Dist. 3, Part 2, Art. 3, 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/3/q/bon-sent-IV-d3-p2-a3-q2
----------------------------------------
### Question II. *Whether circumcision ceased before the promulgation of the Gospel.*

Secondly it is asked whether circumcision ceased before the promulgation of the Gospel. And that it did, it seems:

1. Matthew eleven: *The Law and the Prophets were until John* etc.; either this is said *inclusively* or *exclusively*; but in whatever way this is said, since John and his baptism ceased before the passion, it seems that the Law ceased and the legal Sacraments before the promulgation of the Gospel.

2. Likewise, the reason why circumcision ceased was the fulfillment of the Law and of the legal observances; but all these were fulfilled in the passion, when it was said: *It is consummated, and the veil of the temple was rent*: therefore if this took place before the promulgation of the Gospel, it ceased beforehand — and this is drawn from several places of the book of Questions on the New and Old Testament — as the Master says in the text.

3. Likewise, the special reason for the cessation of circumcision was the institution of a nobler Sacrament in its place; but baptism was instituted before the passion and the promulgation of the Gospel: therefore circumcision ceased beforehand.

4. Likewise, to this there is the authority of Jerome to Augustine, which is set down in the Gloss on Galatians two. Jerome says: « I pronounce that the ceremonies of the Jews are altogether deadly for the faithful; for the end of the Law is Christ unto justice » etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. After the passion Paul circumcised Timothy, Acts sixteen, and in this he is not reprehended; and he kept the vow of the Nazarites, Acts twenty-one: therefore it was not yet evil, nor had circumcision ceased. If you should say that he did it to avoid scandal; *on the contrary:* to avoid scandal one must not act against the truth of life or of doctrine: therefore if this was evil in itself, he is never excused on this ground from not having sinned.

2. Likewise, no one is bound to that which he does not know and cannot know; but there were many to whom the institution of baptism had not come: therefore they were not bound to be baptized: therefore if God did not leave them without a remedy, circumcision still had its effect and standing after the passion.

3. Likewise, Augustine to Jerome: *Circumcision and the other legal observances were not harmful, although they were now no longer necessary for signifying things to come; it was more harmful to prohibit them as though harmful.*

There is therefore here a question, since there seems here to be a manifold contradiction, as to what must be held. — For Peter seems contrary to himself, who in Acts fifteen declared that the legal observances were not to be kept, and afterward judaized, as is said in Galatians two.

Likewise, Paul seems contrary to himself, who reprehends Peter, and afterward circumcised Timothy and kept the vow of the Nazarites. Of the first it is had in Acts sixteen, of the second in Acts twenty-one.

Likewise, Peter seems contrary to Paul, and conversely, because in Galatians two it is said that Paul withstood Peter to his face: therefore there seems to have been a dissension in this between the columns of the Church.

Likewise, Jerome seems contrary to Augustine, as is plain in the Gloss on Galatians two; and that they openly contradict, this appears in their Letters, in which they answer one another. Hence Jerome in the Letter to Augustine: « You say that to observe the legal precepts is good, I affirm it evil, not only for those who believed from among the Gentiles, but also for those who believed from the Jewish people ».

> **Conclusion.** Before the promulgation of the Gospel the legal observances did not cease as regards observance, nor as regards efficacy universally, because among those at a distance they could probably still have efficacy.

**I respond:** For the understanding of the foregoing a twofold way must be opened, because the chief doctors, namely

Jerome and Augustine, were apprehensive in determining this question.

And first, for understanding the solution of Jerome, it must be known that blessed Jerome understood *two times* in the giving of the new law and the institution of its Sacraments: one, namely, the time of establishing the Gospel, which began from the coming of Christ until the consummation of the passion; the other was the time of the promulgation of the Gospel, which began from the coming of the Holy Spirit until the end of the world. Likewise he understood that the legal and ceremonial precepts can be kept in two ways: either by *precept* as necessary for salvation, or by *dispensation*, not because they are good, but because good is drawn from them. — Jerome therefore granted that the legal observances, especially circumcision, ought to be kept until the truth of the Gospel should be promulgated and the institution of the new law opened up, and this throughout the whole first time. But as these things began to be opened up, those ceased, just as these became known, so that it was lawful for no one, after having received knowledge of the truth, to keep Sacraments of this kind in any way, except only for those to whom the preaching of the Gospel had not come, or even for the greater Apostles themselves by dispensation and a certain pious pretense; but the rest were transgressors, in whatever way they kept them.

And to laying this down he was moved by the authority of sacred Scripture and the authority of the Church. The authority of sacred Scripture: for all the Apostles agreed, Acts fifteen, that the legal observances were not to be kept. Again, he saw that the Apostles in some places after that decree had kept them, and he said that the first decree had been given according to the rigor of the truth, but that the observance had been made according to a pretense of piety, according to which the Apostle says in First Corinthians nine: *I became all things to all, to the Jews as a Jew* etc.; and this by a certain pious pretense. — The authority of the Church moved him, because the holy Fathers commonly condemned the heresy of Ebion and Cerinthus, who said that the legal observances were to be kept together with the Gospel; and on this account they said that they had been kept by a certain pious and dispensatory pretense on account of the weakness of the Jews. Thus Jerome said that Peter kept the legal observances by a certain pretense, according to what the Apostle says in Galatians two, *so that even Barnabas was led into this pretense*. And he also said that Paul by a certain pious pretense reprehended Peter, who was not sinning; just as Peter condescended to the Jews in the observance of the legal precepts, so Paul to the Gentiles in the reprehension of that observance. And thus neither did Peter sin in keeping them wrongly, nor Paul in reprehending shamelessly, as Porphyry the heretic charged against Paul, that he had shamelessly insulted the chief of the Apostles. — Behold, this is the position of Jerome and the ground of the position.

Augustine, however, resolves it in another way. For the understanding of his solution it must be noted that Augustine understood *three times*, namely the time of establishing the Gospel, of promulgating what was established, and of guarding what was already promulgated. The first time was from the coming of Christ until the consummation of the passion, and in this time the legal observances are *weakened*, and in the death of Christ *dead*. The second time was from the passion of Christ until the divulgation of the Gospel among all nations, when it could be said: *Their sound went out into all the earth* etc.; and in this time the legal observances are *brought to the tomb*. The third time was from that time until the end, in which the legal observances are as it were *enclosed in the tomb*.

Further it must be noted that for a threefold cause some things can be observed, namely on account of *the necessity of salvation*, on account of *seemliness*, on account of *the weakness of a neighbor*. — Augustine therefore said that in the first time the legal observances could be kept as living, on account of *the usefulness of salvation*. In the second time they could be kept even by those who had heard the Gospel, on account of *seemliness*, because the synagogue had to be brought to the tomb with honor, not cast off at once as an idolatress. And in this time too they could be kept on account of *the usefulness of the neighbor*, lest the Jews be called back from the faith. In the third time they are in no way to be kept, because he who now keeps them is not an honorer of the maternal little body, but a shameless uncoverer of the burial.

And so he held that Peter and Paul both kept them not only to avoid the scandal of a neighbor, but also to render the honor due to the mother; and that they observed them not only by pretense, but also truly, not on account of *the necessity of salvation*, because they knew that these were not necessary for salvation. — Likewise he held that Peter was reprehended by Paul truly, not by pretense, not because he kept the legal observances, but because by his example he was compelling the Gentiles to judaize. — But his ground

was this: for if there was there only *pretense* in the observance, then to avoid the scandal of a neighbor it would be lawful to abandon the truth. And *again*; why would it not likewise be lawful now? which no one would say. *Furthermore*, concerning the reprehension of Paul, if he reprehended Peter only by *pretense*, then he spoke falsely and lied, Galatians two, both that he did not walk *unto the truth of the Gospel*, and that he *was reprehensible*. But who would dare to say that Paul lied dispensatorily in the doctrine of truth? But if anyone should grant this, the way will lie open for heretics to say that other things were said by pretense.

And because Augustine himself, an excellent doctor, adds to the words of Jerome — nor is it any wonder, since it is not unfitting that those who come later should add to those who came before — therefore those who think better adhere to Augustine's manner of solving as the more sufficient. Hence Hugh of Saint Victor says that circumcision and the other legal observances ceased as regards *efficacy* after the passion, but as regards *observance* ceased after the promulgation of the Gospel. And besides Augustine's reason he assigns another reason, because neither nature nor reason endures sudden changes; and lest the new law should seem to have been given precipitately, it entered in with maturity, and the old things passed away.

From these things is plain the response to the first thing that is asked. For I concede, as the reasons show, that the legal observances did not cease as regards *observance* before the promulgation; nor even as regards *efficacy universally*, because it is believed, as Bernard says, that they had efficacy in those who were at a distance and could not yet be restrained by precepts; but in those who could know, they had no efficacy.

1. To that, therefore, which is objected, that *the Law and the Prophets were until John* etc.; it must be said that this is understood *inclusively*, not because they then ceased at once, but because from then on legal observance began to be weakened.

2. To that which is objected concerning fulfillment, it must be said that the fulfillment was the cause of cessation; but this cause did not produce this effect unless it should become clear; for the truth excludes the shadow only when it is made clear, because no one is bound to what is unknown.

3. To that which is objected concerning the institution of baptism, it must be said, as has been touched upon, that the institution was the *cause* of evacuation, but in *act* did not make it cease, unless first the usefulness and necessity of the Sacrament were plain. But this was not declared openly until after the passion. For the Lord says to Nicodemus: *Unless one be born again* etc.; but he said this as a *counsel* in secret.

4. To that which is objected concerning Jerome, it must be said that Augustine added to the words of Jerome and saw this more clearly, and therefore his words are to be stood by. For Jerome himself entrusted it to him to add and to correct.

From these things the contradictions are plain. For Peter first declared that the legal observances were not to be observed, and therefore not to be imposed on the Gentiles. But nevertheless afterward he himself kept them, showing that, on account of the standing in which they once had been, they were to be honored. — The same is to be said of Paul.

Concerning the controversy of Peter and Paul it must be said that they thought entirely the same, and yet Peter was justly reprehended, because he was reprehensible, not because he did wrong, but somewhat incautiously; and that defect of circumspection I believe to have been in him some fault, though it was not mortal. And by divine dispensation this was permitted, so that, while Peter when reprehended did not resist, the truth might be plain more clearly; and that Peter might not wish to give an example to be imitated in his act. Hence he was *reprehensible*, that is, useful and worthy to be reprehended, because he *did not walk unto the truth of the Gospel*, that is, not *in every respect*, because by this the truth was being trampled; and therefore Paul did well and usefully, who reprehended him before all. Nor is Peter to be excused from one slight negligence, lest Paul be accused more gravely of the fault of lying. — To the last contrariety the response is plain from what has been said.

---