convenient handbook, which, with the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, showed all inquiring spirits how they could unite the restless impatience of the human mind with the arbitrary determinations of the spiritual authority. During the following centuries the Summa and the Sentences were studied and expounded far more than the Scriptures.1 And without professedly revolting from the hard and arid system which was thus established, mysticism could take refuge in allegorising the Song of Songs, and in dreaming over "the Celestial Hierarchy" of the supposed Areopagite. In both schools Divinity was "reduced into an art, as into a cistern, and the stream of doctrine derived from thence." 2 The fortunes of Aristotle in the mediaeval Church were strange. Through the Alexandrian schools, both Jewish and Christian, Plato had exerted no small influence over the discussions of theology, but during the early centuries the works of Aristotle were in obscurity. His dialectical methods. had first been used by heretics, and especially by Artemon and Theodotus in arguing against the doctrine of the Trinity. No less than twenty of the Fathers from Justin to Cyril speak disparagingly of him. "They place the whole virulence of their poisons in dialectical disputation," says Ambrose of the Arians.3 "Wretched Aristotle," exclaims Tertullian, "who trained the Valentinians in dialectics!" 4 But the works of the great Stagirite crept into the Church imperceptibly, and in spite of her opposition. At first only his Organon and Categories were known to the Western world. The school-discussions of the Middle Ages were originated by a single passage from the introduction of Porphyry trans 1 As even Roger Bacon complains, Opus Minus (ed. Brewer), p. 329. 2 Bacon, Advancement of Learning. 3 De Fide, 21, 5; comp. Serm. xxii. in Ps. 118. 4 Gregory of Nazianzus says that "the Christians knew nothing of the craftiness of Aristotle's craft." Orat. xxvi. St. Vincent Ferrer was glad to quote the assertion of Jerome: " 'Quod Aristoteles et Plato in inferno sunt." Mullinger, i. 122. Roger Bacon said: "Had I the power, I would have all the works of Aristotle burnt, as it is but waste time. . . . to study them," Opus Minus (ed. Brewer), pp. 322-330. Grotius observes that many Platonists (Clemens, Origen, &c.) became Christians, but none--or very few-of the Aristotelians. De Stud. Instit. (1645), p. 221. lated by Boethius.1 He said that to understand Aristotle it was necessary to know the meaning of the five words genus, differentia, species, proprium and accidens, but he would abstain from the more difficult question about genera and species, whether they existed or only had a place in the naked intellect, whether they were corporeal or incorporeal, and whether separated from sensible things or placed in them, or consisting around them. The questions whether universals are real or are only mental conceptions, and whether they do or do not exist apart from individuals wasted more money, as John of Salisbury said, than the treasures of Croesus, and occupied more time than it took the Caesars to rule the world.2 At the beginning of the thirteenth century (from 1210 to 1225) all the works of Aristotle became known together with those of Arab philosophy through the medium of Spanish Jews. They were received with profound distrust. The errors of Amalric of Bène and David of Dinant were attributed to the study of them, and the use of them was thrice forbidden by Papal infallibility. In spite of this they crept from the threshold to the shrine, and added new and predominant influences to the scholastic method. The Popes soon saw their mistake in opposing a science which was placed absolutely at the disposal of their most extravagant claims. It is said that Aristotle's Ethics were sometimes 1 "Un rayon dérobé à l'antiquité la produisit ; l'antiquité tout entière [i.e. the Revival of Letters] l'étouffa." V. Cousin, Fragments Philos. p. 82. See, too, J. B. Mullinger, Hist. of Cambr. pp. 50-54; Bain's Mental and Moral Science, App. A. 2 Johann. Sarisb. Polucrat. vii. 12. 3 Through Avicenna in the East, and Averroes in the West they passed from Mohammedans to Jews. Maimonides translated them into Hebrew. See Renan, Averroes, p. 52; Jourdain, Recherches critiques; Prantl, Gesch. d. Logik, iii. 3. Up till 1100 only the Logic of Aristotle was known, and that only partially. Mullinger, Hist. of Cambr. i. 29. 46 4 In 1209, 1215, and 1231, by Gregory IX. (See Landerer s.v. Scholasticism in Herzog.) A Provincial council ordered that Masters of Arts should not philosophise but "satagant fieri Theododacti" and should only discuss questions quae per libros theologicos et Sanctorum Patrum tractatus valeant terminari." Lanfranc had expressed his strong preference for "sacred authorities over "dialectics." "Nec libri Aristotelis nec commenta legantur." Conc. Paris, A.D. 1209. The prohibition was withdrawn by Urban V. in 1366. Scholasticism. 265 read in Churches.1 It is certain that they were more often referred to than the Decalogue,2 and that more pains were taken to connect Aristotle with Christianity than to explain the relation between Moses and Christ. Before the close of the thirteenth century the world saw the full development of that scholastic theology which may be most shortly defined as "the reproduction of ancient philosophy under the control of ecclesiastical doctrine." It reminded Luther of a centaur, because it was a mixture of divine utterances and philosophic reasons. Erasmus says that theologians in his day thought that all was up with the Christian religion if any one rejected the decrees of Aristotle." 3 Aristotle was called the "praecursor Christi in naturalibus." On the other hand, the literal sense of Scripture appeared so worthless to the dominant dogmatism that Hugo compares it to mud used to anoint the eyes of the blind. "Biblicus theologus" became a term of contempt.* How rapidly the influence of Aristotle spread may be seen in the works of Alexander of Hales († 1245),5 Albertus Magnus († 1280), and Thomas Aquinas († 1274) who became acquainted with his Metaphysics through the medium of Averroes and Arabic translations. They did not in any way advance or alter dogma: they only systematised it, furnished it with an apparatus of scientific nomenclature, and transferred it from the Church to the School. They all 1 So Melanchthon complains Apolog. A. C. 62; Mathesius, Vit. Luth. i. 712; Brucker, iii. 886; Gabriel Biel is said to have offended in this way. 2 66 Quidam Doctor Theologus rogatus de Decalogo, negabat se ejusmodi librum in Bibliotheca umquam habuisse." Ridderus, De Eruditione (1680), P. 40. 3 Erasm. Schol. p. 258. See Liebner, Hugo von S. Victore, p. 128; Praenott. Elucid. 5. 5 He is the first who definitely quotes Averroes, and the first commentator on the Sentences. See Renan, Averroes, p. 176; Hauréau, i. 402; Ueberweg, i. 407, and on the Arabs generally, Munk, Mélanges, p. 313, sq. Owing to Arabian influences Aristotle "passed from the consulship to the Dictatorship of Philosophy.' Aristoteles was made into the anagram, iste sol erat. In 1629 the Sorbonne decreed that to contradict Aristotle was to contradict the Church. 6 Card. Hergenröther defines scholasticism as "dialektisch geordnete, systematische Theologie, die an die Philosophie sich anlehnte und die Dogmen theils als vernunftgemäss, theils als über jede vernünftige Einsprache erhaben zu begründen suchte." Kirchengeschichte, i. 952; compare Ueberweg, i. 355. practised the dialectic method, and thought that they were establishing religious truth, while they were only framing a technical language. Following the example of Abelard 1 they fatally misapplied the maxim of Aristotle that "to frame doubts well” (τὸ διαπορῆσαι καλῶς) is a service to the discovery of truth.2 They delighted their fettered ingenuity with the semblance of emancipation by furnishing vain. answers to insoluble questions. Their theology is a science of definition in which analyses of language are taken for discoveries of fact, and in which a congeries of doubts is met by a concatenation of baseless assumptions. The result is a dull mythology in which abstractions are deified, not in the gracious atmosphere of Poetry, but in the sterile desert of logical discussion. They were thus enabled to unite obedience with rationalism, and the Hierarchy successfully disguised intense intolerance under an apparent permission. to philosophise at will.3 In exegesis we see the Schoolmen at their worst. Scholasticism treats the letter of Scripture, even in its plainest 1 Abelard's motto had been, Ecclus. xix. 4, "Qui cito credit levis est corde." "Dubitando ad inquisitionem venimus, inquirendo veritalem percip imus." Sic et Non, p. 16, ed. Cousin. This resembles the remark of Diderot : Le Scepticisme est donc le premier pas vers la vérité." Thomas Aquinas says that Theology has no need of Philosophy except by way of illustration, because it receives its principles immediately from God. Summa, I. qu. 1, 4, 5. Arist. Metaph. iii. 1. See Launoy, De varia Aristotelis fortuna in Aend. Paris. Hampden, Bampt. Lect. p. 63. In 1516, Luther wrote to J. Lange, "Nihil ita ardet animus quam histrionem illum qui tam vere graecâ larrá Ecclesiam lusit, multis revelare ignominiamque ejus cunctis ostendere" (Briefe, i. 15), and in 1517 “Aristoteles descendit paulatim . . . ad ruinam prope futuram sempiternam." In his letter to the German nobility he complains that, Aristotle, that blind heathen, has replaced Christ. See further extracts from his Responsio ad Prieratium in Gieseler, v. 233. Roger Bacon stood almost alone in the 13th century in protesting alike against servile devotion to the Fathers, and against the authority of Aristotle, all of whose books he said that he would burn if he had the power. "Haec aetas " he says "languet et asininat circum male intellecta." 3 See Hampden, Bampt. Lectures. A lively conception of the barren dis cussion of that age may be derived from the writings of John of Salisbury, particularly the Metalogicus and Polycraticus, "Quaevis Litera sordescit, logica sola placet."-id. Entheticus. I have not touched on Anselm, who was rather a theologian than an exegete. See Rémusat, St. Anselm, p. 478. Albertus Magnus. 267 histories, as an enigma which veils the latest after-thoughts of theology. It destroys the real meaning of the Old Testament in the attempt to make it speak the language of Church tradition. No one can doubt the greatness and goodness of ALBERTUS,1 yet what can be more essentially irreverent in substance or more empty in method than his discussion of the reasons why it was necessary for an Angel to announce to Mary the immaculate conception, and not for God to be His own messenger?2 The greatness of the Schoolmen was so paralysed by vicious methods, traditional errors, and foregone conclusions, that many of their comments on Scripture become not only inconsequent but childish. "Let not the foot of pride come against me."3 Why "foot" and not "feet"? asked Albertus. Because, he says, "he who walks on one foot fails more easily than he who walks on two! Could anything be less elucidatory than this distortion of the simplest passages? 5 His commentary on the Minor Prophets is nothing but a dry compilation, paraphrastic, verbose, and overladen with the formalism of useless distinctions. The comment on the opening clause of Joel is as follows. "The word of the Lord that came to Joel." Verbum is used in the singular because the Word, so far as it is in God, is one and uncreate, yet is the reason and source and form of many words. This Word was made (factum est) to Joel, not so far as it is in the word, but in the mind of the Prophet. Joel calls himself "son of Pethuel, that spiritually 1 "Questi che m'è a destra più vicino -DANTE, Parad. x. 97. The works of Albertus filled twenty-one folios, of which five are commentaries. But the Doctor Universalis does not seem to have known either Greek, Arabic, or Hebrew, and was very feeble in history and philology. See Stockl, ii. 358. Prantl calls him a mere compiler and "ein unklarer Kopf, und nicht befähigt irgend eine grundsätzliche Auffassung hinauszudenken" (Gesch. d. Logik, iii. 189). He says, "Alles durchweg Alles was er schreibt ist nur fremdes Gut." His real greatness was in science, in which he was very eminent. 2 See Rosenmüller, Hist. Int. v. 250. 3 Ps. xxxvi. ii. 4 This takes us back to the region of pure Rabbinism. 5 See by way of specimen his comment on Ps. xxxi. 9-12. chiefly glosses, burdened with unsifted parallel passages. His notes are |