Per Caritatem

This series will be a multi-part presentation of chapters 1-2 of Heiko A. Oberman’s book, The Dawn of the Reformation. Oberman divides chapter one, “Fourteenth-Century Religious Thought: A Premature Profile,” into seven sections. This post will cover sections 1-3. The first section serves an introduction in which Oberman spells out his intentions for this chapter. Desiring both to avoid artificial categories employed by many historians, as well as atomizing tendencies, Oberman intends to show the “pregnant plurality of fourteenth-century thought” (p.1). In order to do this, a new perspective must be opened because our current perspective on fourteenth-century thought has been more or less determined by preceding scholarship (e.g., as a result of the excellent work of Martin Grabmann and Etienne Gilson). Grabmann and Gilson focused their work on the 13th century with St. Thomas Aquinas as the central reference point. Consequently, the tendency was to compare and evaluate the 14th century on the basis of Thomas’ system. In contrast, Oberman contends that St. Bonaventure and the Franciscan tradition (rather than St. Thomas) was the main source of inspiration for the 14th century and that Bonaventure above all “determines the questions asked and the answers given” (p. 3).

In section two, “The Myth of the Thomist Phalanx,” Oberman de-mythologizes the myth that Thomas unequivocally reigned supreme in the fourteenth century. Though not denying St. Thomas’ stature and the influence of his works in the universities, Oberman claims that the thesis of Thomist supremacy in the 14th century does not stand up under closer scrutiny. In fact, there was a good deal of opposition during this time to Thomas’ teaching. For example, the Dominican General Chapter had to defend Thomas four times in a period of 25 years before the ruling to teach Thomas “singularitur” was put into practice. One result of these decrees was “the lectura thomasina, the commentary on the Sentences of Lombard according the young Thomas” (p. 4). Secondly, in the 1320’s, because the opposition outside the Dominican order had become so strong, a group of early disciplines of Thomas called the defensores arose. When a selection of 230 errors of Aquinas (mainly dealing with metaphysical issues) was drawn up, the defensores in their attempt to address these concerns actually ended up “transmitting a metaphysical Thomas, without paying equal attention to Thomas as the interpreter of the Fathers and of the Scriptures” (p. 5). The emphasis on a metaphysical Thomas enabled a caricature of an Aristotelian, anti-Augustinian Thomas to take hold (p. 5). In addition, “the lectura thomasinaencouraged a stress on the young Thomas of the Sentences commentary [which Oberman claims is more semi-Pelagian] rather than on the mature Thomas of the Summa theologiae” [the mature Thomas sheds the semi-Pelagian aspects and adopts an Augustinian view of justification by grace alone] (p. 5). Oberman ends the section by suggesting that the metaphysical Thomas presented by the defensores perhaps explains in part why Aquinas did not appeal to philosophers and theologians well into the 15th century.

In the third section, “The Franciscan Hegemony,” Oberman discusses some of the effects of the anti-Averroist condemations of 1270 and 1277. First, we might point out that the anti-Averroist condemnations created difficulties for the “organic development of Thomism” and evoked the “Franciscan alternative” (p. 5). A second result of the Parisian condemnations was the appeal to the ruling that no theology should be taught in the philosophical faculty. This in turn allowed for a study of the “pure” Aristotle (i.e., an unbaptized Aristotle) by Duns Scotus and Ockham and the nominalists in contrast to St. Thomas’ synthesizing tendencies (i.e., his presentation of an Aristotle more easily “swallow-able” for Christianity). However, this “pure Aristotle” was significantly less (if even possible at all) harmonizable with the faith. This clear tension then with Christianity then evoked a reaction by the Franciscans and opened up what Oberman calls the “Franciscan Alternative.” The Franciscans viewed Averroism with suspicion and were (1) particularly alert to any association of God and necessity and (2) particularly welcoming of accounts of God as a freewilling Person. One of the main emphases of the Franciscan alternative was the Augustinian concept of promissio. God’s promissio or pactum (or eternal decree)—his “reliable commitment”—which precedes history (taking place in eternity “past”) and which when enacted initiates or underlies creation and redemption (historia salutis). Hence, it is rightly termed a metahistorical conception[1] and is set in contrast to the metaphysical ontology of St. Thomas. Oberman then highlights the total “otherness” of these two conceptions. “Whereas in Thomas’ metaphysical ontology the natural and the supernatural realms are organically joined by the Being of God in whom we participate by reason and faith, the metahistorical alternative retraces nature and supernature, creation and redemption, to the Person of God, and points to God’s will as […] the ‘ceiling’ of theology” (p. 6).

Oberman then goes on to discuss and relate the above findings to the 14th century use of the dialectics of the potentia absoluta (absolute power) and the potentia ordinata (ordained power). Here the potentia ordinata speaks of the domain of theology which finds its subject matter in God’s revealed will,[2] i.e., in what God actually does in time/history (according to his eternal decree) in creation and redemption (p. 7). Going beyond the potentia ordinata is to move into speculative territory and to engage in hubristic activity. In contrast, “[p]otentia absoluta marks the realm where speculative reason is no longer guided by faith. It is the domain of God’s unlimited freedom abstracted from his commitments de potentia ordinata” (p. 7). One should not, however, interpret or equate the anti-speculative affective thrust of the Franciscans with anti-intellectualism or intellectual laziness (p. 8).

Notes
[1] The nominalists of course considered themselves the more consistent advocates of the metaphysical conception of theology.
[2] I.e., in Scripture, the Fathers, and the doctrinal decisions of the Church.

Gilson has a brief but dense section in his Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages on the very interesting figure, Henry of Ghent. According to Henry, the divine ideas are not created and are themselves God. They have no subsistence of their own and no actual being besides that of God (p. 450). Yet, “since an Idea represents a possible creature, it can be said to be distinct from God at least to the extent that it is in him a distinct object of cognition” (p. 450). We may also say that (1) “God first knows his own essence in itself;” (2) “in the very act by which God knows his own essence, he knows all creatable things according to the being they have in his own knowledge of them;” (3) “God knows the being which possible creatures have in themselves and as distinct from his own being” (p. 450). Being that is “proper to the creature considered in itself,” Henry calls “essence.” An Idea then is the combination of the “essence of each possible creature” with the “content which defines it.” An Idea “represents a possible imitation of the divine essence. As such, this ideal essence has a being of its own; otherwise it would not be the idea of a possible creature; it would be the self-knowledge of God qua God. Its being, however, is not an actual being added to that of God. It is the being that belongs to a known essence precisely inasmuch as it is known. The being of an essence taken precisely qua essence is what Henry calls ‘being of essence’ (esse essentiae)” (p. 450). As Gilson explains, Duns Scotus will strongly criticize this doctrine. Gilson also notes that Henry rejects Avicenna’s understanding of the actualizing of essences (a necessitarian conception). “In the doctrine of Avicenna, God has a will, but his will cannot not consent to the consecutions of Ideas which eternally unfold themselves in the divine mind. While God is thinking the intelligible order of all the possibles, they come to be according to the same order; the eternal speculation of God is eternally being actualized by his will” (p. 451). In contrast, Henry’s view claims that God freely creates certain possibles. In addition, “the fact that God freely chooses from amongst an infinity of possibles does not affect the content of their essences; it simply turns their being of essence into a being of existence, which is the proper effect of creation” (p. 451).

Also, according to Henry, the act of creation and the divine being are in God not distinct. “In creatures, creation is nothing more than their relation to the cause of their actual being. What we call existence is nothing else than being itself taken as an effect of this causal relation. There is therefore no such thing as a distinction or composition of essence and existence.”[1] […] To Henry of Ghent, an existent is simply a possible being actualized by its cause. Once actualized, it is an individual in its own right; each created form is in a fully constituted subject (suppositum) which is distinct from all the other ones in virtue of its very unity. A being is distinct from the others because it is one; it is one because it is not divided from itself; consequently, every actual being is individual in virtue of a ‘twofold negation’: a negation which denies of every being all difference with respect to itself, and a negation which denies of every being all identity with any other one. As can be seen, Henry answers the problem of the cause of individuation by a description of its effects (p. 451).

Questions:
(1) What is Scotus’ criticism of Henry’s doctrine of esse essentiae? Any other relevant Henry of Ghent contrasts/comparisons with Scotus are quite welcome (Garrett, where are you? : )
(2) What is the ultimate telos of the Divine Ideas—actual existence as distinct from God’s own being? If so, does that cause difficulties in regard to creation being a “free” creation of God?

Notes
[1] In a footnote, Gilson further elucidates Henry’s position: “In God, every creature has its own being of essence, but, naturally, not its being of existence, so it can have no composition of essence and existence in God. In itself, it has the same being of essence which God eternally knew he would create outside of his own intellect. Its actual existence precisely consists in being a created essence; in other words, its existence is its essence after it has been created. […] Consequently, there is no distinction of essence and existence in created beings. ‘Esse’ is not ‘res aliqua super essentiam creaturae.’ If esse is added to essence, is it a substance or an accident? It cannot be an accident because, before its creation, there is no essence to receive existence. In fact, existence is not an extrinsic participation by mode of inherence, it is produced by creation. Strictly speaking, only God is his own existence. Creatures are not their own existence in the same sense; what is true is that creatures are not really distinct from their own esse. Their existence does not happen to their already existing essence (in God, it has no existence of its own); it is ‘an effect of the creator in that which receives being.’ Nevertheless, since an essence as such is something else than an existing essence, their distinction in our mind is not only of reason, it is that of two notions (non solum ratione differunt sed etiam intentione). This means that it takes two distinct conceptions to signify as essence and an existent” (note 44, p. 761).

Regarding Vrieberg’s view of the agent intellect and the idea that abstraction as generally understood is insufficient to explain intellectual knowledge because things, sensible impressions, particular images, etc. remain in the realm of the sensible order (and we need to “cross over” to the intelligible order) Gilson writes, “[t]he agent intellect can only work that transmutation because it is permanently turned toward God. We must not forget its nature: just like all other things, our intellect proceeds from the divine Ideas as an image and likeness of total being, and this is why the virtual knowledge of everything is contained in it. Its primary cognition of things is not discursive, but intuitive; it does not consider one object after another, but rather, in a single intuition, it knows its principle, acquires being and knows the totality of things” (History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages, p. 436). Though Dietrich employs Aristotelian terminology, as Gilson points out, he is in actually reaffirming Plotinus. “In his treatise On the Intellect Dietrich expressly identifies this Plotinian agent intellect with the hidden recess of the mind (abditum mentis), or the more hidden depth (abstrusior profunditas) mentioned by Augustine in his De Trinitate” (Ibid., p. 437). Augustine of course was a great proponent of the doctrine of divine illumination (see, e.g., De Magistro). Regarding his own interpretation of divine illumination, Dietrich claims the following:

1) the hidden recess of the soul mentioned by Augustine, which is also the agent intellect, is a substance; 2) it is owing to this intellection that the hidden recess of the mind understands its own essence; 4) the intellect is by essence an exemplar and a similitude of being, in that it understands being and all things; 5) an intellect which is such by essence and is always in act, as the agent intellect is, knows all other things by its own essence, in the same way as it knows itself, and by the same simple act” (Ibid., p. 437).

Regarding the last point, Dietrich concludes that “the agent intellect is by essence the pattern of all being qua being, and, consequently, that is it in itself all being. By knowing itself, it knows all. In his own divine way, God does the same thing” (Ibid., p. 437). In spite of certain Neoplatonic similarities, according to Gilson, Dietrich tended to begin with Augustine and then made him say something beyond Augustine’s actual teaching (something more in the realm of M. Eckhart?).

I would be interested to hear from some of the Augustine scholars (or anyone so inclined) additional thoughts or insights in connection with the various ways in which Dietrich departs from Augustine’s teaching (given the citations from Gilson).