Annotatio XCVI

”Let every male among you be circumcised.” — Genesis 17:10

Chrysostom, homily 29 on Genesis, discussing this passage, seems to indicate that Circumcision, in the old Law, conferred nothing of virtue, or of justice, or of grace on the circumcised infants,¹ but was merely a sign by which the infants of the Jews might be distinguished from the other nations. For thus he speaks: “That you may clearly learn, beloved, that Circumcision confers nothing to the soul’s virtue, can be seen from these things which are done. For why is an eight-day-old infant circumcised? For two causes, I think: one, that at an immature age he may more easily bear the trouble of Circumcision in the flesh; the other, that from the facts themselves we may learn that it confers nothing to the soul, but that this is done only for the sake of the sign. For immature children, since they are ignorant of the things done and have no perception of them, what utility can they thence receive in their soul? For those things are truly the good of the soul which are done by choice; but to receive a sign in the flesh — what sort of good work would that be?” And in homily 27 on Genesis, confirming the same opinion, he says: “Attend how God willed Circumcision to be established as a law — not that it could effect anything for the soul’s salvation, but that the children of the Jews might carry this about [as] a mark of gratitude, as it were a sign and a seal, and that it might not be lawful for them to be mingled by the minglings of the [other] nations.” Hence blessed Paul calls this a sign, saying, “And he gave the seal of circumcision”² — for to justice Circumcision itself confers nothing. Likewise homily 40 on Genesis, chapter 17: “There was no other utility from Circumcision,” he says, “than this alone: that by this sign they might be recognizable, and set apart from the other nations — the Jews.”

To this assertion all the theologians, as many ancient as more recent, are opposed; and they say that Circumcision — except for entrance into the kingdom of heaven — conferred all the effects of grace, both privative and positive, which baptism now furnishes: not indeed by its own power, but by the power of faith in Christ.³ For Augustine, in the second book On Marriage and Concupiscence, the last chapter, says: “Circumcision, in the people of God — which was a seal of the faith of the justice of God — availed, for great and little ones, unto the sanctification of the purgation of original and old sin, just as baptism began to avail from the time at which it was instituted.” Bede too, in the commentaries on the second chapter of Luke, says: “The same [help of the healthful cure] Circumcision in the Law wrought against the wound of original sin which baptism has been wont to work in the time of revealed grace — except that they could not yet enter the gate of the heavenly kingdom, but, consoled after death by a blessed rest in Abraham’s bosom, awaited with happy hope the entrance of the supernal peace.” These are their [words]; against which it is no obstacle that Chrysostom above infers that Circumcision profits infants nothing, because in them there is neither knowledge nor choice: for, as Bernard says, just as now Baptism, without any use of will, confers salvation on infants, so then Circumcision, without any choice of judgment, brought salvation to infants. St. Thomas has this same [teaching] in the third part, question 62, article 6. Perhaps it can be said that Chrysostom’s words are to be referred to the highest increment of perfect justice, and to the ultimate consummation of eternal salvation — which indeed Circumcision could not furnish, since Christ was not yet dead and the heavenly kingdom was not yet opened.⁴ Or it must be said that Chrysostom perhaps spoke of Circumcision apart from faith in Christ to come, which of itself furnished no help. For Circumcision did not confer grace by its own power, but by the power of faith, which the ancients professed in the seal of the received circumcision. Read Annotation 232 of the sixth book.