Dist. 3, Part 2, Art. 3, 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/3/q/bon-sent-IV-d3-p2-a3-q1
----------------------------------------
### Article III. *On the cessation of circumcision.*

Next comes the question on the third article, namely on the cessation of circumcision; and concerning this two things are asked. First it is asked whether circumcision ought to have ceased. Second, whether it ceased before the promulgation of the Gospel, or after.

### Question I. *Whether circumcision ought to have ceased.*

And that it ought not to have ceased is shown:

1. *First*, by the authority of the canon. For it is said in Genesis 17, in the giving of circumcision: *My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant:* therefore it seems that circumcision ought to endure eternally; but what endures eternally has no term: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, to the Romans 2: *Circumcision profits, if you keep the Law:* therefore it seems useful for those keeping the Law to keep circumcision: therefore it did not cease. If you say that the Apostle spoke for the time before the Gospel; on the contrary: to the Galatians 5, where he forbids circumcision, he says: *I testify to every man who circumcises himself, that he is a debtor to do the whole Law;* but he who acts badly is not obliged to something worse: therefore if one who is circumcised is bound to the Law, to be circumcised is not bad: therefore circumcision did not cease.

3. Likewise, this same thing is seen by reason: because Christ instructed us not only by words, but also by deeds — whence also the common authority says that «every action of Christ was our instruction» — but Christ was circumcised, as is said in Luke 2: therefore if the members ought to be made like the head, then it seems that it is necessary that we too be circumcised; for it seems that just as he willed to be baptized, in order to give a form, so also to be circumcised.

4. Likewise, the reason why some legal observances ceased is that their signification has been fulfilled; and the reason why some endure is that they signify what must always be done. Thus the burning of incense remained; but the signification of circumcision will not be fulfilled until the eighth [day] of the final resurrection, and it again signifies something which must always be done, namely the removal of superfluities: therefore it ought always to endure.

5. Likewise, just as the Sacraments of the law of grace succeed the Sacraments of the written law, so the latter succeed the Sacraments of the law of nature; but tithing, which was a remedy against original [sin] in the time of the law of nature, remained together with circumcision: therefore for a like reason circumcision [should remain] with baptism.

On account of this there is a question: by what necessity did it cease? For since these two remedies have no incompatibility, and some accept one who do not accept the other, it would be in keeping with the goodness of the divine mercy that both should remain, so that God might have a greater people, and our wound might be healed in more ways.

**On the contrary:**

1. That it ceased is shown to the Galatians 5: *I Paul say to you, if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.*

2. Likewise, to the Hebrews 7: *The priesthood being translated, it is necessary that a translation of the Law also be made;* but it was fitting that the priesthood be transferred: therefore also the Law; and if this, then also the legal Sacraments. But among these the chief and most notable is circumcision, as the foundation of the others: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, circumcision was for distinguishing people from people; but Christ the cornerstone gathered together into one the dispersed sons of God and joined the two walls; and one shepherd ought to have one fold: therefore it is necessary that in the new law that sign be abolished.

4. Likewise, either baptism was given as a sufficient remedy, or not. If not: then the Sacraments of the new law are imperfect: therefore also the new law; which is unfitting. If it is a perfect remedy against original sin, and that disease is simply not repeatable: then, baptism having come, circumcision is superfluous. If therefore everything superfluous is to be cut away from the law of God, it is clear etc.

### Conclusion

> Since baptism was instituted in place of circumcision, circumcision had to cease.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as the canon of the evangelical law says, not only circumcision but also all the legal Sacraments ceased upon the coming of the Sacraments of the new law, because the Sacraments of that time were not suited to this time: both because they were obscure as to signification, for they were a veil; and also because of little power as to efficacy; and also because heavy as to observance. And all these befitted that law, which was a law of figure and of burden, for breaking the hardness and pride of the Jewish neck.

But the new law has opposite conditions, for it is a law of truth and of grace and of sweetness. For grace and truth came through Jesus Christ, as is said in John 1; nevertheless its burden is a burden of sweetness: for his yoke is sweet, as is said in Matthew 11. And therefore it had to have Sacraments more expressive in signifying, more efficacious in healing, and lighter to carry. And therefore all those Sacraments ceased, and others were instituted. Whence Augustine against Faustus:

«The first Sacraments, which were observed, were foretokens of Christ who was to come; and when Christ by his coming had fulfilled them, they were taken away, and others instituted, greater in power, better in usefulness, easier in performance, and fewer in number». — From this therefore it is clear that, since the Sacrament of baptism was instituted in place of circumcision, circumcision had to cease, especially since that Sacrament is more expressive in signifying, more efficacious in healing, and lighter in carrying. And all this is clear to one who considers the conditions and properties of each.

**Replies to the arguments for the affirmative:**

*To 1.* To that which is objected, that they were given for an everlasting covenant; it must be said that this should not be understood as *eternal* in such a way that it lacks an end. For in the same passage the Lord says that he will give them the land for an everlasting possession; and it is certain that the Jews do not possess the land of promise; and on account of this a distinction must be made in *eternal*. For *eternal* is said in three ways: either as to *duration*, or as to *the indeterminateness of the end*, or as to *signification*. In the first way it is said in two ways: either because it lacks *beginning and end*, Ecclesiasticus 18: *He who lives forever created all things together*; or as to privation of *term*, the Psalm: *He has established them forever* etc. — Similarly in the second way it is said in two ways: either because it is not done *once* in such a way that it need not be done *many times*, and thus it is said:

> He will serve the eternal who knows not how to use the small;

or because the term is not determined, and thus the priesthood of Aaron is called eternal, because the Lord did not determine when it should cease. — In the third way likewise it is said in two ways: either because it signifies the eternal, and thus the land of promise was given for an everlasting possession, Genesis 17; or because it signifies and leads into the knowledge of eternal life, and thus circumcision is called eternal. And these last three ways are had from the Gloss on Genesis 17.

*To 2.* To that which is objected from what is said to the Romans 2: *Circumcision profits* etc.; it must be said that the Apostle says this according to that state, in which the Law and circumcision were to be observed. For according to no state did circumcision profit without the observance of the Law; for the same one who commanded circumcision commanded also the Law. If therefore one keeps circumcision and despises the Law, even in the time of the Law it did not profit; but it did profit, if he kept both not only carnally, but spiritually.

That which then is objected, that for the evangelical time he says: *I testify to every man who circumcises himself* etc.; some say that the Apostle said this to inspire fear. But yet that is not sufficient; therefore one must say more, namely that there is an obligation from the *divine precept*, and there is an obligation from the *dictate of conscience*. By the divine precept no one is obliged, because that has been revoked; but he who has a conscience that he is bound to circumcision, because the divine mandate still stands, by the same reasoning it is necessary that he have a conscience of observing all the mandates of the Law. Whence the Apostle makes the argument *per impossibile* from the destruction of the *consequent* thus: the false apostles said that they were bound to be circumcised, but were not bound to observe the other legal precepts; and the Apostle says that if they are bound to this precept, since there are likewise other precepts, they are bound to all — «for if the soul of Socrates is immortal, then so is every soul» — yet each is false, and «when one absurdity is posited, many follow». Whence by this, that the whole Law was not to be observed, the Apostle wished to argue that circumcision was not to be observed.

*To 3.* To that which is objected concerning Christ, that Christ was circumcised; it must be said that Christ educated us by all his works; but yet he did not do all things for imitation, as his miraculous works; and many others. But the reason why Christ willed to be circumcised was threefold, namely as an argument of faith, an example of humility, and a completion of the Law. As an *argument of faith*: because he was of the Jews according to the flesh, and on account of him especially, who was to be born of that race, circumcision was instituted to be signified, lest he should seem unlike the Fathers and not be the one who was promised, and through this the Jews could cloak their error: therefore he had to be circumcised. — Secondly for the *example of humility*, on account of which he subjected himself to the Law and to all the legal observances, although he was under none. — Thirdly he was circumcised for the *completion of the Law*, whence by sustaining circumcision he fulfilled the Law, and by fulfilling [it] he made it cease, because he did not destroy the Law, but fulfilled it, while he exhibited the signified truth. And this is what Augustine says against Faustus, that the Sacraments of the old law were fulfilled at the coming of Christ, «and therefore taken away, because fulfilled». — And this threefold reason is drawn from the homily of Augustine on Luke 2 concerning the circumcision of the child; and thus it is clear that Christ did not will that others should imitate him in this, but rather that they should be instructed by it.

*To 4.* To that which is objected, that its signification is not yet fulfilled; it must be said that circumcision had both a *present* signification, and this was the deletion of original [sin]; and it had a *consequent* one, namely liberation from misery through Christ in the eighth [day] of the resurrection. And since it has been fulfilled as to the principal signification in baptism, and as to the consequent in our head Christ, who rose on the eighth day; therefore it had to cease. — But as to what is added, that it ought to remain, like the burning of incense; it must be said that the burning of incense does not remain only because it signifies what must be done, but also because the exterior observance is in some way moral, and also because it is easy; and besides the Church did not retain it from the Law, but instituted it, because they burned incense in another manner.

*To 5.* To that which is objected, that circumcision does not take away tithing; it must be said that circumcision was not a universal remedy, but a particular one, nor were all obliged to it; and therefore tithing still had a place. But to baptism all are obliged, and it is a universal and sufficient remedy; and therefore if circumcision remained, it would have more of burden than of usefulness.

And thus the last point is clear, why the Lord did not will [it], because it did not befit this time, both because of penalty, and because of particularity, and because of the smallness of its effect.