Ad secundum dicendum, quod quamvis occisio animalium esset secundum se inutilis, tamen inquantum ordinabatur ad cultum Dei, ex divina institutione utilis erat, et ejus utilitates tanguntur in Glossa, Rom. 5: lex data est ad domandum superbum, ut scilicet Deo offerret potius quam idolis; ad flagellandum durum, inquantum erat ad satisfactionem; ad instruendum insipientem, ratione significationis, ad ostensionem delicti, et humanae infirmitatis; et hoc respondet primis duobus; ad manifestationem et testimonium gratiae, et futurorum significationem; et hoc exponit tertium. Reply Obj. 2: Although the killing of animals is useless in itself, nevertheless, it was useful as directed to the worship of God by divine institution, and its benefits are touched upon in the Gloss on Romans 5: the law was given for conquering the proud man, namely, so that he would offer to God rather than to idols; for scourging the hard-hearted, as it was for a satisfaction; for instructing the foolish man, by reason of its signification; for displaying offenses and human weakness; and this corresponds to the first two; for the manifestation and witness of grace, and the signification of future things; and this explains the third. Ad tertium dicendum, quod lex secundum Augustinum data est quantum ad hujusmodi sacramenta duris et superbis in flagellum et onus, ut oneratis divinis sacrificiis non liberet eis ad idolatriam declinare; sed perfectis in signum, et parvulis in paedagogum: et quantum ad hoc poterat esse eorum usus meritorius. Reply Obj. 3: According to Augustine, the law concerning such sacraments was given for the hard-hearted and proud as a scourge and a burden, so that, burdened by divine sacrifices, they would not be free to slip into idolatry. But it was given to the perfect as a sign, and to the little as a teacher: and in this respect, their use could be meritorious. Ad quartum dicendum, quod Origenes loquitur de illis sacrificiis, secundum quod habebant aliquam rationem displicentiae ex hoc quod idolis immolabantur; et quantum ad hoc non habebant rationem meriti. Reply Obj. 4: Origen speaks of those sacrifices according as they had a certain account of distaste from the fact that they were sacrificed to idols; and as to this they did not have the account of merit. Quaestiuncula 3 Response to Quaestiuncula 3 Ad tertiam quaestionem dicendum, quod veteris legis intentio erat homines ad timorem et reverentiam Dei inducere, et a carnalibus ad spiritualia trahere paulatim; et ideo instituit multa impedimenta, quibus homines ab usu illorum sacramentorum frequenter impedirentur, ut sic magis in reverentia haberentur, quia omne rarum carum; et sic etiam paulatim a carnalibus observantiis dissuescerent, quandoque totaliter abstrahendi in tempore gratiae. Et haec impedimenta immunditiae carnis dicebantur, quibus homo corporaliter accedere ad sancta inidoneus efficiebatur; et ab his carnis immunditiis sacramenta legis purgabant. To the third question, it should be said that the intention of the Old Law was to lead men to fear and reverence for God, and to draw them from carnal things to spiritual ones little by little. And thus it established many impediments by which men were often impeded from the use of these sacraments, so that in this way they would hold them more in reverence, because anything rare is valued; and in this way also they were little by little dishabituated from their carnal observances, ultimately to be completely drawn away from them in the time of grace. And these impediments were called impurities of the flesh, by which man was made unfit for approaching the holy things bodily; and the sacraments of the law cleansed one from these impurities of the flesh. Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod immunditiae illae non erant spirituales, quasi a peccato causatae semper, sed quasi a sacramentis prohibentes. Reply Obj. 1: Those impurities were not spiritual in the sense that they were always caused by sin, but in the sense that they prevented one from approaching the sacred things. Ad secundum dicendum, quod sacerdos lavabat manus et vestimenta, ne cum manibus sanguinolentis et cinerosis alia tangeret; et quia sacrorum ad communia non debet esse commixtio; unde etiam uncti chrismate manus lavant, et abstergunt. Immundus autem reputabatur propter tria. Primo ut sacerdotes essent sub onere, sicut et alii. Secundo ad tollendum superbiam sacerdotum de hoc quod alios sanctificabant. Tertio ad significandum quod sacerdos novi testamenti propter maximam sanctitatem sacrificii semper debet se inidoneum reputare. Reply Obj. 2: A priest washed his hands and vestments so that he would not touch other things with bloody and sooty hands; and because there should not be a commingling of sacred things with common things; hence they even wash their hands anointed with holy oil and wipe them clean. But he was considered unclean for three reasons. First, so that priests would be under the same burden as all others. Second, to take away from the priests their pride in sanctifying the others. Third, to signify that the priest of the new covenant should always consider himself unworthy because of the extreme holiness of that sacrifice. Ad tertium dicendum, quod in nova lege non sunt irregularitates tot sicut in veteri lege, nec sunt nisi in ministris ecclesiae, in quibus requiritur maxima idoneitas propter sacramentorum sanctitatem; ideo tales irregularitates non ita facile absterguntur. Reply Obj. 3: In the New Law there are not so many irregularities as in the Old Law, and they are only in the ministers of the church, in whom the greatest fittingness is required because of the holiness of the sacraments; so these irregularities are not as easily wiped away. Expositio textus Exposition of the Text Observantiae caeremoniales. Caeremonialia dicuntur quae secundum se non habent causam manifestam ipsorum factorum, quamvis possint habere causam manifestam suae institutionis. Dicitur autem caeremonia, quasi munia Cereris; quae erat dea frugum, quia ei prius sacrificia instituta sunt, et exinde translatum est nomen ad omnem divinum cultum. Vel, sicut dicit Valerius Maximus, dicuntur a Caere oppido, in quo prius Romani suos ritus instituerunt. Ceremonial observances. They are called ceremonial which do not have an obvious reason in themselves for the actions performed, although they might have a clear reason for their institution. But the word ‘ceremony’ comes from the office of Ceres, who was the goddess of grain, because previously sacrifices to her were instituted and afterward the name was transferred to every divine cult. Or, as Valerius Maximus says, they are called from the town of Caere, in which formerly the Romans instituted their rites. Mundabant etiam interdum a corporali lepra; idest, mundatum ostendebant, quando signa quae apparuerant, cessabant. They also occasionally cleansed leprosy from the flesh; that is, they pointed out the one who had been cleansed, when the signs of leprosy that had appeared were stopping. Sine medio Deum videbant; idest, divinorum cognitionem non ex sensibilibus signis accipiebant, sed per infusionem. Et de hoc in 2 Lib., dist. 23, q. 2, a. 1, ad 1, dictum est. They saw God without mediation; that is, they used to receive knowledge of divine things not from sensible signs, but by infusion. And we spoke of this in Book II, Distinction 23, Question 2, Article 1, ad 1. Quaestio 2 Question 2 Circumcisio Circumcision Postquam determinavit Magister differentiam sacramentorum veteris et novae legis, hic determinat de quodam sacramento veteris legis, scilicet circumcisione, quod cum sacramentis novae legis aliquam convenientiam habet; et dividitur in partes duas: in prima determinat de circumcisione; in secunda movet quamdam quaestionem circa praedeterminata, ibi: si vero quaeritur, etc. Prima in tres: in prima determinat efficaciam circumcisionis; in secunda institutionem ipsius, ibi: hic dicendum est in quo instituta fuerit circumcisio; in tertia determinat de mutatione ipsius per baptismum, ibi: ideo autem mutata est, etc. Circa primum duo facit: primo ostendit quam efficaciam circumcisio habeat; secundo ostendit quod eamdem efficaciam contra originale habebant quaedam remedia ante praeceptum de circumcisione datum, ibi: quaeritur autem de viris qui fuerunt ante circumcisionem. After the Master has defined the difference between the sacraments of the Old and New Law, here he considers a certain sacrament of the Old Law, namely, circumcision, which has some affinity with the sacraments of the New Law; and it is divided into two parts: in the first, he examines circumcision; in the second, he raises a certain question about his findings, at: But if it is asked, etc. The first is in three parts: in the first, he considers the efficacy of circumcision; in the second, its institution, at: here it must be said how circumcision was instituted; in the third, he examines its transformation through baptism, at: thus however it was changed, etc. Concerning the first he does two things: first, he shows what kind of efficacy circumcision could have; second, he shows that certain remedies had the same efficacy against original sin before circumcision was commanded, at: but it is asked about the men who lived before circumcision. Hic quaeruntur sex: Here six questions arise: primo, de necessitate circumcisionis; first, about the necessity of circumcision; secundo, quibus competeret; second, to whom it applied; terio, de his quae ad circumcisionem requirebantur; third, about the things that were required for circumcision; quarto, de efficacia circumcisionis; fourth, about the efficacy of circumcision; quinto, de mutatione ipsius; fifth, its transformation; sexto, de remedio quod circumcisionem praecessit. sixth, about the remedy that preceded circumcision. Articulus 1 Article 1 De necessitate circumcisionis About the necessity of circumcision Quaestiuncula 1 Quaestiuncula 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non fuerit necessarium circumcisionem dari. Sapientis est enim facere aliquid quanto brevius potest. Sed per fidem et sacramenta legis naturae sufficienter originale purgabatur. Ergo, non oportebat in remedium originalis circumcisionem dari. Obj. 1: To the first we proceed thus. It seems that it was not necessary for circumcision to be given. For it belongs to the wise man to do something as briefly as he can. But by faith and the sacraments of the law of nature, original sin was sufficiently purged. Therefore, it was not necessary for circumcision to be given as a remedy for original sin. Praeterea, peccato originali, quia ex alio contractum est, non debetur poena sensibilis, nec expiatio per satisfactionem. Sed circumcisio poenam sensibilem habebat. Ergo non erat conveniens remedium contra originale. Obj. 2: Furthermore, no sensible penalty is owed to original sin, since it is contracted from another; nor is there any expiation through satisfaction. But circumcision carries a sensible penalty. Therefore, it was not a fitting remedy against original sin. Sed contra, circumcisio est signaculum fidei, quae est in praeputio patris nostri Abrahae, Rom. 4. Sed conveniens fuit illam fidem significari, cujus oportet nos omnes imitatores existere. Ergo congruum fuit circumcisionem dari. On the contrary, circumcision is a seal of faith, a seal which is in the foreskin of our father Abraham (Rom 4:11). But it was fitting to represent that faith, of which we all had to become imitators. Therefore, it was appropriate for circumcision to be given. Quaestiuncula 2 Quaestiuncula 2 Ulterius. Videtur quod non debuerit dari ante legem scriptam. Quia in lege naturae non erat aliqua distinctio, cum lex communis omnibus esset. Sed circumcisio signum distinctivum est: quia secundum Damascenum, est signum determinans Israel a gentibus. Ergo non debebat dari ante legem scriptam. Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that it should not have been given before the written law. For under the law of nature there was no distinction, since that law was common to everyone. But circumcision is a distinctive sign, for, according to Damascene, it is the sign distinguishing Israel from the gentiles. Therefore, it should not have been given before the written law. Praeterea, praecepta quae non sunt indita rationi naturali, debent ad populum per ministrorum officium tradi. Sed circumcisio non erat de dictamine legis naturalis. Ergo cum ante legem scriptam non esset ministrorum distinctio, videtur quod tunc dari non debuerit. Obj. 2: Furthermore, precepts that do not arise from natural reason should be delivered to the people through the office of ministers. But circumcision was not among the dictates of natural law. Therefore, since there was no distinction of ministers before the written law, it seems that it should not have been given at that time. Sed contra, circumcisio, secundum apostolum, est signum fidei. Sed etiam ante legem scriptam erat distinctio fidelium a non fidelibus. Ergo tunc oportebat eis dari. On the contrary, circumcision, according to the Apostle, is a sign of faith. But even before the written law there was a distinction between the faithful and unbelievers. Therefore, it was fitting for it to be given to them then. Quaestiuncula 3 Quaestiuncula 3 Ulterius. Videtur quod non debuerit differri usque ad tempus Abrahae. Quia etiam ante ipsum erant fideles ab infidelibus distincti. Sed circumcisio est signum fidei. Ergo ante tempus Abrahae dari debuit. Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that it did not need to be delayed until the time of Abraham. For even before him faithful men were distinguished from unbelievers. But circumcision is a sign of faith. Therefore, it should have been given before the time of Abraham. Praeterea, circumcisio majorem habet efficaciam quam sacramenta legis naturae; alias postea instituta non fuisset. Sed non minor erat necessitas efficacis remedii ante Abraham quam post. Ergo etiam ante eum dari debuit. Obj. 2: Furthermore, circumcision has a greater efficacy than sacraments of the law of nature; otherwise it would not have been instituted after them. But the need for an efficacious remedy was not less before Abraham than after him. Therefore, it should have been given also before him. Sed contra, fides quae sacramentis efficaciam significandi dat, est fides mediatoris, ut supra dictum est. Sed Abrahae primo dictae sunt repromissiones de mediatore ex semine ejus nascendo. Ergo ei primo signum fidei distinctum dari debuit in generationis membro. On the contrary, the faith that gives sacraments the efficacy of signifying is faith in the mediator, as was said above. But it was to Abraham that promises of a mediator to be born from his seed were first made. To him first, therefore, a distinct sign of faith ought to have been given, in the member of generation.