Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

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).

Articulus 6

Argumentum 1

Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod sacramenta veteris legis gratiam causarent.

Quia sicut dictum est, sacramenta novae legis habent efficaciam ex fide passionis christi. Sed fides passionis christi fuit in veteri lege, sicut et in nova, habemus enim eundem spiritum fidei, ut habetur II Cor. IV.

Sicut ergo sacramenta novae legis conferunt gratiam, ita etiam sacramenta veteris legis gratiam conferebant.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, sanctificatio non fit nisi per gratiam. Sed per sacramenta veteris legis homines sanctificabantur, dicitur enim Levit. VIII, cumque sanctificasset eos, Moyses scilicet Aaron et filios eius, in vestitu suo, etc..

Ergo videtur quod sacramenta veteris legis gratiam conferebant.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, beda dicit, in homilia circumcisionis, idem salutiferae curationis auxilium circumcisio in lege contra originalis peccati vulnus agebat quod baptismus agere revelatae tempore gratiae consuevit.

Sed baptismus nunc confert gratiam. Ergo circumcisio gratiam conferebat. Et pari ratione alia sacramenta legalia, quia sicut baptismus est ianua sacramentorum novae legis, ita circumcisio erat ianua sacramentorum veteris legis; propter quod apostolus dicit, Galat. V, testificor omni circumcidenti se, quoniam debitor est universae legis faciendae.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod dicitur Galat. IV, convertimini iterum ad infirma et egena elementa? Glossa, idest ad legem, quae dicitur infirma, quia perfecte non iustificat.

Sed gratia perfecte iustificat. Ergo sacramenta veteris legis gratiam non conferebant.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod non potest dici quod sacramenta veteris legis conferrent gratiam iustificantem per seipsa, idest propria virtute, quia sic non fuisset necessaria passio christi, secundum illud Galat. II, si ex lege est iustitia, christus gratis mortuus est.

Sed nec potest dici quod ex passione christi virtutem haberent conferendi gratiam iustificandi.

Sicut enim ex praedictis patet, virtus passionis christi copulatur nobis per fidem et sacramenta, differenter tamen, nam continuatio quae est per fidem, fit per actum animae; continuatio autem quae est per sacramenta, fit per usum exteriorum rerum. Nihil autem prohibet id quod est posterius tempore, antequam sit, movere, secundum quod praecedit in actu animae, sicut finis, qui est posterior tempore, movet agentem secundum quod est apprehensus et desideratus ab ipso. Sed illud quod nondum est in rerum natura, non movet secundum usum exteriorum rerum. Unde causa efficiens non potest esse posterior in esse, ordine durationis, sicut causa finalis.

Sic igitur manifestum est quod a passione christi, quae est causa humanae iustificationis, convenienter derivatur virtus iustificativa ad sacramenta novae legis, non autem ad sacramenta veteris legis. Et tamen per fidem passionis christi iustificabantur antiqui patres, sicut et nos. Sacramenta autem veteris legis erant quaedam illius fidei protestationes, inquantum significabant passionem christi et effectus eius. Sic ergo patet quod sacramenta veteris legis non habebant in se aliquam virtutem qua operarentur ad conferendam gratiam iustificantem, sed solum significabant fidem, per quam iustificabantur.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod antiqui patres habebant fidem de passione christi futura, quae, secundum quod erat in apprehensione animae, poterat iustificare. Sed nos habemus fidem de passione christi praecedenti, quae potest iustificare etiam secundum realem usum sacramentalium rerum, ut dictum est.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod illa sanctificatio erat figuralis, per hoc enim sanctificari dicebantur quod applicabantur cultui divino secundum ritum veteris legis, qui totus ordinabatur ad figurandum passionem christi.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod de circumcisione multiplex fuit opinio.

Quidam enim dixerunt quod per circumcisionem non conferebatur gratia, sed solum auferebatur peccatum.

Sed hoc non potest esse, quia homo non iustificatur a peccato nisi per gratiam, secundum illud Rom. III, iustificati gratis per gratiam ipsius.

Et ideo alii dixerunt quod per circumcisionem conferebatur gratia quantum ad effectus remotivos culpae, sed non quantum ad effectus positivos.

Sed hoc etiam videtur esse falsum. Quia per circumcisionem dabatur pueris facultas perveniendi ad gloriam, quae est ultimus effectus positivus gratiae. Et praeterea, secundum ordinem causae formalis, priores sunt naturaliter effectus positivi quam privativi, licet secundum ordinem causae materialis sit e converso, forma enim non excludit privationem nisi informando subiectum.

Et ideo alii dicunt quod circumcisio conferebat gratiam etiam quantum ad aliquem effectum positivum, qui est facere dignum vita aeterna, non tamen quantum ad hoc quod est reprimere concupiscentiam impellentem ad peccandum.

Quod aliquando mihi visum est.

Sed diligentius consideranti apparet hoc etiam non esse verum, quia minima gratia potest resistere cuilibet concupiscentiae et mereri vitam aeternam.

Et ideo melius dicendum videtur quod circumcisio erat signum fidei iustificantis, unde apostolus dicit, Rom. IV, quod Abraham accepit signum circumcisionis, signaculum iustitiae fidei.

Et ideo in circumcisione conferebatur gratia inquantum erat signum passionis christi futurae, ut infra patebit.