Dist. 24, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 4
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/4/d/24/q/bon-sent-IV-d24-p2-a1-q4
----------------------------------------
### QUESTION IV.
### *When the character is imprinted in the diverse orders.*

Fourthly it is asked, when the character is imprinted in the diverse orders. And since in the orders there are these five [things] to be found, as in the priestly order — namely, blessing, anointing, the imposition of hands, and the presentation of something, such as a book, or a key, or a vessel, and the utterance of a word; it is asked, in which of these the imprinting of the character comes about.

And first it seems that [it is] not in the blessing:

1. Because the imprinting of the character always existed in the orders, and that is essential to the order in which the character is imprinted; but the blessing is not of the essence of the orders, since such a solemnity is not read to have existed in the primitive Church: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, that in which the interior character is imprinted ought to have an assimilation to the interior character; but that character regards some power, whereas the blessing is [directed] to sanctity: therefore etc.

Likewise, that it is not given in the anointing seems [so]:

3. Because if some attribute is in certain [subjects], it is [in them] according to something common; but the imprinting of the character is in all the orders, whereas the anointing is in one only, namely in the priesthood: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, wherever [there is] such a cause, there [is] such an effect; but in the episcopate there is a new anointing, therefore [there is] a new imprinting of a character; but this is false, because, if a new character were imprinted, then, just as a priest can be without the diaconate, so a bishop [could be] without the priesthood, the contrary of which is determined in the last book of the decretals.

Likewise, that it is not given in the imposition of hands seems [so]:

1. First, by a like reasoning: because, since the imposition of hands takes place only in two orders alone, the character would be imprinted only in these two alone; which is manifestly false, as is clear from the preceding [matters].

2. Likewise, an order is handed on only by the bishop; but an order is handed on in the imprinting of the character: therefore if the character is imprinted in the imposition of hands, it seems that the bishop alone ought to impose the hand in the ordination; which is false, because, as the Canon says, in the twenty-third distinction: « When a presbyter is ordained » etc., all the assisting priests ought to impose hands in the ordination of a priest.

That the character is not imprinted in the handing-over of a book or a vessel seems [so]:

3. Because, granted that such books or vessels were lacking, as perhaps they were lacking in the primitive Church, nonetheless such orders could be given: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, the archdeacon confers many such things, such as the cruet and the water-basin to the subdeacon, as is touched upon in the text, and the keys to the ostiary himself: if therefore it belongs to the bishop alone to confer orders, it seems that in such a handing-over a character is not imprinted.

That the character is not imprinted in the utterance of a word seems [so]:

5. First, because in those words the right execution of the power is signified, as is clear if anyone examines [it]: therefore, since that follows upon the essence of the order and the character, it seems etc.

6. Likewise, the character cannot be imprinted except by God; but the utterance of the word is by a word of commanding, when it is said: Receive the power etc.: therefore in such a form it is not fitting that the character be imprinted.

There is therefore a question: why does this Sacrament have the form of the word by way of the imperative, whereas the others have [it] by the indicative, or the deprecative?

There is also a question: whence did these [things] concerning the order take their origin, namely the imposition of hands and the blessing and the anointing?

There is also a question: why is the imposition of hands in two orders, but the anointing in one order only, namely the priesthood?

There is fourthly a question: why does the bishop alone impose hands on a deacon, but on priests the other priests [do so]?

There is lastly a question: in what does this exterior Sacrament essentially consist? And since it has neither an element nor an appointed form, it seems that it has nothing essential. And that it does not have a determinate form seems [so], since the ancient ordinaries had another manner.

### CONCLUSIO.

> The character is imprinted when the principal instrument is given, but with the verbal form adjoined, and, in the two sacred orders, [with] the imposition of hands.

**I respond:** For obtaining an understanding of the aforesaid, these [things] are to be presupposed: that every Sacrament has some essential exterior sign; for in no way is it accidental to a Sacrament to be a sign, but it is essential simply. — Further, it is to be supposed that in every Sacrament in which a character is imprinted, that is essential to the Sacrament, in which or by which the character is imprinted. — Further, since the sign ought to have a likeness to the thing signified, the character is imprinted in that which exteriorly is more like to itself in the Sacrament.

Since therefore the character is imprinted in the order — [the character] which is a seal [ordered] to some spiritual power — this is to be held as a general rule: that the character is imprinted in that exterior sign, in any order, in which the principal power that the order regards is signified to be handed on to the ordained. And for signifying this, two [things] concur exteriorly, namely the handing-over of some instrument and the expression of a word, so that thus in a sign visible and audible at once it may be signified to be given. Nor does an audible sign suffice without a visible one, because of this, that one word ought to regard one sign, another [word] another [sign], as is clear in the other Sacraments; nor does a sign suffice without a word, because such a sign — namely a book or that vessel — can be given for many [things], and therefore it must be restricted by the word. And these two are essential and intrinsic to the Sacrament and perfecting of the Sacrament. For since « the hand is the organ of organs » in operating, and the tongue in expressing, the conferral of power is rightly signified in the office of each.

And these are found in any order, according as the imprinting of the character is also found. But since the characters are diverse, having greater dignity and lesser according to the grades of powers, therefore both the signs and the words are diversified, especially in the sacred orders and in the minor [ones]. For in the sacred orders, since there is given there a noble and excellent power, the imposition of hands takes place,  not only the handing-over of an instrument; since « the hand is the organ of organs », in which namely the power of operating principally resides. Whence thus they ordained in the primitive Church, where there were explicitly only these two orders. — But in the minor orders there takes place the handing-over of some instrument, such as a key, or a book, or [the book] of exorcisms etc.; and if several instruments are handed over to one [person], that is to be held for the principal which the bishop hands over with the utterance of the word: Receive the power. Whence, in the omission of the principal [one], the order must be repeated, because it is presumed that he has not received the character; but in the other consequent [matters], if a defect or negligence occurs, it must be supplied.

It is therefore to be conceded that in the anointing a character is not imprinted, but it takes place only for the solemnity and dignity of the Lord's body, which is not to be handled except by consecrated hands. But for the pontiff the anointing takes place on the head, in which is signified the abundance of grace which in prelates ought to be found in excellence. And hence it is that the hands of a priest are anointed with holy oil; but the head of the pontiff with chrism, so that it may be signified that in him there ought to be excellence of life in the sight of God, in conscience, and in the sight of men, as to reputation. — It is also to be conceded that the imprinting of the character does not take place in the blessing itself, as those reasonings show, because it is rather instituted for stirring up devotion and imploring grace than being of the substance of the Sacrament.

1. To that, then, which is objected — concerning the imposition of hands, that it is not found in all [orders] — the reason has already been stated; yet something similar is found, because [there is] the conferral of some instrument, in which there is an extending of the hand, and thus a signification of the conferral of power.

2. To that which is objected, that priests impose hands; it must be said that that imposition of hands is not for the conferral of the order, but for signification. For the grace of communion is signified, which is conferred in the priestly order and ought to be administered by the priest; therefore priests do not impose hands on a deacon, but the bishop alone, in whose imposition of hands there is not only signification but also conferral of power. — Moreover, in this it is signified that he who is ordained is consecrated in that order, when the priests impose their consecrated hands. — And note that although there be many assisting, it nevertheless does not suffice that three impose hands; [rather] it is [done] out of abundance, nor yet is that of the necessity of the Sacrament.

3. To that which is objected concerning the handing-over of a book or a vessel, it must be said that just as every instrument or armament is in the power of the hand, so too through the imposition of hands, where such [instruments] were lacking, [the orders] could be signified; whence, as will be seen afterward, in the imposition of hands in the primitive Church the other orders were implied, which afterward, in the process of time, were unfolded or made explicit, both as to the word and as to the sign and as to the persons.

4. To that which is objected, that the archdeacon confers many such things; it must be said that this is for the unfolding of the power; whence in such a handing-over made by the archdeacon no new power is handed on, but that already handed on is unfolded.

5. To that which is objected concerning the utterance of the word, it must be said that it is always to be understood that there was some word, in which it was expressed that such a power was being given; but there were not words fixed beforehand except in the two Sacraments alone, in which the Lord foretold special words by his own mouth; and therefore in the others, although words are necessary, nevertheless the vocables are not determinate; but any words whatsoever expressing the sense, as far as pertains to the nature of the Sacrament, suffice, provided one does not intend to introduce heresy. But now it is necessary to observe the form appointed and approved by the Church.

6. To that which is objected concerning the imperative mode, it must be said that the supreme pontiff bears the person of Christ and the person of a superior, as Isidore says in the book On the Offices; and since power is according to more and less and descends, and according to it those who confer are set over [those] to whom they confer, [who are] subject:  therefore he most rightly uses the imperative mode. And thus the reply to the first question is clear. — All the other questions are clear from what has been said, except that one which is about the origin of these [things]: for the blessing and the imposition of hands came from the Patriarchs, in Genesis the twenty-seventh and Genesis the forty-eighth, but the anointing had its figure in the Law, in Leviticus the eighth, where the high priest was anointed.

---