Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 70 [<< | >>]
Deinde considerandum est de praeparatoriis ab Baptismum.
|
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 70 [<< | >>]
Article: 1 [<< | >>]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod circumcisio non fuerit praeparatoria et figurativa Baptismi. Omnis enim figura habet aliquam similitudinem cum suo figurato. Sed circumcisio nullam habet similitudinem cum Baptismo. Ergo videtur quod non fuerit praeparativa et figurativa Baptismi. | Objection 1: It seems that circumcision was not a preparation for, and a figure of Baptism. For every figure has some likeness to that which it foreshadows. But circumcision has no likeness to Baptism. Therefore it seems that it was not a preparation for, and a figure of Baptism. |
| Praeterea, apostolus dicit, I Cor. X, de antiquis patribus loquens, quod omnes in nube et in mari baptizati sunt, non autem dicit quod in circumcisione baptizati sint. Ergo protectio columnae nubis, et transitus maris rubri, magis fuerunt praeparatoria ad Baptismum et figurativa ipsius quam circumcisio. | Objection 2: Further, the Apostle, speaking of the Fathers of old, says (1 Cor. 10:2), that "all were baptized in the cloud, and in the sea": but not that they were baptized in circumcision. Therefore the protecting pillar of a cloud, and the crossing of the Red Sea, rather than circumcision, were a preparation for, and a figure of Baptism. |
| Praeterea, supra dictum est quod Baptismus Ioannis fuit praeparatorius ad Baptismum Christi. Si ergo circumcisio fuit praeparatoria et figurativa Baptismi Christi, videtur quod Baptismus Ioannis fuit superfluus. Quod est inconveniens. Non ergo circumcisio fuit praeparatoria et figurativa Baptismi. | Objection 3: Further, it was stated above (Question [38], Articles [1],3) that the baptism of John was a preparation for Christ's. Consequently, if circumcision was a preparation for, and a figure of Christ's Baptism, it seems that John's baptism was superfluous: which is unseemly. Therefore circumcision was not a preparation for, and a figure of Baptism. |
| Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, Coloss. II, circumcisi estis circumcisione non manu facta in exspoliatione corporis carnis, sed circumcisione Iesu Christi, consepulti ei in Baptismo. | On the contrary, The Apostle says (Col. 2:11,12): "You are circumcised with circumcision, not made by hand in despoiling the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in Baptism." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod Baptismus dicitur sacramentum fidei, inquantum scilicet in Baptismo fit quaedam fidei professio, et per Baptismum aggregatur homo congregationi fidelium. Eadem autem est fides nostra et antiquorum patrum, secundum illud apostoli, II Cor. IV, habentes eundem spiritum fidei credimus. Circumcisio autem erat quaedam protestatio fidei, unde et per circumcisionem antiqui congregabantur collegio fidelium. Unde manifestum est quod circumcisio fuerit praeparatoria ad Baptismum et praefigurativa ipsius, secundum quod antiquis patribus omnia in figura futuri contingebant, ut dicitur I Cor. X, sicut et fides eorum erat de futuro. | I answer that, Baptism is called the Sacrament of Faith; in so far, to wit, as in Baptism man makes a profession of faith, and by Baptism is aggregated to the congregation of the faithful. Now our faith is the same as that of the Fathers of old, according to the Apostle (2 Cor. 4:13): "Having the same spirit of faith . . . we . . . believe." But circumcision was a protestation of faith; wherefore by circumcision also men of old were aggregated to the body of the faithful. Consequently, it is manifest that circumcision was a preparation for Baptism and a figure thereof, forasmuch as "all things happened" to the Fathers of old "in figure" (1 Cor. 10:11); just as their faith regarded things to come. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod circumcisio habebat similitudinem cum Baptismo quantum ad spiritualem effectum Baptismi. Nam sicut per circumcisionem auferebatur quaedam carnalis pellicula, ita per Baptismum homo exspoliatur a carnali conversatione. | Reply to Objection 1: Circumcision was like Baptism as to the spiritual effect of the latter. For just as circumcision removed a carnal pellicule, so Baptism despoils man of carnal behavior. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod protectio columnae nubis, et transitus maris rubri, fuerunt quidem figurae nostri Baptismi, quo renascimur ex aqua, significata per mare rubrum, et spiritu sancto, significato per columnam nubis, non tamen per haec fiebat aliqua professio fidei, sicut per circumcisionem. Et ideo praedicta duo erant tantum figurae, et non sacramenta. Circumcisio autem erat sacramentum, et praeparatorium ad Baptismum, minus tamen expresse figurans Baptismum, quantum ad exteriora, quam praedicta. Et ideo apostolus potius fecit mentionem de praedictis quam de circumcisione. | Reply to Objection 2: The protecting pillar of cloud and the crossing of the Red Sea were indeed figures of our Baptism, whereby we are born again of water, signified by the Red Sea; and of the Holy Ghost, signified by the pillar of cloud: yet man did not make, by means of these, a profession of faith, as by circumcision; so that these two things were figures but not sacraments. But circumcision was a sacrament, and a preparation for Baptism; although less clearly figurative of Baptism, as to externals, than the aforesaid. And for this reason the Apostle mentions them rather than circumcision. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod Baptismus Ioannis fuit praeparatorius ad Baptismum Christi quantum ad exercitium actus. Sed circumcisio quantum ad professionem fidei, quae requiritur in Baptismo, sicut dictum est. | Reply to Objection 3: John's baptism was a preparation for Christ's as to the act done: but circumcision, as to the profession of faith, which is required in Baptism, as stated above. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 70 [<< | >>]
Article: 2 [<< | >>]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod circumcisio fuerit inconvenienter instituta. Sicut enim dictum est, in circumcisione fiebat quaedam professio fidei. Sed a peccato primi hominis nullus unquam salvari potuit nisi per fidem passionis Christi, secundum illud Rom. III, quem proposuit Deus propitiatorem per fidem in sanguine ipsius. Ergo statim post peccatum primi hominis circumcisio institui debuit, et non tempore Abrahae. | Objection 1: It seems that circumcision was instituted in an unfitting manner. For as stated above (Article [1]) a profession of faith was made in circumcision. But none could ever be delivered from the first man's sin, except by faith in Christ's Passion, according to Rm. 3:25: "Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood." Therefore circumcision should have been instituted forthwith after the first man's sin, and not at the time of Abraham. |
| Praeterea, in circumcisione profitebatur homo observantiam veteris legis, sicut in Baptismo profitetur observantiam novae legis, unde apostolus dicit, Galat. V, testificor omni homini circumcidenti se quoniam debitor est universae legis faciendae. Sed legalis observantia non est tradita tempore Abrahae, sed magis tempore Moysi. Ergo inconvenienter instituta est circumcisio tempore Abrahae. | Objection 2: Further, in circumcision man made profession of keeping the Old Law, just as in Baptism he makes profession of keeping the New Law; wherefore the Apostle says (Gal. 5:3): "I testify . . . to every man circumcising himself, that he is a debtor to do the whole Law." But the observance of the Law was not promulgated at the time of Abraham, but rather at the time of Moses. Therefore it was unfitting for circumcision to be instituted at the time of Abraham |
| Praeterea, circumcisio fuit figurativa et praeparativa Baptismi. Sed Baptismus exhibetur omnibus populis, secundum illud Matth. ult., euntes, docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos. Ergo circumcisio non debuit institui ut observanda tantum ab uno populo Iudaeorum, sed ab omnibus populis. | Objection 3: Further, circumcision was a figure of, and a preparation for, Baptism. But Baptism is offered to all nations, according to Mt. 28:19: "Going . . . teach ye all nations, baptizing them." Therefore circumcision should have been instituted as binding, not the Jews only, but also all nations. |
| Praeterea, carnalis circumcisio debet respondere spirituali sicut figura figurato. Sed spiritualis circumcisio, quae fit per Christum, indifferenter convenit utrique sexui, quia in Christo Iesu non est masculus neque femina, ut dicitur Coloss. III. Ergo inconvenienter est circumcisio instituta, quae competit solum maribus. | Objection 4: Further, carnal circumcision should correspond to spiritual circumcision, as the shadow to the reality. But spiritual circumcision which is of Christ, regards indifferently both sexes, since "in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female," as is written Col. 3 [*Gal. 3:28]. Therefore the institution of circumcision which concerns only males, was unfitting. |
| Sed contra est quod, sicut legitur Gen. XVII, circumcisio est instituta a Deo, cuius perfecta sunt opera. | On the contrary, We read (Gn. 17) that circumcision was instituted by God, Whose "works are perfect" (Dt. 32:4). |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, circumcisio erat praeparatoria ad Baptismum inquantum erat quaedam professio fidei Christi, quam et nos in Baptismo profitemur. Inter antiquos autem patres, primus Abraham promissionem accepit de Christo nascituro, cum dictum est ei, Gen. XXII, in semine tuo benedicentur omnes gentes terrae. Et ipse etiam primus se a societate infidelium segregavit, secundum mandatum domini dicentis sibi, egredere de terra tua et de cognatione tua. Et ideo convenienter circumcisio fuit instituta in Abraham. | I answer that, As stated above (Article [1]) circumcision was a preparation for Baptism, inasmuch as it was a profession of faith in Christ, which we also profess in Baptism. Now among the Fathers of old, Abraham was the first to receive the promise of the future birth of Christ, when it was said to him: "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed" (Gn. 22:18). Moreover, he was the first to cut himself off from the society of unbelievers, in accordance with the commandment of the Lord, Who said to him (Gn. 13:1): "Go forth out of thy country and from thy kindred." Therefore circumcision was fittingly instituted in the person of Abraham. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod immediate post peccatum primi parentis, propter doctrinam ipsius Adae, qui plene instructus fuerat de divinis, adhuc fides et ratio naturalis vigebat in homine in tantum quod non oportebat determinari hominibus aliqua signa fidei et salutis, sed unusquisque pro suo libitu fidem suam profitentibus signis protestabatur. Sed circa tempus Abrahae diminuta erat fides, plurimis ad idololatriam declinantibus. Obscurata etiam erat ratio naturalis per augmentum carnalis concupiscentiae usque ad peccata contra naturam. Et ideo convenienter tunc, et non ante, fuit instituta circumcisio, ad profitendum fidem et minuendum carnalem concupiscentiam. | Reply to Objection 1: Immediately after the sin of our first parent, on account of the knowledge possessed by Adam, who was fully instructed about Divine things, both faith and natural reason flourished in man to such an extent, that there was no need for any signs of faith and salvation to be prescribed to him, but each one was wont to make protestation of his faith, by outward signs of his profession, according as he thought best. But about the time of Abraham faith was on the wane, many being given over to idolatry. Moreover, by the growth of carnal concupiscence natural reason was clouded even in regard to sins against nature. And therefore it was fitting that then, and not before, circumcision should be instituted, as a profession of faith and a remedy against carnal concupiscence. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod legalis observantia tradi non debuit nisi populo iam congregato, quia lex ordinatur ad bonum publicum, ut in secunda parte dictum est. Populus autem fidelium congregandus erat aliquo signo sensibili, quod est necessarium ad hoc quod homines in quacumque religione adunentur, sicut Augustinus dicit, contra Faustum. Et ideo oportuit prius institui circumcisionem quam lex daretur. Illi autem patres qui fuerunt ante legem, familias suas instruxerunt de rebus divinis per modum paternae admonitionis. Unde et dominus dicit de Abraham, scio quod praecepturus sit filiis suis et domui suae post se ut custodiant viam domini. | Reply to Objection 2: The observance of the Law was not to be promulgated until the people were already gathered together: because the law is ordained to the public good, as we have stated in the FS, Question [90], Article [2]. Now it behooved the body of the faithful to be gathered together by a sensible sign, which is necessary in order that men be united together in any religion, as Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix). Consequently, it was necessary for circumcision to be instituted before the giving of the Law. Those Fathers, however, who lived before the Law, taught their families concerning Divine things by way of paternal admonition. Hence the Lord said of Abraham (Gn. 18:19): "I know that he will command his children, and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord." |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod Baptismus in se continet perfectionem salutis, ad quam Deus omnes homines vocat, secundum illud I Tim. II qui vult omnes homines salvos fieri. Et ideo Baptismus omnibus populis proponitur. Circumcisio autem non continebat perfectionem salutis, sed significabat ipsam ut fiendam per Christum, qui erat ex Iudaeorum populo nasciturus. Et ideo illi soli populo data est circumcisio. | Reply to Objection 3: Baptism contains in itself the perfection of salvation, to which God calls all men, according to 1 Tim. 2:4: "Who will have all men to be saved." Wherefore Baptism is offered to all nations. On the other hand circumcision did not contain the perfection of salvation, but signified it as to be achieved by Christ, Who was to be born of the Jewish nation. For this reason circumcision was given to that nation alone. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod circumcisionis institutio est ut signum fidei Abrahae, qui credidit se patrem futurum Christi sibi repromissi, et ideo convenienter solis maribus competebat. Peccatum etiam originale, contra quod specialiter circumcisio ordinabatur, a patre trahitur, non a matre, ut in secunda parte dictum est. Sed Baptismus continet virtutem Christi, qui est universalis salutis causa omnium, et remissio omnium peccatorum. | Reply to Objection 4: The institution of circumcision is as a sign of Abraham's faith, who believed that himself would be the father of Christ Who was promised to him: and for this reason it was suitable that it should be for males only. Again, original sin, against which circumcision was specially ordained, is contracted from the father, not from the mother, as was stated in the FS, Question [81], Article [5]. But Baptism contains the power of Christ, Who is the universal cause of salvation for all, and is "The Remission of all sins" (Post-Communion, Tuesday in Whitweek). |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 70 [<< | >>]
Article: 3 [<< | >>]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod ritus circumcisionis non fuerit conveniens. Circumcisio enim, ut dictum est, fidei quaedam professio est. Sed fides in vi apprehensiva existit, cuius operationes maxime apparent in capite. Ergo magis debuit signum circumcisionis dari in capite quam in membro generationis. | Objection 1: It seems that the rite of circumcision was unfitting. For circumcision, as stated above (Articles [1],2), was a profession of faith. But faith is in the apprehensive power, whose operations appear mostly in the head. Therefore the sign of circumcision should have been conferred on the head rather than on the virile member. |
| Praeterea, ad usum sacramentorum sumimus ea quorum est communior usus, sicut aqua ad abluendum, et panem ad reficiendum. Sed ad incidendum communius utimur cultello ferreo quam petrino. Ergo circumcisio non debuit fieri cultello petrino. | Objection 2: Further, in the sacraments we make use of such things as are in more frequent use; for instance, water, which is used for washing, and bread, which we use for nourishment. But, in cutting, we use an iron knife more commonly than a stone knife. Therefore circumcision should not have been performed with a stone knife. |
| Praeterea, sicut Baptismus instituitur in remedium originalis peccati, ita et circumcisio, sicut Beda dicit. Sed nunc Baptismus non differtur usque ad octavum diem, ne pueris periculum damnationis immineat propter originale peccatum, si non baptizati decedant. Quandoque etiam tardatur Baptismus post octavum diem. Ergo etiam circumcisioni non debuit determinari octavus dies, sed debebat quandoque praeveniri, sicut etiam quandoque tardabatur. | Objection 3: Further, just as Baptism was instituted as a remedy against original sin, so also was circumcision, as Bede says (Hom. in Circum.). But now Baptism is not put off until the eighth day, lest children should be in danger of loss on account of original sin, if they should die before being baptized. On the other hand, sometimes Baptism is put off until after the eighth day. Therefore the eighth day should not have been fixed for circumcision, but this day should have been anticipated, just as sometimes it was deferred. |
| Sed contra est quod Rom. IV, super illud, et signum accepit circumcisionis, determinatur in Glossa praedictus circumcisionis ritus. | On the contrary, The aforesaid rite of circumcision is fixed by a gloss on Rm. 4:11: "And he received the sign of circumcision." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, circumcisio quoddam signum fidei est institutum a Deo, cuius sapientiae non est numerus. Determinare autem convenientia signa est sapientiae opus. Et ideo concedendum est quod ritus circumcisionis fuit conveniens. | I answer that, As stated above (Article [2]), circumcision was established, as a sign of faith, by God "of" Whose "wisdom there is no number" (Ps. 146:5). Now to determine suitable signs is a work of wisdom. Consequently, it must be allowed that the rite of circumcision was fitting. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod circumcisio convenienter fiebat in membro generationis. Primo quidem, quia erat signum fidei qua Abraham credidit Christum ex suo semine nasciturum. Secundo, quia erat in remedium peccati originalis, quod per actum generationis traducitur. Tertio, quia ordinabatur ad diminutionem carnalis concupiscentiae, quae praecipue in membris illis viget, propter abundantiam delectationis venereorum. | Reply to Objection 1: It was fitting for circumcision to be performed on the virile member. First, because it was a sign of that faith whereby Abraham believed that Christ would be born of his seed. Secondly, because it was to be a remedy against original sin, which is contracted through the act of generation. Thirdly, because it was ordained as a remedy for carnal concupiscence, which thrives principally in those members, by reason of the abundance of venereal pleasure. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod cultellus lapideus non erat de necessitate circumcisionis. Unde non invenitur tale instrumentum praecepto divino determinatum; neque communiter tali instrumento Iudaei utebantur ad circumcidendum; sed neque modo utuntur. Leguntur tamen aliquae circumcisiones famosae cultello lapideo factae, sicut legitur Exod. IV, quod tulit Sephora acutissimam petram et circumcidit praeputium filii sui; et Iosue V dicitur, fac tibi cultros lapideos, et circumcide secundo filios Israel. Per quod figurabatur circumcisionem spiritualem esse faciendam per Christum, de quo dicitur, I Cor. X, petra autem erat Christus. | Reply to Objection 2: A stone knife was not essential to circumcision. Wherefore we do not find that an instrument of this description is required by any divine precept; nor did the Jews, as a rule, make use of such a knife for circumcision; indeed, neither do they now. Nevertheless, certain well-known circumcisions are related as having been performed with a stone knife, thus (Ex. 4:25) we read that "Sephora took a very sharp stone and circumcised the foreskin of her son," and (Joshua 5:2): "Make thee knives of stone, and circumcise the second time the children of Israel." Which signified that spiritual circumcision would be done by Christ, of Whom it is written (1 Cor. 10:4): "Now the rock was Christ." |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod octavus dies determinatus erat circumcisioni, tum propter mysterium, quia in octava aetate, quae est aetas resurgentium, quasi in octavo die, perficietur per Christum spiritualis circumcisio, quando auferet ab electis non solum culpam, sed etiam omnem poenalitatem. Tum etiam propter teneritudinem infantis ante octavum diem. Unde etiam de aliis animalibus Levit. XXII praecipitur, bos, ovis et capra, cum generata fuerint, septem diebus erunt sub ubere matris suae, die autem octavo et deinceps offerri poterunt domino. | Reply to Objection 3: The eighth day was fixed for circumcision: first, because of the mystery; since, Christ, by taking away from the elect, not only guilt but also all penalties, will perfect the spiritual circumcision, in the eighth age (which is the age of those that rise again), as it were, on the eighth day. Secondly, on account of the tenderness of the infant before the eighth day. Wherefore even in regard to other animals it is prescribed (Lev. 22:27): "When a bullock, or a sheep, or a goat, is brought forth, they shall be seven days under the udder of their dam: but the eighth day and thenceforth, they may be offered to the Lord." |
| Erat autem octavus dies de necessitate praecepti, ita scilicet quod octavum diem praetermittentes peccabant, etiam si esset sabbatum; secundum illud Ioan. VII, circumcisionem accipit homo in sabbato, ut non solvatur lex Moysi. Non tamen erat de necessitate sacramenti, quia, si aliqui essent omittentes octavum diem, postea poterant circumcidi. | Moreover, the eighth day was necessary for the fulfilment of the precept; so that, to wit, those who delayed beyond the eighth day, sinned, even though it were the sabbath, according to Jn. 7:23: "(If) a man receives circumcision on the sabbath-day, that the Law of Moses may not be broken." But it was not necessary for the validity of the sacrament: because if anyone delayed beyond the eighth day, they could be circumcised afterwards. |
| Quidam etiam dicunt quod, propter periculum imminentis mortis, poterat octavus dies praeveniri. Sed hoc nec ex auctoritate Scripturae, nec ex consuetudine Iudaeorum haberi potest. Unde melius est dicendum, sicut etiam Hugo de sancto Victore dicit, quod octavus dies nulla necessitate praeveniebatur. Unde super illud Prov. IV, unigenitus eram coram matre mea, dicit Glossa quod alius Bersabee parvulus non computabatur, quia, ante octavum diem mortuus, nominatus non fuit; et per consequens nec circumcisus. | Some also say that in imminent danger of death, it was allowable to anticipate the eighth day. But this cannot be proved either from the authority of Scripture or from the custom of the Jews. Wherefore it is better to say with Hugh of St. Victor (De Sacram. i) that the eighth day was never anticipated for any motive, however urgent. Hence on Prov. 4:3: "I was . . . an only son in the sight of my mother," a gloss says, that Bersabee's other baby boy did not count because through dying before the eighth day it received no name; and consequently neither was it circumcised. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 70 [<< | >>]
Article: 4 [<< | >>]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod circumcisio non conferebat gratiam iustificantem. Dicit enim apostolus, Galat. II, si ex lege est iustitia, Christus gratis mortuus est, idest sine causa. Sed circumcisio erat quaedam obligatio legis implendae, secundum illud Galat. V, testificor omni homini circumcidenti se quoniam debitor est universae legis faciendae. Ergo, si ex circumcisione est iustitia, Christus gratis, idest sine causa, mortuus est. Sed hoc est inconveniens. Non ergo ex circumcisione erat gratia iustificans a peccato. | Objection 1: It seems that circumcision did not bestow sanctifying grace. For the Apostle says (Gal. 2:21): "If justice be by the Law, then Christ died in vain," i.e. without cause. But circumcision was an obligation imposed by the Law, according to Gal. 5:3: "I testify . . . to every man circumcising himself, that ne is a debtor to do the whole law." Therefore, if justice be by circumcision, "Christ died in vain," i.e. without cause. But this cannot be allowed. Therefore circumcision did not confer grace whereby the sinner is made righteous. |
| Praeterea, ante institutionem circumcisionis sola fides ad iustificationem sufficiebat, dicit enim Gregorius, in Moral., quod apud nos valet aqua Baptismatis, hoc egit apud veteres pro parvulis sola fides. Sed virtus fidei non est imminuta propter mandatum circumcisionis. Ergo sola fides parvulos iustificabat, et non circumcisio. | Objection 2: Further, before the institution of circumcision faith alone sufficed for justification; hence Gregory says (Moral. iv): "Faith alone did of old in behalf of infants that for which the water of Baptism avails with us." But faith has lost nothing of its strength through the commandment of circumcision. Therefore faith alone justified little ones, and not circumcision. |
| Praeterea, Iosue V legitur quod populus qui natus est in deserto per quadraginta annos, incircumcisus fuit. Si ergo per circumcisionem auferebatur peccatum originale, videtur quod omnes qui in deserto mortui sunt, tam parvuli quam adulti, fuerint damnati. Et eadem obiectio est de pueris qui moriebantur ante octavum diem circumcisionis, qui praeveniri non debebat, sicut dictum est. | Objection 3: Further, we read (Joshua 5:5,6) that "the people that were born in the desert, during the forty years . . . were uncircumcised." If, therefore, original sin was taken away by circumcision, it seems that all who died in the desert, both little children and adults, were lost. And the same argument avails in regard to those who died before the eighth day, which was that of circumcision, which day could nol be anticipated, as stated above (Article [3], ad 3). |
| Praeterea, nihil impedit introitum regni caelestis nisi peccatum. Sed circumcisi ante passionem impediebantur ab introitu regni caelestis. Non ergo per circumcisionem homines iustificabantur a peccato. | Objection 4: Further, nothing but sin closes the entrance to the heavenly kingdom. But before the Passion the entrance to the heavenly kingdom was closed to the circumcised. Therefore men were not justified from sin by circumcision. |
| Praeterea, peccatum originale non dimittitur sine actuali, quia impium est a Deo dimidiam sperare veniam, ut Augustinus dicit. Sed nunquam legitur quod per circumcisionem remitteretur actuale peccatum. Ergo neque etiam originale per eam dimittebatur. | Objection 5: Further, original sin is not remitted without actual sin being remitted also: because "it is wicked to hope for half forgiveness from God," as Augustine says (De Vera et Falsa Poenit. ix). But we read nowhere of circumcision as remitting actual sin. Therefore neither did it remit original sin. |
| Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, ad Valerium contra Iulianum, ex quo instituta est circumcisio in populo Dei, quod erat signaculum iustitiae fidei, ad sanctificationem purgationis valebat parvulis originalis veterisque peccati, sicut etiam Baptismus ex illo coepit valere tempore ad innovationem hominis, ex quo institutus est. | On the contrary, Augustine says, writing to Valerius in answer to Julian (De Nup. et Concup. ii): "From the time that circumcision was instituted among God's people, as 'a seal of the justice of the faith,' it availed little children unto sanctification by cleansing them from the original and bygone sin; just as Baptism also from the time of its institution began to avail unto the renewal of man." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod ab omnibus communiter ponitur quod in circumcisione originale peccatum remittebatur. Quidam tamen dicebant quod non conferebatur gratia, sed solum remittebatur peccatum. Quod Magister ponit in I dist. IV Sent., et Rom. IV in Glossa. Sed hoc non potest esse, quia culpa non remittitur nisi per gratiam, secundum illud Rom. III, iustificati gratis per gratiam ipsius, et cetera. | I answer that, All are agreed in saying that original sin was remitted in circumcision. But some said that no grace was conferred, and that the only effect was to remit sin. The Master holds this opinion (Sent. iv, D, 1), and in a gloss on Rm. 4:11. But this is impossible, since guilt is not remitted except by grace, according to Rm. 3:2: "Being justified freely by His grace," etc. |
| Et ideo alii dixerunt quod per circumcisionem conferebatur gratia quantum ad effectus remissionis culpae, sed non quantum ad effectus positivos, ne dicere cogerentur quod gratia in circumcisione collata sufficiebat ad implendum mandata legis, et ita superfluus fuit adventus Christi. Sed etiam haec positio stare non potest. Primo quidem, quia per circumcisionem dabatur pueris facultas suo tempore perveniendi ad gloriam, quae est ultimus effectus positivus gratiae. Secundo, quia priores sunt naturaliter, secundum ordinem causae formalis, effectus positivi quam privativi, licet secundum ordinem causae materialis sit e converso, forma enim non excludit privationem nisi informando subiectum. | Wherefore others said that grace was bestowed by circumcision, as to that effect which is the remission of guilt, but not as to its positive effects; lest they should be compelled to say that the grace bestowed in circumcision sufficed for the fulfilling of the precepts of the Law, and that, consequently, the coming of Christ was unnecessary. But neither can this opinion stand. First, because by circumcision children. received the power of obtaining glory at the allotted time, which is the last positive effect of grace. Secondly, because, in the order of the formal cause, positive effects naturally precede those that denote privation, although it is the reverse in the order of the material cause: since a form does not remove a privation save by informing the subject. |
| Et ideo alii dixerunt quod in circumcisione conferebatur gratia etiam quantum ad aliquem effectum positivum, qui est facere dignum vita aeterna, sed non quantum ad omnes effectus, quia non sufficiebat reprimere concupiscentiam fomitis, nec etiam ad implendum mandata legis. Quod etiam aliquando mihi visum est. Sed diligenter consideranti apparet quod non est verum. Quia minima gratia potest resistere cuilibet concupiscentiae, et vitare omne peccatum mortale, quod committitur in transgressione mandatorum legis, minima enim caritas plus diligit Deum quam cupiditas millia auri et argenti. | Consequently, others said that grace was conferred in circumcision, also as a particular positive effect consisting in being made worthy of eternal life; but not as to all its effects, for it did not suffice for the repression of the concupiscence of the fomes, nor again for the fulfilment of the precepts of the Law. And this was my opinion at one time (Sent. iv, D, 1; Question [2], Article [4]). But if one consider the matter carefully, it is clear that this is not true. Because the least grace can resist any degree of concupiscence, and avoid every mortal sin, that is committed in transgressing the precepts of the Law; for the smallest degree of charity loves God more than cupidity loves "thousands of gold and silver" (Ps. 118:72). |
| Et ideo dicendum quod in circumcisione conferebatur gratia quantum ad omnes gratiae effectus, aliter tamen quam in Baptismo. Nam in Baptismo confertur gratia ex virtute ipsius Baptismi, quam habet inquantum est instrumentum passionis Christi iam perfectae. Circumcisio autem conferebat gratiam inquantum erat signum fidei passionis Christi futurae, ita scilicet quod homo qui accipiebat circumcisionem, profitebatur se suscipere talem fidem; vel adultus pro se, vel alius pro parvulis. Unde et apostolus dicit, Rom. IV, quod Abraham accepit signum circumcisionis, signaculum iustitiae fidei, quia scilicet iustitia ex fide erat significata, non ex circumcisione significante. Et quia Baptismus operatur instrumentaliter in virtute passionis Christi, non autem circumcisio, ideo Baptismus imprimit characterem incorporantem hominem Christo, et copiosiorem gratiam confert quam circumcisio, maior enim est effectus rei iam praesentis quam spei. | We must say, therefore, that grace was bestowed in circumcision as to all the effects of grace, but not as in Baptism. Because in Baptism grace is bestowed by the very power of Baptism itself, which power Baptism has as the instrument of Christ's Passion already consummated. Whereas circumcision bestowed grace, inasmuch as it was a sign of faith in Christ's future Passion: so that the man who was circumcised, professed to embrace that faith; whether, being an adult, he made profession for himself, or, being a child, someone else made profession for him. Hence, too, the Apostle says (Rm. 4:11), that Abraham "received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the justice of the faith": because, to wit, justice was of faith signified: not of circumcision signifying. And since Baptism operates instrumentally by the power of Christ's Passion, whereas circumcision does not, therefore Baptism imprints a character that incorporates man in Christ, and bestows grace more copiously than does circumcision; since greater is the effect of a thing already present, than of the hope thereof. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ratio illa procederet si ex circumcisione esset iustitia aliter quam per fidem passionis Christi. | Reply to Objection 1: This argument would prove if justice were of circumcision otherwise than through faith in Christ's Passion. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut ante institutionem circumcisionis fides Christi futuri iustificabat tam pueros quam adultos, ita et circumcisione data. Sed antea non requirebatur aliquod signum protestativum huius fidei, quia nondum homines fideles seorsum ab infidelibus coeperant adunari ad cultum unius Dei. Probabile tamen est quod parentes fideles pro parvulis natis, et maxime in periculo existentibus, aliquas preces Deo funderent, vel aliquam benedictionem eis adhiberent, quod erat quoddam signaculum fidei, sicut adulti pro seipsis preces et sacrificia offerebant. | Reply to Objection 2: Just as before the institution of circumcision, faith in Christ to come justified both children and adults, so, too, after its institution. But before, there was no need of a sign expressive of this faith; because as yet believers had not begun to be united together apart from unbelievers for the worship of one God. It is probable, however, that parents who were believers offered up some prayers to God for their children, especially if these were in any danger. Or bestowed some blessing on them, as a "seal of faith"; just as the adults offered prayers and sacrifices for themselves. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod populus in deserto praetermittens mandatum circumcisionis excusabatur, tum quia nesciebant quando castra movebantur; tum quia, ut Damascenus dicit, non necesse erat eos aliquod signum distinctionis habere quando seorsum ab aliis populis habitabant. Et tamen, ut Augustinus dicit, inobedientiam incurrebant qui ex contemptu praetermittebant. | Reply to Objection 3: There was an excuse for the people in the desert failing to fulfil the precept of circumcision, both because they knew not when the camp was removed, and because, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv) they needed no distinctive sign while they dwelt apart from other nations. Nevertheless, as Augustine says (Questions. in Josue vi), those were guilty of disobedience who failed to obey through contempt. |
| Videtur tamen quod nulli incircumcisi mortui fuerint in deserto, quia in Psalmo dicitur, non erat in tribubus eorum infirmus, sed illi soli videntur mortui in deserto qui fuerant in Aegypto circumcisi. Si tamen aliqui ibi incircumcisi mortui sunt, eadem ratio est de his et de his qui moriebantur ante circumcisionis institutionem. Quod etiam intelligendum est de pueris qui moriebantur ante octavum diem tempore legis. | It seems, however, that none of the uncircumcised died in the desert, for it is written (Ps. 104:37): "There was not among their tribes one that was feeble": and that those alone died in the desert, who had been circumcised in Egypt. If, however, some of the uncircumcised did die there, the same applies to them as to those who died before the institution of circumcision. And this applies also to those children who, at the time of the Law, died before the eighth day. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod in circumcisione auferebatur originale peccatum ex parte personae, remanebat tamen impedimentum intrandi in regnum caelorum ex parte totius naturae, quod fuit sublatum per passionem Christi. Et ideo etiam Baptismus ante passionem Christi non introducebat in regnum. Sed circumcisio, si haberet locum post passionem Christi, introduceret in regnum. | Reply to Objection 4: Original sin was taken away in circumcision, in regard to the person; but on the part of the entire nature, there remained the obstacle to the entrance of the kingdom of heaven, which obstacle was removed by Christ's Passion. Consequently, before Christ's Passion not even Baptism gave entrance to the kingdom. But were circumcision to avail after Christ's Passion, it would give entrance to the kingdom. |
| Ad quintum dicendum quod adulti, quando circumcidebantur, consequebantur remissionem non solum originalis, sed etiam actualium peccatorum, non tamen ita quod liberarentur ab omni reatu poenae, sicut in Baptismo, in quo confertur copiosior gratia. | Reply to Objection 5: When adults were circumcised, they received remission not only of original, but also of actual sin: yet not so as to be delivered from all debt of punishment, as in Baptism, in which grace is conferred more copiously. |