TERTIO QUAERITUR, utrum Sacramenta sint gratiae contentiva. Et quod sic, videtur.

THIRD THERE IS ASKED, whether the Sacraments are contentive of grace. And it seems that (it is) so:

1. Super illud Psalmi:¹ Posuit tenebras latibulum; Glossa: « Latuit Divinitas in carne, remissio peccatorum in baptismo »; sed Divinitas erat in carne secundum veritatem: ergo et remissio peccatorum in baptismo. Sed illa est per gratiam: ergo gratia est in baptismo.

1. On that (verse) of the Psalm:¹ Thou has placed darkness as (Thy) hidding place; the Gloss (says): « The Divinity lay hidden in the flesh, the remission of sins in Baptism »; but the Divinity was in the flesh according to truth: therefore also the remission of sins in Baptism. But that (remission) is through grace: therefore grace is in Baptism.

2. Item, Hugo in parte nona² aperte dicit, quod quinque concurrunt ad sanandum hominem, scilicet « Deus medicus, homo aegrotus, sacerdos minister vel nuntius, gratia antidotum »; et ultimo dicit, quod « vas est Sacramentum », et subiungit: « Quare? quia continet gratiam, sicut vas servat medicinam ».

2. Likewise, Hugo (of St. Victor) in the ninth part (of his work)² openly says, that five (things) concur to heal man, that is « God as doctor, man as the one sick, the priest as minister and/or messanger, grace as the antidote »; and lastly he says, that « a Sacrament is a vessel », and he subjoins: « Why? because it contains grace, just as a vessel serves medicine ».

3. Item, idem Hugo³ in definitione Sacramenti aperte dicit, quod Sacramentum « ex sanctificatione continet aliquam invisibilem et spiritualem gratiam »: ergo gratia est in Sacramento sicut in continente.

3. Likewise, the same Hugo³ in (his) definition of a Sacrament openly says, that a Sacrament « out of sanctification contains some invisible and spiritual grace»: therefore grace is in a Sacrament just as in a container [in continente].

4. Item, idem ratione videtur, quia in Sacramento altaris corpus Christi verum, quod signatur, non solum ibi est tanquam in signo, sed secundum veritatem continetur ibi; alioquin non differret a sacrificiis veteris legis:⁴ ergo similiter, si baptismus est Sacramentum novae legis, non solum est ibi gratia tanquam in signo, sed etiam ibi essentialiter continetur.

4. Likewise, the same seems by reason, because in the Sacrament of the Altar the true Body of Christ, which is signified [signatur], is not only there as in a sign, but is contained there according to truth; otherwise (the Mass) would not differ from the sacrifices of the Old Law:⁴ therefore similarly, if Baptism is a Sacrament of the New Law, not only is there grace there as in a sign, but it is also contained there essentially.

5. Item, si dicas, quod illud non conveniret, quia gratia est accidens⁵ et debet esse perfectio creaturae nobilissimae, scilicet rationalis, et ita non debet contineri in creatura irrationali: contra: nobilior est divina essentia, quam sit gratia, quae procedit ab ipsa; sed creatura non rationalis est capax divinae essentiae: ergo multo fortius gratiae.

5. Likewise, if you say, that would not befit it [conveniret], because grace is an accident⁵ and ought to be the perfection of the most noble creature, that is of the rational, and thus ought not be contained in an irrational creature: on the contrary: more noble is the Divine Essence, that is the grace, which proceeds from It; but a non-rational creature is capable of the Divine Essence: therefore much more stronly of grace.

6. Item, accidens, quod non habet ortum a principiis subiecti, non determinat sibi materiam; sed gratia est huiusmodi: ergo non determinat sibi materiam: ergo potest esse in qualibet creatura: ergo etc.

6. Likewise, an accident, which does not have (its) rise from the principles of the subject, does not determine the matter for itself [sibi materiam]; but grace is of this kind: therefore it does not determine the matter for itself: therefore it can be in any creature: ergo etc..

7. Item, in Sacramento altaris videmus, quod sunt accidentia materialia, sed tamen virtute Sacramenti suspenduntur a materia, ita quod non sunt in aliquo subiecto:⁶ ergo cum gratia sit multo spiritualior, videtur, quod magis sit apta, ut sit in aliis Sacramentis secundum essentiam et veritatem, non tamen ut in subiecto: ergo videtur, quod sit ponendum, quod gratia sit in Sacramento sicut in continente.

7. Likewise, in the Sacrament of the Altar we see, that there are material accidents, but nevertheless [tamen] by the virtue of the Sacrament they are suspended apart from [a] the matter, so that they are not in any subject:⁶ therefore since grace is much more spiritual, it seems, that it is rather apt, that it be in the other Sacraments according to essence and truth, not, however, as in a subject: therefore it seems, that it must be posited, that grace is in a Sacrament just as in a container.

CONTRA: 1. Gratia est media inter naturam et gloriam: ergo nihil est capax gratiae, quod non est capax gloriae, cum ipsa sit tanquam ultima dispositio;⁷ sed nullum Sacramentum est capax gloriae: ergo nec gratiae.

ON THE CONTRARY: 1. Grace is a mean between nature and glory: therefore nothing is capable of grace, which is not capable of glory, since it itslelf is as the last disposition;⁷ but no Sacrament is capable of glory: therefore neither of grace.

2. Item, si gratia esset prius in Sacramento; cum accidentia non mutent subiectum,⁸ nunquam illa gratia transiret ad animam: ergo frustra esset; sed hoc non est ponendum, ergo nec primum.

2. Likewise, if grace were prior in a Sacrament; since accidents do not change a subject,⁸ never would that grace pass over to the soul: therefore it would be in vain [frustra]; but this is not to be posited, therefore neither (is) the first.

3. Item, gratia, cum sit perfectio animae et perfectio, quae est accidens, dependet ab anima multo magis, quam anima a corpore; sed anima nunquam creatur nisi in corpore, sed simul creatur et est cum corpore:⁹ ergo multo fortius gratia simul creatur et est in anima: ergo non est in Sacramento.

3. Likewise, grace, since it is the perfection of the soul, and (likewise since) a perfection, which is an accident, depends much more on the soul, that the soul on the body; but never is a soul created except in a body, but it is created simultaneously and is with the body:⁹ therefore much more strongly is grace created simultaneously and is in the soul: therefore it is not in a Sacrament.

4. Item, si gratia est in Sacramento tanquam in vase continente; hoc constat, quod non est ob aliud, nisi ut a Sacramento transfundatur in ipsam animam: ergo si non transfunditur, frustra est ibi. Sed possibile est, quod aliquis ficte accedat ad Sacramentum; tunc constat, quod gratia non transfunditur:¹⁰ ergo frustra fuit gratia in hoc Sacramento.

4. Likewise, if grace is in a Sacrament as in a containing vessel; this is established, that it is not because of another, unless it be transfused from the Sacrament into the soul itself: therefore if it is not transfused, it is there in vain. But it is possible, that someone approach toward a Sacrament in a feigned manner [ficte]; then it is established, that grace is not transfused:¹⁰ therefore in vain was grace in this Sacrament.

5. Item, gratia immediate reducit et reformat ad Deum animam: ergo a Deo exit immediate in- / -fluente in ipsam animam:

5. Likewise, grace immediately leads the soul back to and reforms it according to God: therefore it goes forth from God as one immediately in- / -flowing into the soul itself:

in- / -fluente in ipsam anima:¹ non ergo transfunditur, mediante alio vase.

in- / -flowing into the soul itself:¹ therefore it is not transfused, by means of another vessel.

RESPONDEO: Intelligendum est ad hoc secundum quosdam, quod ipsa Sacramenta sunt vasa gratiae, cum sint in ultima dispositione, quae est sanctificatio per verbum, et mediantibus illis transfunditur in ipsam anima,² et in ipsam animam transfusa abluit sive ungit interius, sicut in signo visibili significatur exterius. Et pro tanto dicunt, quod Sacramenta novae legis sunt causa gratiae et efficiunt quod figurant.

I RESPOND: It must be understood according to this, following certain ones, that the Sacraments themselves are vessels of grace, since they are as the last disposition, which is the sanctification through word, and by means of them (grace)² is transfused into the soul itself, and having been transfused into the soul itself it washes away or annoints [abluit sive ungit] interiorly, just as in the visible sign it is signified exteriorly. And forasmuch as (it is) they say, that the Sacraments of the New Law are a cause of grace and effect what they figure.

Sed tamen, sicut ostensum est per plures rationes, non est aliquod modo dicendum, quod gratia contineatur essentialiter in ipsis Sacramentis, tanquam aqua in vase, vel medicina in pyxide; immo hoc intelligere est erroneum. Sed dicuntur continere gratiam, quia ipsam significant,³ et quia semper, nisi ibi sit defectus ex parte suscipientis, confertur in ipsis gratia, ita intelligendo, quod gratia sit in anima, non in signis visibilis. — Pro tanto etiam dicuntur vasa gratiae. Possunt etiam dici vasa alia ratione: quia, sicut quod est in vase non est de ipso nec ex ipso, sed tamen cum ipso hauritur; sic gratia non est a Sacramentis nec de Sacramentis, sed oritur a fonte aeterno et ab illo hauritur ab ipsa anima in ipsis Sacramentis.⁴. Et sicut quis recurrit ad vas, cum requirit liquorem; sic quaerenti liquorem gratiae et non habenti recurrendum est ad ipsa Sacramenta. Et ita patet responsio ad illa duo verba Hugonis.

But nevertheless [tamen], just as has been shown through very many reasons, it is not in any manner to be said, that grace is contained essentially in the Sacraments themselves, as water in a vessel, and/or medicine in a pyx; nay rather it is erroneous to understand it in this (manner). But they are said to contain grace, because they signify it,³ and because there is always, unless there is a defect there on the part of the suscipient, conferred in them grace, with (this) to be understood thus, that grace is in the soul, not in visible signs. — Forasmuch as (they are) they are even said (to be) vessels of grace. They can even be said (to be) vessels for another reason: because, just as that which is in a vessel is not from it [de ipso] nor out of it, but is, nevertheless [tamen], drained with it; so grace is not by the Sacraments nor from the Sacraments, but rises from [a] the eternal Fount and is drained from [a] It by the soul itself in the Sacraments themselves.⁴ And just as anyone recurrs to a vessel, when he requires liquid; so to the one seeking the liquid of grace and not having it there must be recourse to the Sacraments themselves. And thus is clear the response to those two words of Hugo.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod labet remissio peccatorum in baptismo; dicendum, quod hoc intelligitur de latentia signati in signo, quod quidem habet ulteriorem rationem quam rationem significandi, non tamen essentialiter continendi in se, sed quia ipsum quod significat, continetur in anima.⁵

1. To that which is objected, that the remission of sins lies hidden in Baptism; it must be said, that this is understood of the latency of the signed in the sign, which indeed has a more ultimate reckoning than the reckoning of the (thing) to be signified, not, however, essentially of the (thing) to be contained in itself, but because that which it signifies, is contained in the soul.⁵

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Sacramento altaris, dicendum, quod Deus posset similiter facere, si vellet; sed tamen non ita congruit hic, sicut ibi, quia in illo Sacramento est transsubstantiatio.⁶ Unde illud quod significatur ibi, vere est substantia, quam congruit esse per se, congruit etiam illis speciebus velari ad nostram utilitatem; sed gratiam non sic congruit esse per se, cum non sit substantia; nec contineri in illis Sacramentis corporalibus, cum de sui natura sit creata, ut sit in multo nobiliori.⁷ Quia ergo potentia non derogat sapientiae et ordinationi, ideo, quamvis Deus possit facere, non tamen facit; nec est simile, sicut monstratum est. — Si ergo obiicias, quod non differt a Sacramentis veteris legis, quia ibi erat tanquam in signo; dicendum, quod illud signum habet aliquam rationem causandi, sicut postea⁸ patebit, non tamen habet rationem continendi materialiter.

4. To that which is objected concerning the Sacrament of the Altar, it must be said, that God could do similarly, if He wanted; but, nevertheless [tamen], it is not so congruous here, as (it is) there, because in that Sacrament there is transubstantiation.⁶ Whence that which is signified there, truly is a Substance, which, it is congruous, that it be through Itself, (and) it is congruous that It also be veiled by those species for our utility; but it is not congruous in the same manner that grace be through itself, since it is not a substance; nor (for it) to be contained in those corporal Sacraments, since from its own nature it is created, to be in a much more noble (subject).⁷ Therefore because potency does not derogate from wisdom and ordination, for that reason, although God could do (it), He, however, does not do (it); nor it it similar, just as has been shown. — If you object, that it does not differ from the Sacraments of the Old Law, because there it was as in a sign; it must be said, that that sign had some reckoning of the (thing) to be caused, just as afterwards⁸ will be clear, it did not, however, have the reckoning of the (thing) to be contained materially.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod divina essentia est in qualibet creatura, ergo gratia potest esse; dicendum, quod non est simile nec locus a minori;⁹ et ratio est, quia esse per gratiam inhabitantem praesupponit esse per essentiam et addit ad illud multo maiorem nobilitatem a parte eius quod recipit; et ideo est consequens in illo argumento. Bene enim concluderet, si esse per gratiam non includeret in se esse per essentiam; sed includit, sicut bene esse includit esse.

5. To that which is objected, that the Divine Essence is in any creature, therefore grace can be; it must be said, that it is not similar nor (is it) a result [locus] from the minor;⁹ and the reason is, that to be through inhabiting grace presupposes a to be through essence and it adds to that a much greater nobility on the part of that which it receives; and for that reason there is (a fallacy of) the consequent in that argument. For it would conclude well, if to be through grace did not include in itself a to be through essence; but it does include (it), just as to be well [bene esse] includes to be.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod gratia non determinat sibi subiectum, quia non habet in illo causam; dicendum, quod etsi non habet causam, habet tamen occasionem, quia anima creata est, ut gratia perficiatur, et ad hoc est habilis de sui natura; non sic aliae creaturae irrationales.

6. To that which is objected, that grace does not determine the subject for itself, because it does not have a cause in it; it must be said, that even if it does not have a cause, nevertheless [tamen], it does have an occasion (in it), because the soul has been created, to be perfected by grace, and for this it is able from its own nature [habilis de sui natura]; not so the other irrational creatures.

7. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod in Sacramento altaris manent accidentia sine subiecto, ergo similiter in aliis Sacramentis gratia; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia ibi manent accidentia et propter nostri sensus infirmitatem et propter fidei utilitatem.¹⁰ Sed si gratia illa esset in Sacramentis, nulla esset utilitas propter hoc, quia Deus semper est praesens, ut det gratiam digne accedenti; immo esset ibi deordinatio, et derogaretur iam ipsi gratiae; quod non debet fieri divino miraculo, quia ipsa gratia nata est perficere animam et in ea esse.

7. To that which is objected, that in the Sacrament of the Altar there remain accidents without a subject, therefore similarly in the other Sacraments grace; it must be said, that it is not similar: because there accidents remain both on account of the infirmity of our senses and on account of the utility of faith.¹⁰ But if that grace were in the Sacraments, there would be no utility on account of this, that God is always present, to give grace to the one approaching worthily; nay there would be a deoridination, and He would now derogate from grace itself; which ought not be done by a divine miracle, because grace itself has been born to perfect the soul and to be in it.

I. Ad 3. et 4. questionem praenotanda sunt verba Eugenii IV in Decreto pro Armenis: (Sacramenta novae legis) « multum a Sacramentis differunt antiquae legis. Illa enim non causabant gratiam, sed eam solum per passionem Christi dandam esse figurabant, haec vero nostra et continent gratiam et ipsam digne suscipientibus conferunt ». Item, Concilium Trident. (Sess. VII. can. 6.) decrevit: « Si quis dixerit, Sacramenta novae legis non continere gratiam, quam significant, aut gratiam ipsam non pronentibus obicem non conferre, quasi signa tantum externa sint acceptae per fidem gratiae vel iustitiae et notae quaedam christianae professionis, quibus apud homines discernuntur fideles ab infidelibus, a. s. » Omnes Catholici hoc tenent, et quod Sacramenta non habeant nisi causalitatem instrumentalem. Tamen in modo hoc explicandi, quae est quaestio pure speculativa, a tempore Hugonis a S. Victore et Gulielmi episc. Parisiensis usque huc doctores viam rationemque diversam inierunt, ut hic et accuratius III. Sent. d. 40. dub. 3. a S. Bonv. explicatur. S. Thom. defendit sententiam profundam et mysticam, quae tribuit Sacramentis novae legis efficaciam physicam, ut nunc dicunt, quemadmodum citiam circa humanitatem Christi eadem principia tenet (cfr. III. Sent. d. 49. a. 1. q. 1. scholion). Discipuli igitur eiusdem communiter docent, Sacramenta novae legis concurrere ad causandam gratiam aliosque effectus sacramentales tanquam divinae virtuti instrumenta physice influentia, non tantum moraliter. Pro influentia vero tantum morali (ut non satis apte dicitur) stat Scotus (hic q. 4. 5.) cum suis et non paucis aliss. Hi asserunt, a solo Deo immediate produci gratiam et characterem imprimi, quin aliqua virtus supernaturalis ipsi instrumento sacramentali communicetur; a Deo tamen quodam pacto institutum esse tale signum sacramentale, quo applicato, ipse faciat effectus omnes in anima.

I. To question 3 and 4 there must be noted beforehand the words of (Pope) Eugene IV in the Decree for the Armenians: {The Sacraments of the New Law} « differ much from the Sacraments of the ancient Law. For those did not cause grace, but only figured that it was to be given through the Passion of Christ, but these of ours both contain grace and confer it upon those undertaking [suscipientibus] them worthily ». Likewise, the Council of Trent (Session VII, canon 6) decreed: « If anyone will have said, that the Sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace, which they signify, or do not confer that grace upon the ones not putting an obstacle, as if they were only external signs, accepted through faith, of grace and/or justice and of a certain, known, Christian profession, by which (signs) faithful men are discerned from infidels, anathema sit ». All Catholics hold this, and that the Sacraments have naught but an instrumental causality. However in the manner of explaining this, which is a purely speculative question, from the time of Hugo of St. Victor and William, Bishop of Paris, unto today the doctors set out upon diverse ways and reckonings, as here and more accurately in Sent., Bk. III, d. 40, dubium 3 is explained by St. Bonaventure. St. Thomas defends a profound and mystical sentence, which grants to the Sacraments of the New Law a physical efficacy, as they now say, in accord with which manner he holds even the same principles about the Humanity of Christ, cf. Sent., Bk. III, d. 19, a. 1, q. 1, scholium). His disciples, therefore, commonly teach, that the Sacraments of the New Law concur to cause grace and the other sacramental effects as instruments of divine virtue, physically influencing, not only morally. However, on behalf of only a moral influence, as it is called in a not sufficiently, apt manner, stands (Bl. John Duns) Scotus, here in qq. 4 and 5, together with his own (diciples) and not a few others. These assert, that by God alone is there immediately produced grace and impressed the character, (and) that no supernatural virtue is communicated to the sacramental instrument itself; however, by God by a cetain pact there has been instituted such a sacramental sign, when which applied, causes itself all the effects in the soul.

II. Ut disputatio S. Bonaventurae melius intelligatur, etiam observandum est, quod antequam Summa S. Thomae scripta esset, status quaestionis aliquatenus diversus erat a posteriore. Nunc enim principaliter quaeritur de concursu Sacramenti effectivo (licet per modum instrumenti tantum) ad ipsius gratiae infusionem; sed tunc temporis potius supponebatur fere ab omnibus, nullam virtutem instrumentalem directe et immediate posse pertingere ad tam sublimem effectum. Quaerebatur igitur potius de causalitate Sacramentorum respectu inferiorum effectuum receptorum in anima, scilicet de ornatu ipsius, ut dicebant, sive de charactere et dispositione ad gratiam. Ita statum quaestionis accipiunt Alex. Hal., S. Thom. in Commentario, Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med., Durandus et ipse Bonaventura. Hinc est, quod ab auctore nostro tribus distinctis questionibus inquiritur: 1. utrum Sacramenta sint gratiae effectiva; et pro affirmativa resp. huius quaestionis, si agitur de causalitate proprie dicta sive efficiente, in corp. neminem affert; 2. utrum sint causae disponentes scilicet ad gratiam; 3. generatim, utrum habeant aliquam virtutem influentem in ipsam animam. Ad secundam et tertiam questionem Alex. Hal. (S. p. IV. a. 5. m. 3. a. 5) et S. Thom. in Comment. respondebant affirmative, non vero ita ad primam. In praedicto enim Commentario S. Thom. perfect conventi cum Alexandro, licet hic a scriptoribus communissime citetur tanquam S. Thomae in hac re contrarius.

II. So that the disputation of St. Bonaventure be better understood, it also must be observed, that before the Summa of St. Thomas had been written, the status of the question was a little diverse than afterwards. For now there is principally asked concerning the effective concurrance of the Sacrament, though only thorugh the manner of an instrument, as regards its infusion of grace; but at that time it was rather supposed by nearly all, that no instrumental virtue can directly and immediately pertain to such a sublime effect. Therefore there used to be asked rather concerning the causality of the Sacrament in respect of the receivers of the inferior effects in the soul, that is concerning its being ornamented [ornatu], as they used to say, or concerning the character and disposition to grace. Thus do Alexander of Hales, St. Thomas in his Commentary, (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, Richard of Middletown, Durandus and Bonaventure himself accept the state of the question. Hence it is, that by our author an inquiry is undertaken with three distinct questions: 1. whether the Sacraments are effective of grace; and on behalf of the affirmative response to this question, if one deals with causality properly said or efficient, in the body of the text he brings no one forward; 2. whether they are causes disposing, that is, to grace; 3. generally, whether they have any virtue inflowing into the soul. To the second and third question Alexander of Hales, Summa., p. IV, a. 5, m. 3, a. 5, and St. Thomas in his Commentary respond affirmatively, not, however, thus to the first. For in the aforesaid Commentary St. Thomas perfectly agrees with Alexander, though here is here cited most commonly by writers as one contrary to St. Thomas in this matter.

III. Audiamus igitur utrumque. Alex. (loc. cit. § 1.) dicit de virtute instrumentali Sacramentorum: « Sine praeiudicio melioris sententiae opinando dico, nihil asserendo, quod Sacramenta sunt causae alicuius effectus in anima, non dico solum disponendo, sed efficiendo; efficiunt enim simplicter characterizando et ornando. Unde dico, quod singula Sacramenta aliquo modo ornant animam, vel imprimendo characterem, vel alio modo signando ». Pluribus deinde rationibus declarare nititur, quomodo agenti corporali communicari possit talis mirabilis virtus spiritualis. Idem tamen quoad infusionem ipsius gratiae (ibid. § 2.) dicit: « Solus Deus gratiam operatur et animae infundit; sed Sacramenta novae legis disponunt ipsum suceptibile, efficiendo aptiorem ad gratiae susceptionem et faciunt, quod gratia efficax sit ». Multa pro explicatione et probatione huius sententiae idem affert in hac § and § 3-6. Principalia haec argumenta quasi in compendium redacta S. Bonav. exhibet in adiunctis duabus questionibus lateralibus cum solutionibus. Unde pate, quod S. Bonav. sub nomine magnorum, qui primam opinionem defendunt, praecipue intelligat magistrum suum Alexandrum. Cum autem ab eo recedere visus sit, in fine tertii libri iterum opinionem suam melius explicavit, seque minime praedictam opinionem reprobare ostendit; quemadmodum etiam respectu quarundam propositionem I. libri fecit in praelocutione ad II. librum.

III. Let us here, therefore, from each. Alexander (loc. cit., § 1) speaks of the instrumental virtue of the Sacraments: « Without prejudging it to be a better opinion I say by opining, by asserting nothing, that the Sacraments are causes of some effect in the soul, I do not say only by disposing, but by effecting; for they effect simply by characterizing and ornamenting. Whence I say, that the individual sacraments in some manner ornament the soul, by impressing the character, and/or by signing it in some manner ». Then he strives to delcare with very many reasons, how by a corporal agent there can be communicated such a wonderful, spiritual virtue. The same, nevertheless, in regard to the infusion of grace itself (ibid., § 2) says: « God alone works grace and infuses it into the soul; but the Sacraments of the New Law dispose the susceptible one himself, by effecting him more apt for the taking of grace and they cause, that grace be efficacious ». Many things for the explanation and proof of this sentence does the same bring forward in this § and § 3-6. St. Bonaventure exhibits these principle arguments, redacted as if into a compendium, in the adjoined two, lateral questions with their solutions. Whence it is clear, that St. Bonaventure, under the name of great ones [magnorum], who defend the first opinion, chiefly understands his own Master Alexander. Moreover, though he seemed to recede from him, at the end of the third book he better explained his own opinion, and shows that he himself reproved the aforesaid opinion least of all; in accord with which manner, in respect of certain propositions of the first book, he also makes reference in his Preface to Book Two.

S. Thomas in Commentario (hic q. 1. a. 4.) approbat doctrinam Alexandri, docens, quod Sacramenta, quatenus sunt « instrumenta divinae misericordiae iustificantis, pertingunt quidem instrumentaliter ad aliquem effectum in ipsa anima, qui primo respondet Sacramentis, sicut est character, vel aliquid huiusmodi [quod superius ipse vocat ornatum animae]. Ad ultimum autem effectum, qui est gratia, non pertingunt etiam instrumentaliter nisi dispositive, in quantum hoc, ad quod instrumentaliter effective pertingunt, est dispositio, quae est necessitas, quantum est in se, ad gratiae susceptionem ». — Aliter tamen idem loquitur in Summa (III. q. 62. a. 1. 2. 3.), ubi disertis verbis docet, Sacramenta novae legis ut instrumenta divinae virtutis causare etiam gratiam. Haec extensio iactis principiis magis convenit quam illa restrictio facta ab Alexandro. Eandem sententiam Dionys. Carth. (hic q. 4.) censet esse probabiliorem; quod etiam tenet Petr. a Tar. respectu sententiae, quam S. Thom. ponit in Commentario, dum Richard. a Med. (hic a. 4. q. 2) eandem et sententiam Scoti simili probabilitate gaudere iudicat.

St. Thomas in his Commentary, here in q. 1, a. 4, approves the doctrine of Alexander, teaching, that the Sacraments, to the extend that they are « instruments of the Divine Mercy justifying, pertain indeed instrumentally to some effect in the soul itslef, which first responds to the Sacraments, just as is the character, and/or something of this kind {which above this he himself calls the ornament of the soul}. But to the last effect, which is grace, they do not pertain even instrumentally except in a dispositive manner, inasmuch as this, to which they pertain in an instrumentally effective manner, is a disposition, which is a necessity, as much as it is in itself, for the susception of grace ». — The same, however, speaks in another manner in his Summa., p. III, q. 62, aa. 1, 2, and 3), where with eloquent words he teaches, that the Sacraments of the New Law, as instruments of divine virtue, cause even grace. This extension to the given principles agrees more than that restriction made by Alexander. The same sentence (Bl.) Dionysius the Carthusian, here in q. 4, judges to be more probable; which even (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise holds in respect of the sentence, which St. Thomas posits in his Commentary, while Richard of Middletown, here in a. 4, q. 2, judges the same and the sentence of Scotus to enjoy the same probability.

IV. Opinioni secundae praeter Scotum et Durandum (hic q. 4.) favet etiam Henr. Gand. (Quodl. 4. q. 37.), aliis tamen verbis usus. Docet enim, quod Sacramenta sint « causa gratiae instrumentaliter, non quia aliquid agunt in producendo gratiam plus quam Sacramenta veteris legis, sed quia Deus, ut existens in ipsis, ad tactum eorum circa illos quibus administrantur, confert gratiam creando eam in ipsis . . . Et similiter sunt vasa gratiae, in quantum continent eum qui est fons et origo, a quo manat gratia, ut est in eis ». — Ab his verbis parum recedit S. Bonav. in Breviloquio (p. VI. c. 1, sicut hic q. 3. in fine responsionis) dicens, quod « in illis et per illa gratiam curationis a summo medico Christo ex divino decreto oportet hauriri, licet Deus non alligaverit suam gratiam Sacramentis ». Quomodo autem hanc sententiam ita temperaverit in III. Sent. d. 40. dub. 3, ut non contradicat alteri sententiae, sed ei campum reservet liberum, iam notatum est in scholio ultimo eiusdem III. libri. Quod autem virtus efficaciter Sacramentis annexa non sit qualitas absoluta, sed relativa, repetit noster auctor infra q. 5, d. 3. p. II. a. 1. q. 2, d. 10. p. II. a. 1. q. 3; II. Sent. d. 19. dub. 4.

IV. Besides Scotus and Durandus, here q. 4, Henry of Ghent also, Quodlibetals., 4, q. 37, favors the second opinion, however having used other words. For he teaches, that the Sacraments are « a cause of grace instrumentally, not because they deal something in producing grace more than the Sacraments of the Old Law, but because God, as the One existing in them, at their touch upon those to whom they are administered, confers grace by creating it in them . . . And similarly they are vessels of grace, inasmuch as they contain Him who is the Fount and Origin, from whom flows the grace, that is in them ». From this words St. Bonaventure recedes a little in the Breviloquium, p. VI, ch. 1, just as he does here in q. 3 at the end of the response, saying, that « in them and through them it is proper that one draw grace from Christ the Most High Doctor out of a divine decree, though God has not bound His own grace to the Sacraments ». Moreover in what manner he thus tempered this sentence in Sent., Bk. III, d. 40, dubium 3, so as to not contradict the other sentence, but (rather) to reserve a free field for it, has already been noted in the last scholium of his third book. Moreover that the virtue efficaciously annexed to the Sacraments is not an absolute quality, but (rather) a relative one, our author repeates below in q. 5, d. 3, p. II, a. 1, q. 2; d. 10, p. II, a. 1, q. 3; Sent., Bk. II, d. 19, dubium 4.