Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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).

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.

Reply to Objection 1: This argument would prove if justice were of circumcision otherwise than through faith in Christ's Passion.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Articulus 4

Argumentum 1

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.

Argumentum 2

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.

Argumentum 3

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.

Argumentum 4

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.

Argumentum 5

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.

Sed Contra

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.

Corpus

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, 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.

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.

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.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ratio illa procederet si ex circumcisione esset iustitia aliter quam per fidem passionis christi.

Ad 2

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.

Ad 3

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.

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.

Ad 4

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.

Ad 5

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.