The sacraments of the New Law are
causes in the strict sense, but instrumental causes.
. . .
Definition of terms.
A cause is a principle per se influencing the being in something, or the
principle determining by its influx the existence of another. In the thesis we
are considering the efficient cause, which is defined: a principle influencing
by its action the being in another or by its action determining the existence
of another.
Cause in the strict sense is
said in opposition to a condition, which is a certain pre-requisite of
the action, but it has no influence on the effect and no power of producing it.
A necessary condition is said to be one that is absolutely required so that,
without it, the effect is not produced. But that the effect is produced is from
the cause; but that the effect is not produced can be from the cause or from
the condition.
Cause in the strict is also
opposed to an occasion, which is something that of itself is not
required in order for the cause to produce its effect (hence it differs from a
condition), but it makes its causality easier.
Instrumental causes
are said in opposition to principal causes. A principal cause is one
that operates in virtue of its own form, to which it assimilates the effect. An
instrumental cause is one that operates in virtue of the principal cause
and it assimilates the effect to that cause, not to itself. See S.Th. III, q.
62, a. 1.
Therefore, we affirm that
the sacraments are not just occasion at whose presence God produces grace; and
that they are not just conditions without which God does not produce grace; but
that the sacraments themselves in a causal way influence the production
of grace; but this is not with principal causality (which must be attributed to
God), but with instrumental causality, that is, according as they are
moved by God and elevated so that they concur in producing the effect. (Joseph
A. de Aldama, Severino Gonzalez, Francis A P. Sola, and Joseph F. Sagües, Sacrae
Theologiae Summa, 4 vols. [trans. Kenneth Baker; Keep the Faith, Inc.,
2015], 4-A: 65-66)
Proof from Holy Scripture.
The conferring of grace in the sacraments is expressed by the words “through”
(Tit. 3:5; 1 Pet. 2:20f.; Acts 9:17; 1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6); “of” (John
3:5f.) and the instrumental dative (Eph. 5:26). But this way of speaking, if it
is taken in the whole complex, signifies true causality. Therefore the
sacraments are true causes.
We understand the minor to
refer to a true causality, whether it is physical or whether it is moral. And
we think it is more probable in this sense. For that way of speaking per se
suggests a true causality, especially if it is used not just once in passing,
but often and in different ways. But if in contrast the case is opposed to
faith, to which justification is also attributed, we fully concede it; for,
faith exercises a true causality in justification, which it merits of course
not condignly but certainly congruously. (Ibid., 68)
The following is from Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III, q. 62, a. 1, referenced above
Fourth Article
Whether there was need for any sacraments after Christ came?
We proceed thus to the Fourth Article:—
Objection 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.
Obj. 2. Further, the sacraments consist in
certain elements, as stated above (Q. LX., A. 4). But the Apostle says (Gal.
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.
Obj. 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.
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.
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.
Reply Obj. 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, (1 Cor. 13:12) we need sensible
signs in order to reach spiritual things: and this is the province of the
sacraments.
Reply Obj. 2. The Apostle calls the sacraments of the
Old Law weak and needy elements (Gal.
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.
Reply Obj. 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. (translation
taken from Fathers of the English Dominican Province; London: Burns Oates &
Washbourne, n.d.; Logos edition)