John Duns Scotus, O.F.M. (Doctor Subtilis, c. 1266–1308) was a Franciscan friar, philosopher, and theologian whose Quaestiones on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, together with his Reportata Parisiensia, constitute the principal monuments of his scholastic thought. The passages below are drawn from the critical Vivès edition of his Opera Omnia (Paris, 1891–1895) and pertain to four interlocking theological themes: the supersession of the Mosaic ceremonial law by the New Covenant; the Jewish act of the Crucifixion and its moral character; the Mosaic concession to Jewish hard-heartedness; and the mystical reprobation of the Synagogue. The passages are quoted in the original Latin of the Vivès edition and translated into English. Where Scotus is transmitting the argument of a prior authority (e.g., Augustine, Chrysostom), this is noted.
I. Supersessionism: The Mosaic Ceremonial Law as Shadow Superseded by Truth
1. Four epochs of Circumcision — from necessary to deadly
Source: Quaestiones in Librum Quartum Sententiarum, Dist. III, Quaestio IV
Opera Omnia, Tomus XVI (Vivès, Paris, 1894), pp. 53180–53200 (OCR lines)
“Sed quantum ad Circumcisionem, distinctio quatuor tempora. Pro primo erat necessaria; pro secundo utilis, non necessaria; pro tertio nec utilis, nec necessaria, tamen licita; pro quarto omnino illicita et mortifera.”
Translation:
“But as regards Circumcision, a distinction of four periods [must be drawn]. In the first it was necessary; in the second, useful but not necessary; in the third, neither useful nor necessary, yet still lawful; in the fourth, altogether unlawful and deadly.”
2. The ceremonies remain only in their signified realities: the shadow has passed, truth has succeeded
Source: Quaestiones in Librum Quartum Sententiarum, Dist. III, Quaestio IV
Opera Omnia, Tomus XVI (Vivès, Paris, 1894), lines 55118–55165
“Cæremonialia autem non manent in se, sed in suis significatis, quia umbra transiit, et veritas successit. Omnes enim illæ purificationes significabant purificationem a peccato, et illæ oblationes figurabant oblationem perfectam Christi, et actus quosdam latriæ, fidei, spei et charitatis in Deum; et hæc sunt completa, hostia illa jam oblata, et per eam peccatis purgatis, et mentibus in cultum Dei directis. Dico ergo, quod non venit solvere legem, vel Circumcisionem, quantum ad fructum, ad quem erat instituta, imo perfecit eam, copiosius remedium et longe perfectius instituendo.”
Translation:
“The ceremonial observances, however, do not remain in themselves, but in their signified realities, because the shadow has passed away and truth has succeeded. For all those purifications signified purification from sin, and those oblations prefigured the perfect oblation of Christ, and certain acts of worship, faith, hope, and charity toward God; and these things are now completed, that sacrifice having been offered, and by it sins having been purged, and minds directed to the worship of God. I say therefore that He came not to dissolve the Law, or Circumcision, as regards the fruit for which it was instituted; nay rather He perfected it, by establishing a more copious and far more perfect remedy.”
3. The Jewish error regarding the Messiah: an earthly kingdom expected, a spiritual one given
Source: Quaestiones in Librum Quartum Sententiarum, Dist. III, Quaestio IV
Opera Omnia, Tomus XVI (Vivès, Paris, 1894), lines 30428–30455
“[Judæi] nullam aliam admittebant redemptionem, aut necessitatem ejus. Messiam expectabant ut instructorem et Doctorem, et qui eos liberaret a servitute temporali, de qua intelligebant omnes promissiones redemptionis et libertatis a peccato, quas promittebat Scriptura fore per Messiam, sicut et regnum ejus fore temporale, et restaurationem regni Israel temporalis.”
Translation:
“[The Jews] admitted no other redemption, nor any need of it. They awaited the Messiah as a teacher and a doctor, and as one who would free them from temporal servitude — in terms of which they interpreted all the promises of redemption and freedom from sin that Scripture foretold would come through the Messiah — just as they expected His kingdom to be a temporal one, and a restoration of the temporal kingdom of Israel.”
4. Circumcision declared pestiferous and unlawful after the death of Christ
Source: Reportata Parisiensia, Liber IV, Dist. III, Quaestio IV
Opera Omnia, Tomus XXIII (Vivès, Paris, 1894), lines 65140–65155
“Contra illud etiam, quod dicitur quod post passionem Christi erat Circumcisio pestifera et illicita … Circumcisio fuit omnino illicita et pestifera post mortem Christi.”
Translation:
“Against that which is said — that after the Passion of Christ Circumcision was pestiferous and unlawful … Circumcision was altogether unlawful and pestiferous after the death of Christ.”
5. The Mosaic Law designated by the Levite and the Priest who passed by: its impotence to heal
Source: Quaestiones in Librum Quartum Sententiarum, Dist. I (Commentary, Prologue)
Opera Omnia, Tomus XVI (Vivès, Paris, 1894), lines 1038–1055
“Per Levitam et Sacerdotem, qui jacentem ei sauciatum præterierunt, designatur lex Mosaica, ejusque infirmitas ad sanandum hominem a peccato … Samaritanus autem veniens, qui curam ejus gessit, intelligitur Filius Dei, quando venit plenitudo temporis missus a Patre misericordiarum ad homines, ut Judæos, qui sub lege erant, redimeret, et Gentes, quæ non sectabantur justitiam, justitiam apprehenderent, atque omnes adoptionem filiorum Dei recuperarent.”
Translation:
“By the Levite and the Priest who passed by the wounded man lying there is designated the Mosaic Law, and its impotence to heal man from sin … The Samaritan, however, who came and took care of him, is understood to be the Son of God, when the fullness of time came and He was sent by the Father of mercies to men, to redeem the Jews who were under the Law, and that the Gentiles who did not pursue justice might lay hold of justice, and that all might recover the adoption of sons of God.”
II. The Passion: The Jews Acted with Wicked Will
Source: Quaestiones in Primum Librum Sententiarum, Dist. XLVII, Quaestio unica
Opera Omnia, Tomus X (Vivès, Paris, 1893), lines 86493–86650
6. God’s good will fulfilled through the Jews‘ wicked will
“Illud quoque non est prætermittendum, quod aliquando Dei voluntas bona per malam hominis voluntatem impletur, ut in crucifixione Christi factum est, quem Deus bona voluntate mori voluit; Judæi vero impia voluntate eum crucifixerunt. Et volebant Judæi mala voluntate quiddam, quod Deus bona voluntate volebat, scilicet ut Christus pateretur et moreretur; sed volebant et aliquid aliud, quod Deus non volebat, scilicet occidere Christum, quod fuit mala actio et peccatum. Actum quippe Judæorum non voluit Deus, passionem vero Christi voluit.”
Translation:
“Nor must the following be passed over: that sometimes God’s good will is fulfilled through the evil will of man, as happened in the Crucifixion of Christ, whom God willed to die by His good will, while the Jews crucified Him with wicked will. And the Jews willed with evil will a certain thing which God willed with good will — namely, that Christ should suffer and die; but they also willed something else which God did not will — namely, to kill Christ, which was an evil action and a sin. God did not will the action of the Jews; He did will the Passion of Christ.”
7. The whole Trinity willed the Passion; God did not will the Jews‘ killing
“Voluit itaque tota Trinitas, ut Christus pateretur, nec tamen voluit, ut Judæi occiderent; quia voluit pœnam Christi, sed non voluit culpam Judæorum, nec tamen noluit; si enim noluisset, nec fuisset.”
Translation:
“The whole Trinity, therefore, willed that Christ should suffer; yet it did not will that the Jews should kill — for it willed the punishment of Christ but did not will the guilt of the Jews, nor yet did it refuse it; for had it refused it, it would not have come to pass.”
8. The distinction: God willed the Passion inflicted by the Jews, not the Jews‘ act of killing
“Cum autem dicitur: volebat, eum pati vel occidi a Judæis; hic distinguendum est. Si enim intelligitur sic: volebat, eum sustinere passionem sive crucifixionem a Judæis illatam, verus est sensus; si vero intelligitur sic: volebat, ut Judæi occiderent eum, falsum est. Non enim volebat Deus actionem Judæorum, quæ mala erat, sed volebat passionem bonam; et hæc voluntas per malas Judæorum voluntates impleta est.”
Translation:
“But when it is said that He willed Him to suffer or to be killed by the Jews, a distinction must be drawn here. If it is understood thus — that He willed Him to endure the Passion or crucifixion inflicted by the Jews — the sense is true; but if it is understood thus — that He willed the Jews to kill Him — it is false. For God did not will the action of the Jews, which was evil, but willed the good Passion; and this will was fulfilled through the evil wills of the Jews.”
9. Transmitting Augustine: God’s good will fulfilled through wicked Jews
Scotus here cites Augustine’s Enchiridion (c. 101) in his own exposition:
“Augustinus in Enchiridio: ‘Deus quasdam voluntates suas utique bonas implet per malorum hominum voluntates malas, sicut per malevolos Judæos bona voluntate Patris Christus pro nobis occisus est; quod tantum bonum fuit, ut Apostolus Petrus, quando id fieri nolebat, Satanas ab ipso qui occisus est, diceretur.'”
Translation:
“Augustine in the Enchiridion: ‘God fulfils certain of His wills — assuredly good ones — through the evil wills of evil men, just as through the malevolent Jews, by the good will of the Father, Christ was slain for us; which was so great a good that the Apostle Peter, when he was unwilling for it to be done, was called Satan by Him who was slain.'”
III. Jewish Hard-heartedness: Moses’ Concession to a Ferocious People
Source: Quaestiones in Librum Quartum Sententiarum, Dist. XXXIII, Quaestio III
Opera Omnia, Tomus XIX (Vivès, Paris, 1894), lines 55218–55270
10. The Law condescended to Jewish ferocity
“Nam sicut Judæi erant duri cordis, et ad vindictam et sanguinem prompti, ideo lex etiam condescendit infirmitati eorum, decernens medium justitiæ servandæ, ut oculum pro oculo, dentem pro dente, et hujusmodi, ne ex privata auctoritate hæc attentarentur cum excessu, sed ex publica legis auctoritate in judicialibus medium servaretur commodum refrægenandæ libidini et ferocitati illius populi, et justum modum figeret, ne ultio ad majorem injuriam redundaret, quam fuit accepta injuria.”
Translation:
“For just as the Jews were hard of heart, and swift to vengeance and bloodshed, the Law also condescended to their weakness, ordaining a mean for the preserving of justice — an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and the like — lest these things be attempted with excess on private authority, but that through the public authority of the Law a useful mean be kept in judicial matters for restraining the licentiousness and ferocity of that people, and that a just measure be fixed, lest vengeance overflow into a greater injury than the injury received.”
Here Scotus cites Augustine (Contra Faustum, lib. XIX, cap. 25):
“ut optime declarat Augustinus lib. 19. contra Faustum, cap. 25. Sed duro populo, inquit, modus prius adhibendus fuit, quo discerent non egredi debitum.”
Translation:
“…as Augustine excellently declares in Contra Faustum, lib. 19, ch. 25: ‘But to a hard people, a measure had first to be applied, by which they might learn not to exceed what was owed.'”
11. God dispensed with the indissolubility of marriage on account of Jewish hard-heartedness
“[Deus] dispensavit in hoc … ad majus malum evitandum, propter duritiam cordis Judæorum; minus enim malum est Reipublicæ et uxori, ut solvi possit matrimonium, quam ut occideretur.”
Translation:
“[God] granted a dispensation in this … to avoid a greater evil, on account of the hard-heartedness of the Jews; for it is a lesser evil to the commonwealth and to the wife that marriage can be dissolved than that she be killed.”
IV. The Synagogue‘s Reprobation: The Union with Christ Dissolved
Source: Quaestiones in Librum Quartum Sententiarum, Dist. XXXIII, Quaestio III
Opera Omnia, Tomus XIX (Vivès, Paris, 1894), lines 54642–54670
12. The bill of divorce prefigured the repudiation of the Synagogue
“Quod si ad congruentiam ex significatione mystica recurrere libet, quoniam matrimonium significat unionem Christi cum Ecclesia indissolubilem; quæ unio ejus cum Synagoga ex reprobatione illius populi erat solvenda; sic etiam interpretari licet præfiguratam fuisse in illo libello repudii, et antiquandas fore figuras ejus, adveniente veritate, quam ipsi non erant recepturi.”
Translation:
“But if it is permitted to have recourse to the aptness derived from mystical signification: since marriage signifies the indissoluble union of Christ with the Church, whereas His union with the Synagogue was to be dissolved by reason of the reprobation of that people — so also it is permitted to interpret the bill of divorce as having prefigured this, and that its figures were to be abolished when the truth arrived, which they themselves were not going to receive.”
V. The Infidelity of the Jews Foreknown but not Caused by God
Source: Quaestiones in Primum Librum Sententiarum, Dist. XLVII
Opera Omnia, Tomus X (Vivès, Paris, 1893), lines 67201–67230
13. God foreknew Jewish unbelief but did not cause it
“Præscivit enim Deus et prædixit etiam quæ non est ipse facturus, sicut præscivit et prædixit infidelitatem Judæorum, sed non fecit. Nec ideo quia præscivit, ad peccandum coegit; peccatum infidelitatis eos non coegit, nec præscisset vel prædixisset eorum mala, nisi essent ea habituri.”
Translation:
“For God foreknew and also foretold those things which He Himself was not going to do, just as He foreknew and foretold the unbelief of the Jews — but He did not cause it. Nor did He compel them to sin because He foreknew it; the sin of unbelief did not compel them; nor would He have foreknown or foretold their evils, had they not been going to have them.”
Notes on Attribution and Text
The passages above are drawn from the Vivès edition (Opera Omnia, Paris, 1891–1895), which reprints the earlier Wadding edition (1639) with corrections. This edition interleaves Scotus’s own textus (the continuous commentary on the Sentences) with later scholiast notes and Scholia by commentators such as Antonio Hickey, O.F.M. (†1641). In the passages above, care has been taken to quote from sections clearly marked as Scotus’s own textus and not from later commentary. Readers wishing to consult the critical modern Scotus edition (Opera Omnia, Vatican: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1950–) should note that it covers only the Ordinatio (Lib. I–III as of recent volumes) and does not yet extend to Lib. IV, where most of these passages appear.
The designation of the Opera Omnia on Internet Archive as sourced from the University of Toronto’s digitization program refers to the same Vivès edition used here.
VI. The Forced Baptism of Jewish Children: The Prince’s Authority Over Infidel Subjects
Source: Quaestiones in Librum Quartum Sententiarum, Dist. IV, Quaestio IX: “Utrum parvuli Judæorum et infidelium sint invitis parentibus baptizandi?” (“Whether the children of Jews and unbelievers are to be baptized against the will of their parents?”)
Opera Omnia, Tomus XVI (Vivès, Paris, 1894), lines 72237–72545
This is one of the most discussed passages in Scotus scholarship. Against the negative position of Thomas Aquinas and Richard of Middleton (who held that Jewish children under parental custody may not be baptized without parental consent), Scotus argues for the affirmative: a Christian Prince with lawful jurisdiction over Jewish subjects has not only the right but the duty to take their children for baptism. The scholiast notes explicitly: “Affirmativam partem docet Doctor cum limitatione superius adjecta, quem in præsenti quæstione sequuntur omnes ejus discipuli et Gabriel” — “The Doctor teaches the affirmative part with the limitation added above, and in this question all his disciples and [Gabriel Biel] follow him.”
14. Private persons cannot act — but a Prince may, and should
“Sed hæc ratio, licet forte concludat de quacumque persona privata, quod non posset parvulos a talibus auferre, nec juste baptizare, non videtur tamen concludere de Principe, cui in regimine reipublicæ tales sunt subditi. Nam in parvulo Deus habet majus jus dominii quam parentes; universaliter enim in potestatibus ordinatis, potestas inferior non obligat in his, quæ sunt contra superiorem … ergo maxime debet Princeps zelare pro dominio servando supremi Domini, scilicet Dei, et per consequens non solum licet, sed debet Princeps auferre parvulos a dominio parentum volentium eos educare contra cultum Dei, qui est supremus et honestissimus dominus, et debet eos applicare cultui divino.”
Translation:
“But this argument, though it perhaps concludes against any private person — that he could not lawfully take children from such parents or justly baptize them — nevertheless does not appear to conclude against a Prince, to whom such persons are subjects in the governance of the commonwealth. For in the case of a child, God has a greater right of lordship than the parents; for universally, in ordered powers, a lower power does not bind in those things which are against a higher … therefore the Prince ought above all to be zealous in preserving the lordship of the supreme Lord, namely God, and consequently it is not only lawful but the Prince ought to take children away from the authority of parents who wish to raise them against the worship of God — who is the supreme and most worthy Lord — and he ought to assign them to divine worship.”
15. Scotus’s own conclusion: it would be well done, including coercing the parents themselves
“Dico ergo breviter, quod si Princeps hoc faceret cum cautela bona, scilicet ne parentes prius cognoscentes hoc futurum, occiderent pueros suos, et quod baptizatos faceret religiose educari, bene fieret. Imo quod plus est, crederem religiose fieri si ipsi parentes cogerentur minis et terroribus ad suscipiendum Baptismum, et ad conservandum postea susceptum, quia esto quod ipsi non essent vere fideles in animo, tamen minus malum esset eis, non posse impune legem suam illicitam servare, quam posse eam libere servare. Item filii eorum, si bene educarentur in tertia et quarta progenie, essent vere fideles.”
Translation:
“I say therefore briefly: that if a Prince were to do this with proper caution — namely, that the parents, knowing what was coming, should not first kill their children, and that the baptized children should be raised in a religious manner — it would be well done. Indeed, what is more, I would believe it to be done piously if the parents themselves were coerced by threats and terrors into receiving Baptism and into preserving it afterward; for even if they were not truly faithful in their souls, it would nevertheless be a lesser evil for them to be unable to observe their unlawful law with impunity than to be able to observe it freely. Moreover, their children, if well educated in the third and fourth generation, would be truly faithful.”
16. The Isaiah prophecy objection answered: a remnant on an island suffices; the Jews‘ fruit for the Church is small
“Et si dicas quod secundum prophetiam Isaiæ, quam recitat Paulus Rom. 9. Reliquiæ Israel convertentur in fine; et ideo Judæos non oportet cogere totaliter ad Baptismum suscipiendum et relinquendum legem suam. Respondeo … Unde sufficeret aliquos paucos in aliqua insula sequestratos permitti legem suam servare, de quibus tandem illa prophetia Isaiæ impleretur … pro tam paucis, et sic tarde convertendis, non oporteret tot Judæos, in tot partibus mundi, tantis temporibus sustinere in lege sua persistere, quia paucus fructus de eis Ecclesiæ est, et erit modicus.”
Translation:
“And if you say that, according to the prophecy of Isaiah cited by Paul in Romans 9 — the remnant of Israel shall be converted at the end — and therefore the Jews need not be compelled entirely to receive Baptism and abandon their law. I reply … It would suffice to allow a few, sequestered on some island, to observe their law, from whom that prophecy of Isaiah might at length be fulfilled … For so few, converting so late, it would not be necessary to allow so many Jews, in so many parts of the world, to persist in their law for so long a time, since the fruit of them for the Church is small, and will be small.”
17. The scholiast’s summary of Scotus’s conclusion (Hickey, O.F.M.)
The commentary of Antonio Hickey, O.F.M. (†1641), included in the Vivès edition, summarizes Scotus’s position as follows:
“Principem posse invitis parentibus infidelibus subditis baptizari facere eorum parvulos, modo provideat ne majora mala inde sequantur; imo ipsi parentes forte minus inducendi essent ad professionem fidei, si circumstantiæ id utile suaderent in fidei favorem. Ratio, quia Princeps debet zelare pro dominio Dei, quod habet in parvulos ut baptizentur, et ei serviant, et compescere subditos abutentes suo subordinato dominio in contrarium … non tamen sub pœna mortis essent compellendi, sed bene pœna exilii vel mortis civilis; et sic intelligit Doctor.”
Translation:
“The Prince can have the children of his infidel subjects baptized against the will of their parents, provided he ensures that no greater evils follow therefrom; and indeed the parents themselves might perhaps more aptly be brought to profession of the faith, if circumstances made this advisable in favor of the faith. The reason: because the Prince ought to be zealous for God’s lordship, which He has over children that they be baptized and serve Him, and to restrain subjects who abuse their subordinate lordship to the contrary … they are not, however, to be compelled under pain of death, but well under pain of exile or civil death; and this is how the Doctor [Scotus] understands it.”
Editorial note: This question (Dist. IV, Qu. IX) is found in the Quaestiones in Lib. IV Sententiarum as transmitted via the Wadding–Vivès tradition. Some contemporary Scotus scholars (e.g., Wolter, O.F.M.) have questioned whether Scotus himself wrote the full argument as it appears here, or whether later editors expanded it; the critical Vatican edition has not yet reached this Distinctio. The passage is nonetheless regularly attributed to Scotus in the secondary literature and was historically received as his own position.
Sources
- John Duns Scotus — Internet Archive (University of Toronto digitization):
https://archive.org/search?query=creator%3A%22Duns+Scotus%2C+John%2C+ca.+1266-1308%22