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
Section II: B. To the Second Question, speaking of Theology in itself
Section III: C. To the First Question, speaking of Our Theology
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
-
Ex hoc patet solutio secundae quaestionis propositae, cuius teneo partem negativam, sed primam relationem, scilicet conformitatem, habet per se ab obiecto, quod vel est rectitudo praxis vel aliquid virtualiter includens illam rectitudinem, et ideo cognitioni illi est praxis conformabilis ut sit recta, quia cognitio est talis cogniti.
-
Sed de alia relatione, scilicet prioritate, dubium est unde conveniat cognitioni. Dico quod necessario praxim naturaliter praecedit aliqua intellectio, sicut patet ex primo articulo; et secundum hoc convenit praxi posterioritas et cognitioni prioritas ex ratione potentiarum ordinatarum naturaliter in agendo, intellectus scilicet et voluntatis. Sed non semper illa intellectio prior est practica, sed tantum quando est determinativa rectitudinis vel determinatae rectitudinis ipsius praxis, et hoc vel virtualiter vel formaliter. Quando autem in apprehensione praevia nulla est determinatio virtualis vel formalis de rectitudine praxis, licet ibi sit prioritas, tamen ibi deficit conformitas, quia ipsa non est cui debeat praxis conformari ut sit recta, quia ipsa nihil determinatum ostendit de rectitudine praxis. Potest igitur dici quod licet absolute ex natura intellectus et voluntatis sit cognitio prior, tamen quod cognitio conformis, id est conformativa, sit prior, hoc est simul ex obiecto et ordine potentiarum et potentiae practicantis, nam etsi obiectum determinet intellectum ad cognitionem rectitudinis prius naturaliter quam voluntas velit et voluntas sit aliquo modo regulabilis aliunde, non tamen tantum apprehensio praecedit praxim sed apprehensio conformis. Hoc autem accidit quandocumque determinata rectitudo praxis est cognoscibile necessarium, sive ut principium per intellectum sive ut conclusio per scientiam.
-
Haec quae iam dicta sunt, de hoc videlicet unde duplex relatio, scilicet conformitatis et prioritatis conveniat notitiae practicae, generaliter intelligantur, nisi oporteat pro intellectu divino aliquid addere, videlicet quod potentia practicans, cuius praxe notitia conformis est prior, sit aliquo modo determinabilis aliunde sive alii tamquam regulae conformabilis in agendo; quod an requiratur ad notitiam vel non, tangetur in responsione ad quartam obiectionem, quae fiet contra solutionem quaestionis principalem.
-
Quando autem rectitudo determinata contingenter convenit praxi, tunc non est obiectum aliquod determinans intellectum ad cognitionem rectitudinis determinatae antequam voluntas velit, et hoc loquendo de intellectu et voluntate in communi, nam illud contingens non determinatur ad alteram partem ante omnem actum voluntatis. Comparando tamen in speciali ad intellectum hunc et voluntatem hanc, illam praxim potest praecedere cognitio conformis quam praecedit cognitio determinata rectitudinis, et quam non, non; potest autem praecedere in omni intelligente, et solo cuius voluntas non est primo determinans rectitudinem illi praxi.
-
Exemplum praedictorum: Rectitudo huius praxis 'amare Deum' necessaria est, et includitur in ratione Dei virtualiter; hanc praxim etiam in quocumque non tantum nata est praecedere apprehensio, sed etiam apprehensio conformis, cui scilicet praxis est conformanda ut sit recta: ex obiecto igitur quod est ex se primo determinativum intellectus ad notitiam rectitudinis determinatae ipsius praxis et ex ordine intellectus et voluntatis in operando, habetur hic notitia prior praxi et conformis, et ita in qualibet alia cui necessario convenit determinata rectitudo. Sed rectitudo huius praxis 'colere Deum in sacrificio altaris' est contingens; quandoque enim est actus rectus, ut modo, quandoque non, ut in Veteri Testamento: et ideo non est aliquod obiectum determinativum intellectus ad notitiam huius rectitudinis ante omnem actum voluntatis, et ideo nec ista praecedit ut conformis omnem actum voluntatis. Alicuius tamen praecedit, puta illius solius quae non primo determinat rectitudinem huic praxi, qualis est voluntas humana. Haec enim rectitudo determinatur a voluntate divina, acceptante nunc talem cultum vel actum et alias alium.