Medieval Philosophy

by Peter S. Adamson

Divine grace is, as Eriugena puts it, “cooperative” (§8.9). Without it a person who is freely choosing to do good would be unable to succeed. Let’s go back to our analogy of the swimmers. Before, I gave the impression that the swimmers were drowning through no fault of their own. But that is not how Eriugena sees things. Rather, God would be like someone on shore who has generously offered to save everyone in the water. Some of the swimmers are ignoring this and in fact making every effort to drown themselves, eagerly weighing themselves down so that they will sink. Clearly there is no obligation to save these fools against their will. Meanwhile others are doing their best to stay afloat, and gratefully accept the offer of assistance. If they get help from the man on shore, their own efforts will enable them to avoid drowning. Analogously, it is just for God to punish those who freely sin, while both free choice and grace are involved in salvation. To this extent Eriugena was basically following the line already suggested by Gottschalk’s other opponents, Hincmar and Hrabanus Maurus. Eriugena does indulge his distinctively “philosophical” style and pushes hard on points like God’s utter unity. But it’s really only as he develops his argument that he goes beyond what Hincmar could accept. In another premonition of his Neoplatonic leanings, Eriugena brings up the late antique idea that evil is privation or non-being (§10.2–3). This notion was already pioneered by Plotinus, an...