Dist. 1, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 1
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/4/d/1/q/bon-sent-IV-d1-p2-a2-q1
----------------------------------------
### Article II. *On the remedy under the written Law, that is, on circumcision.*

Next there is inquiry concerning the remedy against the original [fault] which preceded baptism in the time of the written Law, namely concerning circumcision. And about this three things are asked.

First there is inquiry concerning the institution of circumcision. Second there is inquiry concerning its form, or its integrity. Third concerning its efficacy.

### Question I. *On the institution of circumcision.*

As to the first, then, it is shown that the remedy of circumcision was suitably instituted:

1. *First*, by reason of its *signification*, because it was instituted as a Sacrament, which is a remedy against the original [fault]; but the original [fault] is transmitted through propagation: therefore, since circumcision is performed upon that member by which propagation takes place, it expressly signifies the healing of the original [fault].

2. Likewise, this seems [evident] by reason of *healing*: because «contraries are healed by contraries», as much materially as spiritually: therefore, since the original [fault] is contracted through pleasure concerning that member, in the suffering of that member the healing is expressly designated: therefore, if the Sacrament is ordained to this: it is evident, etc.

3. Likewise, the original [fault] is a disease running in a circle, because, as Anselm says, «the person corrupts the nature, and the nature the person»: therefore it is expressly signified by a removal according to a circle; but this is what happens in circumcision: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:**
1. God does not delight in our punishments, therefore God's medicines ought to be gentle; but circumcision is penal: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, no punishment of sense is owed to the original [fault], therefore in its removal punishment ought not to be felt: therefore if circumcision is not without the feeling of punishment, it is not a suitable remedy.

Likewise, I ask, to what time the institution of circumcision pertains. Not to the time of the law of *nature*, because the law of nature is common to all, but circumcision is proper to the lineage of Abraham; nor to the time of the *written* law, because Moses, the giver of the Law, did not institute circumcision — whence in John the seventh: *Circumcision is from the Fathers, not from Moses* — nor to the time of *grace*: therefore its institution belongs to no time.

*If you say* that it pertains to the written law, I ask: why was it instituted before the giving of the Law, and why was it given rather to Abraham than to another?

Likewise, it is asked: why was it not confirmed in the giver of the Law, but rather Joshua received the command rather than Moses?

### Conclusion.

> **Conclusion.** Circumcision was suitably instituted for the blotting-out of original guilt.

**I respond:** It must be said that the institution of circumcision was suitable, because it was an express sign of the healing of the original [fault], both on account of the removal *from the member of propagation*, and on account of the *penal* removal, and also on account of the *circular* removal.

**Replies to the objections:**

*To 1.* As to what is objected, that the Lord does not delight in punishments; it must be said that punishment is compared to the *one punished*; and thus it does not please God, «for God did not create us for punishing». It is compared to *merit*, namely a pre-existing fault; and thus there is in it a manifestation of justice and of order, and thus it pleases God, inasmuch as He is just. It is compared to the *end* or effect, as for instance the justification of the matter; and thus it pleases Him, inasmuch as He is merciful; whence in the punishment which is the way to justification, mercy and justice shine forth; and so it is pleasing to God, and such was the punishment of circumcision. — As to what then is *objected*, that He does not delight in punishment; it must be said that He does not delight in punishment as it is *punishment*, but as it is *just* or justificatory; yet this delight is always with a certain rigor, and because the old law was a law of rigor, therefore there had to be in it a penal healing.

*To 2.* As to what is objected, that the original [fault] did not merit a punishment of sense; it must be said that this is true of that [punishment] which is punishment only and in no way a way to salvation, as for instance the infernal [punishment]; but it well merited that which can be a way to salvation, as for instance the present [punishment].

As to what is asked, to which Law it belongs; it must be said, according to Hugh, that it was a Sacrament of the *written* law, succeeding the Sacraments of the law of *nature*; and this for a fourfold cause, namely by reason of *gravity* and of *evidence*, by reason of *certitude* and of *efficacy*. It is grave by reason of penalty; and it had to *follow*, because the first age was as it were infancy, the second as it were boyhood; and therefore it ought not to be burdened with a burdening Sacrament, but to be led with a gentle hand; and also because the disease was recent, and there was not so great a knowledge of sin. But afterward the third age is like youth, and they had more knowledge of sin; therefore they could be more heavily burdened. — The second [cause] is *evidence*, which Hugh sets down in the eleventh part, because «circumcision was a more evident sign». — The third is of *certitude*, because, if a boy was circumcised by anyone whatsoever, whether the parents were good or evil, he was cleansed, and it was certain; but not so with respect to *faith*, because under the law of nature it was not certain whether he would be cleansed, if one [parent] were unbelieving and dedicated him to idols, and concerning the parents one could doubt in many ways. — The fourth is *efficacy*, because the tinder [of sin] was more remitted in those who were circumcised than in those who were cleansed by sacrifices and faith alone.

As to what is asked: why was it given before the Law? it must be said that this was for preparing and setting apart the people to whom the Law was to be given. — But why rather to Abraham? it must be said that circumcision was given not only as a *remedy*, but also as a *sign* — as a sign, I say, of distinction according to faith and according to flesh, inasmuch as in that people God was chiefly to be worshipped, and from it according to the flesh Christ was to be born. And because Abraham was the first who left his own land for the worship of God, and was excellent in faith, and to him the promise concerning Christ was made; therefore among the Fathers it was given chiefly to Abraham.

As to what is asked: why was it confirmed rather under Joshua than under Moses? the reason for this is both *spiritual* and *literal*: literal, because the legislator repeated how Abraham had been commanded on behalf of the whole posterity, and they already had the use [of it] and had never abandoned it; therefore it did not have to be given by Moses or to Moses. But in the time of Joshua they had neglected circumcision in the desert; therefore it was necessary that a command be given, as is said there. — Another reason was *spiritual*: because, although circumcision signifies both *present* and *future* circumcision, yet that of Abraham signifies the *present*; but that of Joshua, performed in the land of promise after the wandering, signifies the *future*.