Dist. 1, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 2
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-q2
----------------------------------------
### QUESTION II. *On the form, or the integrity, of circumcision.*

Secondly, the question is asked concerning the form, or the integrity, of circumcision. And Hugh says in the book *On the Sacraments* that there are three things which belong to its integrity, namely *the male sex, the member of the foreskin, and the eighth day.*

1. But it is shown that *sex* ought not to belong to the integrity of this Sacrament: because the remedy ought to correspond to the disease; but in disease there is no distinction or determination of sex, since it is common to every sex: therefore neither in the remedy ought there to be any distinction.

2. Likewise, it seems that *the member of the foreskin* ought not to belong to the substance of the Sacrament: because the Sacraments are for decency and seemliness; but that member is shameful and unseemly: therefore in no way ought anything to be done about that member; or if it is done, I ask, why rather about that one than about another?

Likewise, that *the eighth day* is not of the substance of the Sacrament is shown:

1. Because neither in baptism nor in the sacraments of the law of nature is there a determination of time: therefore neither in the Sacraments of the written law ought there to be.

2. Likewise, if that time is of necessity, then if it is done afterward, the Sacrament is of no efficacy: therefore it was of no avail to Abraham nor to any of his household; and again, it was of no avail to those whom Joshua circumcised; and again, it was of no avail to proselytes. And from this it follows that if anyone neglected the eighth day, he could in no way be healed from original [sin], because neither by circumcision nor by any other means, since there was no other remedy.

3. Likewise, if it was of necessity: then all those men who were in the desert were transgressors, since none of them was circumcised.

4. Likewise, if it was of the substance, then it ought not to have been anticipated: therefore a little one dying before the eighth day would necessarily have to be damned, because an uncircumcised male was condemned; and before [the eighth day] he ought not to have been circumcised: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. That it is of *necessity* is proved: because circumcision is a Sacrament of necessity, since it falls under a precept; but all those three things are commanded, in Genesis seventeen: therefore all are of necessity. For there it is said: *The male,*

*the flesh of whose foreskin shall not have been circumcised, shall perish,* etc.; and again: *The infant of eight days shall be circumcised.*

2. Likewise, that the time is of the substance is shown: because circumcision signified both circumcisions, namely the first in the soul from *guilt,* and the second in the body from *misery,* which was to come at the eighth [day] of the resurrection: therefore the eighth day was of the integrity of the signification, therefore also of the integrity of the Sacrament.

3. Likewise, the precept concerning circumcision is an *affirmative* precept, which obliges for some time, not for every time; therefore, the time being determined in the precept, it obliges for that [time]: therefore, since in that precept there is a determination of the time at which circumcision is instituted, the determined time is of the necessity of circumcision.

> ### CONCLUSION.
>
> Of the absolute necessity of circumcision are the male sex and the member; but the time had to be necessarily observed on account of the precept.

**I respond:** It must be said that two of these, namely *sex* and *the member,* are of the necessity of circumcision absolutely; but the *time* in one way is of necessity, in another way not. For in this Sacrament three things are to be considered, namely its *efficacy, signification,* and *observance.* As to *efficacy* it contributes nothing; as to *signification* it belongs to fittingness, because it signifies more expressly; as to *observance* it is of necessity, because it falls under a precept; hence he sins who neglects to observe it.

1. To that, then, which is objected first, that in disease there is no distinction, therefore etc.: it must be said that circumcision was not only for a *remedy,* but also for a *sign of distinction,* that the people of the Jews might be distinguished from others, from whom Christ was to be born; and because propagation and genealogy are reckoned through the males: therefore it was given to them, not to the women.

2. To that which is objected, that that member ought not to be [the place of it], because it is shameful: it must be said that that member was most fitting for the *signification* of circumcision and for its *efficacy.* For circumcision was given as a *covenant,* as is said in Genesis seventeen, and this covenant is the assurance that Christ was to be born from that people. It was also given as a *remedy against original sin;* hence it is said in Genesis seventeen: *The male, the flesh of whose foreskin shall not have been circumcised, shall perish,* etc. It was likewise given as a *merit of obedience;* for Abraham and his posterity merited by thus obeying the Lord. It was also given as a *sign of the repression of concupiscence;* hence it signifies what is to be done, or from what one is to cease. — And because through the foreskin there is *generation,* and so it accords with the *covenant* of generation; it is the *transfusion of original guilt*, and so it accords with the *remedy of circumcision;* and in the foreskin there reign *disobedience* and *concupiscence,* and from the opposites, by its signification and by the removal made upon it, obedience is merited and continence is signified. Therefore it accords most rightly. — As to what he says, that it is an ignoble member; it must be said that of its own nature it is noble, but it was made ignoble on account of guilt, whence through the remedy it is ennobled; hence in First Corinthians twelve it is said that *upon the more ignoble members we bestow more abundant honor;* and this is understood [to hold] when the passions and desires are resisted.

To that which is asked concerning the time, it must be said, as has been said, that as to efficacy it contributes nothing; hence circumcision healed proselytes equally as well as little ones, yet there is a fittingness as to signification.

1. As to what is objected concerning baptism, it must be said that the *reality* of circumcision was circumcision from *guilt* and from *misery*. Circumcision from *guilt* was signified in the act and the matter, but circumcision from *misery* was not signified through the act and the matter; and therefore it was fitting to add the *time,* by which it might be signified. But baptism, by reason of immersion and emergence, expressly signifies death and resurrection; therefore it was not fitting to add [a time]. And thus *the eighth day* belongs to the *well-being* of circumcision as to *signification;* yet it is of necessity as to *observance,* because it falls under a precept. — And the reason for this was: that that Sacrament was penal; therefore it was necessary to observe the time, because, if [the child] were circumcised before the eighth day, on account of his tenderness he might perish; if it were deferred longer, there would be danger on account of death,

and they would gladly defer it on account of the pain. Therefore the Lord willed to set a fixed term for them.

3. 4. To that which is objected, that if it is of the necessity of the precept, it could not be deferred nor anticipated without sin; it must be said that on this point there was a twofold opinion: one indeed, that it could not be anticipated nor deferred without sin, unless the *authority* of God intervened, or also *necessity.* And both were present in the men who were uncircumcised in the desert, as they say: *necessity* on account of the danger, because they were moved at the motion of the cloud, and therefore could not observe circumcision; the divine *authority* also was dispensing, because they were in the desert, where they could not mingle with the nations nor needed to be distinguished. Again, the Lord willed, for the sake of the *figure,* that circumcision be deferred, so that one general circumcision might be made in the land of promise as a sign of that which was to come in the fatherland. And these men say that if they feared concerning the little ones, the time of circumcision could and ought to be anticipated; otherwise the child was damned, just as now an unbaptized child is damned. — But this position, although it may seem probable, nevertheless is repugnant to the custom of the Jews, which they now observe; and it is credible that they received it from the Fathers. For they circumcise none before the eighth day. — It also has a contrariety within itself: because, if on account of the necessity of infirmity it could be deferred, when the little one was in grave infirmity, he ought not, according to them, to be circumcised, but to be awaited longer; and again, if it could not be deferred without sin, how could it be anticipated, since the Lord had fixed it?

And therefore there is another and more probable opinion: that they ought neither to anticipate nor to defer, unless the Lord himself dispensed; otherwise they sinned. And if you object that then the child would be damned, because it is written: *The male, the flesh of whom* etc.; it must be said that according to the translation of the Seventy it reads: *Whose foreskin's flesh shall not have been circumcised on the eighth day;* and although in our translation it is not repeated, yet it is understood to be repeated under that condition under which it was commanded. And because they were not obliged, they were healed by the same remedy as the women. — But a difficulty meets this position: for suppose that that little one, cleansed by that remedy, lived up to eight days, and then was not circumcised — either he is saved, or not. If he is not saved: then by the sin of the father he loses grace, or he did not have it; but it is established that on account of the sin of the father he cannot lose it: therefore he never had it. — If he is saved; and he is not circumcised on the eighth day: then it is not true what the Lord says: *The male, whose flesh* etc.

On account of this, therefore, it must be answered that, circumcision being in force, the other remedies did not dispose the little one except on this condition, that he himself was incapable of fulfilling the mandate concerning circumcision: and so on account of the impossibility he was absolved, and if he was about to die before the eighth day, they would dispose [him], and he was healed; but one about to live was not healed, until the mandate was wholly fulfilled. And this whole [view] is probable; and therefore I believe this opinion the sounder. — But if the Lord dispensed, then it would be otherwise; and so they say it was done concerning the men who were in the desert. — Some, however, say that they sinned, because they omitted it out of contempt; but yet that is not credible, that all should so despise the mandate of God.

But if you object likewise concerning the little one who, prevented by death, is not baptized, whether he is saved in the faith of his parents; I say no, because baptism, on account of its generality and perfection and the indeterminateness of its time, evacuated the other remedies; but not so circumcision. — Now the probability of this position is had from *authority,* because in Proverbs four Solomon says: *I was the only-begotten before my mother;* where it is said in the Gloss that the son of Bathsheba, another little one, "was not named, because he died before the eighth day," and so he was not circumcised. It is had from *reason,* because no animal was offered to the Lord before the eighth day. It is had also from the *custom of the Jews,* which they now observe. And therefore this position is rather to be held.

---