II. Solution of the Question

145. On this supposition, then, that baptism is true and reasonable [nn.133-144], one needs to see first whether the receiving of baptism was simply necessary, and second whether by it circumcision was voided.

A. Whether the Receiving of Baptism was Simply Necessary

146. As to the first point [n.145] I say that the institution preceded the promulgation; for a law is not promulgated unless it is first determined by the legislator so as to be fixed (and this determination can be called institution), and also unless it be revealed to someone as to solemn herald (and that, if he [the legislator] wanted it to be promulgated through a herald).

147. About this institution I say two things:

First that, before this institution, it was not simply necessary to be baptized, which is plain from John 15.22, “If I had not come and not spoken to them, they would not have sin.” From this statement I take this proposition, that ‘no one is held to any divine precept unless it be promulgated through someone suitable and authorized, or comes from true report and the testimony of good men, which anyone rationally ought to believe’; and I understand this of positive law, which is not known interiorly in the heart. Therefore, by this institution alone, preceding promulgation, the people were not by necessity obligated to baptism, and this especially about the precept, because it was a positive precept only. Now the positive precept, about circumcision, that preceded it, did not at once have to be dismissed (from the fact that it was certain it had been instituted by God) unless there were certitude also that the second precept [sc. about baptism] had been given by God. And this certitude about the second precept could not have been had without an authoritative promulgation.

148. Second I say that the promulgation of this sacrament could have been set down as double: one by way of counsel, another by way of precept.

149. Now the fact that it was first promulgated by way of counsel was fitting for two reasons: First because the Law of the Gospel, which is most perfect, should not be hastily imposed, but men should be attracted to it first while it still fell under counsel, so that, after they were practiced in it, it might be imposed under precept. Second, because the Old Law was not bad the way idolatry is, and therefore should not be rejected suddenly (for then it would have been rejected as if something evil), but the Synagogue had to be buried with honor, so it might be shown to have been good for its time.

150. Now the imposition of baptism by way of precept [n.148] was a voiding of circumcision, at least as to the necessity of it. But promulgation by way of precept had at some point to follow, because otherwise this Law [of baptism] would never have fixity or necessity, at least as regards the sacrament.

151. And one should in general note that the promulgation made about divine counsel does oblige as to not despising it; for he who despises the counsel despises the one giving the counsel insofar as he gives counsel; and therefore he who does not wish to keep the divine evangelical counsel, as if despising it as irrational and fruitless, sins mortally. Hence let those who attack evangelical poverty see to it lest, if they do not wish to keep it (because it is not necessary), it happen that, by despising and belittling it, they despise Christ who urged to its observance as meritorious and useful for eternal life (as is contained in the sixth book of the Decretals 5 tit.12 ch.3, ‘On the Signification of Words’ [Nicholas III, 1279]).

But promulgation by way of precept obliges, not only to not despising it, but also to observing it if it is positive, or to guarding against it if it is negative.

152. Now I have said this about divine counsel and precept because it is otherwise with human ones, even when speaking of the counsel and precept of a superior or a prelate. For it is licit to despise both a precept and a counsel of some superior, that is, to judge it irrational and fruitless, but it is not licit, while he is a prelate, to despise it by not observing it, because it is said in Matthew 23.2-3, “For the Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat; therefore keep and do whatever they tell you, but do not do according to their works; for they say and do not do.”

153. The proof of this (about despising the precept or counsel of a superior) is that we are not necessarily bound to have a true opinion about one’s superior, but his advice or precept can be in itself irrational and fruitless; and then one must work rationally and usefully for its revocation, and for the correction and admonition of such a prelate, who is giving precepts fatuously. However, a subordinate is not bound to repudiate the prelate’s precept as a mortal sin, or to repudiate it as irrational and fruitless, but he can think the opposite about it, the way it is, and despise it by not approving of it.

154. It is thus plain, therefore, that the first obligation of baptism, the one by way of counsel, has obligated everyone not to despise it. But the second obligation, the one by way of precept, has obligated everyone to the reception of it to whom it has legitimately come.

B. Whether Circumcision was Voided by Baptism

1. Opinion of Others

a. Exposition of the Opinion

155. About the second main point [n.145], namely whether circumcision was voided by the fact that reception of baptism was simply necessary [n.154], the response is made that the time when baptism fell under counsel was from the first publication of it to the passion of Christ, and this did not void circumcision, not even as to its necessity. For during that time it was necessary for a Jew to circumcise his child, because that law was not yet revoked, as neither was the other imposed.

156. But from the time of the passion to the time of the publication of the Gospel, circumcision was licit but not necessary nor useful, because the obligations of the Law were fulfilled in the death of Christ. This is proved from the verse in John 19.30: when, with death imminent, Christ said, “It is finished.” And if it be asked what for a child of a Jew there was as remedy against original sin from Christ’s passion up to the publication of the Gospel, the response is that it was not circumcision but the faith of the parents, as in the time of the law of nature.

157. But in the third time, after the publication of the Gospel, circumcision was death dealing, and for this time Paul says Galatians 5.2, “If you are circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.”

b. Rejection of the Opinion

158. Against the first of these [n.155] the argument is as follows: if a precept when imposed totally revokes something else, then counsel or admonishment about it makes that something else non-necessary. The reason is that where something whose act when prescribed is prohibition of the act of something else, there the counseling of its act is a license not to observe the act of that something else. Therefore, if precept about baptism was prohibition of circumcision (as to its fruit), then counsel about baptism rendered circumcision non-necessary.

159. There is a confirmation of this, that if some Jew before the Passion had, at the preaching of Christ or St. Peter, baptized his child and not circumcised him, then that child, had he died, would have been saved, because he received grace in baptism; for baptism conferred grace from its first institution.

160. But if you say that it is true baptism would have been sufficient for the child but the father would have sinned in not circumcising him - on the contrary: because he was able to circumcise his son before the eighth day, and from the fact he already had a remedy against original sin, and the father believed this (for he believed baptism to be efficacious for it), then it seems he was not necessarily bound to make provision from the other remedy for his child.

161. Against the second [n.156], which is asserted about the time between the passion of Christ and the promulgation of the Gospel, I argue as follows, that no one is differently disposed as to some law save because he has it differently promulgated to him; but after the passion of Christ, before the Apostles were preaching baptism, baptism was not promulgated to the people differently than it was before the passion; therefore no one was obligated to baptism after the passion differently than before, and so neither was he differently disposed as to circumcision

162. Again, the precepts get their power of obligating and of remedying and curing from the same source; the fact is plain from Bede in his Homily on John 3.5: “unless a man will have been born again” (and it is put in Lombard’s text, IV d.1 ch.10), “He who is now terribly and salubriously exclaiming, ‘Unless a man will have...’ (and ‘terribly’ is said by Bede because of the strictness of the obligation, and ‘salubriously’ because of the efficacy of the remedy), he was exclaiming before through the Law, Genesis 17.14, ‘A male child the flesh of whose foreskin is not circumcised, his soul will perish from the people.’” But circumcision retains its obligatory power until it be authentically revoked; therefore by the same fact it had the power of providing remedy until that revocation. But by Christ’s death alone it was not revoked differently than before, as is plain from the preceding reason [n.161], because no law was promulgated to anyone differently than before.

163. Again after the death of Christ until the time of promulgation the Jews were bound to circumcise their children, because they did not in any way have certainty about the revocation of circumcision. Now no one imposed circumcision on his child save as to its being useful and necessary for him for salvation, because he was bound to put hope in circumcision just as he did before; so ‘was he bound necessarily to have a false opinion about circumcision?’ - which amounts to saying nothing, because God deceives no one nor does he obligate anyone necessarily to deceive.

164. Again, man was never left without a remedy that was certain and a remedy about which he would not be certain that the remedy was certain; but the time after the passion before the publication [of baptism], there was no new certain remedy given to them, because neither was it promulgated to them; therefore, the remedy remained the same as before and was equally certain; therefore circumcision remained equally as before.

165. Against the third [n.157], which is asserted of the time after the publication of the Gospel, the passage in Acts 21.15-26 is plain, where it is read about Paul that he went up to Jerusalem, and there, on the advice of James and the other brothers (after the fourth synod held in JerusalemThe four synods, according to Bede Retraction concerning the Acts of Apostles 21.25, are first when Matthias was chosen to replace Judas among the Twelve (Acts 1), second when seven were chosen to be deacons (Acts 6), third about not imposing circumcision on the believing Gentiles (Acts 15), fourth about not preventing the believing Jews from performing the ceremonies of the Old Law (Acts 21). ¹⁹), he was purified according to the Law and went up to the temple and offered sacrifice for himself. And it is plain from Acts 21.20 how solemnly the Gospel had been published there, “See how many thousands of men in Judea have believed and all are zealous for the Law.” Therefore, while so great a publication of the Gospel is going on there, observance of the Law in Paul himself and among the converted Jews is approved of; and in the same place Paul himself among so many Christians accomplished a work of the Law.

166. Now the time when this purification and offering of Paul according to the Law will have been carried out can be conjectured partly from the way Acts proceeds, and partly from the Master of the Histories [Petrus Comestor, School History, chs.97-113]. For it was before the arrest of Paul seven days later, as is plain in Acts 21.27. Now this arrest was about the beginning of the reign of Nero, because Paul came to Rome in the third year of Nero, according to the Master of the Histories; and Nero began to reign about the twentieth year after the passion of Christ [54 AD, October 3, Tacitus Annals 12.69]. Now it seems that in so great a time the Gospel was sufficiently made public, and especially in Judea, where however Paul was observing the Law’s provisions.

2. Scotus’ own Opinion

a. About the Times of Baptism and Circumcision, and of their Interconnections

167. As concerns this article then [n.155], I say that in baptism there is need to distinguish two times only: a time when it was under counsel, and another when it was under precept.

168. The first time lasted from the beginning, from when the Gospel or baptism was preached by Christ or through the Apostles, up to the solemn and authentic preaching of the same after the ascension of Christ; such that the first time does not obtain, through Christ’s death or after it, any difference for the sole reason that the time ran differently afterwards than before.

169. Now the second time, as I believe, began on the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem, because up to that time the Apostles did not teach publicly, according to the word of Christ, “Now you remain in the city until you are clothed with power from on high” [Luke 24.49]. But on the day of Pentecost, after the Holy Spirit had been sent, the Apostles did preach publicly, “and on that day were added around three thousand souls” and were baptized (Acts 2.41), and from then on, as to other cities in order, the second time for each place or nation was when the Law of the Gospel was preached there publicly and solemnly - such that the second time did not begin at once for everyone whatever but “from Sion went forth the Law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem,” according to Isaiah 2.3. And for some the second time began a month after Pentecost, and for others a year, for others four years, in the way it was preached to them, and so on continually.

170. But as concerns circumcision I distinguish four times: for the first time it was necessary; for the second it was useful and not necessary; for the third neither useful nor necessary, though licit; for the fourth altogether illicit and death dealing.

171. The first time of circumcision preceded both times of baptism.

172. The second time of circumcision accompanied the first time of baptism for (as argued previously, nn.158-160), as soon as baptism was counseled, circumcision was not necessary for him who wanted to be baptized, but both then ran together under disjunction as either/or, so that a Jew might choose whichever of them; for it was licit and it profited him to be circumcised if he wanted (for circumcision was not then revoked as to utility or as to liceity); it was also licit for him, indeed it was laudable, to be baptized. And this is fitting enough, because in the intermediate time between the two Laws, when the first was not immediately taken away nor the second imposed, at that time, I say, they ran together under disjunction as either/or.

173. Now the third time of circumcision ran with the second time of baptism; and this ran, as concerns the Jews, up to the time of Paul’s purification, which was argued about before [nn.165-166]. Nay, it is likely that it ran well beyond that time, because at the time of Paul’s purification the brothers in Jerusalem seemed to be approving of the observance of the Law and to be consulting Paul about it [Acts. 21.20-25].

174. But as concerns the Gentile converts to the faith, the second time of baptism and the fourth of circumcision ran together, at least after fourteen years or thereabout from the passion of Christ [Galatians 2.1, Comestor History on Acts ch.77], namely when Paul went up to Jerusalem to the elders on the question about which is Acts 15, where first Peter alleges the case of Cornelius (on which is Acts 10), and then James “as bishop of Jerusalem gave his opinion” (according to Comestor, Master of the Histories), saying [15.19-20], “I judge that we trouble not at all those who are converted to God and that we write to them to abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.”

175. Of these four things, two, namely to abstain from sacrifices to idols and from fornication, are necessary, and so they needed especially to be written about to them, because the Gentiles worried little about these things. The two others, namely abstaining from things strangled and from blood, were not necessary but they were well suited for the converted Gentiles to abstain from, lest those Gentile nations be abominable to the Jews (just as it well becomes man in society to abstain from certain things that are abominable to his fellows, though they are not simply illicit).

176. Therefore, the second time of baptism from its beginning altogether made circumcision illicit as far as concerns the converted Gentiles, or at least it did so after the time of the third council in Jerusalem [nn.165 fn.], just now touched on [n.174], about which the elders decreed, in the fourteenth or fifteenth year after the passion of Christ, that the Law should not be imposed on the converted Gentiles. But as concerns the converted Jews, the second time of baptism did neither from its beginning nor after the third council of the Apostles altogether exclude circumcision as illicit, or other provisions of the [Old] Law, but these were licitly observed for a long time afterwards.

b. About the Ways in which Peter and Paul conducted themselves in the Presence of Convert Jews and Gentiles

177. If you object that Paul resisted Peter in Antioch, as he writes to the Galatians 2.11-14, “When Cephas had come to Antioch I resisted him to his face, because he was to blame,” and he adds the cause, “For before certain people had come from James, Peter was eating with the Gentiles; but when they had come he withdrew and separated himself from them, in fear of those who were of the circumcision, and the rest of the Jews consented to his pretense.” And the rebuke follows in the same place, “If you, though you are a Jew, live as the Gentiles and not as a Jew, how do you compel the Gentiles to behave like Jews?” Now this was not long after the third council in Jerusalem, according to the Master of the Histories, because “in the fourth year of Claudius [45AD] Peter came to Rome,” and on the way to Rome, when he passed through Antioch, these things happened. But this was sufficiently quickly after the aforesaid council, which was in the fourteenth or fifteenth year after the passion of Christ.If Christ’s passion was 33AD then 14 or 15 years later would be 47 or 48AD, which does not fit Scotus’ earlier remark from Comestor about the year, 45AD, when Peter came to Rome after passing through Antioch. If Christ’s passion was 30AD then the date from Comestor of Peter’s arrival in Rome fits better. ²⁰

178. I reply that about this deed of Peter there seemed to be a controversy between two exceptional Apostles, Peter and Paul, and afterwards between two famous masters, Augustine and Jerome [Augustine epistle 82 to Jerome, Jerome epistle 112 to Augustine]. Saving the reverence of the others, I hold with Paul and Augustine. For although the Apostles could err in the acts or words that they said as men, yet no Apostle or Prophet in any way erred insofar as he was writer of any part of Scripture. Because, according to Augustine in his epistle 40 to Jerome (and it is in Gratian Decretum p.1 d.9 ch.7), “If there were to be any lie admixed in the divine Scriptures, however small or useful, nothing remains in them of solid truth whereby an adversary may be convinced; for whatever were alleged against him, he will reply that it was falsely said, humorously or usefully, as the other remark is which is conceded to have been falsely said.” Hence Augustine says, “For only to these books, which are called ‘canonical’, have I learnt to give this reverence, that I should believe most firmly that none of them erred in the writing.”

179. Since therefore Paul in his letter to the Galatians, which is part of canonical Scripture, writes this, “I resisted him, because he was to blame,” and he adds, “But when I saw that he was not walking rightly as regard the truth of the Gospel” - it is necessary to say that these words are simply true, or the authority of the whole Scripture is taken away.

180. One must ask, therefore, what the sense is of these words so as to make them true:

For it cannot be said that Peter was then to blame because he was then keeping the Law, for Paul too after that event circumcised Timothy [Acts. 16.3]. For the deed [of Peter] took place shortly after the third council, while Barnabas was still present with Paul in Antioch after their return from Jerusalem (as the Master of the Histories says), namely when Peter, heading toward Rome, passed through Antioch [n.177]. Now Paul circumcised Timothy after his separation from Barnabas, namely when, after taking Silas, he proceeded to visit the brothers whom he had before preached to, as is plain in Acts 16.

Also, a good ten years after that time Paul was purified according to the Law, and the whole converted multitude in Judea was observing the Law, Acts 21.

Nor does it seem that Peter was to blame because he was observing the Law in this way, namely in separating his food, because this too was not more death dealing than other provisions of the Law, namely purification and the like.

181. Either, then, Peter will be said to have been to blame because he was observing the Law in that act, by removing himself from the Gentiles in food and drink -and that this was not to be done seems to have been said to him before by God, Acts 10.13-15 about Cornelius. Or Peter will be said to have been to blame because, while not observant of the Law previously in this regard before the Gentiles, he was observant of it in this regard afterwards, when the Jews came up [to Antioch].

182. And both of these answers could be posited in several ways.

For the first [n.181] could be said to be blameworthy:

Because “to whatever Church you come, conform yourself to it,” Ambrose says to Augustine [Augustine, To the Queries of Januarius I ch.2 n.3; Gratian Decretum p.1 d.12 ch.11]; therefore, in the Church of the Gentiles it was blameworthy not to conform oneself to their manner of living.

183. Or because in this Peter was giving occasion to the Gentiles for observing the Law, either showing in deed as it were that this was necessary, or at least necessary for this purpose, so that converts from among the Jews would want to communicate with the Gentiles (and inferiors often would cause some difficulties so as not be excluded from communion with superiors).

184. And to this understanding [nn.182-183] Paul’s rebuke in Galatians 2.11-14 [n.179] could be referred, “You are compelling the Gentiles to Judaize,” either by showing them with example that it would be simply necessary for them to keep the Law, or by showing them that it would be necessary for them in order to be worthy of communion with the faithful Jews, or that, by imitating the examples of the ancestors, it would be at least more praiseworthy for them than would be the opposite.

185. The second too [n.181] can be understood:

Either because Peter was engaging in pretense, not reckoning in his heart that this was to be done, namely what he did in his body; for from the first deed that he did, in the absence of the messengers from James, it appeared that he did not feel that one should keep apart from Gentile converts to the faith; and in the second deed he showed that one should do so. And to this understanding can be referred the statement of Paul that “the others consented to his pretense,” Galatians 2.13.

186. Or the second answer [nn.181, 185] could be said to be blameworthy because Peter did not use a prelate’s authority; for since he was superior to the messengers from James, he should rather himself hold firmly in deed to the truth and lead them to his own rightness than to be turned, because of fear of them, to that which was pleasing or more acceptable to them; and such yielding or timidity of a prelate is for a time blameworthy.

187. And to this understanding [nn.185-186] can be referred what Paul says, “[Peter] separated himself from them, fearing those of the circumcision” [Galatians 2.12]. For there was really no fear there, because it was simply licit for Jews not to keep the Law, and especially when they were among Gentiles; and this Peter ought to have shown by his example to the messengers as to his inferiors.

188. About each of these four [deeds, nn.182-183, 185-186] there could be discussion as to how and how much it was blameworthy; and provided the words of Paul in Scripture could be saved [Galatians 3.1-29], it is better to say that, whichever of them was there the case, it was venial rather than mortal.

189. And the sin cannot be excused because Peter did this to avoid scandal to the Jews, since there would not be matter of scandal there, whether for the perfect or for children, but only for Pharisees; and one should not care about that scandal, as Christ teaches in Matthew 15.12-14, to whom when the disciples had said, “You know that when they heard this word the Pharisees were scandalized,” namely eating without washing of hands, he replied, “for what enters into the mouth does not defile a man;” Caring not about the scandal, he said “let them alone, they are blind, leaders of the blind.” Now such would have been the scandal here, because no one should be scandalized because of the kind of act, unless he is thinking badly of Gospel freedom.

190. Nor can Paul for such reason (about avoiding scandal) be excused in circumcising Timothy, or in purifying himself [n.180], because nothing illicit is to be done for the sake of avoiding any scandal whatever. Hence Gregory IX Decretals V tit. 41 ch.3, about the rules of right, ‘He who is scandalized’, says, “More usefully is a scandal permitted than a truth given up.” At least this is true for truth of life always and at all times in the case of negative precepts, and in the case of affirmative precepts for the time when they are to be fulfilled.

191. Briefly, then, Paul among the Jews licitly kept the precepts of the Law, even a long time after the third council; and this was licit provided however he himself put no hope in them, although it was not useful or necessary. But among the Gentiles he conformed himself to the Gentiles, because it was licit for him not to keep [the precepts of the Law] during the second time of baptism.

192. And Peter in Jerusalem did not sin in keeping the Law, because it was licit then also for a Jew to keep the Law among Jews. Now in Antioch, among Gentile converts, he did not sin in not keeping the Law; but in conforming himself to them in food and drink he did not sin; for it was possible for him not to keep the Law. But he did sin afterwards in separating himself from them in food and drink - because of one of the four reasons previously stated [nn.182-187], so as to keep and save the words of Paul [n.188].

c. About the Definitive Revocation of Circumcision

193. And if you ask when circumcision was simply illicit even for convert Jews, I reply that we do not have that time in canonical Scripture, because Scripture’s history does not take the Church beyond the fifth year of Nero [59AD], namely not beyond the thirtieth year from the passion of Christ; and in all that time too the convert Jews were observing the Law, because it was licit for them.

194. Nor do I believe that up to the overthrow of Jerusalem was observance omitted, or up to the dispersion of the Jews, with convert Gentiles among Jews; for then they began perhaps to conform themselves to the Gentiles among whom they were dispersed; and in this way observance little by little ceased even among them.

195. Or it can be said in another way that, through the Apostles or their successors at a determinate time, God simply prohibited the precepts of the Law from being kept, although we do not have anything in Scripture about this because Scripture’s history does not last up to that time. But it is probable, because the Church now holds it a heresy to say that the legal precepts are current with Gospel Law, as is contained in Gregory IX Decretals III tit.42 ch.3, ‘About baptism and its effect,’ where Innocent III says, “Far be it that we should fall into that damned heresy, which wrongly affirms that the Law is to be kept along with the Gospel, and circumcision along with baptism.”

196. Now it does not seem that the Church would judge this a heresy from the mere omission of it by Jews not keeping the Law (through some necessity of dispersion or the like), but it seems that this was because of some revocation simply done by God.

3. To the Arguments for the Opinion of Others

197. To the arguments made for the preceding opinion:

To the first [n.155], when it is said that circumcision was not revoked before the death of Christ, I say that it is true: not revoked so as to be useless (as if useless and illicit), but revoked, that is relaxed, so as no longer to be necessary, because counsel about another remedy [baptism] relaxed the precept about the prior one [circumcision]; for from the fact that the second was a remedy simply and was being counselled, it was licit - nay it was laudably licit - not to use the prior remedy against the same.

198. To the argument about John 19.30, “it is consummated” [n.156], I say that this is understood of the things that were written about the Son of man, according to Luke 18.31, “Behold we go up to Jerusalem and all things will be consummated that are written about the Son of man through the prophets.” Or if this be referred to the Old Law, the consummating must be understood thus, ‘it is consummated in its cause’, because the death of Christ was the cause of the confirmation or the consummation of the Law of the Gospel. But that Law was not consummated or confirmed as necessary for observance before the public preaching of it, which did not begin at the passion but on the day of Pentecost. For in the time between the disciples sat in the upper room [Acts 2.2], preaching to no one solemnly and publicly, or not yet