John Went, O.F.M., and Divine Omnipotence

JOHN WENT, O.F.M., AND DIVINE OMNIPOTENCE It is by now well-known that in fourteenth-century England a preoccupation with God's absolute power was widespread, and that this preoccupation produced novel doctrines in theology and philosophy .1 Further evidence of this can be found in the Commentary on the Sentences by John Went, O.F.M., composed at Oxford 1338-39· John received his doctorate in theology at Oxford about 1339. He was the 64th lector at the Franciscan Convent at Oxford, 1339-40. He became the Provincial Minister of the Franciscans in England about 1340, and died in 1348.2 The only work of John extant is his Commentary. It is found in two manuscripts, V (Vatican Library, Chigi B.V. 66, ff. I34r-i74r) and B (Bologna, Archiginnasio, A 939, ff. ir-36v).3 Its seventeen questions are: i. Utrum adherere auctoritati Scripture sit rationabile 2. Utrum quilibet viator ex precepto indispensabili alicuius legis teneretur uti creatura et frui Deo 1 L. A. Kennedy, "Philosophical Scepticism in England in the Mid-Fourteenth Century," Vivarium, 21 (1983) 35-57; "Theology the Handmaiden of Logic ," Augustiniana, 33 (1983) 142-164; "Divine Omnipotence and the Contingency of Creatures, Oxford, 1330-1350 A.D.," The Modern Schoolman, 61 (1983-1984); D. Trapp, "Augustinian Theology of the 14th Century," Augustiniana, 6 (1956) 146-274; K. Michalski, La Philosophie au XIVe siècle (reprint, Frankfort, 1969); G. Leff, The Dissolution of the Medieval Outlook (New York, 1976); J. L. Bender, Nicholas Aston: A Study in Oxford Thought after the Black Death (Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, 1979); W. J. Courtenay, "The Critique on Natural Causality in the Mutakallimum and Nominalism," Harvard Theological Review, 66 (1973) 77-94· 8 A. B. Emden, A Biographical Register of the University of Oxford to A.D. 1500 (Oxford, 1957-59) 2015; V. Doucet, "Le Studium franciscain de Norwich en 1337," Archivum Franciscanum Historicum, 46 (1953) 85-88, 96-98. 8 These manuscripts are described in V. Doucet, op. cit. See also J. Lechner, "Kleine Berträge zur Geschichte des englischen Franziskaner-Schrifttums im Mittelalter," Philophisches Jahrbuch, 53 (1940) 376-379. John Went and Divine Omnipotence139 3.Utrum in anima humana reperiatur ymago sive similitudo Trinitatis increate 4.Utrum Creator celi et terre creavit imaginem Trinitatis in anima 5.Utrum semper perfeccior ymago Trinitatis sit magis capax maioris beatitudinis sive miserie 6.Utrum investigatio theologorum circa Trinitatem sit expediens ad salutem 7.Utrum quilibet homo ex caritate obligetur ad habendum caritatem 8.Utrum nature humane ad Verbum unio sit talis nature summa possibilis acceptatio 9.Utrum caritas augeatur secundum augmentacionem meriti 10.Utrum Deus libere et contingenter produxerit omnem creaturam 11.Utrum natura angelica fuerit convenientissime a Deo creata 12.Utrum peccatum angeli fuit iuste punitum a Deo 13.Utrum Christus tenebatur satisfacere pro peccato hominis per passionem suam 14.Utrum Christus plus meruerit per passionem quam per solam volicionem qua voluit pati 15.Utrum quilibet perficiendus per virtutem debeat imitari Christum in acribus suis 16.Utrum pro quolibet peccato per penitentiam debeat fieri satisfácelo 17.Utrum posicio theologorum ponentium Dei omnipotenciam repugnet rationi naturali These questions are usually divided into articles. The two parts of the Commentary dealing most directly with divine omnipotence are Question 2, article 2, and Question 17. These texts are transcribed as an appendix to this article. It is proposed here to analyze John's doctrine of divine omnipotence as found in these texts. Question 17, unfortunately, is incomplete. Neither of the manuscripts is an autograph. B is in a fair hand but is quite faulty in its text and has several important omissions. V, though not in as good a hand, is quite accurate, but has a few spaces deliberately left vacant (fortunately the omitted words or phrases are in B). Both manuscripts also garble the names of Helvidius and Athanasius. Because of the many differences in B and V, the texts given I40LEONARD A. KENNEDY and MARGARET E. ROMANO here is that of V. Most of the differences are due to (a) changes in word order; (b) the use of synonyms, such as ergo and igitur, hec and talis; (c) mistaken readings in B; (d) omissions in B...