Dist. 1, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 5
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/4/d/1/q/bon-sent-IV-d1-p1-a1-q5
----------------------------------------
### Question V. *On the difference between the old and new Sacraments.*

Fifthly, it is asked about the difference of the Sacraments of the new law and the old; and the Master assigns this difference: «that those only promised grace and did not give it, but these give it». Hence the difference is commonly assigned, that the Sacraments of the new law effect what they figure, but those of the old do not.

1. Against these things Hugh objects thus, in the book *On the Sacraments*: «Of the Sacraments, some are under nature, some under the Law, some under grace; some indeed differing in kind, but having the same effect of healing».

2. Likewise, Hugh: «From the time the man began to fall sick, God in repairing him prepared a medicine in his Sacraments»; but it is impossible that God should heal without justifying grace: therefore in all the Sacraments there is justifying grace, and so there is no difference.

3. Likewise, it seems so by reason: because it was always fitting that the medicine should run together with the disease, since always and in every law some are saved; but a Sacrament is not a medicine unless it heals through grace: therefore in every time the Sacraments conferred grace: and so forth.

4. Likewise, the Sacraments of the new law do not have efficacy except through the grace of faith, since he who is an unbeliever approaches feignedly and gains no benefit; but those Sacraments, joined to faith, used to justify, because every work, unless it be evil in itself, when it is from faith working through love, becomes meritorious: therefore as these justify, so also do those.

**On the contrary:** 1. Hugh, in the book *On the Sacraments*: «In the time of the law of nature man was left to himself, and left to himself he erred through ignorance, and so was convicted of blindness; afterward the old law was given without grace, in which he came to know what was to be done, but, pressed by concupiscence, he fell; and so he was overcome by powerlessness; and then Christ came», concerning whom it is said in John, chapter one: *Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ*: therefore the Sacraments in the time of the old law conferred no grace: therefore, and so forth.

2. Likewise, upon that text of Romans, chapter three: *From the works of the Law*; the Gloss: «The works of the Law are called those that were instituted and terminated with the Law, which could never justify, even if they were done in faith and charity».

3. Likewise, upon that text of Isaiah, chapter one: *I did not want the blood of goats*; the Gloss: «Using the past tense, he shows that he never loved the sacrifices of the Jews».

4. Likewise, it seems so by reason: because the old law was given as a burden; whence in Ezekiel, chapter twenty: *I gave them precepts not good and judgments in which they shall not live*; but if they had Sacraments giving grace, these would lighten the burden; and blessed Peter, in Acts, chapter fifteen: *This is a burden which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear*: therefore, and so forth.

> **Conclusion.** The Sacraments of the new law justify of themselves and confer grace from the work worked (*ex opere operato*), which the Sacraments of the old law did not do except per accidens.

**I respond:** It must be said that this difference Hugh understood in one way, and Peter of Poitiers and the Master understood in another way.

For the Master, following Peter of Poitiers, said that the Sacraments of the old law, with the exception of circumcision, were instituted for *signifying* only, among perfect and faithful men; because for others they were instituted either as a burden, if they were hard-hearted, or for recalling them from idolatry; and if they were ordained to any efficacy, this was solely that they might absolve from carnal irregularity or temporal penalty, like the baptisms and sacrifices. And because they were instituted solely for this, even if they were done from faith and charity, there was no merit in them, since they did not extend beyond that for which they existed. Hence, just as the motion of charity will not be meritorious in the fatherland, so then they did not merit in the exterior work, but only in the interior. And if you object to him concerning the medicine, he says that the faith of the Redeemer was the medicine for that time; but those things did not justify, neither per se nor per accidens. And of this position was Peter of Poitiers. — But this position did not seem reasonable to master Hugh, because then the sacrifices made by holy men would not have pleased God, nor the sacrifice of Abel, nor of Abraham, nor of Solomon; which is manifestly false, as is plain in the narrative of the canon. And what too of the offering of the sacred Virgin, when she offered *a pair of turtledoves*—was it then void of merit?

On account of this Master Hugh wished to say otherwise, that the Sacraments of the old law, with the exception of circumcision, were instituted first to *signify* either the passion, like the sacrifices, or even our Sacraments, like baptism their baptism; and for *effecting* they were not instituted except only exteriorly about the flesh. But because they signify what faith believes, in the receiving of them there is a profession of faith, not only by *word*, but also by *deed*; and because such faith disposed toward justification, therefore those Sacraments justified *per accidens*. But the Sacraments of the new law were ordained not only from their first institution toward *signifying*, but also toward *obtaining grace*, and therefore they are ordained of themselves toward justification; therefore, speaking properly, these justify, those only *per accidens*. — And a sign of this is that the Sacraments of the old law principally signify that which is to be believed, like the passion of Christ and, by way of consequence, justification; with the exception of circumcision alone, which principally signifies the removal of original sin. But the Sacraments of the new law, on the contrary, first signify *the efficacy of grace* and, by way of consequence, *the passion*, that is, what is to be believed, as baptism signifies the interior washing and the passion. Hence Hugh: «The Sacraments of the New Testament are in the first place signs of spiritual *grace* and are instituted principally for conferring that very grace upon those to be sanctified. But those signs were only of these, and by means of these they conferred grace unto sustentation»; *by means of these*, that is, by the faith of those, since they were not in the reality, but in faith.

And certain masters of modern time bring these opinions into accord as reasonable, saying that the Master meant that those things did not justify *per se*, but Hugh, *per accidens*; therefore there is no contradiction. — There are also others who say the very same thing in other words, that these justify by reason of the *work worked* (*opus operatum*), but those by reason of the *work of the one working* (*opus operans*), not of the worked; and the *work of the one working* is faith, but the *worked* exteriorly is the Sacrament; and that they would justify, this is by reason of faith and charity joined.

But if one attends, these positions directly contradict each other. For first, because the Master not only says that those Sacraments did not justify, but also that they did not justify, even if they were done in faith and charity; and so neither per se nor per accidens. Again, each speaks of these insofar as they are Sacraments; and it is established that the *work of the one working* is not the Sacrament, but the *work worked*: therefore each understood it of the worked; and that is true, and concerning that work worked the Master said that it only signified, did not justify, like the sprinkling of water or of blood. For the *sprinkled blood of goats* never justified, even if it were done in faith and charity, and this neither per se nor per accidens; and this was sufficiently probable.

But surely it is much more probable, as master Hugh held, that since in that work worked there was a profession of faith by *deed*, which by reason of the joined faith was *in those* primarily and *through those*, there was nevertheless, per accidens, justification. But in this is their difference from the new, that in the Sacraments of the new law, as regards the works worked, there is justification not only *per accidens*, but also *per se*. And an evident sign of this has been shown beforehand in the mode of signifying of these Sacraments and of those. — But if the reason be asked whence this is; the response is from the foregoing, because the causality of the Sacraments is nothing other than a certain efficacious ordination toward receiving grace from the divine pact; and this was only in the Sacraments of the new law, and not of the old except in circumcision, because there was a pact there. — But why in these there is pact and ordination, in those not; this is plain: because then was the time of the figure and of overcoming hardness of heart, now is the time of grace.

**To the arguments:** From these things the objections on both sides are plain; for those which prove that they do not justify are to be understood *per se*, speaking; but the others to the opposite, *per accidens*.