Jeffrey Witt: Reading Augustine in the Fourteenth Century: Gregory of Rimini’s reception of Augustine’s description of science, faith, and theology in De Trinitate XIV, c. 1

In his prologue to his Commentary on the Sentences, Gregory of Rimini (OESA), a mid-14^th century theologian, is noted for his fierce critique of Peter Auriol’s conception of the purpose and method of theology (cf. S. Brown, 1991). Rimini is famous for rhetorically asking Auriol to go back and read Augustine again, because, he claims, Auriol has clearly not understood Augustine correctly. My paper will argue that Rimini’s opposition to Auriol cannot be isolated to Rimini himself, but is better seen as a product of a tradition of interpreting Augustine inaugurated by one of the most famous Augustinian Friars, Giles of Rome (fl. 1280’s). In his prologue, Giles of Rome offers a particular interpretation of the famous lines of Augustine from De Trinitate XIV, c. 1: “sed illud tantummodo quo fides saluberrima quae ad ueram beatitudinem ducit gignitur, nutritur, defenditur, roboratur. qua scientia non pollent fideles plurimi, quamuis polleant ipsa fide plurimum.” From this quotation Giles generates a distinctive understanding of the purpose of theology closely identified with that “saving faith which leads to true beatitude.”

When Peter Auriol (OFM, fl. 1315-1320) treats the same matter in his own prologue, we not only see that he introduces an alternative conception of the purpose and function of theology, but that he has built this understanding on a mutually opposed interpretation of this same quotation from De Trin. XIV. The prologues of other post-Auriol Augustinian Friars show a conscious awareness that Auriol’s re-conception of theology is built on his interpretation of De Trin. XIV. I will look at a few passages from the prologue of the Augustinian Friar Gerard of Senis (fl. 1330’s) as one representative example.

Finally, I will show that Rimini’s conception of theology, his interpretation of Augustine, and his opposition to Auriol are all an inheritance of this Aegidian interpretive tradition. This tradition, I will suggest, is consistent with Rimini’s conception of theology as a kind of acquired faith rather than something distinct from faith. At the same time, we will see that this conception of the nature of theology is incompatible with Auriol’s conception of theology, which was based on an alternative reading of De Trin. XIV.