Scotus Academicus, Tomus nonus: De Sacramentis in genere

NOTANDUM 1. In Christian morality, as far as the present matter is concerned, a twofold necessity is customarily distinguished: the first is called necessity of means, the second necessity of precept. Necessity of means is that by which something is considered so necessary for obtaining some end that it cannot be obtained without its help; necessity of precept, however, is that by which something, from its intrinsic nature, is neither ordered nor conducive to attaining an end, but is required only by the ordinance and precept of a superior. Moreover, necessity of means is divided into intrinsic and extrinsic: intrinsic arises from the intimate connection of the means with the end, and is customarily called necessity simply speaking, by which it comes about that the end cannot be obtained when such means are excluded; extrinsic, however, arises not from the nature of the thing but from divine institution and ordinance, and is called necessity for a better state, or rather is a fittingness than a true necessity. — It is certain, however, that the Sacraments are not necessary by intrinsic and simple necessity; for it is clear that, absolutely speaking, God could have effected human salvation without such sensible signs. Furthermore, there is no intrinsic and essential reason why the Sacraments should have the power to produce grace and confer all those effects which God infallibly produces upon the application of those signs to properly disposed subjects. Here, therefore, we inquire only whether, once God’s ordinance is presupposed, the Sacraments were necessary in every state of human beings.

NOTANDUM 2. Three states of human nature can generally be distinguished: the first is that of the most perfect nature, such as the state of beatitude; the second, that of innocent nature, such as existed before Adam’s fall; the third is that same nature corrupted by Adam’s sin. This latter is again divided into three other states: one is the state of man under the law of nature, that is, before the written law, namely from Adam to Moses. Another is under the written law, from the time when the law was prescribed by God to the Jewish people through the ministry of Moses, until the preaching of the Gospel by Christ the Lord. The third is under the law of grace, which will endure from Christ the Lord to the end of the world. Saint Augustine, Epistle 19, calls these three states before the law, under the law, and under grace. It is certain, however, that the Sacraments are in no way necessary in the state of the most perfect nature: for where truth is open, every shadow of signs is removed. Hence Saint Augustine says admirably, book On Catechizing, chapter 1: The lamb is eaten after the death of this age, so that when that morning comes which will have no hope, the sacrifice of the image of the Lamb may no longer be removed, but we may attend to the very Lamb whom we immolate and eat daily, and whose blood we drink, that perfect Priest who is known to have been slain there for our salvation. Hence the Doctor says in 1. dist. 1, question 3, number 7: It appears that in the state of the homeland no sacrament is fitting, because then one does not need sensible things in order to know intelligible things pertaining to one’s state; nor does one then need to be stirred up to seek what pertains to salvation, because one has perfectly attained salvation. Therefore the difficulty remains concerning the four other states of human nature, namely innocence, the law of nature, the written law, and grace.

NOTANDUM 3. The Sacraments can be considered instituted and ordered for a threefold end, according to their threefold consideration. Indeed, they can be regarded either insofar as they are sacred ceremonies and solemn rites by which people united in the same religion render obedience and worship to their God as the supreme Father and Governor of all things—for, as Saint Augustine very beautifully observes, book 19 Against Faustus, chapter 16: People cannot be united under any name of religion, true or false, unless they are joined by some fellowship of visible tokens or sacraments. Secondly, they are considered insofar as they are medicine, or remedies for repairing, preserving, or increasing human salvation. Thirdly, insofar as they are means conducive to increasing human perfection through the increase of illuminating and sanctifying grace.

Conclusion one. — THE SACRAMENTS DID NOT EXIST IN THE STATE OF INNOCENCE, EITHER AS REMEDIES OR AS PERFECTIONS OF THE SOUL, BUT AS SACRED RITES; INDEED, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE EXISTED EVEN IF THAT STATE HAD LONG ENDURED.

The conclusion consists of four parts, the first of which is common among theologians, and the Doctor approves it in the place cited above, where he says: In the state of innocence it was not fitting for a Sacrament to be instituted as after the fall: for although man could then know intelligible things from sensible things, nevertheless no sensible thing was necessary as contributing to salvation by removing some impediment to salvation, so that it could properly be called medicine. Proof: where there is no disease, no medicine is required; but during the first innocence there was no disease; therefore, etc. The major is clear from Matthew 9: Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Hence Saint Augustine says beautifully: Remove diseases, remove sins, and there will be no cause for medicine. The minor is also evident from what we said in volume 2, On the happy state of innocence.

You will say: The sacrament of Matrimony is a remedy for concupiscence; but it was contracted between Adam and Eve during the state of innocence; therefore in that state there were Sacraments as remedies. The major is clear from Saint Augustine in the book On Marriage, etc. The minor is proved from the Apostle’s statement in Ephesians 5, where, speaking of the marriage of Adam and Eve, he says: This is a great sacrament; but I speak of Christ and the Church. — I answer, distinguishing the minor: that marriage was a sacrament according to the broader signification, and insofar as a Sacrament is merely a sign of a sacred thing, but not of a sanctifying subject in which such a sign exists, I concede; insofar as Sacrament is taken in the stricter signification for a sign of a sacred thing sanctifying, I deny. To the proof I say that the Apostle calls the marriage of Adam and Eve a Sacrament insofar as it prefigured the union of Christ with his bride, the Church. But that it was not then properly called a Sacrament is sufficiently determined by the Council of Trent when it says, Session 24, Canon 1: if anyone says that Matrimony is not truly and properly one of the seven Sacraments of the law of the Gospel instituted by Christ the Lord, let him be anathema.

Proof of the second part, namely that in the state of innocence the Sacraments were not necessary for the perfection of the soul: in that happy state higher things dominated lower things—the soul the body, reason the senses, intellectual powers the sensitive and natural powers. Original justice effected this, so that, just as the soul was perfectly subject to God, so the lower natural and sensitive powers of the soul were subject to reason; and therefore it was not fitting for the soul to borrow sanctity from bodily things: therefore, etc.

You will say: Sacraments are necessary for man to obtain, perfect, and preserve grace against the resisting movements of temptations; but in the state of innocence they could have been useful for all these things. For in that state man had to acquire for himself a new degree of grace each day and protect it against persistent temptations; therefore, etc. — I deny the minor: for he could have received an increase of grace by another way than through bodily signs, namely through the exercise of the virtues, especially divine love, toward which increase original justice moved him, since by enlightening the mind it also inclined and invigorated the will toward every good.

You will say 2: Sacraments benefit the enlightenment of the mind; but in the state of innocence the human mind ought to have been enlightened; therefore Sacraments were necessary for this. — I distinguish the minor: through other signs, I concede; through Sacraments, I deny. For the perfection of the human mind in that state would have come from the influx of the divine power, not from phantasms but from species. Nevertheless, in that state the soul used phantasms, but as it used a body subject to itself: for it would have had the perfection of knowledge from infused light. It also used phantasms because experience of things whose knowledge we possess is pleasurable. Thus it would have experienced the powers and actions of nature, so that it might perceive by experimental knowledge those supernatural things it knew, and natural things through the knowledge innate in it. It would also have confessed the faith necessary for salvation with its mouth, and by exterior signs would have shown worship to God in thanksgiving, testimony of piety, and acknowledgment of supreme power; but those signs would not have been Sacraments.

You will say 2: From Saint Dionysius, book On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapter 1: God presents divine mysteries to heavenly and blessed minds without sensible figures, because they are immaterial; but he had to transmit them to us through sensible symbols, because we consist of material nature. But Adam and Eve in the state of innocence consisted of material nature; therefore they needed bodily signs and means by which they could attain illuminating grace. — I answer, distinguishing the major: people consisting of material nature ought to have bodily means by which they may be enlightened as long as the higher part does not have the lower part wholly subject to it, I concede; otherwise, I deny. But in that state the interior part wholly obeyed the higher, and apart from the benefit of the senses it possessed everything conducive to the enlightenment of its mind. For, as Saint Bernard says in the sermon On the Annunciation: Mercy guarded him, truth taught him, justice ruled him, and protected him.

Proof of the third part, namely that the Sacraments were not in that state as rites and sacred ceremonies: first, because this acceptance of Sacraments is merely improper; secondly, because sacrifices, oblations, and other external acts of worship were abundantly sufficient for man to render due worship to God.

You will say: In the state of innocence there would have been sacrifices, as we concede, because they are the principal acts of public religion. Hence theologians teach that sacrifice pertains to the law of nature, because it proceeds from natural reason that man should acknowledge through sensible things his subjection to God and God’s supreme dominion over all things. But sacrifices are Sacraments, for they are signs of grace; therefore, etc. — I answer first, the major can be denied: since the state of innocence lasted for a very short time, it does not seem that the first Parents offered any sacrifice; indeed, some not unreasonably conjecture that God permitted Adam to fall into sin because he appeared ungrateful toward so generous a benefactor, whom he had honored with no sacrifice as a memorial of gratitude. I answer second, denying the minor: sacrifices are signs of grace by way of merit when they are offered in the state of sanctifying grace, but not by way of a sign instituted by God to confer grace efficaciously.

Proof, finally, of the fourth part, namely that even if that happy state of innocence had endured, no Sacrament in the proper sense would have been instituted: first, because Sacraments would have been useless in that state. For they are chiefly ordered to three things, namely either to receive grace, to preserve it, or to increase it; but in the state of innocence people would have needed Sacraments for none of these three. Not for the first, because just as God produces the soul through natural generation, so he would have produced sanctifying grace in the soul, as a sacred inheritance propagated from the first parent. Not for the second, because in that most happy state they would have been shaken by no internal or external temptations, or at least would not have succumbed to them. Not, finally, for the third, because an increase of grace must occur in a manner fitting to the state; but it would not have been fitting to that state for man to receive grace through bodily means; therefore neither would it have been fitting for him to increase it through the same means.

You will say: In the state of innocence people could have sinned; therefore it was fitting that Sacraments be instituted for wiping away sin and restoring grace. The antecedent is clear: Adam’s descendants would not have been of a better lot than Adam himself; but he sinned notwithstanding all the graces and gifts with which he had been endowed; therefore they too could have sinned. The consequence is likewise proved, because a prudent physician not only supplies remedies for present diseases but also prepares antidotes or preventives for imminent and future ones. But God is the most prudent physician of souls, sins are diseases, and Sacraments are antidotes and remedies; therefore, etc. — I answer first, the antecedent can be denied: for, as we said in volume 5, treatise 8, disputation 2, article 3, question 1, conclusion 3, if innocent Adam had remained, his descendants would have been confirmed in sanctifying grace—not indeed from the beginning of their birth, but once they had overcome the temptation that first assailed them. I answer second, denying the consequence, and I distinguish its proof: if diseases occur frequently and for the most part, I concede; if rarely, I deny. For although, if the state of innocence had endured, some people might perhaps have fallen into sin, this would have happened rarely and to few. It would not have been fitting to institute Sacraments for those very few people, especially since they could have recovered lost grace through other means, namely acts of contrition and love of God, which they could have elicited far more easily and perfectly than we can, because their sensuality would have been less resistant and their aids more excellent and efficacious. — Nevertheless, I would not deny (as a hypothesis) that if Adam had not remained and Christ had come, those Sacraments would then have had to be instituted for which sin was not the occasion of institution, especially the Eucharist: first, so that he might communicate the benefit of the Incarnation to other human beings—for the Eucharist is a kind of extension of the Incarnation; secondly, for increasing grace, since it is ordered primarily and in itself to that increase; thirdly, so that it might be the most excellent pledge of future glory; and finally, so that it might provide human beings with a perfect sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. Indeed, the state of the way, more perfect than the others with respect to grace, fittingly requires the institution of those means by which grace may be increased in a more perfect manner; but the state of innocence would have been most perfect, and consequently it would have been fitting for people in that state to have had the most perfect means by which they could obtain an increase of grace. No means, however, is more excellent than the very Mediator of God and human beings, who is received in the Eucharist. Furthermore, it is probable that God would have loved innocent human beings no less than those corrupted by sin, and consequently would not have heaped a lesser benefit upon them. But no benefit granted by God to human beings after the Incarnation is more excellent than the sacrament of the Eucharist, in which, says the Council of Trent, Session 13, chapter 2, he poured out the riches of his divine love toward human beings; therefore it is likely that human beings in the state of innocence would have been endowed with this most excellent benefit. Finally, it is more perfect to have an increase of grace from the work worked and the work of the worker together than from the work of the worker alone, as is clear in adults, who receive more abundant grace when they are baptized with due preparation than infants, who, receiving Baptism without such prior disposition, are endowed with a lesser irrigation of graces. In the state of innocence, grace would have been bestowed upon human beings in the most excellent manner of all; consequently, it is probable that in that state there would have been some Sacraments through which human beings could attain grace from the work worked as well as from the work of the worker.

Conclusion two. — IN THE LAW OF NATURE THERE WAS SOME DETERMINATE REMEDY AND SACRAMENT, ESPECIALLY FOR WIPING AWAY ORIGINAL SIN. This conclusion consists of three parts: first, that there was some remedy; second, that it was determinate; third, that it was a true Sacrament.

The first part is common among theologians, and the Subtle Doctor expressly teaches it in 4. dist. 1, question 7, where he says:

At no time did God leave his worshipers without a remedy necessary for salvation; but at every time after the fall the deletion of original sin was necessary for salvation; therefore at every time some efficacious remedy existed for this. Although in adults it could be deleted through an intrinsic good movement, nevertheless in infants, in whom such a movement is impossible, it could not be deleted through their own act; therefore through some act of others concerning them or referred to them.

No sane person can deny this truth. For, as Innocent III says, cited in the chapter Maiores, on Baptism: far be it that all infants should perish, of whom such a great multitude dies daily, without the merciful God, who wills no one to perish, having provided some remedy for salvation even for them. — The same is taught by the author, whoever he may be, of On the Cardinal Works of Christ, cited by Saint Cyprian: original sin, he says, which flowed from the first parents into the whole succession of the human race, ought at every time to be expiated by some remedies, although they did not possess the full power of signifying it until the reality itself was reached, which had been covered by the veil of figures. Nor does it matter that Scripture does not mention that remedy; for it does not follow from this that the remedy was not ordained. Otherwise, by the same reasoning, one would have to say that among the Israelites the female sex lacked every remedy and means by which they might be cleansed from original sin and marked as part of God’s people, since they were incapable of Circumcision. Yet this is most absurd: they belonged to Abraham’s covenant just as males did, and little girls were to be offered in the temple before the use of reason. But they could not have participated in the Sacraments and ceremonies of the law, and it does not seem credible that God would have commanded their offering in the temple if they were not true daughters of nature like the others; therefore, etc.

You will say: Although an innumerable multitude of infants is killed in their mothers’ wombs, no remedy for original sin was provided for them by God, and all those infants who were thus killed, whether under the Law of nature, of Moses, or of Christ, were damned; therefore it is not fittingly inferred from the innumerable multitude of infants otherwise destined to perish that a remedy was divinely instituted. — I deny the consequence: for the parity is not the same. First, infants dying in the womb are very few in comparison with the others; but it is not fitting for God to institute a Sacrament for very few people. Secondly, those who die in the womb are incapable of receiving the remedy, because it cannot be applied to them by human beings in a human manner, since they do not fall under human knowledge and administration, as those who are born do. Hence, although God could deny them a remedy for original sin without injustice, nevertheless it was an act of his goodness and providence to grant it under every Law.

Proof of the second and third parts, namely that this remedy was some determinate sensible sign and productive of sanctifying grace ex opere operato. Proof, I say, first from the authority of Saint Augustine, book 5 Against Julian, chapter 9, where he says: Nor should it therefore be believed that before Circumcision was given, God’s servants, since they had faith in the Mediator who was to come in the flesh, did not assist their little ones by any Sacrament of his, although Scripture may have wished, for some necessary reason, to conceal what that was. The Doctor approves and follows this opinion in the place cited above, where he adds:

It could not be certain that an act of another referred to an infant would suffice for the infant unless this had been instituted by God; for no one can be certain that through something he reaches salvation unless he is certain that God accepted it as sufficient for such an end. Since, therefore, God provided not only adult worshipers with remedies necessary for salvation but also their infants—and this with a remedy about which the parents can be certain on behalf of their infants—it follows that at the time of that Law of nature some remedy or certain and efficacious sign for the deletion of original sin had been instituted by God. And it is more probable that this occurred through some sensible sign than through merely an intelligible sign, because throughout the entire state of fallen nature sensible signs with respect to spiritual things are fitting for man; therefore it is reasonable that there was some Sacrament, at least against original sin, in the time of the Law of nature.

The Doctor teaches three things here: first, that this remedy was some determinate sign; second, that it was sensible; third, that it was efficacious. These three are precisely the three characters of a perfect Sacrament. That it was a sign determined by God is clear, because no one but God can determine practical signs of grace: since he alone is the author of grace, he alone can determine with certainty the production of its sign upon the presence of some subject. — Moreover, if that sign remitting original sin had been left to human determination, the condition of infants with respect to salvation would have been better under the Law of nature than under the Law of grace, since they would have had a more general and easier means than Baptism. That this remedy had to be sensible is proved as follows: if this remedy had not been some sensible sign, it would most of all have been—as some hold—an interior act of faith. But this is not so. First, charity is far more excellent and efficacious than faith, yet no one can be justified by another’s act of charity; therefore much less by another’s act of faith. Nor should you say that faith therefore justifies more than charity, because faith regards the Mediator more as the cause of salvation for another than charity does. For this answer would be entirely futile. In whatever way the act of faith is terminated upon the Mediator, in that same way an act of charity would justify, because it too would be terminated upon the Mediator. Therefore, since no one has said that another’s act of charity was sufficient for the justification of infants, one ought not to think the same of an act of faith. Add that an act of faith contributes no more to another’s sanctification than to one’s own; but in the Law of nature an act of faith was not sufficient for one’s own justification, because someone could have unformed faith, that is, faith not perfected by charity, which is the form of the virtues. Furthermore, if the sole interior act of faith had been sufficient in infants for wiping away original sin under the Law of nature, infants could have been justified by that same act not only after birth but also when conceived and existing within the maternal womb; and not only when present but also when absent. Indeed, in a case of necessity that act could have sufficed for the justification of all the infants in the whole world, even those existing in the womb, because a purely interior and intentional act of the mind can be directed equally toward children in the womb, absent outside the womb, and present, toward many and toward one. Thus this remedy would have been far more efficacious than Baptism, which opponents cannot concede because it would redound to the injury of the Law of grace; consequently, they ought not admit what yields that consequence. Finally, that by which infants became members of the Church must be external and sensible: for union with a sensible body, such as the Church, must be sensible. But this remedy, by which original sin was wiped away, made infants members of the Church, just as Circumcision did under the Mosaic law and Baptism under the Evangelical law; therefore, etc.

You will say: Many Doctors of the Church testify that internal faith alone was a sufficient remedy under the Law of nature for the remission of original sin in infants; therefore it is so. The antecedent is proved from Tertullian, book On Baptism, chapter 13: Formerly salvation was through bare faith before the Lord’s passion and resurrection; when faith was increased by believing in his birth, passion, and resurrection, an enlargement of the sacrament was added, the assigning of Baptism, as it were the clothing of faith, which formerly was naked; nor can it now exist without its law; the law of washing is imperfect, and the prescribed form. Also from Saint Gregory, book 1 Moral, chapter 3: What the water of Baptism accomplishes among us was accomplished among the ancients either by faith alone for infants, or by the power of sacrifice for adults, or by the mystery of Circumcision for those who came forth from Abraham’s stock. From Saint Bernard, Epistle 77, To the Nations: We believe that all the faithful who have been found, adults indeed by faith and sacrifices, were expiated; but we believe that for infants faith alone was useful, indeed sufficient. Bede agrees in his commentary on Luke, chapter 8, saying: Those who, whether before the time of Circumcision or after Circumcision was given, came from outside and were faithful, such as Job, his friends, and his children, saved themselves and theirs from original sin either by victims of sacrifices or certainly by faith alone. — I answer, all these authorities of the Fathers must be resolved and explained in the manner in which the Subtle Doctor resolves the authority of Saint Gregory in the place cited above, number 3, saying: Saint Gregory does not understand faith alone as the habit alone, nor perhaps merely as an interior act, but as an exterior sensible act professing faith; and that act could sufficiently have the character of a Sacrament. In this sense Saint Augustine also uses justifying faith, book 2 On Marriage and Concupiscence, chapter 11, writing:

From the time Circumcision was instituted among God’s people, which was then the seal of the justice of faith for signifying purification, it availed infants for original and former sin, just as Baptism began from the time it was instituted to avail for the renewal of man—not because before Circumcision there was no justice of faith, for while he was still in uncircumcision Abraham himself, the father of the nations that were to follow his faith, was justified by faith; but in earlier times the Sacrament of justification from faith was wholly hidden. Nevertheless, the same faith in the Mediator commanded the ancients, little and great, to be saved.

By these words Saint Augustine calls that justifying faith the Sacrament of faith, and therefore considers that it was not merely an interior act but was also declared by some external and sensible sign. What that sensible sign was—whether some sacrifice offered for wiping away original sin, or the offering itself of the child to be cleansed before God—cannot be defined with certainty, since Sacred Scripture has kept this silent.

Conclusion three. — IN THE WRITTEN OR MOSAIC LAW, BESIDES CIRCUMCISION, MOST OTHER RITES WERE SACRAMENTS. This too is common. It is gathered from the Council of Florence, in the decree of Eugene, where, after enumerating the seven Sacraments of the Law, it adds:

These differ greatly from the Sacraments of the ancient law: for those did not cause grace, but figured it as to be given through the Passion of Christ; whereas these, our Sacraments, both contain grace and confer it upon those who worthily receive them.

Also from the Council of Trent, Session 7, Canon 2: If anyone says that these very Sacraments of the new law differ from the Sacraments of the ancient Law only because their ceremonies and external rites are different, let him be anathema.

Proof is also drawn from the authority of the holy Fathers, especially Saint Augustine, book On True Religion, chapter 16, and book 19 Against Faustus, chapter 17, where he says:

The Sacraments of the old Law have been abolished because they were fulfilled, and others have been instituted, greater in power, better in usefulness, easier in practice, and fewer in number.

Reason also supports this, because from what has been said a Sacrament is a sensible and permanent sign instituted by God’s ordinance to signify some grace and sanctity; but besides Circumcision there were in the old Law many rites and ceremonies to which this definition applies; therefore, etc. The major is clear. The minor is proved: for signs of this kind were of three sorts—some consecratory, some eucharistic, and some purificatory. Of the first sort were all the inaugurations of pontiffs and priests and the sacred rites by which certain men were appointed and initiated so that they might render due worship to God, such as priests and Levites, whose consecration rites are recalled in Exodus 28 and 29. Of the second sort was the Paschal Lamb, which was eaten in memory of God’s benefits, especially liberation from Egyptian captivity. Of the third sort were all purifications and expiations, which were chiefly of two kinds: some were expiations from external and legal uncleannesses, performed by the sprinkling of water or by some sacrifice ordered to remove the sin by which that uncleanness had been contracted. Expiations from sins, however, were performed by sacrifices offered either for the whole people or for particular persons. — Moreover, all these Sacraments of both the Law of nature and the written Law were figures and images of the truth and grace that was to overflow more abundantly through the Sacraments of the new Law, with this distinction, as Hugh of Saint Victor notes, part II, chapter 6: The first sacraments of the law of nature were, so to speak, the shadow of truth; those in the time of Moses’ law were certain images of truth; but those that follow most truly under grace are no longer a shadow, but images, indeed the very body of truth. — It should also be noted that some of all the Sacraments of the written Law corresponded to ours: Circumcision was a figure of Baptism; the eating of the Paschal Lamb and of the loaves of proposition, of the Eucharist; purifications, Penance, and the consecrations of priests, of the Sacrament of Orders. There were no figures of Confirmation, Extreme Unction, or Matrimony. Not of Confirmation, because this is the Sacrament of the fullness of grace, which had not then been derived to human beings, for the law brings nothing to perfection. Nor of Extreme Unction, because it is an immediate preparation for attaining eternal glory, whose possession and entrance had not yet been opened under the old Law, since the price of our redemption had not yet been paid. Nor, finally, of Matrimony: for although marriage was then true marriage, it was not yet a true Sacrament insofar as it confers grace, because the union of the divine Word with humanity had not yet taken place; consequently it was not a sign of Christ’s indissoluble union with the Church. Hence Saint Paul, speaking of Matrimony signifying the union of Christ with the Church, does not say “it was a great sacrament,” but “it is a great sacrament,” so as to denote the present time, not the past.

You will insist: Did Circumcision have the power and efficacy to remit original sin and confer sanctifying grace ex opere operato? The Doctor affirms this in 4. dist. 1, question 6, number 2, where he says: This must be presupposed as certain: through Circumcision original sin was wiped away, as is clear from the authorities of the holy Fathers, etc. These authorities proving the truth are chiefly taken from Saint Augustine, who openly teaches in many places that Circumcision had the power to remit sin, and often uses its necessity as a most efficacious means against the Pelagians to prove the truth and existence of original sin, especially in book 4 On Baptism, chapter 24, where he says: We can firmly infer what the sacrament of Baptism accomplishes in infants from the circumcision of the flesh, which the people formerly received. And further: Why, then, was Abraham commanded to cut away and circumcise every male infant on the eighth day, who could not yet believe with the heart so that it might be reckoned to him for justice, unless the sacrament itself greatly helped him? In book 3 Against Julian, chapter 15, he challenges him: Answer, if you can, why Isaac himself would have perished from his people’s soul unless he had been circumcised on the eighth day by the sign of Christ’s Baptism. Explain, if you can, such a punishment, by which he would rightly have been punished unless he were freed from it by that Sacrament. And in book 16 On the City of God, chapter 27: since Circumcision was a sign of regeneration, it was not without reason that generation would destroy an infant on account of original sin, by which God’s first covenant was broken, unless regeneration freed him. Finally, in book 2 On Marriage and Concupiscence, chapter 11, he says: When Circumcision was instituted among God’s people, which was then the seal of the justification of faith for signifying purification, it availed infants for the remission of original and other sin, just as Baptism began from the time it was instituted to avail for the renewal of man.

Many of the holy Fathers agree, especially Saint Gregory, book 4 Moral, chapter 2: What the water of Baptism accomplishes among us was accomplished among the ancients either by faith alone for infants, by the power of sacrifice for adults, or by the mystery of Circumcision for those who came from Abraham’s stock. Likewise Saint Bernard, Epistle 77, addressed to Hugh of Saint Victor: Since other remedies against original sin besides Baptism were not lacking for the ancients, Circumcision was divinely given to Abraham and his seed for this very purpose; among the nations, we believe that all the faithful who were found, adults indeed by faith and sacrifices, were expiated, and that for infants even the faith of their parents could avail, indeed was sufficient. And in Sermon 2 On the Assumption: In Baptism grace alone washes this stain which formerly the stone of Circumcision scraped away. — Saint Prosper teaches the same in his eighth Epistle, cited by Saint Ambrose, and Bede on Luke’s words, When the eight days were completed for circumcising the child, where he writes: Your brotherhood should know that Circumcision in the Law worked the same help of saving healing against the wound of original sin that Baptism now customarily works in the time of revealed grace, except that they could not yet enter the door of the heavenly kingdom until he who gave the Law came and gave the blessing. —

Innocent III also taught this truth very clearly, as it is reported in chapter Maiores on Baptism. After saying that Baptism succeeded Circumcision and proving the equal necessity of both from Genesis 17, The male whose foreskin, etc., just as from John 3, Unless one is reborn, etc., he finally assigns their difference, saying: Although original guilt was remitted through the mystery of Circumcision and the danger of damnation was avoided, nevertheless the kingdom of heaven was not reached, etc.

The Doctor proves the same truth in this way:

There is a fitting reason for this, he says: God at no time left the human race without a remedy for salvation, especially those to whom he himself gave the Law so that by observing it they might attain salvation. For such a law would have been given in vain without a remedy; therefore at the time of the Mosaic law he gave some such remedy to those observing that law. But they cannot attain salvation without the deletion of original guilt; therefore in that law he instituted some remedy against that guilt. No other remedy seems to have been instituted there as such a remedy against it, according to Genesis 17: The male whose foreskin has not been circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people, because he has broken my covenant.

The Doctor’s reasoning could thus be stated in formal form: the Mosaic Law truly supplied human beings who were bound to observe it with the means necessary for salvation, and consequently for the remission of original sin; but for the remission of that sin there was then no remedy other than Circumcision.

The major is clear: no one polluted by original or actual sin can attain eternal life in the state of that sin, because nothing defiled will enter the kingdom of heaven. The Doctor proves the minor from Genesis, chapter 17, The male whose foreskin, etc. Saint Augustine likewise relies especially on this oracle, as appears from what was said, particularly in book 16 On the City of God, chapter 27, where he writes: He cannot die otherwise, as it could be understood that what is said there—“The male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin on the eighth day, that soul shall perish from his people, because he has broken my covenant”—was meant. Since this is so great a fault of the infant whose soul you say will perish, although he himself had not broken God’s covenant, but the elders who had failed to have him circumcised, unless even infants, not according to the peculiarity of their own life but according to the common origin of the human race, all broke God’s covenant in that one in whom all sinned… But these divine words must be understood as though it had been said: “He who has not been regenerated shall perish from his race,” as though he broke my covenant when, in Adam, he also sinned with all.

I answer: Those words on the eighth day occur neither in the Hebrew nor in the Vulgate text; therefore, since Saint Augustine’s and the Doctor’s argument rests chiefly on those words, it is weak and invalid.

Furthermore, those words, or that divine threat, are directed to one capable of a precept and punishment. But an infant is not capable of fulfilling a precept; consequently the threat is directed not to the infant but to the adult, who ought to be punished with temporal death because he neglected either to be circumcised or to circumcise his son. This is confirmed because the Hebrew, Greek, and even Chaldean texts read: The male who does not circumcise the flesh, etc., where the verb “circumcise” is used actively, not passively, as Saint Ambrose also reads it.

Moreover, in the same chapter, where the circumcision of an eight-day-old infant is commanded, no punishment is imposed on one who has not been circumcised; rather, it is stated absolutely: An infant of eight days shall be circumcised among you.

Finally, Saint Augustine does not seem to infer correctly that the covenant for whose violation the person is to be cut off from God’s people was the divine covenant made with Abraham. For this covenant is none other than that which had been mentioned earlier in these words: This is my covenant, which shall be observed between me and you and your seed after you. But this covenant is nothing other than the precept of practicing Circumcision, for immediately it is added: Every male among you shall be circumcised; therefore the aforesaid argument proves nothing. —

I answer: none of all these things proves anything at all against the truth of our assertion: first, for the words “on the eighth day” are found in the Seventy Interpreters even after the emendation of Sixtus V. Origen also has this reading, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, book 2, chapter 2; Ambrose, Epistle 33; and so on. Further, whether the words “on the eighth day” are added or not, that general proposition—the male whose flesh of his foreskin—also extends to infants, of whom there had been mention shortly before, in these words: “An infant of eight days shall be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations”; hence I think that the words on the eighth day were added by the Seventy Interpreters for the sake of clarity, since they otherwise knew that this was the sense of that divine threat and divine command. For in Genesis 21 Abraham circumcised his son Isaac “on the eighth day,” just as the Lord had commanded him. And in Leviticus 12: “On the eighth day the little infant shall be circumcised.” — Hence, since these words must already have been received in the time of St. Augustine—for at that time, when he was pressing the Pelagians most forcefully, who denied original sin, he could easily have blunted his argument by saying that he was arguing from an interpolated authority—I cannot sufficiently wonder with what disposition Lugo dared to write, Disputation 5, section 1, that St. Augustine understood those words of Genesis as imposing the necessity of circumcision for that effect, but that he relies on a false reading of that text, with the words on the eighth day added, although they are not found in the true text. For although the Vulgate edition alone is now of undoubted authority, it does not follow that every other reading not at all contrary to it is false.

You will object 1. Various texts of Scripture seem to signify, first, that no one is justified by the works of the Law. Thus Romans 3: “Through the Law comes only knowledge of sin; for by works of the Law no flesh will be justified before him,” and so forth. Second, that circumcision is of no benefit and has no efficacy. Thus Galatians: “Neither circumcision counts for anything.” And 1 Corinthians 7: “Circumcision is nothing.” Third, the same Apostle, in Romans 3, when listing all the benefits and prerogatives of circumcision, makes no mention of its efficacy for blotting out original sin and conferring sanctifying grace. Fourth, the sacraments of the Old Law are called by the same Apostle in Galatians 3 “weak and beggarly elements”: therefore they contained grace neither in themselves nor did they confer it. —

I answer the first: in the Old Law there were three kinds of works, namely moral, ceremonial, and judicial. The moral works were the same as those in the Gospel law, such as the Ten Commandments of the Decalogue; the judicial works, however, were entirely abrogated, as were the ceremonial works. But the moral works were meritorious, and therefore conferred grace by the power of the work of the one performing it, when they were done from faith in Christ who was to come. Hence the Apostle, after the words proposed in the objection, adds in Romans 3: But the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ upon all and over all who believe in him; for there is no distinction (supply: of persons, whether Jews or Greeks, and so forth), and the reason is: for all have sinned and lack the glory of God. Justified not by merit, namely, of nature, or of circumcision, or of works, through the redemption which is in Christ, whom God set forth as a propitiation through faith in his blood, for the showing of his justice (supply: of grace, which is understood as the justice by which we are justified) because of the remission of former sins, so that he himself is just and justifies the one who is of the faith of Jesus Christ. He concludes: Where, then, is your boasting? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith: for it removes human boasting, whether through the Law or through the works of nature, so that no flesh may glory in his sight; and he adds the reason: For we hold that man is justified by faith without the works of the law. Or is he the God of the Jews only? Indeed, of the Gentiles also. Since there is one God who justifies circumcision by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then destroy the Law through faith? By no means: but the law we establish. — Second, I say that the Apostle intends nothing other than that, through Christ’s Passion, all the power of the sacraments and sacrifices of the Old Law was emptied out, and therefore circumcision no longer has any power or efficacy under the Gospel law. But that circumcision had very great benefit and efficacy is signified by the Apostle himself in Romans 2, where he says: Circumcision indeed profits, if you observe the law. And in chapter 3: What benefit is there in circumcision? Much in every way. — To the third I say that the argument is taken from a negative authority, from which nothing can be concluded. Add that the Apostle may not have judged it necessary to mention this prerogative of circumcision, since it was already plainly evident from Genesis, chapter 17, nor was it relevant to the purpose he intended. For his aim was to blunt the Jews’ vain boasting and pride, by which they wanted to place themselves above Gentiles converted to the faith because the oracles and mysteries had been entrusted to them. For he says there: What then? Are we superior? Not at all. For we have charged that Jews and Greeks alike are all under sin. Hence he concludes: Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Indeed, of the Gentiles also: since there is one God who justifies circumcision by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. — To the fourth I say that by “weak and beggarly elements” the Apostle there understands not the sacraments of the Old Law, but the idols of the Gentiles: for in the preceding verse he says: At that time, not knowing God, you served those who by nature are not gods. Hence, after the words cited in the objection, he adds: To which you wish to be enslaved again, you observe days, and months, and seasons, and years. All these things the Gentiles were accustomed to do.

You will urge: If circumcision had the power of justifying, this was especially so with respect to Abraham, to whom it was first commanded by God; but this is not so. For the Apostle writes in Romans 4: “For we say, was it reckoned to Abraham in circumcision or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision; and he received the sign of circumcision, the seal of the righteousness of faith which he had in uncircumcision,” and so forth. — The Doctor answers, no. 11, that circumcision did indeed confer grace upon him:

Because, he says, Abraham had already reached, or gone beyond, that degree to which circumcision had been determined. And I understand that it conferred nothing inwardly upon him by way of a sacrament, or by the power of the work performed; but I believe that it conferred something upon him by way of merit, or by the power of the work of the one performing it, because I believe that the act of circumcising himself, proceeding from obedience to God and from charity, was meritorious for him, just as was the sacrifice of Isaac.

You will insist: Therefore it follows that circumcision did not confer grace by the power of the work performed. — The Doctor answers, denying the consequence:

for it signified with certainty that grace either was to be made, if no obstacle were present, or was already present. Thus, if the Blessed Virgin had been at the conception of her Son in the fullness of grace to which God had disposed her to attain, and if she had afterward been baptized, she would have received no new grace there; nevertheless Baptism would not have been in her a false or uncertain sign, because it would signify that grace was either then being made or had previously been given and was then present.

You will object 2. Various authorities of the holy Fathers insinuate that circumcision had no power or usefulness for conferring righteousness and sanctifying grace. Thus Irenaeus, book 1, chapter 3, asserts that circumcision was given not as the completion of righteousness, but so that the lineage of Abraham might remain recognizable. St. Jerome likewise affirms this in chapter 2 of his commentary on Galatians; Damascene, book 1 of The Orthodox Faith, chapter 26; Chrysostom, Homily 27 on Genesis. Some explicitly say that it did not avail for righteousness: thus Tertullian, book Against the Jews, chapter 2; Cyril, book 10 Against Julian; Theodoret, question 7 on Genesis. To these may be added Cyprian, book 1 Against the Jews, chapter 2, and Ambrose, Epistle 72. Therefore our assertion militates against the teaching of the holy Fathers. —

I deny the consequence, and to both points the Doctor answers, question 6, no. 11, saying that the holy Fathers deny that circumcision and the other sacraments of the Old Law conferred grace:

Either because, he says, circumcision conferred little grace in comparison with Baptism; or because it did not confer grace as an immediate disposition to glory, since it did not open the gate; but this was not because of a defect in it, but because it took place at a time when the price had not been paid; or because it was not for everyone indiscriminately who received it. By its institution it was determined with certainty for a certain degree of grace, so that it could not go beyond that degree, either by intending or by producing it; and thus, if it found only that degree in the recipient, it would confer nothing upon him.

Therefore, so that the holy Fathers may not be set against one another and some contradict others, they must be explained in one or another of the three ways assigned by the Doctor; and rightly so. For some, such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Jerome, and Cyprian, say that circumcision was given as a sign and not for righteousness, because they explain the explicit and better-known effect of circumcision: through it the lineage of Abraham was distinguished from the other Gentiles. Others, such as Cyril, Basil, book On the Holy Spirit, chapter 11, and Epiphanius, Heresies 8, speak generally of the legal observances in relation to the sacraments of the New Law. Thus, in comparison with Baptism, circumcision was almost nothing, just as a figure and shadow is regarded as nothing in relation to the truth it signifies, although in reality it is something in itself.

You will object 3. The Council of Florence, in the decree of Eugenius, declares: “The sacraments of the New Law differ greatly from the sacraments of the Old Law; for those did not cause grace, but only signified it as destined to come through Christ’s Passion, whereas these, our sacraments, both contain grace and confer it upon those who worthily receive them.” This teaching is confirmed by Trent, Session 7, Canon 2, On the Sacraments in General: “If anyone says that the very sacraments of the New Law differ from the sacraments of the Old Law only because they have different external ceremonies and other external rites, let him be anathema.” —

I answer first, that neither of those authorities excludes the power and efficacy of circumcision, which cannot be included under the sacraments of the Old Law, since it was instituted a hundred years before the Law. Hence Christ the Lord, addressing the Jews in John 7, says: Moses gave you circumcision, not because it is from Moses, but from the fathers. This answer should certainly carry greater weight because it is not likely that the Councils intended to decree anything against the teaching of Saint Augustine and the other holy Fathers, or against the opinion of the more celebrated Doctors of Theology. Therefore it must be admitted that those Councils speak in the style and words of Saint Augustine himself, who says in Psalm 73: The sacraments of the Old Testament give salvation, he says, The sacraments of the Old Testament promised the Savior, and so on. In Epistle 19 to Saint Jerome: Why should I not say that those commandments and the other sacraments are not good, because men are not justified by them? For they are the only ones announcing the grace by which we are justified*. Item, book 19 Against Faustus, chapter 18, he has similar things. Therefore, just as Saint Augustine himself speaks of the sacraments of the Old Law without including circumcision, so Trent and Florence also deal with those that were proper to the Old Law. Otherwise circumcision was not rightly included under them, since it also benefited other descendants of Abraham living outside Judea, such as the Idumaeans, and therefore was not properly a sacrament of the Old Law.

You will object 1. The remedy for original sin, like the other means, must be common to males and females; circumcision was not such a remedy; therefore, and so forth. Further, circumcision was omitted in the desert for ten years, as is recorded in Joshua 5; but it is not likely that Moses permitted the Jews for so long to lack a means conducive to the remission of original sin. Finally, the remedy for original sin ought to have been applied at every time, especially when necessity presses; but circumcision could not be applied before the eighth day; therefore, and so forth. —

I answer the first point, that not all means of salvation need to be common to males and females. For the sacrament of Orders, which is a means of salvation, although not a necessary one, was instituted for males alone. Hence circumcision was necessary only for the men for whom it had been prescribed; for women, however, as also for infants before the eighth day and for the Jews during their wandering in the desert, the remedy of the Law of nature provided assistance.

It is related that the Jews held Adam to have been produced circumcised: in the Yalkut on Genesis it is said that Adam was first created circumcised. But, they say, he afterward drew forward his foreskin, so that the skin of his private part might be extended and the uncovered head of the glans might again be extended. Hence they think that among certain Jews, transgressors of the Law even today, the custom arose of striving by every art to restore the skin amputated in circumcision. In this sense they think these words of book 1 of Maccabees, chapter 1, verse 15, are to be understood: “And they built a gymnasium in Jerusalem according to the customs of the nations, and made foreskins for themselves,” and so forth. They are also mentioned by Josephus, book 12 of the Antiquities, chapter 6: Menelaus and the sons of Tobias asked Antiochus to allow them to build a gymnasium in Jerusalem; having obtained this, they drew forward foreskins for themselves so that they would no longer be unlike the Greeks. Thus also, after the destruction of the second Temple, many among the Jews tried to erase their circumcision. But afterward this new foreskin was again amputated, and they were circumcised once more. This is clear from the Jerusalem Talmud, where it says: Rabbi Jose said to him: “Many with a drawn-forward foreskin in the days of Ben Cosiba, all of whom were circumcised again, and lived, and afterward fathered sons and daughters.” These things are found in the Talmud, tractate Yebamot.

The Apostle indicates that this custom had also become prevalent among the Jews in his time when he writes in 1 Corinthians 7:18: “Was someone called while circumcised? Let him not draw forward the foreskin.” For when certain Jews embraced the Gospel, as though they were ashamed of their former condition, they took great care to erase its remnants and every trace of it, so that their conversion to Christianity might appear firmer and more sincere. Therefore they did not spare even the more delicate parts; they especially tried to erase circumcision and wanted to be regarded by everyone as uncircumcised, like the Gentiles. What St. Epiphanius writes about Symmachus, the author of the third Greek edition of the Bible, helps confirm this truth and illuminate the apostolic text:

In the time of the Emperor Severus, Symmachus the Samaritan passed over to the Jews and, professing himself among the proselytes, was circumcised a second time. Lest you perhaps wonder at this, I want you to know that it was customary that those who passed from the Samaritans to the Jews, and conversely the Jews to the Samaritans, should receive a new circumcision. Indeed, what is more troublesome, after circumcision they again advance toward the foreskin; for by a certain medical art, with what they call a spathister, they draw forward the skin of the glans, sew it, bind it around with glue, and thus recover a foreskin.

What we say can be confirmed by the Apostle’s testimony, when he uses these words: Was anyone called circumcised? Let him not draw forward the foreskin. Was anyone called with the foreskin? Let him not be circumcised. They relate that this wicked or detestable artifice was discovered by Esau, the brother of Jacob, so that he might more easily renounce God and erase the mark received from his ancestors. Hence they think that this word of God arose: Esau I hated, but Jacob I loved. It was indeed the opinion of the leading authorities in medicine that a foreskin once cut off could not be restored by any method or art. Thus Hippocrates, section 6, aphorism 19: After a bone that has been completely cut, or cartilage, or a nerve, or a cheek, or something thin, or the foreskin, neither grows nor becomes what it was. But although this cannot be done by the powers of nature alone, experience teaches that the foreskin can nevertheless be restored by the skill and industry of physicians and surgeons and by the benefit of remedies. For Dioscorides says, book 2, chapter 101: Honey, he says, restores to its entirety the glans of a boy, or of one circumcised, which has been exposed without circumcision, if the foreskin is softened with honey, especially from Calne, for thirty days. In book 3, chapter 52: Aloe, he says, glues together the torn foreskins of boys. And in book 1, chapter 157, where he treats of thapsia: The juice of thapsia, he says, is useful for restoring the glans of the penis, provided it has been exposed for a cause other than circumcision. For it raises a swelling which, softened by the application of oils and fats, repairs the loss of the foreskin. From these things it is clear that the foreskin can be so repaired by these juices and fatty remedies that the softened skin is extended and becomes longer, so that the whole glans, prepared again by that art, can be wrapped and covered, provided circumcision has not previously intervened—that is, these remedies are milder, so that by them a remedy can be applied to a wound inflicted by circumcision. And in fact, when they wanted to draw forward the foreskin after circumcision, stronger instruments were needed, by which the skin could be pulled and made to occupy the place of the former skin, as is clear from the passage of Saint Epiphanius cited above. The Jews used to restore the foreskin either so that they would not be recognized as Jews and could be entirely freed from the tribute and tax that the Jews paid and that was transferred to the Capitol, or so that they could exercise with the ethnic and Gentile peoples in gymnasia and wrestling schools and, with circumcision thus concealed, would not be distinguished from others by their private parts, or so that they might signify by this custom that they had departed from Judaism, or so that they might lessen the disgrace of their Judaism. For Jews were hateful to everyone, and when they were discovered they were exposed to everyone’s mockery and insults. Therefore the strictest inquiry was made concerning them, as can be seen in Suetonius, who records that a ninety-year-old Jew came out in public and was exposed to everyone as circumcised. Thus, to avoid this hatred, very many Jews arranged for the skin of the glans to be restored, so that at last they might deceive the sharper eyes of the inquisitors. Perhaps Jews turning to Christianity used this precaution out of hatred for Judaism; for just as those who became Samaritans from Jews again drew forward, nourished, and extended their foreskin, so conversely those who became Jews from Samaritans did so out of hatred for their former order and religion. Thus, out of hatred for their former Judaism, many proselytes who embraced the Gospel drew forward their foreskin. Hence the Apostle says: Let the circumcised person not put on the foreskin over it and not draw it forward again, for circumcision takes nothing away from the salvation of a proselyte.

Besides the Jews, circumcision was customary among many peoples: namely, Egyptians, Colchians, Ethiopians, Phoenicians, Syrians, Arabians, and Troglodytes, as Herodotus, Diodorus, Ambrose, Jerome, and others write. Peter Martyr also recorded that some Americans of the province of Yucatán restored the foreskin, Decade 4. Concerning the Egyptian priests who were circumcised, see Origen, book 2 of his commentary on the Epistle to the Romans; and also Hetius, pages 12 and 13, in his observations on Origen’s commentaries.

Origen, in his commentary on Genesis, observes that the Jews ought to be circumcised on the eighth day, whereas the Ishmaelites were not circumcised until their thirteenth year. But St. Ambrose, book 2, On Abraham, chapter 11:

The Egyptians circumcise males in their fourteenth year, and they report that females are circumcised in that same year, because it is evidently from that year that the male passion begins to burn and the menstrual periods of females take their beginning.

And Strabo, book 17: They are also especially concerned that they nourish every infant born, and circumcise those same infants, but excise the females. He is speaking of the Egyptians; yet, when he adds the same point, he says that it was customary among the Jews. Origen likewise agrees with this, Homily 5 on Jeremiah: They are circumcised, I say, according to what is sensible, not only those who are circumcised according to the law of Moses, but also many others. The idolatrous priests of the Egyptians are circumcised.

Now, since Strabo and Ambrose have mentioned female Circumcision, we shall explain its practice. It is performed by removing the νύμφη, a part which, especially among the women of southern regions, grows so excessively that it must be restrained with a knife. This is reported by eminent physicians, Paul of Aegina, book 5, chapter 70, and Aëtius, Tetrabiblos 1, Sermon 4, chapter 103. The latter continues as follows:

Therefore it seemed good to the Egyptians that, before it grows excessively, that bodily part should be amputated, especially when marriageable maidens are to be given in marriage.

Origen touches on the matter when he says, in his Homily on Exodus:

Against males its power is in the loins; against females its power is in the navel of the belly. And see how honorably Scripture has named the genital organs of man and woman under veiled names, lest by those words which are readily available it signify something shameful. If the example we brought forward from Job has been understood, understand this from me: just as the foreskin is circumcised in a man, so in a woman the navel is amputated.

What, then, was first introduced by necessity was afterward taken up as a religious practice; and some have held the same regarding male Circumcision, as we shall say later. Moreover, those who have traveled through those regions report that the custom of circumcising women is still retained by the Egyptians today, and that fire is applied to restrain the luxuriance of this part. Bellonius writes that women in Persia and the Copts in Ethiopia, although professing the name of Christ, preserve this custom. Leo Africanus, book 8, relates that it is prescribed by the law of Muhammad, although it prevails only in Egypt and Syria, and that the task is performed by certain old women who sell their services throughout the streets of Cairo.

Fourth Conclusion. — It was fitting that, under the Evangelical Law, some Sacraments should be instituted by Christ the Lord, through which he might communicate his grace to human beings.

This is proved for four reasons: first, from the side of God instituting the Sacraments; second, from the side of the human being receiving them; third, from the time of their institution; finally, from the side of the Sacraments themselves.

First, then, this was fitting from the side of God, lest God should seem to command the ancient Sacraments or sacrifices as though they were useful or pleasing to him; for this reason he rejected all those things as useless and less pleasing to him, as Saint Paul teaches in Hebrews 1 and 10. Saint Augustine offers this reason, book The City of God, chapter 5: They had to be changed at the proper and already certain time, lest God himself, already desirable, and certainly things perceptible in us, should be believed to be no longer rather what these things signified.

From the side, however, of the human being, who, having received new powers through the grace of the Evangelical Law and, after casting off the condition of servitude, having been adopted as a son of God, ought also to be initiated into more perfect Sacraments. Hence Saint Augustine says admirably, book On True Religion, chapter 17: A most just master of a household commands one thing to those for whom he judges a harsher servitude useful, and another to the devout, whom he deigns to adopt into the rank of sons. And in the same place: Thus, through his ministers, he commanded the weaker, and, through himself, the stronger. Does it follow, he says again in the title on Psalm 51, that because certain childish things suited to a child are given to a boy, by which the boy grows during those years, they are therefore not taken from his hands as he grows up, so that he may handle something more useful?

Third, from the time of institution, because the Sacraments of the old law promised only that Christ would come, whereas the new ones present him as already here: different signs ought to denote future things and present things. Hence Saint Augustine says admirably, Letter 7: Let no one expect us to give the reasons for this change, which you yourself know, since it is a lengthy matter; nevertheless, it can be stated briefly that, just as it would have been enough for an adult to have Christ announced by one set of Sacraments when he was going to come, and by another when he had come, so, when we now speak of the same matter, the difference of things compelled us also to change the words.

Finally, it was fitting to institute other Sacraments from the side of the Sacraments themselves, since the Sacraments of the old Law were needy and empty elements, and a shadow of future things. Therefore, when the fullness of grace and truth arrived, it was fitting that they should cease. Saint Augustine says in Psalm 39: The signs promising have been taken away, since the promised truth has been exhibited. For since the law was empty, Christ came to fulfill it; and he fulfilled it by giving charity through the new Sacraments: for the fullness of the law is charity. Hence Tertullian says admirably, book On Prayer, chapter 1: By the new grace of God he renewed everything from carnal things into spiritual things, the whole former antiquity having been cancelled.

You will say 1: Those Sacraments ought not to have been changed which were instituted to last forever; but such are the Sacraments of the old Law. For the same reasoning applies to the others as to the Paschal Lamb and the Aaronic Priesthood; yet these were instituted so that they might subsist forever. For concerning the Paschal Lamb, Leviticus 12 commands: Keep this legal observance for yourself and for your sons forever; concerning the Aaronic Priesthood, chapter 14: and of his sons he shall proceed into an everlasting Priesthood. —

I distinguish the major: if they were instituted to last forever both by reason of themselves and by reason of what they signified, I concede; if only by reason of what they signified, I deny. And likewise distinguishing the minor, I argue against the consequence: the eating of the Paschal Lamb was a figure of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and the Aaronic Priesthood was an image and shadow of the Priesthood of the new Law, which is to be preserved forever.

You will say 2: When grace and truth arrive, the figure and shadow ought to cease; but grace and truth came to be through Jesus Christ; therefore, since the Sacraments are the shadow of truth and figures of grace, none ought to be admitted by his followers after Christ. —

I distinguish the minor: if the truth is already exhibited as it will be in future glory, I concede; if only imperfectly and abstractively, as in this life, even under the new Law, I deny. For, as Saint Dionysius beautifully observes, book The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapter 5, since the state of the new Law lies midway between the state of the old Law, whose figures are fulfilled in the new, and the state of glory, where all truth is manifested nakedly and openly, there will then be no Sacraments; but now, as long as we know through a mirror and in an enigma, it is necessary that we obtain spiritual grace through sensible Sacraments. Indeed, the figures that foreshadowed Christ as one who was to come ought to cease; but the signs commemorating his Passion and announcing beforehand the glory prepared for the elect ought not to cease. Hence Eusebius Emissenus, in the Homily On the Transfiguration, from Hebrews 9, admirably distinguishes three tabernacles: the first is the Synagogue in shadow and figure; the second is the Church in figure and truth; the third is heaven in truth alone. In the first life is shown; in the second it is given; in the third it is possessed.

You will say 3: With God there is no change, nor shadow of alteration, as Saint James says, chapter 1; but there would be some change if he supplied other Sacraments, by which human beings would be sanctified differently after Christ’s coming than before it; therefore, etc. —

Saint Augustine responds, Letter 5, that:

just as a human being is not therefore changeable because in the morning one thing is done and in the evening another; this month one thing and another in a different month; this year not the same as in that year; so God is not therefore changeable because, in the earlier volume of the whole age, he commanded one thing to be offered to him, and another in the later volume, so that he might fittingly arrange, through changing times and without any change in himself, the meanings belonging to the most salutary instruction in Religion:

He had previously confirmed this authority with examples, writing:

Does not summer succeed winter by a gradual addition of warmth? Do not the hours of day turn into night? How often do our ages change? Childhood yields to adolescence, never to return; youth succeeds adolescence, not destined to remain; old age, bringing youth to an end, succeeds; and old age is ended by death. All these things change, yet the plan of divine providence by which these things are changed does not change. Does not, I think, the plan of agriculture change when the farmer orders one thing in summer than he had ordered in winter; and when he rises in the morning, he who rested that night, has he not changed the plan of his life? Did the teacher not impose one thing on the adolescent that he used to impose on the child? Therefore a constant doctrine, when the precept is changed, does not change the instruction.