Dunken. See Baptists (Gbrmak).
Dmm, Thomas, a Methodist Episcopal minister, was bom in Virginia in 1774 ; while young emigrated to Ohio; entered the Ohio Conference in 1885, and died at Cindnnati hi April, 1850. '* in 1887 Mr. Dunn addressed a note to the Wetter* CkrMcm Advocate^ in which he called attentitm to the condition of the Germans in this country, suggested the importance of a German press, and forwarded a subscription for that purpose.'* This was the first public movement to- wards the important work of German Methodism. He was ** a good man, a fervid and persuasive preacher, a devoted pastor, a courteous gentleman, and a great peace-maker. His understanding was solid, his im- pulses generous, and liis influence strong and sweet." He died April, I860.— ilftwite* of Conferences, iv, 498 ; Thomson, BuM^rapkiccU Sketches, p. 176^
Dona Sootus, Johankes (Doctor SubtiHt), one of the most eminent of the Scholastic theologians, was bom, according to one account, about 1265, at Dun< stance, near Alnwick, Northumberiand ; according to another, at Duns, or Dunse, in Berwickshire, Soot- land. In fact, both the plaoe and the date of his birth are unknown. At an early age he joined the Bfinorite Friars, and was sent by them to Oxford, where he be- came fellow of Merton College. In 1801 he was ap- pointed to the theological chair in Oxford, which he filled with so great reputation that it is said more than 80,000 schobirs came to Oxford to hear him. In 1804 he removed to Paris, where he was made doctor of theology, and soon rose to the head of the theological schools. He here distinguished himself especially by his advocacy of the immaculate conception (q. v.) of the Virgin Mary against Thomas Aquinas and the Dominicans. He influenced the University of Paris to adopt this heresy. In 1808 Duns Scotns was order- ed by Gonsalvo, the general of the Minorites, to Co- logne, to oppose the Beguines. On the road he was met in solemn pomp, and conducted into the town by the whole body of citizens. He died of an apoplexy at Cologne Nov. 8, 1808. Paul Jovins relates that, when he fell from apoplexy, he was immediately in- terred as dead; but that afterwards coming to his senses, he languished in a most miserable manner in his coffin, beating his head and hands against its sides till he died.
His philosopliical views are thus stated by Tenn^ mann: ^^His celebrated attack on the system of Thomas Aquinas drew this skilf^ reasoner very tn- quently into vain and idle distinctions, but in idl his dialectic disputes he maintained a steady seal for the promotion of real knowledge. He endeavored to as- certain some certain principle of knowledge, whether rational or empirical, and applied himself to demon- strate the trath and necessity of revelation. As a Realist, he differed from Thomas Aquinas by asserting that the universal is contained in the particular, not merely tM potae, but in actu ; that it is not created by the understanding, but communicated to it ; and that the nature of things is determined in particular or uni- versal by a higher or absolute principle. In Psychol- ogy he opposed the belief that the faculties of the soul are distinct. The object of Philosophy was, in his opinion, to become cognizant of the nature of things, or what is. Although human philosophy teaches the sufficiency of reason, and that supernatural disclosares
itiiisl
■•■1 (tell
^1b^
are superfluous, the theologian rsgudi s eitiii peniataral revelation as necessary, never attain to certain truth by mtpediogcidii secondary causes, whether ideas or object of theology is God, an infinite BoB&aik first pdndple of «11 things. Tethe iiB8ttik» garded in the light of his infinity, but tfUifcaii the latter idea behig more perfect thtBtktealfe- cause God cannot be conceived apart fan ate, though infinity can be conoeiTsd wkkit Gd h attributed indeterminate freedom to G«d,aikis regarded the subjective wiU of Ged si tk padpit of morality. Sometimes he expressed dosbs s t the possibility oi a ratioaal the^ogy. Do hn was the founder of a school, ti&e &oiiiti,vk£a' guished themselves for subtlety of di^MttiH.^ for incessant disputes with tiie Tkemkta, Tka^ putes were so frsquentiy mixed up with teo ^ sions that sdence derived from then fittlt kiA and it very frequentiy happened thst tk pas i question, instead of being eluddsted, vcn tboc through their controversies'' (Tenneatin, M— IS tory ofPhUotopky, § 368). See Sceouibc.
As to the will. Duns Sootus msiotiiMditofe*- dom, without any dOerminiew^ In fMt, "tki kiia; distinction between the Thomist and tite Sdlis;^ choloffjf respects the relation of thmkiiig aad v^ which, although they are found united, 0itiK,a^ soul, are really (formdiUr) distinct, ss wdltaati other as from the soul (Op. Oxon. ii, ^ 16). Tk^ terminism of Thomas, according to wbieh thivi se> essarily chooses yrhai the thon^t prwntt to i * the best, Duns combats most emphstialhr. )^«r that the will has the power to determine hsdf (Si»> ly alone (ibid, d. 26), and, under oertun drcBS** to act against the reason (Diqmt.mitiL9»ai)S^^ in decided opposition to Thomas, it msy be aidw in very many cases the reason is deterauied bj t> wUl, e. g. when I will to thmk. It is nwrt^ to distinguish two diffisrent modes of thinkar^ first, which precedes the will; the seccod,w^fc lows it; but even the former does not d«aE«* will, for twftiiito* erf w^jerwr tstefleds (^. Onati