God and Creatures. The Quadlibetal Questions

Description

This is the first major work of the famous mediaeval scholastic theologian John Duns Scotus to be translated into English in its entirety. One of the towering intellectual figures of his age, Scotus has had a lasting influence on Western philosophy comparable only to that of Thomas Aquinas. The questions Scotus discusses on the subject "God and Creatures" were originally presented to him in the course of a quodlibetal dispute, a public debate popular in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. In revising the questions for publication, Scotus wove in much of his basic philosophy and theology, making this work one of the mainstays on which his reputation as a thinker depends. The text of the English translation is based on the most authoritative version of the original Latin text. The extensive annotation and a glossary of technical terms permit each question to be read as an integral treatise in its own right. Contents v Abbreviations xiv Acknowledgments xv Introduction xvii Prologue 3 Question One: IN DIVINE THINGS, IS IT THE ESSENTIAL OR THE NOTIONAL THAT IS MORE IMMEDIATE TO THE DIVINE ESSENCE? Arguments Pro and Con 5 Body of the Question 6 Article I Preliminary Remarks 6 1. The Meaning of “Essence” 6 2. The Meaning of “Essential” and “Notional” 9 3. The Meaning of “More Immediate” 19 Article II Solution of the Question 20 Article III Reply to various Objections 23 Reply to the Initial Argument 29 Question Two: COULD THERE BE SEVERAL PRODUCTIONS OF THE SAME TYPE IN GOD? Arguments Pro and Con 31 Body of the Question 32 Article I An Evaluation of the Reasons for the Negative Conclusion 32 Article II Solution of the Question 44 1. Indirect Argument or the Reductio ad impossibile 44 2. The Positive Proof 46 3. Confirmation from the Philosopher 48 Article III Objections and their Solutions 50 Question Three: ARE THESE TWO COMPATIBLE: A RELATION RELATED TO ITS OPPOSITE IS A REAL THING; AND, AS RELATED TO THE ESSENCE, IT IS ONLY AN ASPECT? Arguments Pro and Con 60 Body of the Question 60 Article I Is the Relation of Origin a Thing and, if so, What Kind of Thing? 61 Article II As Related to the Essence, is the Relation a Thing and What Kind of Thing? 64 1. The Relation as Related to the Essence is a Thing 64 2. Logical Consideration of the Statement “The relation as related to the essence is a thing.” 66 3. Solution of the Principal Question 68 Article III Resolution of various Doubts 69 Reply to the Initial Argument 78 Question Four: COULD THE FIRST DIVINE PERSON REMAIN CONSTITUTED AS A PERSON, DISTINCT FROM THE OTHER PERSONS, APART FROM THE RELATIONSHIP OF ORIGIN? Arguments Pro and Con 80 Body of the Question 80 Article I Is it Repugnant that the First Person be Constituted by a Relation? 81 Article II By What Relation could the First Person be Constituted? 83 Article III What is the Interrelation of those Relations Admittedly Present in the First Person? 98 1. Is there some Distinction of Properties in the First Person? 99 2. From What Considerations could One Prescind and still have the First Person? 103 Reply to the Initial Argument 105 Question Five: IS THE RELATION OF ORIGIN FORMALLY INFINITE? Arguments Pro and Con 108 Body of the Question 108 Article I The Meaning of the Question 108 Article II Solution of the Question: Paternity is not Infinite 114 1. The First Principal Reason 114 2. The Second Principal Reason 118 3. The Third Principal Reason 120 Article III Objections and Answers 123 Reply to the Initial Argument 128 Question Six: IS “EQUALITY” IN THE DIVINE A REAL RELATION? Arguments Pro and Con 130 Body of the Question 130 Article I Is there a Real Foundation for Equality in the Divine? 130 1. The Foundation for Equality in General 131 2. The Foundation of Equality in God 132 3. Is Each of these Foundations for Equality Real? 133 1) First question: Is magnitude in God something extramental? 133 2) Second question: Is eternity a real or extramental basis for equality? 141 3) Third question: Is power a real basis for equality? 143 Article II Are the Terms Related really Distinct? 145 Article III Is Equality in the Persons according to an Extramental Foundation? 154 Reply to the Initial Arguments 157 Question Seven: CAN IT BE DEMONSTRATED BY NATURAL AND NECESSARY REASON THAT GOD IS OMNIPOTENT? Arguments Pro and Con 159 Body of the Question 160 Article I The Necessary Distinctions 160 1. Demonstration of Simple Fact and of the Reasoned Fact 160 2. Two Meanings of Omnipotence 161 Article II Solution of the Question 162 1. Concerning the First Conclusion 164 2. Concerning the Second Conclusion 165 3. Concerning the Third Conclusion 169 4. Concerning the Fourth Conclusion 172 5. Concerning the Fifth Conclusion 181 Reply to the Initial Arguments 182 1. Reply to the Argument about Infinite Power 182 2. Reply to the Argument about the Generation of the Son 185 3. Reply to the Argument about the Creation of the Angels 188 Question Eight: DOES THE DIVINE WORD HAVE SOME CAUSALITY OF HIS OWN AS REGARDS CREATURES? Arguments Pro and Con 198 Body of the Question 199 Article I Is there some Formal Aspect of Causation Proper to the Word? 199 1. Negative Answer: Three Proofs 199 2. Objection to these Proofs 203 3. Answer to the Objection 204 Article II Is some Mode or Order in Causing Proper to the Word? 210 Article III Is some Relationship of Causality or any Relationship of His to a Creature Included per se in the Word’s Constitutive Property? 212 Reply to the Initial Argument 216 Question Nine: CAN GOD BRING IT ABOUT THAT AN ANGEL INFORM MATTER? Arguments Pro and Con 218 Body of the Question 219 Article I The Meaning of the Question 219 Article II Answer to the Question 219 Article III Some Objections and their Solutions 228 Reply to the Initial Argument 235 Question Ten: CAN GOD CONVERT THE EUCHARISTIC SPECIES INTO SOMETHING PREVIOUSLY EXISTING? Arguments Pro and Con 236 Body of the Question 237 Article I The terminus a quo or the Separated Quantity 237 Article II The terminus ad quem or What Preexists 242 Article III About the Conversion Itself 251 Reply to the Initial Arguments 255 Question Eleven: IF BOTH BODY AND PLACE REMAIN, CAN GOD CAUSE THE BODY NOT TO HAVE UBIETY? Arguments Pro and Con 257 Body of the Question 258 Article I Given Place in General, is it Repugnant for a Body in General to Lack Ubiety? 258 Article II Given Body in General, is it Repugnant to Place in General that no Ubiety Exist? 260 Article III Given this Body, this Place, but this Body not Present in this Place, is it Possible that this Body should Lack this Ubiety? 263 Article IV If this Body and Place Exist and this Body is Present in this Place, can it still Lack this Ubiety? 265 Reply to the Initial Argument 270 Question Twelve: IS THE RELATION OF A CREATURE TO GOD AS CREATOR THE SAME AS THE RELATION TO GOD AS CONSERVER? Arguments Pro and Con 271 Body of the Question 272 Article I Is the Real Relation of the Creature to God as Creator and as Conserver the Same? 272 Article II Can a Thing be Said to be at once Created and Conserved? 275 Article III Can Something be Created without being Conserved after the Instant of Creation? 277 Reply to the Initial Arguments 282 Question Thirteen: ARE THE ACTS OF KNOWING AND APPETITION ESSENTIALLY ABSOLUTE OR ESSENTIALLY RELATIVE? Arguments Pro and Con 284 Body of the Question 284 Article I There is some Absolute Entity Involved in Every Operation including Intellection 285 Article II How this Absolute Entity is Related to the Object Connected with It 288 1. The Operation, Some Claim, must Involve a Real Relationship to the Object 288 2. How are We to Understand the Claim that the Operation Implies a Relation? 290 3. Analysis of the Arguments in the First Section 296 Article III Is a Relationship to the Object Essential to the Act of Knowing or Appetition? 302 Article IV The Question Understood as Referring to the Subject 312 Reply to the Initial Argument 312 Question Fourteen: CAN THE SOUL LEFT TO ITS NATURAL PERFECTION KNOW THE TRINITY OF PERSONS IN GOD? Arguments Pro and Con 315 Body of the Question 316 Article I Imperfect Knowledge 317 1. Knowledge of the Terms “God” and “Trinity” 317 2. Knowledge of the Proposition “God is a Trinity” 319 Article II Perfect Immediate Knowledge 324 Article III Mediate Knowledge 336 Question Fifteen: IS THE POSSIBLE INTELLECT ACTIVE OR PASSIVE AS REGARDS THE CONCEPT OF A CREATURE? Arguments Pro and Con 344 Body of the Question 345 Article I Formation of the Word according to the Manner in Which We Understand in the Present Life 345 1. In the Intellective Part of the Soul there is an Active Principle of Intellection 345 2. Which Factor is Active in Intellection? 350 3. Is it the Agent or the Possible Intellect That is Active in Intellection? 355 Article II How the Notion or Word is Formed in the Intellect of the Blessed in Heaven 363 Reply to the Initial Arguments 366 Question Sixteen: ARE FREEDOM OF WILL AND NATURAL NECESSITY COMPATIBLE AS REGARDS THE SAME ACT AND OBJECT? Arguments Pro and Con 369 Body of the Question 370 Article I Is there Necessity in any Act of the Will? 370 Article II Can Freedom and Necessity Coexist in the Will? 377 Article III Can Natural Necessity ever Coexist with Freedom? 380 Reply to the Initial Argument 385 Question Seventeen: ARE ACTS OF NATURAL LOVE AND MERITORIOUS LOVE SPECIFICALLY THE SAME? Arguments Pro and Con 388 Body of the Question 388 Article I The Meaning of Natural Dilection or Love 388 Article II The Meaning of Meritorious Love or Dilection 389 Article III Solution of the Question 391 Reply to the Initial Argument 397 Question Eighteen: DOES THE EXTERIOR ACT ADD SOME GOODNESS OR BADNESS TO THE INTERIOR ACT? Arguments Pro and Con 399 Body of the Question 399 Article I The Source of Moral Goodness or Badness 400 Article II The Source of Laudability and Culpability 406 Article III Is the Goodness or Laudability of the External Action Distinct from That of the Interior Act? 408 1. The Exterior Act has Its Own Moral Goodness 408 2. The External Act is Imputable 416 Reply to the Initial Argument 416 Question Nineteen: IS THE UNITY IN CHRIST OF THE HUMAN NATURE WITH THE WORD MERELY THE ASSUMED NATURE’S DEPENDENCE UPON THE WORD? Arguments Pro and Con 418 Body of the Question 418 Article I The Type of Unity to be Posited Here 418 Article II The Possibility of Such a Union on the Part of the Assuming Person 421 1. First Proof 421 2. Second Proof 427 3. Proofs Proposed by Others 430 4. Objection to the Conclusion of this Article 431 Article III The Possibility of Such a Union on the Part of the Assumed Nature 432 1. What Constitutes Created Personality? 432 2. Can a Human Nature Depend upon an Extrinsic Person? 436 Reply to the Initial Argument 442 Question Twenty: DOES A PRIEST WHO IS OBLIGED TO SAY A MASS FOR EACH OF TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE SATISFY HIS OBLIGATION BY SAYING ONE MASS FOR BOTH? Arguments Pro and Con 443 Body of the Question 443 Article I The Value of the Mass in virtue of the Celebrant’s Personal Merit 444 Article II The Value of the Mass by reason of the Merit of the Universal Church 453 1. Can the Priest Apply the Merit due in virtue of the Sacrifice? 453 2. Can the Priest Apply Such a Good at Will? 455 3. One Mass does not Benefit Each of Several as Much as it Would if Offered for One Alone 458 Article III Does the Priest Satisfy his Obligation to Both by One Offering? 461 Reply to the Initial Argument 468 Question Twenty-One: CAN ONE WHO ADMITS THAT THE WORLD IS ETERNAL DEFEND THE POSITION THAT ANYONE COULD ALWAYS BE FORTUNATE? Arguments Pro and Con 469 Body of the Question 470 Article I The View that Someone is Fortunate 470 1. The Existence and Nature of Good Fortune 470 The Reportatio Version: Can Those Who Admit the World is Eternal also Admit that a Man is Fortunate 473 Body of the Question 474 1. The View that Someone can be Fortunate 475 2. About Aristotle’s View that the World is Eternal 482 Appendix Addition 1.11 485 Addition 1.38 485 Addition 7.38 486 Addition 9.53 487 Addition 11.15 488 Addition 12.28 488 Addition 13.56 488 Addition 14.25 489 Addition 15.79 489 Addition 18.23 490 Addition 20.49 491 Glossary 493 Index of Authors 541 Index of Subjects 544