.
Subsection
Scotus in English & on his Thought
.
.
Order of
.
.
In English
.
Order of
de la Mare
Andreas
Meyronnes
a Dola
Ponce
Columbo
Macedo
Mastrius
Mastrius & Belluto
Boivin
Llamazares
Sannig
Petro Catharina & Thoma Joseph
Dupasquier
Krisper
Montefortino
Wolter
.
.
1200’s
de la Mare, William – Correction of Brother Thomas tr. Peter L.P. Simpson (1278) 175 pp.
de la Mare (fl. 1272–1279) was an English Franciscan theologian.
Simpson: “The Correctorium was itself subjected to a corrective by Thomists, notably the English Dominicans Richard Knapwell and Thomas Sutton and the French Dominican John of Paris, who entitled their response Correctorium corruptorii fratris Thomae (“Corrective of the Corruptive of Brother Thomas”). William’s Correctorium was approved for the entire Franciscan order in 1282, when the Franciscan Chapter forbade the study of Aquinas unless accompanied by William’s Correctorium. Duns Scotus must therefore have first met Thomas’ thought through William’s work.
As the Thomistic response to William (not translated here) makes clear, and as is evident, William sometimes misunderstands Thomas. Sometimes his argument fails in itself. Sometimes indeed he makes a good point but a point to which there are Thomistic answers. The Thomistic answers do work, as far as one can tell, but not always in such a way as to rule out William’s alternative, or not always in such a way as to show that Thomas’ answer is better or that there is not an interesting puzzle deserving of further and different thought – of the kind indeed that Scotus himself afterwards pursued. At all events William presents an intriguing set of non-Thomistic opinions.”
.
.
1300’s
Andreas, Antonius – A Summa of Scotus’ Theology or Questions on the Four Books of Peter Lombard’s Sentences, pt. 1 (Prologue, God, Trinity), 2 (Man), 3 (Christ) tr. Peter Simpson (d. 1320)
Simpson: “Antonius Andreas (born c. 1280, Tauste, Aragon, died 1320) was a Spanish Franciscan theologian, a pupil of Duns Scotus. He was nicknamed Doctor Dulcifluus, or Doctor Scotellus (applied as well to Peter of Aquila).
His Questions on the Four Books of Peter Lombard’s Sentences are so faithful to the thought of Scotus and so closely follow Scotus’ own commentaries on the Sentences [of Lombard], while at the same time being so much briefer and more immediately accessible, that the questions constitute a sort of Summa of Scotus’ theology…
Scotus’ thought is otherwise and ordinarily so hard to track or comprehend. Even Jerome of Montefortino’s Summa, which is basically a re-ordering and re-arranging of Scotus’ own writings, remains hard going.
Of course Andreas, like Jerome, was not using critical editions of Scotus or distinguishing texts from different periods of Scotus’ career (though Andreas must have been personally acquainted with some at least of Scotus’ theological development). But no matter. The Subtle Doctor’s theology, just as such and without the scholars’ qualifications and updatings, deserves to be much more widely known and so needs to be made available in easier forms. Not everyone has to be a scholar or familiar with the scholars’ findings to attain a basic and salutary grasp of Scotism.”
.
Prologue
1. Whether for man in his present state there is need for some special doctrine to be supernaturally inspired that he cannot attain by the natural light of his intellect [Yes] 6
2. Whether the supernatural knowledge necessary for the wayfarer is sufficiently handed down in Sacred Scripture [Yes] 13
3. Whether theology is about God as first object or first subject [Yes] 14
1. Whether theology is about God under some special idea [No] 15
2. Whether theology is about everything by way of attribution to the first subject [Yes] 21
3-4. Whether theology is wisdom [Distinguish] or is a subalterning or subalternate science [No] 23
4. Whether theology is a practical or a speculative science [Practical] 25
bk. 1
1st Distinction
1. Whether enjoyment is of the ultimate end only [Yes] 30
2. Whether the ultimate end contains only one idea of being enjoyable [No] 32
3. Whether enjoyment is a feeling received in the will, to wit some delight 37
4. Whether the will must necessarily enjoy the end when the intellect has apprehended it 39
5. Whether God properly enjoys 43
6. Whether the wayfarer enjoys 43
7. Whether the sinner enjoys 43
8. Whether the brute animals enjoy 44
9. Whether all things enjoy 44
Response to Questions 5-9 44
2nd Distinction
1. Whether there is any existing infinite thing among real beings 45
2. Whether the proposition God exists is self-evident 46
3. Whether there is only one God 53
4. Whether a plurality of persons is consistent with the unity of the divine essence 56
5. Whether there are only three persons in the divine essence 57
6. Whether the divine essence can exist in something if that something is produced 57
[sic] 6. Whether there are several productions in God 58
7. Whether there are in God only two productions intrinsically 58
Response to Questions 4-7 58
. To Question Six 58
. To Questions Six bis and Seven 61
. To Question Five 66
. To Question Four 67
3rd Distinction
1. Whether God can be naturally known by the intellect of the wayfarer 71
2. Whether God is the first thing naturally known by the wayfarer 72
Response to Questions 1 & 2
. To Question One 72
. To Question Two 75
3. Whether God is the sufficient object of our intellect 76
4. Whether some sound and certain truth can be known by the intellect of the wayfarer without special illumination from the uncreated light 81
5. Whether a trace or footprint of the Trinity is found in all creatures 88
6. Whether in intellectual nature taken properly there is memory properly, that is, an intellect possessing an intelligible species naturally prior to the act of understanding 89
7. Whether the intellective part of the soul taken properly, or some part of it, is the whole cause, or the whole principle of generating, which generates actual knowledge 91
8. Whether the more principal cause of generated knowledge is the object in itself or present in the species, or the intellective part of the soul 95
9. Whether the image of the Trinity exists in the mind distinctly 97
4th Distinction
1. Whether this proposition is true: “God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit” 101
5th Distinction
1. Whether the divine essence generates or is generated 102
…
26th Distinction
Whether the Divine Persons are constituted in their personal existence by relations of origin 104
pt. 2, bk. 2
…
12th Distinction
1. Whether there is in generable and corruptible things any positive substantial entity really distinct from the form 4
2. Whether matter can, by any power, exist without form 6
…
15th Distinction
1. Whether the elements remain in a mixed body in their substance 8
16th Distinction
1. Whether the Image of the Trinity consists in three powers of the
rational soul really distinct 11
17th Distinction
1. Whether Adam’s soul was created in the body 14
2. Whether paradise is a suitable place for human habitation 15
18th Distinction
1. Whether there are seminal reasons in matter 16
19th Distinction
1. Whether in the state of innocence we would have had immortal Bodies 19
20th Distinction
Question One: Whether in the state of innocence everyone would at once
have been confirmed in justice 21
Question Two: Whether in the state of innocence only those would have
been born who are now the elect 22
21st Distinction
1. Whether Adam’s sin was the gravest sin 23
22nd Distinction
1. Whether the Sin of the First Man came from Ignorance 24
23rd Distinction
1. Whether God could make the will of a rational creature to be naturally incapable of sin 26
24th Distinction
1. Whether the higher part of the intellect is a power distinct from the inferior power 27
25th Distinction
1. Whether anything other than the Will is the effective Cause of an Act of Willing in the Will 28
pt. 3, bk. 3
…
18th Distinction
1. Whether Christ merited in the first instant of his conception 3
19th Distinction
1. Whether Christ merited grace and glory and remission of guilt and punishment for all men 7
20th Distinction
1. Whether it was necessary for the human race to be repaired by the passion of Christ 9
21st Distinction
1. Whether Christ’s body would have putrefied if his resurrection had not been hastened 11
22nd Distinction
1. Whether Christ was a man during the three days 13
23rd Distinction
1. Whether infused faith must be posited for matters revealed to us for belief 18
24th Distinction
1. Whether about revealed matters of belief someone can have science and faith at the same time, speaking of science as it is taken for all the certain knowledge received from the evidence of the thing 21
25th Distinction
1. Whether before Christ’s coming faith about the things we now believe was necessary 25
.
Francis of Meyronnes – ‘On the Univocity of Being’ tr. Peter L.P. Simpson 25 pp.
Simpson: “Meyronnes (Franciscus de Mayronis) (c. 1280–1328) was a Franciscan Friar and studied philosophy and theology (c. 1304-1307) at the University of Paris under John Duns Scotus, of whom he was a distinguished pupil. He acquired a great reputation for ability in discussion at the Sorbonne, and was known as the Doctor Illuminatus Enlightened teacher, as Magister Acutus or Doctor acutus, and as Magister abstractionum Master of abstractions. His treatise on the univocity of being (abstracted, as it appears, from his Commentary on the Sentences) is a fascinating defense of this controversial Scotistic thesis.”
.
.
1600’s
a Dola, Ludovicus – Four Part Disputation on the Mode of Conjunction of the Concurrences of God & the Creature, for free acts of the natural order; especially for evil ones; against the opinions of the Predeterminists and the modern assertors of Middle Knowledge tr. AI by Nosferatu (Lyon: Prost, 1634) 382 pp.
Ponce, John – Philosophy according to Scotus, Complete Course tr. AI by Vertias (1652) 2,914 pp. ToC at the end
Ponce (1603-1670) was an Irish Franciscan who also lived in Paris.
“He lectured afterwards at Lyons and Paris, where he was held in great repute for his learning. In 1643 he published in Rome his “Cursus philosophiæ”. Some of his opinions were opposed by Mastrius, and Ponce replied in “Appendix apologeticus” (Rome, 1645), in which he says that although he accepts all the conclusions of Duns Scotus, he does not feel called upon to adopt all Scotus’s proofs. Mastrius acknowledged the force of Ponce’s reasoning and admitted that he had shed light on many philosophical problems. In 1652, Ponce published “Integer cursus theologiæ” (Paris). These two works explain with great clearness and precision the teaching of the Scotistic school.
In 1661, he published at Paris his great work, “Commentarii theologici in quatuor libros sententiarum”, called by Hurter opus rarissimum. Ponce also assisted Luke Wadding in editing the works of Scotus.” – Gregory Cleary
Columbo, Bonaventura – New Course of Philosophy of the Scotists, encompassing Universal Philosophy: Rational, Natural, Moral & Transnatural tr. AI by Vertias (Leiden, 1669) 2,248 pp. ToC at the end Latin
Macedo, Francisco
Collations of the Teachings of St. Thomas & Scotus, with the Differences between the Two: with the Texts of Both Faithfully Presented, and the Sentences Subtly Examined, with the Commentaries of the Interpreters, Cajetan above all, and Lichetus carefully sifted out, and of nearly all other schools, especially the Jesuit ones, with Suarez and Vasquez as authors, with the Controversies aptly brought forward, vol 1, 2 tr. AI by Vertias (Padua: Frambotti, 1671) A more detailed ToC is given at the beginning of each volume.
Macedo (1596-1681), known as S. Augustino, was a Portuguese Franciscan theologian. While exercising independent judgment, he tends to lean original-Scotus. He had a very good knowledge of Aquinas’s works (and of Thomists and their works) through his life (vol. 2, p. 424).
vol. 1, bk. 1 of the Sentences
Collation 1
1. Necessity of supernatural doctrine for attaining salvation 29
2. On the truth of Thomas’s response 33
3. Diversity of habits 38
4. Subalternation of theology 41
Collation 2
1. Natural receptive potency for supernatural things 45
2. Natural appetite for God as ultimate end 50
3. Thomas’s argument against Avicenna 58
4. How is theology a science 61
Collation 3
1. Theology as speculative or practical 69
[sic] 1. Formal distinction of the divine essence, relations and attributes 88
2. Can the divine essence be seen, by God’s absolute power, without the Persons, and one Person without another? 127
3. “God exists,” is the proposition self-evident or not?
4. Thomas’s argument for proving God’s infinity
Collation 4
1. First and adequate object of our intellect 146
2. Vestige of the Trinity 153
3. Conservation of intelligible species in the intellect 157
4. Does the intellect bear itself purely passively in understanding or not 167
Collation 5
1. Production of the Word: Is it formally intellection or speech? 173
2. Power or formal principle of the notional acts 189
3. Is any creature simple 194
4. Argument by which Thomas proves God does not fall under any genus (and univocity of being) 200
Collation 6
1. Damascene on the Holy Spirit’s procession from the Son 209
2. Whether mutual love is the reason for spirating the Holy Spirit, such that without it the procession cannot subsist 218
3. Thomas’s argument by which he proves it should be said, “Two spirating” and “One Spirator” 236
4. Whether if the Spirit did not proceed from the Son, He would still be really distinguished from Him 242
Collation 7
1. Procession of the Spirit: Whether it proceeds freely or naturally 297
2. Distinction of the processions of the Begotten Son and of the Spirit who is not begotten but spirated 315
3. Increase of charity: Whether it occurs through greater rotting or disposition in the subject, or through the additino of degree to degree 324
4. On the constitution and distinction of the Persons 344
Collation 8
1. Whether the divine relations are formally infinite perfections 386
2. Relations of God and the creature to each other 403
3. Notion of the unbegotten, or innascibility 410
4. Order, identity, equality and similarity of the divine Persons 444
Collation 9
1. Whether the Father and Son love themselves through the Spirit 466
2. God’s knowledge of creatures in all its ideal character 488
3. Whether God’s being present everywhere according to power implies his being everywhere according to essence: whether omnipotence implies immensity 519
4. Cognition of future things: Whether they are known by God as present in eternity 537
Collation 10
1. Necessity of this existence of things as a means for knowing future contingents 548
2. Root of contingency 569
3. Divine foreknowledge 587
4. Conditional knowledge 594
Collation 11
1. Middle knowledge 622
2. On Predestination 714
3. Name, matter and doctrine of predestination 733
4. Whether predestination was made after the foreknowledge of merits 747
Collation 12
1. Reprobation 793
2. General will of God concerning the salvation of all men, 1 Tim. 2:4 841
3. Whether and how God provides sufficient aids to all people 873
4. Whether the predestined can be damned; whether predestination is within the power of the predestined 901-25
.
vol. 2, bk. 2 of the Sentences
Dedicatory epistle 3
To the reader 7
Letters 8
…
Collation 6
…
2. Whether in the creation of the world things were made gradually, through intervals of time distributed across different days, or all at once 23
3. Cause of man’s immortality in the state of innocence 41
4. Whether in that state, only the predestined would have been born 57
Collation 7
1. Whether Adam in the state of innocence could sin venially before sinning mortally 77
2. Whether sanctifying grace is a power or a form? In what subject does it reside? In the soul, or in a faculty 88
3. Difference between the aids of auxiliary grace in the angels and in the states of integral and fallen nature 103
4. Original Sin 170
Collation 8
1. States of human nature, their constitution, properties and wounds 190
2. Whether human nature in its pure state would share any properties with nature in its integral state 208
[sic] 2. Whether a human being through original sin was merely stripped of gratuitous gifts or also wounded in his natural endowments 217
3. Transmission of original sin 235
4. Punishments of original sin 283
Collation 9
1. Constitution, remission and punishment of original sin in the way of Scotus 305
2. Formal ground of sin 338
3. Whether the created will is the total and immediate cause of its own willing, such that God has no immediate efficacy with respect to it, but only mediate efficacy? 361
4. Whether and how sin is the punishment of sin 429
Collation 10
1. Necessity of grace for avoiding sins 449
2. Scotus’s view concerning the necessity of grace 461
3. Mind of Augustine on the necessity of grace for upright moral thoughts and actions 478
4. Whether there are indifferent acts in species and in the individual 506
.
Schools of Positive Theology, opened for the instruction of Catholics and the refutation of heretics (1664) 584 pp. ToC is at the beginning
.
Mastrius, Bartolomeo
Metaphysics
vol. 4, Disputations according to the Mind of Scotus on the Twelve Books of Aristotle the Stagirite’s Metaphysics, pt. 1 (disp. 1-6) (d. 1673; Venice, 1757) 1,274 pp. ToC at the beginning
Mastrius (1602–1673) was an Italian Conventual Franciscan philosopher and theologian. He was deeply versed in the writings of Duns Scotus, and defended his teachings.
Belluto (1600-1676) was a Franciscan.
vol. 5, Disputations according to the Mind of Scotus on the Twelve Books of Aristotle the Stagirite’s Metaphysics, pt. 2 (disp. 7-13) 1,194 pp. ToC at the beginning
5th Question, What is the original sin contracted by the posterity of Adam? 61 pp.
.
Mastri, Bartholomew & Bonaventura Belluto
Theological Disputations on the Sentences tr. AI by OmegaPoint99 (d. 1673)
bk. 1, 5th Disputation, On Predestination & Reprobation 413 pp.
bk. 2, 7th Disputation, On Justification 279 pp.
bk. 3
1st Disputation, On the Incarnation of the Lord 225 pp.
quest. 1, ‘Whether the incarnation of the divine Word was possible’ 1
art. 1, The possibility is shown on the part of the assuming Word 2
art. 2, The possibility is shown form the nature assumed 11
art. 3, The possibility of the incarnation is shown from the perspective of the hypostatic union 18
quest. 2, ‘On the nature of the hypostatic union’ 24
art. 1, Where some difficulties concerning this union are examined 27
art. 2, Other difficulties resolved 35
quest. 3, ‘On subsistence. Whether subsistence as something positive added to nature implies something positive or negative, and what that is’ 42
art. 1, The opinion about the negative is against established 43
art. 2, Objections are solved, and Gavatius’s replies in favor of the positive opinion
art. 3, What they adduce from councils and fathers for the view about the positive is examined by Arriaga, Amicus and others
art. 4, The doubt is resolved, whether a created suppositum can sustain an alien nature 83
art. 5, The doubt is resolved, whether if the same divine person were to assum several humanities, it would be called on or several men 95
quest. 4, ‘Whether in fact the Word immediately assumed the essential parts of human nature’ 103
art. 1, What must be said about the essential parts 104
art. 2, An incidental doubt, whether the unitive action of humanity is also productive of it, where its term is discussed 112
quest. 5, ‘Whether the word immediately assumed all the integral parts of the human body, even the blood and other humors’ 119
art. 1, Resolution of the question 120
art. 2, Objections are solved 131
quest. 6, ‘Whether the human nature in Christ has its own existence, or rather exists by the existence of the Word’
art. 1, Resolution of the question 141
art. 2, The foundations of the opposing opinion are overthrown 152
quest. 7, ‘Whether any nature could be immediately assumed by the Word’
art. 1, What is to be said about irrational or insensible nature 158
art. 2, What should be said about accidental form 171
quest. 8, ‘Whether multiple persons can simultaneously assume the same numerical nature, or one person multiple natures’ 179
art. 1, One person can assume multiple natures, but multiple persons cannot assume the same nature 179
art. 2, Other arguments of the Doctor are put forth for the same conclusion 192
art. 3, The foundations of the opposing opinion are destroyed 200
quest. 9, ‘Whether the divine nature could have immediately assumed humanity’ 207
art. 1, In what sense an absolute subsistence of the divine essence besides the three relative personal ones should be granted in divine things 209
art. 2, In what sense it must be conceded that the divine nature could immediately assume humanity 219-25
Disputation 3, On the Merit of Christ the Lord, and of others through Him, Question 1, What is merit, and how is it divided? 19 pp.
.
Psychology
Disputations on the Books of Aristotle the Stagirite, On the Soul, by which Scotus’s Philosophy is Vindicated from the Darts of Adversaries both Old & Recent 996 pp. ToC is at the end
.
Boivin, Jean Gabriele – A Treatise on the Triune God tr. by AI by OmegaPoint99 (1682) 109 pp.
Boyvin (d. 1685) was a Franciscan who taught in the line of Scotus.
ch. 1: On the Knowability of the Trinity 1
1. This proposition, “God is triune,” or “The Trinity is in God,” is not self-evident. 2
2: No created intellect, in whatever state it may exist, apart from revelation, can know this mystery of the Trinity a priori. 4
3. The created intellect cannot know the mystery of the Trinity naturally a posteriori. 6
ch. 2. On Persons Generally 7
1. There are multiple persons in the Divinity. 8
2. There are three Persons, no more and no less. 9
3. The three divine Persons are really distinct. 11
4. The Son, who is also called the Word, and who assumed our nature, is truly God. 12
5. The Holy Spirit is truly God. 16
6. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are only one God – against the Tritheists asserting that the three persons are three eternal spirits differing in essential number. 18
7. There are three relative existences, each one of which belongs to each person. 19
8. There are three subsistences in God. 21
9. There are posited absolute existence and subsistence in God. 22
10. If substance is taken for the essence or nature of a thing, as Aristotle used it when saying that univocal things are those whose substance (i.e. nature or essence) is the same, then there should not be said to be three substances in God. If secondly it is taken as the name substance comes from “standing under” accidents, then there are neither three nor one in God. If thirdly it is taken for that which subsists per se, then there can be said to be three substances in God. 24
[sic] 9. Absolute predicates which are formally infinite are not multiplied; but only relative predicates are. 25
ch. 3. On the Divine Productions. 26
1. There is true production or procession in God—immanent and metaphysical. 27
2.1 There are two productions in God, by the first of which the Word is produced, and by the second the Holy Spirit. 29
2.2 There are only two productions in God. 30
3. The divine processions are acts of the intellect and will. 31
4. How the will becomes the principle of communicating nature. 32
5. The intellect considered just in itself is not the complete intrinsic principle of the generation of the Word, but rather the intellect along with the essence. Likewise the will as such is not the complete principle of the Holy Spirit, but together with God’s essence. 33
6.1 God’s Word is not produced through actual understanding, nor consequently is the Holy Spirit produced through willing. Because understanding and willing are essential acts common to the three persons, but conceptual actions are not common. 35
6.2 God’s Word is produced through speaking, formally distinct from understanding. 36
7. The procession of the Son and of the Holy Spirit differ in this, that the former is a generation, the latter is not. And therefore the former is a generation, the latter is not, because through the first a term similar by force of its own procession is produced, but not through the second. 38
ch. 4: On Divine Relations. 40
1. The four relations of origin – Paternity, Filiation, active Spiration, and passive Spiration – are real. 40
2. Relations are not really distinguished from the essence, but they are formally distinguished. 41
3.1 Opposed relations of origin are really distinguished, such as paternity and filiation, active and passive spiration. 42
3.2 Generation and active spiration, and likewise filiation, are only formally distinct in the concrete, but really [distinct] in the abstract. 43
4. The relations of origin formally taken are neither perfect nor imperfect, neither finite nor infinite. 44
5. Each divine Person is constituted from the divine essence and a personal property which is relative. And this is to say the persons are constituted adequately through relations. 46
6. The common relations are real in God. So Scotus. 50
ch. 5: On the divine Persons specifically: the Father. 53
1. The name “Father” taken notionally applies to the first person, and to Him alone. 54
2. The name “principle” applies to the first person; yet it is not so proper to Him, that it cannot be attributed to the Son, although it belongs more principally to the Father. 55
3. Although the Father with the Son and Holy Spirit can be called the cause of creatures, yet with respect to the Son He cannot be called cause; but rightly principle. 56
4. Unbegotten taken in the third way, for that which in no way is produced, belongs to the Father as His property. 57
5. Although “unbegotten” is a property of the Father, yet it is not constitutive; because “unbegotten” formally imports a negation, which cannot constitute a positive thing. 58
6. The Father produces the Son from His own substance. 59
7. The substance of the Father from which the Son is generated does not take the place of matter, but in a way of form. 60
8. The divine essence is determined immediately to the first person. 62
[sic] 10. The Father does not generate the Son by necessity of violence, or coaction, or only immutability; but of complete inevitability or indefectibility. 63
11.1 The Father does not produce the Son by will, as by a productive principle; nor by will, in the way in which He produced creatures. 65
11.2 The Father did not beget the Son by will applying the parent with the offspring; but indeed by antecedent, concomitant, and subsequent will. 65
12. The Father by nature is blessed before he begets 68
13. The Father is not wise by the begotten wisdom; 69
ch. 6: On the Second Person 70
1. The name “Son” is proper to the second person. 70
2. The name “Son” is truly univocal with respect to a human son and a divine son, 71
3. The name “Word” is proper to the second person. 73
4. The name “Image” is proper to the second person. 76
5. The Word proceeds from no actual knowledge of anything, but from a quasi-virtual and habitual knowledge of the essence alone, not of the persons, attributes, and creatures. 77
ch. 8: On the Third Person 79
1. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. 80
2. Even if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from the Son, it would still be really distinct from Him. 85
3. The procession of the Holy Spirit is not natural, but is necessary; yet free. 88
4. The Father and Son should be called one principle of the Holy Spirit, but should not be called two spirators, although they can be called two spirating. 89
5. The Holy Spirit necessarily proceeds from the Father and Son because of the order between intellect and will. Nevertheless, this duality is not so required per se that if, per impossibile, he proceeded only from one person, he would not be of the same personal character as he is now. 90
6. The Holy Spirit is not produced by the will as it is mutual and concordant. 92
7. If the act of spirating is taken in the first three ways, the Father and Son uniformly spirate. If it is considered in the fourth way, they do not spirate altogether uniformly. 94
8.1 If there is talk of the name Gift most broadly taken, it can be said to belong to the Trinity. If there is talk of the name Gift improperly considered, it belongs to the Son. If finally it is taken properly, it is a name proper to the Holy Spirit. 95
8.2 If the name Love is taken absolutely and without an adjective, it is not a proper name of the Holy Spirit. But if it is taken with this adjective, produced Love, spirated Love, then it is a true proper name of the third person. 96
ch. 9. On the Notions, Circumincession, Order & Mission of the Divine Persons. 96
1. Five divine Notions are assigned, namely: innascibility, paternity, filiation, active spiration, and passive spiration. 97
2. Nothing prevents saying inspirability is a notion of the Father and Son. 98
3. The persons are in each other by circumincession according to their wholes, not according to parts – that is, not only by reason of nature, but by reason of person. 99
4. The basis of circumincession is not origin alone, nor essence alone, nor relation alone – but essence with relation. 100
5. In God there is order, or priority and posteriority of origin and nature, such that it is true to say there is priority and posteriority among the divine persons, excluding the operation of the intellect. 102
6. Sending is the manifestation of a produced person in some new external effect, produced visibly or invisibly, or signified as previously produced. 103
7. There are two kinds of sending: passive and active. 105
8. Passive sending belongs to a produced person and active to a producing one. 105
9. Sending is temporal. 106
10. On the way of speaking about this mystery 107
.
de Llamazares, Tomas
Question 15, On Christ’s Merit & the Satisfaction of Christ (c. 1688?)
Llamazares was a Franciscan.
Question 1, In what consists the formal nature of habitual sin 22 pp.
Question 16, What is Sin, and How Does it Depend on the Law? 31 pp.
Question 19, How Mortal & Venial Sin Relate & Differ from Each Other 36 pp.
Sannig, Bernard – Questions 2. On the Identity & Distinction of Attributes & Personalities from the Essence, and among Themselves; 3. Resolving the main objections against the formal distinction in Universal Scholastic Theology, bk. 1, distinction 2
Sannig (1638-1704)
.
.
1700’s
Petro a St. Catharina & Thoma a St. Joseph – Disputation 2, ‘On the Nature of Being & its Divisions’ 71 pp. in A Course of Philosophy for the use of the Students of the whole Order of Friars Minor… according to the Mind of Scotus (Venetia, 1714)
Dupasquier, Sebastien – Disputation 3, On Universals in General (d. c. 1718) 41 pp. ToC at the end
Dupasquier (c. 1630 – c. 1718)
Krisper, Crescentius
The Whole of Metaphysics, based on Aristotle’s Metaphysics Books 211 pp. tr. by AI by OmegPoint99 in The Theology of the Scotist School (1728)
Krisper (c.1679-1749) was a German Franciscan.
Intro 1: On the Nature & Object of Metaphysics 1
Intro 2: On the Adequate Object of Metaphysics 14
Distinction 1, On the Nature of Being 20
1. Does real being express a single concept, both formal and
objective? 20
2. Is the concept of being just as unified with respect to God and creatures as it is with respect to substance and accident? 31
3. Does the concept of being perfectly prescind from all its inferiors? 38
4. Is the concept of being rigorously distinct from all of its inferiors, namely God, creature, substance, and accident, by the nature of things? 46
5. Is a being formally and adequately included in its immediate
contractions? 57
6. Is being contracted to its inferiors through differences or intrinsic modes? 68
7. Is the concept of being truly univocal with respect to God and
creatures, substance and accident? 73
Distinction 2, On the Essence & Existence of Finite Being 80
1. In what do the essences of finite beings consist as distinct from existence? 83
2. How is existence distinguished from essence? 90
3. Is the possibility of creatures the very omnipotence of God? 102
4. From eternity, is the first diminished being of creatures something truly real and actual, or something in between real and logical, or something solely logical? 110
Distinction 3, On the Divisions of Real Being 126
1. How is real being well and primarily divided? 126
Distinction 4, On the Properties & Attributes of Being in General & Particular 131
1. Whether & how many simple positive properties does real being have? 126
2. In what does the first property of being, namely unity, consist? 136
3. What does the second property of being, namely truth, consist of? 140
4. What does the third property of being [ens], namely goodness, consist of? 142
5. What are the complex, or disjunctive properties of being [ens] in particular, namely to be in potency, or act, necessary, or contingent, the same, or distinct? 146
Distinction 5. On Subsistence, or the Supposite of Being 148
1. What is the formal effect of subsistence: or what is subsistence, or supposite in respect to being? 148
2. Does subsistence consist of something positive or negative? 155
Distinction 6. On the Inherence of Accidental Being 182
1. Whether the same accident can, at least supernaturally, inhere in multiple subjects or multiple accidents can inhere in the same subject 189
2. Whether a spiritual accident can be subjected in a corporeal
subject, and a corporeal one in an incorporeal subject? 196
Distinction 7, On immaterial beings, namely Angels & Intelligences 196
1. Are Angels incorporeal or composite? 196
2. Are Angels or other spiritual substances in place through their operation? 199
Distinction 8, On the First Being, namely God 202
1. Whether it can be demonstrated naturally that God
exists? 202-211
.
pt. 4, On the Books of the Soul, or on the Animate Body in The Philsophy of the Scotist School 137 pp. ToC at the end
Distinctions 16-17, ‘On Congruent & Condign Merit’ 6 pp.
Introduction to the Books of Physics; & bk. 1, On the Nature, Object & Quality of Physics tr. AI by OmegaPoint 198 pp.
.
ed. Jerome of Montefortino – Summa of a Scotus Summa tr. Peter L.P. Simpson (d. 1738)
Peter L.P. Simpson:
“The following translations from Jerome of Montefortino’s [d. 1738] selections and arrangement of Scotus’ writings are meant to make more readily and readably accessible the philosophical theology of the Subtle and Marian Doctor.
Montefortino’s arrangement of his selections follows the pattern of St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica. However, only the responses in the body of each article are translated here. Adding the objections and replies that are in Montefortino’s original [Latin] (again following the Thomistic pattern) would not only greatly extend the size of the translation but would also make the whole less accessible to interested readers…
Montefortino’s texts, which are from the old Wadding edition of Scotus’ works, fairly represent Scotus as he was discussed and defended for many centuries after his death. This advantage is no mean one, although these texts combine elements from different writings of Scotus (as that the Oxford work, or Oxon. here, combines the Ordinatio with parts of the Reportatio and the Additiones Magnae), and even contain some writings now known not to have been by Scotus but by some of his early followers.
The recent critical editions of Scotus’ writings, while more accurate to what Scotus himself wrote and when (and so more valuable for scholarly purposes), are less accurate to Scotus as he was widely known (and so less valuable for understanding historical Scotism).”
.
pt. 1
q. 1-3 Revelation, Theology, Whether God exists
q. 4-74
q. 75-77 Human Soul & Body
q. 78-119
pt. 1 of 2
q. 1-17 Man’s Ultimate End, Man’s Blessedness, Human Acts, Will, Enjoyment, Intention, Choice, Deliberation, Consent, Use, Acts,
q. 18-89
q. 90-100 Law, Eternal, Natural & Human Law, Change in, Decalogue
q. 101-14
pt. 2 of 2
q. 1-189
pt. 3
q. 1-26
q. 27-29 Sanctification of Mary, Virginity & Espousals of
q. 30-59
q. 60-62 Sacraments, Necessity & Principal Effect of (Grace)
q. 63-90
.
.
1900’s
Wolter, Allan B. – Little Summary of Metaphysics (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Co., 1958)
Allan B. Wolter (1913-2006) was an American, Franciscan, John Duns Scotus (d. 1308) scholar and professor of philosophy.
This is a medium level, short book on the topic, and is very good for the purpose.
.
In Latin
.
Order of
Andreas
Meyronnes
Wodeham
Peter of Aquila
Stetzing
Vorillon
Herrera
Mastrius
Brancati di Lauria
Belluto
.
.
1300’s
Andreas, Antonius – A Long Work Most Absolute on the Four Books of Sentences (d. 1320; Venice: Damian Zenarum, 1578) 180 fol. ToC Index
Andreas (c.1280-1320) was a Spanish Franciscan theologian and a pupil of Duns Scotus. He was teaching at the University of Lleida (Spain) in 1315 and was nicknamed Doctor Dulcifluus or Doctor Scotellus (which was applied as well to Peter of Aquila).
Francis of Meyronnes – An Illuminated Writing on the Four Books of Sentences (d. 1328; 1520) Index 1, 2, 3
Francis (c. 1280–1328) was a French scholastic philosopher. He was a distinguished pupil of Duns Scotus, whose teaching he usually followed. He acquired a great reputation for ability in discussion at the Sorbonne, and was known as the Doctor Illuminatus, ‘Enlightened teacher’, as Magister Acutus or Doctor Acutus, and as Magister Abstractionum, ‘Master of abstractions’.
Adam Wodeham
The Second Lecture (bk. 1, dist. 1-26) Selection
eds. Gal, Gedeon & Rega Wood – Lectura secunda in librum primum sententiarum, vols. 1 (Prologue & Dist. 1), 2 (Dist. 2-7), 3 (Dist. 8-26) (NY: St. Bonaventure, 1990)
On the Four Books of the Sentences ed. John Major (1512) Selections
Wodeham (1298–1358) was a philosopher and theologian. Currently, Wodeham is best known for having been a secretary of William Ockham and for his interpretations of John Duns Scotus.
Peter of Aquila – Commentaries on the Four Books of the Sentences of Master Peter Lombard, vol. 1 (bk. 1), 2 (bk. 2), 3 (bk. 3), 4 (bk. 4) ed. Cypriano Paolini (Levant, 1907–09) ToC 1, 2, 3, 4
Peter (d. 1361) was an Italian Friar Minor, theologian and bishop. He was an able interpreter of John Duns Scotus, and was called Doctor Sufficiens. His chief works are commentaries on the four books of Sentences, which being a compendium of the doctrine of Scotus were called Scotellum, whence the author’s surname “Scotellus”.
.
.
1400’s
Stetzing, Kilian – Commentary on the 3rd & 4th Books of the Sentences of Peter Lombard (1435, manuscipt)
Stetzing (c. 1400 – post-1435) was a Franciscan theologian. His work reflects a comprehensive education, is strongly influenced by Johannes Duns Scotus in terms of the history of ideas, like the entire Erfurt School. In addition, thoughts of St. Bonaventure on the vita contemplativa flowed in. Everything is supported by a strong, sometimes childlike piety. His clear style and clear presentation make him appear to be an important teacher of Erfurt studies.
William of Vorillon
A Compendium of the Four Books of the Sentences (Paris, 1448; Basel, 1510) 1000 pp. Indices: Questions, Distinctions, Sentences
William (c. 1390-1463) was a French philosopher and theologian. He wrote a biography of Duns Scotus.
Brady, Ignatius C. – “The ‘Declaratio seu Retractatio’ of William of Vaurouillon” in Archivum Franciscanum Historicum 58, pp. 394-416
There are 17 amendments of book 1, 11 of book 2, 6 of book 3 and 5 of book 4.
.
.
1600’s
Francisco of Herrera – A Manual of Theology & Most Resolving Explanation of the Principal Questions which are commonly disputed in the four books of sentences, with the principal, fundamental opinions of the most subtle doctor Duns Scotus and the angelic doctor Thomas… (Rome, 1607) 247 pp. ToC
Francisco (1576–1656) was a distinguished Spanish painter, born in Seville. He was the founder of the Seville school.
Mastrius, Bartolomeo
Disputations on the Four Books of Sentences… the Scotist Theology being Vindicated, bk. 1, 2, 3, 4 new ed. (d. 1673; Venice, 1731) ToC 1, 2, 3, 4 Index 1, 2, 3, 4
Mastrius (1602–1673) was an Italian Conventual Franciscan philosopher and theologian. He was deeply versed in the writings of Duns Scotus.
Collection of Three Works at Sydney Penner
Brancati di Lauria, Francesco Lorenzo – Commentaries on the Sentences of Master John Duns Scotus (Rome: Corbellett, 1653-1682)
bk. 3
pt. 1 Incarnation ToC Syllabus of Notable Things
pt. 2 Faith & its Propagation
pt. 3
bk. 4
pt. 1 Baptism & Eucharist
pt. 2
pt. 3
pt. 4 Last Things
Brancati (1612-1693) was an Italian cardinal and theologian.
.
.
1700’s
Belluto, Bonaventura & Bartolomeo Mastrius – A Whole Course of Philosophy to the Mind of Scotus, vol. 1-2, 3-4, 5-6 (Venetia: Pezzana, 1727)
Belluto (1600-1676) was a Franciscan.
.
Bibliography
Articles
1900’s
Grajewski, Maurice – ‘Scotistic Bibliography of the Last Decade (1929-1939)’, pt. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 in Franciscan Studies, New Series, vol. 1, no. 1 (March 1941) through vol. 2, no. 2 (1942)
.
.
.
Related Pages