In Defense of Étienne Gilson: Concerning a Recent Book about Thomistic Metaphysics1

REVIEW ARTICLE IN DEFENSE OF ETIENNE GILSON: CONCERNING A RECENT BOOK ABOUT THOMISTIC METAPHYSICS 1 H THE attempt to proceed 'existentially' in the Gilsonian sense, is based upon a doctrinaire transformation of metaphysics into theology, a transformation which is applied by assuming knowledge concerning God in order to present the dubious interpretations of the quinquae viae as discoveries of His existence." Such is the conclusion of a contemporary critic of Gilson's concept of St. Thomas' philosophy.2 What is this "Gilsonian concept" so far as metaphysics and God are concerned? It is, according to this critic, the notion that Godipsum esse-is" the true object of metaphysics." 3 Does Gilson hold this? Yes, if "object" be taken in the sense of end, definitely not if taken in the sense of subject. For Gilson expressly acknowledges "the distinction between natural theology, in which God is considered as cause of the subject of metaphysics (viz., being), and revealed theology (viz., Scripture), in which God Himself is the 1 Thomas C. O'Brien, 0. P., Ph. D., Metaphysics and the Existence of God: A Reflexion on the Question of God's Existence in Contemporary Thomistic Metaphysics , Washington 17, D. C., The Thomist Press, 2nd printing, 1960. This book has been reviewed briefly by Fr. Joseph Owens, C. Ss. R., in The New Scholasticism, Vol. XXXVI, no. 2, April, 1962, pp. 2.50-253. More about this review later. (Also see note 2, below.) 2 Fr. O'Brien, op. cit., p. 262. In this paper I am primarily concerned with Section II of this book, entitled " The Question of God's Existence Among Contemporary Thomists," and, within this Section, I deal only with what I take to be the crux of the criticism that the author levels against the position of Etienne Gilson (and other Thomistic " existentialists ") as to the fundamental nature of the relationship between metaphysics and the existence of God. Fr. Owens' review has been objected to by Fr. William A. Wallace, 0. P. (The New Scholasticism, Vol. XXXVI, no. 4, Oct., 1962, pp. 529-531) as "misrepresenting Fr. O'Brien's teaching," and as "obscuring the basic issue at stake in the controversy," viz., the so-called Gilsonian School's misinterpretation of St. Thomas. Fr. Wallace's allegations are substantially the same as those of Fr. O'Brien. It is the object of this paper to assess their validity objectively. 3 Op. cit., p. 94. 378 874 JAMES F. ANDERSON very subject of that science." 4 And Gilson here cites St. Thomas' Commentary on Boethius' De Trinitate (V, 4), where this wellknown distinction is made by the Angelic Doctor himself. True, Gilson does speak 5 of the "inner reordering of metaphysics by the final causality of its ultimate object" so that it becomes necessarily and by full right scientia divina. But he nowhere says that God becomes the very subject of metaphysics or of philosophical theology. It is perfectly true, as Fr. O'Brien remarks,6 that since God is attained as principle of the subject of metaphysics, viz., being-incommon , metaphysical knowledge concerning Him is formally and exclusively knowledge about Him as this principle. On this point, repeatedly stressed by the author, there should be no disagreement among Thomists. Indeed I know of no Thomist who does not subscribe to this doctrine. Nor do I see how one could call himself a " Thomist " without doing so. (It is true that Gilson, and likeminded Thomists, do not stress the point because of their interest in the "inner reordering " of the whole of first philosophy to the knowledge of God-the emphasis is expressly upon final causality). While Gilson maintains this teaching, he nevertheless forcefully underscores the simple Thomistic point that God could not be the primary principle of being-in-common were He not Being itself. Of course this is not only Gilson's point, it is St. Thomas'. The Angelic Doctor says, for example: "that which is said by essence is the cause of all things that are said by participation. . . . But God is a being-by-essence because He is Being itself (ipsum esse). Every other being, however, is a being-by-participation.... Therefore God is the cause...