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.