II. Opinion of Henry of Ghent about the First Question

A. Statement of the Opinion

307. For the first question, then, there is another opinion, see Henry Quodlibet IV q.37.a

a.a [Interpolated Note] Note that Henry sets down a threefold opinion about the sacraments in relation to grace.

     The first is that no supernatural virtue is to be posited in the sacraments of the New Law for creating grace, but God assists in his sacraments by a pact or agreement; and in the conferring of the sacraments he causes grace through his assistance.

     The second opinion is that the sacraments of the New Law cooperate with grace, not as acting per se and by a form existing in them, but as an instrument moved per se by the agent.

     And after setting aside these opinions he posits a third, which is his own opinion, and it is as follows: The sacraments of the New Law are said to be cause of grace,* not because they in any way cause it more than the sacraments of the Old Law did, but because they contain that which is cause of grace - either really, as does the sacrament of the Eucharist, in which is really contained the humanity of Christ conjoined to his divinity (therefore is the Eucharist said most of all to contain and effect grace), or virtually, as does the sacrament of Baptism, which namely causes grace in virtue of the blood of Christ, as the Apostle says in Romans 6, “As many of us as are baptized are baptized in his blood.” And he gives an example from the divinity of Christ conjoined to his humanity, which was what worked the marvels he did; hence also from this fact are the sacraments of the New Law called ‘vessels of grace’.

     And this opinion differs, it seems, from the first at least in words, because the first speaks of assistance of grace and this one of insistence of grace etc.

     [*.. .in no way do the sacraments do anything to create grace, nor do they attain grace in creating it more than the sacraments of the Old Law did. But they are only said to be cause of grace present of which they are the signs, in that they contain that which is per se creative cause of grace, insofar as it creates grace. For although God, who is the creator of grace, is in everything by essence and substance, yet he is, as to some effects, in one thing such that he is not in another...and thereby, because the deity existing in Christ’s hand cured the leper as principal agent, Christ’s hand is said to have cured the leper as instrumental agent. So that, accordingly, we may say that the sacraments of the New Law are causes of grace instrumentally.because God, as he is existent in them, confers grace by creating grace in them when they touch those to whom they are administered. And in this way are they said to be creative ‘instruments of grace’...and similarly ‘vessels of grace’, insofar as they contain him who is the fount and origin from whom the grace, as it is in them, emanates.]

B. Rejection of the Opinion

308. I argue against this opinion as follows: God is in the sacrament as to his presence, essence, and power not otherwise than in another body. Therefore, if he is posited as being there in some other way, this is only as to his causing some effect. But that he is there in this other way cannot be through any causality of the sacrament, for a sacrament is in no way a cause that determines God to cause an effect proper to himself. Therefore he is there in this way, that is, a way other than he is in another body, only by a determination of his own will, whereby he makes disposition to cooperate thus with such a body. But this disposition, when it has been made manifest to the Church, is called a promise or pact. This opinion of Henry’s, therefore, says nothing different from what was said of the other opinion, namely about pact or agreement.