Article. 4 - Whether the form of this sacrament is suitably expressed?

Objection 1: It would seem that the form of this is unsuitably set forth in the text (Sent. iv, D, 24). Because the take their efficacy from their form. Now the efficacy of the is from the divine power, which works our salvation in them in a most hidden manner. Therefore the form of this should include a mention of the divine power by the invocation of the , as in the other .

Objection 2: Further, to command pertains to one who has authority. Now the dispenser of the exercises no authority, but only ministry. Therefore he should not use the imperative mood by saying: "Do" or "Receive" this or that, or some similar expression.

Objection 3: Further, mention should not be made in the form, except of such things as are essential to the . But the use of the power received is not essential to this , but is consequent upon it. Therefore it should not be mentioned in the form of this .

Objection 4: Further, all the direct us to an eternal reward. But the forms of the other make no mention of a reward. Therefore neither should any mention be made thereof in the form of this , as in the words: "Since thou wilt have a share, if faithfully," etc.

I answer that, This consists chiefly in the power conferred. Now power is conferred by power, as like proceeds from like; and again power is made known by its use, since powers are manifested by their acts. in the form of order the use of order is expressed by the act which is commanded; and the conferring of power is expressed by employing the imperative mood.

Reply to Objection 1: The other are not ordained chiefly to effects similar to the power whereby the are dispensed, as this is. Hence in this there is a kind of universal communication. in the other something is expressed on the part of the divine power to which the effect of the is likened, but not in this .

Reply to Objection 2: [There is a special reason why this , rather than the others, is conferred by employing the imperative mood. For]* although the bishop who is the minister of this has no authority in respect of the conferring of this , nevertheless he has some power with regard to the power of Order, which power he confers, in so far as it is derived, from his. [*The sentence in brackets is not in the Leonine edition.]

Reply to Objection 3: The use of power is the effect of power in the genus of efficient cause, and from this point of view it has no reason to be mentioned in the definition of Order. But it is somewhat a cause in the genus of final cause, and from this point of view it can be placed in the definition of order.

Reply to Objection 4: There is here a difference between this and the other . Because by this an office or the power to do something is conferred; and so it is fitting that mention be made of the reward to be obtained if it be administered faithfully. But in the other no such office or power to act is conferred, and so no mention of reward is made in them. Accordingly the recipient is somewhat passive in relation to the other , because he receives them for the perfecting of his own state only, whereas in relation to this he holds himself somewhat actively, since he receives it for the sake of exercising hierarchical duties in the Church. although the other , from the very fact that they give , direct the recipient to salvation, properly speaking they do not direct him to a reward, in the same way as this does.