A Reformed Metaphysical Manifesto

This post will be different from my others in that I am not concerned for quality or for editing, but am simply going to write out my thoughts as I have them. I am so far behind in the things I have undertaken to write that I cannot do anything else at this time. My thoughts and expressions will likely be half-baked, but so be it.

The impetus for this post, of course, is the conversion of Ryan Hurd to Roman Catholicism (https://rmhurd.substack.com/p/why-ive-become-roman-catholic). This comes as no surprise to me as it does many. I thought it fitting for me to compose this post at this time because Hurd was instrumental in the development of my own thoughts on the matters on which I am about to write.

In the summer of, I want to say, 2023 (but I do not care to verify this at the moment) I audited a course through the Davenant Institute taught by Hurd on the doctrine of divine impassibility. That course and access to the Davenant discord channel was my first exposure to Hurd. I hate to speak biographically about all my thoughts, but in sum it suffices to say that I was torn between admiration for his clear genius and brilliant insights and what I took to be an unwise devotion to Thomas. At the very least, I came away taking Thomism more seriously. Hurd intrigued me, yet I felt there were certain unresolvable tensions between Thomism and Reformed theology.

For me, that class was the impetus for a more serious study of Scotus. My familiarity with Scotus began sometime before the class, perhaps in late 2022 and grew out of my long-held love for Bonaventure. To tell the truth, I was never very comfortable with Reformed Thomism. It has hard for me to articulate at the time, but I saw many differences between Thomas and what I was reading in Reformed scholastics like Francis Turretin on metaphysical issues. Take for instance, Turretin’s insistence, contra Thomas, that the angels are not naturally obstinate, or Samuel Willard or Zanchi’s similarly anti-Thomistic affirmation of angelic matter. It was clear to me back then that the Reformed were not Thomists. I didn’t quite know what they were, nor did I think they were all uniform, but it was clear to me “Reformed Thomism” strictly speaking was never really a thing. Thus I tended to read more from the Franciscans than I did from Thomas. Back then, however, you couldn’t really decry “Reformed Thomism” without being classed with the biblicists. Nor could you say anything positive about Scotus without being taken for a nominalist. Thus my love for Scotus and my thoughts on the modern “Reformed Thomist” movement being misguided was, for the most part, kept private.

But, again, it was around this time that I started looking more into Scotus as a metaphysician and specifically where he differed with Thomas and why. Once I had a better understanding of the metaphysical disagreements at play between him and Thomas, the philosophical leanings of the Reformed began to make a whole lot more sense to me. I have detailed these points here: https://brandoncorleyschoo.wixsite.com/brandoncorley/post/a-reformed-commentary-on-the-thomistic-theses but take, for instance, the univocity of being or the modal (as opposed to the Thomistic real) distinction between essence and existence. Both of these points are characteristically Scotist, and not only that, they were held to by the Reformed en masse. At least on the topic of being, the Reformed are accurately described as Scotist. The same might be said, by and large, for their teachings on angels (https://brandoncorleyschoo.wixsite.com/brandoncorley/post/voetius-turretin-van-mastricht-and-senguerdius-on-angels) or on Christology (https://brandoncorleyschoo.wixsite.com/brandoncorley/post/voetius-s-syllabus-of-theological-questions-on-the-person-of-christ-hypostatic-union-mary-and-th). It is worth noting regarding my post on the Thomistic Theses that every single thesis disputed by the Reformed (or at least some among the Reformed) are the exact same theses disputed by the Scotists. Again and again, I discovered not only that the Reformed were following Scotus in his controversies with Thomism (whether consciously or unconsciously), but they very often had, in my estimation, much better reason for doing so. The metaphysical disputations of Bartholomew Mastri and Crescentius Krisper among the Scotists and Franco Burgersdijk and Arnold Senguerdius among the Reformed, on many topics I reckoned as more sophisticated and solid than anything I could find in Thomas or his followers.

What is my point here? Am I calling on everyone to become Scotists? No, that is not my intent. What I do want is this: I want reformed theologians to retrieve the metaphysics of their own tradition. That, by itself, is a debatable goal, for is there a Reformed Metaphysic? I happen to think, more or less, that there is. And I will, against my better judgment, attempt to outline what this consists of below.

First, I think that Reformed Metaphysics starts from a certain posture and operates by a certain method that simply cannot be replicated by the tribalism of the schools. The Thomists will bitterly fight the Scotists to the very end no matter the issue and likewise the Scotists the Thomists. For each school, the honor of their doctor, who is the very best theologian and simply could not have been wrong about x, y z, is at stake. Without diving any any particular issue, just consider the a priori improbability of this mindset. Really, Thomas/Scotus was right about everything? Never did one score a point against the other? If any think my rhetoric exaggerative, go read the strictest adherents of either school and you will see it is only slightly so. I think that one of the things that made the Reformed such good metaphysicians is precisely that they never felt this obligation. They could grant points to Scotus, Thomas, Suarez, and anyone else without feeling they had to subtract from the honor of their great masters. Against the mindset of the schools, the Reformed started their philosophy with this: “whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours.”

Second, if there is any figurehead for Reformed Metaphysics, it is not Scotus or Thomas or Suarez, but Aristotle. The insights of the medieval scholastics by which they advanced far beyond Aristotle are to be greatly appreciated. But the properly basic insights of Aristotle are to be our guiding light. He was the flower of nature’s wit. Where any medieval scholastic claims to have corrected him, we are right to be skeptical. Yet of course, our loyalty is not to Aristotle, but to truth wherever it might be found (see above).

Third, what does a Reformed Metaphysic actually teach? This perhaps is the most difficult to answer definitively since there was diversity among the Reformed scholastics and there is at least some dissent on almost all (but not quite) of these points, but I think there is a clear majority set of beliefs that draws on insights from both Thomas and Scotus. For the record, I consider Gisbertus Voetius, Arnold Senguerdius, and Johannes Maccovius to be stellar representations of this specific metaphysic. I will list what I believe this set to consist of below:

• A Scotist division of being.

Being is most essentially divided into finite and infinite being. Potency and act is not the most fundamental division of being, as it is for the Thomists. So Senguerdius, Alsted.

• Essence and existence are modally, and not really distinct.

So Burgersdijk, Senguerdius, Voetius, Alsted, Maccovius, with Scotus.

• The objective concept of being is univocal.

So Voetius, Burgersdijk, Senguerdius, Alsted with Scotus.

• Haecceity, and not designated matter is the principle of individuation.

So Voetius, Burgersdijk, Senguerdius, Alsted with Scotus.

• That matter has its own act.

So Voetius, Burgersdijk, Senguerdius, Alsted with Scotus.

• That no creature can be a physical (but only an instrumental) cause of grace.

Virtually everyone can be named here with Scotus.

• A commitment to physical premotion.

So Voetius, Senguerdius, Maccovius with Thomas.

• That the intellect determines the will as to its specification.

So Voetius, Burgersdijk, Senguerdius, Maccovius with Thomas.

• A denial of angelic matter.

So Voetius, Burgersdijk, Senguerdius, Maccovius with Thomas.

• A denial of Scotus’s negation theory of subsistence.

Virtually everyone can be named here, with Thomas.

• That inherence is an essential mode of accidents.

Virtually everyone can be named here, against both Thomas and Scotus.

Again, the above list is by no means perfect as many points were disputed (e.g. angelic matter as mentioned above), but I would back it up against anyone as the majority set of commitments. And besides that, not only do I think this set of metaphysical commitments to be correct, but I also find some joy in the fact they are all held by Voetius as this perhaps makes my vision more palatable for others. Metaphysical Voetianism has a nice ring to it. But, again, I want us all to remember point 1. 

My goal here is simple: I want to call Reformed people back to their own sources. And I want people to stop caring so much about who said what. I do not care to revive Scotism or Suarezism per se. To swap Scotus into the place of Thomas would not be a victory. I do not want people converting to Roman Catholicism because they are enamored by Scotus rather than Thomas. I have already seen this equal and opposite error occur and it is just as bad as what happened with Hurd. I do not want Scotus to “win,” but I certainly do want Thomas to “lose.” As soon as he ceases to be everyone’s go-to and end-all-be-all for metaphysical questions, the better. My appreciation for Thomas has only grown as I have read his opponents. I find that he, as well as anyone else, is much more admirable when he is not seen as the voice of God. Such a view is unnatural and unnecessary for Reformed men to take. We are much better served by returning to our authors first.

Anyway, I hope this is somewhat helpful. My ramblings are completed.