Ordinatio

John Duns Scotus

Ordinatio

John Duns Scotus (1266–1308)

John Duns Scotus's Ordinatio (also called the Opus Oxoniense) is his revised, authorially prepared commentary on Peter Lombard's Sentences. Scotus began arranging it for publication around 1300 after lecturing at Oxford and continued revising material associated with Paris until his death in 1308; the work therefore remains unfinished and textually layered. Its disputations on God, creation, individuation, freedom, grace, and the Incarnation helped establish Scotism as a major alternative within late-medieval scholastic theology. Schola uses the Vatican critical-edition tradition for the Latin and a separately sourced English translation.

This work is being completed — add a section.

Prologus I: Prologus Totius Operis

Pars I: Pars 1 - On the Necessity of Revealed Doctrine

Quaestio I: Single Question: On the Necessity of Revealed Doctrine - Whether it be necessary for man in this present state for some doctrine to be supernaturally inspired

Articulus I: 1. Controversy between Philosophers and Theologians

Section I: A. Opinion of the Philosophers

Section II: B. Rejection of the Opinion of the Philosophers

Articulus II: II. Solution of the Question

Articulus III: III. About the Three Principal Reasons against the Philosophers

Articulus IV: IV. To the Arguments of the Philosophers

Articulus V: V. To the Principal Arguments

Pars II: Pars 2 - On the Sufficiency of Revealed Doctrine

Quaestio I: Single Question: On the Sufficiency of Revealed Doctrine Whether the supernatural knowledge necessary for the wayfarer is sufficiently handed on in Sacred Scripture.

Articulus I: I. On the Truth of Sacred Scripture

Articulus II: II. Principal Response to the Question

Articulus III: III. To the Principal Arguments

Pars III: Pars 3 - On the Object of Theology

Quaestio I: Question 1: Whether theology is about God as about its first object.

Quaestio II: Question 2: Whether Theology is about God under some Special Idea

Quaestio III: Question 3: Whether Theology is about All Things from the Attribution of them to its First Subject

Articulus I: I. Preliminary Remarks

Articulus II: II. About Necessary Theology

Section I: A. To the First Question, speaking of Theology in itself

  1. Ex dictis respondeo ad primam quaestionem. Et primo loquendo de theologia in se quantum ad veritates necessarias ipsius, dico quod primum obiectum theologiae in se non potest esse nisi Deus; quod probo per tres rationes. Prima accipitur ex ratione primi obiecti, et arguo sic: primum obiectum continet virtualiter omnes veritates illius habitus cuius est primum obiectum; nihil continet virtualiter omnes veritates theologicas nisi Deus; ergo etc. - Probatio minoris: nihil aliud continet eas ut causa sive ut illud ad quod habeant attributionem nisi Deus, quia Deus nulli alii attribuitur; nec aliquid continet eas ut effectus demonstratione quia, nam nullus effectus demonstrat Deum esse trinum, quod est potissime veritas theologica, et similia; igitur etc.

  2. Secundo sic: theologia est de his quae soli intellectui divino sunt naturaliter nota, igitur est de obiecto soliDeo naturaliter noto; sed solus Deus est sibi soli naturaliter notus; igitur etc. - Probatio primae propositionis: si ista scientia est de aliquibus alii intellectui naturaliter notis, igitur praeter illa, aliqua alia sunt cognoscibilia naturaliter soli intellectui divino, quia infinitus est, et ideo plurium cognoscitivus quam intellectus finitus; igitur adhuc erit alia scientia superior quam illa quae est de naturaliter notis intellectui creato. - Probatio minoris: omnis essentia creata alicui intellectui creato potest esse naturaliter nota; igitur sola essentia increata, soli intellectui increato.

  3. Tertio sic: in nulla scientia traditur ita distincta notitia sive cognitio de aliquo alio quod non est subiectum eius primum sicut traderetur in illa quae esset de illo ut de primo obiecto eius, quia in nulla scientia traditur ita distincta cognitio de non per se subiecto sicut de per se subiecto; tunc enim non esset ratio quare subiectum illud magis esset subiectum eius quam aliud. Igitur si Deus non sit hic subiectum, non traditur hic ita distincta cognitio de eo sicut traderetur in aliqua alia scientia in qua posset esse subiectum; potest autem esse subiectum in alia; ergo illa esset prior ista.

  4. Praeter istas tres rationes sunt aliae persuasiones. Prima talis: theologia secundum Augustinum De Trinitate XIII cap. 1 et libro XIV cap. 1 pro aliqua parte sui est sapientia, et pro aliqua parte sui est scientia; si autem esset de aliquo non aeterno formaliter, esset formaliter de illo scientia, et nullo modo sapientia, quia aeterna non attribuuntur temporalibus.

  5. Secunda persuasio est quod superior portio rationis aliquam habet perfectionem sibi correspondentem. Ista autem si est de subiecto non aeterno ut de primo subiecto, cum aeternum non attribuatur ad non aeternum, sequitur quod nullo modo est de aeternis, et ita nec perficit superiorem portionem rationis. Ergo esset aliquis habitus intellectualis nobilior isto perficiens illam portionem, quod est inconveniens.

  6. Tertia persuasio est, quia secundum Augustinum XIII De Trinitate cap. 9 vel XIV De Trinitate cap. 1 ista scientia est de illis quibus fides ((gignitur, defenditur et roboratur)), igitur ista est de eodem obiecto quod est primum obiectum fidei; sed fides est de veritate prima; igitur etc.

  7. Quarta persuasio est quod ((nobilissima scientia est circa nobilis simum genus)), ex VI Metaphysicae et I De anima; haec autem conceditur nobilissima; igitur oportet quod sit de Deo ut de obiecto.

Section II: B. To the Second Question, speaking of Theology in itself

  1. Ex his dictis respondeo ad secundam quaestionem. Ad cuius intellectum pono exemplum: homo intelligitur ut animal rationale, ut substantia, ut mansuetum, ut nobilissimum animalium. In primo intelligitur secundum rationem quiditativam propriam, in secundo in communi, in tertio per accidens, in passione, in quarto in respectu ad aliud. Sed perfectissima notitia de homine non potest esse in respectu ad aliud, quia respectus praesupponit notitiam absoluti; nec de homine sub ratione passionis, quia notitia passionis praesupponit notitiam sublecti; nec de homine in communi sive in universali, quia illa confusa est. Ergo nobilissima cognitio de homine est secundum rationem eius quiditativam. - Ita posset poni de Deo aliqua scientia sub ratione respectus ad extra, ut aliqui ponunt sub ratione reparatoris, glorificatoris, vel capitis Ecclesiae; vel posset poni de Deo aliqua scientia sub ratione aliqua attributali, quae est quasi passio, sicut aliqui ponunt de Deo sub ratione boni esse hanc scientiam; vel posset poni de Deo sub ratione communi et universali, ut entis, vel entis infiniti, vel necesse esse, vel alicuius talis.

  2. Contra istas omnes positiones arguitur. Primo contra illam de ratione communi, nam nullus conceptus communis dictus de Deo continet virtualiter omnes veritates proprie theologicas pertinentes ad pluralitatem personarum; nam si sic, cum illi communes conceptus naturaliter concipiantur a nobis, igitur propositiones immediatae de illis conceptibus possunt a nobis naturaliter cognosci et intelligi, et per illas propositiones immediatas possemus scire conclusiones, et ita totam theologiam naturaliter acquirere.

  3. Secundo, quia ex quo conceptus communes non sunt soli Deo naturaliter noti, ergo nec veritates inclusae in illis conceptibus communibus; theologia igitur si esset de Deo sub tali ratione communi, non esset soli Deo naturaliter nota, cuius oppositum ostensum est in prima quaestione.

  4. Contra aliam positionem de ratione attributali posset argui per easdem rationes, sed arguo tamen per alias speciales. Primo, quia cognitio eius secundum quod quid est est perfectissima secundum quod dicit Philosophus VII Metaphysicae; igitur cognitio istius essentiae est perfectior cognitio de Deo quam cognitio alicuius proprietatis attributalis, quae se habet ut passio huius naturae, secundum Damascenum libro I cap. 4.

  5. Secundo, quia si illae proprietates re differrent ab essentia, essentia esset realiter causa earum; igitur sicut differunt ratione, ita essentia de ratione sua habet rationem incausati, aliae autem licet propter identitatem cum essentia sint incausatae, non tamen secundum rationem formalem primo includunt incausationem sui.

  6. Tertio, quia illud secundum suam rationem propriam videtur esse actualius in se cui magis repugnat communicabilitas ad plura ad extra; sed essentiae de se repugnat communicabilitas ad plura ad extra, et nulli proprietati attributali, nisi quatenus est istius essentiae, vel idem isti essentiae in quantum infinitae. Si dicatur quod quaelibet proprietas est infinita, et ideo incommunicabilis, contra: infinitas illa est propter infinitatem et identitatem cum essentia sicut ex radice et fundamento omnis perfectionis intrinsecae.

  7. Contra etiam viam de respectibus ad extra potest sic argui sicut contra alias duas vias, sed facio rationes speciales. Primo, quia respectus ad extra est respectus rationis; sed scientia non considerans subiectum suum sub ratione reali non est realis, sicut nec logica est realis licet consideret de rebus ut eis attribuuntur intentiones secundae; igitur theologia non esset realis scientia, quod est falsum.

  8. Secundo, quia absolutum et respectus non faciunt aliquem unum conceptum per se; igitur conceptus aggregans ista duo in se est conceptus unus per accidens. Nulla scientia prima est de conceptu uno per accidens, quia talis praesupponit scientias de utraque parte; et ideo si scientia subalternata sit de aliquo uno per accidens, praesupponit duas scientias tractantes de partibus illius totius separatim. Igitur si theologia esset de tali uno per accidens, posset esse alia prior ea, quae esset de conceptu uno per se.

  9. Tertio: nullus respectus ad extra ostenditur Deo necessario convenire; igitur nihil theologicum necessario sibi conveniet ut est subiectum theologiae, quod est falsum. - Probatio consequentiae: quod convenit alicui sub ratione non necessario inhaerentis, non convenit ei necessario; sed omnis respectus ad extra est huiusmodi; ergo etc. Et ita nulla veritas theologica est necessaria. Et haec conclusio probatur per primam rationem et secundam positas ad primam quaestionem, scilicet de ratione primi subiecti et de notis soli Deo naturaliter.

  10. Concedo igitur quartum membrum, videlicet quod theologia est de Deo sub ratione qua scilicet est haec essentia, sicut perfectissima scientia de homine esset de homine si esset de eo secundum quod homo, non autem sub aliqua ratione universali vel accidentali.

Section III: C. To the First Question, speaking of Our Theology

  1. Ad primam quaestionem de theologia nostra dico quod quando habitus est in aliquo intellectu habens evidentiam ex obiecto, tunc primum obiectum illius habitus ut est illius non tantum continet virtualiter illum habitum, sed ut notum intellectui ipsi continet illum habitum ita quod notitia obiecti in isto intellectu continet evidentiam habitus ut in isto intellectu. In habitu vero non habente evidentiam ex obiecto sed causatam aliunde non oportet dare primum obiectum eius habere duas dictas eius condiciones; immo neutram oportet dare, quia perinde est habitui ut in hoc ac si esset de contingentibus, quae neutro modo habent obiectum primum. Tali igitur habitui non evidenti ex obiecto datur subiectum primum de aliquo primo noto, id est perfectissimo primo, id est cui immediate insunt veritates primae illius habitus. - Theologia nostra est habitus non habens evidentiam ex obiecto; et etiam illa quae est in nobis de theologicis necessariis non magis ut in nobis habet evidentiam ex obiecto cognito quam illa quae est de contingentibus; igitur theologiae nostrae ut nostra est non oportet dare nisi obiectum primum notum, de quo immediate cognoscantur primae veritates. Illud primum est ens infinitum, quia iste est conceptus perfectissimus quem possumus habere de illo quod est in se primum subiectum, quod tamen neutram praedictam condicionem habet, quia non continet virtualiter habitum nostrum in se, nec multo magis ut nobis notum continet ipsum habitum. Tamen quia theologia nostra de necessariis est de eisdem de quibus est theologia in se, ideo sibi assignatur primum obiectum quoad hoc quod est continere veritates in se, et hoc idem quod est primum subiectum theologiae in se; sed quia illud non est nobis evidens, ideo non est continens istas ut nobis notum, immo non est nobis notum. Cum igitur arguis 'ergo non est primum obiectum nostri habitus', respondeo: verum est quod non est primum obiectum dans evidentiam nobis, sed est primum subiectum continens omnes veritates in se, natum vel potens dare evidentiam sufficienter si ipsum cognosceretur. Haec dicta sunt ad quaestionem vel ad duas quaestiones de theologia necessariorum.

Articulus III: III. On Contingent Theology

Articulus IV: IV. On Christ as First Object

Articulus V: V. To the Principal Arguments of the First Question

Articulus VI: VI. To the principal Arguments of the Second Question

Articulus VII: VI. To the Third Question

Section I: A. Opinion of Others

Section II: B. Scotus’ own Response

Articulus VIII: VII. To the principal Arguments of the Third Question

Pars IV: Pars 4 - On Theology as a Science

Quaestio I: Questions 1 and 2 - Whether theology in itself is a science, and whether it is subalterning or subalternate

Articulus I: I. To the First Question

Articulus II: II. To the Second Question

Pars V: Pars 5 - On Theology insofar as it is a Practical Science

Quaestio I: Question 1 - Whether theology is a practical or a speculative science

Quaestio II: Question 2 - Whether a science is called practical per se from order to action as to its end

Articulus I: I. What Action [Praxis] is

Articulus II: II. How Practical Knowledge is Extended to Action

Articulus III: III. From what Source Knowledge has Extension to Action

Articulus IV: IV. To the Second Question

Articulus V: V. To the First Question

Section I: A. The Opinion of Others

Section II: B. Scotus’ own Opinion

Articulus VI: VI. To the Principal Arguments of the First Question.

Articulus VII: VII. To the Principal Arguments of the Second Question

Book 1

Distinctio I: First Distinction

Pars I: First Part - On the Object of Enjoyment

Quaestio I: Question 1: Whether the object of enjoyment per se is the ultimate end

Articulus I: I. To the Question

Tractatus I: II. To the Principal Arguments

Quaestio II: Question 2 - Whether the ultimate end has only the one idea of enjoyability

Articulus I: I. To the Question

Section I: A. On the Enjoyment of the Wayfarer as to its Possibility

Section II: B. On the Enjoyment of the Comprehender when Speaking of the Absolute Power of God

Section III: C. On the Enjoyment of the Comprehender when Speaking of the Power of the Creature

Section IV: D. On the Enjoyment of the Comprehender and of the Wayfarer when Speaking of the Fact

Articulus II: II. To the Arguments

Section I: A. To the Principal Arguments

Section II: B. To the Reasons for the Opposite

Pars II: Second Part - On Enjoying in Itself

Quaestio I: Question 1 - Whether enjoying is an act elicited by the will or a passion received in the will

Articulus I: I. To the Question

Articulus II: II. To the Principal Arguments

Quaestio II: Question 2 - Whether when the end has been apprehended by the intellect the will must necessarily enjoy it

Articulus I: I. To the Question

Section I: A. The Opinion of Others

Section II: B. Attack on the Opinion of Others

Section III: C. Scotus’ Own Opinion

Section IV: D. To the Arguments for the Opinion of Others

Articulus II: II. To the Principal Arguments

Pars III: On the Enjoyer

Quaestio I: Whether Enjoying Belongs to God

Quaestio II: Whether the Wayfarer Enjoys

Quaestio III: Whether the Sinner Enjoys

Quaestio IV: Whether the Brutes Enjoy

Quaestio V: Whether All Things Enjoy

Articulus I: I. To the Questions Together

Articulus II: II. To the Principal Arguments

Distinctio II: Second Distinction

Pars I: First Part - On the Existence of God and his Unity

Quaestio I: Question 1 - Whether among beings there is something existing actually infinite

Quaestio II: Question 2 - Whether something infinite is known self-evidently

Articulus I: I. To the Second Question

Articulus II: II. To the Principal Arguments of the Second Question

Articulus III: III. To the First Question

Section I: A. The Existence of the Relative Properties of an Infinite Being is Made Clear

Section II: B. The Existence of an Infinite Being is Made Clear

Subsection I: 1. Conclusions preliminary to infinity are proposed and demonstrated

Subsection II: 2. The infinity of God is proved directly

Articulus IV: IV. To the Principal Arguments of the First Question

Quaestio III: Question 3 - Whether there is only one God

Articulus I: I. To the Question

Tractatus I: II. To the Arguments

Section I: A. To the Arguments for the Other Opinion

Section II: B. To the Principal Arguments

Pars II: Second Part - On the Persons and Productions in God

Quaestio I: Question 1 - Whether there can be along with the unity of the divine essence a plurality of persons

Quaestio II: Question 2 - Whether there are only three persons in the divine essence

Quaestio III: Question 3 - Whether being Produced can Stand in Something along with the Divine Essence

Quaestio IV: Question 4 - Whether in the Divine Essence there are only Two Intrinsic Productions

Articulus I: I. To the Third Question

Section I: A. Scotus’ own Proofs

Section II: B. Proofs of Others

Articulus II: II. To the Principal Arguments of the Third Question

Articulus III: III. To the Fourth Question

Section I: A. The Opinion of Henry of Ghent is Expounded

Section II: B. The Opinion of Henry of Ghent is Rejected

Section III: C. Scotus’ Own Opinion

Section IV: D. Instances against the Solution

Articulus IV: IV. To the Principal Arguments of the Fourth Question

Articulus V: V. To the Second Question

Tractatus I: A. About the Produced Persons in Divine Reality

Section I: B. About the Sole Non-produced Person in Divine Reality

Articulus VI: VI. To the Principal Arguments of the Second Question

Articulus VII: VII. To the First Question

Section I: A. Declaration of Scotus’ Own Solution

Section II: B. On Formal Distinction or Non-Identity

Articulus VIII: VIII. To the Principal Arguments of the First Question

Distinctio III: Third Distinction

Pars I: First Part - About the Knowability of God

Quaestio I: Question 1 - Whether God is Naturally Knowable by the Intellect of the Wayfarer

Tractatus I: Question 2 - Whether God is the First Thing Naturally Known by Us in this State of Life

Articulus I: I. Clarification of the First Question

Articulus II: II. Opinion of Others as to Each Question

Articulus III: III. Scotus’ own Response to the First Question

Section I: A. A Quidditative Concept can be Had of God

Section II: B. About a Concept Univocal to God and Creatures

Section III: C. God Cannot be Known under his Proper Idea

Section IV: D. About the Concept of Infinite Being

Section V: E. God is Known through the Species of Creatures

Articulus IV: IV. To the Arguments of the First Question

Articulus V: V. Scotus’ own Response to the Second Question

Section I: A. About the Order of Origin of Intelligibles

Section II: B. About the Order of Perfection and Adequacy in Intelligibles

Articulus VI: VI. To the Arguments for the Second Question

Quaestio II: Question 3 - Whether God is the Natural First Object that is Adequate Relative to the Intellect of the Wayfarer

Quaestio III: Question 4 - Whether any Certain and Sincere Truth could Naturally be Known by the Intellect of the Wayfarer without a Special Illumining of Uncreated Light

Articulus I: I. Opinion of Henry

Articulus II: II. Attack on Henry’s Opinion and Solution of the Question

Section I: A. Against the Fundamental Reasons Adduced

Section II: B. Against the Opinion in Itself

Section III: C. Against the Fundamental Reasons insofar as they are Less Probative

Section IV: D. Against the Conclusion itself of the Opinion

Section V: E. Solution of the Question

Section VI: F. Once More Against the Fundamental Reasons Adduced

Articulus I: I. Opinion of Others

Section I: A. First Opinion

Section II: B. Second Opinion

Articulus II: II. To the Question

Section I: A. Of What Sort the Univocity of Being is and to What Things it Extends.

Section II: B. About the First Object of the Intellect

Section III: C. Arguments against the Univocity of Being and their Solution

Articulus III: III. About Other Transcendentals

Articulus IV: IV. Doubt about the First Object of the Intellect for this Present State

Articulus V: V. To the Initial Arguments

Pars II: Second Part - About the Vestige/Footprint

Quaestio I: Single Question - Whether in Every Creature there is a Vestige of the Trinity

Articulus I: I. To the Question

Section I: A. On the Idea of Footprint/Vestige

Subsection I: 1. Opinion of Others

Subsection II: 2. Against this Opinion

Subsection III: 3. Scotus’ own Opinion

Section II: B. About Ratification and Somesort-ness

Subsection I: 1. Opinion of Others

Subsection II: 2. Rejection of the Opinion

Sub-subsection I: a. A First Rejection of the Opinion

Sub-subsection II: b. Another Rejection of the Opinion

Subsection III: 3. Scotus’ own Opinion

Subsection IV: 4. To the Reasons for the Rejected Opinion

Section III: -

Articulus II: II. To the Initial Arguments

Pars III: Third Part - About the Image

Quaestio I: Question 1 - Whether in the Intellective Part Properly Taken there is a Memory that has an Intelligible Species Naturally Prior to the Act of Understanding

Articulus I: I. To the Question

Section I: A. The Opinion of Others

Section II: B. Scotus’ Response and his own Opinion

Subsection I: 1. Reasons on the Part of the Universality of the Object

Subsection II: 2. Reasons on the Part of the Presence of the Object

Subsection III: 3. Scotus’ Concluding Opinion

Subsection IV: 4. To the Reasons from the Authorities

Section III: -

Articulus II: II. To the Initial Arguments

Articulus III: III. To the Arguments for the Opinion of Others

Quaestio II: Question 2 - Whether the Intellective Part Properly Taken or Something of it is the Total Cause Generating Actual Knowledge or is the Idea of Generating

Articulus I: I. Six Opinions of Others are Expounded and Rejected

Section I: A. About the First Opinion

Subsection I: 1. Exposition of the Opinion

Section I: 2. Rejection of the Opinion

Section II: B. About the Second Opinion

Subsection I: 1. Exposition of the opinion

Subsection II: 2. Rejection of the Opinion

Section III: C. About the Third and Fourth Opinion

Subsection I: 1. Exposition of the Opinions

Subsection II: 2. Rejection of the Opinions

Section IV: D. About the Fifth and Sixth Opinion

Subsection I: 1. Exposition of the Opinions

Subsection II: 2. Rejection of the Opinions

Subsection III: 3. Rejection of the Sixth Opinion Specifically

Articulus II: II. Scotus’ own Opinion

Articulus III: III. To the Arguments for the Opinions

Section I: A. To the Arguments for the First Opinion

Section II: B. To the Arguments for the Second Opinion

Section III: C. To the Things Said in the Third and Fourth Opinion

Section IV: D. To the Arguments of the Fifth Opinion

Articulus IV: IV. To the Initial Arguments

Quaestio III: Question 3 - Whether the More Principal Cause of Generated Knowledge is the Object Present in Itself or in the Species, or the Very Intellective Part of the Intellect

Articulus I: I. Solution of the Question

Articulus II: II. To the Initial Arguments

Quaestio IV: Question 4 - Whether there is Distinctly in the Mind an Image of the Trinity

Articulus I: I. To the Question

Section I: A. About the Image of the Trinity in Us

Section II: B. Two Doubts

Subsection I: 1. To the First Doubt

Subsection II: 2. To the Second Doubt

Subsection III: 3. Corollary

Articulus II: II. To the Initial Arguments

↑ Top of work