2. Whether God could do the Same by his Ordained Power

a. Opinions of Others

368. Now as to ordained power [n.345] the position is held, because of the authorities of the saints, which seem to deny grace to the sacraments of the Old Law (as was said in the opposing arguments [nn.337-339]), that God does even in fact destroy original guilt without infusion of grace.

369. Others say that circumcision was instituted for removing original sin principally, but for conferring grace as a consequence; and to this extent is circumcision said not to confer grace, because it did not do so by its principal intention but only concomitantly.

b. Scotus’ own Opinion

370. On this point I hold that it is not possible, by ordained power, for original sin or any other sin to be removed without infusion of grace, because although it is possible absolutely, without contradiction, for there to be a mean in species between a son of the Kingdom and a son of perdition (namely a man in pure natural state), yet according to the law of divine wisdom there was, after the fall, no mean between someone with grace, who is a son of the Kingdom, and a sinner, who is a son of incarceration.Nor can there be such a mean when speaking of ordained power, that is, of power conformed to the laws determined by divine wisdom and will. And therefore God frees no one from guilt, nor can he so free anyone, unless he gives him grace.

371. I add too, against the second opinion [n.369], that grace is principally intended in circumcision. My proof is that someone acting according to right reason more principally intends perfection than he intends lack of defect or lack of imperfection, since he only intends the lack because of the imperfection. When instituting circumcision, therefore, God, since he acts according to right reason, more principally intends its positive perfection (that is grace) than its lack of imperfection (that is, lack of original sin).

372. Third, because of the confirmation of the first opinion and the authorities of the saints [nn.368, 337-339], I state how the saints understand that the sacraments of the Old Law did not confer grace, for a sacrament (as said before [nn.252]) can be taken properly or improperly.

373. And indeed in that Law there were many things improperly called sacraments, as cleansings from uncleannesses contracted according to law (as is plain in Leviticus [11-17, 24-28] about purgation from contact with dead things by water of expiation, and cleansing from leprosy and other things of the kind). There were also sacraments there improperly so called that were different from others, yet approached more to perfection [Leviticus 1-7]. Of this sort were the offerings of sacrificial victims, for these pertained to the cult of worship during the time in which God wished to be so worshipped. Both these groups, namely cleansings and sacrifices or offerings, were called ceremonies properly and sacraments improperly.

374. And about these I concede that they caused grace as efficacious signs in respect to grace, in the way that was explained in the definition of a sacrament [nn.309-322].

375. But whether grace was conferred through them by way of merit is matter for doubt, and some seem to deny that grace was conferred in such deeds done out of love. For this does seem too harsh: for who would deny that he who observes a divine precept out of love and obedience did not merit in so observing? It also seems an irreverent statement, to say that God gave someone a precept and did not want his observance of it to have merit, however much love and obedience he observed it with.

376. Now precepts were given in that law about the ceremonies, both the cleansings and the offerings, as is plain in many places [Leviticus, 3-15, 17, 24-28], and sometimes it seems from the text that they are precepts necessary for salvation, as, “Whoever omits to be washed by this water, that soul will perish from the people” [Numbers 19.20]. And this threat is never given save to designate a transgression of mortal sin. Therefore the Jews, by observing from charity these sacraments improperly so called, merited grace, or an increase in it if they already had it.

377. But not on this account were they properly sacraments. For a sacrament confers grace by virtue of the work worked, so that there is not required in it a good interior movement that would merit grace, but its only requirement is that the receiver not interpose an obstacle. But in these acts of the Old Law grace was not conferred from the fact alone that the receiver interposed no obstacle, but was conferred only by virtue of the good interior movement as by way of merit.

378. But besides these, there was in the law also circumcision, which was properly a sacrament. Hence the Master too [Sentences IV d.1 ch.6-7] excepts circumcision from Augustine’s universal remark on Psalm 73 [Narrations on Psalms, Psalm 73 n.2, “The sacraments of the New Testament give salvation; the sacraments of the Old Testament promised the Savior”]. For circumcision conferred grace by virtue of the work worked after the manner of a sacrament, and not by virtue of the work of the worker and by interior movement.

379. And yet if there be sayings of the saints who deny grace to those sacraments and that refer not only to the ceremonies but also to circumcision [nn.337-339], I reply:

These sayings can be understood in two ways: either because circumcision conferred little grace in comparison with baptism (the reason for this will be given in d.2 n.36), or because it did not confer grace as an immediate disposition for glory, because it did not open the gate [of heaven] (but this was not from a defect in it but because it proceeded at a time when the price was not paid).

Or in a third way it did not confer grace, because it did not do so universally to everyone who received it. But it was perhaps determined by divine institution for a certain degree of grace, so that it could not go beyond that degree either by intending or inducing it, and thus, if it found so much grace in the receiver, it conferred nothing on him.

380. And this last way seems to be the Master’s intention, for he says [Sentences IV d.1 ch.9 n.5] that “sins alone were dismissed there, and grace was not given by it;” and he adds at once, “as in baptism.” And the mode he expresses at once, “because, however just a man comes to baptism, he receives there a richer grace;” hence baptism generally intensifies the grace found to be already possessed. “But it is not so in circumcision; hence Abraham, already justified, received it as a sign only, for it conferred nothing on him interiorly,” because the grace of Abraham had already attained or surpassed the degree to which circumcision was determined. And I understand “it conferred nothing on him” to mean by way of sacrament or by virtue of the work worked, because I believe that his obedience in circumcising himself that proceeded from charity was very meritorious for him, as was also his sacrifice of Isaac [Genesis 17.9-27].

381. And if it is then objected that circumcision was not properly a sacrament, for it was not a sign that was certain since it did not always have, by force of the work worked, a concomitant conferring of grace - I reply that a sacrament signifies with certitude that grace is then either in a state of becoming (unless an obstacle is interposed) or in a state of being. Just as, if the Blessed Virgin, in the conception of her Son, had been in the supreme fullness of grace that God had disposed her to reach, then, if she had been baptized afterwards, she would have received in it no grace anew; and yet her baptism would not have been there a false or uncertain sign, because it would signify that grace was then either in a state of becoming or that a previously caused grace was in a state of being.