When reading Marsilius of Inghen’s commentaries on Aristotle, his personal views are not always clear. This is especially the case when Marsilius applies both the solution of faith, which he calls the truth, and that according to natural reason, adding that the solution of faith should not bother the natural philosopher or metaphysician. Does this mean that, as a natural philosopher and metaphysician, Marsilius asserted solutions which he knew were not true? However it may be, in his theological works, and in particular in his commentary on the Sentences, things were different. Here we find the most elaborate exposition of his ideas, both philosophical and theological. Even if his commentary on the Sentences was a theological work, he discusses in it a whole range of philosophical issues also dealt with in his other works, including the eternity of the world and God’s infinite power. In this work, Marsilius attributes a crucial role to natural reason in explaining matters of faith, but thinks that its role is only partial, since it uses principles different from those of faith. Only if natural reason accepts the principles of faith — for example, that things can be created from nothing — can it clarify issues of faith.
The commentary on the Sentences is an enormous work that discusses all four books of Lombard’s original work and covers more than a thousand narrowly-printed pages in the edition of 1501. Marsilius most likely began preparation for this work in Paris in the late 1360s and early 1370s, leaving the work unfinished when he died in Heidelberg. Striking is the wide range of sources he used to construct his arguments. He not only quoted William of Ockham, Adam Wodeham, Robert Holcot, and Gregory of Rimini — authors considered to be forerunners of later-medieval Nominalism, but also Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas, Giles of Rome and Thomas of Strasbourg, the principal authorities of the Realists. The modern reader may be confused by the fact that an alleged Nominalist author quoted so many Realist authorities. However, Nominalist authors prided themselves on using all important authors who had contributed to the solution of the problem, even those used by their adversaries — something which they claimed Realists were unwilling to do.
Due to the immense number of problems addressed, the work may be considered an encyclopedia of late-medieval knowledge. The themes addressed range from the divine nature and problems related to the creation of angels and human beings, to Christological issues, the sacraments, and the final judgment. Marsilius shows a strong awareness of scientific methodology and applies logical tools throughout the book, despite remarking that one should not overvalue the use of logic in theology. It is difficult to distinguish one particular theological line of theological reasoning, since he builds upon very different traditions, even Neoplatonic ones, as in his discussion of the theory of divine ideas. However, here too, as in the commentaries on Aristotle, the reader is struck by the careful distinction made at certain points between faith and natural reason. According to Marsilius, it is possible to prove that the heavens are not coeternal with God, provided one accepts that God is omnipotent, as does faith. The concepts of ‘‘heaven’’ or ‘‘creature’’ and ‘‘coeternal with God’’ exclude each other as much as those of ‘‘horse’’ and ‘‘bullock,’’ Marsilius writes. This is noteworthy, since in his commentaries on Aristotle he gave one to understand that, for the unaided natural reason, the concepts of‘‘heaven’’ and ‘‘coeternal with God’’ are necessarily linked. From this, it once more becomes clear how different his approach was from that of Thomas Aquinas, even though he regularly quoted the Angelic Doctor on other occasions. According to Thomas Aquinas, whether illuminated by faith or not, human reason has to admit that both statements are possible, namely, that P ‘‘The heavens are coeternal with God’’ and - P ‘‘The heavens are not coeternal with God.’’ But for Marsilius, this is not the case. If natural reason is illuminated by faith, it must admit that - P is impossible. If, on the other hand, it does not accept faith, it must hold the opposite, namely than P is possible, even necessary. If Luther, in his famous Disputatio theologica of 1539, rebuked Parisian theologians for claiming that the same thing was true in theology which was also true in philosophy, he may have been thinking of authors like Thomas Aquinas, but surely not Marsilius of Inghen.
World History
