C. Solution of the Question

27. From these two conclusions [nn.10, 18] the solution of the question is plain from the first understanding of the question that was set down [n.14], because ‘a sacrament’s having efficacy’ is its regularly having the concomitant signified effect; therefore it has efficacy from that from which the regular concomitance of the effect comes about.

28. But such concomitance of the effect can arise from something in two ways: either as from a principal cause principally causing this sort of concomitance, or as from a meritorious cause that merits there should be such concomitance.

29. And in this respect I say that the sacraments of the New Law get their efficacy from God alone as principal cause, but from Christ suffering, or from Christ’s passion, they get their efficacy as from a meritorious cause.

30. The first of these [n.29] is proved by the second conclusion above [n.18], for God alone instituted these sacraments, and the efficacy of a sacrament cannot be from any cause inferior to the instituting cause.

31. This is also plain as follows: only God determines himself to causing an effect proper to himself; for if he could be determined to act by another he would then be a second cause with respect to it; but the effects signified by the sacraments are proper to God; therefore God alone can determine himself to causing the effects of the sacraments that regularly accompany the sacraments. But a sacrament’s having efficacy is its having effects regularly accompanying the sacraments; therefore by divine virtue alone, as from the principal cause, do the sacraments determinately have efficacy.

32. The second point [n.29] is plain from Ord. III d.20 nn.36-38, and for present purposes is shown briefly as follows:

When man was made enemy of God by guilt, God disposed not to remit the guilt nor give any help for such remission (or for the attainment of blessedness) save through something offered to him that he would more agreeably accept than the offence was displeasing or disagreeable to him; but nothing more agreeable to the Trinity than the whole offense of the human race is displeasing can be found save some obedience of a person more beloved than the whole community, which by universal offense had offended, or which should have been dear had it not offended. Such a beloved person the human race could not get from itself, because the whole was enemy by one mass of perdition. Therefore the Trinity disposed to give the human race a person thus beloved to the Trinity, and to incline this person to offer obedience to the Trinity for the whole of that race. Such a person is Christ alone, to whom God gave not the Spirit of charity and grace by measure, John 3.34. And such obedience is that in which the greatest charity appears, which is to offer oneself to death for justice. Rightly then did the Trinity not confer on man the wayfarer any help pertaining to salvation save in virtue of the offering of Christ on the cross, an offering made by a person most beloved and most worthy and with the greatest charity. And thereby was Christ’s passion a meritorious cause with respect to the meritorious good conferred on man the wayfarer.