Morreall - The Aseity of God in St. Anselm

8/13/2019 Morreall - The Aseity of God in St. Anselm

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/morreall-the-aseity-of-god-in-st-anselm 1/10

T H E A S E I T Y O F G O D

I N S T . A N S E L M

J o h n M o r r e a l l

N o r t h w e s t e r n U n i v e r s i t y E v a n s t o n U . S .A .

Part of the traditional notion of God's transcendence is that

God is a g e n e t o s unoriginated. In medieval Christian philosophy

this idea takes a stronger form; sta rting with St Anselm we find

the claim that God has self-existence or aseity . Whileeverything other than God exists from and through something

else -- namely God -- the Creator Himself is a s e or e x s e from

Himself, and p e r s e through Himself. I would like to explore

some of the ways in which St. Anselm treats the divine aseity

in order to get clear on how we might unders tand it and it s rela-

tion to other aspects of God's transcendence.

In his M o n o l o g i o n St Anselm's basic way of speaking about

the divine aseity is to say that God exists from Himself and

through Himself. These two go together, he tells us in chapter

5, for what exis ts from something can likewise be said to ex-

ist through it , and vice versa 1. As an example, he suggests

an artifact, which has its being both from and through the mat-

ter of which it has been made, and both from and through the

craftsman who fashioned it. Similarly, he says, all creatureshave their existence from and through God, God having His

own existence from and through Himself.

It follows, then, that just as all things that exist are what

they are through the highest nature, and for that reason this

nature exists through itself, while other things exist through

another -- so all things which exist are from the same highest

nature, and for that reason that nature is from itself, while other

things are from another.

W h e n w e s et o u t t o u n d e r s t a n d t hi s n ot io n t ha t G o d e xi st s

fr om an d th rou gh Himself it se em s reasonable to interpret s s

35



e x s e a n d e s s e p e r s e a s c a u s a l n o t i o n s . C l e a r l y t h e m a t t e r o f

w h i c h a r t i f a c t is m a d e i s t h e m a t e r i a l c a u s e o f t h a t o b j e c t a n d

t h e c r a f t s m a n w h o m a d e i t w a s i t s e f f i c i e n t c a u s e . S i m i l a r l y

G o d is t h e u l t i m a t e c a u s e o f e v e r y c r e a t u r e . S i m i la r ly G o d is

t h e u l t i m a t e e f f i c ie n t c a u s e o f e v e r y c r e a t u r e . I f w e a r e to

u n d e r s t a n d t h e w a y G o d e x i s t s f r o m a n d t h r o u g h H i m s e l f ina n y t h i n g l ik e t h e w a y w e u n d e r s t a n d t h e e x i s te n c e o f c r e a t u r e s

f ro m a n d t h r o u g h G o d a s t h e p a s s a g e a b o v e e n c o u r a g e s u s t o

d o i t s e e m s n a t u r a l t o th i n k o f G o d a s c a u s i n g H i m s e l f in so m e

w a y o r o t h e r. T h e d i v i n e a s e i ty o n t h a t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n w o u l d

b e a p r o p e r t y G o d h a s in v i r t u e o f b e i n g c a u s a s u i

T h i s i d e a o f s o m e t h i n g c a u s i n g i t s e l f , s a p r o b l e m a t i c o n e ,

a s S t . A n s e l m h i m s e l f s e e m e d t o r ea li ze . L e t u s t r a c e t h e d i f -

f i c ul t i e s n t h e n o t i o n o f c a u s a s u i a n d t h e n s e e t o w h a t e x t e n t

S t . A n s e i m t o o k a c c o u n t o f t h e s e d i ff ic ul ti es n f o r m u l a t i n g t h e

d o c t r i n e t h a t G o d i s f r o m a n d t h r o u g h H i m s e l f .

T h e b a s i c p r o b l e m w i t h t h e i d e a o f s o m e t h i n g c a u s i n g i ts e l f

i s t h a t i t v i o l a t e s o u r c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e d e p e n d e n c e o f t h e t h i n g

w h i c h i s c a u s e d o n i t s c a u s e 2 . I f s o m e t h i n g i s c a u s a s u i i t i s

b y t h a t f a c t e f f e c t u s s u i a n d s o i t i s d e p e n d e n t o n i t s e l f . u th o w c a n s o m e t h i n g d e p e n d o n itself?. l e a r l y , o n e p a r t o f a t h i n g

c a n d e p e n d o n a n o t h e r p a r t ; t h e c e l l s i n o u r f i n g e r s , f o r e x a m -

p l e , d e p e n d o n o u r h e a r t s t o p u m p b l o o d i n t o t h e m . B u t i t i s

i m p o s s i b l e f o r s o m e t h i n g t o d e p e n d o n i t s e l f i n t o t o f o r t h e

w h o l e o f t h e t h i n g t o d e p e n d o n t h e w h o l e o f t h e t h i n g , a s a

c a u s a s u i / e f f e c t u s s u i w o u l d h a v e t o d o . ( N o t e t h a t t h i s i n t h e

o n l y w a y G o d , w h o i s a b s o l u t e l y s i m p l e a n d h e n c e w i t h o u t p a r t s

i n a n y s e n s e , c o u l d b e s e l f - d e p e n d e n t . ) T o t h e e x t e n t t h a t

s o m e t h i n g i s n o t s e lf - su f fi c ie n t, i t d e p e n d s o n c a u s e s ; i f

s o m e t h i n g d e p e n d s o n c a u s e s , i t i s t o t h a t e x t e n t n o t s el f -

s u f f i c i e n t . T o s a y t h a t a t h i n g i s c a u s e d b y i t s e l f i s t o i m p l y

t h a t i t i s n o t s e l f - s uf f i c i e n t s i n c e i t r e q u i r e s c a u s e s ) , a n d t h a t

i t i s s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t , i n t h e s a m e r e s p e c t . A n d t h i s i s s el f-

c o n t r a d i c t o r y . S a y i n g t h a t G o d i s c a u s a s u i t h e r e f o r e , i s n o t

j u s t a n i n n o c e n t r e f o r m u l a t i o n o f t h e d o c t r i n e t h a t G o d i s s e l f -

s uf f i c i e n t ; i t i s a m u d d l e d a n d , I s u g g e s t , a n i n c o h e r e n t r e f o r -

m u l a t i o n .

A n o t h e r d i f f i c u l ty w i t h t h e i d e a o f s o m e t h i n g c a u s i n g i ts e l f

is t h a t t h e b a s i c f e a t u r e s w h i c h h o ld b e t w e e n c a u s e s a n d e f f e c t s

6



do not hold between so mething 'and' itself. Where C and E are

some cause and its effect, then the following are both true:

If C occurs, then E occurs.

If E has not occurred, then C has not occurred.

(I u s e o c cu r h e r e t o c o v e r t h r e e k i n d s o f c a u s e s a n d e f fe ct s:

t h in g s, e v en t s, a n d s t at e s o f affairs.} h e r e w e h a v e t h e c a us e ,

t h a t is, w e s ha ll h a v e t h e effect. A n d w h e r e w e d o n o t h a v e t h e

effect , it f o ll o ws t h a t w e d o n o t h a v e t h e c a u se . N o t i c e t h a t t h e s e

s t a t e m e n t s a r e s y n t he t i c s t a t e m e n t s t r ue o f c a u s e s a n d t he ir

effects, but not true of unrelate d things, events, and s tate s of

affairs. But said of something 'and' itself, these statementswould not be sy nthe tic st at emen ts true when said of only some

things: they would be tautologies true of anything and

everything.

If A occurs, then A occurs.

If A has not occurred, then A has not occurred.

Where we have something, event, or state of affairs, that is,

we shall have t ha t thing, event, or stat e of affairs. And where

we do not have that thing, event, or state of affairs, we shall

not have that thing, event, or state of affairs. Now of course

it is true that if God exists, God exists, and if there had not

been a God, there would not have been a God. But these are

mere formal trut hs, tautologies true of any thi ng at all; they are

not truths about a causal relationship between God 'and'Himself.

In trying to explain how God can be said to exist from and

through Himself, in Chapter 6 of the Monologion St Anselm

seems to be aware of at least the first of the above difficulties

with the notion of causa sui. What is said to exist through

some thin g , he observes, seems to be thr oug h it either as an

efficient cause or as its mat te r, or as some other aid, as th rou gh

an in st ru ment . And St Anse lm goes on to offer good reasons

for rejecting any of these three kinds of causality as the way

in which God is th rou gh himself. Wha te ve r exists in any of

these three modes exists through another and is later and

37



somehow less than tha t th rough which it has existence. ButGod, of course, does not exist through another, nor is God later

than or less than anything, Himself included.

In rejecting these three kinds of causality, St Anselm may

not want to reject all concepts of causality in explaining howGod is through Himself and from Himself. If we could eliminate

the undesirable elements of temporal succession and inferiori-

ty from efficient causality, for example, perhaps St Anselm

would feel that we would have a notion of self-sustaining with

which to understand God's causing Himself. In any case, StAnselm does not want the notion of God's existing through

Himself and from Himself to be taken merely as negative --

merely as a lack of dependence on anything other than GOd anda lack of dependence on GOd Himself. To construe God's asei-

ty merely negatively, St Anselm argues, would be tantamountto saying tha t God exists through nothing at all, and St Anselm

vehemently denies the possibility of the latter. In Chapter 3

of the Monologion he writes:

E v e r y t h i n g t h a t i s e x i s t s e i t h e r t h r o u g h s o m e t h i n g o r

t h r o u g h n o t h i n g . B u t n o t h i n g e x i s t s t h r o u g h n o t h i n g F o ri t c a n n o t e v e n b e c o n c e i v e d t h a t t h e r e i s a n y t h i n g w h i c h

d o e s n o t e x i s t t h r o u g h s o m e t h i n g . T h u s w h a t e v e r i s e x -

i s t s o n l y t h r o u g h s o m e t h i n g .

St Anselm repeats this argument in chapter 6 of the

Monologion God, he says there, does not exist through nothing,

since it is inconceivable that what is something should existthrough nothing.

But if St Anselm does not want the notion of aseity

understood merely negatively, and does not want it understood

as a type of material causality, instrumental causality, or effi-

cient causal ity (at least where efficient causal ity involves the

temporal priority of the cause and the inferiority of the effect),then surely he owes us an explanation of what aseity is sup-

posed to be. One approach, as I suggested earlier, would be totry to make sense of the idea that God causes Himself through

a kind of efficient causality that is not a bringing into existence,

but a sustaining of God's existence. But if my criticisms of thenotion of self-causing are correct, then this is not a coherent

38



a p p r o a c h . S e l f- c a u si n g , w h e t h e r o r n o t i t i n v o l v e d t e m p o r a l

p r i o r i t y a n d s u p e r i o r i t y o f c a u s e o v e r e f f e ct , w o u l d i n v o l v e a

r e l a t io n o f l o g i c al p r i o r i t y a n d d e p e n d e n c e , w h i c h a t h i n g c a n -

n o t h a v e t o i ts e lf . T h e n o t i o n o f a b e i n g w h i c h i s e t e r n a l l y s el f-

d e p e n d e n t i n t o t o i s n o m o r e c o h e r e n t t h a n t h e n o t i o n o f

s o m e t h i n g b r i n g i n g i t s e l f i n to e x i s te n c e .

O n e o f t h e f ew h in t s S t A n s e l m o f fe r s f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e

n o t io n t h a t G o d e x i s t s f r o m a n d t h r o u g h H i m s e l f , c o m e s a t th e

e n d o f C h a p t e r 6 , w h e r e he s u g g e s t s t h a t w e m i g h t u n d e r s t a n d

G o d ' s e x i s t i n g p e r s e a n d e x s e

in t h e s a m e w a y a s w e s a y l i g h t s h i n e s a n d i s s o m e t h i n g

s h i n i n g t h r o u g h i ts e l f a n d f r o m i ts e lf . F o r j u s t a s l ig h t a n dt o s h in e a n d s h i n in g a r e r e l a t e d t o o n e a n o t h e r , s o a re w h a t

i s a n d t o b e a n d b e i n g { t h a t i s e x i s t i n g o r s u b s i s t i n g )

r e la t ed t o o n e a n o t h er . T h u s s u p r e m e b e i n g a n d s u p r em e -

l y t o b e a n d s u p r e m e l y b e i n g { t h a t i s s u p r e m e l y e x i s t i n g

o r s u p r e m e l y s u b s i s t i n g ) a r e r e l a t e d t o e a c h o t h e r, n o t

u n l ik e t h e w a y i n w h i c h l i g h t a n d t o s h in e a n d s h i n i n g a r e

r e l a t e d .

T h i s a n a l o g y , u n f o r t u n a t e l y , i s n o t v e r y h e l p fu l in s h o w i n g

u s h o w G o d m i g h t b e s a id t o e x i s t f ro m a n d t h r o u g h H i m s e l f .

F o r l ig h t is n o t s o m e t h i n g t h a t i s c a u s a l l y in d e p e n d e n t , a s G o d

is . F o r t h e r e t o b e l ig h t t h e r e m u s t b e a c a u s e p r o d u c i n g t h a t

l ig h t , a n d s o i n a c r u c i a l s e n s e l i g h t i s n o t f r o m i t s e l f o r t h r o u g h

i ts e lf , b u t f ro m a n o t h e r a n d t h r o u g h a n o t h e r . T h e o n l y s e n s e

i n w h i c h l ig h t s e e m s t o b e p e r s e i s a g r a m m a t i c a l s e n s e . U n l ik e

a s u b s t a n c e s u c h a s a h o r se , w h i c h p e r f o r m s a c t i v i t ie s w h i c h

a r e r e fe r re d t o b y u s i n g v e r b s a n d a d j e c t i v e s p r e d i c a t e d o f t h e

n o u n H o r s e , l ig h t is i ts e l f a n a c t i v i t y a n d s o c a n b e r e f e r re d

t o b y e i t h e r t h e n o u n l i g h t o r t h e v e r b t o s h i n e o r t h e v e r b a l

a d j e c t i v e s h i n i n g . W i t h l ig h t t h e r e i s n o t s o m e t h i n g a n d a l so

t h e a c t i v i t y i t p e r f o r m s , a s t h e r e i s , s a y , w i t h a h o r s e a n d t h e

h o r s e ' s r u n n i n g . , T h e n o u n l i g h t r e f e r s t o t h e s a m e t h i n g a s to

s h i n e a n d t h e s h i n i n g { t h i n g l d o . In t h i s s e n s e w e c a n s a y t h a t

' al l b y i t s e l f ' o r p e r s e i f y o u w ill, l i g h t s h i n e s o r is s o m e t h i n g

s h i n i n g .

I t m i g h t b e t h o u g h t t h a t w h a t i s b e h i n d S t A n s e l m ' s c o m -

p a r i s o n o f l ig h t t o b e i n g h e r e i s a c o n c e p t i o n o f G o d a s B e i n g

3 9



i t s e l f , e s s e s u b s i s t e n s a n d t h a t S t . A n s e l m s p o i n t i s t h a t G o d

e x i s ts t h r o u g h H i m s e l f j u s t b e c a u s e G o d i s e x i s te n c e in t h e w a y

t h a t l i g h t is s h in i n g. B u t t h i s i d e a w o u l d o n l y c o m e la t e r w i t h

t h i n k e r s l ik e A q u i n a s a n d d o e s n o t s e e m t o b e t h e p o i n t o f S t

A n s e l m s a n a l o g y . H e r e S t A n s e l m is c o m p a r i n g l ig h t , t o sh in e ,

a n d s h in in g , n o t t o p u r e b e i n g { as S t T h o m a s w o u l d c o n ce i veo f G od }, b u t t o a n y i n s t a n c e o f b e i n g .

T h er e is a n a n a l o g y b e t w e e n e x is t en c e o r b e i n g a n d li ght ,o f

c o u r s e , i n t h a t t h e s a m e t h i n g c a n b e s p o k e n o f a s a n e x i s te n t ,

a s s o m e t h i n g w h i c h e x i s t s , o r a s e x i s ti n g ; a s a b e i n g , a s

s o m e t h i n g w h i c h is , o r a s b e i n g . B u t t h a t a n a l o g y d o e s n o t p ro -

v i d e u s w i th a n y t h i n g m o r e t h a n a g r a m m a t i c a l p o i n t a b o u t

f o r m s o f t h e w o r d s b e o r e x i s t . T h i n g s w h i c h e x i s t , a t l e a s t a l lt h e t h i n g s w e h a v e r u n a c r o s s , s t i ll r e q u i r e c a u s e s t o e x i s t , a n d

s o d o n o t e x i s t, o r h a v e t h e i r e x i s te n c e , t h r o u g h o r f r o m

t h e m s e l v e s . A n d i f t h e r e i s s o m e t h i n g w h i c h d o e s n o t r e q u i r e

c a u s e s t o e x i s t , a n d w h i c h i n a d d i t i o n c a n b e s a i d t o e x i s t p e r

s e a n d e x s e i n s o m e s e n se , S t A n e e l m s a n a l o g y o f l ig h t h a s

n o t s h o w n u s w h a t t h a t s e n s e m i g h t b e .

I n t h e e n d , I s ug g es t , e it h er S t A n s e l m h a s n o t s pe ci fi ed t h enotions of existing e r s e n d e x se, o r h e h a s a n u n t e n a b l e n o

tio n of self-causing.

I f t h e l in e o f r e a s o n i n g w e h a v e b e e n e x a m i n i n g in t h e

M o n o l o g i o n w ill n o t d o a s a n e x p l a n a t i o n o f G o d s a s e i t y , le t

u s t u r n t o a s e c o n d l in e f o u n d in S t A n s e l m s P r o s l o g i o n

C h a p t e r s 2 a n d 3, w h e r e h e w o r k s o u t h i s f a m o u s O n t o l o g ic a l

A r g u m e n t . T h e r e he a rg u e s t h a t j u s t b y c o n s i d e r in g w h a t w e

m e a n b y th e w o r d G o d w e c a n se e t h a t G O d m u s t h a v e re a l

e x is te n c e . F o r b y G O d w e m e a n s o m e t h i n g t h a n w h i c h n o t h i n g

g r e a t e r c a n b e t h o u g h t . N o w t h i s s o m e t h i n g e x i s t s a t l e a s t in

o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g ; b u t , S t A n s e l m s a y s , c l e ar ly it m u s t e x i s t

a l s o i n r e a li ty . F o r i f i t e x i s t e d o n l y in o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g , t h e n

w e c o u l d t h i n k o f s o m e t h i n g g r e a t e r , n a m e l y a G o d e x i s t in g i n

r e a l i ty a s w e ll a s in o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g . T h e v e r y i d e a o f G o d ,

t h e n , i n c l u d e s r e al e x i s t e n c e , a n d s o G o d m u s t h a v e r e a l e x-

i s t en c e . A s S t A n s el rn a r g u e s , G o d c a n n o t e v e n b e t h o u g h t t o

n o t e x i s t .

O n t h is u n d e r s t a n d i n g G o d s a s ei t y is a l o gi ca l n e ce s si t y o f

G o d s e x is t en c e - - e x i st e nc e a t t a c h e d t o t h e v e r y c o n c e p t o f

4



of God without thinking of God as having this property of ex-

istence, nothing here points to some property in God which

makes Him self~xistent. Indeed nothing about the unthinkabili-ty of a God who does not exist would even guarantee that a

God exists. If for the sake of argument we take it as a fact tha t

existence is part of what we mean when we say God , we arenot justified in inferring from that fact that there is some be-

ing answering to our concept, some being which has such pro-

perties as omnipotence and omniscience, and also has this

property of existence. Such an inference would be no more

justified than would the inference that because someone uses

the word cremmick to mean an existing two-headed sheep

there must be some being corresponding to this concept. If ex-

istence is part of what we mean by the word 'God', the properinference is that in order to be counted as God, a thing would

have to have this property of existence (along with the proper-

ties of onmiscience, omnipotence, etc.). Nothing could be God,

in short, unless it had the property of existence.

A conceptual connection between the idea of God and the idea

of existence, then, could not establish that GOd exists, nor could

it explain why God does exist. And, more impor tant ly for ourpurposes, the conceptual connection here would not point to a

property in God that makes God self-existent.

Having considered and rejected two lines of thought in St

Anselm as ways of understanding the aseity of God, we can

conclude with what I consider a correct understanding of asei-

ty, in a third line of St Anselm's thought.

W e s h o u l d s t a r t w i t h S t A n s e l m s i n s i g h t t h a t w h i l e c r e a t u r e s

d e p e n d f o r t h e i r e x i s t e n c e o n o t h e r t h i n g s a n d u l t i m a t e l y o n

G o d , G o d H i m s e l f d e p e n d s o n n o t h i n g a t a l l . G o d e x i s t s i n a

u n i q u e w a y - - n o t b e c a u s e a n y t h i n g e l s e e x i s t s o r b e c a u s e a n y

c o n d i t i o n s a r e m e t , b u t a b s o l u t e l y i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f a n y o t h e r

t h i n g o r s t a t e o f a f f a i r s . o w s i n c e t h e r e a r e n o c a u s e s o r c o n -

d i t i o n s f o r G o d s e x i s t e n c e , n o t h i n g c o u l d p r e v e n t G o d f r o m

e x i s t i n g . N o t h i n g c o u l d h a p p e n t h a t w o u l d d e s t r o y G o d , f o r

t o d e s t r o y s o m e t h i n g i s t o w i t h d r a w c a u s e s n e c e s s a r y f or i t s

e x i st e n ce . S o G o d i s i m p e r i s h a b l e : H e w i l l e x i s t f o r ev e r . S i m il a r -

l y , l o o k i n g t o t h e p a s t , s i n c e a c a u s a l l y i n d e p e n d e n t b e i n g c a n -

42



not depend on anything, not hing could have happened to bring

God into existence. God' s exis tence could have had no beginn-

ing, therefore, just as it can have no end.

God's absolute independence, furthermore, is not ju st a lack

of causa l dependence on thin gs outside of God, bu t also a lackof causal dependence within God. God has no parts, one of which

depends on another for its existence. As St Anselm points out

in Chapters 16 and 17 of the Monologion there is no composi-

tion in God, nor even a real distinction between various pro-

perties in God. Rathe r, an ything tha t can be said of God refers

to the same thing in God as anything else which can be said

of Him, not to different characteristics inhering in the substance

of God, but to God Himself. All is one in God, His propertiesbeing identical with one another and with God Himselfs.

Once we understand this perfect simplicity in God, too, we

can see how God is unchangeable. There is no temporal dif-

ference in God, as there is in creatures. While a human being,

say, can become wha t he was not and cease to be wha t he was,

God is not anything which at some time He was not or will

not be, nor does He fail to be what He once was or will be.Rather, what eve r He is He is once, at once, and wit hou t limita-

tion . For God there is no becoming anything or ceasing to be

anyth ing. Ju st as all is all in God considered at a moment, so

all is all in God considered over time. Indeed in God there is

no division of past, present, and future. All that God is, He is

at once ~.

A correct u nde rst and ing of the self-existence or asei ty of God,

then, must be, like the earlier notion of agenetos basically a

negat ive notion, a denial tha t God has the man y kinds of limita-

tion found in creatures. God exists in an absolute way -- causal-

ly independ ent of eve ryt hing else, utt erl y simply, and wi thout

beginning or end or change of any kind. We can use positive

phrases like se lf ~x is te nt and self-sufficient here, of course,

but only so long as we do not think of God as hav ing some kind

of dependence on Himself, which, as we have seen, is an in-

coherent notion.

God is a se and per se to conclude, not in the sense that He

causes Himself, nor in the sense that He exists by logical

43



necessity, but in the sense that He is eternally complete and

sufficient unto Himself.

REFERENCES

1. The Latin text I have used for both the Monologion andthe Proslogion is from Jasper Hopkins and Herbert

Richardson ed. and tr., Ans e lm o f Can te r bur y (London:

SCM Press, 1974), vol. 1. All translat ions are my own.

2. I trace these difficulties with the notion of causa sui also

in my God as Self-Explanatory , Philosophical Quarter-

ly 30 (1980), 210-211.3. See, for example, Kant's Cri t ique o f Pure Reason tr. N.K. Smith (New York, St Martin's Press, 1965), pp. 500-507;

G. E. Moore, Is Exis tence a Predicate? , Proceedings ofthe Ar is tote lean Socie ty Supp. Vol. 15 (1936), 175-188;

John Hick, God as Necessary Being , Journal o fPhi losophy 57 (1960), 725-734; and my An alog y and Talk -ing Ab ou t G od (Washington: Univers ity Press of America,

1978), pp. 67-77.

4. Anselm's De ver i tate in Schmitt edition of Opera omniat., 1, pp. 188-90.

5. See Monologion ch. 18.6. Monologion ch. 16 and 17 Proslogion ch. 18

7. Monologion ch. 22; Proslogion ch. 22.

44

Morreall - The Aseity of God in St. Anselm

Documents

Transcript of Morreall - The Aseity of God in St. Anselm