The Ordinatio of John Duns Scotus :: Ordinatio. Book 4. Distinctions 1 - 7 ::

collapse section

Export a Citation collapse section

collapse section

just this volume

Ordinatio. Book 4. Distinctions 1 - 7

collapse section

Collapse All | Expand All

collapse section

translator's preface

collapse section

book four. distinctions 1 - 7

first distinction. overview of the parts of the distinction

collapse section

first distinction. first part. on the action of the creature in respect of the term of creation

collapse section

single question. whether a creature can have any action with respect to the term of creation

collapse section

I. opinion of the theologians, who hold to the negative side of the question

collapse section

a. the four reasons they bring forward

1. first reason, which is from thomas aquinas

2. second reason

3. third reason

4. fourth reason

collapse section

b. the inefficacy of the aforesaid reasons

1. about the first reason

2. about the second reason

3. about the third reason

4. about the fourth reason

collapse section

II. opinion of avicenna for the opposite side of the question

a. exposition of the opinion

collapse section

b. refutation of the opinion

1. the reason proposed by thomas aquinas.

collapse section

2. scotus’ own argument, drawn from three propositions

a. the first proposition

b. the second proposition

c. the third proposition

C. to the arguments for the opinion

collapse section

III. response to the question

a. on the sense of the expressions ‘to act initially’ and ‘to act instrumentally’

collapse section

b. what one must think when ‘to act initially’ is taken

1. nothing other than god can, independently of a superior cause, act or create initially

collapse section

2. whether any creature can act or create when depending on a superior cause

a. the first way of speaking

b. the second way of speaking

c. the third way of speaking

d. final opinion

e. an objection and its solution

f. a doubt and its solution

C. what one must think about ‘to act instrumentally’

D. about the opinion of peter lombard

IV. to the initial arguments

collapse section

first distinction. second part. on the proper idea of a sacrament and on its institution

collapse section

question one. whether the idea definitive of a sacrament is what the master posits: ‘a sacrament is the visible form of an invisible grace’

collapse section

I. to the question

a. what there can and cannot be a definition of

collapse section

b. whether there can be a definition of a sacrament

1. about a definition’s first condition

2. about a definition’s second condition

3. about a definition’s third condition

4. about a definition’s fourth and fifth condition

C. what the fitting definition of a sacrament is

D. solution of the question

II. to the initial arguments

collapse section

question two. whether for the period of any law given by god some sacrament needed to have been instituted

collapse section

I. to the question

a. some sacrament did need to be instituted

b. by whom a sacrament needs to be instituted

C. when or for what period there was need for a sacrament to be instituted

collapse section

D. whether different sacraments needed to be instituted

1. how sacraments can be distinguished

2. response to the issue at hand

II. to the initial arguments

collapse section

first distinction. third part. on the causality of a sacrament as regard conferring grace

question one. whether it is possible for a sacrament, perfect to any extent whatever, to have an active causality with respect to conferring grace

collapse section

question two. whether it is possible for some supernatural virtue to exist in a sacrament

collapse section

I. opinion of thomas aquinas about each question

collapse section

a. exposition of the opinion

1. as to the first question

2. as to the second question

collapse section

b. rejection of the opinion

collapse section

1. as to the first question

a. first argument

b. second argument

c. third argument

d. fourth argument

2. as to the second question

collapse section

II. opinion of henry of ghent about the first question

a. statement of the opinion

b. rejection of the opinion

III. scotus’ own opinion as to the first question

IV. scotus’ opinion as to the second question

V. to the initial arguments of the first question

VI. the argument of the opinion of thomas

VII. to the initial arguments of the second question

collapse section

first distinction. incidental fourth part: on circumcision

collapse section

question one. whether grace was conferred in circumcision by force of the circumcision

collapse section

I. to the question

a. circumcision removed original sin

collapse section

b. whether grace was conferred in circumcision

collapse section

1. whether god can by his absolute power delete original guilt without infusion of grace

a. the opinion of richard of middleton

collapse section

2. whether god could do the same by his ordained power

a. opinions of others

b. scotus’ own opinion

II. to the initial arguments

collapse section

question two. whether during the time of the law of nature there was any sacrament corresponding to circumcision

I. to the question

II. to the initial arguments

collapse section

second distinction

division of the text

collapse section

question one. whether the sacraments of the new law get their efficacy from the passion of christ

collapse section

I. to the question

a. first conclusion

b. second conclusion

C. solution of the question

D. first corollary

e. second corollary

f. third corollary

II. to the initial arguments

collapse section

question two. whether someone baptized with the baptism of john was necessarily required to be baptized with the baptism of christ

I. to the question

II. to the initial arguments

collapse section

third distinction

division of the text and overview of the questions

collapse section

question one. whether the proper definition is what the master posits: ‘baptism is a dipping, that is, an exterior cleansing of the body, done under a prescribed form of words’

collapse section

I. to the question

a. how baptism can have a definition

b. whether the definition of baptism is the one that the master posits

C. solution of the question

II. to the initial arguments

collapse section

question two. whether this is the precise form of baptism: ‘i baptize you in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy spirit’

collapse section

I. to the question

a. whether and how certain words could be the form of baptism

b. about the form of baptism needed on the part of the minister

collapse section

C. about the form necessary on the part of the sacrament

1. about the non-principal words of the form

collapse section

2. about the principal words of the form

a. about variation in substance

b. about variation in quantity

c. about variation in quantity

d. about variation in ‘where’

II. to the initial arguments

collapse section

question three. whether pure natural water is the only fitting matter of baptism

I. to the question

II. to the initial arguments

collapse section

question four. whether the institution of baptism voids circumcision

collapse section

I. preamble to the question: that baptism was instituted in the new law is true and reasonable

b. it is reasonable

collapse section

II. solution of the question

a. whether the receiving of baptism was simply necessary

collapse section

b. whether circumcision was voided by baptism

collapse section

1. opinion of others

a. exposition of the opinion

b. rejection of the opinion

collapse section

2. scotus’ own opinion

a. about the times of baptism and circumcision, and of their interconnections

b. about the ways in which peter and paul conducted themselves in the presence of convert jews and gentiles

c. about the definitive revocation of circumcision

3. to the arguments for the opinion of others

III. to the initial arguments

collapse section

fourth distinction.

division of the text and overview of the parts and questions

collapse section

fourth distinction. first part. about reception of the sacrament and the thing in children receiving baptism

collapse section

question one. whether children are to be baptized

I. to the question

II. to the initial arguments

collapse section

question two. whether baptized children receive the effect of baptism

I. to the question

II. to the initial arguments

collapse section

question three. whether a child present in the womb of his mother could be baptized

collapse section

I. to the question

a. opinion of others and rejection of it

b. scotus’ own opinion

II. to the initial arguments

collapse section

fourth distinction. second part. about reception of the sacrament and not the thing in adults receiving baptism

collapse section

question one. whether an adult who does not consent can receive the effect of baptism

collapse section

I. to the question

collapse section

a. about an adult with the use of reason or without it

1. about an adult who never uses reason

2. about an adult not now using reason

3. about an adult with the use of reason

b. about an adult who is not willing

II. to the initial arguments

collapse section

question two. whether an adult who is feigning receives the effect of baptism

collapse section

I. to the question

a. about him who feigns on the outside to be willing, is unwilling on the inside

collapse section

b. about him who feigns on the outside to be disposed, is not disposed on the inside

1. a person so feigning does not in baptism receive grace but through penance

2. objections to the aforesaid solution

3. response to the first objection

collapse section

4. response to the second objection

a. objection to this response

b. triple response to the objection

II. to the initial arguments

collapse section

fourth distinction. third part. about the reception of the thing and not the sacrament both in children and in adults receiving baptism

collapse section

single question. whether those already justified are bound to the receiving of baptism

I. to the question

II. to the initial arguments

collapse section

fourth distinction. fourth part. about equal or unequal reception of the thing and not the sacrament, and about conferring baptism in doubtful cases

collapse section

question one. whether all the baptized receive the effect of baptism equally

collapse section

I. to the question

a. opinion of others and its rejection

collapse section

b. scotus’ own opinion

1. about the effect of baptism flowing forth from the principal cause

2. about the effect of baptism flowing forth from the meritorious cause

3. about the effect of baptism flowing forth from the receivers

II. to the initial argument

question two. what is to be done about an exposed child

collapse section

question three. whether the children of jews and infidels are to be baptized against their parents’ wishes

I. opinion of others and rejection of it

II. scotus’ own opinion

collapse section

fifth distinction

division of the text and overview of the questions

collapse section

question one. whether the malice of the minister prevent baptism being conferred

I. to the question

II. to the initial arguments

collapse section

question two. whether he who receives baptism knowingly from a bad minister sins mortally

collapse section

I. to the question

collapse section

a. about reception of baptism from a minister in schism from the church

1. first way: about the obligation to receive baptism

2. second way: about refusal to receive baptism from such a minister

3. the second way is rejected

4. an intermediate opinion

b. about receiving baptism from a bad minister not in schism from the church

II. to the initial arguments

question three. whether one should administer the baptismal sacrament when there is presumption that the baptizing poses a danger to the bodily life of him who receives it

collapse section

sixth distinction

division of the text and overview of the questions

collapse section

sixth distinction. first part. about the rank of the minister

collapse section

single question. whether only a priest can baptize

I. to the question

II. to the initial arguments

collapse section

second distinction. second part. about the unity of baptism

collapse section

question one. whether the unity of baptism necessarily requires that it be conferred by one minister

collapse section

I. to the question

a. about baptism administered by two ministers who together do the whole

b. about baptism administered by two ministers who do something separately

C. about the baptizing of many carried out by one minister all at once

D. about the baptism of a receiver whose unicity is in doubt

II. to the initial arguments

collapse section

question two. whether the unity of baptism requires the washing and the speaking of the words to be simultaneous

a. the opinion of the glossator

b. rejection of the opinion

C. scotus’ own opinion

II. to the initial arguments

collapse section

question three. whether the unity of baptism requires the baptizer to be distinct in person from the baptized

I. to the question

II. to the initial argument

collapse section

sixth distinction. third part. about the intention of the minister

collapse section

question one. whether in the minister who baptizes there is required the due intention to baptize

collapse section

I. to the question

a. the common opinion and assessment of it

collapse section

b. scotus’ own opinion

1. about intention as regard the act

collapse section

2. about intention as regard the end

c. response to the first objection

d. response to the second objection

II. to the initial arguments

collapse section

question two. what sort of intention is required in the minister who baptizes

I. to the question

II. to the initial arguments

fourth part. about the repetition of baptism

collapse section

sixth distinction. fourth part. article one. about the illicitness of repeating baptism

collapse section

question one. whether baptism can be repeated

collapse section

I. to the question

a. reasons of others against the repeatability of baptism, and rejection of them

b. scotus’ own reason

II. to the initial argument

question two. what the penalty is for those who repeat baptism

collapse section

sixth distinction. fourth part. article two. about the character because of which baptism is posited as unrepeatable

collapse section

question one. whether a character is impressed in baptism

collapse section

I. to the question

a. about the meaning of this name ‘character’

collapse section

b. about the impressing on the soul of character thus understood

collapse section

1. first opinion: neither by natural reason nor from things believed can it be proved that a character is present in the soul

a. first reason

b. second reason

c. third reason

d. fourth reason

e. fifth reason

f. response to the initial arguments for the opposite

2. second opinion: that there is a character in the soul can be proved by the authority of the church and various elements of congruence

collapse section

3. to the arguments for the first opinion

a. to the argument about the way of positing a character

b. to the first reason

c. to the second reason

d. to the third reason

e. to the fourth reason

f. to the fifth reason

II. to the initial arguments

collapse section

question two. whether the character is some absolute form

collapse section

I. to the question

a. the opinion of thomas aquinas

collapse section

b. rejection of the opinion

1. against him who holds this opinion from his own statements

collapse section

2. against the reasons brought forward in the opinion

a. to the first reason

b. to the second reason

c. to the third reason

d. to the fourth reason

collapse section

C. two doubts as to the question

1. about the first doubt

2. about the second doubt

D. scotus’ own opinion

collapse section

e. doubt as to scotus’ own opinion

collapse section

1. consideration of the diverse opinions or solutions

a. about the first solution

b. about other possible solutions

c. about another peculiar possible solution

2. scotus’ own solution

II. to the initial arguments on both sides

collapse section

question three. whether character is in the essence of the soul or in some power of it

collapse section

I. to the question

collapse section

a. opinion of thomas aquinas

1. exposition of the opinion

2. rejection of the opinion

b. scotus’ own opinion

II. to the initial argument

III. to the reason for thomas aquinas’ position

collapse section

summation of the distinctions about baptism

on a twofold exhaustive definition of baptism

collapse section

seventh distinction

division of the text

collapse section

introduction. about the idea or definition of confirmation

I. statement of the definition

II. explanation of the definition

III. objections against the definition

collapse section

IV. response to the objections

a. to the first objection

b. to the second objection

collapse section

C. to the third objection

1. first way of speaking and its rejection

2. second way of speaking and its rejection

collapse section

3. third way of speaking and its proof by authorities

a. first authority and the weighing of it

b. second authority and the weighing of it

4. fourth way of speaking

collapse section

question one. whether the sacrament of confirmation is necessary for salvation

I. to the question

II. to the initial argument

collapse section

question two. whether the sacrament of confirmation is of more dignity than baptism

I. to the question

II. to the initial argument for the other side

collapse section

question three. whether the sacrament of confirmation could be repeated

I. to the question

II. to the initial argument

question four. whether there is any penalty for those who repeat the sacrament of confirmation

collapse section

SUBSCRIBER:

past masters commons

Annotation Guide:

All Collections > The Ordinatio of John Duns Scotus > Ordinatio. Book 4. Distinctions 1 - 7 > book four. distinctions 1 - 7 > first distinction. third part. on the causality of a sacrament as regard conferring grace > question two. whether it is possible for some supernatural virtue to exist in a sacrament > V. to the initial arguments of the first question

cover

The Ordinatio of John Duns Scotus

Ordinatio. Book 4. Distinctions 1 - 7

Book Four. Distinctions 1 - 7

First Distinction. Third Part. On the Causality of a Sacrament as regard Conferring Grace

Question Two. Whether it is Possible for some Supernatural Virtue to Exist in a Sacrament

V. To the Initial Arguments of the First Question

hide table of contents

V. To the Initial Arguments of the First Question

326. To the first argument [n.263] I say that the water cleanses the heart, that is, the soul, not indeed by causing a disposition between it and the cleansing grace, but that it cleanses as a disposition proximate and immediate to grace (in the way in which merit is said to induce blessedness, or that cutting or some other preparation is said to induce health). For if it caused a disposition for grace and was thus said to cleanse, it would still be necessary to say that the disposition cleansed more immediately, as was argued above about the order of causes with respect to a third thing [n.314].

327. To the second [n.264] I say that in his definition of a sacrament the Master understands by his addition ‘and exists as its cause’ nothing other than that it is an efficacious sign. And by this he means that it is practical and certain and true, and naturally precedes what it signifies. I use the same to reply to the point about the distinction between the sacraments of the New Law and the Old Law [n.264]. For these are not distinguished by the fact that ‘actively acting for something spiritual in the soul’ could belong to neither of them, but those of the New Law cause grace as an efficacious sign, while those of the Old Law did not, if one is speaking of the sacraments, that is, the ceremonies, of the Old Law. The matter will be made plain in the next question [nn.372-381].

328. To the other one [n.265] I say that if the motion of a saw were the proximate disposition for inducing some form, and if it [the form] were not from the nature of some motion but from the disposition of some natural agent cooperating at the same time, one could reasonably ask of the agent that the motion would perfect [the form] that [the agent] contains, that is, that just as [the motion] contains [the form] as a preceding disposition contains [the form], so [the motion] would perfect [the form], that is, that [the form] would follow on [the motion] immediately. This is how it is in the proposal maintained here.⁷

V. To the Initial Arguments of the First Question