Divine Production in Late Medieval Trinitarian Theology

Book Review 

JT Paasch, Divine Production in Late Medieval Trinitarian Theology. Henry of Ghent, Duns Scotus and William Ockham, Oxford Theological Monographs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012)

Pages: 203 + xiii        ISBN 978-0-19-964637-1

Paasch aims to shed light on what he admits is a perplexing issue of how we encounter God as Trinity, in a divine internal production process, not involving creation, but one in which all products co-exist eternally and are not sub-ordinate to the producer. He considers the treatment given divine production by three prominent figures, Henry of Ghent, Duns Scotus and William Ockham who all held views that were innovative and reflective of medieval developments in this topic. The book takes the form of a medieval 'punch-up' that could have occurred as the three slogged out their attempts to embrace Aristotle with the Nicene Creed in scholarly debate. It is pointed out that any such meeting did not occur as these men lived in successive generations, though in practise, Scotus did respond to Henry and Ockham to his two predecessors.

Paasch splits the book into two main sections covering, 'how a divine person is produced', and 'how a divine person is a producer'. The parallel structure to each section first of all presents the bold pitch of Henry. This is then countered as Scotus exposes the flaws in Henry before presenting his own amendments. In the first section looking at the 'elements of production', Ockham challenges Scotus before flooring Henry. During 'round two', considering 'the producer', Scotus and Ockham knock out Henry without coming to blows themselves.

The theological hits are rendered in a series of proposals and counter proposals that are formatted in an algebraic style which is generally straightforward although unavoidable repetitions and cross-referencing interrupt the flow a little. These proposals develop the framework of the arguments with amplification by the author. The reader is led through the discussion with the three medieval heavyweights and throughout Henry begins as the plausible instigator who is first trumped by Scotus before being nailed by Ockham.

A brief background shows how the ideas of Aristotle's eternal creation from material and Avicenna's production by emanation moulded the thoughts of later Christian thought. When considering the ingredients that go into production, Aristotle begins with a lump of material and this undergoes change. As creation is ex nihilo, then if divine production is ex nihilo it is like creation. So to be either from material or ex nihilo brings difficulty. Paasch shows how Henry treats the divine essence as a lump of matter and provides a convenient way to understand the Nicene Creed's statement that 'the Son is begotten from the substance of the Father.'  The case against Henry is given by Scotus who moves away from the Aristotelian idea of production from material. Scotus says that when the Father begets the Son there is a sharing of the divine essence, rather than just bringing him into existence without materials. Ockham is then introduced to eliminate Henry's thoughts of a lump of matter and counters Scotus by emphasising the sharing of divine essence rather than production of another person.

Part two also begins by showing how the three medievals all draw from Aristotle as the debate moves to consider how the divine person is a suitable producer capable of production. Paasch states, “Action requires a capable agent, a capable recipient and the right circumstances” (110). The agent needs the active power as the recipient needs to be capable of passively being acted upon. Henry is first shown to emphasise that power consists in a relationship with the activity and so the reproductive power of the Father is from the divine essence and possible because of the “act of relatedness that points towards his act of producing the Son” (135). Scotus is then recalled to present how this emphasis on relationship is misguided and the better term to describe production is expression. Thirdly the views of Ockham are presented to show how he contrasted with Henry, partially agreed with Scotus but ultimately emphasised the divine essence as the source of production.

The author presents an account of how the three scholars blended creative philosophy with careful theology in their attempt to answer creation and subordination issues in the Trinitarian mystery of divine production. The joy of the book is through the gradual unveiling of the mechanics of divine production and also the twists and turns provided by considering the perspectives of Henry, Scotus and Ockham in turn. Each chapter steps from one line of medieval thought to a more developed one and so the conclusions don't just present the thought of the key players but an illuminated medieval view on divine production.   

Ian Richardson