The Ordinatio of John Duns Scotus :: Ordinatio. Book 2. Distinctions 4 to 44. ::

collapse section

Export a Citation collapse section

collapse section

just this volume

Ordinatio. Book 2. Distinctions 4 to 44.

collapse section

Collapse All | Expand All

collapse section

translator's preface

collapse section

book two. distinctions 4 - 44

collapse section

fourth and fifth distinctions

question one. whether between the creation and blessedness of the good angel there was any interval

collapse section

question two. whether the angel merited blessedness before receiving it

collapse section

I. to the second question

a. the opinion held by peter lombard

b. the common opinion and scotus’ opinion

C. to the principal arguments

collapse section

II. to the first question

collapse section

a. how many intervals must be posited for the angels

1. the possibility of several intervals

2. what should be thought

b. what these intervals were

C. to the principal arguments

D. to the reason for the opinion positing only two intervals

collapse section

sixth distinction

collapse section

question one. whether the bad angel could have desired equality with god

collapse section

I. to the question

a. the opinion of others

b. scotus’ own opinion

C. to the arguments for the opinion of others

II. to the principal argument

collapse section

question two. whether the first sin of the angel was formally pride

collapse section

I. to the question

collapse section

a. what the malice was in the first angel sinning

1. on ordered and disordered acts of the will

2. on the first disorder in the ‘willing of friendship’

collapse section

3. on the first disorder in the ‘willing of concupiscence’

a) on the concupiscence of blessedness

b) on the concupiscence of excellence

b. to what class of sin the malice in the first angel sinning belonged.

II. to the principal arguments

III. to the arguments for the opposite

collapse section

seventh distinction

collapse section

single question. whether the bad angel necessarily wills badly

collapse section

I. to the question

a. the opinions of others

b. rejection of the opinions together

C. rejection of the first opinion in particular

D. rejection of the second opinion in particular

collapse section

II. scotus’ own response

a. on the degrees of goodness and malice

collapse section

b. on goodness and malice in the bad angel

1. on goodness in genus

collapse section

2. on meritorious goodness

a) on real potency which is a principle

b) on real potency which is a difference of being

c) on logical potency

3. on goodness of virtue or of circumstances

III. to the principal arguments

collapse section

eighth distinction

collapse section

single question. whether an angel can assume a body in which he may exercise works of life

collapse section

I. to the question

a. what it is for an angel to assume a body

b. what sort of body an angel assumes

C. what works of life an angel can exercise in an assumed body

II. to the principal arguments

collapse section

ninth distinction

question one. whether a superior angel can illumine an inferior angel

collapse section

question two. whether one angel can intellectually speak to a second

collapse section

I. to the second question

collapse section

a. the opinion of henry of ghent

1. how the angel who speaks knows singulars

2. how knowledge of a singular escapes another angel

3. how knowledge of a singular is made clear to another angel

4. how one angel illumines another

b. rejection of the opinion

collapse section

C. scotus’ own response

collapse section

1. on an angel’s mode of speaking

a) first reason

b) second reason

collapse section

2. further clarification of the question

a) what is caused in the intellect of the hearing angel

b) how an angel speaks to one angel and not to another

II. to the first question

III. to the principal arguments of the first question

IV. to the principal arguments of the second question

V. to the arguments for henry’s opinion

collapse section

tenth distinction

collapse section

single question. whether all angels are sent

I. to the question

II. to the principal argument for each side

collapse section

eleventh distinction

collapse section

single question. whether a guardian angel can effectively cause something in the intellect of the man whose guardian he is

collapse section

I. to the question

a. the opinion of avicenna

collapse section

b. scotus’ own opinion

1. an angel cannot effectively cause anything in the intellect of the man whose guardian he is

2. what an angel can do in the intellect of the man whose guardian he is

II. to the principal arguments

collapse section

thirteenth distinction

collapse section

single question. whether light generates illuming as its proper sensible species a

collapse section

I. to the question

a. what light is

b. what illumining is

C. how illuming is generated by light

II. to the principal arguments

collapse section

fourteenth distinction

collapse section

question one. whether a celestial body is a simple essence

I. according to the philosophers

II. according to the theologians

III. scotus’ opinion

collapse section

question two. whether there is any movable heaven other than the starry heaven

collapse section

I. to the question

a. all astronomers agree that there are at least nine heavens

b. astronomers disagree whether there are more than nine heavens

II. to the principal arguments

collapse section

twenty sixth distinction

collapse section

single question. whether grace is in the essence or in a power of the soul

collapse section

I. to the question

a. the opinion of others

b. rejection of the opinion

C. scotus’ own opinion

II. to the principal arguments

collapse section

twenty seventh distinction

collapse section

single question. whether grace is a virtue

collapse section

I. to the question

a. first opinion

b. scotus’ own opinion, already proposed by others

II. to the principal argument

collapse section

twenty eighth distinction

collapse section

single question. whether man’s free choice without grace can guard against all mortal sin

collapse section

I. to the question

a. the opinion of others, proposed in two versions

collapse section

b. rejection of the opinion

1. against the conclusion in itself

2. against the two versions of the argument in particular

C. scotus’ own response

II. to the principal arguments

collapse section

twenty ninth distinction

collapse section

single question. whether original justice in adam must be set down as a supernatural gift

collapse section

I. to the question

a. the opinion of henry of ghent

b. scotus’ own opinion

II. to the principal arguments

III. to certain statements of henry of ghent

collapse section

thirtieth to thirty second distinctions

question one. whether anyone propagated according to the common law from adam contracts original sin

question two. whether original sin is lack of original justice

question three. whether the soul contracts original sin from infected flesh, sown in concupiscence

collapse section

question four. whether original sin is remitted in baptism

collapse section

I. to all the questions at once

collapse section

a. the opinion of others

1. exposition of the opinion

2. doubts against the opinion

collapse section

b. scotus’ own opinion, which is taken from anselm

1. what original sin is

2. whether original sin is in everyone propagated in the common way

3. how original sin is contracted

4. how original sin is remitted by baptism

collapse section

II. to the principal arguments

a. to the arguments of the first question

b. to the arguments on both sides of the second question

C. to the arguments on both sides of the third question

D. to the argument of the fourth question

collapse section

thirty third distinction

collapse section

single question. whether only the lack of the divine vision is due as punishment for original sin

I. to the question

II. to the principal arguments

collapse section

thirty fourth to thirty seventh distinctions

question one. whether sin comes from good as from a cause

question two. whether sin is per se a corruption of good

question three. whether sin is a punishment for sin

collapse section

question four. whether sin can be from god

collapse section

I. to the second question

a. sin is formally the privation of good

collapse section

b. of which good sin is formally the privation

1. opinions of others

2. rejection of the opinions

3. scotus’ own solution

collapse section

4. four queries about sin and their solution

a. to the first query

b. to the second query

c. to the third query

d. to the fourth query

C. to the principal arguments

collapse section

II. to the first and fourth questions

collapse section

a. to the first question

1. sin is from good

collapse section

2. how sin is from good as from its cause

a. opinions of others

b. possible solution

collapse section

question five. whether the created will is the total and immediate cause with respect to its willing, such that god does not have, with respect to that willing, any immediate efficient causality but only a mediate one

α. opinion of others

β. the response to the fourth question that falls out from the aforesaid opinion of others

γ. instances against the opinion of others and solutions to them

collapse section

δ. rejection of the opinion

3. how sin is from the created will

collapse section

b. to the fourth question

1. the opinion of others

2. objections to the reasons for the opinion of others

3. scotus’ own opinion and solution of the objections

C. to the principal arguments of the first question

collapse section

D. to the principal arguments of the fourth question

1. to the arguments of the first part

2. to the arguments of the second part

collapse section

III. to the third question

b. to the principal arguments

collapse section

thirty eighth distinction

collapse section

single question. whether intention is an act of will only

I. to the question

II. to the principal arguments

collapse section

thirty ninth distinction

question one. whether synderesis is in the will

collapse section

question two. whether conscience is in the will

collapse section

I. to both questions

collapse section

a. opinion of henry of ghent

1. statement of the opinion

2. rejection of the opinion

b. scotus’ own response

II. to the principal arguments of the first question

III. to the principal arguments of the second question

collapse section

fortieth distinction

collapse section

single question. whether every act gets goodness from the end

I. to the question

II. to the principal arguments

collapse section

forty first distinction

collapse section

single question. whether any act of ours can be indifferent

collapse section

I. to the question

a. opinion of others

II. scotus’ own opinion

II. to the principal arguments

collapse section

forty second distinction

single question. whether there is a distinction of sins into capital sins

collapse section

forty third distinction

collapse section

single question. whether a created will can sin from malice

collapse section

I. opinion of others

a. statement of the opinion

b. rejection of the opinion

II. scotus’ own opinion

collapse section

forty fourth distinction.

collapse section

single question. whether the power to sin is from god

I. to the question

II. to the principal argument

collapse section

appendix. [from antonius andreas, one of scotus’ most faithful students]. twelfth distinction

first question. whether there is in generable and corruptible things any positive substantial entity really distinct from the form

second question. whether matter can, by any power, exist without form

collapse section

[appendix] fifteenth distinction

single question. whether the elements remain in a mixed body in their substance

collapse section

[appendix] sixteenth distinction

single question. whether the image of the trinity consists in three powers of the rational soul really distinct

collapse section

[appendix] seventeenth distinction

first question. whether adam’s soul was created in the body

second question. whether paradise is a suitable place for human habitation

collapse section

[appendix] eighteenth distinction

single question. whether there are seminal reasons in matter

collapse section

[appendix] nineteenth distinction

single question. whether in the state of innocence we would have had immortal bodies

collapse section

[appendix] twentieth distinction

question one. whether in the state of innocence procreated sons would at once have been confirmed in justice

question two. whether in the state of innocence only those would have been born who are now the elect.

collapse section

[appendix] twenty first distinction

single question. whether adam’s sin was the gravest sin

collapse section

[appendix] twenty second distinction

single question. whether the sin of the first man came from ignorance

collapse section

[appendix] twenty third distinction

single question. whether god could make the will of a rational creature to be naturally incapable of sin

collapse section

[appendix] twenty fourth distinction

single question. whether the higher part of the intellect is a power distinct from the inferior power

collapse section

[appendix] twenty fifth distinction

single question. whether anything other than the will is the effective cause of an act of willing in the will

collapse section

SUBSCRIBER:

past masters commons

Annotation Guide:

All Collections > The Ordinatio of John Duns Scotus > Ordinatio. Book 2. Distinctions 4 to 44. > book two. distinctions 4 - 44 > sixth distinction > question one. whether the bad angel could have desired equality with god > i. to the question > a. the opinion of others

cover

The Ordinatio of John Duns Scotus

Ordinatio. Book 2. Distinctions 4 to 44.

Book Two. Distinctions 4 - 44

Sixth Distinction

Question One. Whether the Bad Angel could have Desired Equality with God

I. To the Question

A. The Opinion of Others

hide table of contents

A. The Opinion of Others

4. It is said here [from Aquinas] that the bad angel could not have desired that equality.

5. For this there seem to be four reasons:

First, because the bad angel did not sin from passion (as is plain), nor from ignorance (because punishment does not precede guilt) - therefore from choice; but “choice is not of things impossible” Ethics 3.4.1111b20-23; now for an angel to be equal to God is impossible - therefore he did not sin about this.

6. Second, because ‘for an angel to be equal with God’ involves a contradiction; therefore it does not involve any idea of being; therefore in no way is it included under the first object of the will - therefore it is not in any way willable.

7. Third. The will cannot will anything that is not understood first; therefore the angel’s being equal to God is understood first and shown first by the intellect; either then by an erring intellect, and then it is punishment and not guilt; or by a non-erring intellect - and this is impossible because a ‘non-erring’ intellect cannot show what involves a contradiction.

8. Fourth,abecause an angel’s being equal to God involves the non-being of the angel, for an angel cannot be an angel unless he is inferior to God; but no one can desire ‘that he not be’, from Augustine On Free Choice 6-8 nn.63-84; therefore no one inferior to God can desire equality with God.

a. a[Interpolation] and it seems to be Anselm’s reason, Fall of the Devil [however, no such reference can be found in Anselm, or Aquinas]

A. The Opinion of Others