Dr.
Ian Christopher Levy
ilevy@lextheo.edu
MEDIEVAL
COMMENTING ON ROMANS FOUR: OLD AND NEW LAW
Medieval biblical commentators were
very keen on distinguishing the three ages of law under which the human race
has lived: Natural, Written, and that of Grace. Of special interest, most
notably beginning in the twelfth century, is the
relationship between the sacraments God had assigned to the Jewish people and
those to Christians. The fourth chapter of Romans provides commentators an
opportunity to examine questions of law and sacraments, for it is here that
Paul recounts Abraham's justification by faith prior to the reception of
circumcision. Many interesting discussions emerge on what it means to believe
God; the distinction between iniquities and sins; that where there is no law
there is no trespass; and the difference between a sign and seal. There are
also the larger questions of circumcision's relationship to baptism and their
relative functions with respect to the blotting out of sin and the reception of
grace. As mentioned, the twelfth-century commentators prove perhaps the most
interesting, for it is at this time that sacramental theology is really taking
shape as a matter of doctrine and law, from Hugh of St. Victor's Sacraments of
the Christian Faith (1137) to Gratian's Decretum (1142), and Peter Lombard's Sentences (1155). This
paper will focus on twelfth-century commentaries in this context, thereby
including such commentators as Peter Abelard, William of St. Thierry, Peter
Lombard, and the Glossa Ordinaria
of the Laon school. We will
also have a look at some of the earliest commentators on Romans, like Origen and Ambrosiaster, with an
eye on the impact of
PART
ONE: THE COMMENTATORS
Romans 4:3-5
"Quid enim scriptura dicit, 'credit Abraham Deo et
reputatum est illi ad iustitiam.' Ei
autem qui operatur merces non imputatur secundum gratiam sed secundum debitum.
Ei vero qui non operatur credenti autem in eum qui iustificat impium reputatur fides eius ad iusitiam."
Romans 4:3-5, in which Paul recounts
Abraham's willingness to trust, or believe, God stirred comments on just what
it means to believe (credere).
In Romans 4:3 Paul, quoting Genesis, states that Abraham believed God (credidit Deo) and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. And
then in Romans 4:5 Paul says that faith is reckoned as righteousness to
the one who believes in him (credenti autem in eum) who justifies
the impious. This may be considered pertinent to our
topic inasmuch as these verses will spawn discussions about the various levels
of belief in relation to Natural Law, Written Law, and Grace.
Here (as elsewhere) we begin with one of
the earliest and most influential Latin commentators, active between 366-384,
known to us now as Ambrosiaster.
While generally believed throughout the middle ages to have been St Ambrose,
Erasmus concluded in the sixteenth century that this was not Bishop of Milan,
but some otherwise unknown entity, thus christened 'Ambrosiaster.'[1]
For Ambrosiaster the aforementioned distinctions of
belief are not yet in place. Abraham did not have glory before God because he
was circumcised or had abstained from iniquity, but because he believed. Ambrosiaster places the emphasis squarely on human free
will here. To believe or not to believe
is a matter of will. No one can be compelled to believe what is not manifest,
he says, but only invited to believe. The justification of the impious refers
to the gentiles who believe in Christ apart from the works of the law; by faith
alone they are righteous before God.[2]
Augustine's comments on Romans were quite
brief, the product of his early career.[3]
His own remarks on Romans 4:3-5 conclude that God grants grace to sinners so
that through faith they might live justly, which is to say that they might work
well. That people can work well is itself the result
of having received grace and so must be attributed to God. Augustine makes no
mention here of different sorts of belief.[4]
And yet observations scattered in other works proved
to have a significant affect on medieval commenting on Romans Chapter Four. In fact, it was Augustine's commentary on the Gospel of John that
set the tone for many later comments on Romans 4:3-5. When commenting on John
Despite its later influence, two
Carolingian commentators ignore this distinction. The commentaries of Rabanus Maurus (780-856) are
largely compilations of patristic sources. When commenting on Romans 4:3-5 he does not really concern himself with the nature of
belief itself. He is content to follow Ambrosiaster
and Augustine, and simply states that Abraham was justified because he
believed.[8]
Haimo of Auxerre (active
840-860) was more original and his work was widely read even into the twelfth
century. Yet he was not concerned with this distinction either.[9]
Abraham's belief refers to his obedience to God's commands, seeing as he left
his homeland and believed God's promise about Isaac and then Christ. Abraham's
justification, which Haimo equates with the remission
of sins, occurred through the faith by which he believed. God justifies the
impious not by works but by faith; before the foundation of the world [Eph 1:4]
he decreed to save the human race apart from preceding merits.[10]
By the tenth century Atto of
Vercelli (d. 961) does follow Augustine's lead in his
own Romans commentary. Because Paul does not want to give the impression that
faith is reckoned as righteousness for everyone
indiscriminately, he is clear about the sort of belief that leads to
justification. Romans 4:5 is the key, for this promise
applies only to those who believe in the one who justifies the impious (credenti in eum). Hence Atto points out that to
believe God (credere Deo) means to
adapt one's faith to his promises, while to believe in God (credere in Deum) is to invest all one's hope in him.[11]
Bruno the Carthusian (1032-1101) the schoolman from
To move to the twelfth century is to
reckon with the Glossa Ordinaria,
a product of the Laon school,
which proved to have a lasting influence on medieval biblical commenting.
Augustine's commentary on Romans and Galatians were employed
by the Gloss, as well Jerome's work on Galatians, Ephesians, Titus and
Philemon. But the source most relied upon for the Glossa Ordinaria's Pauline
Epistles was Ambrosiaster, who had written the first
complete commentary on the Epistles. Of the Carolingian authors, the Gloss
makes ample use of Haimo of Auxerre.[14]
The Gloss comments on Romans 4:3 and Romans 4:5 separately, and never remarks
specifically on the disparity between the fact that Abraham credidit Deo, which is a lesser form of belief,
and that God justifies the impious one who credit
in eum. Presumably, Abraham embraces both forms,
as he believes what God says is true and also enters
into God through love. The marginal gloss on Romans 4:3 is reminiscent of
Bruno. Belief itself was a sufficient cause of Abraham's justification and so
too for others. But those who have time to work will
not receive their reward by grace alone, but also as a debt due their work. And for people with no time faith alone will suffice for
justification and thus for salvation in keeping with the grace established for
all people generally as well as with what God had established for people living
before the Law.[15]
The comments in the marginal gloss on Roman 4:5 follow the three-fold
distinction of belief, noting that Paul did not say credit ei, which simply means to believe
that what the speaker is saying is true, something the wicked do as well. Nor
did he use a phrase credit illum, for that is just to believe that God exists,
which the demons also believe. But rather, following
Augustine, credit in eum,
thereby loving God and entering into him.[16]
The Gloss sets the tone for the rest of the twelfth-century commentators.[17]
Peter Abelard (writing on Romans
1135-1139) also runs through the three types of belief, appealing directly to
Augustine's commentary on John.[18]
But he also expands upon the content and results of
belief. Abraham believed the divine promises no matter how great and
incredible, whether this involved leaving his homeland to multiply in another,
or trusting in the promise of a son. In keeping with Augustine, Abelard speaks
of this as the true faith which works through love. By
believing, Abraham freely followed the commands of God. And
this is the obedience of faith which makes a person righteous before God, not
circumcision or the other corporeal observances which the written law would
later command.[19]
For the Cistercian William of St. Thierry
(writing on Romans 1138-1145), who also follows the three-fold distinction, to
believe in God is itself the work of grace, though noting that Christ works in
us and not apart from us. Abraham, he says, exhibited the perfect form of
belief, offering himself in complete obedience to God such that his faith was reckoned as righteousness. Abraham credidit Deo when
believing the promise about his seed, and credidit in Deum when he obediently went off into an unknown land or
offered up his son.[20]
Peter Lombard first commented on the
Epistles around 1140 and then revised his work in the later 1150s.[21]
Here he also cites the three types of belief found in the Gloss Ordinaria. Following Augustine, the first sort is the faith
God requires of us, the faith that justifies the impious. Works are only good
when done for the sake of God. And so, faith must come
first; for if they do not begin from that basis the work cannot have been done
well. He also follows Augustine's own comments on Romans 4:4, that through
grace God grants sinners the faith by which they might be justified, so that
through faith the just might live, which means to work well.[22]
The monastic commentator, Herveus of Bourg-Dieu (1080-1150)
elaborates on the basic principles found in the Glossa
Ordinaria. On Romans 4:3 he
notes that Abraham believed God who promised that his future seed would be
manifold; and because he firmly believed it was reckoned as righteousness. In
other words, says Herveus, through his trust Abraham was not only freed from original and actual sin, but was
reckoned righteous by God. And if works had not
preceded his faith they nevertheless would follow.[23]
This leads Herveus into an attempt to reconcile
Paul's words with James 2:14-26, which we will not pursue here. On Romans 4:5 he argues, in keeping with his reconciliation of Paul
and James, that the person who is justified by faith must not thereafter grow
lazy when it comes to doing good works. When a person does good works, after
having been justified by the faith he freely received, he does not receive
eternal recompense by grace, namely by faith alone, but in keeping what is owed
his works. Hence when Paul says that it is not to the one who works he is
referring to the who, following baptism, has no time
to work or cannot do so owing to some infirmity. In other words, no can merit
the initial gift of grace by way of works, for by definition, says Herveus, it is freely given. And in that sense faith is sufficient.[24]
Then follows the standard three-fold distinction of belief as he notes that the
impious man who does not believe rightly may indeed give to the poor, desire no
one else's wife, and commit no fraud; but this is of no avail, since he does
none of these things with the proper intention. Such works are not good,
precisely because they do not proceed from a good root. Only the person one who
is justified by faith performs works of piety and justice.[25]
Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274) observes that
the righteousness which God reckons to Abraham is not
that of exterior works, but the interior faith of the heart which God alone
sees. In this vein, he speaks of the act of faith (actus fidei) in keeping with the classic
three-fold distinction of belief. Thus he points out
that to believe in God refers to a faith that is properly ordered to its end,
which it achieves through charity, since believing in God means to enter in to
him and this is what charity accomplishes.[26]
These distinct forms of belief would become a mainstay of medieval theology as
the schoolmen came to distinguish between formed and unformed faith, namely
between simple belief in the truths of the faith and a faith that is perfected
by charity. An unformed faith can coincide with mortal sin, whereas a formed
faith cannot. Similarly, the theologians made a distinction between credulitas and fiducia, the
former being a merely intellectual assent and the latter a confidence in God to
save.
Romans 4:7-8
"Beati quorum remissae sunt iniquitates et quorum
tecta sunt peccata. Beatus vir cui non imputabit
Dominus peccatum."
Here Paul is quoting from Psalm 31:1-2
(Vulgate). It is worth repeating the passage in order to highlight the key terms which will elicit much commentary. "Happy are
those whose iniquities (iniquitates)
are forgiven (remissae),
and whose sins (peccata)
are covered (tecta);
blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not impute (imputabit) sin."
Origen (185-254) sees here an internal ordering
of the soul. The conversion of the soul begins with its abandonment of evil
with the result that it merits the forgiveness of iniquities. It then begins to
do the good, thereby covering its previous sins with good works. When it will
finally reach perfection, so as to cut off every root
of evil such that no trace can be found, then it will find blessedness when the
Lord can impute no sin.[27]
Ambrosiaster argues that to forgive, to cover, and
not to impute, all amount to same thing. Yet by speaking in this way Paul is
displaying the richness of God's mercy, for when God covers he forgives, and
when he forgives he does not impute. And given the
variety of sins, Paul speaks of three grades. The first is iniquity or impiety
when one fails to acknowledge God; the second refers to a grave sin in works;
and the third to a light sin in works. Yet all three are
obliterated in baptism.[28]
Ambrosiaster specifically rejects the notion that
this passage could refer to penitence, inasmuch as it speaks of the happy
person (beatus),
though penitents labor for the forgiveness of sins
with much distress. Nor could it apply to martyrs, seeing as they acquire glory
through suffering. Rather, says Ambrosiaster, the
prophet foresees the happy age that will arrive with the coming of Christ, and
announces to the blessed a time when, without toil and works, their sins will be forgiven through baptism, meaning that they will be covered
and not imputed. Yet now, the Apostle, in the fullness of time, filled with
more grace than the prophets, speaks of baptism where there is not only
remission of sins, but also justification.[29]
Pelagius's Romans commentary came down to the
medieval commentators in an interpolated version attributed to Jerome.[30]
According to pseudo-Jerome/Pelagius, what is repented
of is not retained, and what is covered does not appear, and thus is never
imputed. He then distinguishes between the three words. Some say sins are forgiven through baptism, covered by works of penance, and not
imputed through martyrdom. Others say that, having forgiven sins through
baptism, one must increase in charity towards God which will then cover a
multitude of sins, so that henceforth they are not imputed, while by daily good
works past evils are overcome.[31]
He does not himself opt for one reading or the other.
Gregory the Great (540-604), commenting
on Psalm 31, seems to have influenced future Romans commentators when he made
the case that the iniquities forgiven are the 'original iniquities' cleansed
through baptism; while the sins covered are those 'actual sins' which occur
after baptism. Like Origen, he also says that sins are covered when one superimposes good works upon the evil.[32]
Haimo likely has Gregory's comments in mind
when he says that "Happy are those whose iniquities are forgiven,"
refers to all sins (peccata)
forgiven in baptism, while "those whose sins are covered," refers to
those forgiven through penance after baptism. He may also be following Gregory
and/or Origen when he notes that a thing is covered when it is not seen, and in that sense we hide
our sins when superimposing the good works of righteousness upon evil deeds by
way of a worthy penance. Haimo points out that some authors say that iniquity (iniquitas) refers to what comes
before the law, while sin (peccatum) refers to what comes after; or that iniquity
belongs to thoughts and sin to deeds. And then, likely
appealing to Origen's comments on Romans 4:15 (see
below), he notes that some others say that iniquity is committed against the
law and sin against nature and conscience. But Haimo seems reluctant to follow this strict divide and
observes that one term is very often substituted for the other.[33]
Atto observes that the Psalmist is speaking
of three things here: to forgive iniquities, cover sins, and not impute sin. He
notes that some say iniquities are forgiven through penitence
and not imputed in martyrdom. But one must
remember, says Atto, that the text does not say, 'in
whom sins are not found,' but rather: 'whose sins are covered.' Thus he chooses
to follow Gregory's position that sins can be covered not only through
confession, but by superimposing good works, such that God will not notice
them, which is to say that he will not punish them. This is what the Psalmist
meant when he said: "Turn away your face from my
sins (Ps 50:11)." And we should believe that all
this occurs in baptism, for there can be no greater happiness than to labor
free from penitence and attain the remission of all one's sins.[34]
For Bruno, the whole Psalm cited by Paul is meant to commend the grace of God, thus proving that no
one can be justified except through grace. Here the
In the Glossa Ordinaria the marginal gloss states that iniquities refer
to original sin (peccatum originale),
explicitly equated here with the fomes peccati, which can be called concupiscence, the law of
the members, or the weakness of nature. Here we also get a more thorough
treatment of the effects of baptism in relation to original sin. Prior to baptism there exists both guilt (culpa) and punishment (poena), while afterwards there is only punishment. The Gloss
informs the reader that it is called original sin
because it is contracted from the corrupt condition of our origin, and because
we are conceived under the corrupt law of concupiscence derived from the sin of
the first man.[36]
The Gloss will follow Ambrosiaster, though without
attribution, in delineating the three grades: the iniquitous failure to
acknowledge the creator, sins in works, and the lighter sins
which are not imputed.[37]
Abelard finds that Paul is speaking
generally here about both Jews and gentiles. He too will distinguish between
the various terms employed. Iniquity is forgiven when
its punishment (poena)
is pardoned through grace, which could otherwise have been exacted according to
justice. And this grace, says Abelard, is the
foundation upon which the salvific edifice is built. Sins are forgiven through
the tears of penitence when the sinner is reconciled to God and liberated from
the pains of gehenna.
Thereupon the sins are covered when satisfaction
follows penance in this lifetime, though this satisfaction may also be said to
extinguish the purgatorial pains of the age to come. Abelard ponders the change
in number from Beati quorum to Beatus vir. The Blessed Man is none other than
the man who is united to God in the one person of
Jesus Christ. He is the Blessed Man of Psalm 1:1 who does not stray into the
counsel of the wicked, having never contracted any debilitation from the
corruption of sin. Thus he is the one to whom the Lord imputes no sin, for he
was neither conceived in sin nor did he commit any sin. The blessedness
achieved can refer to the three classes of the saved: children saved in baptism
and saints through martyrdom; penitents who correct their sins through condign
satisfaction; and lastly the Savior alone. When Paul speaks of those whose
iniquities are forgiven he is referring to children
who, according to the Psalmist (Ps 50:7) are conceived in iniquity and yet are
saved from incurring the damnation of original sin. As for the others, they
have covered their past sins by the satisfaction of good works.[38]
Unlike the scholastic twelfth-century
commentators, William the Cistercian monk, is not interested in the question of
original sin here, and instead emphasizes that these verses speak to grace
apart from all merit; the remission of sins is freely given. Like Origen, he observes the order by which iniquities are first forgiven and then sins covered. In conversion there is the relinquishing of evil which merits
the remission of past evils; and thereupon the individual evils are covered
over by more and more good deeds. William will also follow Origen
in noting that iniquity is anomia in Greek, thus referring to what is against the law,
while sin is committed against nature.[39]
The other monastic commentator, Herveus, also avoids the whole question of original sin. He
too is content to follow Origen in saying that
iniquity refers to working against or outside the law, and so in Greek is called anomia. Sin, on the other hand, refers to working against
what nature teaches and lapsing from what conscience dictates. In this way iniquity pertains to the Jews and sin to the gentiles. Herveus admits, however, that in one sense iniquity could
also apply to the gentiles since they were without the law, and thus anomia. He
concludes that in baptism iniquities are forgiven,
meaning blotted out, and sins are covered, since they are no longer looked upon
with respect to punishment.[40]
For
Aquinas breaks sin down into three
categories: original sin, actual mortal sin and actual venial sin. The iniquity
refers to original sin because it is the lack of original righteousness. It was
through this equanimity that human reason was subjected
to God, the inferior powers of man subjected to his reason, and his body to the
soul. This equanimity is lost through original sin with the result that reason
is no longer subject to God, the lower powers rebel against reason, and the
body is led from obedience to the soul into corruption
and death. Original sin is said to be forgiven, says
Aquinas, in the sense that by grace it will not be punished, even though it
does remain throughout this life in the form of concupiscence. Actual mortal
sins are covered from the divine gaze such that God
does not see them to punish. And while venial sins are
light they still manage to keep people apart from God.[43]
Romans 4:11
"Et signum accepit circumcisionis signaculum
iustitae fidei quae est in praeputio."
This verse also bears repeating: "He
received the sign (signum)
of circumcision as a seal (signaculum) of the righteousness of faith which he had while
still uncircumcised." Origen drew what would become
a popular distinction between the sign and the seal. The sign refers to an
instance when one things appears and another is
indicated, an example being Christ's words about Jonah in Matthew 12:39, as
well as what Simeon said of Christ in Luke 2:34.[44]
Carnal circumcision, therefore, was a sign of spiritual circumcision. Something
is called a seal, however, when a protective guard is set in place in order to
preserve a thing for a period of time, and may not be
unsealed except the person who impressed it. Thus the
seal signified the righteousness of faith which Abraham deserved to receive
even when as yet uncircumcised, as well as the promise that he would be the
father of many nations. And this could only be
unsealed after the fullness of gentiles has come in and all
Ambrosiaster does not refer to Origen's
distinction, but he does note that
the power of circumcision has no dignity in itself, thus functioning only as a
sign. Believers are called to accept the sign so that
they might imitate the faith of Abraham.[46]
Nor does Pseudo-Jerome refer to Origen's distinction. He simply remarks that circumcision
is not superfluous, seeing as it is a sign of righteousness, though it cannot
increase it.[47]
We noted that Augustine never produced a really extensive exposition of Romans, and what he did
produce was not indicative of his more mature thought. Hence
his influence on later Romans commentators could be felt through separate
works. In fact, Augustine set the tone for much medieval commentary regarding
the purpose and effectiveness of circumcision when arguing for the reality of
original sin in his debate with the Pelagian bishop,
Julian of Eclanum. In his oft-quoted On Marriage and
Desire, Augustine asks how one accounts for the institution of circumcision on
the eighth day, the neglect of which is so severely punished (Gen
Other Church Fathers proved influential
on this subject as well, even as their remarks are not drawn
from Romans commentaries. Gregory established that what the water of baptism
does for Christians so among the ancient gentiles faith alone accomplished for children, and power of sacrifice for adults. For the race of
Abraham this was accomplished through mystery of
circumcision.[52]
In this vein, Bede would betray the influence of
Augustine, offering what became a classic means of distinguishing the relative
effectiveness of circumcision and baptism. In a homily written for the
celebration of Christ's circumcision (Lk 2:21) he
argued that circumcision was the cure for the wound of original sin during the
time of the Law, just as baptism is in the age of grace. And
yet because circumcision could not open the gates of heaven prior to
Christ's passion, the faithful Israelites would have to wait in peaceful
expectation for their entrance into glory. Moreover, he ties the strict
stipulations of the covenant in Genesis 17:14 to Christ's words to Nicodemus in
John 3:5 on the necessity of being born again through water and the Spirit.[53]
Thus each age had its initiatory sacrament which
proved a sine qua non for salvation.
As for the medieval commentators, Haimo (like Ambrosiaster) will
accept that circumcision is a sign of righteousness, but not a means of
increase. It is meant to signify the righteousness of Christ
which comes by faith. He also recites Origen's
position on the sign and the seal. And following
Augustine, he notes that it takes place on the eighth day, thereby signifying
the Lord's resurrection. It had to remain as a type and figure until it was truly completed with the coming of Christ, at which
point the seal of carnal circumcision under which it lay covered could be
wholly abolished.[54] Atto also recounts Origen's
distinction, noting that all the gentiles who follow in the footsteps of
Abraham's faith will becomes his sons, having been
circumcised in the heart rather than the flesh.[55]
Bruno does not cite Origen's position explicitly and
just notes that the seal, like the wax into which a seal is
imprinted, contains within it what does not outwardly appear. Thus the circumcision of the flesh was a sign of interior righteousness,
which few Jews would heed. The seal of the righteousness of faith is that
righteousness which comes through faith.[56]
The Glossa Ordinaria also follows Origen,
likely via Haimo, on the distinction between sign and
seal. Like Augustine, the eighth day signifies the end of the age when all the
oldness of guilt and punishment will be taken away.
The Gloss offers five reasons for the institution of circumcision: for the sake
of obedience; as a sign of Abraham's great faith; to differentiate the Israelites
from other nations; to demonstrate charity of mind and bodily modesty; and because there could be no better way to signify that
Christ removes original sin. That it occurs on the eighth day by means of a
stone knife signifies that eighth age when the elect will rise and all their
bodily and spiritual corruption will be cut away by Christ the rock (1 Cor
10:4). Moreover, this sacrament has a two-fold reality (res), namely the circumcision
from present sins and the removal of all corruption in the future. Like Bede, the Gloss notes that circumcision was the remedy for
original sin in its own time as baptism is now. And
following Gregory, baptism avails for Christians as sacrifices and faith did
for the gentiles, and circumcision for the Jews. As for the change of
sacraments, the Gloss contends that this occurred because baptism is more perfect, more common, more full of grace, and open to
women as well. Indeed, baptism not only forgives sins as circumcision does, but
also augments virtues by conferring cooperating grace.[57]
For Abelard, circumcision is a sign of
one thing and a seal of another. It is a sign of the carnal sons of Abraham and
a seal of the spiritual sons, since he is both father of Jews according to the
flesh and gentiles through faith. Abelard too recites Origen's
theory, though he is explicitly reliant upon Haimo's
commentary for it. He notes that a signaculum is like a sigillum
which is impressed upon a thing that it might be hidden, and so refers
to the invisible spiritual sons of Abraham who were yet to come. The sign of
circumcision is a sign of the carnal
Abelard has a good bit to say about
circumcision. He follows Augustine and Gregory in saying that circumcision was
for the ancients what baptism is for Christians.[59]
He accepts Bede's position that circumcision forgiven
the sins of the ancients, even as the gate of heaven remained closed. Likewise,
those who had been baptized with Christ's baptism
could not yet enter heaven prior to his passion. The circumcision of the flesh
is a sign of the interior circumcision of the soul, just as the washing of the
exterior baptism is a sign of the inner washing of the soul through the
remission of sins. He also notes the fittingness of choosing this bodily
member, since it is the means of transmitting sin to one's offspring. Following
the first transgression the woman was not afflicted
with a penalty like circumcision, for she would experience enough pain in her
genitals, through which sin is likewise transmitted. Hence the pain of
childbirth (Gen
Abelard then proceeds to tackle the
question as to whether infants who die before the eighth day would be damned
inasmuch as they have not yet received the commanded circumcision (Gen 17:4), nor
have had sacrifices offered on their behalf prior to the maternal purification
on the fortieth day. This was clearly a topic of much discussion at the time.
For his part, Abelard admits that it seems cruel to damn such children, seeing
as they are prohibited from being circumcised until
that eighth day. After all, the rite is obligatory and yet when they were in
fact ready to receive it they had to wait until the appointed time.
Nevertheless, Abelard points out that the Savior cannot institute anything which would stand in the way of salvation, nor
enervate a remedy which would benefit so many people. Here he draws a parallel
with the Christian sacrament of baptism, which underscores his rejection of the
so-called baptism by desire. Some people will have to go without baptism when
there is no water, since it was by water alone that the Lord instituted the
sacrament. And in this case they cannot be saved
unless martyrdom intervenes. Thus we enter the realm
of the divine mystery: God alone knows why he elects and why he reprobates and
would not allow the elect to die without the requisite sacrament. Based upon
the authority of Scripture, which we hold to be unshakeable, says Abelard, we
are not bold enough to assert that anyone of Abraham's seed was saved without
circumcision once it had been instituted, unless perhaps they were killed on
behalf of the Lord, as with the Holy Innocents (Matt 2:16-18). This would only
apply to the seed of Abraham, however, since some of the faithful gentiles who
lived after the institution of circumcision, though before the coming of
Christ, died uncircumcised and yet were saved. By the
rites of sacrifice which Job offered up for his sons their actual and original
sin was expiated (Job 1:5), and so too for Abel and Noah (Rom
To better grasp
Abelard's position a word should be said about his rather controversial view on
the effects of the Fall dealt with in the context of Romans 5:12-19. For
Abelard, sin strictly speaking means guilt (culpa); while more broadly it can mean punishment (poena). Thus,
when reading the Latin of Romans
William follows Augustine in holding that all the righteous ancients were
justified by the very same faith in Christ. While Christians believe in what
was past, the faithful Hebrews believed in what was to come, revealed as it was
to them by the Holy Spirit so that they might be saved.
He notes that the circumcision of Abraham, like Christian baptism, was suited
for its time, a seal of faith signifying the circumcision of the heart or the
cleansing of one's conscience. Yet as the circumcised beget the uncircumcised
and the baptized the unbaptized, so both sorts of
parents transmit original sin (vitium originis). As such, were anyone to be
saved he would require circumcision then just as one now needs baptism.
William also recites Origen's position on the sign
and the seal.[64]
Like Augustine, the
Aquinas incorporates Origen's
reading without mentioning him. But he does not draw
the distinction between the signum and the signaculum so
clearly as Origen and the other medieval
commentators. He notes that circumcision is called a signaculum for two reasons. In the first place it
is like an expressed signum
which has a likeness to the thing signified (Ezek 28:12). Thus
circumcision had such a likeness to the faith of Abraham, first with respect to
the thing believed; for as he believed in the multiplication of his seed, so it
is fitting that he would receive the sign in the member of generation. Second,
it pertains to the effect of this faith, which is the removal of guilt
signified by the removal of the superfluous foreskin. But
it is also called a signaculum
because it is a signum
of something now hidden which will be revealed later to friends. Closed up
under the seal of circumcision was the secret of Christ's incarnation from the
seed of Abraham.[68]
Like the rest of the ceremonial law,
circumcision was instituted for two reasons, says Aquinas. And
here we see the sort of precise classifications typical of thirteenth-century
scholasticism, though the contents are not really new. First
of all, it was instituted for the sake of divine worship to which
ceremonies of this sort dispose people. There is then a sub-class of three
reasons for circumcision, the first of which being that it signifies the faith
and obedience by which Abraham subjected himself to God, such that those who
accepted that circumcision would observe that same faith and obedience. That is
why it was done in his generative member so as to
signify the faith he had in his future offspring. Second, it expresses in a
bodily sign what must be done spiritually. For just as from the member of generation, which principally serves
concupiscence, the superfluous foreskin is cut
off, so the superfluous concupiscence is removed from the human heart. Third,
it was through this sign that the people who worshipped God would be
distinguished from all the rest. The second main reason for circumcision, and
all the other ceremonial rites, is that it functions in comparison to Christ as
a figure is compared to truth, and a shadow to the body (Col 2:17). And so it is that bodily circumcision signifies the
spiritual circumcision that must take place through Christ. Secondly, it
signifies the resurrected body of the elect from whom passibility
and mortality will be removed. Following Augustine,
that it took place on the eighth day signifies the eighth age of the
resurrection, for in the seventh age they rest in Christ. And
finally, the stone knife signified that the spiritual circumcision
occurs through Christ the rock (1 Cor 10:4).[69]
Aquinas approvingly cites Bede via the Glossa Ordinaria that circumcision provided the assistance against
the wound of original sin in the time of the law, just as baptism does now in
the age of grace.[70] But he notes that some (Peter Lombard) say grace was not
conferred in circumcision. For the grace of God cannot abide
without righteousness, and if righteousness were through the law then Christ
died in vain (Gal
Romans 4:15
"Lex enim iram operatur, ubi enim non est lex nec
praevaricatio."
We have seen that Origen's
comments on Romans
For Haimo this
verse can be taken in two ways. It can mean that where
there is no natural law there is no transgression of this law. Or it could be that where there is no Mosaic law, then even
if someone sins (peccet)
there is still no transgression (praevaricatio); nor is it imputed to him who does not have
this law. Hence where precepts of the law exist there
is an occasion for transgression, and where there is transgression then greater
the wrath of God. And yet it can also mean that where there is no Evangelical
Law, as among the pagans, there is no transgression, although they were still
not immune from the wrath of God, since they could know the creator through the
created order (Rom 1:20). Along these lines, Haimo
accepts the idea that there was no transgression among the gentiles who lived
without the law of Moses.[74]
The Glossa Ordinaria follows Ambrosiaster in
saying that the law works wrath in rendering delinquents guilty, yet notes that
this is not because it is the efficient cause of wrath, but rather because it
cannot provide the assistance of grace. The Gloss also follows Origen in saying that there can only be transgression where
there is law. Paul does not say there is no iniquity, since every iniquitous
person does indeed fail to keep the law. And while it
is true that those people who did not receive the law can be called iniquitous,
they cannot be called transgressors.[75]
Abelard too says this refers to those who did not receive the legal precepts,
and specifically notes that praevaricatio means transgressio. These people incur no guilt, seeing as they do not voluntarily obey such precepts.[76]
William reckons transgression to be a double sin. Without the law there is simply sin (peccatum). But
within the confines of the law there is sin as well as transgression of the
commandment, and so wrath falls upon the transgressor. As such, there can be no
inheritance from the law seeing as it only brings wrath.[77]
Aquinas points out that some might think
that the wrath which the law works applies to
observation of the ceremonial law during the time of grace (Gal 5:1-6). But, he says, it may also apply to the moral law; not that
precepts of the moral law command anything that would bring down the wrath of
God upon those who worthily observe it, but because it does not furnish the
grace to fulfill what it commands (2 Cor 3:6). For it is the
Spirit which helps our inner weakness. What Paul means is that, although
someone who has not received the law could sin (peccare) by doing something
contrary to what is naturally just, he is a not a transgressor unless he
specifically transgresses the law. Yet every sinner can be
called a transgressor if he transgresses the natural law. And because it is more serious to transgress the natural and
written law than the law of nature alone, so when the law was given without
assisting grace it increased transgression, thereby prompting greater wrath.[80]
Romans
4:18
"Qui contra spem in spem credidit ut fieret pater multarum gentium secundum quod dictum est