|
Objection 1: It seems that circumcision did not bestow sanctifying
grace. For the Apostle says (Gal. 2:21): "If justice be by
the Law, then Christ died in vain," i.e. without cause. But
circumcision was an obligation imposed by the Law, according to Gal.
5:3: "I testify . . . to every man circumcising himself, that
ne is a debtor to do the whole law." Therefore, if justice be by
circumcision, "Christ died in vain," i.e. without cause. But
this cannot be allowed. Therefore circumcision did not confer grace
whereby the sinner is made righteous.
Objection 2: Further, before the institution of circumcision faith
alone sufficed for justification; hence Gregory says (Moral. iv):
"Faith alone did of old in behalf of infants that for which the water
of Baptism avails with us." But faith has lost nothing of its
strength through the commandment of circumcision. Therefore faith
alone justified little ones, and not circumcision.
Objection 3: Further, we read (Joshua 5:5,6) that "the
people that were born in the desert, during the forty years . . .
were uncircumcised." If, therefore, original sin was taken away by
circumcision, it seems that all who died in the desert, both little
children and adults, were lost. And the same argument avails in
regard to those who died before the eighth day, which was that of
circumcision, which day could nol be anticipated, as stated above
(Article 3, ad 3).
Objection 4: Further, nothing but sin closes the entrance to the
heavenly kingdom. But before the Passion the entrance to the heavenly
kingdom was closed to the circumcised. Therefore men were not
justified from sin by circumcision.
Objection 5: Further, original sin is not remitted without actual
sin being remitted also: because "it is wicked to hope for half
forgiveness from God," as Augustine says (De Vera et Falsa
Poenit. ix). But we read nowhere of circumcision as remitting
actual sin. Therefore neither did it remit original sin.
On the contrary, Augustine says, writing to Valerius in answer to
Julian (De Nup. et Concup. ii): "From the time that
circumcision was instituted among God's people, as 'a seal of the
justice of the faith,' it availed little children unto sanctification
by cleansing them from the original and bygone sin; just as Baptism
also from the time of its institution began to avail unto the renewal of
man."
I answer that, All are agreed in saying that original sin was
remitted in circumcision. But some said that no grace was conferred,
and that the only effect was to remit sin. The Master holds this
opinion (Sent. iv, D, 1), and in a gloss on Rm. 4:11.
But this is impossible, since guilt is not remitted except by grace,
according to Rm. 3:2: "Being justified freely by His grace,"
etc.
Wherefore others said that grace was bestowed by circumcision, as to
that effect which is the remission of guilt, but not as to its positive
effects; lest they should be compelled to say that the grace bestowed
in circumcision sufficed for the fulfilling of the precepts of the
Law, and that, consequently, the coming of Christ was unnecessary.
But neither can this opinion stand. First, because by circumcision
children. received the power of obtaining glory at the allotted time,
which is the last positive effect of grace. Secondly, because, in
the order of the formal cause, positive effects naturally precede those
that denote privation, although it is the reverse in the order of the
material cause: since a form does not remove a privation save by
informing the subject.
Consequently, others said that grace was conferred in circumcision,
also as a particular positive effect consisting in being made worthy of
eternal life; but not as to all its effects, for it did not suffice
for the repression of the concupiscence of the fomes, nor again for the
fulfilment of the precepts of the Law. And this was my opinion at one
time (Sent. iv, D, 1; Question 2, Article 4). But if one
consider the matter carefully, it is clear that this is not true.
Because the least grace can resist any degree of concupiscence, and
avoid every mortal sin, that is committed in transgressing the precepts
of the Law; for the smallest degree of charity loves God more than
cupidity loves "thousands of gold and silver" (Ps. 118:72).
We must say, therefore, that grace was bestowed in circumcision as to
all the effects of grace, but not as in Baptism. Because in Baptism
grace is bestowed by the very power of Baptism itself, which power
Baptism has as the instrument of Christ's Passion already
consummated. Whereas circumcision bestowed grace, inasmuch as it was
a sign of faith in Christ's future Passion: so that the man who was
circumcised, professed to embrace that faith; whether, being an
adult, he made profession for himself, or, being a child, someone
else made profession for him. Hence, too, the Apostle says (Rm.
4:11), that Abraham "received the sign of circumcision, a seal
of the justice of the faith": because, to wit, justice was of faith
signified: not of circumcision signifying. And since Baptism
operates instrumentally by the power of Christ's Passion, whereas
circumcision does not, therefore Baptism imprints a character that
incorporates man in Christ, and bestows grace more copiously than does
circumcision; since greater is the effect of a thing already present,
than of the hope thereof.
Reply to Objection 1: This argument would prove if justice were of
circumcision otherwise than through faith in Christ's Passion.
Reply to Objection 2: Just as before the institution of
circumcision, faith in Christ to come justified both children and
adults, so, too, after its institution. But before, there was no
need of a sign expressive of this faith; because as yet believers had
not begun to be united together apart from unbelievers for the worship
of one God. It is probable, however, that parents who were
believers offered up some prayers to God for their children,
especially if these were in any danger. Or bestowed some blessing on
them, as a "seal of faith"; just as the adults offered prayers and
sacrifices for themselves.
Reply to Objection 3: There was an excuse for the people in the
desert failing to fulfil the precept of circumcision, both because they
knew not when the camp was removed, and because, as Damascene says
(De Fide Orth. iv) they needed no distinctive sign while they
dwelt apart from other nations. Nevertheless, as Augustine says
(Questions. in Josue vi), those were guilty of disobedience who
failed to obey through contempt.
It seems, however, that none of the uncircumcised died in the
desert, for it is written (Ps. 104:37): "There was not
among their tribes one that was feeble": and that those alone died in
the desert, who had been circumcised in Egypt. If, however, some
of the uncircumcised did die there, the same applies to them as to
those who died before the institution of circumcision. And this
applies also to those children who, at the time of the Law, died
before the eighth day.
Reply to Objection 4: Original sin was taken away in circumcision,
in regard to the person; but on the part of the entire nature, there
remained the obstacle to the entrance of the kingdom of heaven, which
obstacle was removed by Christ's Passion. Consequently, before
Christ's Passion not even Baptism gave entrance to the kingdom.
But were circumcision to avail after Christ's Passion, it would
give entrance to the kingdom.
Reply to Objection 5: When adults were circumcised, they received
remission not only of original, but also of actual sin: yet not so as
to be delivered from all debt of punishment, as in Baptism, in which
grace is conferred more copiously.
|
|