masses of exegetic nullity a total failure to grasp the simple and often obvious meaning either of books, passages, texts, or even words. Most of these Compilers and Glossators were preachers; some of them were saints of God; many of them were the most learned men of their day; but in spite of all this, their exegesis is null and naught.1

Between this earlier epoch and the zenith of Papal supremacy stands the great name of JOHANNES SCOTUS ERIGENA. Scholasticism practically sprang out of the brief collision between Church authority and independent thought. It was in part the outcome of controversies like that between Ratram and Paschasius on the Eucharist (A.D. 844); between Lanfranc and Berengarius on the Eucharist (1047); between Anselm and Roscelin on Universals (1092); between Bernard and Abelard on rationalism.2 Erigena, who towers above his age, was employed to answer Gotteschale who was a Predestinarian, but he was himself condemned by two Councils for very many heresies inferred by very many syllogisms," and his books were burnt by Pope Honorius III.3 Alone among his predecessors, contemporaries, and successors, he shows independence and originality. "Let no authority terrify you," he says, "from conclusions which the reasonable persuasion.

1 Even Cardinal Newman says, "About the sixth or seventh century this originality disappears; the oral or traditionary teaching which allowed scope to the individual teacher became hardened into a written tradition, and henceforth there is a uniform invariable character as well as substance of Scripture interpretation." Pref. to Catena Aurea, p. ii. The lexicographers Hesychius, Suidas, Phavorinus, Zonaras, &c., are not exegetes but furnish good materials.

2 Scholasticism may be divided into three epochs. 1. From Anselm (+1109) to Peter Lombard († 1164). 2. From Peter Lombard to the death of Albertus Magnus († 1280). 3. From the beginning of the thirteenth century to Gabriel Biel († 1495). Hauréau divides it, 1. From Alcuin to the end of the twelfth century. 2. From Alexander of Hales († 1245) to John Gerson († 1429). Ueberweg's epochs are nearly the same, and so are those adopted by Tribbechovius and by Diestel. Philosophically, Mr. Lewes distinguishes three epochs. 1. The debate on Universals. 2. The influence of Aristotle. The proclamation of the independence of reason (Biogr. Hist. of Philos. p. 290). Cousin distinguishes between the periods of (1) absolute subordination and (2) commencing emancipation of philosophy (Cours de l'hist. de la philos. Leçon ix.).

3.

Feb. 23, 1225. The writings of Erigena fell into the more suspicion from the use made of them by Berengarius of Tours in the Eucharistic controversy (1050), and by Amalric of Bène. John Scotus was the first who adopted a systematically syllogistic form of argument.

That voice was of a

Erigena unhappily
that "the sense of

of right contemplation teaches. Reason and authority come
alike from the one source of divine wisdom, and cannot
contradict each other. Reason is not to be overruled by
authority but the reverse, and therefore the opinions of the
Fathers must only be introduced in case of necessity,1 for the
Fathers often contradict each other." 2
higher mood, but no one listened to it.
was not a commentator. He held indeed
divine utterance is manifold, and like a peacock's feather
glows with many colours," but he also held that all creatures
are manifestations of the divine. The chief influence he
exercised was due to his translation and adoption of the
views of the Syrian Neoplatonist whose works were attributed
to Dionysius the Areopagite. Those spurious writings, which
probably originated at Edessa or under the influence of
the Edessene School, about the beginning of the sixth
century, wrought like a spell upon the mediaeval Church

De Div. Nat. i. 66, 68, 71, iv. 9; Diestel, p. 159. He asserts the identity
of Philosophy and Religion, not the vassalage of the former to the latter.
Ueberweg, i. 357. So too Berengar. adv. Lanfranc., Lib. posterior, p. 105.
2 De Div. Nat. iv. 16.

3 De Div. Nat. iv. 5. This truly great work was condemned by the Synod of Valence (855) as a commentum diaboli; and by Pope Honorius III. (1225) as teeming with the venom of heretical depravity;" and placed on the Index by Gregory XIII. See Schaff, Mediaeval Christianity, ii. 543.

66

The writings of Pseudo-Dionysius are first heard of about 532, soon after the closing of the Neoplatonic schools of Athens by Justinian, and their authenticity was early disputed (Phot. Cod. 2). Cave (Script. Ecc. i. 177) attributes then to Apollinaris the elder, and others to Synesius. Neither suggestion is probable. See Gieseler, ii. 113; Meier, De Dionysii et Mysticorum Doctrina, 1845; Montet, Des Livres du Pseudo-Dionysius; Dean Colet on the Celestial Hierarchies of Dionysius (ed. Lupton); Westcott on Dionys. the Areop., Contemp. Rev. May, 1867. "The effect of this work on the whole ecclesiastical system and on the popular faith it is almost impossible justly to estimate." Milman, Lat. Christ. iv. 334. "Proclus and Dionysius ploughed with one and the same Neoplatonic heifer" (Fabric. Marini Procli Vita, p. xii.). The books of Dionysius were translated by J. Scotus Erigena, and in the twelfth century by Saracenus; but even in 757 his writings had been given by Paul I. to Pippin. They were favourites with the mystics, as also with Ficino and Pico of Mirandola. Some of Abelard's many troubles were caused by certain historic doubts as to Dionysius and St. Denys. Pope says with somewhat ignorant severity,

"Go soar with Plato to th' empyreal sphere

To the first good, first perfect, and first fair;
Or tread the mazy round his followers trod,
And quitting sense call imitating God."

Essay on Man, ii. 23-26.

and especially upon the mystics of the twelfth and the Platonists of the fifteenth century. The puyn μóvoν πρòs μóvov of Plotinus1 expresses the inmost idea of Mysticism, and its influence is traceable not only in the mystics of the Middle Ages but in Dean Colet,2 in the Quietists, in the Molinists, and even in the memorable remark of Cardinal Newman about God and the soul as being the two supremely and luminously self-evident existences.

It was not till the twelfth century that the slightest breath of fresh life blew over the faded fields. The era of passivity ends with Erigena. Thenceforth dogma assumes the aid of dialectics, and is developed into a system. Just as Alexandrian Christianity was the result of a conflict with heretical gnosis, so scholasticism was elicited by the efforts of free inquiry. The era begins with the attempt of Anselm (10331109) to raise the truths of faith to scientific certainty, and so to fuse faith and reason as to save the one from being blind, and the other from being autocratic. The close of this century is marked by the great names of Bernard (10911153), of Abelard (1079-1142), of Rupert of Deutz († 1135),* of Hugo († 1141), and of Richard de Sto Victore († 1173).

3

ST. BERNARD, the Doctor Mellifluus, and "Last of the Fathers," is the able and eloquent representative of the ecclesiastical rule, but also the father of the mediaeval mystics.5 Mysticism is the natural resource of souls that cannot find sufficient to satisfy their religious needs in the tyranny of artificial systems. The calm question of the author of the Imitatio,

1 Plotin. Ennead. vi. 9. Creuzer says of the Ps. Dionysius, "His walls are inlaid with Plotinian mosaic." Dante expresses the high estimate of him in the Mediaeval Church (Par. x. 112; xxviii. 121).

"Nisi poterit homo dicere secum Ego solus et Deus in mundo sum non habebit requiem" (Colet).

"Credo ut intelligam" (Anselm, Prol.).

4 The remarks of Rupert (Prol. in Joann.) in favour of the view that commentators were still possible though Augustine had written, were thought unusually bold. On the transcendent authority of Augustine, which even Berengarius said it was "ne fas quidem contradicere," see Werner, Schol. d. Mittelalt. i. 1-3.

5 See Stöckl, Gesch. d. Philos. d. Mittelalters, i. 293. It is remarkable that while Peter Lombard quotes Hugo of St. Victor, he never notices Bernard. Thomasius thinks that this was out of kindness to the memory of his teacher Abelard.

Quid nobis cum generibus et speciebus?" expressed the rejection by the truest mystics of the discussions which occupied so many centuries. Mysticism was not an enemy to scholasticism, but had a different aim. Scholasticism dealt with aetiology, and aimed at the discovery of truth; mysticism dealt with teleology, and aimed at the realisation of holiness.1 All mysticism is included in the remark of St. Bernard, "Causa diligendi Dei Deus est, modus est sine modo diligere (De dilig. Deo, opp. i. 974). It was fostered in the intellect by the fancies of the Pseudo-Areopagite, and in the heart by the unnatural asceticism of the monastic system. Deprived of the refining influence of family life, shut up in an endless round of services and self-denials which alike tended to become mechanical, the monks were still unable to defy the emotions and impulses of nature, and while they desired to live in closest communion with the divine, constructed for themselves in the next world an idealised form of the joys which they gave up in this. There was one book of the Bible which left scope to their imagination to revel in thoughts which seemed to be innocent because they were supposed to be Scriptural, and which gratified those yearnings of the human heart which are too strong and too sacred to be permanently crushed. It was the Song of Solomon. Many of the Jewish Rabbis had felt doubts about the book, until Aqiba with his usual dictatorial confidence had declared that it was the very Holy of Holies of Scripture.2 Whether mystically interpreted of the soul or not, it was felt to be a warm and glowing song of love, and Jewish youths were not permitted to read it.3 Such feelings were not transitory. Abelard feared the effects which it would produce on the minds

1 Hergenrother, K. G. i. 953. St. Bernard speaks (Sermons, ed. Marténe, p. 21) of Aristotelicae subtilitatis facunda quidem sed infecunda loquacitas." "On the day when R. Eliezer ben Azariah was made President it was decided that the books of Canticles and Ecclesiastes defile the hands (i.e. are canonical). R. Aqiba said. . . No day in the history of the world is so valued as the day when the Book of Canticles was given to Israel; for all the Scriptures are holy, but the Book of Canticles is the Holy of Holies" (Yaddaim, c. iii.).

3 Sanhedrin, f. 101, i. ... "Whoever recites a verse of the Song of Solomon as a secular song. causes evil to come upon the world."

of the virgins of the Paraclete.1 When we read Jerome's letter to Eustochium on Virginity we can see that there might be both moral danger and gross bad taste in the manner in which the images of Canticles were applied. Something of the same kind may be seen at the close of Hugo's treatise, De Nuptiis. Jerome had mentioned the Canticles as the goal for Paulla's theological studies. Aquinas expounded it almost with his dying breath. The monkish commentaries upon it were unwholesomely numberless. In the eightysix Homilies of St. Bernard there are thoughts and passages full of beauty, but the mystic interpretation of the book, even if it be justifiable, degenerated in meaner hands into a style of language of which it would be charitable to say nothing worse than that it is too poetically sensuous for any commentary on Holy Writ.

The monastery of St. Victor was the chief home of mediaeval mysticism. Over its gate was the inscription-

"Claustrum nolenti mors est, sed vita volenti;

Per claustri sedem coeli mercaberis Eden."

Its

In that distich lay the whole theory of monasticism. aim was to fly from the world, not to save it. It strove to obtain personal salvation as the payment of present asceticism. HUGO was driven into mysticism by disgusted conviction of the danger and uselessness of the dialectics which had been introduced into the service of religion. "The incorrupted truth of things," he says, "cannot be discovered by ratio

1 Ep. ad Virg. Paracl. "Ne sub carnalibus verbis nuptiarum spiritualium, epithalamium non intelligens vulneretur" (Opp. ed. Cousin, i. 227).

2 Here are a few of St. Bernard's explanations: Meliora sunt ubera tua vino. Though addressed to the Bride he refers them to Christ, and says that they mean His patience and His clemency (which he proves at great length by "parallel passages"). Propterea adolescentulae te dilexerunt nimis. The adolescentulae are the Angels, and this gives Bernard an opportunity to expatiate at length on the nine orders of Angels, &c.

Ep. ad Lactam.

Hugo, Erudit. Didascal. iii. 13. John of Salisbury had said, "Claustrales rectissime et tutissime philosophantur" (Polycrat. viii. 13, 21). Bacon says, Quemadmodum corpora eorum in cellis coenobiorum, sic animus in uno Aristotele conclusus fuit" (De Augm. Scient. i. 16); see Hauréan, i. 507. Even Bede complains of the "innumera monasticae servitutis retinacula "

S