Scotus Academicus, Tomus nonus: De Sacramentis in genere

Note 1. Both ancient and more recent heretics have fallen into various errors concerning the efficacy of the Sacraments and the power of producing [their effects]. For St. Augustine reports, in book 16 of On Heresies, that the Manichaeans denied the Sacraments the power of justifying: baptism, he says, in which they assert that they bring no salvation at all to anyone, nor do they think that any of those whom they deceive has been baptized. The Paulicians too, according to Epiphanius, book 2 of the Panarion, chapter 21, taught that Baptism benefited the soul in no way, although it brought some benefit to the body: they sometimes wish, he says, their children to be washed by the Presbyters of the Church with salutary baptism: for they think that water and Baptism benefit the body; yet they do not think that it reaches the purification of the soul, nor that it brings any other benefit. Likewise the Massalians, or Messalians, according to St. John of Damascus, near the end of book On One Hundred Heresies, said that the amendment of the soul was brought about by prayers alone; and that Baptism did not perfect a man, nor did the divine Sacraments cleanse the stains of the spirit, but that only the prayers poured forth by man contributed to this. Hence the Euchites, that is, “prayers,” were so called, because, according to Theodoret, book 1 of Heretical Fables, chapter 11, they attributed the perfection of salvation to prayers alone: for they said that Baptism removed sins only like a razor, but not the roots of sins, which, they asserted, were uprooted completely by prayer alone; and that the evil demon assigned to each person from the beginning was entirely expelled from the soul. They were also called Enthusiasts, because they admitted into themselves the power of some demon, which they called the presence of the Holy Spirit. Finally, the Armenians, distinguishing between the remission of sins and grace, taught that sins were remitted through the Sacraments, but denied that grace, or anything else justifying, was conferred through them, as Guido the Carmelite asserts in book On Heresies, chapter 16. — As for the more recent heretics, their opinion concerning the efficacy of the Sacraments was not one and the same, but multiple: for the Sacramentarians and Anabaptists deny them every production of grace. As for Luther and Calvin, if you look to their words, they sometimes seem to agree with us and sometimes to disagree; yet in reality they differ from us altogether, for they assert no other causality in the Sacraments than that of sealing or recalling, not that of truly producing grace; so that they do indeed wish faith to be aroused and nourished through the Sacraments, by which man grasps the divine promises and, by the benefit of this apprehension, is justified through faith. Hence Melanchthon, in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, concerning articles 4 and 13, boldly declares:

We condemn the entire body of Scholastic Doctors who teach that the Sacraments confer grace, by the work worked, upon those who place no obstacle, without a good movement on the part of the user. This opinion has simply been judged to be that we are justified by ceremonies without a good movement of the heart, that is, without faith; and yet this impious and pernicious opinion is taught with great authority throughout the papal realm.

To refute these errors and vindicate Catholic Doctrine from this impious accusation and calumny of the heretics, three points must here be established: first, that the Sacraments produce sanctifying grace by the work worked; second, how they produce it, whether through physical activity or only through moral activity; third, what kind of grace they produce and confer. To make these points clearer,

Note 2. When it is said that grace is produced ex opere operato, nothing else is signified than that it is produced by the power of the external work elicited: for a human work can be distinguished as twofold, namely external and internal. The external work, however, is situated as it were passively, because it is commanded by the internal work, and obtains from it its value and merit. Hence theologians took occasion to distinguish a twofold mode of operating, namely ex opere operantis and ex opere operato. Someone is then said to act ex opere operantis when he produces an effect by the force and efficacy of an interior work, for example when someone obtains sanctifying grace by the power of contrition or of another disposition. He is said to act ex opere operato, however, when he performs some external act by whose power grace is produced, even if there were no efficacious disposition in the recipient for receiving grace, provided that there is no obstacle on his part. Thus, to confer grace ex opere operato is to confer it by reason of the external work, or the conferral of the Sacrament, and not by reason of the interior act of the recipient or minister; or, which is the same, to confer it not by reason of merit, but beyond the merit of the recipient, and solely by reason of the external work received. This does not mean that we wish the Sacraments to confer grace on adults without any disposition of theirs, as Melanchthon and Calvin wrongly charge us, book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 11, where he pretends that the meaning of this controversy is: Whether the Sacraments confer grace without faith, or a good movement of the heart, or the disposition of the recipient. For the Council of Trent openly teaches the contrary, Session 6, where it teaches that faith, repentance, devotion, etc. are required beforehand in adults for receiving sacramental grace. — Nor is there reason for Calvin, in the same place, section 11, to mock these words ex opere operato and call them monsters of words and new inventions: for, if Horace is witness, in The Art of Poetry,

Many words will be reborn that have already fallen, and will fall, those now in honor, if usage so wills;

and Cicero writing in the Tusculans: Usage has invented many words, and made obsolete those it invented: certainly usage has prescribed this term for more than a hundred years. For we find it used by Innocent III in book 3 of On the Mystery of the Mass, chapter 5, where he writes: Therefore the wickedness of the Priest does not impede the office of the Sacrament, just as the weakness of the physician does not corrupt the power of the medicine: although, therefore, the operating work may be unclean in some respect, nevertheless the work operated is always clean. Nor is it unusual or unheard-of to coin new words and, against the rules of Grammar, change a deponent verb into the passive; for we have the foundation of this practice in the Epistle to the Hebrews, chapter 3, in these words: God is said to approve such sacrifices, where the deponent verb promeretur is taken passively. Thus, in a similar case, St. Augustine in Psalm 138 preferred to say ossum ossi rather than os ossis, so that it might be more easily understood by the people: For it is better, he says, that grammarians should reproach us than that the people should not understand.

Note 3. A productive cause of something can be distinguished as twofold: one physical, the other moral. A physical cause is one that by a real action reaches the entity and production of the thing itself. A moral cause, however, does not reach the effect through its action, but either by applying active things to passive things, as a physician is called the cause of health; or by inducing an agent to act through prayers, counsels, commands, prohibitions, a proposed reward, and the like. Again, either cause is twofold, namely principal and instrumental. A principal physical cause is one that reaches the effect through itself and independently of the influx of another cause, although it admits another into cooperation in producing the effect. A principal moral cause is called that which moves more principally and efficaciously toward the production of the effect: for example, a prince who orders the prefect of the treasury to give someone a hundred gold pieces is called the principal cause of such a gift. An instrumental physical cause is one that does not operate through the power of a form existing in it, but only through the motion by which it is moved by the principal agent. An instrumental moral cause is an instrument that the principal cause uses to produce the effect; for example, a letter written by the king's hand to the prefect of the treasury ordering him to give a hundred gold pieces is an instrumental moral cause of such a donation, because it is the instrument the prince uses for such an effect; the principal moral cause, however, is the prince's will. The question is how the Sacraments produce grace: whether, that is, through the mode of a physical or moral cause, principal or instrumental. Since the Sacraments are diverse, and some are more excellent than others, it must also be established whether they produce greater or equal grace in subjects equally disposed.

First Conclusion. — THE SACRAMENTS OF THE NEW LAW PRODUCE GRACE BY THE WORK WORKED, OR BY THE FORCE OF THEIR INSTRUMENTAL CAUSALITY. This has been determined as a matter of faith in the Councils: first in the Council of Nicaea, rendered into Latin by Alphonsus Pisano, where book 3 of the Constitution on Holy Baptism reads as follows:

Our Baptism, he says, is not to be considered with bodily eyes, but with the eyes of the mind: you see water; consider the power of God hidden in the waters. The one who is baptized descends guilty of sins and rises freed from this servitude and sin, made a son of God and heir of his grace.

The Florentine Council likewise expressly teaches this in the Decree of Eugene, where it is decreed that there are seven Sacraments of the New Law, which differ greatly from the Sacraments of the old law; for those did not contain grace, but only signified that it was to be given through the Passion; whereas these, our Sacraments, both contain grace and confer it on those who worthily receive them. — But most clearly of all the Council of Trent, Session 7, Canon 6, On the Sacraments: If anyone says that the Sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify, or that they do not confer that grace on those who place no obstacle, as though they were merely external signs of grace and justification received through faith, and certain marks of Christian perfection by which the faithful are distinguished from unbelievers among men: let him be anathema. And Canon 8: If anyone says that grace is not always given through these Sacraments, and to all, so far as concerns God’s part, even if they receive them rightly, but only sometimes and to some: let him be anathema. And Canon 9: *If anyone says that through the Sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred ex opere operato, but that faith alone in the divine promise is sufficient for conferring grace: let him be anathema. The same is gathered from the Constantinopolitan and Nicene Creed, where it is defined: We confess one Baptism for the remission of sins.

This truth is proved first from all those texts of Scripture in which grace is declared to be conferred, or to have been conferred, through the Sacraments. First, this is clear concerning Baptism. For it is written in John 3: Unless someone is reborn of water and the Holy Spirit, and so forth. In these words regeneration and spiritual birth are attributed to the Holy Spirit as principal cause, but to water as instrumental cause. For water is joined with the Holy Spirit as the cause of this regeneration, which is especially signified by the conjunction “and”; for, as grammarians know, it indicates some causality.

Calvin responds, book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 16, no. 27, that by water the Holy Spirit is signified:

I therefore simply take water and Spirit for the Spirit who is water. Nor is this a new expression, for it entirely agrees with that found in Matthew, chapter 3: the one who follows me is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit and fire. Therefore, just as to baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire is to confer the Holy Spirit, who in regeneration has the function and nature of fire, so to be reborn of water and the Spirit is nothing other than to receive that power of the Spirit which does in the soul what water does in the body.

— But Hunnius the Lutheran, book On Baptism, chapter 10, rightly calls this interpretation of Calvin a thoroughly reckless act and a twisted gloss of the devil, since it directly conflicts with other texts of Scripture in which remission of sins and the justification of a person are attributed to Baptism itself. Thus in Acts 2: Let each of you be baptized in the name of Christ for the remission of sins: where the preposition “for” with the accusative case denotes for what end, and toward what effect, this washing is performed; and it further denotes Baptism as antecedent to justification, and consequently it is not merely its seal and connotative sign, as Calvin wishes. — Hence Ananias said to Paul in Acts 22: Be baptized; wash away your sins in his name. Then St. Paul himself, explaining the instrumental efficacy of Baptism in Ephesians 5, says: Christ loved the Church and gave himself for her, cleansing her with the washing of water in the word of life. And in Titus 3: He saved us through the washing of regeneration. In these passages cleansing and salvation are assigned as effects of the washing with water. — The same is clear concerning the Eucharist. For it is written in John 6: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will not have life in yourselves. But if the Eucharist were only a sign of grace and did not confer it, this expression would be no less absurd and ridiculous than if someone said: unless someone drinks from ivy, signifying wine for sale, he will not satisfy his thirst. Likewise in 1 Corinthians 10 the Apostle intends the faithful to be one in the unity of charity: because we, though many, are one bread and one body, all who partake of the one bread. But if participation in one bread is the constitutive reason for the unity of the body, it is manifest that this unity is the effect of such participation; and therefore charity, through which that bond is made, is attributed to the Sacrament of Christ's Body as the effect of its cause. — The same is clear concerning the other Sacraments.

We read the same concerning Penance: Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven him. Concerning Orders, in 2 Timothy: Stir up the grace which is in you through the laying on of my hands. Concerning Extreme Unction, in James 5: The prayer of faith will save the sick person, and if he is in sins, they will be forgiven him. Concerning Matrimony, although the testimony is not so evident and clear, it is nevertheless gathered from Ephesians 5, where it is called a great Sacrament, so that it may be signified that its efficacy is the same as that of the other Sacraments.

The same truth can likewise be proved by various arguments drawn from the teaching of the holy Fathers. First, from their assertion that the nature and magnitude of the Sacraments' operation, by which it surpasses the natural weakness of the intellect, can be found and understood only through faith. “It is marvelous,” says Tertullian, book On Baptism, chapter 2, “that death is washed away in the washing; but it is all the more to be believed if, because it is marvelous, it is not believed. For what do they say divine works are, unless they are beyond all wonder? You yourselves also wonder, but because we believe.” Likewise St. Chrysostom, Homily 24 on John 1: Those things we see and touch every day, he says, need faith; how much more those hidden and spiritual things? Hence that well-known exclamation of St. Augustine, Tractate 80 on John: What a great power of water, that it touches the body and washes the heart! But unless baptismal water contributed to the production of grace, and a person were moved by faith merely toward its presence, there would be nothing marvelous in it and nothing worthy of exclamation. Therefore, and so forth.

Secondly, the same is persuaded by various likenesses which the holy Fathers use to explain the regeneration that takes place through the water of Baptism. For St. Chrysostom, Homily 25 on John, likens it to the maternal womb: What the womb is, he says, for the embryo, that the water of faith is: for in water it is begotten and formed. In the same place he compares Baptism to the waters which, at the beginning of the world, God commanded to produce creeping things: For first, he says, it was said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life: but from the time Christ entered the channel of the Jordan, the waters produce no longer creeping things that are living souls, but rational and spiritual souls. But St. Leo, Sermon 5.4 On the Nativity of the Lord, compares Baptism to the womb of the Blessed Virgin:

For every person being reborn, he says, the water of Baptism is like a virginal womb, the same Spirit filling the font who filled the Virgin, so that the sacred Conception, which had removed sin there, may here remove it through mystical washing.

Hence some of the holy Fathers also say that, just as the Holy Spirit came upon the Virgin so that she might conceive Christ the Son of God, so mystically he came upon the waters of Baptism so that he might confer on them the power of producing adopted children of God. The spirit, says Tertullian, book On Baptism, chapter 10, came down from heaven immediately and floated over the waters, sanctifying them from himself; and thus sanctified, they absorb the power of sanctifying. St. Jerome teaches the same in the Dialogue against the Luciferians, not far from the beginning: First, he says, the water itself is washed by the Spirit, so that it may be able to wash others spiritually. And St. Cyril of Alexandria: Just as water heated by the powers implanted in fire burns no otherwise than fire itself, so water, which is sprinkled on the body of the baptized by the operation of the Holy Spirit, is transformed for divine virtue and power. Certainly all these and other similar expressions would be empty and void if the Sacrament of Baptism contributed in no way to producing grace.

Third, the same truth is plainly established by the fact that Baptism conferred on infants remits original sin, confers sanctifying grace on them, and, if they depart this life before attaining the use of reason, brings them to the kingdom of heaven, as St. Augustine teaches everywhere against the Pelagians. But these marvelous effects cannot be attributed to the efficacy of the infants' faith; and therefore they are attributed solely to the power of the Sacraments.

The Lutherans and Calvinists respond that, at the time when infants are baptized, the use of reason is divinely granted to them. — But this response is more worthy of ridicule than refutation: for who would believe that God works this miracle, when neither Scripture nor the holy Fathers mention it in any way?

Finally, the same truth appears from the splendid praises with which the holy Fathers commend the efficacy of Baptism. Thus St. Ambrose, book On Initiation, chapter 4: In that element of the world, he says, he was buried, dead to sin, and raised again to eternal life. Theodoret, in the Epitome of the Divine Decrees, chapter “On Baptism”:

The gift of Baptism gives not only remission of past sins, but also implants hope of promised goods, makes us participants in the Lord’s death and resurrection, grants participation in the gift of the Holy Spirit, and makes us children of God, heirs, and co-heirs of Christ; for it does not, as the insane Messalians think, merely imitate a razor by removing sins.

The Heretics respond that the holy Fathers speak of the efficacy of the Sacraments through the arousal of faith. — On the contrary, first, many of them write that the Sacraments of the Gospel flowed from Christ’s pierced side, and that Christ wished to be baptized so that, by the touch of his most pure flesh, he might give the waters the power of cleansing, as Ambrose says, book 2 on Luke. But if it influenced only by arousing faith, and not by eliciting grace, as a sermon or a picture does by representing the mysteries of faith, they would not rightly be said to have flowed from Christ’s side; just as neither a sermon nor a picture is said to have flowed from it. Nor would Christ be said to have given any power to the water by the touch of his flesh more than to sacred sermons. The Sacraments of the Gospel would also have nothing more than the Mosaic [Sacraments] in conferring grace, because the Mosaic [Sacraments] also aroused faith. But the Fathers distinguish our Sacraments from the ancient ones in that ours produce grace, which the ancient ones merely signified. The reason is that, according to the heretics, faith is truly a cause of salvation and grace; but in Scripture the Sacraments of the New Law are called a cause of grace in the same way as faith. For faith is described in Luke 7: Your faith has saved you. John 5: He who believes him who sent me has eternal life. Acts 15: Purifying their hearts by faith. Romans 4: We reckon that a man is justified by faith. Romans 9: Therefore, being justified by faith. Of the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist the same things are said in the same words: 1 Peter 3: Baptism saves you. John: He who eats my flesh has eternal life. Titus 3: He saved us through the bath of regeneration. John 3: Unless someone is born again of water, etc.

The Heretics object with various texts of Scripture by which they try to prove that man is not justified through received Sacraments, but through the faith and devotion of the recipient. First, because Habakkuk 2, Romans 1, and Hebrews 10 say: The just man lives by faith; but he does not live by the Sacraments; therefore the Sacraments cannot be said to justify. — I distinguish the major: the just man lives by faith, that is, through faith he awaits and expects the eternal life promised to him by God, and is not shaken, or, even if he sees it delayed, remains so because of the faith he has, I concede. Hence Habakkuk says: If he delays, wait for him, because coming he will come, and he will not delay. Behold, he who is unbelieving, his soul will not be right within him; but the just man will live by his faith. The Apostle likewise says in Hebrews 10: You have need of patience, so that, doing the will of God, we may receive the promise: for yet a little while, and he who is to come will come, and will not delay; but my just man lives by faith. That is: faith alone contributes to justice and life, and the Sacraments contribute nothing of themselves to it. — I deny: for it is false that faith produces sanctifying grace and contributes by itself alone to justification, as we said in the Disputation on Faith.

They object 7. Those who teach that the Sacraments produce grace not only distract people from Christ's merits, but as it were bind divine power to the Sacraments; for they make people resort to a bodily thing as the cause and source of their justification, as though God could not justify them except dependently on those external signs. But the consequence is absurd; therefore so is the antecedent. — I deny the major: rather, through these helps they advance people toward God and Christ, since they admit that the Sacraments have power only from Christ's merits and that the effect signified through them is produced efficiently by God alone, but morally by those Sacraments. Thus, just as those healed by Christ through touching his garment, such as the woman with the issue of blood, or through the mud placed on them by his divine hands, such as the man born blind, did not place their hope in those material things but rather in Christ the Lord himself, from whom, as from a fountain, this healing power flowed, so we do not place our hope in the Sacraments themselves but in God's efficiency and Christ's merits. This would not involve absurdity; otherwise God should not have healed the Israelites from the serpents' bite through looking at the bronze serpent, or cleansed Naaman the Syrian through the waters of the Jordan; nor should the Son of God have assumed flesh, lest people adhere more to a bodily thing than to God. Nor is God, justifying through the Sacraments, bound to the Sacraments themselves; rather the Sacraments are bound to God, because God can justify without the Sacraments, whereas the Sacraments cannot without God. Add that the heretics themselves want an adult to whom Christ's blood is applied not to be justified except through faith, yet they do not want God bound to faith or to Christ's blood; therefore the same must be said of the Sacraments.

They object 3. In the passage of 1 Peter where eight souls are said to have been saved through water: Which also, he says, now saves you by a like figure, Baptism—not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the appeal of a good conscience to God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ: but this appeal of conscience is nothing other than an exercise of faith in Christ’s Resurrection, which has the power of sanctifying; therefore salvation must be attributed not to the water of Baptism, but to the virtue of a good conscience and faith. — I distinguish the major: a good conscience’s appeal saves us insofar as it is a disposition and preparation for receiving the effect of Baptism fruitfully, I concede; as the sole productive cause of grace and salvation, I deny. To the minor I say that the appeal of conscience itself is nothing other than the interior cleansing of the mind, which is called the appeal of a good conscience to God through the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, namely by reason of its effect. For this appeal is the effect of the washing of the soul: the cleansing of the soul’s stains makes it possible for our conscience to be questioned and tested by God as sincere and good, and also to ask God and answer him, because it firmly believes in Christ’s Resurrection, so that we may walk in newness of life. For, as the Apostle says in Romans 4.¹ Christ rose for our justification.

They object 4. That passage of Luke 5: Who can forgive sins except God alone? Therefore man cannot contribute anything through the Sacraments toward the remission of sins. They confirm this from St. Jerome on the fourth chapter of Isaiah, where he says: Man provides the water, but God the Holy Spirit, by whom the stains are washed from the soul and sins are cleansed: therefore man contributes nothing at all to the bestowal of grace through the administration of the Sacraments. — I distinguish the antecedent: God alone remits sins as the principal cause, I concede: for Isaiah says, chapter 43: I am he who blots out iniquities: as ministerial and instrumental cause, I deny. Thus, for example, the Lord Christ restored sight to the man born blind as principal cause; nevertheless the water of Siloam, with which the blind man made use at Christ’s command, contributed to that restoration of sight as instrumental cause. Hence St. Augustine, book 3 of the Questions on Leviticus, question 81: And Moses, he says, sanctified, and the Lord: but Moses by visible Sacraments through his mystery, whereas the Lord by invisible grace through the Holy Spirit.

They object 1. They cite various authorities of St. Augustine, by which he seems to signify that men contribute to justification through the administration of the Sacraments in no other way than by praying and entreating. Thus he teaches especially in tractate 6 on John: He saw, he says, Simon Magus saw that the Holy Spirit was given through the laying on of hands, not because they themselves gave him, but because he was given while they were praying: he teaches the same lib. 15. De Trinitate, chapter 17: How great is God, who gives God: for none of his disciples gave the Holy Spirit; they were praying that he might come upon those on whom they laid hands, they themselves did not give him: and the Church also preserves this practice in its prelates: but if the Apostles did not confer the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands, neither did they bestow grace; for, the Apostle says, The charity of God has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us. — I respond: St. Augustine means nothing other than that the Apostles did not give the Holy Spirit as a divine Person; nor did they bestow grace as principal cause, I concede; as the gift of the Holy Spirit, I deny. And so the consequence must be denied. For St. Augustine’s meaning is no different: there he proves Christ to be God from the fact that he gave the Holy Spirit on Pentecost; for he says: How is he not God, who gives the Holy Spirit? Indeed, how great is God, who gives God? None of his disciples gave the Holy Spirit, because properly he can be given only by him from whom he proceeds; but he does not proceed from the disciples, and consequently could not be personally given by them. Nevertheless, as ministers of Christ they gave the gift of the Holy Spirit himself; for we read in Acts 8 that the Holy Spirit was given through the laying on of hands.

They object 2. They cite other authorities of the same holy Doctor by which they try to prove that the Sacraments act only according to the faith and disposition of the recipient. Thus, Sermon 3 On the Words of the Lord: Baptism, which is once administered, cleanses through faith. And in the book Questions on the Old and New Testament, question 50, where he thinks Baptism consists in a bodily manner, he says: he is not spiritual and will not be able to obtain the heavenly gift, who believes that he is changed by water itself, not through faith; for water touches him, but he is cleansed by the Spirit working, so that faith may be in him. But if man is changed through faith, not through water, salvation must be attributed to faith, not to the Sacrament. — I respond to the first: Baptism cleanses through faith as a prior disposition, I concede; as the efficient cause of cleansing, which Baptism arouses and from which it has the power of cleansing, I deny. For St. Augustine explains that passage of Luke 11: Now you Pharisees cleanse what is outside the cup and the dish. But what is within you is full of plunder and iniquity. Hence Christ rebukes the Pharisees, who washed themselves with water every day before lunch as though that washing could be cleansing of the heart, and he warns the disciples not to think that justice consists in cleansing the body; for Baptism cleanses adults through faith as a subsequent disposition. Faith, however, is within, not outside, according to Acts 15: Cleansing their hearts by faith. But the Pharisees washed what is outside, while within they were stained by very many vices. To the second I respond first that this work is in no way St. Augustine’s, as Erasmus proves by several arguments in his censure of this book; nor is this treatise mentioned either in St. Augustine’s books of the Retractions or in the catalogue of Possidius. Among other things, this author conflicts with St. Augustine’s doctrine: for he teaches that by the Spirit of the Lord, which was borne over the waters at the world’s origin, the Holy Spirit is not understood, but the spirit of matter placed over all substances. Likewise, that Melchizedek was not a man, but was the Holy Spirit. And in question 69, which is brought against us, he explains these words of the Lord, John 3: The Spirit blows where it wills, etc., of the wind, not of the Holy Spirit. All of these things are wholly opposed to St. Augustine and to the truth.

Nor is it valid to say with some that the Sacrament produces grace for an undetermined time, or at a determined time before the Sacrament is completed; or with others that grace is produced at the same instant at which the Sacrament is completed. For every real and physical cause is presupposed, at least by priority of nature, to its effect; therefore it cannot produce before it exists. Moreover, while the form is completed and finished, only the final syllable remains in being, and that is not the Sacrament.

Objection 6. If the Sacraments of the New Law truly concurred in producing grace, they would have a different efficacy and power from the Sacraments of the Old Law: but Saint Augustine teaches the contrary: therefore, etc. The major is clear from what has been said. Calvin proves the minor, book 1 of the Institutes, chapter 11, no. 26, from Saint Augustine, Homily 26 on John, where the holy Doctor says:

The sacraments of the Jews were different in their signs, equal in the thing signified: different in visible species, equal in spiritual power. And in Homily 45: In different signs, the same faith; in different signs, just as in different words: for words change their sounds with the times, and words are certainly nothing other than signs. The Fathers drank the same spiritual drink, not the same bodily drink. See, therefore: while the faith remained, the signs changed. There the rock was Christ; for us, Christ is what is placed on the altar. And they drank flowing water from the rock as a great sacrament; what we drink, the faithful know. If you attend to the visible appearance, it is something else; if to the intelligible signification, they drank the same spiritual drink. In Psalm 78, book 19 Against Faustus, chapter 13: The food and drink of those people was the same as ours in mystery; but the same in signification, not in species: for the very same Christ was figured for them in the rock and manifested for us in the flesh. Although we also concede that in this respect there is some difference. For both testify that God's benevolence in Christ and the graces of the Holy Spirit are offered to us by the Father; but ours do so more illustriously and clearly. In both there is the presentation of Christ; but in these it is fuller and more abundant, namely according to what we discussed above concerning the distinction between the Old and New Testaments. And this is what Augustine himself intended (whom, as the best of all antiquity and the most trustworthy witness, we cite so often) when he teaches that, after Christ was revealed, the Sacraments were instituted fewer in number, more exalted in signification, and superior in power. Thus Calvin.

I answer first, that Calvin has falsely and corruptly produced the first authority; for nowhere did Saint Augustine say that the Sacraments of the Old and New Law are equal in spiritual power, but that they signify the same thing by spiritual power. For he says: Those sacraments are different in their signs, but equal in the thing signified. Hear the Apostle: For I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, that all our fathers were under the cloud.... and all ate the same spiritual food: certainly the same spiritual food; for the bodily food was different, because they had one and we another; but the spiritual food was the same as ours. And he adds: All drank the same spiritual drink; they had one and we another, but visibly different, while signifying the same thing by spiritual power. From this it is clear that Saint Augustine means nothing other than that the Sacraments of the Old and New Law agree in power—not indeed in producing grace, but in signifying it—with this distinction, that those signified only speculatively the grace that was to come, while these signify it as present and practically.

I answer second, that the Sacraments of the New Law have two offices: one, to instruct; the other, to heal. They instruct when they signify grace; they heal when they confer it. In the first office they are protestative signs of faith; in the second, operative signs of salvation, as Saint Chrysostom observes, Homily 82 on Matthew: Through this most sacred table, he says, he both saves and attracts. In the former office they agree with the Sacraments of the Old Law, which commended and taught the same faith, and differ from them only in this: the Sacraments of the Old Law regarded and signified the future object of faith, while the Sacraments of the New Law represent the past, namely Christ's Incarnation, life, death, and his other mysteries. In the latter office, however, the Sacraments of the New Law differ entirely from those of the Old Law: for although the latter signified the same grace, they neither contained nor conferred it; they were needy and empty, Saint Paul says, and if they possessed any fullness, they were filled only with shadows and figures; for everything happened to them in figure. Saint Augustine did not distinctly note this distinction in the places cited above for two reasons: first, because he was in Africa, where the heresy of the Manichaeans was spreading, and they condemned the Old Law; hence it was more fitting to express the harmony of the Sacraments of the Old and New Law than to proclaim their difference; second, because the Treatises on John and the expositions of the Psalms are homilies and discourses to the people, among whom were catechumens and many unbelievers, to whom it was not permitted to reveal the mysteries of the Church. Hence Saint Augustine also frequently says in those sermons: as the faithful know.

Objection 7. Those who teach that the Sacraments produce grace not only draw people away from Christ's merits, but also, as it were, bind divine power to the Sacraments; for they make people resort to a bodily thing as the cause and source of their justification, as though God could not justify them except dependently upon those outward signs. But the consequent is absurd: therefore, so is the antecedent. — I deny the major: rather, through these aids they advance people toward God and Christ; for they acknowledge that the Sacraments have power only from Christ's merits, and that the effect signified through them is efficiently produced by God alone, but morally by those Sacraments. Thus, just as those who were healed by Christ through touching his garment, like the woman with the flow of blood, or through mud placed by his divine hands, like the man born blind, did not place their hope in such material things but rather in the Lord Christ himself, from whom, as from a fountain, this healing power flowed, so we do not place our hope in the Sacraments themselves, but place it in God's efficiency and Christ's merits. This certainly involves no absurdity; otherwise God should not have healed the Israelites from the serpent's bite through looking at the bronze serpent, nor cleansed Naaman the Syrian through the waters of the Jordan; nor should the Son of God have assumed flesh, lest people cling more to a bodily thing than to God. Nor is God, when justifying through the Sacraments, bound to the Sacraments themselves; rather, the Sacraments are bound to God, because God can justify without the Sacraments, whereas the Sacraments cannot without God. Add that the heretics themselves want an adult to whom Christ's blood is applied to be justified only through faith, yet they do not want God bound to faith or to Christ's blood: therefore the same must be said of the Sacraments.

The last objection is: A bodily creature cannot produce a spiritual and supernatural thing: but a Sacrament is a bodily creature, while grace is a supernatural thing: therefore, etc. — I answer, distinguishing the major: it cannot produce it as a principal cause, I concede; as an instrumental cause, I distinguish: physically, I concede; morally, I deny. Then, having conceded the minor, I likewise distinguish the consequent. Whether they produce grace physically or morally, it is sufficient to stop the mouths of the adversaries speaking wickedly.

I answer that these points have no force: first, because it is certain that through these prayers the water does not receive the power of sanctifying, since any other unblessed water would suffice for Baptism; moreover, that power would have to belong not to the water alone but also to the words, since the Sacrament is constituted from matter and form. Second, because those words can be understood only of moral efficacy, which water or oil does not have from its nature, but from divine ordinance. Just as a king can accomplish through royal authority many things which he could not accomplish according to his natural and physical powers, while that royal authority nevertheless establishes nothing physical in him, so the Sacraments can do many things by divine ordinance and through moral efficacy which they could not accomplish according to natural power, as the Catechism says.

To the first question, therefore, I say that since the necessity of things ordered to an end is taken from the end, and according to all who speak about the Sacraments the end of a Sacrament is grace, or some invisible effect of God disposing a person toward salvation, and since this end can sufficiently be obtained in the way it is obtained through a Sacrament without saying that the Sacrament has any properly so-called action, either with respect to grace, which it cannot reach because grace is created, or with respect to the prior supernatural disposition, because that too would be created, it follows that such an action should not be posited, since neither are these additional things necessary nor can they manifestly be posited.

Saint Bonaventure in the same place, article 1, question 1, Alensis, part 3, question 5, member 3, article 5, Aureolus, question 1, article 4, Durandus, question 1, and Vazquez, distinction 132, chapter 5, incline to the same opinion. The Doctor proves it because the necessity of something is inferred from the end; but the end of the institution of the Sacraments is sanctifying grace, or some invisible supernatural effect; and this effect can be obtained through the Sacrament without that physical influx: therefore, etc. The Doctor's argument is indeed most effective, based on the presupposed refutation of the affirmative opinion, which we shall present below.

The Conclusion is therefore proved. First, by the authority of the holy Fathers, who deny true physical efficiency to the Sacraments of the New Law. Thus Saint Cyprian, Sermon On the Baptism of Christ: Remission, he says, whether it is given through baptism or through other Sacraments, belongs properly to the Holy Spirit, and the privilege of this efficiency remains with him alone: the solemnity of the words, the invocation of the sacred name, and the signs of institution entrusted to the priestly ministries of the Apostles visibly celebrate the Sacrament; but the Holy Spirit forms and effects the reality of the Sacrament. — Basil agrees, book On the Holy Spirit, chapter 15, where he says: The Lord who dispenses the rite established the covenant of baptism for us: the water fulfilling the image of death, while the pledge of life proceeds beforehand through the Spirit. Therefore he thinks baptism is a covenant or sign of a covenant, upon which God has established that he himself immediately infuses grace. Ambrose also agrees, book 7 On the Sacraments, chapter 5: One thing is the element, another the consecration; one thing the work, another its operation; the water is the work, the operation is that of the Holy Spirit. Finally Saint Augustine, Letter 23: It, he says, exhibits outwardly the sacrament of grace, while the Spirit inwardly works the benefit of grace: dissolving the bond of guilt, reconciling the good of nature, regenerating the human being in the one Christ. From these passages it appears how the holy Fathers deny physical, but not moral, efficiency to the Sacraments; for elsewhere they affirm that the Sacraments produce grace. Therefore, to reconcile them with one another, moral causality must be established and physical causality denied. In ordinary speech we both attribute and deny an effect to one and the same cause; for example, when the craftsmanship of a palace is praised, the prince is said not to have built it, but the craftsman; but if its magnificence is praised, then the prince, not the craftsman. Likewise, when the Fathers explain in the Sacraments what power physically produces grace, they attribute it to God alone; but when they explain what the Sacraments can do by reason of their institution and Christ's merits, they teach that they cause grace.

Second, it is proved by reason. The causal efficacy of the other Sacraments is the same as that of Baptism: if Baptism does not have true physical causality and efficacy with respect to producing grace, then neither do the other Sacraments. The minor is established: a more perfect power of causing grace and justification does not belong to Baptism than to the humanity of the Lord Christ; but the humanity of the Lord Christ had only moral and meritorious efficacy with respect to producing grace; therefore physical causality, which is more perfect, does not belong to Baptism. The major is clear: Baptism and the other Sacraments borrow all their efficacy from Christ's meritorious works, which are present in them and applied through them, as Saint Augustine teaches in the Enchiridion, chapter 52, and Origen and Anselm, from Saint Paul's saying to the Romans 6: Whoever has been baptized in Christ has been baptized into his death. The minor is proved from the Council of Trent, Session 6, chapter 7, where, speaking of the causes of justification, it says:

The causes of this justification are: the final cause, indeed, the glory of God and of Christ, and eternal life; the efficient cause, the merciful God, who freely washes and sanctifies, sealing and anointing with the Holy Spirit of promise; the meritorious cause, his most beloved only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, by his most holy Passion on the wood of the cross merited justification for us and made satisfaction for us to the Father; the instrumental cause, the Sacrament of Baptism, which is the Sacrament of faith, etc.

By these words the Council attributes two kinds of causality to Christ, namely final and meritorious causality; but the causality of an efficient cause, insofar as it is distinguished from the instrumental and meritorious, it attributes to God alone, and without any qualification. By this manner of speaking it denotes physical efficiency, which is efficiency without qualification; therefore the Council's meaning is that such efficiency belongs neither to the Sacrament nor to Christ. The consequence is proved because the Council declares that Christ's merit must be referred chiefly to his Passion, through which he paid the due satisfaction to God the Father for us; but this merit cannot have true physical efficiency, since operation follows being, and consequently what does not really and physically exist cannot physically and really influence the production of anything; but the Passion of the Lord Christ and his merits exist neither in themselves nor in any effect of theirs really, but only in divine acceptance; therefore they cannot have physical efficiency. Add that the Council attributes causality to Christ's Passion only insofar as it had the character of satisfaction and merit; but in this respect it had no other kind of causality than moral. This is proved because Christ's Passion influences those justified no differently as something offered than as something to be offered: for Christ was the Redeemer and head of all, both those who preceded and those who followed, according to Paul's saying: All drank from the spiritual rock following them, and the rock was Christ. But Christ's Passion did not have the character of a physically influencing cause with respect to those who preceded his Incarnation, since it did not yet exist; therefore neither does it now act physically.

Third, the preceding argument is confirmed. What physically concurs in the production of something must really exist while the thing is produced and must have some activity by which it can physically act and produce; but the Sacraments neither really exist while grace is produced nor have any physical activity by which they can concur in its production; therefore, etc. The major is clear as to the first member: what does not really exist cannot produce anything more really than a possible or dead man can in fact and in act speak or walk; for to operate follows being, and consequently what is not actual and real cannot act actually and really. It is likewise clear as to the second member: for if it has any activity in first act with respect to something, it can never produce that thing more than blackness can whiten, etc. The minor is therefore proved as to its first part. A Sacrament, for example Baptism, does not really exist—neither in its entirety, nor according to any part of itself, nor according to anything produced by it—while grace is being produced. I prove it: a Sacrament does not operate and cannot produce grace unless it is perfect and complete both according to the matter and according to the form. For if, for example, in baptizing someone, through malice, ignorance, or the death of the person baptized, someone were to say only, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spirit, but did not add the final word, holy, there would be no Baptism and consequently it would produce no grace, because the Sacrament would be imperfect, as everyone admits. If someone denied this, he could be convicted by the fact that, if omission of one word of the form did not invalidate the Sacrament, neither would omission of two invalidate it, nor three, and so on; for the penultimate word is no less of the essence and integrity than the final one. Thus, by omitting the words Holy Spirit, Baptism would nevertheless be valid, which the Councils proscribe as heretical. Therefore Baptism does not produce grace until it is completed by the utterance of the final syllable of the form. But that final syllable of the form is not the Sacrament either: first, because otherwise it alone would suffice to produce grace; second, because grace is produced only in the instant in which the complete utterance of the necessary words is formally completed, and in which it is true to say: now that form is no longer complete, though immediately before it was. Therefore, in the instant in which grace is produced, the Sacrament is not real either in its entirety or according to any part of itself. Nor does it remain according to anything produced by it through which it could produce grace, because the same difficulty that was raised concerning the production of grace would recur; besides, no other effect to be produced is assigned, apart from the Sacraments that do not imprint a character, except sanctifying grace and certain aids of grace.

The Lutherans and Calvinists reply that, for the time during which infants are baptized, the use of reason is divinely granted to them. — But this reply is more worthy of laughter than refutation: for who would believe that God performs this miracle, when neither Scripture nor the holy Fathers mention it in any way?

Nor is it valid to reply likewise that, through obediential power, God elevates that last part of the Sacrament, whether through some supernatural quality, as the intellect is elevated by the light of glory to see God and the will by charity to love, or through an extraordinary concurrence by which a creature, by reason of obediential power, is elevated in activity to produce the effect. I say that the reply is not valid: first, because that part, thus elevated and physically causing, is not the Sacrament of Baptism, since to produce grace through the Sacrament of Baptism the utterance of the other words and the outward washing are required, and they do not then exist in act; second, because if they exist, they do so only morally. Therefore, if the earlier words can morally move God to elevate that syllable so that grace may be physically produced, why will the complete words not sufficiently move God to produce grace?

You will reply that the real existence of the whole cause is not required for it to act physically, but that it is enough for one part to remain after the other parts have passed away, and for that part to produce the effect in place of the whole; for example, alteration, although successive, concurs as a whole in the production of heat, although only one part of it exists while heat is produced. — On the contrary, it is impossible for something to be said to produce anything physically according to a part that does not exist, unless that part, while it existed, produced something conducive to the production of the effect; otherwise it would be a cause and not a cause. Nor can one part produce by the power of the other parts unless the earlier parts produced something which, through the last part, could be carried out, though that last part by itself could not carry it out. Nor does the example of alteration press the point: either heat is produced in the instant after the motion, and then it is not said to be produced by alteration except insofar as alteration removes obstacles and prepares the subject; or it is produced through successive alteration, and then each part of the motion produces each part of the heat. Hence that example contributes nothing to the matter.

For the earlier words do not produce a part of grace, both because they do not have the character of a Sacrament and because, if the others were not uttered, a person would nevertheless be said to be justified—which is impossible and all deny it. Nor do they remove an impediment or prepare the soul, because the soul of itself is sufficiently disposed to receive grace, and there can be no other impediment than the person's obstinate will in sin, which can be changed not by the earlier words of the form, but by exciting and cooperating grace: therefore, etc.

Objection 1. All the authorities of the Councils and the holy Fathers praised in the first Conclusion, in which true causality with respect to grace is attributed to the Sacraments of the New Law. — Vasquez replies, that this causality is preserved more suitably and better by moral causality than by physical causality: first, because it is easier to understand and involves fewer difficulties requiring solution; second, because in this same way the Fathers, the Councils, and Scripture testify that Christ's death, blood, and Passion cleanse and sanctify us, etc., just as they assert this of the Sacraments; yet it is certain that Christ's death does not sanctify us physically, but only morally and meritoriously; finally, because the Fathers speak in the same way of the efficacy of a Sacrament when it has long been completed and when it is being administered, as in the case proposed concerning baptismal grace. For Saint Augustine, book 3 On Baptism, chapter 3: Then, he says, the same Baptism begins to be effective for the remission of sins, when they have come to the peace of the Church—not so that sins already remitted may not be retained, nor so that that baptism might be rejected as foreign or another, nor so that another might be given, but so that it might be that very same baptism, etc.

Objection 1. 1. The prayers of the Church in the blessing of baptismal water, among which are found these and similar words: Bless these simple waters with your mouth, so that, beyond the natural cleansing for which they can be used to treat bodies, they may also be effective for purifying minds. And when the candle is immersed, these words are said: Let the power of the Holy Spirit descend into this fullness of the font. And while breathing upon the water: May he make the whole substance of this water fruitful with the effect of regeneration. — 2. The prayers which the Bishop uses on Holy Thursday at the Lord's Supper in consecrating oil: We humbly ask your mercy that, by bestowing spiritual grace upon this ointment, you pour into it the fullness of sanctification. — 3. The words of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, part 2, chapter 1, no. 27, where, explaining the manner in which grace is produced, it says:

But how such a great and admirable thing is effected through the Sacrament, so that, as Saint Augustine's celebrated saying has it, water touches the body and washes the heart—this indeed cannot be grasped by human reason or understanding. For it must be established that no sensible thing is endowed by its nature with such power that it can penetrate into the soul; but by the light of faith we know that the power of almighty God is present in the Sacraments, by which they effect what natural things cannot accomplish by their own power.

I answer that these things prove nothing: first, because it is certain that through these prayers the water does not receive the power of sanctifying, since any other unblessed water would suffice for Baptism; moreover, that power would have to belong not only to the water but also to the words, since the Sacrament is constituted from matter and form. Second, because by these words only moral efficacy can be understood: water or oil does not have it from its own nature, but from divine ordinance. Just as a king can accomplish many things through royal authority which he could not execute according to natural and physical powers, while royal authority itself establishes nothing physical in him, so the Sacraments can accomplish many things by divine ordinance and through moral efficacy which they could not accomplish according to natural power, as the Catechism says.

You will object: The Catechism says that this manner of operating is admirable and ineffable. And Saint Cyril, book 1 on Saint John, chapter 11, speaking of Christ's Flesh, after saying that he used not only signs and wonders as God, but also employed his flesh as a kind of co-worker in all things, so that he might show in reality that his flesh too, because it is united to him, is life-giving, says in chapter 21, treating of the efficacy of that same flesh in the Eucharist: We cannot understand with the mind or express with the tongue how this happens; but we receive it in silence and with firm faith. But if he had thought that this happened through moral efficacy, he would not say that it was ineffable. For what is easier to conceive than that moral efficacy? — I answer, that moral efficacy is indeed far easier to conceive than physical efficacy; nevertheless it is very admirable that, upon the application of such signs even by the most unworthy person, God infallibly produces grace.

You will object 1: Saint Ambrose, book 4 On the Sacraments, chapter 1, compares the words of consecration and transubstantiation with the words of creation; but the latter had physical efficacy: therefore so do the former. — I distinguish the antecedent: he compares them with respect to the truth of the effect on the part of the speaker, I concede; with respect to the efficacy of the utterance and of the words, I deny. Saint Ambrose intends only that, just as God was able to create all things from nothing by a word, so much more could he change created things by a word. Whether those words meanwhile have physical efficacy or moral efficacy is immaterial, provided that the effect follows.

You will object 2: It would follow from this that the Sacraments have no greater efficacy than the words of sorcerers for producing marvels through the aid of demons. — I deny: because the Sacraments have infallible efficacy, incapable of being impeded by any cause, with respect to producing grace in a disposed subject. The case is otherwise with sorcery, etc.

Third conclusion. — THE SACRAMENTS CONFER EQUAL GRACE ON SUBJECTS EQUALLY DISPOSED, AND UNEQUAL GRACE ON THOSE UNEQUALLY PREPARED. Thus the Council of Trent expressly teaches, Session 6, chapter 7, where it attributes the inequality of grace not only to God's will but also to the differing disposition of those who receive it, in these words: We are truly called righteous and are [righteous], receiving righteousness in ourselves, each his own, according to the measure that the Holy Spirit apportions to each as he wills, and according to each one's proper disposition and cooperation. It should be noted, however, that by the words as he wills the Council does not intend that the Holy Spirit sometimes confer unequal grace on two persons disposed in the same way: otherwise it would add and according to each one's proper disposition in vain. Rather, it understands the measure on God's part to be his will, by which he apportions gifts to each universally as he wills, whether in the Sacraments or outside the Sacraments.

The Sacraments of the Jews were different in signs, equal in the thing signified: different in visible species, equal in spiritual power. And in Homily 45: In different signs there was the same faith; in different signs, just as in different words, because words change their sounds through the ages, and words are certainly nothing other than signs. The Fathers drank the same spiritual drink, not the same bodily drink. See, therefore: while faith remained, the signs changed. There the rock was Christ; for us Christ is what is placed on the altar. And they drank, as a great Sacrament, water flowing from the rock; what we drink the faithful know. If you attend to visible appearance, it is different; if to intelligible signification, they drank the same spiritual drink. In Psalm 78, book 19 of Against Faustus, chapter 13: Their food and drink were the same in mystery as ours, but the same in signification, not in species, because the very same Christ was figured for them in the rock and manifested for us in the flesh. Although we also concede that there is some difference in part. Both testify that the Father's benevolence in Christ and the graces of the Holy Spirit are offered to us, but ours more illustriously and splendidly. In both there is the presentation of Christ, but in these it is fuller and more abundant, according to the distinction between the Old and New Testament discussed above. This is what Augustine himself intended when he taught that, once Christ was revealed, the Sacraments were instituted fewer in number, more august in signification, and more excellent in power. Thus Calvin.

Manna, which in Exodus 16 was gathered by each person without distinction of sex or age according to the measure of a gomor; the seed which in the Gospel is sown equally; the denarius which in Matthew 20 is distributed equally by the master of the household through his steward. To these he adds: the Holy Spirit is not given by measure, but is poured out whole upon believers. For if the day rises equally for all, and if the sun spreads over all an equal and identical light, how much more does Christ, the true sun and day, bestow in his Church the light of eternal life with equal equality?

Nor should you say that from this it follows that Saint Cyprian wants grace always to be communicated equally through the Sacraments, notwithstanding the different disposition of those who receive them. For I answer that there he is speaking only of the Sacrament of Baptism considered in itself, whether it is conferred by washing or by sprinkling, and he contends that both are valid and confer equal grace insofar as the Sacrament is considered according to its efficacy, but not with respect to the subject. A Sacrament can be considered in three ways. First, by comparison with another different in species, for example by comparing Baptism with the Eucharist, etc.; and since one is more excellent than another, as the Council of Trent decrees, Session 7, Canon 3: If anyone says that these seven Sacraments are so equal in power that in no respect is one more worthy than another, let him be anathema; it is certain that the more excellent one likewise produces more excellent grace. Second, it can be considered in itself alone and according to that proper effect for which it was determinate instituted by Christ. Third, by its relation to the subject to which it is applied. In the first way, one Sacrament produces more excellent grace than another, notwithstanding equal disposition. In the second way, it has the power to confer its own grace in this and that determinate degree, and not in a greater or lesser one. For example, when Baptism is conferred on infants, since it finds in them no positive disposition but only mere non-repugnance, which is equal in all, it also has in all of them an equal degree, because it has nothing else except what Christ willed to correspond to the Sacrament's work performed, without relation to the disposition of the subject. In the third way, it produces grace equally or unequally according to the different disposition of those who receive it, and this by the work performed: first, according to Christ's ordinance, which is made known to us through the Council of Trent praised above; second, according to the analogy that the Sacraments have with natural causes, which produce an equal or unequal effect according to the varying disposition of the subject; finally, according to the fitting and gentle providence and ordinance by which greater grace should be conferred on one better disposed, so that the hope of that greater fruit may stir us to receive the Sacraments with greater disposition and reverence. In this way all the objections from the authorities of the Fathers are to be solved. — That Saint Cyprian intended this is clear from the examples he uses. Although the sun's light is the same, it nevertheless becomes greater or lesser by reason of the greater or lesser transparency of the subject. Although manna was the same, it nevertheless had different sweetnesses according to the different disposition and desire of those eating it. Indeed, when expressly pressing the example of the seed, he says:

In the Gospel the Lord's seed is sown equally; but according to the depth of the soil, one part is absorbed, while another is counted as abounding in manifold plenty and in the fruit of thirtyfold or sixtyfold yield.

Nevertheless, the Subtle Doctor does not contradict this assertion, as some falsely attribute to him, claiming that he teaches that in fact greater grace is given by virtue of the Sacrament to the predestined than to the reprobate, and indeed that among the predestined more abundant grace is conferred through Baptism on the one predestined to greater glory. On the contrary, he plainly teaches the opposite, although he holds this to be possible. To make this clear, I transcribe his words from book 1, distinction 4, question 1, no. 3, where he says:

I answer that, since God is the principal cause, Christ's Passion the meritorious cause, and the person receiving Baptism also concurs in its effect, namely grace, equality or inequality could be considered on the part of any of these. As regards God determining himself to cooperate with this sign through the signified effect and instituting it as a certain sign, there can in some way be a difference and in some way not. For he has regularly determined to confer some grace with this sign, so that he gives no one less; thus it can be said to be conferred by virtue of Baptism, by virtue of the truth of this sign. As that universal determination is uniform as regards this degree, so the effect is equal.

Here we have our conclusion in precise terms. — Again: because God predestined different Elect to different degrees of glory, and did so before determining this sign, greater grace may reasonably be conferred according to the ordinance toward greater glory. God can therefore arrange, in determining the truth or certainty of this sign, that one recipient receive precisely the grace required for the sign's certainty and another receive more, whom he predestined to greater glory. But that further degree would not be conferred by virtue of Baptism, but from a special divine benevolence. Hence it can be said that, on the part of the principal cause, the effect regularly is simply equal when given by virtue of Baptism, because it is presupposed that by the common law the first grace is not given greater without some difference outside the principal cause.

What could be clearer? He asserts the possibility of inequality on the part of the principal cause but denies the effect under the common law. — He speaks in the same way in no. 1 of inequality on the part of the meritorious cause, saying:

Concerning the second, it can be said that the meritorious cause can work more efficaciously toward grace in one person than another, either because it is offered more specially for one than another as regards the intention of the offerer, or because it was offered in effect for one but for another only in divine foreknowledge. In the first way Christ is held commonly to know all things, because God knows by the knowledge of vision and consequently knows all the Elect and to what degree of glory they were chosen. He could therefore offer his Passion more fully for one predestined to greater glory, especially when he offered himself for the human race, so that divine predestination might be fulfilled in them. In the second way Christ's Passion cooperates more efficaciously for us, who are in the Evangelical Law, than for the Fathers under the Mosaic Law, because an obedience rendered for a greater good to be rewarded is more acceptable than a foreseen benefit. In this second way there is inequality in those receiving grace through Circumcision and Baptism, because the meritorious cause is unequally applied to them, and perhaps also in those baptized before and after the Passion. But if in the first way, namely because of a special obligation in Christ's will, there is inequality of grace in some now baptized, this is doubtful as a matter of fact; but its possibility has been shown.” Thus far the Doctor. Therefore no one should readily believe authors who cite the Doctor for some opinion without reading and weighing the text, lest what is said in Ecclesiasticus 19:1 prove true of him: He who is quick to believe is light of heart, and shall be diminished.

Question 1. Whether, besides sanctifying grace or its increase, the Sacraments confer any helps distinct from the infused virtues and gifts of the Holy Spirit?

I answer that this appears more probable, as theologians commonly teach: otherwise several distinct Sacraments would have been instituted in vain, since grace could be increased by frequent repetition of the same Sacrament, for example by Holy Communion; it is likely that more habitual grace is conferred by frequent Eucharist than by receiving the other Sacraments. Moreover, the holy Fathers teach that Matrimony and Orders were instituted so that their grace might enable ecclesiastical duties to be rightly fulfilled, the burdens of marriage to be borne with equanimity, mutual love and fidelity to be preserved, and children to be piously educated. They likewise teach that Confirmation was instituted to confer grace by which we may steadfastly profess the faith against all who attack it, even with loss of goods and danger to life. The same must be said of the other Sacraments. Since Baptism was instituted for spiritual generation and restoration of the life of grace, it is likely to confer special helps by which this new life is perfected and preserved. Penance confers a special help for detesting sins more efficaciously and making satisfaction for those committed. The Eucharist, instituted as spiritual nourishment, confers helps by which we are preserved from spiritual death, namely mortal sin. The same is clear of Extreme Unction, ordered to wiping away the remnants of sins and conferring strength in that crisis of life; it may rightly be believed to confer special helps for such effects. — Finally, things with different effects are distinct. But the effects of grace that makes pleasing and of sacramental grace are different: the former bestows some likeness to the divine nature, according to 2 Peter 1, That through these you may become partakers of the divine nature; the latter confers a remedy against the defects of sin. Such effects are undoubtedly different. The same is clear of sacramental grace in relation to virtues and gifts. Sacramental grace is related to the grace of the virtues and gifts as that grace is related to sanctifying grace generally. Sanctifying grace may be considered first generally, insofar as it makes a person pleasing to God and a partaker of the divine nature; second, as the grace of virtues and gifts adds helps by which a person is perfected and invigorated to elicit acts conformable to them, especially to believe, hope, and love God above all; and third, as sacramental grace perfects a person for the special effects of the Sacraments just designated. That sacramental grace truly adds something to the grace of the virtues and gifts, and also to habitual grace, is clear: otherwise the Sacraments would be conferred in vain on those possessing habitual grace and the virtues and gifts of the Holy Spirit, especially since that grace could be increased more easily by exercising the virtues and gifts than by the Sacraments.

You will say: Sacramental grace is ordered only to removing the soul's defects arising from sins. But the grace of the virtues and gifts suffices for this, since all sins are excluded by those virtues, because every sin is opposed to some virtue. Therefore, and so forth. — I distinguish the minor: it suffices generally, I concede; specifically, I deny. Habitual grace of the virtues and gifts removes the soul's general defect and the general wound of its powers, the privation of virtue and grace; but it does not remove particular defects, whose removal is the purpose of sacramental grace.

Question 2. What is that sacramental grace?

Paludanus replies that it is a special habit really distinct from habitual grace, the virtues, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit, which he calls regenerative in Baptism, strengthening in Confirmation, and nourishing in the Eucharist. The same is to be said of the other Sacraments. But there is no need to admit such a habit: the acts to which sacramental grace helps are either common and ordinary acts elicited by deliberate will, or extraordinary acts exercised by the special motion of the Holy Spirit alone and not by one's own deliberation, as sometimes happens in holier persons. Habitual grace with the supernatural virtues suffices for the former; the gifts of the Holy Spirit suffice for the latter, making us readily mobile to follow the impulse of the divine Spirit.

Others think otherwise; but, setting their opinions aside, I think it should be said that sacramental grace adds to habitual grace and the virtues and gifts of the Holy Spirit actual helps, such as a pious and holy thought or sudden movements of the will divinely implanted by God, for attaining the end of the Sacraments. The recipient has a right to these helps. For although every habitual grace requires helps, or prevenient graces, for resisting temptations and acting well—for God, says the Council of Trent, Session 6, chapter 11, does not abandon those once justified by his actual grace unless they first abandon him—the reason had been given:

By this, he says, the just ought to feel themselves all the more bound to walk in the way of justice, since, freed from sin and made servants and friends of God, they can advance by living soberly, justly, and piously through Jesus Christ, who loves those who love him, enriching them with special favors and helps by which, if they wish, they can more easily keep God's commandments. For this is consonant with the laws of friendship: that a friend should act according to the will of a friend.

Although every habitual grace claims the special helps necessary for its preservation, this especially suits sacramental grace, which fittingly calls for certain helps by which what Christ the Lord specially intended through the Sacrament may be obtained. It is like what happens among human beings: when a subject has earned his prince's friendship by his services in some place, he is especially worthy to be rewarded there; for example, after compelling a city on the enemy's side to surrender, he is worthy to be appointed its governor.

You will say. The same habit of grace does not suffice for specifically different acts. But the acts in the Sacraments are specifically different: Matrimony is ordered to preserving conjugal fidelity, Christian education of children, and bearing family burdens. Therefore another habit must contribute to eliciting these acts; but that other habit can be nothing but sacramental grace. Therefore sacramental grace is not an actual but a habitual help.

I deny the major. Sanctifying grace conferred in the state of innocence and under the Old Testament does not seem specifically different from that conferred on just persons under the Evangelical Law; nevertheless it produces specifically different effects. The grace of the state of innocence restrained the unbridled motions of the sensory part, subjecting the body to the soul and the senses to reason; sanctifying grace of the New Testament does not produce that effect. It is likewise much more efficacious than the grace of the Old Testament, since it opens to human beings the heaven previously closed.

You will ask further: Who have a right to those sacramental helps?

I answer, it seems more probable that only those claim this right for themselves who obtain sanctifying grace in receiving a Sacrament and preserve the grace obtained. Hence the person who does not receive God's grace together with the Sacrament of Matrimony does not acquire a right to the special aids that help holy spouses in educating children and bearing the other burdens of Matrimony; and the same applies in the other Sacraments. This is proved because the author of the sermon at the supper, in Saint Cyprian, chapter On the Washing of the Feet, says: God gives again through penance, so that the Sacraments that had been injured may again be useful to them; but if penance were not present, they could in no way afterward experience the effect. Hence the person who, after receiving the Sacrament of Confirmation, loses grace through mortal sin and returns again to God through penance undoubtedly receives more grace than one who, without having received Confirmation, approaches the Sacrament of Penance with an equal disposition. For the former is prepared with a more ready spirit to undergo every torment for defending the faith than one who, without having received the Sacrament of Confirmation, approached Penance in a similar way. But this strength of spirit is not conferred precisely through the Sacrament of Penance, because it confers grace according to the measure of the recipient's disposition. Therefore it must proceed from the power of the Confirmation received, whose grace comes to life again through penance insofar as penance removes the impediment, namely sin.

You will say: An actual help of grace does not require the state of sanctifying grace, since God sometimes grants it even to the most depraved, as is clear from St. Paul, Magdalene, and other sinners who, when the light of grace shone upon them, turned to good fruit. Therefore habitual sanctifying grace is not necessary for receiving helps through the Sacraments. — I distinguish the antecedent: if actual grace is given from sheer liberality and mercy, as it was given to St. Paul and other illustrious penitents, I concede; if it is given from some right or debt, as the helps due through the conferral of the Sacraments are given, I deny.

You will insist. Sacramental grace has no greater connection with sanctifying grace than the divinely infused virtues. But these can exist without sanctifying grace: faith and hope can exist in sinners in whom grace that makes pleasing does not reside. —

I distinguish the major: it has no greater connection than the virtues which flow from sanctifying grace itself, I concede; than the virtues required as dispositions for grace, I deny. And, with the minor distinguished in the same way, I deny the consequence. I admit that sacramental grace has no greater connection with sanctifying grace than charity, which flows from it and is really identical with it. But the case is otherwise with the virtues which do not flow from it, but rather are preliminary dispositions toward it, such as faith and hope.