Dist. 1, Part 2, Dubia
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-dubia
----------------------------------------
### Doubts on the text of the Master.

### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first there is a doubt about this which the Master says: *Yet among those Sacraments there was a certain Sacrament*, etc. Why does he except the Sacrament of circumcision rather than others? For it seems that he ought rather to except others; because, if the Sacraments instituted later are more efficacious, it seems that he ought rather to except the Sacraments that were instituted under the Law, than circumcision, which was instituted before.

**I respond:** It must be said that circumcision was, among all the Sacraments of the Law, the more efficacious Sacrament. — *If you ask* what is the reason or efficient cause; I say that it is the divine pact, which was especially in this, and therefore this Sacrament had an efficacious ordination toward the cure of original [sin]. — *But if it is asked*: why was the pact rather in this? it must be said that the reason for this is twofold: first, because, just as baptism is the gate and foundation of the Sacraments of the new law, so in circumcision the old law took its foundation and beginning. — The other reason was that circumcision was for a remedy against original sin, with respect to which the guilty one is least culpable, and yet very powerless to help himself, as is plain in little ones; and therefore it befitted the divine mercy that it should prepare a more efficacious remedy.

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about this which Bede says: *The same aid of saving cure, circumcision*, etc.; because, if this be true, then in circumcision the grace that aids the virtues is given just as in baptism. *If you say* that it does not follow: "the same, therefore this," but rather there is here a *consequent*; this does not resolve it: because he himself excepts; but an exception is not made from anything unless it be understood *universally*; for nothing is said [when one says]: a man

runs except Socrates: therefore it is understood generally of every remedy. — Likewise, baptism before the Passion did not open the gate: therefore it did not have a greater efficacy.

**I respond:** It must be said that emphasis must be placed on Bede's word both as regards what he says, *the same*, and as regards what he says, *of cure*. As regards what is *the same*, because he asserts an agreement in *form*, not in *quantity*; as regards what is *of cure*, because he asserts an agreement in the *remedy against evil*, not insofar as it *enables for the good*. — And by this those two objections are resolved. For Bede means that, just as baptism cleanses the worthy recipient from original and actual [sin], so does circumcision. Whence, as regards the *removal of fault* there is an agreement, but not as regards the *opening of the gate*, nor as regards the *enabling*, by reason of which baptism always surpassed it.

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: *Yet in the bosom of Abraham after death*; what this *bosom of Abraham* is. And the Gloss says, on Luke chapter sixteen: «The bosom of Abraham is the rest of the blessed poor»; but that is the kingdom of heaven, and this is the vision of God: therefore the circumcised who died had the blessed vision, which the following text contradicts.

**I respond:** It must be said that the *bosom of Abraham* can be called the rest in which Abraham was; and this is attributed to Abraham on account of the example of the perfection of his faith, as it were the primary one. — Or the *bosom of Abraham* is called the rest of God the Father, who is called *Abraham*, because he is the highest father of all, especially of the faithful. Said in either way, it means the same, yet from a different manner of speaking. *Rest* can be spoken of in two ways: either by the *removal of every evil*, and thus it was the place in which the holy Fathers awaited Christ, and so he understands it here; or by the *bestowal of every good*, and thus it is the place of glory and paradise, to which place we now desire and pray that the souls of the dead may come.

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about this which the Master says: *Nor was circumcision commanded to him alone, but also to his seed.* For it seems to be ill said: because according to this it seems that Ishmael and all of the stock of Abraham were bound to circumcision. *If you say to me* that those alone were bound, of whom Christ was to be born: therefore according to this those alone of the tribe of Judah would have been obligated. — Likewise it seems that not those alone, but all: because, if circumcision was for a remedy, and such a remedy as profited all, and all alike needed it: therefore it seems that, since circumcision would not be good except because *commanded*, it would be commanded to all, since it would profit all. But against this is that, as Hugh and Gregory say on the prologue of Job, «Job is not read to have been circumcised, and yet is believed to have been of the stock of Esau».

**I respond:** It must be said that in the giving of circumcision two things are considered, namely *institution* and *precept*. The *institution* was against the disease of original sin, that it might be a remedy; and as that disease regards all, so also the institution. But the *precept* was unto a *pact*; and the Lord made a pact with Abraham concerning the certainty of the nativity of Christ and concerning the land of promise: and therefore those alone are understood to be bound by the precept to whom the pact extended, and these were all the sons of Israel. And therefore all *could* be circumcised and it was useful to all; but these alone *were bound*, to whom the pact extended and who were to receive the land. And therefore, when the Master says that it was given

to the *seed* under precept; he takes *seed* strictly for those who were begotten of Jacob. — And thus the response concerning Job is plain. Yet it is not altogether certain of what stock he was, since some say that he was of Nachor. But that Abraham circumcised all his home-born slaves and Ishmael, this was of *superabounding* justice.

### Doubt V.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that *it was done on the eighth day*. For it seems not well said, because, granted that a little one were born on the Sabbath, the precept of the Sabbath was greater, whence it is also contained in the Decalogue: therefore they ought rather to defer than to circumcise on the Sabbath: therefore not on the eighth day.

**To this some respond** that out of reverence for the Sabbath it ought to be deferred, and the precept given concerning the Sabbath prejudged it. But yet there is no need here to doubt, because the Lord says, in John chapter seven, that *a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath, that the law of Moses be not broken*. On account of this it must be said that the work of circumcision, on account of the cure of the mind, was spiritual, and so it did not break the Sabbath nor was repugnant to it, because in the Law only *servile work* was forbidden.

### Doubt VI.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that *it was done with a stone knife*. For it seems to be ill said, because in the institution of the circumcision made to Abraham himself no mention is made of a stone knife. — Likewise, what utility or necessity is there of a stone knife, since iron is much more apt?

**I respond:** It must be said that the stone knife belongs *to the substance*, but as regards *observance*, not as regards *efficacy* nor as regards *signification*. And this is plain, because, if anyone were circumcised with an iron knife, the effect would be the same; and as a sign of this thing no mention was made of it in the *institution*, yet it was made in the subsequent *renewal of the precept* made under Joshua, chapter five: *Make thee knives of stone*, in which it is signified that all were to be circumcised through the *rock [which is] Christ*; both their hardness and the hardness of the Law are also signified. But this was a matter of fittingness, not of necessity; whence it is said that the Jews do not now circumcise with stone knives.

### Doubt VII.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that *there are two things (res) of this Sacrament*. For it seems to be ill said: because, if there are two things, then it seems that this Sacrament is twofold, or that the Sacrament is manifold.

**I respond:** It must be said that the *thing* (res) of this Sacrament is in two ways: in one way that which it *signifies and gives*; in another way that which it *signifies as to be done*. But that thing which it *signified and gave* was the proper and principal one; and this was one principally, namely the cure from original [sin]. But that which it *signified as to be done* happens to be twofold according to a twofold state, namely of *the way* and of *glory*, according as the spiritual circumcision is twofold, namely *from fault* and *from misery*; and each is brought about through the *rock [which is] Christ*, and thus on the eighth [day].

### Doubt VIII.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that *circumcision conferred nothing on Abraham*. For it seems to say something false: because Abraham did better and more faithfully than others: therefore it seems that it bestows nothing on others, if it did not bestow on himself, of whom it seems the more [likely].

**I respond:** It must be said that *to confer nothing* can be in two ways: either because there is no *need on the part of the recipient*, or because there is no *that which would aid in it*; and from the first cause it conferred nothing, not because it was in itself inefficacious, but because Abraham did not need it.

---