Sidenote: Acts xv. 10.
Sidenote: S. John viii. 56.
Sidenote: Gen. xvii. 10.
1. MANY persons have raised an important question why circumcision
should be enjoined as profitable by the authority of the Old Testament,
and rejected as useless by the teaching of the New; especially since
it was Abraham, who _saw the day_ of the Lord Jesus _and was glad_,
who first received the command to observe the rite of circumcision. For
it is manifest that he directed his mind not to the literal but to the
spiritual sense of the Divine Law, and so in the sacrifice of the lamb
saw the true passion of the Lord’s Body.
2. What then shall we consider to have been the aim of our father
Abraham, in first instituting that which his posterity were not to
follow? or for what reason are the bodies of infants circumcised,
and in their very birth subjected to dangers, and this at the Divine
command, so that peril of their life ensues from a mystery of religion.
What is the meaning of this? For the ground of the truth is hidden, and
either something should have been signified by an ♦intelligible mystery,
or else it should have been indicated by a mystery which was not so
full of danger.
3. And why was the sign of the Divine Testament attached to that member
which is considered as less comely to sight; or with what purpose did
the Creator of our body Himself, in the very beginning of our race,
choose that His work should be wounded and stained with blood, and a
portion of it cut off, which He, Who has disposed all things in order,
deemed proper to form together with the other members, as though it
were necessary? For this portion of our bodies is either contrary to
nature, and then no man ought to have that which is contrary to nature,
or it is according to nature, and that ought not to be cut off which
was created according to the perfection of nature; especially since
aliens from the portion of the Lord our God are wont to make this a
chief subject of ridicule. Again as it is God’s purpose, as He has
frequently declared, to induce as many persons as possible to the
observance of holy religion, how much more would they be invited,
were not some deterred either by the danger or reproach of this very
circumcision.
4. To return therefore to my first purpose and follow the order I have
proposed, it seems good to speak of the nature itself of circumcision.
The defence of this ought to be twofold, for so is the accusation,
the one brought by the Gentiles, the other by those who are considered
as belonging to the people of God, more vigorously on the part of the
Gentiles, for they deem men marked with circumcision to be worthy even
of scorn and disgrace. Yet their own wisest men approve of circumcision,
so as to think it right to circumcise those whom they select to know
and celebrate their mysteries[287].
5. The Egyptians too, who apply themselves to geometry and observing
the courses of the stars, consider a priest who does not bear the
mark of circumcision impious. For they believe that neither the wisdom
of incantation, nor geometry, nor astronomy can attain their due
power without the seal of circumcision. And therefore, in order to
render their operations efficacious they choose to solemnize a certain
purification of their own by means of the secret rite of circumcision.
6. And we find in ancient history that not only the Egyptians but also
some of the Æthiopians Arabs and Phœnicians used circumcision. And in
maintaining this custom they think that they are maintaining one still
to approved, for being thus initiated by means of the first fruits
of their own body and blood, they conceive that by the consecration
of this small portion, the snares which demons lay for our kind will
be defeated; and that those who attempt to injure the well-being of
the whole man, may find their power baffled either by the law or the
semblance of sacred circumcision. For I am of opinion that heretofore
the Prince of devils has deemed that his arts would lose their baneful
efficacy if he were to attempt to injure one whom he found initiated
by the seal of sacred circumcision, or one who seemed at least in this
respect to obey the Divine law.
Sidenote: Gen. xvii. 12.
7. Now he who diligently considers the functions of our several members
will be able to judge that it was for no unmeaning purpose that as
regards this little portion of this member the child was not only
circumcised but circumcised also on the eighth day; when the mother
of the child begins to be in pure blood, having before the eighth day
been considered as sitting in unclean blood. Let so much have been
said in reply to those who are not joined with us in unity of faith;
on which account discussion with them, as differing from us, becomes
more difficult.
Sidenote: 1 S. Pet. i. 18, 19.
8. But to those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ we have to offer
the following reply, which, when we were disputing against the opinions
of Gentiles, we were unwilling to disclose. For if we were _redeemed
not with corruptible silver and gold, but with the precious blood
of our Lord Jesus Christ_, and purchased from no one but him who had
purchased with money, and was owner of, the services of our now sinful
race, beyond a doubt he demanded a price for releasing from his service
those whom he kept in bondage. But the price of our freedom was the
Blood of the Lord Jesus, which of necessity was to be paid to him to
whom we were sold by our sins.
Sidenote: Rom. vi. 5 sq.
9. Until, therefore, this price should have been paid for all men
which by the shedding of the Lord’s Blood had to be so paid for the
absolution of all, the blood of every man, who, by the Law and solemn
custom were to follow the precepts of holy religion, was required. But,
since one Lord Christ suffered, seeing that the ransom is now paid for
all, there is now no longer any need that the blood of every man one
by one should be shed by circumcision, for in the Blood of Christ the
circumcision of all has been solemnized, and in His Cross we are all
crucified together with Him, and buried in His sepulchre, and _planted
together in the likeness of His death, that henceforth we should not
serve sin: for he that is dead, is free from sin_.
Sidenote: S. Matt. xvi. 24.
10. But if any one, such as Marcion and Manichæus, deem the judgment
of God to be worthy of blame, either because He thought fit to give
command concerning the observance of circumcision, or because He
published a law directing the effusion of blood; he must needs consider
the Lord Jesus also worthy of blame, Who shed not a little but much
blood for the redemption of the world, and up to this hour commands
us also to shed our blood for the great contest of Religion, saying,
_If any man will follow Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross
and follow Me_. But if in the case of a man offering his whole self out
of piety, and cleansing himself by the effusion of much blood, such an
accusation is not just, how can we blame the Law, for exacting a little
drop of blood, when we proclaim the command of the Lord Jesus for the
shedding of much blood, and the death of the whole body?
11. Nor was the very symbol and semblance of circumcision useless,
for the people of God, signed thereby as by a certain bodily seal, was
distinguished from the other nations. But the name of Christ being now
bestowed upon them they have no need of a bodily sign, for they have
obtained the honour of a Divine appellation. But what was there absurd
in somewhat of pain or labour seeming to be imposed for piety’s sake,
to the intent that by such contests devotion might be better tried?
It is becoming also that from the very cradle of life the symbol of
religion should grow with our growth, and that all of a maturer age
should be ashamed to yield either to labour or pain when their tender
infancy had conquered both.
12. But now Christians have no need of the light pain of circumcision,
for bearing about with them the Lord’s Death, they at every act engrave
on their foreheads contempt of their own death, as knowing that without
the cross of the Lord they can have no salvation. For who would use a
needle to fight with when armed with stronger weapons?
13. And now any one may easily perceive how easily the suggestion may
be refuted, that more persons might be incited to the observance of
holy religion unless they were withheld by the fear of pain or the
appearance of labour. For could this terrify an older person, when many
infants endured it without danger? Granting however that some Jewish
children unable to bear the pain of circumcision and of so keen a
stroke may have died, still this did not deter those of a robuster and
more advanced age, and one who thus obeyed the celestial precepts it
only made more praiseworthy.
14. But if they imagine that this light pain was such an obstacle to
confession, what will they say of martyrdom? For if they choose to
blame the pain of circumcision, they must blame also the death of
martyrs, by whom religion so far from being impaired has received its
perfection. But the pain of circumcision is so much removed from being
hurtful to faith, that faith is approved by pain, for greater is the
grace of faith if any one for religion’s sake despise pain; and such
a one has a greater reward than he who was only willing to endure the
pain of circumcision that he might glory in the Law, and win praise of
men rather than of God.
Sidenote: 1 Cor. xii. 23.
15. It was fitting therefore that this partial circumcision should take
place before His advent Who was to circumcise the whole man, and that
the human race should receive a partial preparation for believing in
that which is perfect. But if circumcision must take place, in what
region of the body ought it rather to fall than on that which seems
to some less comely? _And those members of the body, which we think
to be less honourable, upon those we bestow more abundant power; and
our uncomely parts have abundant comeliness._ For in what member ought
men to be rather reminded of his blood than in that which is wont to
minister to transgression?
Sidenote: S. Matt. xix. 12.
16. And now is the fitting time to reply to those also who say, If
this part of our body is according to nature it ought not to be cut
off, but if contrary to nature, then it ought not to have been born
together with it. Let these men, being so subtle, themselves answer me,
whether the succession of the human race, which arises by generation
is according to nature or contrary to nature? If according to nature,
it ought never to be interrupted, and then how can we praise the
chastity of men, the virginity of maids, the abstinence of widows, the
continence of wives? No effort then to promote this succession should
be suffered to lie idle. But the Author of nature Himself did not pay
this regard to generation, for He gave us, when living in the body, His
own example, and exhorted His disciples to chastity, saying, _There be
eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s
sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it._
17. Man being made up of body and soul, (for at present it will suffice
to speak of these and not to mention the spirit,) he is not naturally
the same in both, but what is according to the nature of the body is
contrary to the nature of the soul, and what is according to the nature
of the soul is contrary to the nature of the body; so that were I to
speak that which is according to nature in that which is seen, it will
be contrary to nature as regards the unseen, and what is according to
nature in the unseen is contrary to nature as regards the seen. It is
no incongruity therefore in the man of God, if there should be things
contrary to the nature of the body which are according to the nature of
the soul.
Sidenote: S. John i. 29.
18. With regard to those who say that more would have believed if
circumcision had not been instituted, let them receive this answer,
that more would have believed if there had been no martyrdom, but the
constancy of a few is to be preferred to the remissness of a larger
number. For as many kinds of washings preceded, because that one true
Sacrament of Baptism with water and the Spirit, whereby the whole man
is redeemed, was to follow, so also the circumcision of many was to
precede, because the circumcision of the Lord’s Passion, which Jesus
suffered as the Lamb of God, that He might _take away the sins of the
world_, was to follow.
Sidenote: 2 Cor. iv. 16.
Sidenote: Rom. vii. 22.
19. My object in writing this has been to shew that it was fitting
that circumcision, which is outward, should precede, that now after
the Lord’s Advent it might seem to be justly excluded. But now that
circumcision is necessary which is in secret, _in spirit not in the
letter_, seeing that there are two men in one, of whom it is said,
_Though our outward man perish_ according to the desires of error,
_yet the inward man is renewed day by day_, and in another passage,
_For I delight in the law of God after the inward man_; that is, our
inward man which is made according to the image and likeness of God,
our outward is that which is formed of clay. So again in Genesis two
creations of man are declared to us, and it is signified that by the
second man was truly made.
Sidenote: S. Matt. v. 28.
20. As therefore there are two men, so also is his conversation
two-fold; one of the inward the other of the outward man. And indeed
many acts of the inward man reach to the outward man, in the same way
that the chastity of the inward man passes into bodily chastity. He who
is free from adultery of the heart is free from adultery of the body,
but it does not also follow that he who has not sinned in body should
not have sinned even in heart, for it is written, _Whosoever looketh
on a woman to lust after her hath already committed adultery with her
in his heart_. For although he be not yet an adulterer in body, still
in affection he is one. So that there is a circumcision of the inward
man, for he who is circumcised has put off, like a foreskin, all the
allurements of the flesh, that so he may be in the spirit, not in the
flesh, and _by the spirit may mortify the deeds of the flesh_.
Sidenote: Rom. iv. 11.
Sidenote: Isa. xi. 6, 7.
Sidenote: S. Luke iii. 6.
21. And this is that circumcision which is in secret, as Abraham
was first in the uncircumcision and afterwards came to be in the
circumcision. Thus our inward man, while it is in the flesh, is as
it were in uncircumcision, but when he is now no longer in the flesh
but in the spirit, he begins to be in the circumcision not in the
uncircumcision. And as he who is circumcised does not put off the whole
flesh but his foreskin only, where corruption more frequently lies,
so he who is circumcised in secret, puts off that flesh of which it
is written, _All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as
the flower of the field; the grass withereth, the flower fadeth, but
the word of our God shall stand for ever_; and there remains the flesh
which will see the salvation of God, as it is written, _And all flesh
shall see the salvation of God_. What this flesh is cleanse your ears
that you may understand.
Sidenote: Gen. xlix. 8, 9.
Sidenote: 1 Cor. ii. 15.
Sidenote: S. Matt. v. 17.
22. Now that circumcision which is secret ought to be of such a kind as
to bear no comparison with that which is outward. He therefore who is
a Jew in secret, is he who excels, he who is from Judah, whose _hand is
in the neck of his enemies_, who _stooped down and couched as a lion,
and as a lion’s whelp, whom his brethren praise_. From this Judah the
prince departs not, because his word makes princes, such as are not
overcome by worldly allurements and ensnared by the pleasures of this
world. And since Judah himself was born into this generation, many of
those who were born afterwards are preferred, that they may enjoy a
pre-eminence of virtue. Let us have therefore the circumcision which
is in secret, and the Jew that is in secret, that is, the spiritual:
but he that is _spiritual_, as being a prince, _judgeth all things,
yet he himself is judged of no man_. It was fitting therefore, that the
circumcision commanded by the prescript of the Law, which was partial,
should cease after His coming Who was to circumcise the whole man, and
fulfil the circumcision of the Law. And who is this but He Who said _I
am not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it_?
Sidenote: Gen. xvii. 9. sqq.
24. That the fulness of the Gentiles is come in is another reason, if
you will attend to it carefully, why the circumcision of the foreskin
ought to cease. For it was not upon the Gentiles but upon the seed of
Abraham that circumcision was enjoined, for this is the first Divine
promise, _And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep My covenant
therefore, thou and thy seed after in their generations. This is My
covenant, which ye shall keep, between Me and you and thy seed after
thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised, and ye shall
circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the
covenant betwixt Me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be
circumcised among you, every man child in your generations. He that
is born in thy house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is
not of thy seed, must needs be circumcised; and My covenant shall be
in your flesh, for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised man
child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised_ on the eighth
day, _shall be cut off from the people; he hath broken My Covenant_.
It is affirmed indeed that the Hebrew text, as Aquila intimates, does
not contain the words ‘on the eighth day;’ but all authority does not
rest with Aquila, who being a Jew has passed it by in the letter, and
not inserted, ‘on the eighth day.’
Sidenote: Ib. xxi. 12.
Sidenote: Lev. xvii. 1, 8.
25. Meanwhile you have heard that both the eighth day and circumcision
were given for a sign; now a sign is an indication of a greater matter,
a symbol of a future verity; and a covenant was given to Abraham
and his seed, to whom it was said, _In Isaac shall thy seed be_. The
circumcision of the Jews therefore, or of one born in his house, or
bought with his money was permitted. But we cannot extend this to a
foreigner or proselyte, unless they were born in the house of Abraham,
or bought with his money, or of his seed. Again, nothing is said of
proselytes; when it is wished to speak of them they are expressly
mentioned, as it is written: _And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
Speak unto Aaron, and unto his sons, and unto all the children of
Israel, and say unto them: ... Whatsoever man there be of the house of
Israel, or of the strangers which sojourn among you, that offereth a
burnt-sacrifice_. When therefore they are intended to be included the
Law touches them; when the Divine word does not point to them, how can
they seem to be bound? Again, it is written, _Speak unto the sons of
Aaron_, when the priests are intended; and so as regards the Levites
also.
26. Thus it is abundantly manifest that even according to the letter
of the Law, although the Law be spiritual, yet that according to the
very letter of the Law the Gentiles could not be obliged to observe
circumcision, but that circumcision itself was a sign, until _the
fulness of the Gentiles should be come in, and so all Israel be saved_
by circumcision, not of a small portion of one member, but of the heart.
And both the excuse on our parts is sufficient, and the continuance of
circumcision among the Jews up to this day is excluded.
Sidenote: 1 Cor. i. 23, 24.
Sidenote: S. Matt. x. 33.
S. Luke ix. 26.
27. But as to its being imputed it as a cause of blame, now or in
past time, by the Gentiles, I would say, first, it is not competent to
them to blame or deride what others who are their fellows do. Suppose
however that there were cause for their ridicule, why ought this to
move us, when the very cross of the Lord is _a stumbling-block to the
Jews, and foolishness to the Greeks, but to us the power of God and
the wisdom of God_. And the Lord Himself has said, _Whosoever shall be
ashamed[288] of Me before men, of him will I also be ashamed before My
Father Which is in heaven_; teaching us not to be disturbed by those
things which are laughed at by men, if we observe them in the service
of religion.