Greco-Christian stream·Opera Omnia Sancti Thomae (Complete Works of Thomas Aquinas)·Summa Theologiae·Tertia Pars·Q70. Circumcision
Source context
- Theme
- circumcision as Old-Covenant preparatory rite and its supersession by baptism in the New Covenant
Steiner
- GA 90b, 1905-03-17Steiner lists circumcision (circumcisio) as the third in a sequential schema of mysteries attached to the life of Christ, situating it structurally between birth and manifestation in the incarnation sequence.
- GA 114, 1909-09-15Steiner notes the circumcision of the Jesus child on the eighth day as recorded in Luke's Gospel, treating it as a historically anchored event within the occult-developmental narrative of the Luke stream.
- GA 318, 1924-09-08Steiner references circumcision alongside fasting as an example of ceremonial practices whose physiological and hygienic dimensions require coordinated evaluation by both medical and priestly perspectives.
Cross-tradition
- Hebrew Bible / Covenant theologyCircumcision functions in Genesis 17 as the bodily seal of the Abrahamic covenant, establishing a structural parallel with Aquinas's treatment of circumcision as the rite that conferred a right to eventual justification within the Old Law.
- Pauline theologyPaul in Romans 2 and Colossians 2 distinguishes outward circumcision of the flesh from inward circumcision of the heart, anticipating Aquinas's argument that baptism supersedes circumcision as the sacramental sign of initiation into the New Covenant.
Q70. Circumcision
Article 1
[III.q.70.a.1.arg.1] It seems that circumcision was not a preparation for, and a figure of Baptism. For every figure has some likeness to that which it foreshadows. But circumcision has no likeness to Baptism. Therefore it seems that it was not a preparation for, and a figure of Baptism.
[III.q.70.a.1.arg.1] Ad primum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod in anima separata remaneant potentiæ sensitivæ. Augustinus 1 enim in lib. De spiritu et anima, cap. xv, col. 791, t. 6, sic dicit: «Recedit anima a corpore, secum trahens omnia, sensum, imaginationem, rationem, intellectum, jam consentientibus, liber iste Alchero restitutus est. intelligentiam, concupiscibilitatem et irascibilitatem. » Sed sensus et imaginatio, et vis irascibilis et concupiscibilis, sunt vires sensitivæ. Ergo in anima separata vires sensitivæ remanent.
[III.q.70.a.1.arg.2] Further, the Apostle, speaking of the Fathers of old, says (1 Corinthians 10:2), that "all were baptized in the cloud, and in the sea": but not that they were baptized in circumcision. Therefore the protecting pillar of a cloud, and the crossing of the Red Sea, rather than circumcision, were a preparation for, and a figure of Baptism.
[III.q.70.a.1.arg.2] 2. Præterea, Augustinus 1 dicit in lib. De ecclesiasticis dogmat., cap. xvi, col. 1216, t. 8,: « Solum hominem credimus habere animam substantivam; quæ exuta corpore vivit, et sensus suos atque ingenia vivaciter tenet. » Ergo anima exuta a corpore habet potentias sensitivas.
[III.q.70.a.1.arg.3] Further, it was stated above (38, 1,3) that the baptism of John was a preparation for Christ's. Consequently, if circumcision was a preparation for, and a figure of Christ's Baptism, it seems that John's baptism was superfluous: which is unseemly. Therefore circumcision was not a preparation for, and a figure of Baptism.
[III.q.70.a.1.arg.3] 3. Præterea, potentiæ animæ vel essentialiter ei insunt, ut quidam dicunt, vel ad minus sunt naturales proprietates ipsius. Sed id quod essentialiter inest alicui, non potest ab eo separari, neque subjectum aliquod deseritur a naturalibus proprietatibus. Ergo impossibile est quod anima separata a corpore aliquas potentias amittat.
[III.q.70.a.1.sc] The Apostle says (Colossians 2:11-12): "You are circumcised with circumcision, not made by hand in despoiling the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in Baptism."
[III.q.70.a.1.sc] Sed contra est quod Augustinus, in libro De ecclesiast. dogmatibus, cap. xix, col. 1216, t. 8, dicit: « Duabus substantiis tantum constat homo, anima et carne; anima cum ratione sua, et carne cum sensibus suis. » Potentiæ ergo sensitivæ ad carnem pertinent. Ergo corrupta carne, non manent potentiæ sensitivæ in anima. Præterea, Philosophus in XII Metaph., text. 17, de separatione animæ loquens, sic dicit: « Si autem aliquid remanet in postremo, quærendum est de hoc; in quibusdam enim non est impossibile, verbi gratia, si anima est talis dispositionis, non tota, sed intellectus; tota enim, forte impossibile. » Ex hoc videtur quod anima tota a corpore non separetur, sed solum potentiæ animæ intellectivæ. Non ergo sensitivæ vel vegetativæ. Præterea, in II De anima, text. 24 et 22, Philosophus dicit, de intellectu loquens: « Hoc solum contingit separari, ut perpetuum a corruptibili; reliquæ autem partes animæ manifestum est ex his quod non separabiles sunt, ut quidam dicunt. » Ergo potentiæ sensitivæ non manent in anima separata.
[III.q.70.a.1.co] Baptism is called the Sacrament of Faith; in so far, to wit, as in Baptism man makes a profession of faith, and by Baptism is aggregated to the congregation of the faithful. Now our faith is the same as that of the Fathers of old, according to the Apostle (2 Corinthians 4:13): "Having the same spirit of faith . . . we . . . believe." But circumcision was a protestation of faith; wherefore by circumcision also men of old were aggregated to the body of the faithful. Consequently, it is manifest that circumcision was a preparation for Baptism and a figure thereof, forasmuch as "all things happened" to the Fathers of old "in figure" (1 Corinthians 10:11); just as their faith regarded things to come.
[III.q.70.a.1.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod circa hoc est multiplex opinio. Quidam enim existimantes potentias omnes esse in anima ad modum quo color est in corpore, dicunt quod anima a corpore separata omnes potentias suas secum trahit. Si enim aliqua ei deesset, oporteret animam transmutatam esse secundum naturales proprietates, quæ subjecto manente, variari non possunt. Sed dicta existimatio falsa est. Cum enim potentia sit secundum quam potentes dicimur aliquid agere vel pati, ejusdem 1 Loco « Augustini » restituendus est « Genius,» genuinus libri De eccles. dogmat. auctor.» autem sit agere et posse agere, oportet quod ejusdem sit potentia, sicut subjecti, quod est agens vel patiens. Unde Philosophus in principio De sommo et vigilia dicit quod « cujus est potentia, ejus est actus. » Videmus autem manifeste quasdam operationes, quarum potentiæ animæ sunt principia, non esse animæ, propriie loquendo, sed conjuncti, quia non explentur nisi mediante corpore, ut est videre, audire, et hujusmodi. Unde oportet quod istæ potentiæ sint conjuncti sicut subjecti, animæ autem sicut principii influentis, sicut forma est principium proprietatum compositi. Quædam vero operationes exercentur ab anima sine organo corporali; ut intelligere, et considerare, et velle. Unde cum hæ actiones sint animæ propriæ, potentiæ quæ sunt harum principia, non solum erunt animæ ut principii, sed etiam ut subjecti. Quia ergo manente proprio subjecto, manere oportet et proprias passiones, et corrupto eo, corrumpi; ideo necesse est illas potentias quæ in suis actionibus non utuntur organo corporali, remanere in anima separata; illas autem quæ utuntur organo corporali, corrumpi, corpore corrupto: et hujusmodi sunt potentiæ omnes quæ pertinent ad animam sensibilem et vegetabilem. Et propter hoc quidam potentias animæ sensibilis distinguunt. Dicunt enim has esse duplices: quasdam quæ sunt actus organorum, quæ sunt ab anima effluxæ in corpus, et hæ cum corpore corrumpuntur; quasdam vero originales harum, quæ sunt in anima, quia per eas anima corpus sensificat ad videndum, et audiendum et hujusmodi, et hæ originales potentiæ manent in anima separata. Sed hoc non videtur convenienter dici. Anima enim per suam essentiam, non mediantibus aliquibus aliis potentiis, est origo illarum potentiarum quæ sunt actus organorum; sicut et forma quælibet ex hoc ipso quod per essentiam suam materiam informat, est origo proprietatum, quæ compositum naturaliter consequuntur. Si enim oporteret in anima ponere alias potentias, quibus mediantibus potentiæ quæ organa perficiunt, ab essentia animæ effluerent, eadem ratione oporteret ponere alias potentias, quibus mediantibus ab essentia animæ effluerent illæ media potentiæ, et sic in infi-nitum; si enim statur alicubi, melius est ut in primo stetur. Unde alii dicunt quod potentiæ sensitivæ et aliæ similes non manent in anima separata, nisi secundum quid, scilicet ut in radice, per modum scilicet quo principiata sunt principiis suis. In anima enim separata manet efficacia influendi iterum hujusmodi potentias, si iterum corpori uniatur; nec oportet hanc efficacia esse aliquid superadditum ipsi essentia, ut dictum est. Et hæc opinio videtur magis rationabilis.
[III.q.70.a.1.ad.1] Circumcision was like Baptism as to the spiritual effect of the latter. For just as circumcision removed a carnal pellicule, so Baptism despoils man of carnal behavior.
[III.q.70.a.1.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod verbum illud Augustini 4 intelligendum est, quod anima secum trahit aliquas illarum potentiarum in actu, scilicet intelligentiam et intellectum, quædam vero radicaliter, ut dictum est.
[III.q.70.a.1.ad.2] The protecting pillar of cloud and the crossing of the Red Sea were indeed figures of our Baptism, whereby we are born again of water, signified by the Red Sea; and of the Holy Ghost, signified by the pillar of cloud: yet man did not make, by means of these, a profession of faith, as by circumcision; so that these two things were figures but not sacraments. But circumcision was a sacrament, and a preparation for Baptism; although less clearly figurative of Baptism, as to externals, than the aforesaid. And for this reason the Apostle mentions them rather than circumcision.
[III.q.70.a.1.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod sensus quos anima secum trahit, non sunt isti exteriores sensus, sed interiores, qui scilicet ad partem intellectivam pertinent, quia intellectus interdum sensus appellatur, ut patet per Basilium, Super proverbia, hom. in princ. Proverb., inter med. et fin., et Philosophum in VI Ethic., c. xi. Vel si intelligat de sensibus exterioribus, dicendum est sicut ad primum.
[III.q.70.a.1.ad.3] John's baptism was a preparation for Christ's as to the act done: but circumcision, as to the profession of faith, which is required in Baptism, as stated above.
[III.q.70.a.1.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod, sicut patet ex dictis, potentiæ sensitivæ non comparantur ad animam sicut naturales passiones ad subjectum, sed sicut ad originem; unde ratio non procedit.
Article 2
[III.q.70.a.2.arg.1] It seems that circumcision was instituted in an unfitting manner. For as stated above (Article 1) a profession of faith was made in circumcision. But none could ever be delivered from the first man's sin, except by faith in Christ's Passion, according to Romans 3:25: "Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood." Therefore circumcision should have been instituted forthwith after the first man's sin, and not at the time of Abraham.
[III.q.70.a.2.arg.2] Further, in circumcision man made profession of keeping the Old Law, just as in Baptism he makes profession of keeping the New Law; wherefore the Apostle says (Galatians 5:3): "I testify . . . to every man circumcising himself, that he is a debtor to do the whole Law." But the observance of the Law was not promulgated at the time of Abraham, but rather at the time of Moses. Therefore it was unfitting for circumcision to be instituted at the time of Abraham
[III.q.70.a.2.arg.2] 2. Præterea, Augustinus, XII Super Gen. ad litt., cap. xxiv, col. 475, t. 3, dicit quod « corpus non sentit, sed anima per corpus: » et infra: « Quædam anima non per corpus, sed sine corpore sentit. » Sed id quod animæ sine corpore convenit, potest inesse animæ a corpore separatæ. Ergo actu anima sentire poterit.
[III.q.70.a.2.arg.3] Further, circumcision was a figure of, and a preparation for, Baptism. But Baptism is offered to all nations, according to Matthew 28:19: "Going . . . teach ye all nations, baptizing them." Therefore circumcision should have been instituted as binding, not the Jews only, but also all nations.
[III.q.70.a.2.arg.3] 3. Præterea, inspicere similitudines corporum, sicut in somno accidit, ad visionem imaginariam pertinet, quæ est in parte sensitiva. Sed hujusmodi similitudines corporum inspicere, sicut in somnis accidit, contingit animæ separatæ. Unde Augustinus, XII Super Gen. ad litt., cap. xxxii, col. 480, t. 3, sic dicit: « Neque enim video cur habeat anima similitudinem corporis sui, cum jacente sine sensu ipso corpore, nondum tamen penitus mortuo, videt talia, qualia multi ex illa subductione vivis redditi narraverunt; et non habeat, cum perfecta morte penitus de corpore exierit. Non enim potest hoc intelligi quod anima similitudinem corporis habeat, nisi secundum quod eam inspicit; unde præmisit de jacentibus sine sensu, quod « gerunt quamdam similitudinem corporis sui, per quam possunt ad loca corporalia ferri, et talia qualia vident similitudinibus sensuum experiri. » Ergo anima separata potest exire in actum sensitivarum potentiarum.
[III.q.70.a.2.arg.4] Further, carnal circumcision should correspond to spiritual circumcision, as the shadow to the reality. But spiritual circumcision which is of Christ, regards indifferently both sexes, since "in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female," as is written in Colossians 3 [Galatians 3:28]. Therefore the institution of circumcision which concerns only males, was unfitting.
[III.q.70.a.2.arg.4] 4. Præterea, memoria est potentia sensitivæ partis, ut probatur in lib. De memor. et reminisc., cap. ii, ante med. Sed animæ separatæ actu memorabuntur eorum quæ in hoc modo gesserunt; unde et diviti epuloni dicitur, Luc., xvi, 25: Recordare, quia recepisti bona in vita tua. Ergo anima separata exibit in actum potentia sensitivæ.
[III.q.70.a.2.sc] We read (Genesis 17) that circumcision was instituted by God, Whose "works are perfect" (Deuteronomy 32:4).
[III.q.70.a.2.sc] Sed contra, id quod est commune animæ et corpori, non potest remanere in anima separata. Sed omnes operationes potentiarum sensitivarum sunt communes animæ et corpori; quod patet ex hoc quod nulla potentia sensitiva aliquem actum habet nisi per organum corporale. Ergo anima separata carebit actibus sensitivarum potentiarum. Præterea, Philosophus dicit in I De anima, text. 66, quod « corrupto corpore, anima neque reminiscitur, neque amat; » et eadem ratio est de omnibus aliis actibus sensitivarum potentiarum. Ergo non procedit anima separata in aliquem actum alicujus potentiæ sensitivæ.
[III.q.70.a.2.co] As stated above (Article 1) circumcision was a preparation for Baptism, inasmuch as it was a profession of faith in Christ, which we also profess in Baptism. Now among the Fathers of old, Abraham was the first to receive the promise of the future birth of Christ, when it was said to him: "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed" (Genesis 22:18). Moreover, he was the first to cut himself off from the society of unbelievers, in accordance with the commandment of the Lord, Who said to him (Genesis 13:1): "Go forth out of thy country and from thy kindred." Therefore circumcision was fittingly instituted in the person of Abraham.
[III.q.70.a.2.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod quidam distinguunt duplices actus sensitivarum potentiarum: quosdam exteriores quos anima per corpus exercet, et hi non remanent in anima separata; quosdam vero interiores, quos anima per seipsam exercet, et hi erunt in anima separata. Hæc autem positio descendere videtur ab opinione Platonis, qui posuit, ut refert Arist., lib. I De anima, text. 45, animam corpori conjungi sicut quamdam substantiam perfectam in nullo a corpore dependentem, sed solum sicut motorem mobili; quod patet ex transcorporatione quam ponebat. Quia autem secundum ipsum nihil movebat nisi motum, ne abiretur in infinitum, dicebat quod primum movens movet seipsum; et posuit quod anima erat seipsam movens. Et secundum hoc erat duplex motus animæ: unus quo movebat seipsam; alius quo movebatur corpus ab ea; et sic anima habebat actum, qui est videre, primo in seipsa, secundum quod movebat seipsam, et secundo in organo corporali, secundum quod movebat corpus. Hanc autem positionem Philosophus destruit in lib. I De anima, text. 36 et 46, et seq., ostendens quod anima non movet seipsam, et quod nullo modo movetur secundum istas operationes, quæ sunt videre, sentire, et hujusmodi; sed quod istæ operationes sunt motus conjuncti. Unde oportet dicere quod actus sensitivarum potentiarum nullo modo maneant in anima separata, nisi forte sicut in radice remota.
[III.q.70.a.2.ad.1] Immediately after the sin of our first parent, on account of the knowledge possessed by Adam, who was fully instructed about Divine things, both faith and natural reason flourished in man to such an extent, that there was no need for any signs of faith and salvation to be prescribed to him, but each one was wont to make protestation of his faith, by outward signs of his profession, according as he thought best. But about the time of Abraham faith was on the wane, many being given over to idolatry. Moreover, by the growth of carnal concupiscence natural reason was clouded even in regard to sins against nature. And therefore it was fitting that then, and not before, circumcision should be instituted, as a profession of faith and a remedy against carnal concupiscence.
[III.q.70.a.2.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod liber ille negatur a quibusdam esse Augustini. Dicitur enim fuisse cujusdam Cisterciensis, qui eum ex dictis Augustini compilavit et quædam de suo addidit. Unde quod ibi scribitur pro auctoritate habendum non est. Si tamen auctoritas debeat sustineri, dicendum quod non debet intelligi quod anima separata ex imaginatione et aliis hujusmodi potentiis afficiatur quasi ipsa affectio sit actus potentiarum prædictarum: sed quia ex his quæ anima per imaginationem et alias hujusmodi poten-tias commisit in corpore, in futuro afficietur vel in bonum vel in malum, ut sic imaginatio et hujusmodi potentiæ non intelligantur elicere illam affectionem, sed elicuisse in corpore meritum affectionis illius.
[III.q.70.a.2.ad.2] The observance of the Law was not to be promulgated until the people were already gathered together: because the law is ordained to the public good, as we have stated in I-II, 90, 2. Now it behooved the body of the faithful to be gathered together by a sensible sign, which is necessary in order that men be united together in any religion, as Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix). Consequently, it was necessary for circumcision to be instituted before the giving of the Law. Those Fathers, however, who lived before the Law, taught their families concerning Divine things by way of paternal admonition. Hence the Lord said of Abraham (Genesis 18:19): "I know that he will command his children, and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord."
[III.q.70.a.2.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod anima dicitur sentire per corpus; non quasi actus sentiendi sit animæ secundum se, sed quia est totius conjuncti ratione animæ, eo modo loquendi quo dicimus quod calor calefacit. Quod autem subjungitur, quod quædam anima sentit sine corpore, ut timorem et hujusmodi, intelligendum est sine exteriori corporis motu, qui accidit in actibus sensuum propriorum; non enim timor et hujusmodi passiones sine motu corporali contingunt. Vel potest dici quod Augustinus loquitur secundum opinionem Platonicorum, qui hoc ponebant, ut dictum est.
[III.q.70.a.2.ad.3] Baptism contains in itself the perfection of salvation, to which God calls all men, according to 1 Timothy 2:4: "Who will have all men to be saved." Wherefore Baptism is offered to all nations. On the other hand circumcision did not contain the perfection of salvation, but signified it as to be achieved by Christ, Who was to be born of the Jewish nation. For this reason circumcision was given to that nation alone.
[III.q.70.a.2.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod Augustinus ibi inquirendo loquitur, non determinando, sicut fere per totum illum librum. Patet enim quod non est similis ratio de anima dormientis, et de anima separata. Anima enim dormientis utitur organo imaginationis in qua corporales similitudines imprimuntur, quod de anima separata dici non potest. Vel dicendum, quod similitudines rerum sunt in anima et quantum ad potentiam sensitivam et imaginativam, et quantum ad intellectivam, secundum majorem et minorem abstractionem a materia et a materialibus conditionibus. Tenet ergo similitudo Augustini quantum ad hoc quod sicut similitudines rerum corporalium sunt in anima somniantis, vel excessum mentis patientis, imaginabiliter, ita sunt in anima separata intellectualiter; non autem quod in anima separata sint imaginaliter.
[III.q.70.a.2.ad.4] The institution of circumcision is as a sign of Abraham's faith, who believed that himself would be the father of Christ Who was promised to him: and for this reason it was suitable that it should be for males only. Again, original sin, against which circumcision was specially ordained, is contracted from the father, not from the mother, as was stated in I-II, 81, 5. But Baptism contains the power of Christ, Who is the universal cause of salvation for all, and is "The Remission of all sins" (Post-Communion, Tuesday in Whitweek).
[III.q.70.a.2.ad.4] Ad quartum dicendum, quod, sicut in lib. I dictum est, memoria dupliciter sumitur: quandoque prout est potentia sensitivæ partis, secundum scilicet quod concernit præteritum tempus; et hoc modo actus memoriae in anima separata non erit: unde dicit Philosophus in I De anima, text. 66, quod « hoc corrupto », scilicet corpore, « anima non reminiscitur. » Alio modo accipitur memoria, prout est pars imaginis ad intellectivam partem pertinens, secundum scilicet quod ab omni differentia temporis abstrahit, 4 Scilicet Alcheri. cum non sit tantum præteritorum, sed etiam præsentium et futurorum, ut Augustinus dicit, lib. XIV De Trin., cap. xi, etc, col. 1047, t. 8; et secundum hanc memoriam anima separata memorabitur.
Article 3
[III.q.70.a.3.arg.1] It seems that the rite of circumcision was unfitting. For circumcision, as stated above (1,2), was a profession of faith. But faith is in the apprehensive power, whose operations appear mostly in the head. Therefore the sign of circumcision should have been conferred on the head rather than on the virile member.
[III.q.70.a.3.arg.1] Ad tertium sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod anima separata pati non possit ab igne corporeo. Augustinus enim, XII Super Genes. ad litt., cap. xxxii, col. 480, t. 3, dicit: « Non sunt corporalia, sed similia corporalibus, quibus animæ corporibus exutæ afficiuntur, seu bene seu male. » Ergo anima separata igne corporeo non punitur.
[III.q.70.a.3.arg.2] Further, in the sacraments we make use of such things as are in more frequent use; for instance, water, which is used for washing, and bread, which we use for nourishment. But, in cutting, we use an iron knife more commonly than a stone knife. Therefore circumcision should not have been performed with a stone knife.
[III.q.70.a.3.arg.2] 2. Præterea, Augustinus in eodem libro, cap. xvi, col. 467, t. 3, dicit quod « agens semper est nobilius patiente. » Sed impossibile est aliquod corpus esse nobilius anima separata. Ergo non potest ab aliquo corpore pati.
[III.q.70.a.3.arg.3] Further, just as Baptism was instituted as a remedy against original sin, so also was circumcision, as Bede says (Hom. in Circum.). But now Baptism is not put off until the eighth day, lest children should be in danger of loss on account of original sin, if they should die before being baptized. On the other hand, sometimes Baptism is put off until after the eighth day. Therefore the eighth day should not have been fixed for circumcision, but this day should have been anticipated, just as sometimes it was deferred.
[III.q.70.a.3.arg.3] 3. Præterea, secundum Philosophum in I De generat, text. 87, et secundum Boetium in lib. De duabus naturis, c. vi, col. 1349, t. 2, illa solum agunt et patiuntur ad invicem, quæ in materia conveniunt. Sed anima et ignis corporeus non conveniunt in materia, quia spiritualium et corporalium non est materia communis, unde nec possunt invicem transmutari, ut Boetius in eodem lib. dicit. Ergo anima separata ab igne corporeo non patitur.
[III.q.70.a.3.sc] The aforesaid rite of circumcision is fixed by a gloss on Romans 4:11: "And he received the sign of circumcision."
[III.q.70.a.3.sc] Sed contra, eadem ratio est de animabus separatis et dæmonibus, quod ab igne corporeo pati possint. Sed dæmones ab eo patiuntur; cum puniantur ab illo igne in quem corpora damnatorum projicientur post resurrectionem, quem oportet esse corporeum; et hoc patet per sententiam Domini, Matth., xxv, 41: Discedite a me, maledicti, in ignem æternum, qui paratus est diabolo, etc. Ergo et animæ separatæ ab igne corporeo pati possunt. Præterea, pœna debet respondere culpæ. Sed anima per culpam se corpori subjecit per pravam concupiscentiam. Ergo justum est ut in pœnam rei corporeæ subjiciatur per passionem. Præterea, major est unio formæ ad materiam quam agentis ad patiens. Sed diversitas naturæ spiritualis et corporalis non impedit quin anima sit forma corporis. Ergo nec impedit quin possit a corpore pati.
[III.q.70.a.3.co] As stated above (Article 2), circumcision was established, as a sign of faith, by God "of" Whose "wisdom there is no number" (Psalm 146:5). Now to determine suitable signs is a work of wisdom. Consequently, it must be allowed that the rite of circumcision was fitting.
[III.q.70.a.3.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod supposito quod ignis inferni non sit metaphorice dictus, nec ignis imaginarius, sed verus ignis corporeus, oportet dicere quod anima ab igne corporeo pœnas patietur; cum Dominus ignem illum diabolo et angelis ejus paratum esse dicat, Matth., xxv, qui sunt incorporei, sicut ipsa anima. Sed quomodo pati possit, multipliciter assignatur. Quidam enim dixerunt quod hoc ipsum quod est ignem videre, sit animam ab igne pati. Unde Gregorius in IV Dialog., cap. xxix, col. 368, t. 3, dicit: « Ignem eo ipso patitur anima quo videt. » Sed istud non videtur sufficere, quia quodlibet visum ex hoc quod videtur est perfectio videntis; unde non potest in ejus pœnam cedere, inquantum est visum; sed quando est punitivum vel contristans per accidens, inquantum scilicet apprehenditur ut nocivum. Unde oportet quod præter hoc quod anima ignem illum videt, sit aliqua comparatio animæ ad ignem, secundum quam animæ ignis noceat. Unde alii dixerunt quod quamvis ignis corporeus non possit animam exurere, tamen anima apprehendit ipsum ut nocivum sibi; et ad talem apprehensionem afficitur timore et dolore, ut impleatur id quod dicitur psal. xiii, 5: Trepidaverunt timore, ubi non erat timor. Unde Gregorius, in IV Dialog., loc. cit., dicit quod « quia anima cremari se conspicit, crematur. » Sed hoc iterum non videtur sufficere, quia secundum hoc passio animæ ab igne non esset secundum rei veritatem, sed secundum apprehensionem tantum. Quamvis enim possit esse vera passio tristitiæ vel doloris ex aliqua falsa imaginatione, ut Augustinus dicit, XII Super Genes. ad litt., cap. xix et xxxii, col. 470, t. 3, tamen non potest dici quod secundum illam passionem vere patiatur a re, sed a similitudine rei, quam concipit. Et iterum iste modus passionis magis recederet a reali passione, quam ille qui ponitur per imaginarias visiones; cum ille dicatur per veras imagines rerum esse, quas anima secum defert, iste autem per falsas conceptiones, quas anima errans fingit. Et iterum non est probabile quod animæ separatæ, vel dæmones, qui subtilitate ingenii pollent, putarent ignem corporeum sibi nocere posse, si ab eo nullatenus gravarentur. Unde alii dicunt quod oportet ponere animam etiam realiter ab igne corporeo pati. Unde etiam Gregorius, in IV Dialog., ubi supr., dicit: « Colligere ex dictis evangelicis possumus, quia incendium anima non solum videndo, sed etiam experiendo patiatur. Sed hoc tali modo fieri ponunt. Dicunt enim quod ignis ille corporeus considerari potest dupliciter: uno modo secundum quod est quædam res corporea, et hoc modo non habet quod in animam agere possit; alio modo secundum quod est instrumentum divinæ justitiæ vindicantis; hoc enim divinæ justitiæ ordo exigit ut anima quæ peccando se rebus corporalibus subdidit, eis etiam in pœna subdatur. Instrumentum autem non solum agit in virtute propriæ naturæ, sed etiam in virtute principalis agentis; et ita non est inconveniens si ignis ille, cum agat in virtute spiritualis agentis, in spiritum agat hominis vel dæmonis, per modum etiam quo de sacramentis dictum est quod animam sanctificant. Sed istud etiam non videtur sufficere, quia omne instrumentum in id circa quod instrumentaliter operatur habet propriam actionem sibi connaturalem, et non solum illam actionem secundum quam agit in virtute principalis agentis; imo exercendo primam actionem, oportet quod efficiat hanc secundam: sicut aqua lavando corpus in baptismo sanctificat animam, et serra secando lignum, producit formam domus. Unde oportet dare igni aliquam actionem in animam, quæ sit ei connaturalis, ad hoc quod sit instrumentum divinæ justitiæ peccata vindicantis. Et ideo dicendum, quod corpus in spiritum naturaliter agere non potest, nec ei aliquo modo obesse, vel ipsum gravare, nisi secundum quod aliquo modo corpori unitur; sic enim invenimus quod corpus quod corrumpitur aggravat animam, Sap., 1x, 15. Spiritus autem corpori unitur dupliciter: uno modo ut forma materiæ, ut ex eis fiat unum simpliciter, et sic spiritus unitur corpori et vivificat corpus et a corpore aliqualiter aggravatur: sic autem spiritus hominis vel dæmonis igni corporeo non unitur: alio modo sicut movens mobili, vel sicut locatum loco eo modo quo incorporalia sunt in loco, et secundum hoc spiritus incorporei creati loco definiuntur, ita in uno loco existentes quod non in alio. Quamvis autem res corporea ex sua natura habeat quod spiritum incorporeum loco definiat, non tamen ex sua natura habet quod spiritum incorporeum loco definiatum detineat, ut ita alligetur illi loco quod ad alia divertere non possit; cum spiritus non sit in loco naturaliter quod loco subdatur. Sed hoc superadditur igni corporeo inquantum instrumentum est divinæ justitiæ vindicantis quod sic detinet spiritum; et ita efficitur ei pœnalis, retardans eum ab executione propriæ voluntatis, ne scilicet possit operari ubi vult et secundum quod vult. Et hunc modum ponit Gregorius in IV Dialog., ibidem. Exponens enim quomodo anima incendium experiendo patiatur, sic dicit: «Cum veritas peccatorum divitem damnatum igne perhibeat, quisnam sapiens reproborum animas teneri ignibus neget?» Et hoc etiam Julianus, episc. Tolet., lib. II Prognost., cap. xvii dixit, ut in Littera, IV, dist. xLIV, Magister dicit: «Si viventis hominis incorporeus spiritus tenetur in corpore, cur etiam non tenetur post mortem corporeo igne?» Augustinus etiam, XXI De civit. Dei, cap. x, col. 724, t. 7, dicit quod sicut anima in hominis conditione jungitur corpori, ut dans ei vitam, quam vis illud sit spirituale, et hoc corporale, et ex illa conjunctione vehementer concipit amorem ad corpus, sic ligatur igni, ut accipiens ab eo pœnam, et ex illa conjunctione concipit horrorem. Oportet ergo omnes prædictos modos in unum colligere, ut perfecte videatur quomodo anima ab igne corporeo patiatur; ut scilicet dicamus quod ignis ex natura sua habet quod spiritus incorporeus ei conjungi possit, ut loco locatum, sed inquantum est instrumentum divinæ justitiæ, habet ut ipsum quodammodo retineat alligatum; et in hoc veraciter ignis iste est spiritui nocivus, et sic anima ignem ut sibi nocivum videns, ab igne cruciatur. Unde Gregorius in IV Dialog., omnia ista per ordinem tangit, ut ex præmissis ejus auctoritatibus patet.
[III.q.70.a.3.ad.1] It was fitting for circumcision to be performed on the virile member. First, because it was a sign of that faith whereby Abraham believed that Christ would be born of his seed. Secondly, because it was to be a remedy against original sin, which is contracted through the act of generation. Thirdly, because it was ordained as a remedy for carnal concupiscence, which thrives principally in those members, by reason of the abundance of venereal pleasure.
[III.q.70.a.3.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod Augustinus loquitur inquirendo: unde etiam alium modum ponit determinando in lib. XXI De civit. Dei, ut ex dictis patet. Vel dicendum, quod Augustinus intelligit, quod ea quibus anima proxime afficitur ad dolorem vel tristitiam sunt spiritualia; non enim affligeretur, nisi ignem ut nocivum sibi apprehenderet. Ignis ergo apprehensus est proximum affligens, sed ignis corporeus extra animam existens est affligens remotum.
[III.q.70.a.3.ad.2] A stone knife was not essential to circumcision. Wherefore we do not find that an instrument of this description is required by any divine precept; nor did the Jews, as a rule, make use of such a knife for circumcision; indeed, neither do they now. Nevertheless, certain well-known circumcisions are related as having been performed with a stone knife, thus (Exodus 4:25) we read that "Sephora took a very sharp stone and circumcised the foreskin of her son," and (Joshua 5:2): "Make thee knives of stone, and circumcise the second time the children of Israel." Which signified that spiritual circumcision would be done by Christ, of Whom it is written (1 Corinthians 10:4): "Now the rock was Christ."
[III.q.70.a.3.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod quamvis anima simpliciter sit igne nobilior; ignis tamen est secundum quid anima nobilior, inquantum scilicet est instrumentum divinæ justitiæ.
[III.q.70.a.3.ad.3] The eighth day was fixed for circumcision: first, because of the mystery; since, Christ, by taking away from the elect, not only guilt but also all penalties, will perfect the spiritual circumcision, in the eighth age (which is the age of those that rise again), as it were, on the eighth day. Secondly, on account of the tenderness of the infant before the eighth day. Wherefore even in regard to other animals it is prescribed (Leviticus 22:27): "When a bullock, or a sheep, or a goat, is brought forth, they shall be seven days under the udder of their dam: but the eighth day and thenceforth, they may be offered to the Lord."
Moreover, the eighth day was necessary for the fulfilment of the precept; so that, to wit, those who delayed beyond the eighth day, sinned, even though it were the sabbath, according to John 7:23: "(If) a man receives circumcision on the sabbath-day, that the Law of Moses may not be broken." But it was not necessary for the validity of the sacrament: because if anyone delayed beyond the eighth day, they could be circumcised afterwards.
Some also say that in imminent danger of death, it was allowable to anticipate the eighth day. But this cannot be proved either from the authority of Scripture or from the custom of the Jews. Wherefore it is better to say with Hugh of St. Victor (De Sacram. i) that the eighth day was never anticipated for any motive, however urgent. Hence on Proverbs 4:3: "I was . . . an only son in the sight of my mother," a gloss says, that Bersabee's other baby boy did not count because through dying before the eighth day it received no name; and consequently neither was it circumcised.
[III.q.70.a.3.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod Philosophus et Boetius loquuntur de actione illa per quam patiens transmutatur in naturam agentis. Talis autem non est actio ignis in animam. Et propter hoc ratio non concludit.
Article 4
[III.q.70.a.4.arg.1] It seems that circumcision did not bestow sanctifying grace. For the Apostle says (Galatians 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 Galatians 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.
[III.q.70.a.4.arg.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.
[III.q.70.a.4.arg.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 (3, ad 3).
[III.q.70.a.4.arg.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.
[III.q.70.a.4.arg.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.
[III.q.70.a.4.sc] Augustine says, writing to Valerius in answer to Julian (De Nup. et Concup. i.): "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."
[III.q.70.a.4.co] 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 Romans 4:11. But this is impossible, since guilt is not remitted except by grace, according to Romans 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; 2, 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" (Psalm 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 (Romans 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.
[III.q.70.a.4.ad.1] This argument would prove if justice were of circumcision otherwise than through faith in Christ's Passion.
[III.q.70.a.4.ad.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.
[III.q.70.a.4.ad.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 (QQ. 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 (Psalm 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.
[III.q.70.a.4.ad.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.
[III.q.70.a.4.ad.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.
The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas AquinasSecond and Revised Edition, 1920Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican ProvinceOnline Edition Copyright © 2009 by Kevin Knight Nihil Obstat. F. Innocentius Apap, O.P., S.T.M., Censor. Theol.Imprimatur. Edus. Canonicus Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasterii.APPROBATIO ORDINISNihil Obstat. F. Raphael Moss, O.P., S.T.L. and F. Leo Moore, O.P., S.T.L.Imprimatur. F. Beda Jarrett, O.P., S.T.L., A.M., Prior Provincialis AngliæMARIÆ IMMACULATÆ - SEDI SAPIENTIÆ
JSON: /api/sources/opera-omnia-aquinas/summa-theologiae/tertia-pars/q070.json