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

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

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

  1. Sed hoc declaratur sic ab aliquibus: actus notionales fundantur super actus essentiales immanentes; sed tantum sunt duo actus essentiales manentes intra, qui sunt intelligere et velle; ergo sunt tantum duo actus notionales qui sunt productivi intra, fundati super eosdem essentiales.

  2. Confirmatur ratio, quia actus notionales fundati super actus essentiales adaequantur eis, et ita non possunt plurificari actus notionales fundati super actum eundem essentialem.

  3. Modus fundandi eorum est iste, sicut colligitur ex multis dictis opinantis sparsim in pluribus locis: ((Tam intellectus quam voluntas in quocumque habent esse, propter separationem eorum a materia, postquam habuerint esse in suo actu primo simplicis intelligentiae aut volitionis, possunt se convertere super se et super eorum actus simplices et super obiecta eorum per actus conversionis vel conversivos intelligendi et volendi.

  4. Intellectus enim non solum intelligit verum simplici intelligentia, sed etiam intelligentia conversiva, intelligendo se intelligere et convertendo se super obiectum intellectum et super actum intelligendi simplicem et super se intelligentem per actum conversivum, quia notitia secunda quae est in verbo non solum scit et intelligit rem, sed sic scit et intelligit eam, ut sciat se scire et intelligere eam. Similiter voluntas non solum vult bonum simplici volitione, sed etiam volitione conversiva, volendo se velle, convertendo se super obiectum volitum et super actum volendi simplicem et super se volentem per actum suum conversivum.

  5. Sed ista conversio partim uno et eodem modo convenit intellectui et voluntati et partim alio modo et alio. Quod enim ambo se convertunt ut sunt ut nudae, purae et solae potentiae, hoc est uno et eodem modo quantum est a parte ipsarum se convertentium; ambae enim se solas convertunt vi sua activa quae aequaliter eis convenit, sed alio et alio modo quantum est ex parte obiectorum ad quae se convertunt.

  6. Intellectus enim postquam est conversus ad illa ad quae conversus est se habet ut potentiale quoddam et purum possibile, et hoc ut intellectus nudus et purus natus est recipere ab illis, sicut proprium passivum a suo activo proprio naturali, quod quidem activum est intellectus informatus notitia simplici, et hoc respectu formationis notitiae declarativae. Voluntas autem postquam conversa est ad quae conversa est se habet ut activum quoddam, et hoc ut voluntas nuda et pura nata est exprimere de illis, sicut proprium activum de suo proprio passivo, quod est eadem voluntas, informata per amorem simplicem, de qua - sic formata - eadem voluntas ut nuda nata est exprimere amorem incentivum, qui est Spiritus: Sanctus in divinis, qui habet esse a producentibus ipsum non per informationem eius de quo est subiective, neque per aliquam impressionem factam eidem secundum modum quo Verbum sive Filius procedit a Patre per quandam quasi informationem sive impressionem factam intellectui paterno converso, sed per quasi quandam excussionem sive expulsionem, aut progressum, aut magis proprie loquendo - per quandam expressionem producti de eo de quo subiective producitur)).

  7. ((Ex parte intellectus causatur actus dicendi a notitia simplici in intellectu nudo converso supra se et supra notitiam suam simplicem, ita quod intellectus informatus notitia simplici est principium activum et elicitivum actus notionalis intellectus. Ipse autem intellectus nudus conversus non est nisi principium passivum, de quo quasi de materiali producitur Verbum quasi per impressionem. Ex parte autem voluntatis causatur actus notionalis ab ipsa voluntate nuda conversa supra se et super amorem suum simplicem et ipsam voluntatem informatam amore simplici, ita quod voluntas nuda conversa est principium activum et elicitivum actus notionalis voluntatis. Ipsa autem voluntas amore informata simplici est principium quasi passivum, de quo quasi de materiali producitur Spiritus Sanctus secundum quandam expressionem)).

  8. Qualiter autem intellectus ut natura sit principium activum respectu intellectus ut puri ad producendum Verbum, declaratur sic, quia ((intellectus ut in Patre exsistens notitia essentialis, sive quod idem est, exsistens in actu intelligendi suam essentiam, quem actum ipsa essentia quasi operatur in ipso intellectu suo ut est quasi in potentia ad notitiam essentialem secundum rationem intelligendi, fecundus est naturali fecunditate ad producendum de se ipso sibi similem.

  9. Intellectus autem ut est quaedam notitia essentialis secundum actum est natura et ut principium activum, quo Pater de intellectu eodem ut est intellectus purus et tantum intellectus ut de principio passivo format notitiam quae est Verbum, quod secundum rem est eadem notitia cum illa de qua formatur, differens solum ab ea in quantum procedit ab ea ut manifestativa et declarativa ipsius.

  10. Et per omnem eundem modum debemus sic intelligere verbum formari in nobis. Cognitum enim primo simplicem sui notitiam imprimit intellectui nostro repraesentando se illi ut pure passivo et sub illa ratione qua est intellectus. Intellectus autem sic perfectus simplici notitia per obiectum cognitum, quod in se continet expressive, factus est fecundus et principium activum ut natura, imprimens in se ipsum ut intellectus est tantum, ut in principium passivum, ad formandum in se notitiam declarativam de notitia simplici, ut - secundum hoc - quando dicitur 'formari verbum per intellectum' et quod 'intellectus sit etiam in formatione eius activus', hoc intelligitur de intellectu actu informato simplici notitia, per quam ut per rationem formalem agendi intellectus est principium activum; per hoc enim est principium, et necessario prior est ratio eius ut est intellectus et passivus respectu notitiae simplicis quam recepit ab obiecto quam ratio eius secundum quam est natura et activus per notitiam simplicem inhaerentem: et ideo ordine rationis prius habet esse ut est intellectus quam ut est natura)).

  11. Sic itaque patet modus quomodo secundum istam opinionem fundatur actus notionalis super actum essentialem, et quomodo diversimode in intellectu et voluntate.

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