Anselm’s logic of the creative Being’s simple essence in the act of creation means that because it created everything through itself, as an expression of itself, how can it “be anything else than what the Spirit himself is?”[2] But because what is created cannot be what it is until later, after having been created through another, Anselm reasons, that the Spirit’s “expression itself can be conceived of as nothing else than the intelligence (intelligentia) of this Spirit, by which he conceives of (intelligenti) all things.”[3] Anselm is saying that what the Spirit thinks, he expresses. Man can conceive of things but cannot express everything he conceives. But the creative Spirit expresses everything that it conceives. But Anselm has to figure out then how to retain the simplicity of God, if God is his intelligence and expression. If God is his expression, which we see in created things, then does that imply that his expressions are consubstantial with him? However, since he has demonstrated that the Spirit is one altogether, thus indivisible, such a conclusion cannot follow. And this is when Anselm takes up the notion of the Word. As we speak in many words, the Supreme Being expresses himself in one Word. And it is through this one Word which all things were created.
In chapter XXXI, Anselm delves into a difficult subject. He begins by stating that the Word, through which all created beings were created, is “not the likeness of created beings, but the reality of their being, while created beings are a kind of likeness of reality.”[4] But an ambiguity arises that must be addressed. Anselm says, “For all words of that sort by which we express any objects in our mind, that is, conceive of them, are likenesses and images of the objects to which they correspond; and every likeness or image is more or less true, according as it more or less closely imitates the object of which it is the likeness.” This creates a problem in upholding the simple being of the Creator. Speaking in our understanding of ideas, Anselm is saying that whatever ideas or objects we conceive of in our minds, they have similitude to what is real (true). We can only come up with ideas because of what is already existent, of which the idea or object we think of closely resembles the likeness of what already, truly exists. So, the question is:
What, then, is to be our position regarding the Word by which all things are expressed, and through which all were created? Will it be, or will it not be, the likeness of the things that have been created through itself? For, if it is itself the true likeness of mutable things, it is not consubstantial with supreme immutability; which is false. But, if it is not altogether true, and is merely a sort of likeness of mutable things, then the Word of supreme Truth is not altogether true; which is absurd. But if it has no likeness to mutable things, how were they created after its example?[5]
Anselm is wondering if the Word is in the likeness of the things that it creates (as we can only think of material/physical objects that have a likeness to ourselves and do exist), which are mutable, thus not consubstantial with he who is immutable (and it is impossible that the Word be mutable). But, if the Word is a mutable likeness of what he creates through itself, then the Word is not the Supreme, immutable essence. But, if it has no mutability as the things it creates, how then were they created after its example? Perplexing, isn’t it? Anselm, however, offers a solution. He says:
. . . as the reality of a man is said to be the living man, but the likeness or image of a man in his picture—so the reality of being is conceived of as in the Word, whose essence exists so supreme that in a certain sense it alone exists; while in these things which, in comparison with that Essence, are in some sort non-existent, and, yet were made something through, and according to, that Word, a kind of imitation of that supreme Essence is found.
For, in this way the Word of supreme Truth, which is also itself supreme Truth, will experience neither gain nor loss, according as it is more or less like its creatures. But the necessary inference will rather be, that every created being exists in so much the greater degree, or is so much the more excellent, the more like it is to what exists supremely, and is supremely great.
For, in this way the Word of supreme Truth, which is also itself supreme Truth, will experience neither gain nor loss, according as it is more or less like its creatures. But the necessary inference will rather be, that every created being exists in so much the greater degree, or is so much the more excellent, the more like it is to what exists supremely, and is supremely great.
Anselm is saying that what has been created through the Word, before coming forth, existed not as a reality of being, but a likeness or image of this being, which the Word then brings into reality as a real being. And in doing so, the Word, which is immutably Supreme, does not lose or gain in its essence. It brings an idea into reality in the form of something according to that Word, which itself is an imitation of the Supreme Essence. The Word expresses the idea of created being from the Supreme Essence, which is then brought into being through the Word. And that is why the Word sustains all things. The act of bringing the image into reality of being, the Word is bringing “to life” the image that exists in the Supreme Essence, which is a greater degree of existence because the image now exists in reality. And for Anselm, it is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in the mind.
And that is why he concludes with the simple observation, which anyone can easily understand, that a substance that is alive, sentient, and rational but is then deprived of its rationality, sentience, and inevitably its life is brought to a lesser and lesser degree of existence. And likewise, the same is for the reverse; the substance becomes greater and greater in degree as those attributes are added to it. Thus, a living, sentient, and rational substance is greater in degree than a non-living, non-sentient, and non-rational substance.
In the Word exists not the likeness of the things created, “but their true and simple essence.” And in the things that have been created does not exist their simple and absolute essence, but rather “an imperfect imitation of that true Essence.” Anselm’s point, then, is that the Word does not share in the likeness of what is created; rather, the things created have a higher essence and dignity the closer they are to the Word.
—Romans 11:36
______________________
[1] Following Anselm’s thought, Ian McFarland writes, from nothing are “three interpretive paraphrases: 1) that creation is grounded in nothing but God, 2) that the doctrine of creation implies the existence of nothing apart from God, and 3) that in creation nothing limits God.” Ian A. McFarland, From Nothing : A Theology of Creation (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2014), 87.
[2] Monologium, XXIX.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid., XXXI.
[5] Ibid.
Comments