The Ordinatio of John Duns Scotus :: Ordinatio. Book 1. Distinctions 11 to 25. ::

collapse section

Export a Citation collapse section

collapse section

just this volume

Ordinatio. Book 1. Distinctions 11 to 25.

collapse section

Collapse All | Expand All

collapse section

translator's preface

collapse section

book one. distinctions 11 - 25

collapse section

eleventh distinction

collapse section

question 1. whether the holy spirit proceeds from the father and the son

I. to the question

II. to the principal arguments

collapse section

question 2. whether, if the holy spirit does not proceed from the son, a real distinction between him and the son could stand.

I. on the question itself

collapse section

II. response to the question

a. opinion of others

b. against the opinion

III. to the principal arguments

IV. to the reasons for the opinion of others on the question

collapse section

twelfth distinction

collapse section

question one. whether the father and the son inspirit the holy spirit insofar as they are altogether one or insofar as they are distinct

I. response to the question

collapse section

II. whether the father and the son inspirit more by the will insofar as it is one or insofar as it is concordant.

a. opinion of henry of ghent

b. against the opinion of henry

C. scotus’ own opinion

III. whether the father and the son are one inspiriter or two inspiriters

IV. to the principal arguments

collapse section

question two. whether the father and the son uniformly inspirit the holy spirit

I. to the question

II. to the principal arguments

collapse section

thirteenth distinction single question

collapse section

I. the opinions of others

a. first opinion

b. second opinion

C. third opinion

D. fourth opinion

e. fifth opinion

collapse section

f. sixth opinion

1. exposition of the opinion

2. rejection of the opinion

g. seventh opinion

II. scotus’ own opinion

III. to the principal arguments

collapse section

fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth distinctions

collapse section

single question.

I. opinion of peter lombard

II. to the question

III. to the reasons of peter lombard

IV. how the opinion of lombard might be held

V. to the arguments against the opinion of lombard

VI. to the principal arguments

collapse section

seventeenth distinction. first part. on the habit of charity

question one. whether it is necessary to posit a created charity that formally inheres in a nature capable of beatification

collapse section

question two. whether it is necessary to posit in a habit the idea of active principle with respect to act

collapse section

I. to the second question

collapse section

a. five ways of giving a solution are expounded and examined

5. what one should think about the four ways

b. solution of the question by maintaining the third way

C. to the arguments when maintaining the third way

D. to the principal positive arguments while maintaining the fourth way

e. to the arguments for the fifth way

collapse section

II. to the first question

collapse section

a. the opinion which is attributed to peter lombard

1. arguments for the opinion attributed to peter lombard

2. arguments against the opinion attributed to peter lombard

collapse section

b. scotus’ own response

1. whether some supernatural habit needs to be posited that gives grace to a nature capable of being beatified

2. whether a supernatural habit giving it grace has to be posited so that a nature capable of beatification may be beatified

3. about the opinion of peter lombard

C. to the principal arguments

D. to the arguments for the opinion attributed to peter lombard.

collapse section

seventeenth distinction. second part. on the manner of increase in charity

collapse section

question one. whether the whole of pre-existing charity is corrupted so that no reality the same in number remains in a greater and a lesser charity

collapse section

I. opinion of godfrey of fontaines

a. exposition of the opinion

b. rejection of the opinion

II. to the question

III. to the arguments

collapse section

question two. whether that which is positive in the preexisting charity, and which remains when there is increase of charity, is the whole essence of the intensified charity

I. opinion of others

II. scotus’ own response to the question

III. to the principal arguments

[eighteenth distinction. about gift and holy spirit as gift lacking in the ordinatio ]

collapse section

nineteenth distinction

collapse section

question one. whether the divine persons are equal in magnitude

collapse section

I. to the question

a. about equality taken properly

b. on equality taken generally

C. how there is equality in the proposed case

D. about equality in the divine persons

II. to the principal arguments

collapse section

question two. whether each person is in the other person

collapse section

I. to the question

collapse section

a. about the mode in which a person is in a person

1. the opinion of henry of ghent

2. scotus’ own opinion

3. to the arguments for the opinion of henry

b. what the idea is of the being in of the divine persons

C. there is no like example in creatures for the being in of the divine persons

II. to the principal arguments

collapse section

twentieth distinction

collapse section

single question. whether the three persons are equal in power

collapse section

I. to the question

a. determination of the question

b. opinion of others

C. scotus’ own opinion

II. to the principal arguments

collapse section

twenty first distinction

collapse section

single question. whether this proposition is true, ‘only the father is god’

I. to the question

II. to the principal arguments

collapse section

twenty second distinction.

collapse section

single question. whether god is nameable by us with some name signifying the divine essence in itself, as it is a ‘this’

I. the opinion of others

II. scotus’ own response

collapse section

appendix a. twenty second distinction

single question.

collapse section

twenty third distinction

collapse section

single question. whether person, according as it says something common to the father and the son and the holy spirit, says precisely something of second intention

I. opinion of others

II. scotus’ own response

III. objections against scotus’ own response

collapse section

twenty fourth distinction

single question. whether number properly exists in divine reality

collapse section

twenty fifth distinction

collapse section

single question. whether person in divine reality states substance or relation

I. response to the question

II. the objections of others

collapse section

SUBSCRIBER:

past masters commons

Annotation Guide:

All Collections > The Ordinatio of John Duns Scotus > Ordinatio. Book 1. Distinctions 11 to 25. > book one. distinctions 11 - 25 > fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth distinctions > single question. > III. to the reasons of peter lombard

cover

The Ordinatio of John Duns Scotus

Ordinatio. Book 1. Distinctions 11 to 25.

Book One. Distinctions 11 - 25

Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Sixteenth Distinctions

Single Question.

III. To the Reasons of Peter Lombard

hide table of contents

III. To the Reasons of Peter Lombard

13. Next in response to what the Master adduces on his side, from Augustine, that the Holy Spirit sends the Son and that the Son sends himself [n.6].

It can be expounded first of the Son incarnate, not of the Son as he is to be incarnate, in the way that Ambrose says in On the Holy Spirit III ch.1 nn.1, 2, 6, that the Spirit of God sent the Son, - as we read in Isaiah 61.1 “the Spirit of the Lord is upon me” etc.; “well did he say,” says Ambrose, “‘the Spirit of the Lord is upon me to preach’, because he was sent and anointed as son of man, for according to his divinity the Holy Spirit is not upon Christ but in Christ.” This authority, then, of Isaiah, which says that Christ was sent by the Holy Spirit, is understood of Christ as man, but not of the sending of the eternal Word as he is to be incarnate. - In like manner can be expounded the authority that says the Son sent himself.

14. To the argument of the Master it can also be said that the consequence is not valid [sc. that if ‘to send’ did not belong to the three, something would be brought about by one person that was not brought about by another, n.7], because there is a change from ‘in what way’ to ‘what’. For the consequence is not that ‘the Son does not operate through the Son as the Father operates through the Son, therefore the Father does something that the Son does not do’, but the consequence is: ‘therefore the Son in a certain way does not operate’, because not through authority, - and this is true; or also ‘if the Father send the Son and the Son does not send himself’, one should infer ‘because the authority of bringing about an effect in the creature is in the Father, not in the Son’, - and this too is true.

III. To the Reasons of Peter Lombard