QUESTIONS 60-90 THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL QUESTIONS 60-65 QUESTION WHAT IS A SACRAMENT? (EIGHT ARTICLES) After considering those things that concern the mystery of the incarnate Word, we must consider the sacraments of the Church which derive their efficacy from the Word incarnate Himself. First we shall consider the sacraments in general; secondly, we shall consider specially each sacrament.

Concerning the first our consideration will be fivefold: (1) What is a sacrament? (2) Of the necessity of the sacraments; (3) of the effects of the sacraments; (4) Of their cause; (5) Of their number.

Under the first heading there are eight points of inquiry: (1) Whether a sacrament is a kind of sign? (2) Whether every sign of a sacred thing is a sacrament? (3) Whether a sacrament is a sign of one thing only, or of several? (4) Whether a sacrament is a sign that is something sensible? (5) Whether some determinate sensible thing is required for a sacrament? (6) Whether signification expressed by words is necessary for a sacrament? (7) Whether determinate words are required? (8) Whether anything may be added to or subtracted from these words?

P(3)- Q(60)- A(1) Whether a sacrament is a kind of sign?

P(3)- Q(60)- A(1)- O(1) — It seems that a sacrament is not a kind of sign.

For sacrament appears to be derived from “sacring” [sacrando]; just as medicament, from “medicando” [healing]. But this seems to be of the nature of a cause rather than of a sign. Therefore a sacrament is a kind of cause rather than a kind of sign.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(1)- O(2) — Further, sacrament seems to signify something hidden, according to Tobias 12:7: “It is good to hide the secret [sacramentum] of a king”; and Ephesians 3:9: “What is the dispensation of the mystery [sacramenti] which hath been hidden from eternity in God.”

But that which is hidden, seems foreign to the nature of a sign; for “a sign is that which conveys something else to the mind, besides the species which it impresses on the senses,” as Augustine explains (De Doctr.

Christ. ii). Therefore it seems that a sacrament is not a kind of sign.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(1)- O(3) — Further, an oath is sometimes called a sacrament: for it is written in the Decretals (Caus. xxii, qu. 5): “Children who have not attained the use of reason must not be obliged to swear: and whoever has foresworn himself once, must no more be a witness, nor be allowed to take a sacrament,” i.e. an oath. But an oath is not a kind of sign, therefore it seems that a sacrament is not a kind of sign.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(1) — On the contrary, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x): “The visible sacrifice is the sacrament, i.e. the sacred sign, of the invisible sacrifice.”

P(3)- Q(60)- A(1) — I answer that, All things that are ordained to one, even in different ways, can be denominated from it: thus, from health which is in an animal, not only is the animal said to be healthy through being the subject of health: but medicine also is said to be healthy through producing health; diet through preserving it; and urine, through being a sign of health.

Consequently, a thing may be called a “sacrament,” either from having a certain hidden sanctity, and in this sense a sacrament is a “sacred secret”; or from having some relationship to this sanctity, which relationship may be that of a cause, or of a sign or of any other relation. But now we are speaking of sacraments in a special sense, as implying the habitude of sign: and in this way a sacrament is a kind of sign.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(1)- RO(1) — Because medicine is an efficient cause of health, consequently whatever things are denominated from medicine are to be referred to some first active cause: so that a medicament implies a certain causality. But sanctity from which a sacrament is denominated, is not there taken as an efficient cause, but rather as a formal or a final cause.

Therefore it does not follow that a sacrament need always imply causality.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(1)- RO(2) — This argument considers sacrament in the sense of a “sacred secret.” Now not only God’s but also the king’s, secret, is said to be sacred and to be a sacrament: because according to the ancients, whatever it was unlawful to lay violent hands on was said to be holy or sacrosanct, such as the city walls, and persons of high rank.

Consequently those secrets, whether Divine or human, which it is unlawful to violate by making them known to anybody whatever, are called “sacred secrets or sacraments.”

P(3)- Q(60)- A(1)- RO(3) — Even an oath has a certain relation to sacred things, in so far as it consists in calling a sacred thing to witness. And in this sense it is called a sacrament: not in the sense in which we speak of sacraments now; the word “sacrament” being thus used not equivocally but analogically, i.e. by reason of a different relation to the one thing, viz. something sacred.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(2) Whether every sign of a holy thing is a sacrament?

P(3)- Q(60)- A(2)- O(1) — It seems that not every sign of a sacred thing is a sacrament. For all sensible creatures are signs of sacred things; according to Romans 1:20: “The invisible things of God are clearly seen being understood by the things that are made.” And yet all sensible things cannot be called sacraments. Therefore not every sign of a sacred thing is a sacrament.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(2)- O(2) — Further, whatever was done under the Old Law was a figure of Christ Who is the “Holy of Holies” ( Daniel 9:24), according to 1 Corinthians 10:11: “All (these) things happened to them in figure”; and Colossians 2:17: “Which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is Christ’s.” And yet not all that was done by the Fathers of the Old Testament, not even all the ceremonies of the Law, were sacraments, but only in certain special cases, as stated in the P(2a), Q(101), A(4) . Therefore it seems that not every sign of a sacred thing is a sacrament.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(2)- O(3) — Further, even in the New Testament many things are done in sign of some sacred thing; yet they are not called sacraments; such as sprinkling with holy water, the consecration of an altar, and such like. Therefore not every sign of a sacred thing is a sacrament.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(2) — On the contrary, A definition is convertible with the thing defined. Now some define a sacrament as being “the sign of a sacred thing”; moreover, this is clear from the passage quoted above ( A(1) ) from Augustine. Therefore it seems that every sign of a sacred thing is a sacrament.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(2) — I answer that, Signs are given to men, to whom it is proper to discover the unknown by means of the known. Consequently a sacrament properly so called is that which is the sign of some sacred thing pertaining to man; so that properly speaking a sacrament, as considered by us now, is defined as being the “sign of a holy thing so far as it makes men holy.”

P(3)- Q(60)- A(2)- RO(1) — Sensible creatures signify something holy, viz.

Divine wisdom and goodness inasmuch as these are holy in themselves; but not inasmuch as we are made holy by them. Therefore they cannot be called sacraments as we understand sacraments now.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(2)- RO(2) — Some things pertaining to the Old Testament signified the holiness of Christ considered as holy in Himself. Others signified His holiness considered as the cause of our holiness; thus the sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb signified Christ’s Sacrifice whereby we are made holy: and such like are properly styled sacraments of the Old Law.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(2)- RO(3) — Names are given to things considered in reference to their end and state of completeness. Now a disposition is not an end, whereas perfection is. Consequently things that signify disposition to holiness are not called sacraments, and with regard to these the objection is verified: only those are called sacraments which signify the perfection of holiness in man.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(3) Whether a sacrament is a sign of one thing only?

P(3)- Q(60)- A(3)- O(1) — It seems that a sacrament is a sign of one thing only. For that which signifies many things is an ambiguous sign, and consequently occasions deception: this is clearly seen in equivocal words.

But all deception should be removed from the Christian religion, according to Colossians 2:8: “Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceit.” Therefore it seems that a sacrament is not a sign of several things.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(3)- O(2) — Further, as stated above ( A(2) ), a sacrament signifies a holy thing in so far as it makes man holy. But there is only one cause of man’s holiness, viz. the blood of Christ; according to Hebrews 13:12: “Jesus, that He might sanctify the people by His own blood, suffered without the gate.” Therefore it seems that a sacrament does not signify several things.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(3)- O(3) — Further, it has been said above ( A(2), ad 3) that a sacrament signifies properly the very end of sanctification. Now the end of sanctification is eternal life, according to Romans 6:22: “You have your fruit unto sanctification, and the end life everlasting.” Therefore it seems that the sacraments signify one thing only, viz. eternal life.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(3) — On the contrary, In the Sacrament of the Altar, two things are signified, viz. Christ’s true body, and Christ’s mystical body; as Augustine says (Liber Sent. Prosper.).

P(3)- Q(60)- A(3) — I answer that, As stated above ( A(2) ) a sacrament properly speaking is that which is ordained to signify our sanctification. In which three things may be considered; viz. the very cause of our sanctification, which is Christ’s passion; the form of our sanctification, which is grace and the virtues; and the ultimate end of our sanctification, which is eternal life. And all these are signified by the sacraments.

Consequently a sacrament is a sign that is both a reminder of the past, i.e. the passion of Christ; and an indication of that which is effected in us by Christ’s passion, i.e. grace; and a prognostic, that is, a foretelling of future glory.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(3)- RO(1) — Then is a sign ambiguous and the occasion of deception, when it signifies many things not ordained to one another. But when it signifies many things inasmuch as, through being mutually ordained, they form one thing, then the sign is not ambiguous but certain: thus this word “man” signifies the soul and body inasmuch as together they form the human nature. In this way a sacrament signifies the three things aforesaid, inasmuch as by being in a certain order they are one thing.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(3)- RO(2) — Since a sacrament signifies that which sanctifies, it must needs signify the effect, which is implied in the sanctifying cause as such.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(3)- RO(3) — It is enough for a sacrament that it signify that perfection which consists in the form, nor is it necessary that it should signify only that perfection which is the end.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(4) Whether a sacrament is always something sensible?

P(3)- Q(60)- A(4)- O(1) — It seems that a sacrament is not always something sensible. Because, according to the Philosopher (Prior. Anal. ii), every effect is a sign of its cause. But just as there are some sensible effects, so are there some intelligible effects; thus science is the effect of a demonstration. Therefore not every sign is sensible. Now all that is required for a sacrament is something that is a sign of some sacred thing, inasmuch as thereby man is sanctified, as stated above ( A(2) ). Therefore something sensible is not required for a sacrament.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(4)- O(2) — Further, sacraments belong to the kingdom of God and the Divine worship. But sensible things do not seem to belong to the Divine worship: for we are told ( John 4:24) that “God is a spirit; and they that adore Him, must adore Him in spirit and in truth”; and ( Romans 14:17) that “the kingdom of God is not meat and drink.”

Therefore sensible things are not required for the sacraments.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(4)- O(3) — Further. Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. ii) that “sensible things are goods of least account, since without them man can live aright.” But the sacraments are necessary for man’s salvation, as we shall show farther on ( Q(61), A(1) ): so that man cannot live aright without them. Therefore sensible things are not required for the sacraments.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(4) — On the contrary, Augustine says (Tract. lxxx super Joan.): “The word is added to the element and this becomes a sacrament”; and he is speaking there of water which is a sensible element. Therefore sensible things are required for the sacraments.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(4) — I answer that, Divine wisdom provides for each thing according to its mode; hence it is written (Wis. 8:1) that “she... ordereth all things sweetly”: wherefore also we are told ( Matthew 25:15) that she “gave to everyone according to his proper ability.” Now it is part of man’s nature to acquire knowledge of the intelligible from the sensible. But a sign is that by means of which one attains to the knowledge of something else.

Consequently, since the sacred things which are signified by the sacraments, are the spiritual and intelligible goods by means of which man is sanctified, it follows that the sacramental signs consist in sensible things: just as in the Divine Scriptures spiritual things are set before us under the guise of things sensible. And hence it is that sensible things are required for the sacraments; as Dionysius also proves in his book on the heavenly hierarchy (Coel. Hier. i).

P(3)- Q(60)- A(4)- RO(1) — The name and definition of a thing is taken principally from that which belongs to a thing primarily and essentially: and not from that which belongs to it through something else. Now a sensible effect being the primary and direct object of man’s knowledge (since all our knowledge springs from the senses) by its very nature leads to the knowledge of something else: whereas intelligible effects are not such as to be able to lead us to the knowledge of something else, except in so far as they are manifested by some other thing, i.e. by certain sensibles.

It is for this reason that the name sign is given primarily and principally to things which are offered to the senses; hence Augustine says (De Doctr.

Christ. ii) that a sign “is that which conveys something else to the mind, besides the species which it impresses on the senses.” But intelligible effects do not partake of the nature of a sign except in so far as they are pointed out by certain signs. And in this way, too, certain things which are not sensible are termed sacraments as it were, in so far as they are signified by certain sensible things, of which we shall treat further on ( Q(63), A(1), ad 2; A(3), ad 2; Q(73), A(6) ; Q(74), A(1), ad 3).

P(3)- Q(60)- A(4)- RO(2) — Sensible things considered in their own nature do not belong to the worship or kingdom of God: but considered only as signs of spiritual things in which the kingdom of God consists.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(4)- RO(3) — Augustine speaks there of sensible things, considered in their nature; but not as employed to signify spiritual things, which are the highest goods.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(5) Whether determinate things are required for a sacrament?

P(3)- Q(60)- A(5)- O(1) — It seems that determinate things are not required for a sacrament. For sensible things are required in sacraments for the purpose of signification, as stated above ( A(4) ). But nothing hinders the same thing being signified by divers sensible things: thus in Holy Scripture God is signified metaphorically, sometimes by a stone ( 2 Kings 22:2; Zechariah 3:9; 1 Corinthians 10:4; Revelation 4:3); sometimes by a lion ( Isaiah 31:4; Revelation 5:5); sometimes by the sun ( Isaiah 60:19,20; Malachi 4:2), or by something similar. Therefore it seems that divers things can be suitable to the same sacrament. Therefore determinate things are not required for the sacraments.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(5)- O(2) — Further, the health of the soul is more necessary than that of the body. But in bodily medicines, which are ordained to the health of the body, one thing can be substituted for another which happens to be wanting. Therefore much more in the sacraments, which are spiritual remedies ordained to the health of the soul, can one thing be substituted for another when this happens to be lacking.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(5)- O(3) — Further, it is not fitting that the salvation of men be restricted by the Divine Law: still less by the Law of Christ, Who came to save all. But in the state of the Law of nature determinate things were not required in the sacraments, but were put to that use through a vow, as appears from Genesis 28, where Jacob vowed that he would offer to God tithes and peace-offerings. Therefore it seems that man should not have been restricted, especially under the New Law, to the use of any determinate thing in the sacraments.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(5) — On the contrary, our Lord said ( John 3:5): “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

P(3)- Q(60)- A(5) — I answer that, In the use of the sacraments two things may be considered, namely, the worship of God, and the sanctification of man: the former of which pertains to man as referred to God, and the latter pertains to God in reference to man. Now it is not for anyone to determine that which is in the power of another, but only that which is in his own power. Since, therefore, the sanctification of man is in the power of God Who sanctifies, it is not for man to decide what things should be used for his sanctification, but this should be determined by Divine institution.

Therefore in the sacraments of the New Law, by which man is sanctified according to 1 Corinthians 6:11, “You are washed, you are sanctified,” we must use those things which are determined by Divine institution.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(5)- RO(1) — Though the same thing can be signified by divers signs, yet to determine which sign must be used belongs to the signifier. Now it is God Who signifies spiritual things to us by means of the sensible things in the sacraments, and of similitudes in the Scriptures.

And consequently, just as the Holy Ghost decides by what similitudes spiritual things are to be signified in certain passages of Scripture, so also must it be determined by Divine institution what things are to be employed for the purpose of signification in this or that sacrament.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(5)- RO(2) — Sensible things are endowed with natural powers conducive to the health of the body: and therefore if two of them have the same virtue, it matters not which we use. Yet they are ordained unto sanctification not through any power that they possess naturally, but only in virtue of the Divine institution. And therefore it was necessary that God should determine the sensible things to be employed in the sacraments.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(5)- RO(3) — As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix), diverse sacraments suit different times; just as different times are signified by different parts of the verb, viz. present, past, and future. Consequently, just as under the state of the Law of nature man was moved by inward instinct and without any outward law, to worship God, so also the sensible things to be employed in the worship of God were determined by inward instinct. But later on it became necessary for a law to be given (to man) from without: both because the Law of nature had become obscured by man’s sins; and in order to signify more expressly the grace of Christ, by which the human race is sanctified. And hence the need for those things to be determinate, of which men have to make use in the sacraments. Nor is the way of salvation narrowed thereby: because the things which need to be used in the sacraments, are either in everyone’s possession or can be had with little trouble.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(6) Whether words are required for the signification of the sacraments?

P(3)- Q(60)- A(6)- O(1) — It seems that words are not required for the signification of the sacraments. For Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix): “What else is a corporeal sacrament but a kind of visible word?” Wherefore to add words to the sensible things in the sacraments seems to be the same as to add words to words. But this is superfluous. Therefore words are not required besides the sensible things in the sacraments .

P(3)- Q(60)- A(6)- O(2) — Further, a sacrament is some one thing, but it does not seem possible to make one thing of those that belong to different genera. Since, therefore, sensible things and words are of different genera, for sensible things are the product of nature, but words, of reason; it seems that in the sacraments, words are not required besides sensible things.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(6)- O(3) — Further, the sacraments of the New Law succeed those of the Old Law: since “the former were instituted when the latter were abolished,” as Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix). But no form of words was required in the sacraments of the Old Law. Therefore neither is it required in those of the New Law.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(6) — On the contrary, The Apostle says ( Ephesians 5:25,26): “Christ loved the Church, and delivered Himself up for it; that He might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life.”

And Augustine says (Tract. xxx in Joan.): “The word is added to the element, and this becomes a sacrament.”

P(3)- Q(60)- A(6) — I answer that, The sacraments, as stated above ( AA(2),3 ), are employed as signs for man’s sanctification. Consequently they can be considered in three ways: and in each way it is fitting for words to be added to the sensible signs. For in the first place they can be considered in regard to the cause of sanctification, which is the Word incarnate: to Whom the sacraments have a certain conformity, in that the word is joined to the sensible sign, just as in the mystery of the Incarnation the Word of God is united to sensible flesh.

Secondly, sacraments may be considered on the part of man who is sanctified, and who is composed of soul and body: to whom the sacramental remedy is adjusted, since it touches the body through the sensible element, and the soul through faith in the words. Hence Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan.) on John 15:3, “Now you are clean by reason of the word,” etc.: “Whence hath water this so great virtue, to touch the body and wash the heart, but by the word doing it, not because it is spoken, but because it is believed?”

Thirdly, a sacrament may be considered on the part of the sacramental signification. Now Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. ii) that “words are the principal signs used by men”; because words can be formed in various ways for the purpose of signifying various mental concepts, so that we are able to express our thoughts with greater distinctness by means of words.

And therefore in order to insure the perfection of sacramental signification it was necessary to determine the signification of the sensible things by means of certain words. For water may signify both a cleansing by reason of its humidity, and refreshment by reason of its being cool: but when we say, “I baptize thee,” it is clear that we use water in baptism in order to signify a spiritual cleansing.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(6)- RO(1) — The sensible elements of the sacraments are called words by way of a certain likeness, in so far as they partake of a certain significative power, which resides principally in the very words, as stated above. Consequently it is not a superfluous repetition to add words to the visible element in the sacraments; because one determines the other, as stated above.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(6)- RO(2) — Although words and other sensible things are not in the same genus, considered in their natures, yet have they something in common as to the thing signified by them: which is more perfectly done in words than in other things. Wherefore in the sacraments, words and things, like form and matter, combine in the formation of one thing, in so far as the signification of things is completed by means of words, as above stated. And under words are comprised also sensible actions, such as cleansing and anointing and such like: because they have a like signification with the things.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(6)- RO(3) — As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix), the sacraments of things present should be different from sacraments of things to come. Now the sacraments of the Old Law foretold the coming of Christ. Consequently they did not signify Christ so clearly as the sacraments of the New Law, which flow from Christ Himself, and have a certain likeness to Him, as stated above. Nevertheless in the Old Law, certain words were used in things pertaining to the worship of God, both by the priests, who were the ministers of those sacraments, according to Numbers 6:23,24: “Thus shall you bless the children of Israel, and you shall say to them: The Lord bless thee,” etc.; and by those who made use of those sacraments, according to Deuteronomy 26:3: “I profess this day before the Lord thy God,” etc.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(7) Whether determinate words are required in the sacraments?

P(3)- Q(60)- A(7)- O(1) — It seems that determinate words are not required in the sacraments. For as the Philosopher says (Peri Herm. i), “words are not the same for all.” But salvation, which is sought through the sacraments, is the same for all. Therefore determinate words are not required in the sacraments.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(7)- O(2) — Further, words are required in the sacraments forasmuch as they are the principal means of signification, as stated above ( A(6) ). But it happens that various words mean the same. Therefore determinate words are not required in the sacraments.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(7)- O(3) — Further, corruption of anything changes its species. But some corrupt the pronunciation of words, and yet it is not credible that the sacramental effect is hindered thereby; else unlettered men and stammerers, in conferring sacraments, would frequently do so invalidly. Therefore it seems that determinate words are not required in the sacraments.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(7) — On the contrary, our Lord used determinate words in consecrating the sacrament of the Eucharist, when He said ( Matthew 26:26): “This is My Body.” Likewise He commanded His disciples to baptize under a form of determinate words, saying ( Matthew 28:19): “Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

P(3)- Q(60)- A(7) — I answer that, As stated above ( A(6), ad 2), in the sacraments the words are as the form, and sensible things are as the matter.

Now in all things composed of matter and form, the determining principle is on the part of the form, which is as it were the end and terminus of the matter. Consequently for the being of a thing the need of a determinate form is prior to the need of determinate matter: for determinate matter is needed that it may be adapted to the determinate form. Since, therefore, in the sacraments determinate sensible things are required, which are as the sacramental matter, much more is there need in them of a determinate form of words.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(7)- RO(1) — As Augustine says (Tract. lxxx super Joan.), the word operates in the sacraments “not because it is spoken,” i.e. not by the outward sound of the voice, “but because it is believed” in accordance with the sense of the words which is held by faith. And this sense is indeed the same for all, though the same words as to their sound be not used by all. Consequently no matter in what language this sense is expressed, the sacrament is complete.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(7)- RO(2) — Although it happens in every language that various words signify the same thing, yet one of those words is that which those who speak that language use principally and more commonly to signify that particular thing: and this is the word which should be used for the sacramental signification. So also among sensible things, that one is used for the sacramental signification which is most commonly employed for the action by which the sacramental effect is signified: thus water is most commonly used by men for bodily cleansing, by which the spiritual cleansing is signified: and therefore water is employed as the matter of baptism.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(7)- RO(3) — If he who corrupts the pronunciation of the sacramental words — does so on purpose, he does not seem to intend to do what the Church intends: and thus the sacrament seems to be defective.

But if he do this through error or a slip of the tongue, and if he so far mispronounce the words as to deprive them of sense, the sacrament seems to be defective. This would be the case especially if the mispronunciation be in the beginning of a word, for instance, if one were to say “in nomine matris” instead of “in nomine Patris.” If, however, the sense of the words be not entirely lost by this mispronunciation, the sacrament is complete.

This would be the case principally if the end of a word be mispronounced; for instance, if one were to say “patrias et filias.” For although the words thus mispronounced have no appointed meaning, yet we allow them an accommodated meaning corresponding to the usual forms of speech. And so, although the sensible sound is changed, yet the sense remains the same.

What has been said about the various mispronunciations of words, either at the beginning or at the end, holds forasmuch as with us a change at the beginning of a word changes the meaning, whereas a change at the end generally speaking does not effect such a change: whereas with the Greeks the sense is changed also in the beginning of words in the conjugation of verbs.

Nevertheless the principle point to observe is the extent of the corruption entailed by mispronunciation: for in either case it may be so little that it does not alter the sense of the words; or so great that it destroys it. But it is easier for the one to happen on the part of the beginning of the words, and the other at the end.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(8) Whether it is lawful to add anything to the words in which the sacramental form consists?

P(3)- Q(60)- A(8)- O(1) — It seems that it is not lawful to add anything to the words in which the sacramental form consists. For these sacramental words are not of less importance than are the words of Holy Scripture.

But it is not lawful to add anything to, or to take anything from, the words of Holy Scripture: for it is written ( Deuteronomy 4:2): “You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it”; and ( Revelation 22:18,19): “I testify to everyone that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: if any man shall add to these things, God shall add to him the plagues written in this book. And if any man shall take away... God shall take away his part out of the book of life.”

Therefore it seems that neither is it lawful to add anything to, or to take anything from, the sacramental forms.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(8)- O(2) — Further, in the sacraments words are by way of form, as stated above ( A(6), ad 2; A(7) ). But any addition or subtraction in forms changes the species, as also in numbers (Metaph. viii). Therefore it seems that if anything be added to or subtracted from a sacramental form, it will not be the same sacrament.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(8)- O(3) — Further, just as the sacramental form demands a certain number of words, so does it require that these words should be pronounced in a certain order and without interruption. If therefore, the sacrament is not rendered invalid by addition or subtraction of words, in like manner it seems that neither is it, if the words be pronounced in a different order or with interruptions.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(8) — On the contrary, Certain words are inserted by some in the sacramental forms, which are not inserted by others: thus the Latins baptize under this form: “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”; whereas the Greeks use the following form: “The servant of God, N... is baptized in the name of the Father,” etc.

Yet both confer the sacrament validly. Therefore it is lawful to add something to, or to take something from, the sacramental forms.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(8) — I answer that, With regard to all the variations that may occur in the sacramental forms, two points seem to call for our attention. one is on the part of the person who says the words, and whose intention is essential to the sacrament, as will be explained further on ( Q(64), A(8) ). Wherefore if he intends by such addition or suppression to perform a rite other from that which is recognized by the Church, it seems that the sacrament is invalid: because he seems not to intend to do what the Church does.

The other point to be considered is the meaning of the words. For since in the sacraments, the words produce an effect according to the sense which they convey, as stated above ( A(7), ad 1), we must see whether the change of words destroys the essential sense of the words: because then the sacrament is clearly rendered invalid. Now it is clear, if any substantial part of the sacramental form be suppressed, that the essential sense of the words is destroyed; and consequently the sacrament is invalid. Wherefore Didymus says (De Spir. Sanct. ii): “If anyone attempt to baptize in such a way as to omit one of the aforesaid names,” i.e. of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, “his baptism will be invalid.” But if that which is omitted be not a substantial part of the form, such an omission does not destroy the essential sense of the words, nor consequently the validity of the sacrament. Thus in the form of the Eucharist — ”For this is My Body,” the omission of the word “for” does not destroy the essential sense of the words, nor consequently cause the sacrament to be invalid; although perhaps he who makes the omission may sin from negligence or contempt.

Again, it is possible to add something that destroys the essential sense of the words: for instance, if one were to say: “I baptize thee in the name of the Father Who is greater, and of the Son Who is less,” with which form the Arians baptized: and consequently such an addition makes the sacrament invalid. But if the addition be such as not to destroy the essential sense, the sacrament is not rendered invalid. Nor does it matter whether this addition be made at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end:

For instance, if one were to say, “I baptize thee in the name of the Father Almighty, and of the only Begotten Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete,” the baptism would be valid; and in like manner if one were to say, “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”; and may the Blessed Virgin succour thee, the baptism would be valid.

Perhaps, however, if one were to say, “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and of the Blessed Virgin Mary,” the baptism would be void; because it is written ( 1 Corinthians 1:13): “Was Paul crucified for you or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” But this is true if the intention be to baptize in the name of the Blessed Virgin as in the name of the Trinity, by which baptism is consecrated: for such a sense would be contrary to faith, and would therefore render the sacrament invalid: whereas if the addition, “and in the name of the Blessed Virgin” be understood, not as if the name of the Blessed Virgin effected anything in baptism, but as intimating that her intercession may help the person baptized to preserve the baptismal grace, then the sacrament is not rendered void.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(8)- RO(1) — It is not lawful to add anything to the words of Holy Scripture as regards the sense; but many words are added by Doctors by way of explanation of the Holy Scriptures. Nevertheless, it is not lawful to add even words to Holy Scripture as though such words were a part thereof, for this would amount to forgery. It would amount to the same if anyone were to pretend that something is essential to a sacramental form, which is not so.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(8)- RO(2) — Words belong to a sacramental form by reason of the sense signified by them. Consequently any addition or suppression of words which does not add to or take from the essential sense, does not destroy the essence of the sacrament.

P(3)- Q(60)- A(8)- RO(3) — If the words are interrupted to such an extent that the intention of the speaker is interrupted, the sacramental sense is destroyed, and consequently, the validity of the sacrament. But this is not the case if the interruption of the speaker is so slight, that his intention and the sense of the words is not interrupted.

The same is to be said of a change in the order of the words. Because if this destroys the sense of the words, the sacrament is invalidated: as happens when a negation is made to precede or follow a word. But if the order is so changed that the sense of the words does not vary, the sacrament is not invalidated, according to the Philosopher’s dictum: “Nouns and verbs mean the same though they be transposed” (Peri Herm. x).

QUESTION OF THE NECESSITY OF THE SACRAMENTS (FOUR ARTICLES) We must now consider the necessity of the sacraments; concerning which there are four points of inquiry: (1) Whether sacraments are necessary for man’s salvation? (2) Whether they were necessary in the state that preceded sin? (3) Whether they were necessary in the state after sin and before Christ? (4) Whether they were necessary after Christ’s coming?

P(3)- Q(61)- A(1) Whether sacraments are necessary for man’s salvation?

P(3)- Q(61)- A(1)- O(1) — It seems that sacraments are not necessary for man’s salvation. For the Apostle says ( 1 Timothy 4:8): “Bodily exercise is profitable to little.” But the use of sacraments pertains to bodily exercise; because sacraments are perfected in the signification of sensible things and words, as stated above ( Q(60), A(6) ). Therefore sacraments are not necessary for the salvation of man.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(1)- O(2) — Further, the Apostle was told ( 2 Corinthians 12:9): “My grace is sufficient for thee.” But it would not suffice if sacraments were necessary for salvation. Therefore sacraments are not necessary for man’s salvation.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(1)- O(3) — Further, given a sufficient cause, nothing more seems to be required for the effect. But Christ’s Passion is the sufficient cause of our salvation; for the Apostle says ( Romans 5:10): “If, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son: much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by His life.”

Therefore sacraments are not necessary for man’s salvation.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(1) — On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix): “It is impossible to keep men together in one religious denomination, whether true or false, except they be united by means of visible signs or sacraments.” But it is necessary for salvation that men be united together in the name of the one true religion. Therefore sacraments are necessary for man’s salvation.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(1) — I answer that, Sacraments are necessary unto man’s salvation for three reasons. The first is taken from the condition of human nature which is such that it has to be led by things corporeal and sensible to things spiritual and intelligible. Now it belongs to Divine providence to provide for each one according as its condition requires. Divine wisdom, therefore, fittingly provides man with means of salvation, in the shape of corporeal and sensible signs that are called sacraments.

The second reason is taken from the state of man who in sinning subjected himself by his affections to corporeal things. Now the healing remedy should be given to a man so as to reach the part affected by disease.

Consequently it was fitting that God should provide man with a spiritual medicine by means of certain corporeal signs; for if man were offered spiritual things without a veil, his mind being taken up with the material world would be unable to apply itself to them.

The third reason is taken from the fact that man is prone to direct his activity chiefly towards material things. Lest, therefore, it should be too hard for man to be drawn away entirely from bodily actions, bodily exercise was offered to him in the sacraments, by which he might be trained to avoid superstitious practices, consisting in the worship of demons, and all manner of harmful action, consisting in sinful deeds.

It follows, therefore, that through the institution of the sacraments man, consistently with his nature, is instructed through sensible things; he is humbled, through confessing that he is subject to corporeal things, seeing that he receives assistance through them: and he is even preserved from bodily hurt, by the healthy exercise of the sacraments.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(1)- RO(1) — Bodily exercise, as such, is not very profitable: but exercise taken in the use of the sacraments is not merely bodily, but to a certain extent spiritual, viz. in its signification and in its causality.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(1)- RO(2) — God’s grace is a sufficient cause of man’s salvation. But God gives grace to man in a way which is suitable to him.

Hence it is that man needs the sacraments that he may obtain grace.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(1)- RO(3) — Christ’s Passion is a sufficient cause of man’s salvation. But it does not follow that the sacraments are not also necessary for that purpose: because they obtain their effect through the power of Christ’s Passion; and Christ’s Passion is, so to say, applied to man through the sacraments according to the Apostle ( Romans 6:3): “All we who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death.”

P(3)- Q(61)- A(2) Whether before sin sacraments were necessary to man?

P(3)- Q(61)- A(2)- O(1) — It seems that before sin sacraments were necessary to man. For, as stated above ( A(1), ad 2) man needs sacraments that he may obtain grace. But man needed grace even in the state of innocence, as we stated in the P(1), Q(95), A(4)- (cf. P(2a), Q(109), A(2) ; P(2a), Q(114), A(2) ). Therefore sacraments were necessary in that state also.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(2)- O(2) — Further, sacraments are suitable to man by reason of the conditions of human nature, as stated above ( A(1) ). But man’s nature is the same before and after sin. Therefore it seems that before sin, man needed the sacraments.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(2)- O(3) — Further, matrimony is a sacrament, according to Ephesians 5:32: “This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the Church.” But matrimony was instituted before sin, as may be seen in Genesis 2. Therefore sacraments were necessary to man before sin.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(2) — On the contrary, None but the sick need remedies, according to Matthew 9:12: “They that are in health need not a physician.” Now the sacraments are spiritual remedies for the healing of wounds inflicted by sin. Therefore they were not necessary before sin.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(2) — I answer that, Sacraments were not necessary in the state of innocence. This can be proved from the rectitude of that state, in which the higher (parts of man) ruled the lower, and nowise depended on them: for just as the mind was subject to God, so were the lower powers of the soul subject to the mind, and the body to the soul. And it would be contrary to this order if the soul were perfected either in knowledge or in grace, by anything corporeal; which happens in the sacraments. Therefore in the state of innocence man needed no sacraments, whether as remedies against sin or as means of perfecting the soul.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(2)- RO(1) — In the state of innocence man needed grace: not so that he needed to obtain grace by means of sensible signs, but in a spiritual and invisible manner.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(2)- RO(2) — Man’s nature is the same before and after sin, but the state of his nature is not the same. Because after sin, the soul, even in its higher part, needs to receive something from corporeal things in order that it may be perfected: whereas man had no need of this in that state.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(2)- RO(3) — Matrimony was instituted in the state of innocence, not as a sacrament, but as a function of nature. Consequently, however, it foreshadowed something in relation to Christ and the Church: just as everything else foreshadowed Christ.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(3) Whether there should have been sacraments after sin, before Christ?

P(3)- Q(61)- A(3)- O(1) — It seems that there should have been no sacraments after sin, before Christ. For it has been stated that the Passion of Christ is applied to men through the sacraments: so that Christ’s Passion is compared to the sacraments as cause to effect. But effect does not precede cause. Therefore there should have been no sacraments before Christ’s coming.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(3)- O(2) — Further, sacraments should be suitable to the state of the human race, as Augustine declares (Contra Faust. xix). But the state of the human race underwent no change after sin until it was repaired by Christ. Neither, therefore, should the sacraments have been changed, so that besides the sacraments of the natural law, others should be instituted in the law of Moses.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(3)- O(3) — Further, the nearer a thing approaches to that which is perfect, the more like it should it be. Now the perfection of human salvation was accomplished by Christ; to Whom the sacraments of the Old Law were nearer than those that preceded the Law. Therefore they should have borne a greater likeness to the sacraments of Christ. And yet the contrary is the case, since it was foretold that the priesthood of Christ would be “according to the order of Melchisedech, and not... according to the order of Aaron” ( Hebrews 7:11). Therefore sacraments were unsuitably instituted before Christ.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(3) — On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix) that “the first sacraments which the Law commanded to be solemnized and observed were announcements of Christ’s future coming.” But it was necessary for man’s salvation that Christ’s coming should be announced beforehand. Therefore it was necessary that some sacraments should be instituted before Christ.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(3) — I answer that, Sacraments are necessary for man’s salvation, in so far as they are sensible signs of invisible things whereby man is made holy. Now after sin no man can be made holy save through Christ, “Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood, to the showing of His justice... that He Himself may be just, and the justifier of him who is of the faith of Jesus Christ” ( Romans 3:25,26).

Therefore before Christ’s coming there was need for some visible signs whereby man might testify to his faith in the future coming of a Saviour.

And these signs are called sacraments. It is therefore clear that some sacraments were necessary before Christ’s coming.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(3)- RO(1) — Christ’s Passion is the final cause of the old sacraments: for they were instituted in order to foreshadow it. Now the final cause precedes not in time, but in the intention of the agent.

Consequently, there is no reason against the existence of sacraments before Christ’s Passion.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(3)- RO(2) — The state of the human race after sin and before Christ can be considered from two points of view. First, from that of faith: and thus it was always one and the same: since men were made righteous, through faith in the future coming of Christ. Secondly, according as sin was more or less intense, and knowledge concerning Christ more or less explicit. For as time went on sin gained a greater hold on man, so much so that it clouded man’s reason, the consequence being that the precepts of the natural law were insufficient to make man live aright, and it became necessary to have a written code of fixed laws, and together with these certain sacraments of faith. For it was necessary, as time went on, that the knowledge of faith should be more and more unfolded, since, as Gregory says (Hom. vi in Ezech.): “With the advance of time there was an advance in the knowledge of Divine things.” Consequently in the old Law there was also a need for certain fixed sacraments significative of man’s faith in the future coming of Christ: which sacraments are compared to those that preceded the Law, as something determinate to that which is indeterminate: inasmuch as before the Law it was not laid down precisely of what sacraments men were to make use: whereas this was prescribed by the Law; and this was necessary both on account of the overclouding of the natural law, and for the clearer signification of faith.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(3)- RO(3) — The sacrament of Melchisedech which preceded the Law is more like the Sacrament of the New Law in its matter: in so far as “he offered bread and wine” ( Genesis 14:18), just as bread and wine are offered in the sacrifice of the New Testament. Nevertheless the sacraments of the Mosaic Law are more like the thing signified by the sacrament, i.e. the Passion of Christ: as clearly appears in the Paschal Lamb and such like. The reason of this was lest, if the sacraments retained the same appearance, it might seem to be the continuation of one and the same sacrament, where there was no interruption of time.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(4) Whether there was need for any sacraments after Christ came?

P(3)- Q(61)- A(4)- O(1) — It seems that there was no need for any sacraments after Christ came. For the figure should cease with the advent of the truth. But “grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” ( John 1:17).

Since, therefore, the sacraments are signs or figures of the truth, it seems that there was no need for any sacraments after Christ’s Passion.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(4)- O(2) — Further, the sacraments consist in certain elements, as stated above ( Q(60), A(4) ). But the Apostle says ( Galatians 4:3,4) that “when we were children we were serving under the elements of the world”: but that now “when the fulness of time” has “come,” we are no longer children. Therefore it seems that we should not serve God under the elements of this world, by making use of corporeal sacraments.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(4)- O(3) — Further, according to James 1:17 with God “there is no change, nor shadow of alteration.” But it seems to argue some change in the Divine will that God should give man certain sacraments for his sanctification now during the time of grace, and other sacraments before Christ’s coming. Therefore it seems that other sacraments should not have been instituted after Christ.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(4) — On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix) that the sacraments of the Old Law “were abolished because they were fulfilled; and others were instituted, fewer in number, but more efficacious, more profitable, and of easier accomplishment.”

P(3)- Q(61)- A(4) — I answer that, As the ancient Fathers were saved through faith in Christ’s future coming, so are we saved through faith in Christ’s past birth and Passion. Now the sacraments are signs in protestation of the faith whereby man is justified; and signs should vary according as they signify the future, the past, or the present; for as Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix), “the same thing is variously pronounced as to be done and as having been done: for instance the word ‘passurus’ [going to suffer] differs from ‘passus’ [having suffered].”

Therefore the sacraments of the New Law, that signify Christ in relation to the past, must needs differ from those of the Old Law, that foreshadowed the future.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(4)- RO(1) — As Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v), the state of the New Law. is between the state of the Old Law, whose figures are fulfilled in the New, and the state of glory, in which all truth will be openly and perfectly revealed. Wherefore then there will be no sacraments.

But now, so long as we know “through a glass in a dark manner,” ( Corinthians 13:12) we need sensible signs in order to reach spiritual things: and this is the province of the sacraments.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(4)- RO(2) — The Apostle calls the sacraments of the Old Law “weak and needy elements” ( Galatians 4:9) because they neither contained nor caused grace. Hence the Apostle says that those who used these sacraments served God “under the elements of this world”: for the very reason that these sacraments were nothing else than the elements of this world. But our sacraments both contain and cause grace: consequently the comparison does not hold.

P(3)- Q(61)- A(4)- RO(3) — Just as the head of the house is not proved to have a changeable mind, through issuing various commands to his household at various seasons, ordering things differently in winter and summer; so it does not follow that there is any change in God, because He instituted sacraments of one kind after Christ’s coming, and of another kind at the time of the Law. because the latter were suitable as foreshadowing grace; the former as signifying the presence of grace, QUESTION OF THE SACRAMENTS’ PRINCIPAL EFFECT, WHICH IS GRACE (SIX ARTICLES) We have now to consider the effect of the sacraments. First of their principal effect, which is grace; secondly, of their secondary effect, which is a character. Concerning the first there are six points of inquiry: (1) Whether the sacraments of the New Law are the cause of grace? (2) Whether sacramental grace confers anything in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts? (3) Whether the sacraments contain grace? (4) Whether there is any power in them for the causing of grace? (5) Whether the sacraments derive this power from Christ’s Passion? (6) Whether the sacraments of the Old Law caused grace?

P(3)- Q(62)- A(1) Whether the sacraments are the cause of grace?

P(3)- Q(62)- A(1)- O(1) — It seems that the sacraments are not the cause of grace. For it seems that the same thing is not both sign and cause: since the nature of sign appears to be more in keeping with an effect. But a sacrament is a sign of grace. Therefore it is not its cause.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(1)- O(2) — Further, nothing corporeal can act on a spiritual thing: since “the agent is more excellent than the patient,” as Augustine says (Genesis ad lit. xii). But the subject of grace is the human mind, which is something spiritual. Therefore the sacraments cannot cause grace.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(1)- O(3) — Further, what is proper to God should not be ascribed to a creature. But it is proper to God to cause grace, according to Psalm 83:12: “The Lord will give grace and glory.” Since, therefore, the sacraments consist in certain words and created things, it seems that they cannot cause grace.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(1) — On the contrary, Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan.) that the baptismal water “touches the body and cleanses the heart.” But the heart is not cleansed save through grace. Therefore it causes grace: and for like reason so do the other sacraments of the Church.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(1) — I answer that, We must needs say that in some way the sacraments of the New Law cause grace. For it is evident that through the sacraments of the New Law man is incorporated with Christ: thus the Apostle says of Baptism ( Galatians 3:27): “As many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ.” And man is made a member of Christ through grace alone.

Some, however, say that they are the cause of grace not by their own operation, but in so far as God causes grace in the soul when the sacraments are employed. And they give as an example a man who on presenting a leaden coin, receives, by the king’s command, a hundred pounds: not as though the leaden coin, by any operation of its own, caused him to be given that sum of money; this being the effect of the mere will of the king. Hence Bernard says in a sermon on the Lord’s Supper: “Just as a canon is invested by means of a book, an abbot by means of a crozier, a bishop by means of a ring, so by the various sacraments various kinds of grace are conferred.” But if we examine the question properly, we shall see that according to the above mode the sacraments are mere signs. For the leaden coin is nothing but a sign of the king’s command that this man should receive money. In like manner the book is a sign of the conferring of a canonry. Hence, according to this opinion the sacraments of the New Law would be mere signs of grace; whereas we have it on the authority of many saints that the sacraments of the New Law not only signify, but also cause grace.

We must therefore say otherwise, that an efficient cause is twofold, principal and instrumental. The principal cause works by the power of its form, to which form the effect is likened; just as fire by its own heat makes something hot. In this way none but God can cause grace: since grace is nothing else than a participated likeness of the Divine Nature, according to 2 Peter 1:4: “He hath given us most great and precious promises; that we may be [Vulg.: ‘you may be made’] partakers of the Divine Nature.”

But the instrumental cause works not by the power of its form, but only by the motion whereby it is moved by the principal agent: so that the effect is not likened to the instrument but to the principal agent: for instance, the couch is not like the axe, but like the art which is in the craftsman’s mind. And it is thus that the sacraments of the New Law cause grace: for they are instituted by God to be employed for the purpose of conferring grace. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix): “All these things,” viz. pertaining to the sacraments, “are done and pass away, but the power,” viz. of God, “which works by them, remains ever.” Now that is, properly speaking, an instrument by which someone works: wherefore it is written ( Titus 3:5): “He saved us by the laver of regeneration.”

P(3)- Q(62)- A(1)- RO(1) — The principal cause cannot properly be called a sign of its effect, even though the latter be hidden and the cause itself sensible and manifest. But an instrumental cause, if manifest, can be called a sign of a hidden effect, for this reason, that it is not merely a cause but also in a measure an effect in so far as it is moved by the principal agent.

And in this sense the sacraments of the New Law are both cause and signs.

Hence, too, is it that, to use the common expression, “they effect what they signify.” From this it is clear that they perfectly fulfil the conditions of a sacrament; being ordained to something sacred, not only as a sign, but also as a cause.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(1)- RO(2) — An instrument has a twofold action; one is instrumental, in respect of which it works not by its own power but by the power of the principal agent: the other is its proper action, which belongs to it in respect of its proper form: thus it belongs to an axe to cut asunder by reason of its sharpness, but to make a couch, in so far as it is the instrument of an art. But it does not accomplish the instrumental action save by exercising its proper action: for it is by cutting that it makes a couch. In like manner the corporeal sacraments by their operation, which they exercise on the body that they touch, accomplish through the Divine institution an instrumental operation on the soul; for example, the water of baptism, in respect of its proper power, cleanses the body, and thereby, inasmuch as it is the instrument of the Divine power, cleanses the soul: since from soul and body one thing is made. And thus it is that Augustine says (Genesis ad lit. xii) that it “touches the body and cleanses the heart.”

P(3)- Q(62)- A(1)- RO(3) — This argument considers that which causes grace as principal agent; for this belongs to God alone, as stated above.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(2) Whether sacramental grace confers anything in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts?

P(3)- Q(62)- A(2)- O(1) — It seems that sacramental grace confers nothing in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts. For the grace of the virtues and gifts perfects the soul sufficiently, both in its essence and in its powers; as is clear from what was said in the P(2a), Q(110), AA(3),4 . But grace is ordained to the perfecting of the soul. Therefore sacramental grace cannot confer anything in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(2)- O(2) — Further, the soul’s defects are caused by sin.

But all sins are sufficiently removed by the grace of the virtues and gifts: because there is no sin that is not contrary to some virtue. Since, therefore, sacramental grace is ordained to the removal of the soul’s defects, it cannot confer anything in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(2)- O(3) — Further, every addition or subtraction of form varies the species (Metaph. viii). If, therefore, sacramental grace confers anything in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts, it follows that it is called grace equivocally: and so we are none the wiser when it is said that the sacraments cause grace.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(2) — On the contrary, If sacramental grace confers nothing in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts, it is useless to confer the sacraments on those who have the virtues and gifts. But there is nothing useless in God’s works. Therefore it seems that sacramental grace confers something in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(2) — I answer that, As stated in the P(2a), Q(110), AA(3),4 , grace, considered in itself, perfects the essence of the soul, in so far as it is a certain participated likeness of the Divine Nature. And just as the soul’s powers flow from its essence, so from grace there flow certain perfections into the powers of the soul, which are called virtues and gifts, whereby the powers are perfected in reference to their actions. Now the sacraments are ordained unto certain special effects which are necessary in the Christian life: thus Baptism is ordained unto a certain spiritual regeneration, by which man dies to vice and becomes a member of Christ: which effect is something special in addition to the actions of the soul’s powers: and the same holds true of the other sacraments. Consequently just as the virtues and gifts confer, in addition to grace commonly so called, a certain special perfection ordained to the powers’ proper actions, so does sacramental grace confer, over and above grace commonly so called, and in addition to the virtues and gifts, a certain Divine assistance in obtaining the end of the sacrament. It is thus that sacramental grace confers something in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(2)- RO(1) — The grace of the virtues and gifts perfects the essence and powers of the soul sufficiently as regards ordinary conduct: but as regards certain special effects which are necessary in a Christian life, sacramental grace is needed.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(2)- RO(2) — Vices and sins are sufficiently removed by virtues and gifts, as to present and future time. in so far as they prevent man from sinning. But in regard to past sins, the acts of which are transitory whereas their guilt remains, man is provided with a special remedy in the sacraments.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(2)- RO(3) — Sacramental grace is compared to grace commonly so called, as species to genus. Wherefore just as it is not equivocal to use the term “animal” in its generic sense, and as applied to a man, so neither is it equivocal to speak of grace commonly so called and of sacramental grace.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(3) Whether the sacraments of the New Law contain grace?

P(3)- Q(62)- A(3)- O(1) — It seems that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain grace. For it seems that what is contained is in the container.

But grace is not in the sacraments; neither as in a subject, because the subject of grace is not a body but a spirit; nor as in a vessel, for according to Phys. iv, “a vessel is a movable place,” and an accident cannot be in a place. Therefore it seems that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain grace.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(3)- O(2) — Further, sacraments are instituted as means whereby men may obtain grace. But since grace is an accident it cannot pass from one subject to another. Therefore it would be of no account if grace were in the sacraments.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(3)- O(3) — Further, a spiritual thing is not contained by a corporeal, even if it be therein; for the soul is not contained by the body; rather does it contain the body. Since, therefore, grace is something spiritual, it seems that it cannot be contained in a corporeal sacrament.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(3) — On the contrary, Hugh of S. Victor says (De Sacram. i) that “a sacrament, through its being sanctified, contains an invisible grace.”

P(3)- Q(62)- A(3) — I answer that, A thing is said to be in another in various ways; in two of which grace is said to be in the sacraments. First, as in its sign; for a sacrament is a sign of grace. Secondly, as in its cause; for, as stated above ( A(1) ) a sacrament of the New Law is an instrumental cause of grace. Wherefore grace is in a sacrament of the New Law, not as to its specific likeness, as an effect in its univocal cause; nor as to some proper and permanent form proportioned to such an effect, as effects in non-univocal causes, for instance, as things generated are in the sun; but as to a certain instrumental power transient and incomplete in its natural being, as will be explained later on ( A(4) ).

P(3)- Q(62)- A(3)- RO(1) — Grace is said to be in a sacrament not as in its subject; nor as in a vessel considered as a place, but understood as the instrument of some work to be done, according to Ezekiel 9:1: “Everyone hath a destroying vessel [Douay: ‘weapon’] in his hand.”

P(3)- Q(62)- A(3)- RO(2) — Although an accident does not pass from one subject to another, nevertheless in a fashion it does pass from its cause into its subject through the instrument; not so that it be in each of these in the same way, but in each according to its respective nature.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(3)- RO(3) — If a spiritual thing exist perfectly in something, it contains it and is not contained by it. But, in a sacrament, grace has a passing and incomplete mode of being: and consequently it is not unfitting to say that the sacraments contain grace.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(4) Whether there be in the sacraments a power of causing grace?

P(3)- Q(62)- A(4)- O(1) — It seems that there is not in the sacraments a power of causing grace. For the power of causing grace is a spiritual power. But a spiritual power cannot be in a body; neither as proper to it, because power flows from a thing’s essence and consequently cannot transcend it; nor as derived from something else, because that which is received into anything follows the mode of the recipient. Therefore in the sacraments there is no power of causing grace.

P(3)- Q(62)- A(4)- O(2) — Further, whatever exists is reducible to some kind of being and some degree of good. But there is no assignable kind of being to which such a power can belong; as anyone may see by running. through them all. Nor is it reducible to some degree of good; for neither is it one of the goods of least account, since sacraments are necessary for salvation: nor is it an intermediate good, such as are the powers of the soul, which are natural powers; nor is it one of the greater goods, for it is neither grace nor a virtue of the