No More Learning

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? "
And Bede says that "Our Lord conferred a power of regeneration on the
waters by the contact of His most pure body. "

I answer that, Those who hold that the sacraments do not cause grace
save by a certain coincidence, deny the sacraments any power that is
itself productive of the sacramental effect, and hold that the Divine
power assists the sacraments and produces their effect. But if we hold
that a sacrament is an instrumental cause of grace, we must needs allow
that there is in the sacraments a certain instrumental power of
bringing about the sacramental effects. Now such power is proportionate
to the instrument: and consequently it stands in comparison to the
complete and perfect power of anything, as the instrument to the
principal agent. For an instrument, as stated above [4357](A[1]), does
not work save as moved by the principal agent, which works of itself.
And therefore the power of the principal agent exists in nature
completely and perfectly: whereas the instrumental power has a being
that passes from one thing into another, and is incomplete; just as
motion is an imperfect act passing from agent to patient.

Reply to Objection 1: A spiritual power cannot be in a corporeal
subject, after the manner of a permanent and complete power, as the
argument proves. But there is nothing to hinder an instrumental
spiritual power from being in a body; in so far as a body can be moved
by a particular spiritual substance so as to produce a particular
spiritual effect; thus in the very voice which is perceived by the
senses there is a certain spiritual power, inasmuch as it proceeds from
a mental concept, of arousing the mind of the hearer. It is in this way
that a spiritual power is in the sacraments, inasmuch as they are
ordained by God unto the production of a spiritual effect.

Reply to Objection 2: Just as motion, through being an imperfect act,
is not properly in a genus, but is reducible to a genus of perfect act,
for instance, alteration to the genus of quality: so, instrumental
power, properly speaking, is not in any genus, but is reducible to a
genus and species of perfect act.
Reply to Objection 3: Just as an instrumental power accrues to an
instrument through its being moved by the principal agent, so does a
sacrament receive spiritual power from Christ's blessing and from the
action of the minister in applying it to a sacramental use. Hence
Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (St. Maximus of Turin, Serm.
xii): "Nor should you marvel, if we say that water, a corporeal
substance, achieves the cleansing of the soul. It does indeed, and
penetrates every secret hiding-place of the conscience. For subtle and
clear as it is, the blessing of Christ makes it yet more subtle, so
that it permeates into the very principles of life and searches the
inner-most recesses of the heart. "

Reply to Objection 4: Just as the one same power of the principal agent
is instrumentally in all the instruments that are ordained unto the
production of an effect, forasmuch as they are one as being so
ordained: so also the one same sacramental power is in both words and
things, forasmuch as words and things combine to form one sacrament.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the sacraments of the New Law derive their power from Christ's
Passion?

Objection 1: It seems that the sacraments of the New Law do not derive
their power from Christ's Passion. For the power of the sacraments is
in the causing of grace which is the principle of spiritual life in the
soul. But as Augustine says (Tract. xix in Joan. ): "The Word, as He was
in the beginning with God, quickens souls; as He was made flesh,
quickens bodies. " Since, therefore, Christ's Passion pertains to the
Word as made flesh, it seems that it cannot cause the power of the
sacraments.

Objection 2: Further, the power of the sacraments seems to depend on
faith. for as Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan. ), the Divine Word
perfects the sacrament "not because it is spoken, but because it is
believed. " But our faith regards not only Christ's Passion, but also
the other mysteries of His humanity, and in a yet higher measure, His
Godhead. Therefore it seems that the power of the sacraments is not due
specially to Christ's Passion.

Objection 3: Further, the sacraments are ordained unto man's
justification, according to 1 Cor. 6:11: "You are washed . . . you are
justified. " Now justification is ascribed to the Resurrection,
according to Rom. 4:25: "(Who) rose again for our justification. "
Therefore it seems that the sacraments derive their power from Christ's
Resurrection rather than from His Passion.

On the contrary, on Rom. 5:14: "After the similitude of the
transgression of Adam," etc. , the gloss says: "From the side of Christ
asleep on the Cross flowed the sacraments which brought salvation to
the Church. " Consequently, it seems that the sacraments derive their
power from Christ's Passion.

I answer that, As stated above [4358](A[1]) a sacrament in causing
grace works after the manner of an instrument. Now an instrument is
twofold. the one, separate, as a stick, for instance; the other,
united, as a hand. Moreover, the separate instrument is moved by means
of the united instrument, as a stick by the hand. Now the principal
efficient cause of grace is God Himself, in comparison with Whom
Christ's humanity is as a united instrument, whereas the sacrament is
as a separate instrument. Consequently, the saving power must needs be
derived by the sacraments from Christ's Godhead through His humanity.

Now sacramental grace seems to be ordained principally to two things:
namely, to take away the defects consequent on past sins, in so far as
they are transitory in act, but endure in guilt; and, further, to
perfect the soul in things pertaining to Divine Worship in regard to
the Christian Religion. But it is manifest from what has been stated
above ([4359]Q[48], AA[1],2,6;[4360] Q[49], AA[1],3) that Christ
delivered us from our sins principally through His Passion, not only by
way of efficiency and merit, but also by way of satisfaction. Likewise
by His Passion He inaugurated the Rites of the Christian Religion by
offering "Himself---an oblation and a sacrifice to God" (Eph. 5:2).
Wherefore it is manifest that the sacraments of the Church derive their
power specially from Christ's Passion, the virtue of which is in a
manner united to us by our receiving the sacraments. It was in sign of
this that from the side of Christ hanging on the Cross there flowed
water and blood, the former of which belongs to Baptism, the latter to
the Eucharist, which are the principal sacraments.

Reply to Objection 1: The Word, forasmuch as He was in the beginning
with God, quickens souls as principal agent; but His flesh, and the
mysteries accomplished therein, are as instrumental causes in the
process of giving life to the soul: while in giving life to the body
they act not only as instrumental causes, but also to a certain extent
as exemplars, as we stated above ([4361]Q[56], A[1], ad 3).

Reply to Objection 2: Christ dwells in us "by faith" (Eph. 3:17).
Consequently, by faith Christ's power is united to us. Now the power of
blotting out sin belongs in a special way to His Passion. And therefore
men are delivered from sin especially by faith in His Passion,
according to Rom. 3:25: "Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation
through faith in His Blood. " Therefore the power of the sacraments
which is ordained unto the remission of sins is derived principally
from faith in Christ's Passion.

Reply to Objection 3: Justification is ascribed to the Resurrection by
reason of the term "whither," which is newness of life through grace.
But it is ascribed to the Passion by reason of the term "whence," i. e.
in regard to the forgiveness of sin.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the sacraments of the Old Law caused grace?

Objection 1: It seems that the sacraments of the Old Law caused grace.
For, as stated above (A[5], ad 2) the sacraments of the New Law derive
their efficacy from faith in Christ's Passion. But there was faith in
Christ's Passion under the Old Law, as well as under the New, since we
have "the same spirit of faith" (2 Cor. 4:13). Therefore just as the
sacraments of the New Law confer grace, so did the sacraments of the
Old Law.

Objection 2: Further, there is no sanctification save by grace. But men
were sanctified by the sacraments of the Old Law: for it is written
(Lev. 8:31): "And when he," i. e. Moses, "had sanctified them," i. e.
Aaron and his sons, "in their vestments," etc. Therefore it seems that
the sacraments of the Old Law conferred grace.

Objection 3: Further, Bede says in a homily on the Circumcision: "Under
the Law circumcision provided the same health-giving balm against the
wound of original sin, as baptism in the time of revealed grace. " But
Baptism confers grace now. Therefore circumcision conferred grace; and
in like manner, the other sacraments of the Law; for just as Baptism is
the door of the sacraments of the New Law, so was circumcision the door
of the sacraments of the Old Law: hence the Apostle says (Gal. 5:3): "I
testify to every man circumcising himself, that he is a debtor to the
whole law. "

On the contrary, It is written (Gal. 4:9): "Turn you again to the weak
and needy elements? " i. e. "to the Law," says the gloss, "which is
called weak, because it does not justify perfectly. " But grace
justifies perfectly. Therefore the sacraments of the old Law did not
confer grace.

I answer that, It cannot be said that the sacraments of the Old Law
conferred sanctifying grace of themselves, i. e. by their own power:
since thus Christ's Passion would not have been necessary, according to
Gal. 2:21: "If justice be by the Law, then Christ died in vain. "

But neither can it be said that they derived the power of conferring
sanctifying grace from Christ's Passion. For as it was stated above
(A[5] ), the power of Christ's Passion is united to us by faith and the
sacraments, but in different ways; because the link that comes from
faith is produced by an act of the soul; whereas the link that comes
from the sacraments, is produced by making use of exterior things. Now
nothing hinders that which is subsequent in point of time, from causing
movement, even before it exists in reality, in so far as it pre-exists
in an act of the soul: thus the end, which is subsequent in point of
time, moves the agent in so far as it is apprehended and desired by
him. On the other hand, what does not yet actually exist, does not
cause movement if we consider the use of exterior things. Consequently,
the efficient cause cannot in point of time come into existence after
causing movement, as does the final cause. It is therefore clear that
the sacraments of the New Law do reasonably derive the power of
justification from Christ's Passion, which is the cause of man's
righteousness; whereas the sacraments of the Old Law did not.

Nevertheless the Fathers of old were justified by faith in Christ's
Passion, just as we are. And the sacraments of the old Law were a kind
of protestation of that faith, inasmuch as they signified Christ's
Passion and its effects. It is therefore manifest that the sacraments
of the Old Law were not endowed with any power by which they conduced
to the bestowal of justifying grace: and they merely signified faith by
which men were justified.

Reply to Objection 1: The Fathers of old had faith in the future
Passion of Christ, which, inasmuch as it was apprehended by the mind,
was able to justify them. But we have faith in the past Passion of
Christ, which is able to justify, also by the real use of sacramental
things as stated above.

Reply to Objection 2: That sanctification was but a figure: for they
were said to be sanctified forasmuch as they gave themselves up to the
Divine worship according to the rite of the Old Law, which was wholly
ordained to the foreshadowing of Christ's Passion.

Reply to Objection 3: There have been many opinions about Circumcision.
For, according to some, Circumcision conferred no grace, but only
remitted sin. But this is impossible; because man is not justified from
sin save by grace, according to Rom. 3:24: "Being justified freely by
His grace. "

Wherefore others said that by Circumcision grace is conferred, as to
the privative effects of sin, but not as to its positive effects. But
this also appears to be false, because by Circumcision, children
received the faculty of obtaining glory, which is the ultimate positive
effect of grace. Moreover, as regards the order of the formal cause,
positive effects are naturally prior to privative effects, though
according to the order of the material cause, the reverse is the case:
for a form does not exclude privation save by informing the subject.

Hence others say that Circumcision conferred grace also as regards a
certain positive effect, i. e. by making man worthy of eternal life, but
not so as to repress concupiscence which makes man prone to sin. And so
at one time it seemed to me. But if the matter be considered carefully,
this too appears to be untrue; because the very least grace is
sufficient to resist any degree of concupiscence, and to merit eternal
life.

And therefore it seems better to say that Circumcision was a sign of
justifying faith: wherefore the Apostle says (Rom. 4:11) that Abraham
"received the sign of Circumcision, a seal of the justice of faith. "
Consequently grace was conferred in Circumcision in so far as it was a
sign of Christ's future Passion, as will be made clear further on
([4362]Q[70], A[4]).
__________________________________________________________________

OF THE OTHER EFFECT OF THE SACRAMENTS, WHICH IS A CHARACTER (SIX ARTICLES)

We have now to consider the other effect of the sacraments, which is a
character: and concerning this there are six points of inquiry:

(1) Whether by the sacraments a character is produced in the soul?

(2) What is this character?

(3) Of whom is this character?

(4) What is its subject?

(5) Is it indelible?

(6) Whether every sacrament imprints a character?
__________________________________________________________________

Whether a sacrament imprints a character on the soul?

Objection 1: It seems that a sacrament does not imprint a character on
the soul. For the word "character" seems to signify some kind of
distinctive sign. But Christ's members are distinguished from others by
eternal predestination, which does not imply anything in the
predestined, but only in God predestinating, as we have stated in the
[4363]FP, Q[23], A[2]. For it is written (2 Tim. 2:19): "The sure
foundation of God standeth firm, having this seal: The Lord knoweth who
are His. " Therefore the sacraments do not imprint a character on the
soul.

Objection 2: Further, a character is a distinctive sign. Now a sign, as
Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. ii) "is that which conveys something
else to the mind, besides the species which it impresses on the
senses. " But nothing in the soul can impress a species on the senses.
Therefore it seems that no character is imprinted on the soul by the
sacraments.

Objection 3: Further, just as the believer is distinguished from the
unbeliever by the sacraments of the New Law, so was it under the Old
Law. But the sacraments of the Old Law did not imprint a character;
whence they are called "justices of the flesh" (Heb. 9:10) by the
Apostle. Therefore neither seemingly do the sacraments of the New Law.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (2 Cor. 1:21,22): "He . . . that hath
anointed us is God; Who also hath sealed us, and given the pledge of
the spirit in our hearts. " But a character means nothing else than a
kind of sealing. Therefore it seems that by the sacraments God imprints
His character on us.

I answer that, As is clear from what has been already stated
([4364]Q[62], A[5]) the sacraments of the New Law are ordained for a
twofold purpose; namely, for a remedy against sins; and for the
perfecting of the soul in things pertaining to the Divine worship
according to the rite of the Christian life. Now whenever anyone is
deputed to some definite purpose he is wont to receive some outward
sign thereof; thus in olden times soldiers who enlisted in the ranks
used to be marked with certain characters on the body, through being
deputed to a bodily service. Since, therefore, by the sacraments men
are deputed to a spiritual service pertaining to the worship of God, it
follows that by their means the faithful receive a certain spiritual
character. Wherefore Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii): "If a deserter
from the battle, through dread of the mark of enlistment on his body,
throws himself on the emperor's clemency, and having besought and
received mercy, return to the fight; is that character renewed, when
the man has been set free and reprimanded? is it not rather
acknowledged and approved? Are the Christian sacraments, by any chance,
of a nature less lasting than this bodily mark? "

Reply to Objection 1: The faithful of Christ are destined to the reward
of the glory that is to come, by the seal of Divine Predestination. But
they are deputed to acts becoming the Church that is now, by a certain
spiritual seal that is set on them, and is called a character.

Reply to Objection 2: The character imprinted on the soul is a kind of
sign in so far as it is imprinted by a sensible sacrament: since we
know that a certain one has received the baptismal character, through
his being cleansed by the sensible water. Nevertheless from a kind of
likeness, anything that assimilates one thing to another, or
discriminates one thing from another, even though it be not sensible,
can be called a character or a seal; thus the Apostle calls Christ "the
figure" or {charakter} "of the substance of the Father" (Heb. 1:3).

Reply to Objection 3: As stated above ([4365]Q[62], A[6]) the
sacraments of the Old Law had not in themselves any spiritual power of
producing a spiritual effect. Consequently in those sacraments there
was no need of a spiritual character, and bodily circumcision sufficed,
which the Apostle calls "a seal" (Rom. 4:11).
__________________________________________________________________

Whether a character is a spiritual power?

Objection 1: It seems that a character is not a spiritual power. For
"character" seems to be the same thing as "figure"; hence (Heb. 1:3),
where we read "figure of His substance, "for "figure" the Greek has
{charakter}. Now "figure" is in the fourth species of quality, and thus
differs from power which is in the second species. Therefore character
is not a spiritual power.

Objection 2: Further, Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. ii): "The Divine
Beatitude admits him that seeks happiness to a share in Itself, and
grants this share to him by conferring on him Its light as a kind of
seal. " Consequently, it seems that a character is a kind of light. Now
light belongs rather to the third species of quality. Therefore a
character is not a power, since this seems to belong to the second
species.

Objection 3: Further, character is defined by some thus: "A character
is a holy sign of the communion of faith and of the holy ordination
conferred by a hierarch. " Now a sign is in the genus of "relation," not
of "power. " Therefore a character is not a spiritual power.

Objection 4: Further, a power is in the nature of a cause and principle
(Metaph. v). But a "sign" which is set down in the definition of a
character is rather in the nature of an effect. Therefore a character
is not a spiritual power.

On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. ii): "There are three
things in the soul, power, habit, and passion. " Now a character is not
a passion: since a passion passes quickly, whereas a character is
indelible, as will be made clear further on [4366](A[5]). In like
manner it is not a habit: because no habit is indifferent to acting
well or ill: whereas a character is indifferent to either, since some
use it well, some ill. Now this cannot occur with a habit: because no
one abuses a habit of virtue, or uses well an evil habit. It remains,
therefore, that a character is a power.

I answer that, As stated above [4367](A[1]), the sacraments of the New
Law produce a character, in so far as by them we are deputed to the
worship of God according to the rite of the Christian religion.
Wherefore Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. ii), after saying that God "by a kind
of sign grants a share of Himself to those that approach Him," adds "by
making them Godlike and communicators of Divine gifts. " Now the worship
of God consists either in receiving Divine gifts, or in bestowing them
on others. And for both these purposes some power is needed; for to
bestow something on others, active power is necessary; and in order to
receive, we need a passive power. Consequently, a character signifies a
certain spiritual power ordained unto things pertaining to the Divine
worship.

But it must be observed that this spiritual power is instrumental: as
we have stated above ([4368]Q[62], A[4]) of the virtue which is in the
sacraments. For to have a sacramental character belongs to God's
ministers: and a minister is a kind of instrument, as the Philosopher
says (Polit. i). Consequently, just as the virtue which is in the
sacraments is not of itself in a genus, but is reducible to a genus,
for the reason that it is of a transitory and incomplete nature: so
also a character is not properly in a genus or species, but is
reducible to the second species of quality.

Reply to Objection 1: Configuration is a certain boundary of quantity.
Wherefore, properly speaking, it is only in corporeal things; and of
spiritual things is said metaphorically. Now that which decides the
genus or species of a thing must needs be predicated of it properly.
Consequently, a character cannot be in the fourth species of quality,
although some have held this to be the case.

Reply to Objection 2: The third species of quality contains only
sensible passions or sensible qualities. Now a character is not a
sensible light. Consequently, it is not in the third species of quality
as some have maintained.

Reply to Objection 3: The relation signified by the word "sign" must
needs have some foundation.