Export a Citation 
Print View
hide main text 
show main text 
hide table of contents
show table of contents
previous
Fourth Distinction. Fourth Part. About Equal or Unequal Reception of the Thing and not the Sacrament, and about Conferring Baptism in Doubtful Cases
Question One. Whether All the Baptized Receive the Effect of Baptism Equally
138. Lastly, I ask whether all the baptized receive the effect of baptism equally.
139. That they do:
Because the effect of baptism depends on the conferrer more than on the receiver, just as effects universally depend more on the efficient cause than on the material cause. It is also apparent in the matter at hand, because a more perfect intention is required in the minister than in the recipient, and this is only so because baptism depends more on him than on the receiver. But an inequality of ministers does nothing for inequality of baptism’s effect; therefore, much more does an inequality of receivers not do so; and consequently there is no cause for inequality in this effect of baptism.
140. On the contrary:
“The acts of active things are in what undergoes and is disposed,” On the Soul 2.2.414a11-12; therefore, an effect is received more perfectly in what is more disposed; therefore etc.
I. To the Question
141. I reply:
Some distinguish between the effect that is thing and sacrament, which is called the character, and the effect that is thing only.
142. But there has not yet been discussion of the first effect [sc. character], but it will be had in d.6 nn.187-278. The question therefore is about the second.
A. Opinion of Others and its Rejection
143. And it is said [Alexander of Hales, William of Melitona, Richard of Middleton] that baptism has several effects of the sort, yet in a certain order, because it has causing grace and remitting the tinder [of original sin] and the like; but it is plain that the tinder is remitted equally in all the baptized.
144. But this claim is not true unless it be understood in a sane way; because the tinder, since it is in the flesh or in some bodily power, cannot be diminished formally by grace, which is in the soul, because there is no formal repugnance between it and grace, since they are not of a nature to come to be in the same subject; but the tinder is said to be diminished as to the effect that it was accustomed to cause in the soul, namely sin; for according as grace is increased, the tinder has less efficacy in inclining to sin.
145. Let a suitable example be taken about a small stone tied to the wings of an eagle; because if the motive power of the wing were to grow it would, however much it grew, never diminish the weight of the stone (because they are not opposites nor in the same subject); yet the weight of the stone would be diminished as to its effect; for the more the power in the wing is greater, the more the stone impedes less the ascending or flying of the eagle.
B. Scotus’ own Opinion
146. So therefore, by positing only one effect of baptism, namely grace, I respond to the question that, since for the effect of baptism there is concurrent the principal cause (namely God), and the meritorious cause (namely the passion of Christ), and the one receiving baptism himself, equality or inequality can be considered on the part of each of these.
1. About the Effect of Baptism Flowing Forth from the Principal Cause
147. As concerns God, who determines himself to cooperate with this sign through the effect signified, and who therein institutes this sign in idea of certain sign (as was said above, d. 1 nn.192-193) - there can in some way be a difference, in some way not.
148. For he made disposition to confer, as a matter of rule, some grace by this sign, such that he confer a lesser grace on no one; and this grace can be said to be conferred by virtue of baptism, because conferred by the truth of this sign; and just as, with respect to this degree [of grace], the universal determination is uniform, so is the effect equal.
149. However, because God has predestined diverse of the elect to diverse degrees of glory (and this before the determination of this sign for conferring in baptism such and such an amount of grace), and because a greater grace can rationally be conferred on someone ordered to greater glory - God could, in determining the truth or certitude of this sign, make disposition to confer on some recipient precisely the grace that is required for the certitude of the sign, and to confer a greater grace on someone whom he predestined to greater glory. But that nobler degree [of grace] would not be conferred by virtue of baptism but by a special divine benevolence.
150. Because of this, therefore, it can be said that the effect given by virtue of baptism on the part of the principal cause is equal, and also that as a matter of rule the effect by virtue of baptism is equal, because the supposition is that, by common law, the first grace is not given greater without any difference beyond the principal cause.
2. About the Effect of Baptism Flowing Forth from the Meritorious Cause
151. About the second [n.146] it can be said that this meritorious cause can more efficaciously work for grace in one person than in another, either because this cause was offered, as to the intention of the offerer, more specially for one than for another, or because, as to its execution, it was offered for one in fact, for another only in divine foresight [n.153].
152. In the first way, as Christ is commonly posited to know everything that God knows by the knowledge of vision [Ord. III d.14 nn.25-27], and as consequently he knows all the elect and for what degree of glory they have been elected, he therefore could make a special offer of his passion for those destined to greater glory, and especially as he offered himself for the human race for this purpose that divine predestination be fulfilled in them [cf. Scotus, Lectura III d.20 nn.36-39].
153. In the second way the passion of Christ was more effectively operating for us, who are in the Law of the Gospel, than for the fathers in the Law of Moses, because an obedience performed is accepted for giving a greater good in return than is an obedience foreseen. And in this second way there is inequality in those who receive grace by circumcision and those by baptism, because of the unequal application to them of the meritorious cause, and perhaps also [there is inequality] in those who were baptized before the passion and those after the passion.
154. But whether in the first way (namely because of a more special oblation in the will of Christ [n.151]), there is inequality of grace in some even of the non-baptized, is doubtful in fact, but the possibility has been shown.
3. About the Effect of Baptism Flowing Forth from the Receivers
155. About the third [n.146] I say that the baptized are children or adults.
156. Comparing child with child, since they have no motion proper, they therefore also on their own part have no inequality as to receiving grace.
157. However there can be in the parents of one child a greater motion than in the parents of another for their little one, or in some other things ministering to or assisting the baptism - and because of the merits of these parents God can confer on one of the little ones a greater grace than on the other, but this not by virtue of baptism but by virtue of merit. And in this way perhaps the parents of Blessed Nicholas merited for him by their prayers a greater grace, which was in him, even as a child, a principle of so marvelous an effect that in two days in one week he rested content with only a single breast feeding.25 And in this regard it is more to be desired that a boy is baptized by a good priest than a bad one, because the prayers of a good priest (of which prayers he makes many before and after baptism) are heard more and avail more for him for whom they are made than do the prayers of a bad priest.
158. But if the baptized be adults, since they could by their own motion be unequally disposed, and since in the sacrament grace is conferred according to the proportion of the disposition in the receiver, there follows an unequal effect.
159. But if you compare a child with an adult, a child as a rule has no merit; an adult, however slight a will he may have, provided however he consent to receive the sacrament and does not put an obstacle in the way, seems to have some proper merit, and to this extent he is more disposed than a child is; therefore etc.
160. But let it be that an adult, for the whole time of his baptism, is sinning venially, it seems that he is indisposed in some way; but a child has no indisposition; therefore in that case the child will receive a greater grace.
161. I reply: venial sin does not prevent grace being infused, nor even prevent possessing a meritorious act at the same time; yet because the soul cannot be equally perfectly intent at the same time on several acts, the good act, with which the venial sin is concurrent, is less intense, and therefore less meritorious than it would be if it were without that venial sin. As to the matter at hand, the consequence is that if an adult does not put the obstacle of mortal sin in the way and is consenting to the reception of baptism, he has a motion (which a child lacks) somehow disposing him, notwithstanding that he has a venial sin at the same time.
II. To the Initial Argument
162. To the argument [n.139] I say that baptism depends more on the minister as to its being a sacrament, because intention in him is simply requisite, not so in the receiver, because he cannot use reason; but as to a greater or lesser effect in the one baptized being received, baptism depends more on the disposition of the receiver.
Question Two. What is to be Done about an Exposed Child
163. Following on from these are certain questions plain without arguments.
First, what is to be done about an exposed child.
164. And I say that either certain signs are found on him that he is not baptized, in the way working women have been wont to put salt with him, as with those who have to be carried to baptism; and then he is to be baptized absolutely without any hesitation. Or no such sign is found with him, and yet because such a sign cannot be had about him from the vicinity, nor a testimony worthy of belief, that he is baptized, then he is to be baptized; however it is safer to use the form from Decretals III tit. 42 ch.2, Gregory IX, ‘About baptism and its effect’ [“Let those, about whom there is doubt whether they have been baptized, be baptized with these words as preface, ‘If you are not yet baptized, I baptize you etc.’”].
165. And of this case Pope Leo [the Great] speaks, Gratian p.3 ‘On Consecration’ d.4 ch.113, “Those about whom,” he says, “no marks are discernible among those nearby or in the vicinity whereby they may be shown to have been baptized, one must act so that they be reborn, lest they perish; and because no outward bearing appears in them, reason does not permit [the baptism] to seem to have been reiterated.”
Question Three. Whether the Children of Jews and Infidels are to be Baptized against their Parents’ Wishes
166. About the children of Jews and Infidels, whether they are to be baptized against their parents’ wishes.
I. Opinion of Others and Rejection of It
167. It is said that they are not to be baptized, because either they would be returned to the parents and their baptism would be to the reproach of the Christian faith since they would afterwards be nourished by their parents in their parents’ error; or they would not be returned, and then an injury would be done to them, because parents have right over them while they are children.
168. But this reason, though perhaps it might be conclusive about some private person (because a private person could not rightly take children from such parents and baptize them), does not however seem conclusive about a prince, to whom, in rule of the republic, such parents are subject. For the Lord has greater right of lordship over a child than the parents do; for in the case of ordered powers universally, a lower power is not binding in things that are against a superior power, as Augustine teaches, On the Words of the Lord, sermon 62 ch.8 n.13 (and it is in Lombard’s text, Sent. II d.44 ch.2 n.2), “If a power commands that which you ought not do, surely despise here that power, fearing a higher Power;” and he gives an example about a procurator, and a proconsul, and an emperor. Therefore, he who has to rule a republic should compel everyone to be more subject to the superior lord than to the inferior one - indeed to be subject to the superior with contempt of the inferior when the inferior in such lordship resists the superior. Just as, if an emperor should decree that someone must obey the proconsul, to the contempt of the precept of the procurator, that is, of one inferior to the proconsul if he were contradict the proconsul - so too, if there were ordered lordships under the same lord, namely that someone were servant of Titius and Titius of Peter, the emperor should compel the servant rather to serve Peter (because Peter is superior to Titius) than to serve Titius if Titius wanted to use the servant against the lordship of Peter. Therefore, the prince should most of all be zealous for keeping the lordship of the supreme Lord, namely God.
169. And consequently the prince not only may but also should take children from the lordship of parents who want to educate them against the cult of God, who is the supreme and most honorable Lord; and he should attach them to the divine cult.
II. Scotus’ own Opinion
170. I say briefly therefore that if the prince were to do this with good precaution, namely lest the parents (knowing that this was in the future) were to kill the children, and that he would make the baptized to be educated religiously - it would be done well. Indeed, what is more, I would believe it religiously done if the parents themselves were compelled by threats and terrors to receive baptism, and to keep afterwards what they had received, because let it be that they would not all be truly faithful in their heart, yet it would be less bad for them not to be able with impunity to keep their illicit law than to be able to keep it freely. Again their sons, if they were well educated, would be in the third and fourth generation truly faithful.
171. If you say that, according to the prophecy of Isaiah, 10.21-22 (which Paul repeats to Romans, 9.27), “a remnant of Israel will be converted in the end,” and therefore the Jews should not be wholly compelled to receive baptism and to leave their own Law - I respond: I do not doubt but that the prophecy of Christ is true, which Christ states in John 5.13, “I have come in the name of my Father and you have not received me; if another come in his own name, him you will receive.” Therefore at least from the word of Christ they are going to have to be made perverse, because they will adhere to that most evil Antichrist, whom Christ’s aforesaid statement was about.
172. And if you say that, when they have seen Antichrist’s destruction, those who adhered to Antichrist will be converted - I say that for those who are so few and so tardily to be converted (because the fruit for the Church will be slight and there will be no propagation from them of sons in the Christian Law), there is no need for so many Jews, in so many parts of the world, to persist in retaining their Law for so great a length of time; but it would be sufficient for some few, sequestered in some island, to be permitted to keep their law, and about them the prophecy of Isaiah would at length be fulfilled.
173. Now this point about infidel parents being compelled by threats and terrors [n.170] seems proved because the Council of Toledo, referred to above [n.74], commends the like thing saying, “Those who long ago were compelled to Christianity, as was done in the times of the most religious prince Sisebut;26” therefore in this the Council approves of him as a religious prince, because he compelled the infidels to the faith.27