|
Objection 1: It seems that the sacraments of the Old Law caused
grace. For, as stated above (Article 5, ad 2) the sacraments of
the New Law derive their efficacy from faith in Christ's Passion.
But there was faith in Christ's Passion under the Old Law, as
well as under the New, since we have "the same spirit of faith" (2
Cor. 4:13). Therefore just as the sacraments of the New Law
confer grace, so did the sacraments of the Old Law.
Objection 2: Further, there is no sanctification save by grace.
But men were sanctified by the sacraments of the Old Law: for it is
written (Lev. 8:31): "And when he," i.e. Moses, "had
sanctified them," i.e. Aaron and his sons, "in their
vestments," etc. Therefore it seems that the sacraments of the Old
Law conferred grace.
Objection 3: Further, Bede says in a homily on the Circumcision:
"Under the Law circumcision provided the same health-giving balm
against the wound of original sin, as baptism in the time of revealed
grace." But Baptism confers grace now. Therefore circumcision
conferred grace; and in like manner, the other sacraments of the
Law; for just as Baptism is the door of the sacraments of the New
Law, so was circumcision the door of the sacraments of the Old Law:
hence the Apostle says (Gal. 5:3): "I testify to every man
circumcising himself, that he is a debtor to the whole law."
On the contrary, It is written (Gal. 4:9): "Turn you again
to the weak and needy elements?" i.e. "to the Law," says the
gloss, "which is called weak, because it does not justify
perfectly." But grace justifies perfectly. Therefore the sacraments
of the old Law did not confer grace.
I answer that, It cannot be said that the sacraments of the Old Law
conferred sanctifying grace of themselves, i.e. by their own power:
since thus Christ's Passion would not have been necessary, according
to Gal. 2:21: "If justice be by the Law, then Christ died in
vain."
But neither can it be said that they derived the power of conferring
sanctifying grace from Christ's Passion. For as it was stated above
(Article 5), the power of Christ's Passion is united to us by
faith and the sacraments, but in different ways; because the link that
comes from faith is produced by an act of the soul; whereas the link
that comes from the sacraments, is produced by making use of exterior
things. Now nothing hinders that which is subsequent in point of
time, from causing movement, even before it exists in reality, in so
far as it pre-exists in an act of the soul: thus the end, which is
subsequent in point of time, moves the agent in so far as it is
apprehended and desired by him. On the other hand, what does not yet
actually exist, does not cause movement if we consider the use of
exterior things. Consequently, the efficient cause cannot in point of
time come into existence after causing movement, as does the final
cause. It is therefore clear that the sacraments of the New Law do
reasonably derive the power of justification from Christ's Passion,
which is the cause of man's righteousness; whereas the sacraments of
the Old Law did not.
Nevertheless the Fathers of old were justified by faith in Christ's
Passion, just as we are. And the sacraments of the old Law were a
kind of protestation of that faith, inasmuch as they signified
Christ's Passion and its effects. It is therefore manifest that the
sacraments of the Old Law were not endowed with any power by which
they conduced to the bestowal of justifying grace: and they merely
signified faith by which men were justified.
Reply to Objection 1: The Fathers of old had faith in the future
Passion of Christ, which, inasmuch as it was apprehended by the
mind, was able to justify them. But we have faith in the past
Passion of Christ, which is able to justify, also by the real use of
sacramental things as stated above.
Reply to Objection 2: That sanctification was but a figure: for
they were said to be sanctified forasmuch as they gave themselves up to
the Divine worship according to the rite of the Old Law, which was
wholly ordained to the foreshadowing of Christ's Passion.
Reply to Objection 3: There have been many opinions about
Circumcision. For, according to some, Circumcision conferred no
grace, but only remitted sin. But this is impossible; because man is
not justified from sin save by grace, according to Rm. 3:24:
"Being justified freely by His grace."
Wherefore others said that by Circumcision grace is conferred, as to
the privative effects of sin, but not as to its positive effects. But
this also appears to be false, because by Circumcision, children
received the faculty of obtaining glory, which is the ultimate positive
effect of grace. Moreover, as regards the order of the formal cause,
positive effects are naturally prior to privative effects, though
according to the order of the material cause, the reverse is the case:
for a form does not exclude privation save by informing the subject.
Hence others say that Circumcision conferred grace also as regards a
certain positive effect, i.e. by making man worthy of eternal life,
but not so as to repress concupiscence which makes man prone to sin.
And so at one time it seemed to me. But if the matter be considered
carefully, this too appears to be untrue; because the very least grace
is sufficient to resist any degree of concupiscence, and to merit
eternal life.
And therefore it seems better to say that Circumcision was a sign of
justifying faith: wherefore the Apostle says (Rm. 4:11) that
Abraham "received the sign of Circumcision, a seal of the justice of
faith." Consequently grace was conferred in Circumcision in so far
as it was a sign of Christ's future Passion, as will be made clear
further on (Question 70, Article 4).
|
|