|
Objection 1: It would seem that the ceremonies of the Old Law had
the power of justification at the time of the Law. Because expiation
from sin and consecration pertains to justification. But it is written
(Ex. 39:21) that the priests and their apparel were consecrated
by the sprinkling of blood and the anointing of oil; and (Lev.
16:16) that, by sprinkling the blood of the calf, the priest
expiated "the sanctuary from the uncleanness of the children of
Israel, and from their transgressions and . . . their sins."
Therefore the ceremonies of the Old Law had the power of
justification.
Objection 2: Further, that by which man pleases God pertains to
justification, according to Ps. 10:8: "The Lord is just and
hath loved justice." But some pleased God by means of ceremonies,
according to Lev. 10:19: "How could I . . . please the
Lord in the ceremonies, having a sorrowful heart?" Therefore the
ceremonies of the Old Law had the power of justification.
Objection 3: Further, things relating to the divine worship regard
the soul rather than the body, according to Ps. 18:8: "The
Law of the Lord is unspotted, converting souls." But the leper was
cleansed by means of the ceremonies of the Old Law, as stated in
Lev. 14. Much more therefore could the ceremonies of the Old Law
cleanse the soul by justifying it.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Gal. 2): "If there had
been a law given which could justify, Christ died in vain," i.e.
without cause. But this is inadmissible. Therefore the ceremonies of
the Old Law did not confer justice.
I answer that, As stated above (Question 102, Article 5, ad
4), a twofold uncleanness was distinguished in the Old Law. One
was spiritual and is the uncleanness of sin. The other was corporal,
which rendered a man unfit for divine worship; thus a leper, or anyone
that touched carrion, was said to be unclean: and thus uncleanness was
nothing but a kind of irregularity. From this uncleanness, then, the
ceremonies of the Old Law had the power to cleanse: because they were
ordered by the Law to be employed as remedies for the removal of the
aforesaid uncleannesses which were contracted in consequence of the
prescription of the Law. Hence the Apostle says (Heb. 9:13)
that "the blood of goats and of oxen, and the ashes of a heifer,
being sprinkled, sanctify such as are defiled, to the cleansing of the
flesh." And just as this uncleanness which was washed away by such
like ceremonies, affected the flesh rather than the soul, so also the
ceremonies themselves are called by the Apostle shortly before (Heb.
9:10) justices of the flesh: "justices of the flesh," says he,
"being laid on them until the time of correction."
On the other hand, they had no power of cleansing from uncleanness of
the soul, i.e. from the uncleanness of sin. The reason of this was
that at no time could there be expiation from sin, except through
Christ, "Who taketh away the sins of the world" (Jn.
1:29). And since the mystery of Christ's Incarnation and
Passion had not yet really taken place, those ceremonies of the Old
Law could not really contain in themselves a power flowing from Christ
already incarnate and crucified, such as the sacraments of the New
Law contain. Consequently they could not cleanse from sin: thus the
Apostle says (Heb. 10:4) that "it is impossible that with the
blood of oxen and goats sin should be taken away"; and for this reason
he calls them (Gal. 4:9) "weak and needy elements": weak
indeed, because they cannot take away sin; but this weakness results
from their being needy, i.e. from the fact that they do not contain
grace within themselves.
However, it was possible at the time of the Law, for the minds of
the faithful, to be united by faith to Christ incarnate and
crucified; so that they were justified by faith in Christ: of which
faith the observance of these ceremonies was a sort of profession,
inasmuch as they foreshadowed Christ. Hence in the Old Law certain
sacrifices were offered up for sins, not as though the sacrifices
themselves washed sins away, but because they were professions of faith
which cleansed from sin. In fact, the Law itself implies this in the
terms employed: for it is written (Lev. 4:26; 5:16) that
in offering the sacrifice for sin "the priest shall pray for him . .
. and it shall be forgiven him," as though the sin were forgiven,
not in virtue of the sacrifices, but through the faith and devotion of
those who offered them. It must be observed, however, that the very
fact that the ceremonies of the Old Law washed away uncleanness of the
body, was a figure of that expiation from sins which was effected by
Christ.
It is therefore evident that under the state of the Old Law the
ceremonies had no power of justification.
Reply to Objection 1: That sanctification of priests and their
sons, and of their apparel or of anything else belonging to them, by
sprinkling them with blood, had no other effect but to appoint them to
the divine worship, and to remove impediments from them, "to the
cleansing of the flesh," as the Apostle states (Heb. 9:13) in
token of that sanctification whereby "Jesus" sanctified "the people
by His own blood" (Heb. 13:12). Moreover, the expiation
must be understood as referring to the removal of these bodily
uncleannesses, not to the forgiveness of sin. Hence even the
sanctuary which could not be the subject of sin is stated to be
expiated.
Reply to Objection 2: The priests pleased God in the ceremonies by
their obedience and devotion, and by their faith in the reality
foreshadowed; not by reason of the things considered in themselves.
Reply to Objection 3: Those ceremonies which were prescribed in the
cleansing of a leper, were not ordained for the purpose of taking away
the defilement of leprosy. This is clear from the fact that these
ceremonies were not applied to a man until he was already healed: hence
it is written (Lev. 14:3,4) that the priest, "going out of
the camp, when he shall find that the leprosy is cleansed, shall
command him that is to be purified to offer," etc.; whence it is
evident that the priest was appointed the judge of leprosy, not
before, but after cleansing. But these ceremonies were employed for
the purpose of taking away the uncleanness of irregularity. They do
say, however, that if a priest were to err in his judgment, the leper
would be cleansed miraculously by the power of God, but not in virtue
of the sacrifice. Thus also it was by miracle that the thigh of the
adulterous woman rotted, when she had drunk the water "on which" the
priest had "heaped curses," as stated in Num. 5:19-27.
|
|