Annotation CCXXXII

”For circumcision profits indeed, if thou keep the law.” — Romans 2:25

Whether circumcision confers grace.

Chrysostom, in the seventh homily on the epistle to the Romans, makes this passage plain by such an exposition: “IT WAS ALLOWED to Paul to exclude circumcision otherwise, and to say: ‘What is circumcision? Is it [any] merit of him who has had it? Is it [any] demonstration of a good mind and purpose? For indeed it is done in an immature age; and [those] who lived in the wilderness remained uncircumcised for many years; and from other [sources], by many arguments, it can be shown that it is not very necessary.’ Nevertheless, he does not repudiate it from that [argument], but from where it most behooved [him] — namely, from Abraham himself. For this is an excellent victory: to show [a thing] easily to be contemned from that [source] whence it seemed chiefly to be venerated. Although he could also have said that the Jews too are called ‘uncircumcised’ by the prophets. But this is not yet a fault of circumcision, but of him who has it [only] by [outward] desert. But what is sought is this: namely, that it be shown [that circumcision] has no force even in the best life. This, therefore, he now sets about [to prove].” Lucian the Monk, in the Annotations upon Chrysostom condemned by the Council of Trent, gathers from these words that Chrysostom was of the opinion that circumcision brought no grace to the circumcised, and profited them nothing toward salvation. He also inveighs against the scholastics, because they determine otherwise about this article. But in what way the sayings of Chrysostom are to be understood, we admonished above, Annotation 96 of book 5.