Question One. Whether the Sacraments of the New Law Get their Efficacy from the Passion of Christ

4. About this second distinction I ask whether the sacraments of the New Law get their efficacy from the passion of Christ.

5. It seems that they do not:

Because in Metaphysics 5.2.1014a20-23 and Physics 2..3195b17-20 it is said about ‘cause’ that “the cause in act and the effect in act exist and do not at exist the same time;” but the passion of Christ is not in act, so no effect will be in act through it.

6. Again, the sacraments of the New Law get their efficacy from Christ’s passion as foreseen in the future or as presented. Not in the first way because then the sacraments of the Old Law could have had efficacy through it, for in the time of that Law the passion was foreseen and believed in by anticipation; but the consequence is unacceptable because, according to the saints [cf. d.1 nn.338-339], the sacraments of the Old Law only promised grace. Not in the second way, as presented, because baptism and the eucharist would not get their efficacy from it, since they were instituted before the passion of Christ, as will be plain below [d.3 nn.134-144].

7. Again, the sacraments of the New Law get their efficacy from the passion either as from a principal cause or from a meritorious cause. Not in the first way because nothing is principal cause of a sacrament save what can be the principal cause of the effect signified by the sacrament, but this can only be God immediately. Not in the second way because there is no meritorious cause in respect of grace, “if it were of merit, it would not be of grace,” Romans 9.12, 11.6.

8. If they get it from some passion, this would be most of all from the wound in the side, as Augustine says in City of God 15.26, where he speaks of Noah’s ark. He says that “the door in the side of the ark is certainly the wound when the side of Christ was pierced with a lance; thereby indeed do those who come enter the door, because the sacraments by which believers are initiated flowed from it.” But no sacrament can get efficacy from that wound;     therefore etc     . The proof of the minor is that the wound was inflicted on Christ already dead, as is plain in John 19.33, “Now when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead...” But the body of Christ after death was not the meritorious cause of any grace.

9. On the contrary is the quotation in Lombard’s text, and it is the one from Augustine above [n.8].

I. To the Question

A. First Conclusion

10. Here the first conclusion needs to be made clear, that it was fitting to adorn the Law of the Gospel with the most perfect sacraments.

11. Proof:

First as follows: because it is the most perfect Law that the Trinity made disposition of to give to man for his state as wayfarer. For it is the final one, according to Matthew 26.28, “of the new and eternal testament;” - ‘eternal’, that is, after which there is no other future one; but in the process from imperfect to perfect, the later things are more perfect. This testament is also closest to what is most perfect, that is, to the state of final blessedness.     Therefore , it belonged to man in the state of this Law to be made thus ready by the most perfect aids to grace, of which sort are the most perfect sacraments; therefore etc     .

12. Again, there is proof second thus, that the most perfect meritorious cause of grace, which the Trinity made disposition of to give to the human race, was Christ completing his course in this life for our sake. But a meritorious cause justly inclines God to confer good on him for whom such cause merits. Also the cause as made present obtains more than the cause as foreseen;     therefore it was fitting that, through the passion of Christ made present and confirming the New Law, the greatest aids to grace are conferred on man in the time of the observance of the New Law; therefore etc     .

13. This conclusion [n.10] is most perfectly expounded in the New Law as to both the intensity and the extent of its perfection.

14. First as follows: because the perfection of a sacrament consists in its signifying perfectly as to knowledge and in its causing perfect grace; therefore the sacraments of the New Law were bound to be most perfect - in the first way because it is the Law of truth, and in the second way because it is the Law of grace; hence John 1.17, “Grace and truth were made through Jesus Christ.”

15. Second [n.14], namely that its perfection is greatest as to extent [n.13], is shown by a likeness: In natural life generation is first and then follows nutrition, strengthening, and recovery of lost health, and these four belong to any individual person; and besides this is required something belonging to community, whereby someone is placed in a degree necessary for some act necessary for the community. Likewise spiritually, there is needed for complete perfection of spiritual life in all its extent some assistance belonging to spiritual generation, and second something belonging to nutrition, third something belong to strength, fourth something for repair after a fall. And besides these four there is required, fifth, something whereby those departing this life are finally prepared, because this life is a certain spiritual way ordaining that he who lives well in it may pass without impediment to another life for which he is being prepared. These five therefore are required as necessary aids for any person for himself. But for the good of the accompanying community that observes this law there is also required carnal increase, because this is presupposed to spiritual good as nature is presupposed to grace, and spiritual increase of some in this life or in this law.

16. In this way, then, was it fitting that seven helps be conferred on those who observe the Gospel Law, in which helps there was not only intensive perfection but also extensive perfection, as sufficient for everything necessary for observance of this law.

17. And these are, as the Master says in the text, baptism, pertaining to spiritual generation, eucharist, necessary for nutrition, confirmation, for strengthening, penance, for repair of a fall, extreme unction, for the final preparation of the departing, matrimony, for increase in natural or carnal being, and the sacrament of orders, for increase in grace or spiritual being.

B. Second Conclusion

18. The second conclusion that needs to be made clear is that all sacraments were instituted for the time of this law by Christ or God as first author.

19. This I show in brief, because the point will become clear about the individual sacraments in the places proper to them.

As to baptism it is plain it was instituted by Christ while alive, because his disciples baptized, as is clear in John 3.22, and a precept was given that it be publicly preached and carried out, Matthew 28.19, “Go and teach all nations, baptizing them etc.” 20. As to the Eucharist the long discourse in John 6.26-60 makes it plain, and Matthew 26.26-28 is about its institution at the Last Supper.

21. As to confirmation, its institution is plain in John 20.22-23, when Christ breathed on the disciples and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit,” or on the day of Pentecost, Acts 2.1-41.

22. As to penance, it is said [by several doctors] that it was instituted in James 5.16, “Confess your sins one to another     etc .” But this does not seem likely because of the way the text proceeds, “pray for one another etc .;” and it is clear that in these following words he was not intending to institute or promulgate any sacrament; nor even did James have the authority to institute a sacrament (as will be touched on in the argument to be set down for this conclusion [n.26]). It is better, therefore     , to say it was instituted in John 20.22-23 , “Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you remit etc.,” and was promised in Matthew 16.19, “I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven etc.” For this power was not principally that of remitting sins (which is proper to God) but of judging about the remission of sins, a judgement of approval accepted by God; for to judge in this way is to bind and loose in the penitential forum.

23. As to extreme unction, it is said [by some doctors] that it was instituted in James 5.14-15, “There are some sick among you     etc .” But although this sacrament was promulgated there, it is better to say it was instituted by Christ; for we read in Mark 6.13 that the Apostles anointed many sick with oil who were cured, and it is clear that they did this only in virtue of Christ, who had instituted that powerful anointing.

24. Matrimony is plain in Matthew 19.4-5, “Have you not read,” says Christ, “that male and female he made them,” and he said [through the mouth of Adam, Genesis 2.24], “therefore      a man will leave etc.” Here Christ approves and ratifies what God made public through the mouth of Adam in the state of innocence.

25. About orders there is Matthew 26 [Luke 22.19], “Do this in memory of me,” and John 20.23, “Whose sins you remit etc.” For these two acts belong to the sacerdotal order, namely power with respect to the true body of Christ and power with respect to the mystical body of Christ, as will be said in the discussion of orders [Ord. IV d.24 nn.2, 9].

26. Now that all these were instituted by God alone is plain from what was touched on in general about the institution of a sacrament [d.1 nn.240-241]. For to institute a certain and practical sign belongs to someone only in respect of his own proper act or in respect of another who is subject to him as to that act; but a sacrament is a practical and certain sign with respect to an effect proper to God, and God cannot be subject to another in an act proper to himself;     therefore etc     .

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.

D. First Corollary

33. From this follows a corollary, how in the conferring of such remedies (necessary for the human race) mercy and truth are in concord.

34. For the work of the greatest mercy is to give remedies as great to man who is enemy, and it is the work of the greatest justice (on account of so welcome an obedience on the part of so beloved a person) to confer a remedy as great on those for whom that person offered the obedience; for it is just to accept the obedience of so beloved a person on behalf of him for whom the obedience is offered.

35. It was also the greatest mercy in the person making the offering thus to offer himself for the enemies of the Trinity - the Trinity he supremely loved, and this offering was a mark too of the greatest justice, both in reference to God and in reference to fallen man. For the person offering would only seem to love God and neighbor supremely if he wanted to present that obedience for so great a common good, namely the beatitude of man - to which God had predestined him and disposed that he would not reach it otherwise than through that obedience.

E. Second Corollary

36. From the points made above [nn.29-32] another corollary is plain, and it was supposed in the question about circumcision [d.1 n.379], that although the passion of Christ was meritorious in respect of the efficacy of the old sacraments and also with respect to the grace conferred on the ancient Fathers, yet it has a greater efficacy in respect of our sacraments and of the grace now to be conferred than it had then; for a just obedience made present is accepted for a greater good than a just obedience foreseen. And the Trinity now confers grace because of the passion of Christ now made present, and also as believed in by us as it has been made present. But then it conferred grace because of its being foreseen by him and pre-believed in by other faithful as something that was to be made present.

F. Third Corollary

37. Hence also appears why baptism and not circumcision opens the door [of heaven], which is not indeed on the part of the merits, but that, however great had been the grace conferred in virtue of the passion of Christ foreseen, it was not conferred as efficacious for the end of grace, namely blessedness, until first that obedience had been paid. But if the least grace were conferred now in virtue of the obedience that has now been paid, it would nevertheless be conferred, considered in itself, as a sufficient disposition for beatitude. An example in us is that we confer greater good for obedience shown than for obedience hoped for.

II. To the Initial Arguments

38. To the first argument [n.5] I say that although Christ’s passion does not now exist in fact yet it does exist in the divine acceptation, and this suffices for it to be a meritorious cause. For it is plain that we confer many things because of a good not present in itself but present in our memory, if it is past, or in our opinion, if it is future.

39. To the second argument [n.6] it can be said that all the sacraments of the New Law have efficacy from the passion of Christ as made present - not indeed an efficacy made present in exterior act but in interior act. For thus did Christ have the merit of the passion in the first moment of his conception, and the idea of merit more principally consists in that interior act. And, therefore, whatever he instituted in the time of his life could also then have efficacy from the passion as already perfectly willed by Christ himself, in which willing his principal sacrifice existed and in which willing his sacrifice was principally made pleasing to God. Nor can it be said that the passion would thus have been accepted before the incarnation, because although God foresaw it, yet it was not then offered in interior or exterior act. Or it can be said that all the sacraments of the New Law had, while Christ was alive, a lesser effect than they do after his passion, and yet it was not unfitting that they were instituted while he was alive, because they were instituted as going to have their principal efficacy, not for that time then, but for the time after his death.

40. To the third [n.7] I say that the intention of the Apostle there is that grace does not have a meritorious cause equal in desert, I mean in the case of him on whom it is conferred; but it can have a meritorious cause equal in desert within him together with a meritorious cause equal in desert that is extrinsic, in particular if that extrinsic meritorious cause is gratuitously given to him for whom it is a meritorious cause, so that it be for him such a cause.An obscure paragraph which perhaps means that grace has a meritorious cause that is fully deserving in Christ himself but not in the (justified) sinner, who receives that grace from Christ, although once the sinner has received grace he has it in himself now as a meritorious cause that fully deserves what grace brings with it. So Christ’s passion can be a meritorious cause that fully deserves grace for the sinner, and yet grace in the sinner is gratuitous and not deserved by the sinner (as the Apostle says). Once, however, grace is given gratuitously to the sinner by Christ, the sinner has a meritorious cause that fully deserves the rewards of grace. ⁹

41. And if you object that grace (given for such a cause equal in desert) is not grace, because it is deserving and is due to merits, though not the merits of the receiver, one can concede that in all God’s works there has not been any work of mere grace save only the incarnation of the Son of God, and here too provided no merits preceded, which indeed is true in the primary divine ordination of the incarnation. Because if, at the time of the conception, any good merits of Mary preceded, yet they were not good absolutely with respect to the incarnation, but perhaps with respect to acceleration, so that the preordained incarnation might be fulfilled. Therefore, Augustine speaks well, On the Trinity 13.19 n.24, “In the case of things that arise in time, the supreme grace is that man has been joined to God in unity of person.”

42. To the final argument [n.8] I say that if the wound was inflicted on Christ after his death (as the Gospel narrates), then the sacraments did not flow from that wound as from a meritorious principal cause. But they are said to have flowed from it because of a certain more express likeness between the things that did flow from it and the sense realities that are found in certain of the sacraments. For the blood is more specially likened to the species that is blood in the Eucharist, and water is more specially likened to the water of baptism, which two are the principal sacraments. And this interpretation can be got from Gregory IX Decretals III tit.41 ch.8, ‘On the Celebration of Masses’, at the end, where it is said that “in those two things (that is, water and blood) the two greatest sacraments, of redemption and regeneration, shine forth.”