accipiens, sive a se ipso illuminatus, tamen a Deo inveniens. Comp. iii. 26, iv. 5, p. 164. He compares the Sacred Scriptures to a peacock's feather, the smallest particle of which glitters in various colors. Comp. Ritter, vii. p. 213. How anxious he was to penetrate the hidden meaning of Scripture, may be seen from the following passage, v. 37, p. 307: O Domine Jesu, nullum aliud præmium, nullam aliam beatitudinem, nullum aliud gaudium a te postulo, nisi ut ad purum absque ullo errore fallacis theoriæ verba tua, quæ per tuum Sanctum Spiritum inspirata sunt, intelligam.

3

Thus Paschasius Radbert taught a threefold sense of Scripture, viz., 1. The literal (historical) sense; 2. the spiritual and mystical (that which refers to the church); and, 3. The moral (relative to the soul of every individual Christian). Rabanus Maurus spoke of a fourfold sense: 1. History; 2. Allegory; 3. Tropology; 4. Anagogy. [Davidson, 1. c. p. 165, 66.] Hugo of St. Victor (see Liebner, 1. c. p. 133, ss.) and Savonarola (see Rudelbach, p. 342), did the same. [Davidson, 1. c. p. 173: History relates what is done; allegory teaches what is to be understood; anagogy what is to be sought; tropology what is to be done.] Angelom, a monk at Luxeuil held to a sevenfold sense: 1. The historical; 2. The allegorical; 3. The intermediate sense which lies between the two preceding ones (?); 4. The tropical (that referring to the Trinity); 5. The parabolical: 6. That sense which has regard to the two natures of Christ; and, 7. The moral: see Pez, Thesaurus, Tom. i. and Schmid, Mysticismus des Mittelalters, p. 76. Concerning the eightfold sense, see Marrier on Odonis Cluniacensis Moralia in Iobum (Bibl. Max. Patr. T. xvii. p. 315): 1. Sensus literalis vel historicus; 2. Allegoricus vel parabolicus; 3. Tropologicus vel etymologicus; 4. Anagogicus vel analogicus; 5. Typicus vel exemplaris; 6. Anaphoricus vel proportionalis; 7. Mysticus vel apocalypticus; 8. Boarcademicus vel primordialis (i. e., quo ipsa principia rerum comparantur cum beatitudine æterna et tota dispensatione salutis, veluti loquendo de regno Dei, quod omnia sint ad Deum ipsum, unde manarunt, reditura). The threefold sense of Scripture was itself mystically interpreted, e. g., by St. Bernard (Sermo 92, De diversis). The bridegroom conducts the bride, 1. Into the garden: the historical sense; 2. Into the different cellars for spices, fruit, and wine: the moral sense; 3. Into the cubiculum: the mystical sense. And Hildebert of Mans compared the fourfold sense of Scripture to the four legs of the table of the Lord (Sermo ii. in Fest. Assumtionis Maria). See Lentz, Geschichte der Homiletik, i: p. 275.

4

Thus Hugo of St. Victor cautioned against indulging in allegorical interpretation, and asserted the equally great importance of literal interpretation; Prænott. c. 5, quoted by Liebner, p. 142. [Cum igitur mystica intelligentia nonnisi ex his, quæ primo loco litera proponit, colligatur: minor qua fronte quidam allegoriarum se doctores jactitent, qui ipsam adhuc primam literæ significationem ignorant. Nos, inquiunt, scripturam legimus sed non legimus literam. Non curamus de litera, sed allegoriam docemus. Quomodo ergo scripturam legitis, et literam non legitis? Si enim litera tollitur, scriptura quid est ?"—" Noli itaque de intelligentia scripturarum gloriari, quamdiu literam ignoras."-"Noli igitur in verbo dei despicere humilitatem, quia per humilitatem illuminaris ad divinitatem. Quasi lutum tibi videtur totum

hoc; et ideo fortasse pedibus conculcas. Sed audi: luto isto cæci oculi ad videndum illuminantur."] But his own expositions are sometimes fanciful and trifling, as may be seen from the example given by Liebner, p. 153. [Opp. T. i. fol. 161, col. 4, ad Obadiah, vers. 18: In the house of Jacob the fire of human repentance burns, in the house of Joseph the flame of wisdom shines, in the house of Esau all is full of the stubble of malice. But conscience (by which he means Jacob) consumes the stubble of vice, destroys the hay of crime, burns to ashes the wood of sin, and now the wholesome fire of repentance is burning which expels the malice of Esau, and destroys the pernicious cares of the world. After this the flame of heavenly love is kindled in the soul, the sun of righteousness shines into it, it turns to its bridegroom in the uninterrupted desire of love, and fixes the spiritual eyes of the purest heart upon his beauty; it (the soul) is animated (lit. kindled) by the increase of virtues, the conflict of heavenly affections, the longing after heavenly embraces, the hope of coming into contact with the divine, the sweet smell of kisses, and the thirst caused by transcendent desires, and the flame of divine wisdom (Joseph) shines in it. But this state produces the fruits of innocence, the jewels of grace, and the flowers of glorious works by which the inordinate will, viz., Esau, is consumed, and the temptations of vanity are resisted.] Thomas Aquinas laid down the following principle (Summa, P. i. Qu. 102, art. 1): In omnibus, quæ S. Scriptura tradit, pro fundamento tenenda veritas historica et desuper spirituales expositiones fabricandæ. According to Savonarola the first condition of a productive system of interpretation is to be filled with the same spirit in which the sacred books are written, i. e., the spirit of faith, etc. See Rudelbach, p. 339, ss.

"This restriction was first imposed in the Greek church, in the 9th century, in the conflict with the Paulicians: comp. Petri Siculi (a. D. 870), Historia Manschæorum, and Gieseler, Dogmengesch. p. 484. To this came afterwards in the West the prohibition of Pope Innocent III. (A. D. 1199), of the Concil. Tolosanum (A. D. 1229), Canon the 14th: Prohibemus etiam ne libros Veteris Test. aut Novi laici permittantur habere: nisi forte Psalterium, vel Breviarium pro divinis officiis, aut horas B. Mariæ aliquis ex devotione habere velit. Sed ne præmissos libros habeant in vulgari translatos, auctissime inhibemus. Conc. Tarragonense (A. D. 1234), Can. 2: Item statuimus ne aliquis libros Veteris vel Novi Test. in Romania habeat. Et si aliquis habeat, infra octo dies post publicationem hujusmodi constitutionis a tempore sententiæ tradat eos loci Episcopo comburendos: quod nisi fecerit, sive clericus fuerit, sive laicus, tanquam suspectus de hæresi, quousque se pergaverit, habeatur. Then came the prohibitions of the council of Béziers, 1223 and 1246 (against the Waldenses), and that of Oxford (1408, against Wycliffe's version of the Bible). Comp. Gottfr. Hegelmaier, Geschichte das Bibelverbots, Ulm., 1783. [Gieseler, Church Hist., ii. 578.] See also the works of Ussher, Wharton, and Onymus, which are referred to by Münscher von Cölln, ii. 109.

Thus John Damascenus, iv. 17, recommended the perusal of the Sacred Scripture, though in a rather fanciful manner. He called it τον κάλ λιστον παράδεισον, τὸν εὐώδη, τὸν γλυκύτατον, τὸν ὡραιότατον, τὸν παν

τοίοις τῶν νοερῶν θεοφόρων ὀρνέων κελαδήμασι περίηχοῦντα ἡμῶν τὰ ὦτα K. T. 2.—Anselm also strongly recommended the perusal of the Bible in his Tractacus Asceticus, quoted by Möhler, l. c. p. 62. Bonaventura (Principium in libros sacros) did the same. Comp. Lentz, Geschichte der Homiletik, i. p. 290. Concerning the Biblia Pauperum of Bonaventura, see ibid. 1. c. Respecting the effects produced by the perusal of the Scriptures upon the Waldenses, see the account given by Rainerius in the thirteenth century, in the Bibl. Patr. Lugd. T. xxv., quoted by Neander, kleine Gelegenheitsschriften, p. 162; concerning the efforts of the Brethren of the Common Life for the spread of biblical knowledge among the people, see Neander, 1. c. p. 182, note.-Gerhard Zerbolt, a priest, who was a member of the association of pious Christians at Deventer, composed a treatise: De Utilitate Lectionis sacrarum Litterarum in Lingua vulgari; see Jacobi Revii Daventria Illustrata, p. 41. Extracts from it are given by Neander, l. c. [This work contains full citations from the church fathers; it is given in full in Schöpff's Aurora, Tom. v., 1860. For Hugo St. Victor's view of the Scriptures, see ibid. Tom. iv.]

Eberstein, Natürliche Theologie der Scholastiker, Leipz., 1803. Billroth, De Anselmi Cant. Proslogio et Monologio, Lips., 1832. Fricke, Argumenta pro Dei Existentia exponuntur et judicantur, Lips., 1846. F. Fischer, Der ontologische Beweis für das Daseyn Gottes und seine Geschichte, Basel, 1852, 4vo. [Anselm's Proslogion, by Maginnis, in Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. viii.]

The proofs of the existence of God have their proper origin in the scholastic philosophy. That which was formerly but the semblance of an argument, now appeared in the form of a philosophical demonstration. Thus the cosmological proof of Diodorus of Tarsus was fully developed by John Damascenus.' Anselm' followed the footsteps of Augustine and Boëthius (see § 123), and endeavored from the idea of God, as a datum, to prove his existence. This was the so-called ontological proof, which, however, did not at once obtain the assent of Anselm's contemporaries. Gaunilo, a monk, from the stand-point of an empirical philosophy, raised objections of an ingenious nature to the proof of Anselm, which were as ingeniously refuted by the latter. The fate which this mode of proof encountered was various. While Hugo of St. Victor endeavored to prove the existence of God in a different way, viz., from contingency,' the theologians of the thirteenth century in general, and Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus in particular, returned to the argument of Anselm, though they modified it in various ways. Raimund of Sabunde propounded what is called the moral proof, according to which the existence of an eternal author of reward and punishment is inferred from the moral freedom and accountability of rational creatures.' The historical proof is found in Savonarola, and others, who enIdeavored to demonstrate the existence of God from the consensus gentium. There were, however, those who showed the insufficiency of these arguments, or at least abstained from the use of all proofs of such a nature, and simply appealed to the direct revelation of God in the heart of man. John Duns Scotus' and William Occam"

belonged to the former; John Wessel," and especially the mystics, belonged to the latter class of theologians."

1

: De Fide Orthod. i. 3. John Damascenus proceeds from the principle: Ἡ γνῶσις τοῦ εἶναι θεὸν φυσικῶς ἡμῖν ἐγκατέσπαρται—but this consciousness of God was impaired by sin. God restored it by his revelation which was accompanied by miracles. The feeble attempts at proof now take the place of miracles. He enumerates the following proofs: 1. The proof ex rerum mutabilitate (the cosmological); 2. The proof ex earum conversatione et gubernatione, and 3. Ex rerum ordinato situ (the last two may be comprehended under the designation, physico-theological proof). As for the first, he argues as follows: Πάντα τὰ ὄντα ἢ κτιστά ἐστιν, ἢ ἄκτιστα· εἰ μὲν οὖν κτιστὰ, πάντως καὶ τρεπτά ὧν γὰρ τὸ εἶναι ἀπὸ τροπῆς ἤρξατο, ταῦτα τῇ τροπῇ ὑποκείσεται πάντως, ἢ φθειρόμενα, ἢ κατὰ προαίρεσιν ἀλλοιούμενα· εἰ δὲ ἄκτιστα, κατὰ τὸν τὴς ἀκολουθίας λόγον, πάντως καὶ ἄτρεπτα· ὧν γὰρ τὸ εἶναι ἐναντίον, τοῦτων καὶ ὁ τοῦ πῶς εἶναι λόγος ἐναντίος, ἤγουν αἱ ἰδιότητες. Τίς οὖν οὐ συνθήσεται, πάντα τὰ ὄντα, ὅσα ὑπὸ τὴν ἡμετέραν αἴσθησιν, ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ ἀγγέλους τρέπεσθαι καὶ ἀλλοιοῦσθαι καὶ πολυτρόπως κινεῖσθαι ;........ Τρεπτὰ τοίνυν ὄντα, πάντως καὶ κτιστά κτιστὰ δὲ ὄντα, πάντως ὑπό τινος ἐδημιουργήθησαν· δεῖ δὲ τὸν δημιουργὸν ἄκτιστον εἶναι. Εἰ γὰρ κἀκεῖνος ἐκτίσθη, πάντος ὑπό τινος ἐκτίσθη, ἕως ἂν ἔλθωμεν εἰς τι ἄκτιστον. ̓́Ακτιστος οὖν ὁ δημιουργός, πάντως καὶ ἄτρεπτός ἐστι. Τοῦτο δὲ τί ἂν ἄλλο εἴη, ἢ θεός. Comp the method adopted by Diodorus of Tarsus, § 123, note 3. In the physicotheological proof (2 and 3) he followed the earlier theologians, especially Athanasius, and Gregory of Nazianzum.

* The name ontological, was given only in later times (by Kaut?): see Fischer, in the work above referred to, p. 12. We can here give only the heads of the argument, the thread of reasoning must be seen from the connection. Monol. i.: Cum tam innumerabilia bona sint, quorum tam multam diversitatem et sensibus corporeis experimur et ratione mentis discernimus, estne credendum esse unum aliquid, per quod unum sunt bona, quæcunque bona sunt, aut sunt bona alia per aliud ?. . . . . .III. Denique non solum omnia bona per idem aliquid sunt bona et omnia magna per idem aliquid sunt magna, sed quicquid est, per unum aliquid videtur esse...... Quoniam ergo cuncta quæ sunt, sunt per ipsum unum: procul dubio et ipsum unum est per se ipsum. Quæcunque igitur alia sunt, sunt per aliud, et ipsum solum per se ipsum. Ac quicquid est per aliud, minus est quam illud, per quod cuncta sunt alia et quod solum est per se: quare illud, quod est per se, maxime omnium est. Est igitur unum aliquid, quod solum maxime et summe omnium est; quod autem maxime omnium est et per quod est quicquid est bonum vel magnum, et omnino quicquid est aliquid est, id necesse est esse summe bonum et summe magnum et summum omnium quæ sunt. Quare est aliquid, quod sive essentia, sive substantia, sive natura dicatur, optimum et maximum est et summum omnium quæ sunt. Comp. Augustine and Boëthius in § 123, note 4. The mode of argument which is found, Proslog. c. ii. is more origiinal (he there proceeds from the reality of the idea): The fool may say in his heart, there is no God (Ps. xiv. 1), but he thereby shows himself a fool,

m