Bonaventure — Opera Omnia

Dist. 1, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 1

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 1

Textus Latinus

p. 37

Articulus II. De remedio in lege scripta sive de circumcisione.

Consequenter quaeritur de remedio contra originale, quod praecessit baptismum tempore legis scriptae, scilicet de circumcisione. Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria.

Primo quaeritur de institutione circumcisionis. Secundo quaeritur de forma ipsius sive de integritate. Tertio de efficacia.

Quaestio I. De institutione circumcisionis.

Quantum ergo ad primum ostenditur, quod remedium circumcisionis congrue sit² institutum:

1. Primo ratione significationis¹, quia est instituta in Sacramentum, quod est remedium contra originale; sed originale traducitur per propagationem: ergo cum circumcisio fiat ab eo membro, per quod est propagatio, expresse signat originalis curationem³.

2. Item, hoc videtur ratione curationis: quia «contrariis contraria curantur⁴», tam materialiter quam spiritualiter: ergo cum originale contrahatur per delectationem circa membrum illud, in passione illius membri expresse curatio designatur: ergo si Sacramentum est ordinatum ad hoc: patet etc.

3. Item, originale est morbus currens circulariter, quia, sicut dicit Anselmus⁵, «persona corrumpit naturam, et natura personam»: ergo expresse signatur per ablationem secundum circulum; sed hoc est in circumcisione: ergo etc.

Contra: 1. Deus non delectatur in poenis nostris⁶, ergo medicamenta Dei debent esse suavia; sed circumcisio est poenalis: ergo etc.

2. Item, originali non debetur poena sensus⁷, ergo in eius ablatione non debet sentiri poena: ergo si circumcisio non est sine sensu poenae, non est congruum remedium.

Item, quaero, ad quod tempus pertineat institutio circumcisionis. Non ad tempus legis naturae, quia lex naturae communis est omnibus, sed circumcisio propria est generi Abrahae⁸; nec ad tempus legis scriptae, quia lator Legis Moyses circumcisionem non instituit — unde Ioannis septimo: Circumcisio ex Patribus est, non ex Moyse — nec ad tempus gratiae: ergo nulli tempori convenit eius institutio.

Si dicas, quod pertinet ad legem scriptam, quaero: quare ante dationem Legis fuit instituta, et quare magis Abrahae data quam alii?

Item, quaeritur: quare non fuit in latore Legis confirmata, sed potius accepit Iosue⁹ mandatum quam Moyses?

Conclusio.

Conclusio. Circumcisio congrue fuit instituta ad deletionem originalis culpae.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod institutio circumcisionis congrua fuit, quia fuit expressum signum¹⁰ curationis originalis, tum propter ablationem a membro propagationis, tum propter ablationem poenalem, tum etiam propter ablationem circularem.

p. 38

Ad obiecta:

Ad 1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Dominus non delectatur in poenis; dicendum, quod poena comparatur ad punitum; et sic non placet Deo, «non enim creavit nos Deus ad puniendum^1b». Comparatur ad meritum, scilicet praeexistentem culpam; et sic est in ea manifestatio iustitiae et ordinis, et sic placet Deo, in quantum iustus. Comparatur ad finem vel effectum, ut puta iustificationem rei; et sic placet ei, in quantum misericors; unde in punitione, quae est via ad iustificationem, relucet misericordia et iustitia^2b; et ita est Deo placens, et talis fuit poena circumcisionis. — Quod ergo obiicitur, quod non delectatur in poena; dicendum, quod non delectatur in poena, secundum quod poena, sed secundum quod iusta vel iustificatoria; tamen haec delectatio semper est cum aliquo rigore, et quia lex vetus fuit lex rigoris^3b, ideo debuit in ea esse poenalis curatio.

Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod originale non meruit poenam sensus^4b; dicendum, quod verum est de ista quae est poena tantum et nullo modo via ad salutem, ut puta infernalis; sed bene illam meruit, quae potest esse via in salutem, ut puta praesentem.

Ad illud quod quaeritur, cui Legi conveniat; dicendum secundum Hugonem^5b, quod fuit Sacramentum legis scriptae, succedens Sacramentis legis naturae; et hoc quadruplici de causa, scilicet ratione gravitatis et evidentiae, ratione certitudinis et efficaciae. Gravis est ratione poenalitatis; et debet sequi, quia prima aetas fuit quasi infantia, secunda quasi pueritia; et ideo non debuit gravari Sacramento onerante, sed levi manu duci; et etiam quia morbus erat recens, et non erat tanta cognitio peccati. Sed post^6b tertia aetas est sicut iuventus, et magis habuerunt cognitionem peccati; ideo potuerunt magis onerari. — Secunda est evidentia, quam ponit Hugo in undecima parte^7b, quia «circumcisio fuit signum evidentius». — Tertia est certitudinis, quia, si puer circumcidebatur a quibuscumque, sive parentes essent boni sive mali, mundabatur, et certum erat; sed non sic de fide, quia in lege naturae non erat certum, utrum mundaretur, si alter esset infidelis et dedicaret ipsum idolis, et de parentibus poterat dubitari pluribus modis^8b. — Quarta est efficacia, quia magis remittebatur fomes in his qui circumcidebantur, quam in his qui solis sacrificiis et fide mundabantur.

Ad illud quod quaeritur: quare fuit data ante Legem? dicendum, quod hoc fuit ad praeparandum et segregandum populum, cui danda erat Lex. — Quare autem magis Abrahae? dicendum, quod circumcisio fuit data non tantum in remedium, sed etiam in signum, in signum, inquam, distinctionis secundum fidem et secundum carnem, secundum quod in illo populo praecipue colendus erat Deus, et ex illo secundum carnem nasciturus erat Christus. Et quia Abraham primus fuit, qui reliquit terram suam propter cultum Dei, et excellens fuit in fide, et sibi facta fuit de Christo promissio; ideo inter Patres praecipue data fuit Abrahae^9b.

Ad illud quod quaeritur: quare magis confirmata est sub Iosue quam sub Moyse? ratio est ad hoc et spiritualis et litteralis: litteralis, quia legislator^10b repetiit, quomodo praecepta fuit Abraham pro tota posteritate, et ipsi iam habebant usum nec unquam dimiserant; ideo non oportuit dari a Moyse vel Moysi. Sed tempore Iosue neglexerant circumcisionem in deserto; ideo oportuit dari mandatum, sicut ibi^11b dicitur. — Alia ratio fuit spiritualis: quia, etsi circumcisio significet circumcisionem praesentem et futuram, tamen illa Abrahae significat praesentem; illa autem Iosue in terra promissionis facta post peregrinationem significat futuram^12b.

Scholion

I. Duplici ex causa circumcisio a Deo convenienter instituta fuit, scilicet tum in remedium peccati originalis, tum in signaculum distinctionis (q. incid. 2.) ad separandum populum fidelem ab infidelibus. Hoc constat; de nonnullis aliis annexis quaestionibus inter doctores disputatur.

De hac I. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 1. m. 1. 2. — Scot., de hac et 2. seqq. qq. hic q. 6. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1; S. III. q. 70. a. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 22. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 6. q. 1. — Durand., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 6. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et 2 seqq. qq. hic q. 7.

p. 39

II. In 2. quaestione solvenda conveniunt doctores in hoc, quod determinatio diei octavae non spectet ad essentiam circumcisionis, sed sit praeceptum adiunctum, quod vel non obligabat in articulo necessitatis, ut vult Magister, vel, si non nisi ex speciali Dei dispensatione licebat terminum hunc praevenire vel differre, tunc supplementum habuit per generale remedium, scilicet fidei. Hanc alteram opinionem tenent Hugo a S. Victore nec non S. Thom. (hic q. 2. a. 3; S. loc. cit. a. 3. ad 3; cfr. ibid. a. 4. ad 3.); cui sententiae S. Bonav. (hic ad 3. 4.) addit restrictionem, quod scilicet non semper in casu necessitatis recursus ad remedium fidei efficax fuerit.

De hac 2. quaestione praeter laudatos: Alex. Hal. loc. cit. m. 4. a. 2. — B. Albert., rem tangendo hic a. 23. in fine. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 2.

III. Circa 3. quaestionem de efficacia circumcisionis sunt plures difficultates et fuerunt variae opiniones. Concedunt fere omnes tanquam certum, per eam primo et principaliter deletum esse peccatum originale et ex consequenti etiam actuale illi annexum (S. Thom., S. III. q. 70. a. 4. ad 5.). Sed disputabatur tum de aliis quibusdam eiusdem effectibus, tum de modo, quo conferebat gratiam. Tres primae opiniones, hic ab auctore nostro relatae — quarum prima insinuari videtur verbis Magistri, tertia vero tenetur a Guliel. Antissiod. (Sum. p. IV. tr. 1. c. 5. q. 2.) — a S. Thoma aliisque posterioribus tanquam improbabiles reiciuntur. Quartam opinionem cum S. Bonav. approbaverunt etiam S. Thom. in Commentario (loc. cit. a. 4.) et Petr. a Tar. (loc. cit. quaestiunc. 2.). Sed in Summa (loc. cit. q. 4.) S. Thom., postquam de quarta opinione dixit, idem aliquando sibi visum esse, subiungit: «Sed diligenter consideranti apparet, hoc non esse verum». Deinde docet, «quod in circumcisione conferebatur gratia quantum ad omnes gratiae effectus, aliter tamen quam in baptismo». — De hoc igitur modo gratiam conferendi et de altera quaestione cum illa cohaerente, utrum circumcisio fuerit verum et proprium Sacramentum, inter subsequentes theologos, praesertim inter Thomistas et Scotistas, controversia fuit. Illi tamen concorditer tenent, circumcisionem non tantum fuisse remedium contra peccatum originale, sed etiam gratiam contulisse cum effectibus eiusdem tam positivis quam privativis. Dissensus igitur circa modum efficiendi versatur circa hoc: utrum ex vi sua sive ex opere operato, an solum ratione fidei operabatur. S. Thom. docet, baptismum conferre gratiam «ex virtute ipsius baptismi, quam habet, in quantum est instrumentum passionis Christi iam perfectae; in circumcisione autem conferebatur gratia non ex virtute circumcisionis, sed ex virtute fidei passionis Christi, cuius signum erat circumcisio» etc. Idem breviter docetur S. c. Gent. IV. c. 57. Sed Scot. (hic q. 6. n. 9. seqq.) vult, circumcisionem causasse gratiam ut signum efficax sive ex operato, et in hoc eam fuisse similem Sacramentis novae legis et proprie Sacramentum. Ita docent etiam S. Bonav. (cfr. infra dub. 1. et dist. 2. dub. 2.), Alex. Hal., Richard. a Med., Durand. et non pauci alii, praesertim qui efficaciam physicam Sacramentorum negant. — Multa in hac quaestione a S. Bonav. sumta sunt ex Alexandro Hal.

De hac (3.) quaestione praeter laudatos: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 7. a. 2. 3. 4. — B. Albert., hic a. 19. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 6. q. 4. — Durand., hic q. 7.

---

English Translation

Article II. On the remedy under the written Law, that is, on circumcision.

Next there is inquiry concerning the remedy against the original [fault] which preceded baptism in the time of the written Law, namely concerning circumcision. And about this three things are asked.

First there is inquiry concerning the institution of circumcision. Second there is inquiry concerning its form, or its integrity. Third concerning its efficacy.

Question I. On the institution of circumcision.

As to the first, then, it is shown that the remedy of circumcision was suitably² instituted:

1. First, by reason of its signification¹, because it was instituted as a Sacrament, which is a remedy against the original [fault]; but the original [fault] is transmitted through propagation: therefore, since circumcision is performed upon that member by which propagation takes place, it expressly signifies the healing of the original [fault].³

2. Likewise, this seems [evident] by reason of healing: because «contraries are healed by contraries⁴», as much materially as spiritually: therefore, since the original [fault] is contracted through pleasure concerning that member, in the suffering of that member the healing is expressly designated: therefore, if the Sacrament is ordained to this: it is evident, etc.

3. Likewise, the original [fault] is a disease running in a circle, because, as Anselm says⁵, «the person corrupts the nature, and the nature the person»: therefore it is expressly signified by a removal according to a circle; but this is what happens in circumcision: therefore etc.

On the contrary: 1. God does not delight in our punishments⁶, therefore God's medicines ought to be gentle; but circumcision is penal: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, no punishment of sense is owed to the original [fault]⁷, therefore in its removal punishment ought not to be felt: therefore if circumcision is not without the feeling of punishment, it is not a suitable remedy.

Likewise, I ask, to what time the institution of circumcision pertains. Not to the time of the law of nature, because the law of nature is common to all, but circumcision is proper to the lineage of Abraham⁸; nor to the time of the written law, because Moses, the giver of the Law, did not institute circumcision — whence in John the seventh: Circumcision is from the Fathers, not from Moses — nor to the time of grace: therefore its institution belongs to no time.

If you say that it pertains to the written law, I ask: why was it instituted before the giving of the Law, and why was it given rather to Abraham than to another?

Likewise, it is asked: why was it not confirmed in the giver of the Law, but rather Joshua⁹ received the command rather than Moses?

Conclusion.

Conclusion. Circumcision was suitably instituted for the blotting-out of original guilt.

I respond: It must be said that the institution of circumcision was suitable, because it was an express sign¹⁰ of the healing of the original [fault], both on account of the removal from the member of propagation, and on account of the penal removal, and also on account of the circular removal.

Replies to the objections:

To 1. As to what is objected, that the Lord does not delight in punishments; it must be said that punishment is compared to the one punished; and thus it does not please God, «for God did not create us for punishing^1b». It is compared to merit, namely a pre-existing fault; and thus there is in it a manifestation of justice and of order, and thus it pleases God, inasmuch as He is just. It is compared to the end or effect, as for instance the justification of the matter; and thus it pleases Him, inasmuch as He is merciful; whence in the punishment which is the way to justification, mercy and justice shine forth^2b; and so it is pleasing to God, and such was the punishment of circumcision. — As to what then is objected, that He does not delight in punishment; it must be said that He does not delight in punishment as it is punishment, but as it is just or justificatory; yet this delight is always with a certain rigor, and because the old law was a law of rigor^3b, therefore there had to be in it a penal healing.

To 2. As to what is objected, that the original [fault] did not merit a punishment of sense^4b; it must be said that this is true of that [punishment] which is punishment only and in no way a way to salvation, as for instance the infernal [punishment]; but it well merited that which can be a way to salvation, as for instance the present [punishment].

As to what is asked, to which Law it belongs; it must be said, according to Hugh^5b, that it was a Sacrament of the written law, succeeding the Sacraments of the law of nature; and this for a fourfold cause, namely by reason of gravity and of evidence, by reason of certitude and of efficacy. It is grave by reason of penalty; and it had to follow, because the first age was as it were infancy, the second as it were boyhood; and therefore it ought not to be burdened with a burdening Sacrament, but to be led with a gentle hand; and also because the disease was recent, and there was not so great a knowledge of sin. But afterward^6b the third age is like youth, and they had more knowledge of sin; therefore they could be more heavily burdened. — The second [cause] is evidence, which Hugh sets down in the eleventh part^7b, because «circumcision was a more evident sign». — The third is of certitude, because, if a boy was circumcised by anyone whatsoever, whether the parents were good or evil, he was cleansed, and it was certain; but not so with respect to faith, because under the law of nature it was not certain whether he would be cleansed, if one [parent] were unbelieving and dedicated him to idols, and concerning the parents one could doubt in many ways^8b. — The fourth is efficacy, because the tinder [of sin] was more remitted in those who were circumcised than in those who were cleansed by sacrifices and faith alone.

As to what is asked: why was it given before the Law? it must be said that this was for preparing and setting apart the people to whom the Law was to be given. — But why rather to Abraham? it must be said that circumcision was given not only as a remedy, but also as a sign — as a sign, I say, of distinction according to faith and according to flesh, inasmuch as in that people God was chiefly to be worshipped, and from it according to the flesh Christ was to be born. And because Abraham was the first who left his own land for the worship of God, and was excellent in faith, and to him the promise concerning Christ was made; therefore among the Fathers it was given chiefly to Abraham.^9b

As to what is asked: why was it confirmed rather under Joshua than under Moses? the reason for this is both spiritual and literal: literal, because the legislator^10b repeated how Abraham had been commanded on behalf of the whole posterity, and they already had the use [of it] and had never abandoned it; therefore it did not have to be given by Moses or to Moses. But in the time of Joshua they had neglected circumcision in the desert; therefore it was necessary that a command be given, as is said there^11b. — Another reason was spiritual: because, although circumcision signifies both present and future circumcision, yet that of Abraham signifies the present; but that of Joshua, performed in the land of promise after the wandering, signifies the future.^12b

Scholion

I. For a twofold cause circumcision was fittingly instituted by God, namely both as a remedy for original sin, and as a seal of distinction (incidental q. 2.) for separating the faithful people from the unbelievers. This is established; concerning certain other annexed questions there is dispute among the doctors.

On this first question: Alexander of Hales, Summa p. IV. q. 1. m. 1, 2. — Scotus, on this and the two following questions, here q. 6. — St. Thomas, here q. 2. a. 1; Summa III. q. 70. a. 2. — Bl. Albert, here a. 22. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2. a. 1. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 6. q. 1. — Durandus, on this and the following question, here q. 6. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the two following questions, here q. 7.

II. In the solving of the second question the doctors agree in this, that the determination of the eighth day does not pertain to the essence of circumcision, but is an adjoined precept, which either did not bind in the case of necessity, as the Master holds, or, if only by a special dispensation of God it was permitted to anticipate or defer this term, then it had supplement through the general remedy, namely of faith. This latter opinion is held by Hugh of St. Victor and also by St. Thomas (here q. 2. a. 3; Summa loc. cit. a. 3. ad 3; cf. ibid. a. 4. ad 3.); to which view St. Bonaventure (here ad 3, 4.) adds the restriction, that, namely, recourse to the remedy of faith was not always efficacious in the case of necessity.

On this second question, besides those praised: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. m. 4. a. 2. — Bl. Albert, touching the matter here a. 23. at the end. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. a. 3. — Richard of Middleton, loc. cit. q. 2.

III. Concerning the third question, on the efficacy of circumcision, there are many difficulties and there were various opinions. Almost all concede as certain that through it original sin was first and principally blotted out, and consequently also the actual [sin] annexed to it (St. Thomas, Summa III. q. 70. a. 4. ad 5.). But it was disputed both concerning certain other effects of it, and concerning the mode by which it conferred grace. The first three opinions, here related by our author — of which the first seems to be hinted at by the words of the Master, while the third is held by William of Auxerre (Summa p. IV. tr. 1. c. 5. q. 2.) — are rejected by St. Thomas and others later as improbable. The fourth opinion, with St. Bonaventure, was also approved by St. Thomas in the Commentary (loc. cit. a. 4.) and Peter of Tarentaise (loc. cit. little-question 2.). But in the Summa (loc. cit. q. 4.) St. Thomas, after speaking of the fourth opinion, subjoins that it had at one time seemed to him: «But to one considering diligently it appears that this is not true». Then he teaches «that in circumcision grace was conferred with respect to all the effects of grace, yet otherwise than in baptism». — Concerning this mode, therefore, of conferring grace, and concerning the other question cohering with it — whether circumcision was a true and proper Sacrament — there was controversy among the subsequent theologians, especially between the Thomists and the Scotists. Yet they hold concordantly that circumcision was not only a remedy against original sin, but also conferred grace with its effects, both positive and privative. The disagreement, therefore, concerning the mode of effecting turns on this: whether it operated by its own power, that is, by the work performed (ex opere operato), or only by reason of faith. St. Thomas teaches that baptism confers grace «by the power of baptism itself, which it has inasmuch as it is the instrument of the passion of Christ already accomplished; but in circumcision grace was conferred not by the power of circumcision, but by the power of faith in the passion of Christ, whose sign circumcision was» etc. The same is briefly taught in Summa contra Gentiles IV. c. 57. But Scotus (here q. 6. n. 9. seqq.) holds that circumcision caused grace as an efficacious sign, that is, by the work performed, and in this it was similar to the Sacraments of the new law and properly a Sacrament. So teach also St. Bonaventure (cf. below dub. 1. and dist. 2. dub. 2.), Alexander of Hales, Richard of Middleton, Durandus, and not a few others, especially those who deny the physical efficacy of the Sacraments. — Much in this question was taken by St. Bonaventure from Alexander of Hales.

On this (third) question, besides those praised: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. m. 7. a. 2, 3, 4. — Bl. Albert, here a. 19. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 6. q. 4. — Durandus, here q. 7.

---

Apparatus Criticus

1
Cfr. infra d. 16. p. II. a. 1. q. 2. et d. 17. p. I. a. 1. q. 2. seq. — Mox pro sacrificium codd. F H virtutem sacrificii.
Cf. below d. 16, p. II, a. 1, q. 2 and d. 17, p. I, a. 1, q. 2, following. — Shortly, for sacrificium codices F H read virtutem sacrificii ("the power of the sacrifice").
2
Codd. M O fuit. Subinde pro institutum permulti codd. constitutum.
Codices M O read fuit ("was"). Then, for institutum very many codices read constitutum ("established").
3
Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 9. — Pro ab eo cod. F in eo.
Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 9. — For ab eo codex F reads in eo.
4
Secundum Gregor., II. Homil. in Evang. homil. 32. n. 1. Vide tom. III. pag. 261, nota 2. Aristot., II. Ethic. c. 3: Medicationes per contraria fieri consueverunt.
According to Gregory, Book II of the Homilies on the Gospels, homily 32, n. 1. See vol. III, p. 261, note 2. Aristotle, Ethics II. c. 3: Cures are wont to be effected by contraries.
5
De Conceptu virgin. et pecc. orig. c. 23: Spoliavit persona naturam bono iustitiae in Adam, et natura egens facta omnes personas, quas ipsa de se procreat, eadem egestate peccatrices et iniustas facit. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 720, nota 5. — Pro corrumpit cod. aa (II a secunda manu) corrupit, cod. bb post personam addit corrumpit.
On the Conception of the Virgin and Original Sin, c. 23: The person despoiled the nature of the good of justice in Adam, and the nature, made needy, makes all the persons which it of itself procreates sinful and unjust by the same neediness. Cf. vol. II, p. 720, note 5. — For corrumpit codex aa (in part II by a second hand) reads corrupit; codex bb after personam adds corrumpit.
6
Tob. 3, 22: Non enim delectaris in perditionibus nostris.
Tobit 3:22: For thou art not delighted in our destruction.
7
Vide II. Sent. d. 33. a. 3. q. 1. seq.
See II Sent., d. 33, a. 3, q. 1, following.
8
Gen. 17, 10. seqq. — Seq. textus est Ioan. 7, 22. — Codd. H L proprie est generi Abrahae data.
Genesis 17:10ff. — The following text is John 7:22. — Codices H L read proprie est generi Abrahae data ("was given properly to the lineage of Abraham").
9
Ios. 5, 2. — Superius pro quaeritur, quare quod habent codd. H K cc (E I a secunda manu), alii et edd. quare data; deinde verbo confirmata cod. R praemittit vel, cod. Z nec. Fortasse pro latore legendum latione.
Joshua 5:2. — Above, for quaeritur, quare ("it is asked: why"), which codices H K cc (E I by a second hand) have, others and the editions read quare data ("why given"); then before the word confirmata codex R prefixes vel, codex Z nec. Perhaps for latore ("giver") one should read latione ("giving").
10
Cod. Z quia fuit expressiva.
Codex Z reads quia fuit expressiva ("because it was expressive").
1b
Ut dicit Damasc., II. de Fide orthod. c. 29. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 877, nota 8.
As Damascene says, On the Orthodox Faith II. c. 29. Cf. vol. II, p. 877, note 8.
2b
Vide II. Sent. d. 36. a. 2. q. 1. seq.
See II Sent., d. 36, a. 2, q. 1, following.
3b
Cfr. III. Sent. d. 40. q. 1.
Cf. III Sent., d. 40, q. 1.
4b
Codd. R T originali non debetur poena sensus.
Codices R T read originali non debetur poena sensus ("a punishment of sense is not owed to the original [fault]").
5b
Libr. I. de Sacram. p. XII. c. 1: Primus status ab Adam usque ad Abraham magis proprie determinatur. Quamvis enim per Moysen lex scripta data sit, ante Moysen tamen observantia legalis in circumcisione exordium sumsit. Cfr. ibid. c. 3. et p. XI. c. 6, ubi etiam primam seq. rationem insinuans dicit: Amplius autem, quia circumcisio quidem sordes aufert, sed dolores infert... idcirco priori populo in timore servienti et sub Lege laboranti circumcisio ad emundationem data est. Vide infra d. 2. a. 1. q. 2.
On the Sacraments Book I, p. XII, c. 1: The first state, from Adam up to Abraham, is more properly determined. For although the written law was given through Moses, nevertheless before Moses the legal observance took its beginning in circumcision. Cf. ibid. c. 3 and p. XI. c. 6, where also, hinting at the following first reason, he says: Moreover, because circumcision indeed takes away filth but inflicts pains... therefore to the earlier people, serving in fear and laboring under the Law, circumcision was given for cleansing. See below d. 2, a. 1, q. 2.
6b
Cod. F post hoc, cod. G postea.
Codex F reads post hoc ("after this"), codex G postea ("afterward").
7b
Libr. I. de Sacram. c. 6: Eiusdem mundationis forma et similitudo in oblatione quidem occulte invenitur, in circumcisione vero evidentius exprimitur. Cfr. ibid. p. XII. c. 1, ubi ostendit, quod circumcisio instituta sit ad commendandam interiorem unitatem populi fidelis et ad manifestandam distinctionem populi fidelis a ceteris nationibus.
On the Sacraments Book I, c. 6: The form and likeness of the same cleansing is indeed found hiddenly in the [sacrificial] oblation, but is more evidently expressed in circumcision. Cf. ibid. p. XII. c. 1, where he shows that circumcision was instituted to commend the inner unity of the faithful people and to manifest the distinction of the faithful people from the other nations.
8b
Vide supra a. 1. q. 2. ad 3. et infra d. 4. p. II. dub. 4. — De quarta ratione cfr. infra q. 3.
See above a. 1, q. 2, ad 3, and below d. 4, p. II, dub. 4. — On the fourth reason cf. below q. 3.
9b
Gen. 12, 1. seqq.; 15, 6. seqq. et 22, 18. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 9. — Superius pro distinctionis, quod habent codd. A F H K R S V X, alii et edd. discretionis.
Genesis 12:1ff.; 15:6ff. and 22:18. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 9. — Above, for distinctionis ("of distinction"), which codices A F H K R S V X have, others and the editions read discretionis ("of discretion").
10b
Cfr. Lev. 12, 3; Ioan. 7, 22. et Hieronym., I. Comment. in Gal. 3, 7. — Propter abbreviationem in multis codd. pro ratio legi potest responsio.
Cf. Leviticus 12:3; John 7:22 and Jerome, Book I of the Commentary on Galatians 3:7. — On account of abbreviation, in many codices for ratio legi one may read responsio.
11b
Ios. 5, 4. seqq.
Joshua 5:4ff.
12b
Hugo a S. Vict., I. de Sacram. p. XII. c. 2. et de Sacram. legis naturalis et scriptae (in fine), ait: Tres sunt circumcisiones: una in carne tantum exterius, quae Sacramentum est; duae aliae, quae sunt res et virtus Sacramenti: altera, quae fit in praesenti, quando per depositionem iniquitatis mens circumciditur; altera, quae in futuro fiet, quando per depositionem corruptionis corpus circumcidetur. Prima igitur est in carne, secunda in mente, tertia in corpore.
Hugh of St. Victor, On the Sacraments I, p. XII, c. 2 and On the Sacraments of the natural and the written law (at the end), says: There are three circumcisions: one in the flesh only, outwardly, which is the Sacrament; the two others, which are the reality and the power of the Sacrament: one which takes place in the present, when by the laying-aside of iniquity the mind is circumcised; the other which will take place in the future, when by the laying-aside of corruption the body will be circumcised. The first, therefore, is in the flesh, the second in the mind, the third in the body.