But the state of
the human race underwent no change after sin until it was repaired by
Christ.
the human race underwent no change after sin until it was repaired by
Christ.
Summa Theologica
Therefore neither is it
required in those of the New Law.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Eph. 5:25,26): "Christ loved the
Church, and delivered Himself up for it; that He might sanctify it,
cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life. " And Augustine
says (Tract. xxx in Joan. ): "The word is added to the element, and this
becomes a sacrament. "
I answer that, The sacraments, as stated above ([4344]AA[2],3), are
employed as signs for man's sanctification. Consequently they can be
considered in three ways: and in each way it is fitting for words to be
added to the sensible signs. For in the first place they can be
considered in regard to the cause of sanctification, which is the Word
incarnate: to Whom the sacraments have a certain conformity, in that
the word is joined to the sensible sign, just as in the mystery of the
Incarnation the Word of God is united to sensible flesh.
Secondly, sacraments may be considered on the part of man who is
sanctified, and who is composed of soul and body: to whom the
sacramental remedy is adjusted, since it touches the body through the
sensible element, and the soul through faith in the words. Hence
Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan. ) on Jn. 15:3, "Now you are clean
by reason of the word," etc. : "Whence hath water this so great virtue,
to touch the body and wash the heart, but by the word doing it, not
because it is spoken, but because it is believed? "
Thirdly, a sacrament may be considered on the part of the sacramental
signification. Now Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. ii) that "words
are the principal signs used by men"; because words can be formed in
various ways for the purpose of signifying various mental concepts, so
that we are able to express our thoughts with greater distinctness by
means of words. And therefore in order to insure the perfection of
sacramental signification it was necessary to determine the
signification of the sensible things by means of certain words. For
water may signify both a cleansing by reason of its humidity, and
refreshment by reason of its being cool: but when we say, "I baptize
thee," it is clear that we use water in baptism in order to signify a
spiritual cleansing.
Reply to Objection 1: The sensible elements of the sacraments are
called words by way of a certain likeness, in so far as they partake of
a certain significative power, which resides principally in the very
words, as stated above. Consequently it is not a superfluous repetition
to add words to the visible element in the sacraments; because one
determines the other, as stated above.
Reply to Objection 2: Although words and other sensible things are not
in the same genus, considered in their natures, yet have they something
in common as to the thing signified by them: which is more perfectly
done in words than in other things. Wherefore in the sacraments, words
and things, like form and matter, combine in the formation of one
thing, in so far as the signification of things is completed by means
of words, as above stated. And under words are comprised also sensible
actions, such as cleansing and anointing and such like: because they
have a like signification with the things.
Reply to Objection 3: As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix), the
sacraments of things present should be different from sacraments of
things to come. Now the sacraments of the Old Law foretold the coming
of Christ. Consequently they did not signify Christ so clearly as the
sacraments of the New Law, which flow from Christ Himself, and have a
certain likeness to Him, as stated above. Nevertheless in the Old Law,
certain words were used in things pertaining to the worship of God,
both by the priests, who were the ministers of those sacraments,
according to Num. 6:23,24: "Thus shall you bless the children of
Israel, and you shall say to them: The Lord bless thee," etc. ; and by
those who made use of those sacraments, according to Dt. 26:3: "I
profess this day before the Lord thy God," etc.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether determinate words are required in the sacraments?
Objection 1: It seems that determinate words are not required in the
sacraments. For as the Philosopher says (Peri Herm. i), "words are not
the same for all. " But salvation, which is sought through the
sacraments, is the same for all. Therefore determinate words are not
required in the sacraments.
Objection 2: Further, words are required in the sacraments forasmuch as
they are the principal means of signification, as stated above
[4345](A[6]). But it happens that various words mean the same.
Therefore determinate words are not required in the sacraments.
Objection 3: Further, corruption of anything changes its species. But
some corrupt the pronunciation of words, and yet it is not credible
that the sacramental effect is hindered thereby; else unlettered men
and stammerers, in conferring sacraments, would frequently do so
invalidly. Therefore it seems that determinate words are not required
in the sacraments.
On the contrary, our Lord used determinate words in consecrating the
sacrament of the Eucharist, when He said (Mat. 26:26): "This is My
Body. " Likewise He commanded His disciples to baptize under a form of
determinate words, saying (Mat. 28:19): "Go ye and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost. "
I answer that, As stated above (A[6], ad 2), in the sacraments the
words are as the form, and sensible things are as the matter. Now in
all things composed of matter and form, the determining principle is on
the part of the form, which is as it were the end and terminus of the
matter. Consequently for the being of a thing the need of a determinate
form is prior to the need of determinate matter: for determinate matter
is needed that it may be adapted to the determinate form. Since,
therefore, in the sacraments determinate sensible things are required,
which are as the sacramental matter, much more is there need in them of
a determinate form of words.
Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says (Tract. lxxx super Joan. ), the
word operates in the sacraments "not because it is spoken," i. e. not by
the outward sound of the voice, "but because it is believed" in
accordance with the sense of the words which is held by faith. And this
sense is indeed the same for all, though the same words as to their
sound be not used by all. Consequently no matter in what language this
sense is expressed, the sacrament is complete.
Reply to Objection 2: Although it happens in every language that
various words signify the same thing, yet one of those words is that
which those who speak that language use principally and more commonly
to signify that particular thing: and this is the word which should be
used for the sacramental signification. So also among sensible things,
that one is used for the sacramental signification which is most
commonly employed for the action by which the sacramental effect is
signified: thus water is most commonly used by men for bodily
cleansing, by which the spiritual cleansing is signified: and therefore
water is employed as the matter of baptism.
Reply to Objection 3: If he who corrupts the pronunciation of the
sacramental words---does so on purpose, he does not seem to intend to
do what the Church intends: and thus the sacrament seems to be
defective. But if he do this through error or a slip of the tongue, and
if he so far mispronounce the words as to deprive them of sense, the
sacrament seems to be defective. This would be the case especially if
the mispronunciation be in the beginning of a word, for instance, if
one were to say "in nomine matris" instead of "in nomine Patris. " If,
however, the sense of the words be not entirely lost by this
mispronunciation, the sacrament is complete. This would be the case
principally if the end of a word be mispronounced; for instance, if one
were to say "patrias et filias. " For although the words thus
mispronounced have no appointed meaning, yet we allow them an
accommodated meaning corresponding to the usual forms of speech. And
so, although the sensible sound is changed, yet the sense remains the
same.
What has been said about the various mispronunciations of words, either
at the beginning or at the end, holds forasmuch as with us a change at
the beginning of a word changes the meaning, whereas a change at the
end generally speaking does not effect such a change: whereas with the
Greeks the sense is changed also in the beginning of words in the
conjugation of verbs.
Nevertheless the principle point to observe is the extent of the
corruption entailed by mispronunciation: for in either case it may be
so little that it does not alter the sense of the words; or so great
that it destroys it. But it is easier for the one to happen on the part
of the beginning of the words, and the other at the end.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is lawful to add anything to the words in which the sacramental
form consists?
Objection 1: It seems that it is not lawful to add anything to the
words in which the sacramental form consists. For these sacramental
words are not of less importance than are the words of Holy Scripture.
But it is not lawful to add anything to, or to take anything from, the
words of Holy Scripture: for it is written (Dt. 4:2): "You shall not
add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from
it"; and (Apoc. 22:18,19): "I testify to everyone that heareth the
words of the prophecy of this book: if any man shall add to these
things, God shall add to him the plagues written in this book. And if
any man shall take away . . . God shall take away his part out of the
book of life. " Therefore it seems that neither is it lawful to add
anything to, or to take anything from, the sacramental forms.
Objection 2: Further, in the sacraments words are by way of form, as
stated above (A[6], ad 2; A[7]). But any addition or subtraction in
forms changes the species, as also in numbers (Metaph. viii). Therefore
it seems that if anything be added to or subtracted from a sacramental
form, it will not be the same sacrament.
Objection 3: Further, just as the sacramental form demands a certain
number of words, so does it require that these words should be
pronounced in a certain order and without interruption. If therefore,
the sacrament is not rendered invalid by addition or subtraction of
words, in like manner it seems that neither is it, if the words be
pronounced in a different order or with interruptions.
On the contrary, Certain words are inserted by some in the sacramental
forms, which are not inserted by others: thus the Latins baptize under
this form: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost"; whereas the Greeks use the following form: "The
servant of God, N . . . is baptized in the name of the Father," etc.
Yet both confer the sacrament validly. Therefore it is lawful to add
something to, or to take something from, the sacramental forms.
I answer that, With regard to all the variations that may occur in the
sacramental forms, two points seem to call for our attention. one is on
the part of the person who says the words, and whose intention is
essential to the sacrament, as will be explained further on
([4346]Q[64], A[8] ). Wherefore if he intends by such addition or
suppression to perform a rite other from that which is recognized by
the Church, it seems that the sacrament is invalid: because he seems
not to intend to do what the Church does.
The other point to be considered is the meaning of the words. For since
in the sacraments, the words produce an effect according to the sense
which they convey, as stated above (A[7], ad 1), we must see whether
the change of words destroys the essential sense of the words: because
then the sacrament is clearly rendered invalid. Now it is clear, if any
substantial part of the sacramental form be suppressed, that the
essential sense of the words is destroyed; and consequently the
sacrament is invalid. Wherefore Didymus says (De Spir. Sanct. ii): "If
anyone attempt to baptize in such a way as to omit one of the aforesaid
names," i. e. of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, "his baptism will be
invalid. " But if that which is omitted be not a substantial part of the
form, such an omission does not destroy the essential sense of the
words, nor consequently the validity of the sacrament. Thus in the form
of the Eucharist---"For this is My Body," the omission of the word
"for" does not destroy the essential sense of the words, nor
consequently cause the sacrament to be invalid; although perhaps he who
makes the omission may sin from negligence or contempt.
Again, it is possible to add something that destroys the essential
sense of the words: for instance, if one were to say: "I baptize thee
in the name of the Father Who is greater, and of the Son Who is less,"
with which form the Arians baptized: and consequently such an addition
makes the sacrament invalid. But if the addition be such as not to
destroy the essential sense, the sacrament is not rendered invalid. Nor
does it matter whether this addition be made at the beginning, in the
middle, or at the end: For instance, if one were to say, "I baptize
thee in the name of the Father Almighty, and of the only Begotten Son,
and of the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete," the baptism would be valid; and
in like manner if one were to say, "I baptize thee in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"; and may the Blessed
Virgin succour thee, the baptism would be valid.
Perhaps, however, if one were to say, "I baptize thee in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and of the Blessed
Virgin Mary," the baptism would be void; because it is written (1 Cor.
1:13): "Was Paul crucified for you or were you baptized in the name of
Paul? " But this is true if the intention be to baptize in the name of
the Blessed Virgin as in the name of the Trinity, by which baptism is
consecrated: for such a sense would be contrary to faith, and would
therefore render the sacrament invalid: whereas if the addition, "and
in the name of the Blessed Virgin" be understood, not as if the name of
the Blessed Virgin effected anything in baptism, but as intimating that
her intercession may help the person baptized to preserve the baptismal
grace, then the sacrament is not rendered void.
Reply to Objection 1: It is not lawful to add anything to the words of
Holy Scripture as regards the sense; but many words are added by
Doctors by way of explanation of the Holy Scriptures. Nevertheless, it
is not lawful to add even words to Holy Scripture as though such words
were a part thereof, for this would amount to forgery. It would amount
to the same if anyone were to pretend that something is essential to a
sacramental form, which is not so.
Reply to Objection 2: Words belong to a sacramental form by reason of
the sense signified by them. Consequently any addition or suppression
of words which does not add to or take from the essential sense, does
not destroy the essence of the sacrament.
Reply to Objection 3: If the words are interrupted to such an extent
that the intention of the speaker is interrupted, the sacramental sense
is destroyed, and consequently, the validity of the sacrament. But this
is not the case if the interruption of the speaker is so slight, that
his intention and the sense of the words is not interrupted.
The same is to be said of a change in the order of the words. Because
if this destroys the sense of the words, the sacrament is invalidated:
as happens when a negation is made to precede or follow a word. But if
the order is so changed that the sense of the words does not vary, the
sacrament is not invalidated, according to the Philosopher's dictum:
"Nouns and verbs mean the same though they be transposed" (Peri Herm.
x).
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE NECESSITY OF THE SACRAMENTS (FOUR ARTICLES)
We must now consider the necessity of the sacraments; concerning which
there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether sacraments are necessary for man's salvation?
(2) Whether they were necessary in the state that preceded sin?
(3) Whether they were necessary in the state after sin and before
Christ?
(4) Whether they were necessary after Christ's coming?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether sacraments are necessary for man's salvation?
Objection 1: It seems that sacraments are not necessary for man's
salvation. For the Apostle says (1 Tim. 4:8): "Bodily exercise is
profitable to little. " But the use of sacraments pertains to bodily
exercise; because sacraments are perfected in the signification of
sensible things and words, as stated above ([4347]Q[60], A[6]).
Therefore sacraments are not necessary for the salvation of man.
Objection 2: Further, the Apostle was told (2 Cor. 12:9): "My grace is
sufficient for thee. " But it would not suffice if sacraments were
necessary for salvation. Therefore sacraments are not necessary for
man's salvation.
Objection 3: Further, given a sufficient cause, nothing more seems to
be required for the effect. But Christ's Passion is the sufficient
cause of our salvation; for the Apostle says (Rom. 5:10): "If, when we
were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son: much
more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by His life. " Therefore
sacraments are not necessary for man's salvation.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix): "It is impossible
to keep men together in one religious denomination, whether true or
false, except they be united by means of visible signs or sacraments. "
But it is necessary for salvation that men be united together in the
name of the one true religion. Therefore sacraments are necessary for
man's salvation.
I answer that, Sacraments are necessary unto man's salvation for three
reasons. The first is taken from the condition of human nature which is
such that it has to be led by things corporeal and sensible to things
spiritual and intelligible. Now it belongs to Divine providence to
provide for each one according as its condition requires. Divine
wisdom, therefore, fittingly provides man with means of salvation, in
the shape of corporeal and sensible signs that are called sacraments.
The second reason is taken from the state of man who in sinning
subjected himself by his affections to corporeal things. Now the
healing remedy should be given to a man so as to reach the part
affected by disease. Consequently it was fitting that God should
provide man with a spiritual medicine by means of certain corporeal
signs; for if man were offered spiritual things without a veil, his
mind being taken up with the material world would be unable to apply
itself to them.
The third reason is taken from the fact that man is prone to direct his
activity chiefly towards material things. Lest, therefore, it should be
too hard for man to be drawn away entirely from bodily actions, bodily
exercise was offered to him in the sacraments, by which he might be
trained to avoid superstitious practices, consisting in the worship of
demons, and all manner of harmful action, consisting in sinful deeds.
It follows, therefore, that through the institution of the sacraments
man, consistently with his nature, is instructed through sensible
things; he is humbled, through confessing that he is subject to
corporeal things, seeing that he receives assistance through them: and
he is even preserved from bodily hurt, by the healthy exercise of the
sacraments.
Reply to Objection 1: Bodily exercise, as such, is not very profitable:
but exercise taken in the use of the sacraments is not merely bodily,
but to a certain extent spiritual, viz. in its signification and in its
causality.
Reply to Objection 2: God's grace is a sufficient cause of man's
salvation. But God gives grace to man in a way which is suitable to
him. Hence it is that man needs the sacraments that he may obtain
grace.
Reply to Objection 3: Christ's Passion is a sufficient cause of man's
salvation. But it does not follow that the sacraments are not also
necessary for that purpose: because they obtain their effect through
the power of Christ's Passion; and Christ's Passion is, so to say,
applied to man through the sacraments according to the Apostle (Rom.
6:3): "All we who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His
death. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether before sin sacraments were necessary to man?
Objection 1: It seems that before sin sacraments were necessary to man.
For, as stated above (A[1], ad 2) man needs sacraments that he may
obtain grace. But man needed grace even in the state of innocence, as
we stated in the [4348]FP, Q[95], A[4] (cf. [4349]FS, Q[109], A[2];
[4350]FS, Q[114], A[2]). Therefore sacraments were necessary in that
state also.
Objection 2: Further, sacraments are suitable to man by reason of the
conditions of human nature, as stated above [4351](A[1]). But man's
nature is the same before and after sin. Therefore it seems that before
sin, man needed the sacraments.
Objection 3: Further, matrimony is a sacrament, according to Eph. 5:32:
"This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the Church. "
But matrimony was instituted before sin, as may be seen in Gn. 2.
Therefore sacraments were necessary to man before sin.
On the contrary, None but the sick need remedies, according to Mat.
9:12: "They that are in health need not a physician. " Now the
sacraments are spiritual remedies for the healing of wounds inflicted
by sin. Therefore they were not necessary before sin.
I answer that, Sacraments were not necessary in the state of innocence.
This can be proved from the rectitude of that state, in which the
higher (parts of man) ruled the lower, and nowise depended on them: for
just as the mind was subject to God, so were the lower powers of the
soul subject to the mind, and the body to the soul. And it would be
contrary to this order if the soul were perfected either in knowledge
or in grace, by anything corporeal; which happens in the sacraments.
Therefore in the state of innocence man needed no sacraments, whether
as remedies against sin or as means of perfecting the soul.
Reply to Objection 1: In the state of innocence man needed grace: not
so that he needed to obtain grace by means of sensible signs, but in a
spiritual and invisible manner.
Reply to Objection 2: Man's nature is the same before and after sin,
but the state of his nature is not the same. Because after sin, the
soul, even in its higher part, needs to receive something from
corporeal things in order that it may be perfected: whereas man had no
need of this in that state.
Reply to Objection 3: Matrimony was instituted in the state of
innocence, not as a sacrament, but as a function of nature.
Consequently, however, it foreshadowed something in relation to Christ
and the Church: just as everything else foreshadowed Christ.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether there should have been sacraments after sin, before Christ?
Objection 1: It seems that there should have been no sacraments after
sin, before Christ. For it has been stated that the Passion of Christ
is applied to men through the sacraments: so that Christ's Passion is
compared to the sacraments as cause to effect. But effect does not
precede cause. Therefore there should have been no sacraments before
Christ's coming.
Objection 2: Further, sacraments should be suitable to the state of the
human race, as Augustine declares (Contra Faust. xix).
But the state of
the human race underwent no change after sin until it was repaired by
Christ. Neither, therefore, should the sacraments have been changed, so
that besides the sacraments of the natural law, others should be
instituted in the law of Moses.
Objection 3: Further, the nearer a thing approaches to that which is
perfect, the more like it should it be. Now the perfection of human
salvation was accomplished by Christ; to Whom the sacraments of the Old
Law were nearer than those that preceded the Law. Therefore they should
have borne a greater likeness to the sacraments of Christ. And yet the
contrary is the case, since it was foretold that the priesthood of
Christ would be "according to the order of Melchisedech, and not . . .
according to the order of Aaron" (Heb. 7:11). Therefore sacraments were
unsuitably instituted before Christ.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix) that "the first
sacraments which the Law commanded to be solemnized and observed were
announcements of Christ's future coming. " But it was necessary for
man's salvation that Christ's coming should be announced beforehand.
Therefore it was necessary that some sacraments should be instituted
before Christ.
I answer that, Sacraments are necessary for man's salvation, in so far
as they are sensible signs of invisible things whereby man is made
holy. Now after sin no man can be made holy save through Christ, "Whom
God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood, to
the showing of His justice . . . that He Himself may be just, and the
justifier of him who is of the faith of Jesus Christ" (Rom. 3:25,26).
Therefore before Christ's coming there was need for some visible signs
whereby man might testify to his faith in the future coming of a
Saviour. And these signs are called sacraments. It is therefore clear
that some sacraments were necessary before Christ's coming.
Reply to Objection 1: Christ's Passion is the final cause of the old
sacraments: for they were instituted in order to foreshadow it. Now the
final cause precedes not in time, but in the intention of the agent.
Consequently, there is no reason against the existence of sacraments
before Christ's Passion.
Reply to Objection 2: The state of the human race after sin and before
Christ can be considered from two points of view. First, from that of
faith: and thus it was always one and the same: since men were made
righteous, through faith in the future coming of Christ. Secondly,
according as sin was more or less intense, and knowledge concerning
Christ more or less explicit. For as time went on sin gained a greater
hold on man, so much so that it clouded man's reason, the consequence
being that the precepts of the natural law were insufficient to make
man live aright, and it became necessary to have a written code of
fixed laws, and together with these certain sacraments of faith. For it
was necessary, as time went on, that the knowledge of faith should be
more and more unfolded, since, as Gregory says (Hom. vi in Ezech. ):
"With the advance of time there was an advance in the knowledge of
Divine things. " Consequently in the old Law there was also a need for
certain fixed sacraments significative of man's faith in the future
coming of Christ: which sacraments are compared to those that preceded
the Law, as something determinate to that which is indeterminate:
inasmuch as before the Law it was not laid down precisely of what
sacraments men were to make use: whereas this was prescribed by the
Law; and this was necessary both on account of the overclouding of the
natural law, and for the clearer signification of faith.
Reply to Objection 3: The sacrament of Melchisedech which preceded the
Law is more like the Sacrament of the New Law in its matter: in so far
as "he offered bread and wine" (Gn. 14:18), just as bread and wine are
offered in the sacrifice of the New Testament. Nevertheless the
sacraments of the Mosaic Law are more like the thing signified by the
sacrament, i. e. the Passion of Christ: as clearly appears in the
Paschal Lamb and such like. The reason of this was lest, if the
sacraments retained the same appearance, it might seem to be the
continuation of one and the same sacrament, where there was no
interruption of time.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether there was need for any sacraments after Christ came?
Objection 1: It seems that there was no need for any sacraments after
Christ came. For the figure should cease with the advent of the truth.
But "grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (Jn. 1:17). Since,
therefore, the sacraments are signs or figures of the truth, it seems
that there was no need for any sacraments after Christ's Passion.
Objection 2: Further, the sacraments consist in certain elements, as
stated above ([4352]Q[60], A[4]). But the Apostle says (Gal. 4:3,4)
that "when we were children we were serving under the elements of the
world": but that now "when the fulness of time" has "come," we are no
longer children. Therefore it seems that we should not serve God under
the elements of this world, by making use of corporeal sacraments.
Objection 3: Further, according to James 1:17 with God "there is no
change, nor shadow of alteration. " But it seems to argue some change in
the Divine will that God should give man certain sacraments for his
sanctification now during the time of grace, and other sacraments
before Christ's coming. Therefore it seems that other sacraments should
not have been instituted after Christ.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix) that the sacraments
of the Old Law "were abolished because they were fulfilled; and others
were instituted, fewer in number, but more efficacious, more
profitable, and of easier accomplishment. "
I answer that, As the ancient Fathers were saved through faith in
Christ's future coming, so are we saved through faith in Christ's past
birth and Passion. Now the sacraments are signs in protestation of the
faith whereby man is justified; and signs should vary according as they
signify the future, the past, or the present; for as Augustine says
(Contra Faust. xix), "the same thing is variously pronounced as to be
done and as having been done: for instance the word 'passurus' [going
to suffer] differs from 'passus' [having suffered]. " Therefore the
sacraments of the New Law, that signify Christ in relation to the past,
must needs differ from those of the Old Law, that foreshadowed the
future.
Reply to Objection 1: As Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v), the state of
the New Law. is between the state of the Old Law, whose figures are
fulfilled in the New, and the state of glory, in which all truth will
be openly and perfectly revealed. Wherefore then there will be no
sacraments. But now, so long as we know "through a glass in a dark
manner," (1 Cor. 13:12) we need sensible signs in order to reach
spiritual things: and this is the province of the sacraments.
Reply to Objection 2: The Apostle calls the sacraments of the Old Law
"weak and needy elements" (Gal. 4:9) because they neither contained nor
caused grace. Hence the Apostle says that those who used these
sacraments served God "under the elements of this world": for the very
reason that these sacraments were nothing else than the elements of
this world. But our sacraments both contain and cause grace:
consequently the comparison does not hold.
Reply to Objection 3: Just as the head of the house is not proved to
have a changeable mind, through issuing various commands to his
household at various seasons, ordering things differently in winter and
summer; so it does not follow that there is any change in God, because
He instituted sacraments of one kind after Christ's coming, and of
another kind at the time of the Law. because the latter were suitable
as foreshadowing grace; the former as signifying the presence of grace,
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE SACRAMENTS' PRINCIPAL EFFECT, WHICH IS GRACE (SIX ARTICLES)
We have now to consider the effect of the sacraments. First of their
principal effect, which is grace; secondly, of their secondary effect,
which is a character. Concerning the first there are six points of
inquiry:
(1) Whether the sacraments of the New Law are the cause of grace?
(2) Whether sacramental grace confers anything in addition to the grace
of the virtues and gifts?
(3) Whether the sacraments contain grace?
(4) Whether there is any power in them for the causing of grace?
(5) Whether the sacraments derive this power from Christ's Passion?
(6) Whether the sacraments of the Old Law caused grace?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the sacraments are the cause of grace?
Objection 1: It seems that the sacraments are not the cause of grace.
For it seems that the same thing is not both sign and cause: since the
nature of sign appears to be more in keeping with an effect. But a
sacrament is a sign of grace. Therefore it is not its cause.
Objection 2: Further, nothing corporeal can act on a spiritual thing:
since "the agent is more excellent than the patient," as Augustine says
(Gen. ad lit. xii). But the subject of grace is the human mind, which
is something spiritual. Therefore the sacraments cannot cause grace.
Objection 3: Further, what is proper to God should not be ascribed to a
creature. But it is proper to God to cause grace, according to Ps.
83:12: "The Lord will give grace and glory. " Since, therefore, the
sacraments consist in certain words and created things, it seems that
they cannot cause grace.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan. ) that the
baptismal water "touches the body and cleanses the heart. " But the
heart is not cleansed save through grace. Therefore it causes grace:
and for like reason so do the other sacraments of the Church.
I answer that, We must needs say that in some way the sacraments of the
New Law cause grace. For it is evident that through the sacraments of
the New Law man is incorporated with Christ: thus the Apostle says of
Baptism (Gal. 3:27): "As many of you as have been baptized in Christ
have put on Christ. " And man is made a member of Christ through grace
alone.
Some, however, say that they are the cause of grace not by their own
operation, but in so far as God causes grace in the soul when the
sacraments are employed. And they give as an example a man who on
presenting a leaden coin, receives, by the king's command, a hundred
pounds: not as though the leaden coin, by any operation of its own,
caused him to be given that sum of money; this being the effect of the
mere will of the king. Hence Bernard says in a sermon on the Lord's
Supper: "Just as a canon is invested by means of a book, an abbot by
means of a crozier, a bishop by means of a ring, so by the various
sacraments various kinds of grace are conferred. " But if we examine the
question properly, we shall see that according to the above mode the
sacraments are mere signs. For the leaden coin is nothing but a sign of
the king's command that this man should receive money. In like manner
the book is a sign of the conferring of a canonry. Hence, according to
this opinion the sacraments of the New Law would be mere signs of
grace; whereas we have it on the authority of many saints that the
sacraments of the New Law not only signify, but also cause grace.
We must therefore say otherwise, that an efficient cause is twofold,
principal and instrumental. The principal cause works by the power of
its form, to which form the effect is likened; just as fire by its own
heat makes something hot. In this way none but God can cause grace:
since grace is nothing else than a participated likeness of the Divine
Nature, according to 2 Pet. 1:4: "He hath given us most great and
precious promises; that we may be [Vulg. : 'you may be made'] partakers
of the Divine Nature. " But the instrumental cause works not by the
power of its form, but only by the motion whereby it is moved by the
principal agent: so that the effect is not likened to the instrument
but to the principal agent: for instance, the couch is not like the
axe, but like the art which is in the craftsman's mind. And it is thus
that the sacraments of the New Law cause grace: for they are instituted
by God to be employed for the purpose of conferring grace. Hence
Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix): "All these things," viz. pertaining
to the sacraments, "are done and pass away, but the power," viz. of
God, "which works by them, remains ever. " Now that is, properly
speaking, an instrument by which someone works: wherefore it is written
(Titus 3:5): "He saved us by the laver of regeneration. "
Reply to Objection 1: The principal cause cannot properly be called a
sign of its effect, even though the latter be hidden and the cause
itself sensible and manifest. But an instrumental cause, if manifest,
can be called a sign of a hidden effect, for this reason, that it is
not merely a cause but also in a measure an effect in so far as it is
moved by the principal agent. And in this sense the sacraments of the
New Law are both cause and signs. Hence, too, is it that, to use the
common expression, "they effect what they signify. " From this it is
clear that they perfectly fulfil the conditions of a sacrament; being
ordained to something sacred, not only as a sign, but also as a cause.
Reply to Objection 2: An instrument has a twofold action; one is
instrumental, in respect of which it works not by its own power but by
the power of the principal agent: the other is its proper action, which
belongs to it in respect of its proper form: thus it belongs to an axe
to cut asunder by reason of its sharpness, but to make a couch, in so
far as it is the instrument of an art. But it does not accomplish the
instrumental action save by exercising its proper action: for it is by
cutting that it makes a couch. In like manner the corporeal sacraments
by their operation, which they exercise on the body that they touch,
accomplish through the Divine institution an instrumental operation on
the soul; for example, the water of baptism, in respect of its proper
power, cleanses the body, and thereby, inasmuch as it is the instrument
of the Divine power, cleanses the soul: since from soul and body one
thing is made. And thus it is that Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii)
that it "touches the body and cleanses the heart. "
Reply to Objection 3: This argument considers that which causes grace
as principal agent; for this belongs to God alone, as stated above.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether sacramental grace confers anything in addition to the grace of the
virtues and gifts?
Objection 1: It seems that sacramental grace confers nothing in
addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts. For the grace of the
virtues and gifts perfects the soul sufficiently, both in its essence
and in its powers; as is clear from what was said in the [4353]FS,
Q[110], AA[3],4. But grace is ordained to the perfecting of the soul.
Therefore sacramental grace cannot confer anything in addition to the
grace of the virtues and gifts.
Objection 2: Further, the soul's defects are caused by sin. But all
sins are sufficiently removed by the grace of the virtues and gifts:
because there is no sin that is not contrary to some virtue. Since,
therefore, sacramental grace is ordained to the removal of the soul's
defects, it cannot confer anything in addition to the grace of the
virtues and gifts.
Objection 3: Further, every addition or subtraction of form varies the
species (Metaph. viii). If, therefore, sacramental grace confers
anything in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts, it follows
that it is called grace equivocally: and so we are none the wiser when
it is said that the sacraments cause grace.
On the contrary, If sacramental grace confers nothing in addition to
the grace of the virtues and gifts, it is useless to confer the
sacraments on those who have the virtues and gifts. But there is
nothing useless in God's works. Therefore it seems that sacramental
grace confers something in addition to the grace of the virtues and
gifts.
I answer that, As stated in the [4354]FS, Q[110], AA[3],4, grace,
considered in itself, perfects the essence of the soul, in so far as it
is a certain participated likeness of the Divine Nature. And just as
the soul's powers flow from its essence, so from grace there flow
certain perfections into the powers of the soul, which are called
virtues and gifts, whereby the powers are perfected in reference to
their actions. Now the sacraments are ordained unto certain special
effects which are necessary in the Christian life: thus Baptism is
ordained unto a certain spiritual regeneration, by which man dies to
vice and becomes a member of Christ: which effect is something special
in addition to the actions of the soul's powers: and the same holds
true of the other sacraments. Consequently just as the virtues and
gifts confer, in addition to grace commonly so called, a certain
special perfection ordained to the powers' proper actions, so does
sacramental grace confer, over and above grace commonly so called, and
in addition to the virtues and gifts, a certain Divine assistance in
obtaining the end of the sacrament. It is thus that sacramental grace
confers something in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts.
Reply to Objection 1: The grace of the virtues and gifts perfects the
essence and powers of the soul sufficiently as regards ordinary
conduct: but as regards certain special effects which are necessary in
a Christian life, sacramental grace is needed.
Reply to Objection 2: Vices and sins are sufficiently removed by
virtues and gifts, as to present and future time. in so far as they
prevent man from sinning. But in regard to past sins, the acts of which
are transitory whereas their guilt remains, man is provided with a
special remedy in the sacraments.
Reply to Objection 3: Sacramental grace is compared to grace commonly
so called, as species to genus. Wherefore just as it is not equivocal
to use the term "animal" in its generic sense, and as applied to a man,
so neither is it equivocal to speak of grace commonly so called and of
sacramental grace.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the sacraments of the New Law contain grace?
Objection 1: It seems that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain
grace. For it seems that what is contained is in the container. But
grace is not in the sacraments; neither as in a subject, because the
subject of grace is not a body but a spirit; nor as in a vessel, for
according to Phys. iv, "a vessel is a movable place," and an accident
cannot be in a place. Therefore it seems that the sacraments of the New
Law do not contain grace.
Objection 2: Further, sacraments are instituted as means whereby men
may obtain grace. But since grace is an accident it cannot pass from
one subject to another. Therefore it would be of no account if grace
were in the sacraments.
Objection 3: Further, a spiritual thing is not contained by a
corporeal, even if it be therein; for the soul is not contained by the
body; rather does it contain the body. Since, therefore, grace is
something spiritual, it seems that it cannot be contained in a
corporeal sacrament.
On the contrary, Hugh of S. Victor says (De Sacram. i) that "a
sacrament, through its being sanctified, contains an invisible grace. "
I answer that, A thing is said to be in another in various ways; in two
of which grace is said to be in the sacraments. First, as in its sign;
for a sacrament is a sign of grace. Secondly, as in its cause; for, as
stated above [4355](A[1]) a sacrament of the New Law is an instrumental
cause of grace. Wherefore grace is in a sacrament of the New Law, not
as to its specific likeness, as an effect in its univocal cause; nor as
to some proper and permanent form proportioned to such an effect, as
effects in non-univocal causes, for instance, as things generated are
in the sun; but as to a certain instrumental power transient and
incomplete in its natural being, as will be explained later on
[4356](A[4]).
Reply to Objection 1: Grace is said to be in a sacrament not as in its
subject; nor as in a vessel considered as a place, but understood as
the instrument of some work to be done, according to Ezech. 9:1:
"Everyone hath a destroying vessel [Douay: 'weapon'] in his hand. "
Reply to Objection 2: Although an accident does not pass from one
subject to another, nevertheless in a fashion it does pass from its
cause into its subject through the instrument; not so that it be in
each of these in the same way, but in each according to its respective
nature.
Reply to Objection 3: If a spiritual thing exist perfectly in
something, it contains it and is not contained by it. But, in a
sacrament, grace has a passing and incomplete mode of being: and
consequently it is not unfitting to say that the sacraments contain
grace.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether there be in the sacraments a power of causing grace?
Objection 1: It seems that there is not in the sacraments a power of
causing grace. For the power of causing grace is a spiritual power. But
a spiritual power cannot be in a body; neither as proper to it, because
power flows from a thing's essence and consequently cannot transcend
it; nor as derived from something else, because that which is received
into anything follows the mode of the recipient. Therefore in the
sacraments there is no power of causing grace.
Objection 2: Further, whatever exists is reducible to some kind of
being and some degree of good. But there is no assignable kind of being
to which such a power can belong; as anyone may see by running. through
them all. Nor is it reducible to some degree of good; for neither is it
one of the goods of least account, since sacraments are necessary for
salvation: nor is it an intermediate good, such as are the powers of
the soul, which are natural powers; nor is it one of the greater goods,
for it is neither grace nor a virtue of the mind. Therefore it seems
that in the sacraments there is no power of causing grace.
Objection 3: Further, if there be such a power in the sacraments, its
presence there must be due to nothing less than a creative act of God.
But it seems unbecoming that so excellent a being created by God should
cease to exist as soon as the sacrament is complete. Therefore it seems
that in the sacraments there is no power for causing grace.
Objection 4: Further, the same thing cannot be in several. But several
things concur in the completion of a sacrament, namely, words and
things: while in one sacrament there can be but one power. Therefore it
seems that there is no power of causing grace in the sacraments.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan. ): "Whence hath
water so great power, that it touches the body and cleanses the heart?
required in those of the New Law.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Eph. 5:25,26): "Christ loved the
Church, and delivered Himself up for it; that He might sanctify it,
cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life. " And Augustine
says (Tract. xxx in Joan. ): "The word is added to the element, and this
becomes a sacrament. "
I answer that, The sacraments, as stated above ([4344]AA[2],3), are
employed as signs for man's sanctification. Consequently they can be
considered in three ways: and in each way it is fitting for words to be
added to the sensible signs. For in the first place they can be
considered in regard to the cause of sanctification, which is the Word
incarnate: to Whom the sacraments have a certain conformity, in that
the word is joined to the sensible sign, just as in the mystery of the
Incarnation the Word of God is united to sensible flesh.
Secondly, sacraments may be considered on the part of man who is
sanctified, and who is composed of soul and body: to whom the
sacramental remedy is adjusted, since it touches the body through the
sensible element, and the soul through faith in the words. Hence
Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan. ) on Jn. 15:3, "Now you are clean
by reason of the word," etc. : "Whence hath water this so great virtue,
to touch the body and wash the heart, but by the word doing it, not
because it is spoken, but because it is believed? "
Thirdly, a sacrament may be considered on the part of the sacramental
signification. Now Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. ii) that "words
are the principal signs used by men"; because words can be formed in
various ways for the purpose of signifying various mental concepts, so
that we are able to express our thoughts with greater distinctness by
means of words. And therefore in order to insure the perfection of
sacramental signification it was necessary to determine the
signification of the sensible things by means of certain words. For
water may signify both a cleansing by reason of its humidity, and
refreshment by reason of its being cool: but when we say, "I baptize
thee," it is clear that we use water in baptism in order to signify a
spiritual cleansing.
Reply to Objection 1: The sensible elements of the sacraments are
called words by way of a certain likeness, in so far as they partake of
a certain significative power, which resides principally in the very
words, as stated above. Consequently it is not a superfluous repetition
to add words to the visible element in the sacraments; because one
determines the other, as stated above.
Reply to Objection 2: Although words and other sensible things are not
in the same genus, considered in their natures, yet have they something
in common as to the thing signified by them: which is more perfectly
done in words than in other things. Wherefore in the sacraments, words
and things, like form and matter, combine in the formation of one
thing, in so far as the signification of things is completed by means
of words, as above stated. And under words are comprised also sensible
actions, such as cleansing and anointing and such like: because they
have a like signification with the things.
Reply to Objection 3: As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix), the
sacraments of things present should be different from sacraments of
things to come. Now the sacraments of the Old Law foretold the coming
of Christ. Consequently they did not signify Christ so clearly as the
sacraments of the New Law, which flow from Christ Himself, and have a
certain likeness to Him, as stated above. Nevertheless in the Old Law,
certain words were used in things pertaining to the worship of God,
both by the priests, who were the ministers of those sacraments,
according to Num. 6:23,24: "Thus shall you bless the children of
Israel, and you shall say to them: The Lord bless thee," etc. ; and by
those who made use of those sacraments, according to Dt. 26:3: "I
profess this day before the Lord thy God," etc.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether determinate words are required in the sacraments?
Objection 1: It seems that determinate words are not required in the
sacraments. For as the Philosopher says (Peri Herm. i), "words are not
the same for all. " But salvation, which is sought through the
sacraments, is the same for all. Therefore determinate words are not
required in the sacraments.
Objection 2: Further, words are required in the sacraments forasmuch as
they are the principal means of signification, as stated above
[4345](A[6]). But it happens that various words mean the same.
Therefore determinate words are not required in the sacraments.
Objection 3: Further, corruption of anything changes its species. But
some corrupt the pronunciation of words, and yet it is not credible
that the sacramental effect is hindered thereby; else unlettered men
and stammerers, in conferring sacraments, would frequently do so
invalidly. Therefore it seems that determinate words are not required
in the sacraments.
On the contrary, our Lord used determinate words in consecrating the
sacrament of the Eucharist, when He said (Mat. 26:26): "This is My
Body. " Likewise He commanded His disciples to baptize under a form of
determinate words, saying (Mat. 28:19): "Go ye and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost. "
I answer that, As stated above (A[6], ad 2), in the sacraments the
words are as the form, and sensible things are as the matter. Now in
all things composed of matter and form, the determining principle is on
the part of the form, which is as it were the end and terminus of the
matter. Consequently for the being of a thing the need of a determinate
form is prior to the need of determinate matter: for determinate matter
is needed that it may be adapted to the determinate form. Since,
therefore, in the sacraments determinate sensible things are required,
which are as the sacramental matter, much more is there need in them of
a determinate form of words.
Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says (Tract. lxxx super Joan. ), the
word operates in the sacraments "not because it is spoken," i. e. not by
the outward sound of the voice, "but because it is believed" in
accordance with the sense of the words which is held by faith. And this
sense is indeed the same for all, though the same words as to their
sound be not used by all. Consequently no matter in what language this
sense is expressed, the sacrament is complete.
Reply to Objection 2: Although it happens in every language that
various words signify the same thing, yet one of those words is that
which those who speak that language use principally and more commonly
to signify that particular thing: and this is the word which should be
used for the sacramental signification. So also among sensible things,
that one is used for the sacramental signification which is most
commonly employed for the action by which the sacramental effect is
signified: thus water is most commonly used by men for bodily
cleansing, by which the spiritual cleansing is signified: and therefore
water is employed as the matter of baptism.
Reply to Objection 3: If he who corrupts the pronunciation of the
sacramental words---does so on purpose, he does not seem to intend to
do what the Church intends: and thus the sacrament seems to be
defective. But if he do this through error or a slip of the tongue, and
if he so far mispronounce the words as to deprive them of sense, the
sacrament seems to be defective. This would be the case especially if
the mispronunciation be in the beginning of a word, for instance, if
one were to say "in nomine matris" instead of "in nomine Patris. " If,
however, the sense of the words be not entirely lost by this
mispronunciation, the sacrament is complete. This would be the case
principally if the end of a word be mispronounced; for instance, if one
were to say "patrias et filias. " For although the words thus
mispronounced have no appointed meaning, yet we allow them an
accommodated meaning corresponding to the usual forms of speech. And
so, although the sensible sound is changed, yet the sense remains the
same.
What has been said about the various mispronunciations of words, either
at the beginning or at the end, holds forasmuch as with us a change at
the beginning of a word changes the meaning, whereas a change at the
end generally speaking does not effect such a change: whereas with the
Greeks the sense is changed also in the beginning of words in the
conjugation of verbs.
Nevertheless the principle point to observe is the extent of the
corruption entailed by mispronunciation: for in either case it may be
so little that it does not alter the sense of the words; or so great
that it destroys it. But it is easier for the one to happen on the part
of the beginning of the words, and the other at the end.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is lawful to add anything to the words in which the sacramental
form consists?
Objection 1: It seems that it is not lawful to add anything to the
words in which the sacramental form consists. For these sacramental
words are not of less importance than are the words of Holy Scripture.
But it is not lawful to add anything to, or to take anything from, the
words of Holy Scripture: for it is written (Dt. 4:2): "You shall not
add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from
it"; and (Apoc. 22:18,19): "I testify to everyone that heareth the
words of the prophecy of this book: if any man shall add to these
things, God shall add to him the plagues written in this book. And if
any man shall take away . . . God shall take away his part out of the
book of life. " Therefore it seems that neither is it lawful to add
anything to, or to take anything from, the sacramental forms.
Objection 2: Further, in the sacraments words are by way of form, as
stated above (A[6], ad 2; A[7]). But any addition or subtraction in
forms changes the species, as also in numbers (Metaph. viii). Therefore
it seems that if anything be added to or subtracted from a sacramental
form, it will not be the same sacrament.
Objection 3: Further, just as the sacramental form demands a certain
number of words, so does it require that these words should be
pronounced in a certain order and without interruption. If therefore,
the sacrament is not rendered invalid by addition or subtraction of
words, in like manner it seems that neither is it, if the words be
pronounced in a different order or with interruptions.
On the contrary, Certain words are inserted by some in the sacramental
forms, which are not inserted by others: thus the Latins baptize under
this form: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost"; whereas the Greeks use the following form: "The
servant of God, N . . . is baptized in the name of the Father," etc.
Yet both confer the sacrament validly. Therefore it is lawful to add
something to, or to take something from, the sacramental forms.
I answer that, With regard to all the variations that may occur in the
sacramental forms, two points seem to call for our attention. one is on
the part of the person who says the words, and whose intention is
essential to the sacrament, as will be explained further on
([4346]Q[64], A[8] ). Wherefore if he intends by such addition or
suppression to perform a rite other from that which is recognized by
the Church, it seems that the sacrament is invalid: because he seems
not to intend to do what the Church does.
The other point to be considered is the meaning of the words. For since
in the sacraments, the words produce an effect according to the sense
which they convey, as stated above (A[7], ad 1), we must see whether
the change of words destroys the essential sense of the words: because
then the sacrament is clearly rendered invalid. Now it is clear, if any
substantial part of the sacramental form be suppressed, that the
essential sense of the words is destroyed; and consequently the
sacrament is invalid. Wherefore Didymus says (De Spir. Sanct. ii): "If
anyone attempt to baptize in such a way as to omit one of the aforesaid
names," i. e. of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, "his baptism will be
invalid. " But if that which is omitted be not a substantial part of the
form, such an omission does not destroy the essential sense of the
words, nor consequently the validity of the sacrament. Thus in the form
of the Eucharist---"For this is My Body," the omission of the word
"for" does not destroy the essential sense of the words, nor
consequently cause the sacrament to be invalid; although perhaps he who
makes the omission may sin from negligence or contempt.
Again, it is possible to add something that destroys the essential
sense of the words: for instance, if one were to say: "I baptize thee
in the name of the Father Who is greater, and of the Son Who is less,"
with which form the Arians baptized: and consequently such an addition
makes the sacrament invalid. But if the addition be such as not to
destroy the essential sense, the sacrament is not rendered invalid. Nor
does it matter whether this addition be made at the beginning, in the
middle, or at the end: For instance, if one were to say, "I baptize
thee in the name of the Father Almighty, and of the only Begotten Son,
and of the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete," the baptism would be valid; and
in like manner if one were to say, "I baptize thee in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"; and may the Blessed
Virgin succour thee, the baptism would be valid.
Perhaps, however, if one were to say, "I baptize thee in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and of the Blessed
Virgin Mary," the baptism would be void; because it is written (1 Cor.
1:13): "Was Paul crucified for you or were you baptized in the name of
Paul? " But this is true if the intention be to baptize in the name of
the Blessed Virgin as in the name of the Trinity, by which baptism is
consecrated: for such a sense would be contrary to faith, and would
therefore render the sacrament invalid: whereas if the addition, "and
in the name of the Blessed Virgin" be understood, not as if the name of
the Blessed Virgin effected anything in baptism, but as intimating that
her intercession may help the person baptized to preserve the baptismal
grace, then the sacrament is not rendered void.
Reply to Objection 1: It is not lawful to add anything to the words of
Holy Scripture as regards the sense; but many words are added by
Doctors by way of explanation of the Holy Scriptures. Nevertheless, it
is not lawful to add even words to Holy Scripture as though such words
were a part thereof, for this would amount to forgery. It would amount
to the same if anyone were to pretend that something is essential to a
sacramental form, which is not so.
Reply to Objection 2: Words belong to a sacramental form by reason of
the sense signified by them. Consequently any addition or suppression
of words which does not add to or take from the essential sense, does
not destroy the essence of the sacrament.
Reply to Objection 3: If the words are interrupted to such an extent
that the intention of the speaker is interrupted, the sacramental sense
is destroyed, and consequently, the validity of the sacrament. But this
is not the case if the interruption of the speaker is so slight, that
his intention and the sense of the words is not interrupted.
The same is to be said of a change in the order of the words. Because
if this destroys the sense of the words, the sacrament is invalidated:
as happens when a negation is made to precede or follow a word. But if
the order is so changed that the sense of the words does not vary, the
sacrament is not invalidated, according to the Philosopher's dictum:
"Nouns and verbs mean the same though they be transposed" (Peri Herm.
x).
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE NECESSITY OF THE SACRAMENTS (FOUR ARTICLES)
We must now consider the necessity of the sacraments; concerning which
there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether sacraments are necessary for man's salvation?
(2) Whether they were necessary in the state that preceded sin?
(3) Whether they were necessary in the state after sin and before
Christ?
(4) Whether they were necessary after Christ's coming?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether sacraments are necessary for man's salvation?
Objection 1: It seems that sacraments are not necessary for man's
salvation. For the Apostle says (1 Tim. 4:8): "Bodily exercise is
profitable to little. " But the use of sacraments pertains to bodily
exercise; because sacraments are perfected in the signification of
sensible things and words, as stated above ([4347]Q[60], A[6]).
Therefore sacraments are not necessary for the salvation of man.
Objection 2: Further, the Apostle was told (2 Cor. 12:9): "My grace is
sufficient for thee. " But it would not suffice if sacraments were
necessary for salvation. Therefore sacraments are not necessary for
man's salvation.
Objection 3: Further, given a sufficient cause, nothing more seems to
be required for the effect. But Christ's Passion is the sufficient
cause of our salvation; for the Apostle says (Rom. 5:10): "If, when we
were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son: much
more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by His life. " Therefore
sacraments are not necessary for man's salvation.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix): "It is impossible
to keep men together in one religious denomination, whether true or
false, except they be united by means of visible signs or sacraments. "
But it is necessary for salvation that men be united together in the
name of the one true religion. Therefore sacraments are necessary for
man's salvation.
I answer that, Sacraments are necessary unto man's salvation for three
reasons. The first is taken from the condition of human nature which is
such that it has to be led by things corporeal and sensible to things
spiritual and intelligible. Now it belongs to Divine providence to
provide for each one according as its condition requires. Divine
wisdom, therefore, fittingly provides man with means of salvation, in
the shape of corporeal and sensible signs that are called sacraments.
The second reason is taken from the state of man who in sinning
subjected himself by his affections to corporeal things. Now the
healing remedy should be given to a man so as to reach the part
affected by disease. Consequently it was fitting that God should
provide man with a spiritual medicine by means of certain corporeal
signs; for if man were offered spiritual things without a veil, his
mind being taken up with the material world would be unable to apply
itself to them.
The third reason is taken from the fact that man is prone to direct his
activity chiefly towards material things. Lest, therefore, it should be
too hard for man to be drawn away entirely from bodily actions, bodily
exercise was offered to him in the sacraments, by which he might be
trained to avoid superstitious practices, consisting in the worship of
demons, and all manner of harmful action, consisting in sinful deeds.
It follows, therefore, that through the institution of the sacraments
man, consistently with his nature, is instructed through sensible
things; he is humbled, through confessing that he is subject to
corporeal things, seeing that he receives assistance through them: and
he is even preserved from bodily hurt, by the healthy exercise of the
sacraments.
Reply to Objection 1: Bodily exercise, as such, is not very profitable:
but exercise taken in the use of the sacraments is not merely bodily,
but to a certain extent spiritual, viz. in its signification and in its
causality.
Reply to Objection 2: God's grace is a sufficient cause of man's
salvation. But God gives grace to man in a way which is suitable to
him. Hence it is that man needs the sacraments that he may obtain
grace.
Reply to Objection 3: Christ's Passion is a sufficient cause of man's
salvation. But it does not follow that the sacraments are not also
necessary for that purpose: because they obtain their effect through
the power of Christ's Passion; and Christ's Passion is, so to say,
applied to man through the sacraments according to the Apostle (Rom.
6:3): "All we who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His
death. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether before sin sacraments were necessary to man?
Objection 1: It seems that before sin sacraments were necessary to man.
For, as stated above (A[1], ad 2) man needs sacraments that he may
obtain grace. But man needed grace even in the state of innocence, as
we stated in the [4348]FP, Q[95], A[4] (cf. [4349]FS, Q[109], A[2];
[4350]FS, Q[114], A[2]). Therefore sacraments were necessary in that
state also.
Objection 2: Further, sacraments are suitable to man by reason of the
conditions of human nature, as stated above [4351](A[1]). But man's
nature is the same before and after sin. Therefore it seems that before
sin, man needed the sacraments.
Objection 3: Further, matrimony is a sacrament, according to Eph. 5:32:
"This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the Church. "
But matrimony was instituted before sin, as may be seen in Gn. 2.
Therefore sacraments were necessary to man before sin.
On the contrary, None but the sick need remedies, according to Mat.
9:12: "They that are in health need not a physician. " Now the
sacraments are spiritual remedies for the healing of wounds inflicted
by sin. Therefore they were not necessary before sin.
I answer that, Sacraments were not necessary in the state of innocence.
This can be proved from the rectitude of that state, in which the
higher (parts of man) ruled the lower, and nowise depended on them: for
just as the mind was subject to God, so were the lower powers of the
soul subject to the mind, and the body to the soul. And it would be
contrary to this order if the soul were perfected either in knowledge
or in grace, by anything corporeal; which happens in the sacraments.
Therefore in the state of innocence man needed no sacraments, whether
as remedies against sin or as means of perfecting the soul.
Reply to Objection 1: In the state of innocence man needed grace: not
so that he needed to obtain grace by means of sensible signs, but in a
spiritual and invisible manner.
Reply to Objection 2: Man's nature is the same before and after sin,
but the state of his nature is not the same. Because after sin, the
soul, even in its higher part, needs to receive something from
corporeal things in order that it may be perfected: whereas man had no
need of this in that state.
Reply to Objection 3: Matrimony was instituted in the state of
innocence, not as a sacrament, but as a function of nature.
Consequently, however, it foreshadowed something in relation to Christ
and the Church: just as everything else foreshadowed Christ.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether there should have been sacraments after sin, before Christ?
Objection 1: It seems that there should have been no sacraments after
sin, before Christ. For it has been stated that the Passion of Christ
is applied to men through the sacraments: so that Christ's Passion is
compared to the sacraments as cause to effect. But effect does not
precede cause. Therefore there should have been no sacraments before
Christ's coming.
Objection 2: Further, sacraments should be suitable to the state of the
human race, as Augustine declares (Contra Faust. xix).
But the state of
the human race underwent no change after sin until it was repaired by
Christ. Neither, therefore, should the sacraments have been changed, so
that besides the sacraments of the natural law, others should be
instituted in the law of Moses.
Objection 3: Further, the nearer a thing approaches to that which is
perfect, the more like it should it be. Now the perfection of human
salvation was accomplished by Christ; to Whom the sacraments of the Old
Law were nearer than those that preceded the Law. Therefore they should
have borne a greater likeness to the sacraments of Christ. And yet the
contrary is the case, since it was foretold that the priesthood of
Christ would be "according to the order of Melchisedech, and not . . .
according to the order of Aaron" (Heb. 7:11). Therefore sacraments were
unsuitably instituted before Christ.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix) that "the first
sacraments which the Law commanded to be solemnized and observed were
announcements of Christ's future coming. " But it was necessary for
man's salvation that Christ's coming should be announced beforehand.
Therefore it was necessary that some sacraments should be instituted
before Christ.
I answer that, Sacraments are necessary for man's salvation, in so far
as they are sensible signs of invisible things whereby man is made
holy. Now after sin no man can be made holy save through Christ, "Whom
God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood, to
the showing of His justice . . . that He Himself may be just, and the
justifier of him who is of the faith of Jesus Christ" (Rom. 3:25,26).
Therefore before Christ's coming there was need for some visible signs
whereby man might testify to his faith in the future coming of a
Saviour. And these signs are called sacraments. It is therefore clear
that some sacraments were necessary before Christ's coming.
Reply to Objection 1: Christ's Passion is the final cause of the old
sacraments: for they were instituted in order to foreshadow it. Now the
final cause precedes not in time, but in the intention of the agent.
Consequently, there is no reason against the existence of sacraments
before Christ's Passion.
Reply to Objection 2: The state of the human race after sin and before
Christ can be considered from two points of view. First, from that of
faith: and thus it was always one and the same: since men were made
righteous, through faith in the future coming of Christ. Secondly,
according as sin was more or less intense, and knowledge concerning
Christ more or less explicit. For as time went on sin gained a greater
hold on man, so much so that it clouded man's reason, the consequence
being that the precepts of the natural law were insufficient to make
man live aright, and it became necessary to have a written code of
fixed laws, and together with these certain sacraments of faith. For it
was necessary, as time went on, that the knowledge of faith should be
more and more unfolded, since, as Gregory says (Hom. vi in Ezech. ):
"With the advance of time there was an advance in the knowledge of
Divine things. " Consequently in the old Law there was also a need for
certain fixed sacraments significative of man's faith in the future
coming of Christ: which sacraments are compared to those that preceded
the Law, as something determinate to that which is indeterminate:
inasmuch as before the Law it was not laid down precisely of what
sacraments men were to make use: whereas this was prescribed by the
Law; and this was necessary both on account of the overclouding of the
natural law, and for the clearer signification of faith.
Reply to Objection 3: The sacrament of Melchisedech which preceded the
Law is more like the Sacrament of the New Law in its matter: in so far
as "he offered bread and wine" (Gn. 14:18), just as bread and wine are
offered in the sacrifice of the New Testament. Nevertheless the
sacraments of the Mosaic Law are more like the thing signified by the
sacrament, i. e. the Passion of Christ: as clearly appears in the
Paschal Lamb and such like. The reason of this was lest, if the
sacraments retained the same appearance, it might seem to be the
continuation of one and the same sacrament, where there was no
interruption of time.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether there was need for any sacraments after Christ came?
Objection 1: It seems that there was no need for any sacraments after
Christ came. For the figure should cease with the advent of the truth.
But "grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (Jn. 1:17). Since,
therefore, the sacraments are signs or figures of the truth, it seems
that there was no need for any sacraments after Christ's Passion.
Objection 2: Further, the sacraments consist in certain elements, as
stated above ([4352]Q[60], A[4]). But the Apostle says (Gal. 4:3,4)
that "when we were children we were serving under the elements of the
world": but that now "when the fulness of time" has "come," we are no
longer children. Therefore it seems that we should not serve God under
the elements of this world, by making use of corporeal sacraments.
Objection 3: Further, according to James 1:17 with God "there is no
change, nor shadow of alteration. " But it seems to argue some change in
the Divine will that God should give man certain sacraments for his
sanctification now during the time of grace, and other sacraments
before Christ's coming. Therefore it seems that other sacraments should
not have been instituted after Christ.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix) that the sacraments
of the Old Law "were abolished because they were fulfilled; and others
were instituted, fewer in number, but more efficacious, more
profitable, and of easier accomplishment. "
I answer that, As the ancient Fathers were saved through faith in
Christ's future coming, so are we saved through faith in Christ's past
birth and Passion. Now the sacraments are signs in protestation of the
faith whereby man is justified; and signs should vary according as they
signify the future, the past, or the present; for as Augustine says
(Contra Faust. xix), "the same thing is variously pronounced as to be
done and as having been done: for instance the word 'passurus' [going
to suffer] differs from 'passus' [having suffered]. " Therefore the
sacraments of the New Law, that signify Christ in relation to the past,
must needs differ from those of the Old Law, that foreshadowed the
future.
Reply to Objection 1: As Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v), the state of
the New Law. is between the state of the Old Law, whose figures are
fulfilled in the New, and the state of glory, in which all truth will
be openly and perfectly revealed. Wherefore then there will be no
sacraments. But now, so long as we know "through a glass in a dark
manner," (1 Cor. 13:12) we need sensible signs in order to reach
spiritual things: and this is the province of the sacraments.
Reply to Objection 2: The Apostle calls the sacraments of the Old Law
"weak and needy elements" (Gal. 4:9) because they neither contained nor
caused grace. Hence the Apostle says that those who used these
sacraments served God "under the elements of this world": for the very
reason that these sacraments were nothing else than the elements of
this world. But our sacraments both contain and cause grace:
consequently the comparison does not hold.
Reply to Objection 3: Just as the head of the house is not proved to
have a changeable mind, through issuing various commands to his
household at various seasons, ordering things differently in winter and
summer; so it does not follow that there is any change in God, because
He instituted sacraments of one kind after Christ's coming, and of
another kind at the time of the Law. because the latter were suitable
as foreshadowing grace; the former as signifying the presence of grace,
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE SACRAMENTS' PRINCIPAL EFFECT, WHICH IS GRACE (SIX ARTICLES)
We have now to consider the effect of the sacraments. First of their
principal effect, which is grace; secondly, of their secondary effect,
which is a character. Concerning the first there are six points of
inquiry:
(1) Whether the sacraments of the New Law are the cause of grace?
(2) Whether sacramental grace confers anything in addition to the grace
of the virtues and gifts?
(3) Whether the sacraments contain grace?
(4) Whether there is any power in them for the causing of grace?
(5) Whether the sacraments derive this power from Christ's Passion?
(6) Whether the sacraments of the Old Law caused grace?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the sacraments are the cause of grace?
Objection 1: It seems that the sacraments are not the cause of grace.
For it seems that the same thing is not both sign and cause: since the
nature of sign appears to be more in keeping with an effect. But a
sacrament is a sign of grace. Therefore it is not its cause.
Objection 2: Further, nothing corporeal can act on a spiritual thing:
since "the agent is more excellent than the patient," as Augustine says
(Gen. ad lit. xii). But the subject of grace is the human mind, which
is something spiritual. Therefore the sacraments cannot cause grace.
Objection 3: Further, what is proper to God should not be ascribed to a
creature. But it is proper to God to cause grace, according to Ps.
83:12: "The Lord will give grace and glory. " Since, therefore, the
sacraments consist in certain words and created things, it seems that
they cannot cause grace.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan. ) that the
baptismal water "touches the body and cleanses the heart. " But the
heart is not cleansed save through grace. Therefore it causes grace:
and for like reason so do the other sacraments of the Church.
I answer that, We must needs say that in some way the sacraments of the
New Law cause grace. For it is evident that through the sacraments of
the New Law man is incorporated with Christ: thus the Apostle says of
Baptism (Gal. 3:27): "As many of you as have been baptized in Christ
have put on Christ. " And man is made a member of Christ through grace
alone.
Some, however, say that they are the cause of grace not by their own
operation, but in so far as God causes grace in the soul when the
sacraments are employed. And they give as an example a man who on
presenting a leaden coin, receives, by the king's command, a hundred
pounds: not as though the leaden coin, by any operation of its own,
caused him to be given that sum of money; this being the effect of the
mere will of the king. Hence Bernard says in a sermon on the Lord's
Supper: "Just as a canon is invested by means of a book, an abbot by
means of a crozier, a bishop by means of a ring, so by the various
sacraments various kinds of grace are conferred. " But if we examine the
question properly, we shall see that according to the above mode the
sacraments are mere signs. For the leaden coin is nothing but a sign of
the king's command that this man should receive money. In like manner
the book is a sign of the conferring of a canonry. Hence, according to
this opinion the sacraments of the New Law would be mere signs of
grace; whereas we have it on the authority of many saints that the
sacraments of the New Law not only signify, but also cause grace.
We must therefore say otherwise, that an efficient cause is twofold,
principal and instrumental. The principal cause works by the power of
its form, to which form the effect is likened; just as fire by its own
heat makes something hot. In this way none but God can cause grace:
since grace is nothing else than a participated likeness of the Divine
Nature, according to 2 Pet. 1:4: "He hath given us most great and
precious promises; that we may be [Vulg. : 'you may be made'] partakers
of the Divine Nature. " But the instrumental cause works not by the
power of its form, but only by the motion whereby it is moved by the
principal agent: so that the effect is not likened to the instrument
but to the principal agent: for instance, the couch is not like the
axe, but like the art which is in the craftsman's mind. And it is thus
that the sacraments of the New Law cause grace: for they are instituted
by God to be employed for the purpose of conferring grace. Hence
Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix): "All these things," viz. pertaining
to the sacraments, "are done and pass away, but the power," viz. of
God, "which works by them, remains ever. " Now that is, properly
speaking, an instrument by which someone works: wherefore it is written
(Titus 3:5): "He saved us by the laver of regeneration. "
Reply to Objection 1: The principal cause cannot properly be called a
sign of its effect, even though the latter be hidden and the cause
itself sensible and manifest. But an instrumental cause, if manifest,
can be called a sign of a hidden effect, for this reason, that it is
not merely a cause but also in a measure an effect in so far as it is
moved by the principal agent. And in this sense the sacraments of the
New Law are both cause and signs. Hence, too, is it that, to use the
common expression, "they effect what they signify. " From this it is
clear that they perfectly fulfil the conditions of a sacrament; being
ordained to something sacred, not only as a sign, but also as a cause.
Reply to Objection 2: An instrument has a twofold action; one is
instrumental, in respect of which it works not by its own power but by
the power of the principal agent: the other is its proper action, which
belongs to it in respect of its proper form: thus it belongs to an axe
to cut asunder by reason of its sharpness, but to make a couch, in so
far as it is the instrument of an art. But it does not accomplish the
instrumental action save by exercising its proper action: for it is by
cutting that it makes a couch. In like manner the corporeal sacraments
by their operation, which they exercise on the body that they touch,
accomplish through the Divine institution an instrumental operation on
the soul; for example, the water of baptism, in respect of its proper
power, cleanses the body, and thereby, inasmuch as it is the instrument
of the Divine power, cleanses the soul: since from soul and body one
thing is made. And thus it is that Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii)
that it "touches the body and cleanses the heart. "
Reply to Objection 3: This argument considers that which causes grace
as principal agent; for this belongs to God alone, as stated above.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether sacramental grace confers anything in addition to the grace of the
virtues and gifts?
Objection 1: It seems that sacramental grace confers nothing in
addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts. For the grace of the
virtues and gifts perfects the soul sufficiently, both in its essence
and in its powers; as is clear from what was said in the [4353]FS,
Q[110], AA[3],4. But grace is ordained to the perfecting of the soul.
Therefore sacramental grace cannot confer anything in addition to the
grace of the virtues and gifts.
Objection 2: Further, the soul's defects are caused by sin. But all
sins are sufficiently removed by the grace of the virtues and gifts:
because there is no sin that is not contrary to some virtue. Since,
therefore, sacramental grace is ordained to the removal of the soul's
defects, it cannot confer anything in addition to the grace of the
virtues and gifts.
Objection 3: Further, every addition or subtraction of form varies the
species (Metaph. viii). If, therefore, sacramental grace confers
anything in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts, it follows
that it is called grace equivocally: and so we are none the wiser when
it is said that the sacraments cause grace.
On the contrary, If sacramental grace confers nothing in addition to
the grace of the virtues and gifts, it is useless to confer the
sacraments on those who have the virtues and gifts. But there is
nothing useless in God's works. Therefore it seems that sacramental
grace confers something in addition to the grace of the virtues and
gifts.
I answer that, As stated in the [4354]FS, Q[110], AA[3],4, grace,
considered in itself, perfects the essence of the soul, in so far as it
is a certain participated likeness of the Divine Nature. And just as
the soul's powers flow from its essence, so from grace there flow
certain perfections into the powers of the soul, which are called
virtues and gifts, whereby the powers are perfected in reference to
their actions. Now the sacraments are ordained unto certain special
effects which are necessary in the Christian life: thus Baptism is
ordained unto a certain spiritual regeneration, by which man dies to
vice and becomes a member of Christ: which effect is something special
in addition to the actions of the soul's powers: and the same holds
true of the other sacraments. Consequently just as the virtues and
gifts confer, in addition to grace commonly so called, a certain
special perfection ordained to the powers' proper actions, so does
sacramental grace confer, over and above grace commonly so called, and
in addition to the virtues and gifts, a certain Divine assistance in
obtaining the end of the sacrament. It is thus that sacramental grace
confers something in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts.
Reply to Objection 1: The grace of the virtues and gifts perfects the
essence and powers of the soul sufficiently as regards ordinary
conduct: but as regards certain special effects which are necessary in
a Christian life, sacramental grace is needed.
Reply to Objection 2: Vices and sins are sufficiently removed by
virtues and gifts, as to present and future time. in so far as they
prevent man from sinning. But in regard to past sins, the acts of which
are transitory whereas their guilt remains, man is provided with a
special remedy in the sacraments.
Reply to Objection 3: Sacramental grace is compared to grace commonly
so called, as species to genus. Wherefore just as it is not equivocal
to use the term "animal" in its generic sense, and as applied to a man,
so neither is it equivocal to speak of grace commonly so called and of
sacramental grace.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the sacraments of the New Law contain grace?
Objection 1: It seems that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain
grace. For it seems that what is contained is in the container. But
grace is not in the sacraments; neither as in a subject, because the
subject of grace is not a body but a spirit; nor as in a vessel, for
according to Phys. iv, "a vessel is a movable place," and an accident
cannot be in a place. Therefore it seems that the sacraments of the New
Law do not contain grace.
Objection 2: Further, sacraments are instituted as means whereby men
may obtain grace. But since grace is an accident it cannot pass from
one subject to another. Therefore it would be of no account if grace
were in the sacraments.
Objection 3: Further, a spiritual thing is not contained by a
corporeal, even if it be therein; for the soul is not contained by the
body; rather does it contain the body. Since, therefore, grace is
something spiritual, it seems that it cannot be contained in a
corporeal sacrament.
On the contrary, Hugh of S. Victor says (De Sacram. i) that "a
sacrament, through its being sanctified, contains an invisible grace. "
I answer that, A thing is said to be in another in various ways; in two
of which grace is said to be in the sacraments. First, as in its sign;
for a sacrament is a sign of grace. Secondly, as in its cause; for, as
stated above [4355](A[1]) a sacrament of the New Law is an instrumental
cause of grace. Wherefore grace is in a sacrament of the New Law, not
as to its specific likeness, as an effect in its univocal cause; nor as
to some proper and permanent form proportioned to such an effect, as
effects in non-univocal causes, for instance, as things generated are
in the sun; but as to a certain instrumental power transient and
incomplete in its natural being, as will be explained later on
[4356](A[4]).
Reply to Objection 1: Grace is said to be in a sacrament not as in its
subject; nor as in a vessel considered as a place, but understood as
the instrument of some work to be done, according to Ezech. 9:1:
"Everyone hath a destroying vessel [Douay: 'weapon'] in his hand. "
Reply to Objection 2: Although an accident does not pass from one
subject to another, nevertheless in a fashion it does pass from its
cause into its subject through the instrument; not so that it be in
each of these in the same way, but in each according to its respective
nature.
Reply to Objection 3: If a spiritual thing exist perfectly in
something, it contains it and is not contained by it. But, in a
sacrament, grace has a passing and incomplete mode of being: and
consequently it is not unfitting to say that the sacraments contain
grace.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether there be in the sacraments a power of causing grace?
Objection 1: It seems that there is not in the sacraments a power of
causing grace. For the power of causing grace is a spiritual power. But
a spiritual power cannot be in a body; neither as proper to it, because
power flows from a thing's essence and consequently cannot transcend
it; nor as derived from something else, because that which is received
into anything follows the mode of the recipient. Therefore in the
sacraments there is no power of causing grace.
Objection 2: Further, whatever exists is reducible to some kind of
being and some degree of good. But there is no assignable kind of being
to which such a power can belong; as anyone may see by running. through
them all. Nor is it reducible to some degree of good; for neither is it
one of the goods of least account, since sacraments are necessary for
salvation: nor is it an intermediate good, such as are the powers of
the soul, which are natural powers; nor is it one of the greater goods,
for it is neither grace nor a virtue of the mind. Therefore it seems
that in the sacraments there is no power of causing grace.
Objection 3: Further, if there be such a power in the sacraments, its
presence there must be due to nothing less than a creative act of God.
But it seems unbecoming that so excellent a being created by God should
cease to exist as soon as the sacrament is complete. Therefore it seems
that in the sacraments there is no power for causing grace.
Objection 4: Further, the same thing cannot be in several. But several
things concur in the completion of a sacrament, namely, words and
things: while in one sacrament there can be but one power. Therefore it
seems that there is no power of causing grace in the sacraments.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan. ): "Whence hath
water so great power, that it touches the body and cleanses the heart?
