The debate over the existence of God continues to be one of the great deliberative arguments of the ages. The question of God occupies the minds of scientists, philosophers, theologians, and scholars of every field. The problem of God is a problem of great magnitude. If God does not exist, humanity must determine its own morality and purpose. If God does exist then humanity has a creaturely obligation to their Creator. The question of God presents ultimate issues, and the discussion is of great significance. Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury, dived into the debate over the existence of God through his ontological argument. Anselm presented his arguments over the existence of God in his works, The Monologion and The Proslogion. The chief aim of this paper will be to examine the ontological proof of God presented by Anselm and found primarily within the Proslogion within the context of his life and beliefs.
Ontology is the study of being, and the ontological
argument makes its case for the existence of God without appealing to
observation or deduction from the world. The ontological argument is apriori reasoning because it proceeds from theoretical inference rather than
conclusions based on experience or reflection. Anselm receives recognition as
the first theologian and philosopher to utilize the ontological argument. As
philosopher Gareth B. Matthews writes about Anselm and his argument,
St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument is
certainly one of the most audacious arguments in the history of Western
philosophy; it may even be the most audacious. It is also one of the most
perplexing. Some philosophers have scorned it. St. Thomas Aquinas did. Others have
thought they had refuted it. Immanuel Kant thought he had done that. Many
philosophers have tried to ignore it. But it is difficult for a serious
philosopher to ignore the claims of such a daringly elegant bit of reasoning.[1]
The ontological argument attempts to verify
beginning with the idea of God as the omnipotent being, “that God’s existence
cannot rationally be doubted by anyone having such a concept of Him.”[2] This
argument is not dependent upon experience or observation but exclusively on the
idea of God.
Anselm was born in 1033 in the town of Aosta within
the Piedmont region of Italy. (parts of the biographical part of this paper appeared in a previous paper) Knowledge regarding the life of Anselm comes from
a variety of sources including his works and that of his close associate
Eadmer. Eadmer first met Anselm briefly about 1079, and then thirteen years
later he became the constant companion and biographer of Anselm.[3]
Eadmer possessed great skill as a biographer and his intimate relationship, and
careful listening allows the reader to grasp an understanding of the concerns
and personality of Anselm.[4]
Eadmer’s account of Anselm’s final years remains
absent since Anslem ordered Eadmer to destroy the writings. Eadmer obeyed but
not before making a copy of his work.[5]
Much of the knowledge regarding Anselm’s later life comes from his sermons and
letters.
Eadmer of Canterbury picture from Wikipedia
Anselm left his Italian home in 1056 from what
appears to be a contentious relationship with his father. As a child, Anselm
had a devoted relationship with his mother, but her early death left him with a
father with whom he had little in common.[6]
He crossed the Alps and at the age of twenty-six became a Benedictine monk at
the abbey of Bec in Normandy. Anselm found himself drawn to Bec largely because
of the reputation of one of the priors of Bec, Lanfranc.[7]
He became Lanfranc’s pupil and eventually
succeeded his master in the office of prior and then abbot. In 1093, Anselm
followed Lanfranc as the Archbishop of
Canterbury, an office he held until his death in 1109. Anselm was a reluctant
archbishop since his first love was study and reflection and he feared that the
duties of office meant time away from his study. He often found his
administrative duties onerous and longed for a solitary life of research and
reflection, but his superiors ignored his pleas and continued to place him in
pastoral and supervisory roles.[8] Eadmer summarizes Anselm’s devotion to study,
For he had so much faith in the Holy
Scriptures, that he firmly and inviolably believed that there was nothing in
them which deviated in any way from the path of solid truth. Hence he applied
his whole mind to that end, that according to his faith he might be found worthy
to see with the eye of reason these
things in the Holy Scriptures which, as he felt, lay hidden in a deep obscurity.[9]
Upon accession as
the archbishop of Canterbury, Anselm found himself in conflict with the
monarchs of England, first with William Rufus and then with Henry I over the
question of investiture and the relationship of the church and state in
England.[10]
Conflict with the monarchy sent Anselm into two exiles, but reconciliation
brought him back to Canterbury, and he remained in office until his death in
1109. Anselm was an active writer and wrote both Monologion and the
Proslogion while serving as the Abbot of Bec. An examination of both the Monologion
and the Proslogion reveals that Anselm saw both works as a pair and may
have seen them forming a single work. Anselm likely envisioned that the work
begun in the Monologion found completion in the Proslogion.[11] He
wrote his theological masterpiece, Cur Deus Homo while Archbishop of
Canterbury. Through his writings, Anselm became one of the most important
intellectuals of medieval Europe and still impacts both contemporary Catholic
and Protestant theology.
Anselm is considered by many the Father of
scholasticism. Like the majority of medieval theologians, Anselm fell under the
influence of Augustine. The extent of Augustine’s inspiration is difficult to
determine, but Anselm was never content with a repetition of Augustine.
Anselm’s language rose from the theology of Augustine, but his ideas and
direction are his own.[12]
Anselm saw no separation between faith and reason but believed that there was
an indispensable unity between both. He held that this gave the theologian the
freedom to explore dogma using the “instruments of grammar and logic.[13]
Anselm believed that reason aided the Christian in a fuller understanding of
the faith and theology and revealed the inner consistency and rationality of the Christian faith.[14]
The use of reason alone verifies the logic of faith and Scripture, therefore
the theologian can deliberate on the nature of God without Scripture. Most of
Anselm’s writings contain little exegesis since he believed that he could reach
truth through the use of reason and logic. Anselm explains the importance of
the mind in the Monologion because the mind reflects the image of God
The mind, therefore, might be most
appropriately called its own mirror. The mirror in which it sees the reflection
of that which, famously, it cannot see ‘face to face.’ For if the mind, alone
of all created things, can love, understand, and be conscious of itself, I do
not see why one should say that it is not the true image of that essence which,
in its love, understanding, and consciousness of itself, constitutes an
ineffable Threeness. At least the mind is demonstrably an image of the supreme
essence, in so far as it can be conscious of, understand, and love it. And the
authenticity of the image discerned in the mind is indirect proportion to the
greatness and the similarity of the mind to the supreme essence. The ability to be conscious of, to understand and to
love that which, of all things, is greatest and best- no other gift bestowed on
rational creation is conceivable as excellent or as similar to the supreme
wisdom. No other created trait so betrays the image of its Creator.[15]
According to Anselm,
truth and wisdom within humanity reflect the perfect wisdom of God, and the
ability to reason is linked to humans as humans are created in the image of
God. The human mind reflects the supreme essence.
Anselm’s major theological work remains Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became a Man),
and like the theologians of the ancient church. Anslem strives to understand
why God lowered himself by becoming a man and subjecting himself to the
humiliating death upon the cross and uses reason and logic to propose the
doctrine of penal substitution or substitutionary atonement. This doctrine teaches
that Jesus suffered the penalty of sin upon the cross, thereby taking the place
of sinful humanity. The doctrine of substitutionary atonement remains the
majority view of most Protestants and Catholics over the years.
The importance of reason for Anselm cannot be
understated and places him first among a long list of medieval scholastics. He
believed that logic was an essential tool for the theologian which did not
drive a wedge between logic and faith. Reason never displaces faith but reason
places one on the path toward true faith. A deduction might appear sound, but
if it denies the teaching of Scripture then this is a sign that one needs to
rethink the soundness of the argument. Humanity cannot comprehend the full
mystery of the Godhead, but God is rational, and any communication from God is
coherent and without contradiction. Since Scripture is the primary source of
revelation then it contains no contradiction with reason.[16] Reason is at the forefront of Anselm’s classic
works the Monologion and the Proslogion.
Within the Monologion Anselm sought to
explore the divine attributes of God and his existence through the use of
reason. Anselm claims that since there are many signs and kinds of good then
there must be a supreme good through which all unite. Because one can discern different levels of goodness leads
to the conclusion that there exists absolute goodness. Therefore, Anselm
reasons that there is one “being greater
and higher than all others through whom they all exist.[17]”
Anselm’s purpose in the Monologion was
to present an example of meditation based upon reason. He shares in his
Prologue,
Some of my brethren have often and
earnestly asked me to write down, as a kind of model meditation, some of the
things I have said, in everyday language, on the subject of meditating upon the
essence of the divine, and on some other subjects bound up with such
meditation. They specified (on the basis more of their wishes than of the
task’s feasibility or my capacity) the following form for this written
meditation: nothing whatsoever to be argued on the basis of the authority of
Scripture, but the constraints of reason concisely to prove, and the clarity of
truth clearly to show, in the plain style, with everyday arguments, and down to
earth dialectic, the conclusions of distinct investigations.[18]
Anselm’s dependence
upon reason does not make him a rationalist in the mode of the Enlightenment.
Anselm sees no contradiction between reason and revelation. The proper use of
reason never conflicts with the truth of revelation. According to Anselm,
reason alone entails the right use of reason.[19]
In the Proslogion, Anselm argues for his
ontological proof for God’s existence in which he claims that God is that,
“whom nothing greater can be thought.[20]
Because God is a being which nothing greater can be thought then he must exist not only in one’s mind but also in
reality.[21]
The ontological argument of Anselm remains a key argument within apologetic
debates regarding proofs of the existence for God. The original title of the Proslogion,
Fides quaerens intellectum (Fath seeking
understanding) reveals Anselm’s commitment to reason and the idea that true
faith finds no contradiction with logic and reason.
Anselm begins the Proslogion
with a petition for the presence of God, “Come then, Lord my God, teach my
heart where and how to seek You, and how to find You.”[22]
He expresses sorrow that he does not see God but lives in a fallen world.
Pleads with God to teach him to love and seek the Lord. But Anselm recognizes
his own sin and his brokenness,
I acknowledge, Lord, and I
give thanks that You have created Your image in me, so that I may remember You,
think of You, love You. But this image is so effaced and worn away by vice, so
darkened by the smoke of sin, that it cannot do what it was made to do unless
You renew it and reform it.[23]
Anselm’s
first chapter reveals that at its heart the Proslogion
is a work of meditation and religious discourse. He frames both the Monologion
and the Proslogion in the attitude of prayer. Anselm’s intention was not to prove to the nonbeliever the reality
of God’s existence. He wrote the Proslogion
to encourage his comrades in the Abbey of Bec. He wished to establish to the
monks that faith in God was rational and while Anselm assumes God, he seeks to
use logic to reinforce what he already believed.[24]
But according to Anselm, there is no possibility of knowing God without the
direct assistance of God. Anselm ends the first section of Proslogion
with a recognition that one requires faith to understand God.
I do not try, Lord, to
attain Your lofty heights, because my understanding is in no way equal to it.
But I do desire to understand Your truth a little, that truth that my heart
believes and loves. For I do not seek to understand so that I may believe, but
I believe so that I may understand. For I believe this also, that ‘unless I
believe, I shall not understand.’[25]
Understanding
Anselm requires one to see that Anselm believed that there was a direct
connection between faith and reason. Without faith, then one lacks the tools
for understanding.
The Proslogion is a
relatively short work with each chapter composed of paragraphs or a few pages. Anselm’s
ontological argument rests primarily within chapters two and three of the Proslogion.
Anselm’s argument appears as an inferential necessity. A conclusion is necessary
because if one uses well-grounded reasoning then no other conclusion is
possible from the premises given. Anselm uses the idea of the logical necessity of
“God exists’ as the premise in a proof of God’s existence in the Proslogion.
[26]
It’s easy to see Anselm’s argument as a reductio ad absurdum. The use
of a reductio ad absurdum argument means one assumes the opposite of
what one is trying to prove and demonstrates a contradiction from the
assumption. Anselm desires to show the absurdity of the argument that God does
not exist.[27]
Anselm frames his argument in
chapter two in four parts,
1. 1. God is something that which
nothing greater can be thought
2. 2. God exists in the mind because
even the Fool can think of something which is greater than can be thought.
3. 3. That which is greater than can be
thought cannot only exist in the mind.
4. 4. Something which is greater than
can be thought must exist in the mind and in reality.[28]
With
this simple argument, Anselm believes he reveals the inconsistency of the Fool
or the Atheist’s argument.
For the atheist must
conceive of God in order to deny His existence. But having understood God to be
something than which no greater can be thought, the atheist is logically
constrained, on the basis of the argument above, to conclude that God exists in
reality, while at the same time he is disavowing that God does so exist.[29]
Referring
to Psalm 14:1, “the Fool has said in his heart, there is no God,” Anselm
acknowledges that the fool may hold to these thoughts privately. But once the
begins to think about the omnipotent and omniscient God in the way Anselm
describes then he cannot but fail to see that the existence of God is required
according to the description.[30]
In chapter three, Anselm elaborates
on the ideas discussed in chapter two. Anselm adds to his previous argument
saying, “certainly this being so truly exists that it cannot be even thought
not to exist.” [31]
His argument in Proslogion 3 can be summarized by the following,
1. 1. Something can be thought to exist
which cannot be thought not to exist.
2. 2. This would be greater than
something which can be thought not to exist.
3. 3. So something than which nothing
can be thought cannot be something which can be thought not to exist. That
would be absurd.
4. 4. So something than which nothing
greater can be thought cannot be thought to exist.[32]
While
Anselm’s argument is difficult to follow, one can easily observe Anselm’s use
of the reductio ad absurdum argument. Anselm wishes to demonstrate to the Fool
the absurdity of his idea that there is no God by establishing the illogical
conclusion of the basic premise. According to Anselm, God’s existence is clear
to the mind that any denial of his existence is self-contradictory and the
ideas of the Fool are illogical and ontologically false.[33]
In Proslogion Four, Anselm paints a
picture of the Fool indicating the quandary the Fool finds himself in because
he can’t simultaneously think and not think of God as real.[34]
Based on Anselm's reasoning, the Fool paints himself into a corner through his
absurd proposition that God does not exist. Anselm points out the quandary the
Fool finds himself in,
For God is
that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought. Whoever really understands this
understands clearly that this same being so exists that not even in thought can
it not exist. This whoever understands that God exists in such a way cannot
think of Him as not existing.[35]
As
shared earlier, Anselm frames his proof in the form of a prayer and ends
Prosologion Four in thanksgiving,
I give thanks, good Lord,
I give thanks to You, since what I believed before through Your free gift I now
understand through Your illumination, that if I did not want to believe
that You existed, I should nevertheless be unable not to understand it.[36]
Anselm
makes it clear to the Fool and to himself that the God he conceives of existing
is non cogitari potest non esse or “it cannot be thought that it is not.”[37]
Once we understand the meaning of God as Anselm argues, then we cannot conceive
of God not existing.
In the rest of the Proslogion, chapters
five through twenty-six, Anselm presents both an elaboration of the
foundational ideas presented in the first four chapters and a devotion and
prayer to the God he proclaimed as true in the early chapters. Anselm presents
an exploration of God’s divine attributes. In chapter fifteen, Anselm speaks
of God,
Therefore, Lord, not only
are You that than which a greater cannot be thought, but You are also something
greater than can be thought. For since it is possible to think that there is
such a one, then, if You are not this same being something grater than You
could be thought-which cannot be.[38]
Anselm
focuses on the greatness of God which is greater than can be thought. Within
chapter twenty-three one sees that the idea of necessary applied to the Triune
Godhead.
You are this good, O God
the Father, this is your Word, that is to say, Your Son… This itself is the
Love, one and common to You and Your Son, that is the Holy Spirit proceeding
from both… Thus, whatever each is singly, that the whole Trinity is altogether,
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; since each
singly is not other than the supremely simple unity and the supremely unified
simplicity which can be neither multiplied nor differentiated.[39]
Chapters
five through twenty-six contain Anselm’s fleshed-out theology of the God
discussed in the first four chapters. Anselm’s theological arguments extend
from his ontological argument and for Anselm remains wedded to his philosophical
framework. This remains important considering the use of Anselm’s ontological
argument in Chapters two and three contain insights used to argue for other
gods outside Christian theology.[40]
It is debatable whether Anselm viewed
his argument as proof of God. It is evident that Anselm viewed the thought
and existence of God as a necessity.
It is only in a careless
way that Anselm’s proof can be called a proof that God exists. In Anselm’s
view, the fact that it is possible to attach any meaning to the word ‘God’ is
sufficient to show that God has some degree of existence. What the proof
undertakes to show is, first that God’s existence is external to the mind; and
second, that it is necessary for any coherent thought about the world; and
third, that it is absolutely necessary in the sense that God cannot be thought
of as non-existent without self-contradiction.[41]
Anselm’s ontological argument
received a rapid response from Gaunilo, a Benedictine monk of Marmoutier Abbey
in Tours, France. Little is known of Gaunilo, other than his criticism of
Anselm’s ontological argument. His criticism of Anselm only appears as an
appendix of the Proslogion. Gaunilo’s critique, On Behalf of the Fool,
appears as a parody of Anselm’s basic argument. Gaunilo centers his attack on
chapters two and three of the Proslogion by applying the argument to the
existence of a lost island.
For example: they say that
there is in the ocean somewhere an island which, because of the difficulty (or
rather the impossibility) of finding that which does not exist, some have
called the ‘Lost Island.’ And the story goes that it is blessed with all manner
of priceless riches and delights in abundance, much more even than the Happy
Isles, and, having no owner or inhabitant, it is superior everywhere in
abundance of riches to all those other lands that men inhabit. Now, if anyone
tells me that it is like this, I shall easily understand what is said, since nothing
is difficult about it. But if he should go on to say, as though it were a
logical consequence of this: You cannot any more doubt this island that is more
excellent than all other lands truly exists somewhere in reality than you can
doubt that it is in your mind; since it is more excellent to exist not only in
the mind alone but also in reality, therefore it must need exists.[42]
Anselm’s response is to point out that the something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought is not in the same category
as other objects. The greater than can be thought only applies to being and not
to objects such as islands.
For that- than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought
save as being without a beginning. But whatever can be thought as existing and
does not actually exist can be thought as having a beginning of its existence.
Consequently, ‘that- than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought’ cannot be thought
as existing and yet actually exist. It, therefore, it can be thought as
existing, it exists as necessity.[43]
Gaunilo
misinteprets Anselm’s basic argument. Gaunilo changes, “something than which
nothing greater can be thought” to “that which is greater than everything.”
With this change, Gaunilo changes the focus of Anselm’s argument by losing the reductio
ad absurdum. This loses the logical consequence in the premise
that the Fool assumes. What applies to the being of God cannot apply to a ‘lost
island’, possessing a beginning. An island has a beginning and is an object of
creation, while God is infinite and eternal. God exists as a necessity.
Anselm’s writing of the Monologion
and the Proslogion took place from 1076-1078, during his last years as prior of
the Abbey of Bec. Anselm would move on to become the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Philosophers and theologians continue to debate the ontological proof as
presented by Anselm. Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Kant,
and Hegel grappled with, argued, and attempted to refute Anselm. Karl Barth
analyzed Anselm in his volume, Anselm: Fides Quaerens Intellectum (Faith
Seeking Understanding), and found convergences with his theology. Yet, Anselm and
his ontological arguments remain and continue as each new generation wrestles
with the implications and conclusions put forth by the Archbishop of
Canterbury.
Bibliography
Anselm,
Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works. edited by Brian Davies and G.R.
Evans, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Baldwin, Joseph
W. The Scholastic Culture of the Middle
Ages, 1000-1300. Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, 1971.
Brecher,
Richard. Anselm’s Argument: The Logic of Divine Existence.
Aldershot, England: Gower Publishing Company, 1988.
Davies, Brian and
Brian Leftow, editors. The Cambridge
Companion to Anselm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Eadmer, The
Life of St. Anselm: Archbishop of Canterbury, Translated by R.W. Southern.
, edited by R.W. Southern, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1962.
Edgar, William,
and K. Scott Oliphant, editors. Christian Apologetics: Past &
Present, Volume 1: To 1500. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2009.
Evans, G.R. Anselm
and Talking About God. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978.
Fairweather,
Eugene R, A Scholastic Miscellany: Anselm to Ockham, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1970.
Hopkins, Jasper. A Companion to the Study of St. Anselm.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1972.
Lane, Tony. A Concise History of Christian Thought.
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2006.
Letham, Robert. Systematic Theology. Wheaton: Crossway
Books, 2019.
Matthews, Gareth
B. "The Ontological Argument." https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil383/matthews.
McGiffert, Arthur
Cushman. A History of Christian Thought,
Volume II: The West From Tertullian to Erasmus, New York: Charles
Scribner’s Sons, 1933.
Plantinga, Alvin,
ed. The Ontological Argument: from St. Anselm to Contemporary
Philosophers. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1965.
Sansom, Dennis L.
"Anselm vs. the Fool (with a Little Help from David Hume): Can the
“Unsurpassable” Be Surpassed?" The
Saint Anselm Journal 8, no. 2 (April 2013): 1-14. https://doi.org/https://www.anselm.edu/sites/default/files/Documents/Institute%20of%20SA%20Studies/Sansom,%20Anselm's%20Idea%20of%20God,%20the%20Fool,%20and%20David%20Hume's%20Philosophy.pdf
Schnaubelt,
Joseph C., Thomas A. Losoncy, Frederick Van Fleteren, and Jill A. Frederick,
eds. Anselm Studies An Occasional Journal II: Proceedings
of The Fifth International Saint Anselm Conference: St. Anselm and St.
Augustine Episcopi Ad Saecula. White
Plains, NY: Kraus International Publications, 1998.
Schufreider,
Gregory. Confessions of a Rational Mystic. West Lafayette, IN:
Perdue University Press, 1994.
Southern,
R.W. Saint Anselm: A Portrait
in a Landscape. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Southern, R.W. Saint Anselm and His Biographer.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966.
[1]
Gareth B. Matthews, “The Ontological Argument,” https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil383/matthews.pdf
[2] Richard Taylor,” Introduction,”
in The Ontological Argument: from St.
Anselm to Contemporary Philosophers, ed. Alvin Plantiga, (Garden City, NY:
Anchor Books, 1965), vii.
[3] Eadmer, The Life of Anselm. Ed. R.W. Southern (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1962), ix.
[4] R.W.
Southern, Saint Anselm: A Portrait in a
Landscape. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 384.
[5] Eadmer, The Life of Anselm, 150-151.
[6] Southern, Saint Anselm: A Portrait in a Landscape, 11.
[7] R.W. Southern, Saint Anselm and His Biographer.
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966), 12.
[8] E.W. Evans, “Anselm’s life,
works, and immediate influence.” In The Cambridge Companion to Anselm. Eds.
Brian Davies and Brian Leftow (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 10.
[9] Eadmer, The Life of Anselm, 12.
[10] Arthur Cushman McGiffert, A History of Christian Thought, Volume II:
The West From Tertullian to Erasmus, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,
1933), 185.
[11] G.R. Evans, Anselm and Talking About God, (Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1978), 66.
[12] Southern, Saint Anselm and His Biographer, 32.
[13] John W.
Baldwin, The Scholastic Culture of the
Middle Ages, 1000-1300 (Prospect
Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, 1971), 89.
[14] Tony Lane, A Concise History of Christian Thought
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2006), 105.
[15] Anselm, Monologium, Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works, eds., Brian
Davies and G.R. Evans, (London: Oxford University Press, 1998),73.
[16] Jasper Hopkins, A Companion to the Study of St.
Anselm, (Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, 1972),
44-45.
[17] McGiffert, 185.
[18] Anselm,
Monologion in Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works, eds.,
Brian Davies and G.R. Evans, (London: Oxford University Press, 1998), 5.
[19] William Edgar and K. Scott
Oliphant, Christian Apologetics: Past and
Present, Vol.1: To 1500, (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2009), 367.
[20] Anselm, Proslogion in A Scholastic Miscellany:
Anselm to Ockham, ed Eugene R. Fairweather, (Philadelphia: The Westminster
Press, 1956), 75.
[21] Brian Davies, “Anselm and the
Ontological Argument.” in The Cambridge Companion to Anselm. Eds. Brian Davies and Brian
Leftow (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2004), 158-159.
[24] Robert Letham, Systematic Theology, (Wheaton: Crossway,
2019), 43.
[25] Anselm, Proslogion, in Anselm of
Canterbury: The Major Works, 87.
[26] Richard Brecher, Anselm’s Argument: The Logic of Divine Existence,
(Aldershot, Hampshire: Gower Publishing Company, 1988), 22-23.
[27] Wolfgang Rod, “Some Remarks on
the Prehistory of the Logical Form of St. Anselm’s Argument in Proslogion II,”
- Anselm Studies An Occasional Journal
II: Proceedings of The Fifth International Saint Anselm Conference: St. Anselm
and St. Augustine Episcopi Ad Saecula, eds Joseph C. Schnaubelt et al.,
(White Plains, NY: Kraus International Publications: 1988), 262.
[28] Anselm, Proslogion, in Anselm of Canterbury:
The Major Works, 87-88.
[29]
Hopkins, 71.
[30]
Hopkins, 73-74.
[31] Anselm, Proslogion, in Anselm of
Canterbury: The Major Works, 88.
[32] Anselm, Proslogion, in Anselm of
Canterbury: The Major Works, 88. Also see, Brian Davies, Amselm and the
Ontological Argument,” in The Cambridge
Companion to Anselm, eds. Brian Davies and Brian Leftow, (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2004), 163.
[33] Dennis L. Sansom, “Anselm vs. the
Fool (with a Little Help from David Hume):Can the “Unsurpassable” Be
Surpassed?,” The Saint Anselm Journal
8, no.2, (Spring 2013), 2. https://www.anselm.edu/sites/default/files/Documents/Institute%20of%20SA%20Studies/Sansom,%20Anselm's%20Idea%20of%20God,%20the%20Fool,%20and%20David%20Hume's%20Philosophy.pdf
[34] Hopkins, 73.
[35] Anselm, Proslogion, in Anselm of
Canterbury: The Major Works, 89.
[36] Anselm, Proslogion, in Anselm of
Canterbury: The Major Works, 89.
[37] Hopkins, 74.
[38] Anselm, Proslogion, in Anselm of
Canterbury: The Major Works, 96,
[39] Anselm, Proslogion, in Anselm of
Canterbury: The Major Works, 100.
[40] Gregory Schufreider, Confessions of a Rational Mystic, (West
Lafayette, Indiana: Perdue University Press, 1994), 208.
[41] Southern, Saint Anselm: A
Portrait in a Landscape,
132.
[42] Anselm, Proslogion, in Anselm of
Canterbury: The Major Works, 109.
