****************************************************************************
It is John Duns Scotus who at one point suggests ......etc.
Colm, before you close the door on this point you might want to
refer to Scotus' Opus Oxoniense; Liber III, Dist. xxxvii:
After a subtle discussion on the Decalogue contingent on God's command to
Abraham to sacrifice his son, Scotus covers all his bases with:
And so pulling it all together: first, it is denied that all the
Commandments of the second table belong to the law of nature (i.e. conse-
quentialist), STRICTLY speaking. Second, it is conceded that the first
two Commandments of the first table belong to the law of nature, STRICTLY
speaking. Third, there is some doubt about the third Commandment of the
first table. And fourth, it is conceded that all belong to the law of
nature, speaking BROADLY.
Gratias Doctorus Subtilissimus
Paul Nelson
***************************************************************************
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|