Authors/Duns Scotus/Ordinatio/Ordinatio I/Prologus/P1Qu/A1

Quaeritur utrum homini pro statu isto sit necessarium aliquam doctrinam specialem supernaturaliter inspirari, ad quam videlicet non posset attingere lumine naturali intellectus

Translated by Peter Simpson.

Latin	English
Art. 1	On the Necessity of Revealed Doctrine Whether it was necessary for man in this present state that some doctrine be supernaturally inspired.
1 Quaeritur utrum homini pro statu isto sit necessarium aliquam doctrinam specialem supernaturaliter inspirari, ad quam videlicet non posset attingere lumine naturali intellectus.	The question is whether it was necessary for man in this present state that some special doctrine, namely one which he could not reach by the natural light of the intellect, be supernaturally inspired.
Et quod non, arguo sic: Omnis potentia habens aliquod commune pro primo obiecto, potest naturaliter in quodlibet contentum sub ipso sicut in per se ƿ obiectum naturale. Hoc probatur per exemplum de primo obiecto visus et aliis contentis sub illo, et ita inductive in aliis obiectis primis et potentiis. Probatur etiam per rationem, quia primum obiectum dicitur quod est adaequatum cum potentia; sed si in aliquo esset ratio eius, scilicet primi obiecti, circa quod non posset potentia habere actum, non esset potentia adaequata, sed obiectum excederet potentiam. Patet igitur maior. Sed primum obiectum intellectus nostri naturale est ens in quantum ens; ergo intellectus noster potest naturaliter habere actum circa quodcumque ens, et sic circa quodcumque intelligibile non ens, quia negatio cognoscitur per affirmationem. Ergo etc. Probatio minoris, Avicenna I Metaphysicae cap. 5: ((Ens et res prima impressione in animam imprimuntur, nec possunt manifestari ex allis)); si autem esset aliquid aliud ab istis primum obiectum, ista possent manifestari per rationem eius; sed hoc est impossibile. ƿ	1. And that it was not necessary I argue thus: Every power having something common for its prime object is naturally capable of whatever is contained under that object just as it is capable of the per se natural object. This is proved by the example of the prime object of sight and of the other things contained under it, and thus by induction it is proved in the case of other prime objects and powers. It is also proved by reason, because the prime object is said to be that which is commensurate with the power; but if its nature, that is, the nature of the prime object, were in something about which the power was unable to be active, the power would not be commensurate but the object would exceed the power. The major premise, then, is plain. But the prime natural object of our intellect is being insofar as it is being; therefore our intellect is naturally able to be active about any being whatever, and thus about any intelligible non-being, because the negative term is known through the affirmative term. Therefore, etc. The proof of the minor is in Avicenna Metaphysics 1.6 (72rb): “Being and reality are imprinted in the soul on first impression, and these cannot be made manifest by other things;” but if there were some prime object other than them, they could be made manifest by the idea of that prime object; but this is impossible.
2 Praeterea, sensus non indiget aliqua cognitione supernaturali pro statu isto; ergo nec intellectus. Antecedens patet. Probatio consequentiae: ((Natura non deficit in necessariis)), III De anima; et si in imperfectis non deficit, multo magis nec in perfectis; ergo si non deficit in potentiis inferioribus quantum ad necessaria earum propter actus suos habendos et finem earum consequendum, multo magis nec deficit in necessariis potentiae superiori ad actum suum et finem consequendum. Ergo etc.	2. In addition, the senses do not need, for this present life, any supernatural cognition; therefore neither does the intellect. The antecedent is plain. The proof of the consequence is: “Nature does not fail in things necessary,” On the Soul, 3.9.432b21-22; but if it does not fail in things that are imperfect, much more does it not fail in those that are perfect; therefore if it does not fail in the inferior powers as to what is necessary for them to accomplish their acts and attain their end, much more does it not fail in what is necessary for the higher power to attain their act and end. Therefore etc.
3 Praeterea, si aliqua talis doctrina sit necessaria, hoc est quia potentia in puris naturalibus est improportionata obiecto ut sic cognoscibili; ergo oportet quod per aliquid aliud a se fiat ei proportionata. Illud aliud aut est naturale, aut supernaturale; si naturale, ergo totum est improportionatum primo obiecto; si supernaturale, ergo potentia est improportionata illi, et ita per aliud debet proportionari, et sic in infinitum. Ergo cum non sit procedere in infinitum, II Metaphysicae, oportet stare in primo, dicendo ƿ quod potentia intellectiva sit proportionata omni cognoscibili et secundum omnem modum cognoscibilis. Ergo etc.	3. In addition, if some such doctrine is necessary, it is because the power in its pure natural state is not commensurate with the knowable object as such; therefore it must be made commensurate by something other than itself. But this something other is either natural or supernatural; if it is natural then the whole thing is incommensurate with the prime object; if it is supernatural, then the power is incommensurate with that supernatural thing, and thus the power must be made commensurate to it by something else, and so on ad infinitum. Therefore, since an infinite process is impossible, Metaphysics 2.2.994a1-b31, one must stop at the first stage by saying that the intellective power is commensurate with everything knowable and in every way of its being knowable. Therefore, etc.
4 Ad oppositum: Tim. 3: Omnis doctrina divinitus inspirata utilis est ad arguendum etc. Praeterea, Bar. 3 de sapientia dicitur: Non est qui possit scire vias eius, sed qui scit universa novit eam; ergo nullus alius potest habere eam nisi a sciente universa. Hoc quantum ad necessitatem eius. De facto autem subdit: Tradidit eam Iacob puero suo et Israel dilecto suo, quantum ad Vetus Testamentum; et sequitur: Post haec in terris visus est et cum hominibus conservatus est, quantum ad Novum Testamentum.	4. To the opposite: 2 Timothy 3.16: “All doctrine divinely inspired is useful for reproof…” In addition, in Baruch 3.31-32 it is said of wisdom: “There is none who knows her ways, but he who knows all things knows her;” therefore no one else can have wisdom except from him who knows all things. This, then, as to the necessity for it. But about the fact he subjoins, v.37: “He handed it on to Jacob his son and to Israel his beloved,” as to the Old Testament; and then follows, v.38: “After this he is seen on earth and conversed with men,” as to the New Testament.
5 In ista quaestione videtur controversia inter philosophos et theologos. Et tenent philosophi perfectionem naturae, et negant perfectionem supernaturalem; theologi vero cognoscunt defectum naturae et necessitatem gratiae et perfectionem supernaturalem. ƿ Diceret igitur philosophus quod nulla est cognitio supernaturalis homini necessaria pro statu isto, sed quod omnem cognitionem sibi necessariam posset acquirere ex actione causarum naturalium. - Ad hoc adducitur simul auctoritas et ratio Philosophi ex diversis locis.	5. On this question there seems to be a controversy between philosophers and theologians. And the philosophers maintain the perfection of nature and deny a supernatural perfection; but the theologians acknowledge a defect of nature and a necessity of grace and a supernatural perfection. A philosopher might say, then, that no supernatural knowledge is necessary for man in this present life, but that he can acquire all knowledge necessary for himself from the activity of natural causes. Adduced for this are both the authority and also the reasoning of the Philosopher in diverse places.
6 Primo illud III De anima, ubi dicit quod ((intellectus agens est quo est omnia facere, et possibilis est quo est omnia fieri)). Ex hoc arguo sic: activo naturali et passivo simul approximatis et non impeditis sequitur actio necessario, quia non dependet essentialiter nisi ex eis tamquam ex causis prioribus; activum autem respectu omnis intelligibilis est intellectus agens, et passivum est intellectus possibilis, et haec sunt naturaliter in anima, nec sunt impedita. Patet. Ergo virtute naturali istorum potest sequi actus intelligendi respectu cuiuscumque intelligibilis.	6. First, On the Soul 3.5.430a14-15, where he says that “the agent intellect is that whereby it makes all things and the possible intellect that whereby it becomes all things.” From this I thus argue: when that which is naturally active and that which is naturally passive are brought together and are not impeded, action necessarily follows, because action depends essentially on these alone as on prior causes; but the active element with respect to every intelligible is the agent intellect, and the passive element the possible intellect, and these are naturally in the soul and are not impeded. The thing is plain. Therefore, by the natural virtue of these two, the act of understanding can ensue with respect to any intelligible whatever.
7 Confirmatur ratione: omni potentiae naturali passivae correspondet aliquod activum naturale, alioquin videretur potentia passiva esse frustra in natura si per nihil in natura posset reduci ad actum; sed intellectus possibilis est potentia passiva respectu quoƿrumcumque intelligibilium; ergo correspondet sibi aliqua potentia activa naturalis. Sequitur igitur propositum. Minor patet, quia intellectus possibilis naturaliter appetit cognitionem cuiuscumque cognoscibilis; naturaliter etiam perficitur per quamcumque cognitionem; igitur est naturaliter receptivus cuiuscumque intellectionis.	7. There is a confirmation by reason: to every natural passive power there corresponds something naturally active, otherwise the passive power would in nature be in vain if it could be reduced to act by nothing in nature; but the possible intellect is the passive power with respect to any intelligible whatever; so to it there corresponds some natural active power. The proposed conclusion then follows. The minor premise is plain, because the possible intellect naturally desires knowledge of any knowable thing whatever; it is also naturally perfected by any knowledge whatever; therefore it is naturally receptive of any understanding whatever.
8 Praeterea, VI Metaphysicae distinguitur habitus speculativus in mathematicam, physicam et metaphysicam; et ex probatione eiusdem, ibidem, non videtur possibile esse plures habitus esse speculativos, quia in istis consideratur de toto ente, et in se et quoad omnes partes. Sicut autem non posset esse aliqua speculativa alia ab istis, sic nec posset esse aliqua alia practica a practicis acquisitis activis et factivis. Ergo scientiae practicae acquisitae sufficiunt ad perficiendum intellectum practicum, et speculativae acquisitae sufficiunt ad perficiendum intellectum speculativum. ƿ	8. In addition, in Metaphysics 6.1.1026a 18-19, there is a distinction of theoretical habits into the mathematical, the physical, and the metaphysical; and from the proof of this in the same place it does not seem possible for there to be more theoretical habits, because in those habits the whole of being, both in itself and in its parts, is considered. But just as there could not be any theoretical science other than these, so neither could there be any practical science other than the acquired active and productive sciences. Therefore the acquired practical sciences are sufficient for perfecting the practical intellect, and the acquired theoretical sciences sufficient for perfecting the theoretical intellect.
9 Praeterea, potens naturaliter intelligere principium, potest naturaliter cognoscere conclusiones inclusas in principio. Hanc conclusionem probo, quia scientia conclusionum non dependet nisi ex intellectu principii et deductione conclusionum ex principio, sicut patet ex definitione 'scire' I Posteriorum; sed deductio est ex se manifesta, sicut patet ex syllogismi perfecti definitione I Priorum, quia ((nullius est indigens ut sit vel appareat evidenter necessarius)); igitur si principia intelligantur, habentur omnia quae sunt necessaria ad scientiam conclusionis. Et sic patet maior.	9. In addition, that which is naturally able to understand the principle can naturally know the conclusions contained in the principle. I prove this conclusion from the fact that the knowledge of the conclusions depends only on the understanding of the principle and on the deduction of the conclusions from the principle, as is plain from the definition of ‘know’ in Posterior Analytics 1.2.71b9-12; but a deduction is manifest of itself, as is plain from the definition of the perfect syllogism, Prior Analytics 1.1.24b22- 24, because “it is in need of nothing for being or appearing clearly necessary;” therefore if the principles are understood, there is possession of everything that is necessary for knowledge of the conclusion. And thus the major is plain.
10 Sed naturaliter intelligimus prima principia, in quibus virtualiter includuntur omnes conclusiones; ergo naturaliter possumus scire omnes conclusiones scibiles. Probatio primae partis minoris: quia termini principiorum primorum sunt communissimi, $a igitur illos naturaliter possumus inƿtelligere, quia ex I Physicorum communissima primo intelliguntur; a$ ((principia autem cognoscimus et intelligimus in quantum terminos cognoscimus)), I Posteriorum; ergo prima principia possumus naturaliter cognoscere.	10. But we naturally understand the first principles, and in these principles all the conclusions are contained; therefore we can naturally know all knowable conclusions. Proof of the first part of the minor: because the terms of the first principles are the most common terms, therefore we can naturally understand them, because from Physics 1.1.184a21-22 the most common things are understood first; “but we know and understand the principles insofar as we know the terms,” Posterior Analytics 1.3.72b23- 25; therefore we can naturally know the first principles.
11 Probatio secundae partis minoris: quia termini primorum principiorum sunt communissimi, igitur quando distribuuntur, distribuuntur pro omnibus conceptibus inferioribus; accipiuntur autem tales termini universaliter in primis principiis, et ita extendunt se ad omnes conceptus particulares, et per consequens ad extrema omnium conclusionum specialium. ƿ	11. Proof of the second part of the minor: because the terms of the first principles are the most common, therefore, when they are distributed, they are distributed for all the subordinate concepts; now, such terms are taken universally in the first principles and thus they extend to all particular concepts, and so as a result to the extremes of all special conclusions.