-34. But neither of these is properly definable: not the first, from Metaphysics 8.6.1045a7-25, and not the second, from Metaphysics 7.4.1029b22-30a7.

197. It is in fact said [Richard of Middleton] that a sacrament does not properly have unity, so it is not properly definable. For it includes many things (as is touched on in the first argument to the opposite [n.175]), from which something per se one cannot come to be, namely an element (as water in the case of baptism) and spoken words (and these two are material parts) and the idea of signifying (as something formal): the first of these is a real being, the second a being of reason. From such things it is impossible for something per se one to come to be.

198. But against this: for although one accident may be in many subjects, yet it would be definable properly just like other accidents, because the manyness does not pertain per se to the idea of the accident but is as it were something added. Now in the aforesaid idea of the name [n.194] it is plain that what is called ‘sensible’ is posited as an addition to the sign. So however much there is no unity in it, yet while the other things that pertain to the formal idea of the name do not prevent per se unity, a sacrament will not for this reason be non-definable. I mean that the plurality under discussion here [n.197] is a plurality of things that come together in the sensible thing as the sensible thing signifies the foundation of the formal idea that a sacrament involves.

199. I say therefore that in the aforesaid definition [n.194] the formal element is understood to be the sign and also to be the things that per se determine the idea of a sign. Of such sort are ‘by divine institution’ and ‘efficaciously’ (the other two there, namely ‘sensible’ and ‘gratuitous effect of God’, are there as additions: the first as subject or foundation, the second as correlative of the sign). But a plurality of accident with subject, or of the subject in itself, or of correlative with correlative does not prevent the relation from being definable simply. Therefore a sacrament is not excluded by non-unity from having a definition. For this concept ‘per se one in the intellect’ is as conventional and efficacious a sign as is the concept of paternity. And just as paternity could be properly defined (notwithstanding per se unity) if paternity were in two subjects and these two were posited as additions and the correlative of father were posited as an addition, so too in the issue at hand.

3. About a Definition’s Third Condition

200. Third I say that in the aforesaid idea of the name [n.194] is included something that states a being of reason, namely that the sign is ‘by institution’. For this relation does not follow a foundation from the nature of the thing, because although there is an aptitude in the thing for signifying the effect signified, yet the actual signification only belongs to it by act of the one who imposed it. So, by restricting the definition to a ‘what’ properly speaking outside the mind, this definition does not express a ‘what’ of a sacrament, and therefore cannot be a definition in the way that a definition is the idea of a complete being outside the soul. But in the way that a definition expresses ‘one concept per se in the intellect’, whether the concept is of a thing outside the soul or of a thing of reason, a sacrament can very well be defined.

201. And in this way only, and not otherwise, are all logical intentions defined. For these intentions do not signify quiddities outside the soul. but only concepts per se one in the soul; and having a definition in this way is sufficient for science properly speaking, otherwise logic would not be a science. Also, in these definitions are found genus and difference and property, in the way that a logician speaks of genus, difference, and property; for found there is a classification in the ‘what’, in the essential ‘what sort’, and in the accidental ‘what sort’ convertible with it.

202. And so in the aforesaid idea [n.194] ‘sign’ is posited as genus, ‘by institution’ and ‘efficacious’ as difference, ‘sensible’ as the foundation of the relation, and ‘grace’ or ‘gratuitous effect of God’ as correlative.

4. About a Definition’s Fourth and Fifth Condition

203. As to the fourth and fifth conditions [n.187] there is no need to dwell on them, for it is plain that a sacrament according to the idea of the name posited above [nn.185-186] does not have a simply simple concept nor a singular concept but a universal one.

5. Conclusion

204. From what has been said [nn.189-203], the second article [nn.180, 188] is plain, that a sacrament (supposing that the idea of the name posited above [n.187] is of that sort) can be simply and per se defined in the way that second intentions are per se definable; and that absolutely nothing opposes its being most truly and absolutely defined or rather properly stated, save because in its proper formal element it is a being of reason and save because it includes something that is a being of reason.

205. From this article is plain as a corollary how knowledge ‘what it is’ and knowledge ‘whether it is’ are disposed to each other in order. For in the knowledge ‘whether it is’, according as it precedes the knowledge ‘what it is’, the understanding is not about actual existence, otherwise ‘a demonstration of which the middle is a definition’ could not be had of what does not exist (the opposite of which is maintained by the Philosopher Posterior Analytics I.8.75b21-36 and Metaphysics 7). But the ‘whether it is’ is understood of a being to which existence in fact is not repugnant. In the first of the five conditions, applying it to the issue at hand, the ‘whether it is’ was shown about a sacrament in this way, because it was shown that a sacrament is the sort of thing to which existence in fact is not repugnant [nn.191-192]. And on this supposition inquiry was further made in particular about what it is [nn.193-194].

206. Plain too is the order that knowing the sort of ‘what’ stated by the name has to knowing the ‘whether it is’, because in the first of the five conditions what was meant by the name was presupposed, and from this presupposed idea the conclusion as to ‘whether it is’ was drawn. And although the ‘what of a name’ and the ‘what of a thing’ are the same in things that have a ‘what of a thing’, yet it is first known that something is the ‘what of a name’ before it is known that it is the ‘what of a thing’. For the first is known in knowing that the name is intelligible and signifiable, and the second is known in knowing that it is of something able to be in fact. And from the idea of a concept able to be conceived and signified can be concluded that something is able to fall under the concept, and consequently that the idea expresses a true ‘what it is’.

C. What the Fitting Definition of a Sacrament is

207. About the third main point [n.180] I say that, in the way there can be a definition of a sacrament (as is plain from the second article, n.204), the definition is as follows: ‘A sensible sign efficaciously signifying, by divine institution, the grace of God or a gratuitous effect of God, that is ordered to the salvation of man as wayfarer’. And in the term ‘efficaciously’ is included both ‘with certitude’ and ‘with prediction’, where ‘with prediction’ is meant not only what is prior to the thing signified in duration but also prior to it in nature.

208. The proof is a universal one for things that are able to have a definition. For an account that expresses what is meant by a name is the same as a true definition, because, according to the Philosopher in Metaphysics 4.7.1012a23-24, ‘the account that a name signifies is a definition’. And this is plain through reason, because a name is imposed to signify the essence of a thing; so a statement that expresses distinctly and in its parts what is meant by a name also expresses distinctly the concept of the essence of the thing. Now the definition that has been set down, ‘A sensible sign     etc .,’ [n.207], is an account of the name ‘sacrament’ as assumed above from the use of those who speak of sacraments [n.195]; and a sacrament can have a definition in the way that beings of reason are defined. Therefore      this account is the definition of it; and that it is so is therefore proved.

209. But how it could be the definition is easily made plain, because in that account is posited something pertaining to the genus of relation, which is the genus in the sense of genus in which, in a relation of reason, genus and species are posited (namely the term ‘sign’), and the account is determined by differences in this genus (namely the genus ‘sign’), which are ‘by institution’ and ‘efficaciously’. Two things are also added there, as is universally the case in definitions of relations and relatives: one as subject or foundation, which is understood by the term ‘sensible’, and the other too, namely the correlative, which is noted by the terms ‘grace’ and ‘gratuitous’.

D. Solution of the Question

210. From the above three articles [nn.181-209] the solution of the question is plain.

For if the account [from Master Lombard] that is here being asked about [n.174] is rightly understood, and is completed through certain explicit words, one must say that it is the account properly definitive of a sacrament, in the way in which a sacrament is definable.

211. For that account [from the Master], thus understood and completed, is the same as the one before stated [n.207].

For what is posited there as ‘form’ must be understood as put for ‘sensible sign’, in the way that an image of Hercules is called the ‘form’ of Hercules.

Also what is added there as ‘visible’ must be understood as put for ‘sensible in general’, and to this extent ‘visible’ must be understood as put for the sensible object of any sense. For sight is more excellent than any other sense and has knowledge of more differences, as the Philosopher says, Metaphysics 1.1.980a25-28.

‘Visible’ there is put for ‘sensible in one or more ways’ and that whether in several ways pertaining to the same sense or to different senses.

‘Invisible grace’ there is puts for ‘gratuitous effect of God, interior, ordered to the salvation of man the wayfarer’.

But whether ‘grace’ is there taken universally for grace inhering in the soul as subject, or whether it signifies more generally (as I expressed it above) the gratuitous effect of God etc. [n.194], will be clear in the treatment of the Eucharist (d.8 q.1 nn.4-5, d.10 q.4 n.6), because in the Eucharist the ‘thing’ of the sacrament is not any grace inhering as an accident in the soul.

Now the differences specifying the sign need to be supplied, namely ‘by institution’ in distinction from a naturally signifying sign, and ‘efficaciously’ in distinction from an equivocal sign and a sign that naturally follows the thing signified.

II. To the Initial Arguments

212. To the first argument [n.175] I say that although this sort of foundation of relations includes several things that do not become something per se one (as is proved there about successive and permanent), yet it does not follow that a sacrament (as to its formal idea) is not per se one.

213. And if argument is made against this that a relation is not per se one unless it has one foundation, I reply that if perhaps this be true of real relations (about which there is a doubt, because perhaps in the case of many men pulling a boat there is a single relation of the pullers to the one thing pulled), yet in relations of reason the proposition is manifestly false, because however diverse the things are that can come together in the foundation of one relation of reason, there is only need that the many things be conceived there in the intellect as one thing with an order to some signified thing.

214. This is plain, since of this single relation which is ‘to signify good vintage’ the whole of the following can well be the foundation ‘a circle covered in leaves of ivy placed on a cross’ etc. Thus also, many statements woven together or one statement from many syllables (which make nothing per se one) are the foundation of one relation, which is ‘to signify that in God there are things that are in him intrinsically’, although however the thing signified is one and the same simplest thing.

215. To the second and third arguments [nn.176-177] the answer is plain in the explanation of the Master’s definition [nn.210-211].

216. To the fourth [n.178] the answer is plain from the definitions, because what one definition does not express another does express, so that thus, by a collection from all of them of what is found scattered about in them singly, one complete definition can be got, and of this sort is the one posited above [n.207].