the corrupt state of the Church and the advent of the age of the Holy Spirit, was published by the Abbot Joachim, in Calabria, at the close of the twelfth century, and in course of the next century found acceptance with the rigid section of the Franciscans, the Fratricelli. They gained a place also in some of the semi-monastic societies of the Beghards, together with pantheistic notions, like those entertained by the Sect of the Holy Spirit just mentioned, or by the Brothers and Sisters of the Free Spirit, who appeared in various parts of Germany at the beginning of the fourteenth century. (6.) Anti-hierarchical sects of the more moderate and evangelical stamp. Here belong the Waldenses, the Wycliffites, and the Hussites. The Waldenses, starting from Peter Waldo of Lyons, in the last half of the twelfth century, were distinguished at first simply by their zeal in the study and dissemination of the Scriptures, and their emphasis upon the teaching function of all Christians instructed in the truth. At this stage they were not conspicuous for hostility to the hierarchy or its doctrinal system; but persecution drove them into opposition to the former, and to a rejection of at least some of the specifically Romish features of the latter. Neander credits them with rejecting transubstantiation, the sacrifice of the mass as defined by Romish standards, saint-worship, and the doctrine of Purgatory. The remote valleys of Piedmont and Savoy became their principal asylum. Wycliffe, who was the most important reformer before the days of Luther, and anticipated the Reformation at almost every point, left at his death, in 1384, quite a strong party in England; but after a few decades, the repressing efforts of the government had driven it into obscurity. Huss, who was martyred at Constance in 1415, though exalting like Wycliffe the authority of Scripture, made a less sweeping attack upon the peculiarities of Romish dogma. His followers in Bohemia were strong enough for a time to bear the brunt of a desolating war, but at length were reduced

to a small remnant. The Moravians remain as the surviving memorial of the Hussite movement.

As is apparent from this review, dissent was almost a constant factor in medieval history; but at the same time it was largely sporadic, was kept within limits by the church authorities, was prevented from becoming dominant over any wide stretch of territory. Notwithstanding the various reactions against the hierarchical system, it commanded a vast, overshadowing power.

It is to be noted, however, that in the dominant ecclesiastical system itself strict uniformity in spirit and belief was not maintained. Even within the circle of reputed orthodoxy diverging movements and marked contrasts appeared. While scholasticism may be allowed to give the name to the period, inasmuch as it was the more characteristic development, mysticism was an ever-recurring factor. Within scholasticism itself also noteworthy differences manifested themselves, different philosophical affinities and different interpretations of some of the fundamental truths of Christian theology. Mysticism, too, had its varied types, ranging from a simple emphasis upon the inner life to that enthusiastic portrayal of union with God which seems barely to escape pantheism. In fine, the mediaval period had its characteristic features and drift, but it had also its significant diversities. As compared with the Roman Catholicism of the present, the Latin Christianity of the Middle Ages may be pronounced the more diversified.

Third Period.

726-1517.

CHAPTER I.

FACTORS IN THE DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PERIOD.

SECTION I.-PHILOSOPHY.

PHILOSOPHY held in general an important place in the estimate of the theologians of this period. Some regarded it as identical with revealed religion, being the theoretical side of the same, and pronouncing a concordant verdict upon all its essential truths. Others held that philosophy, so far as it is competent to proceed, is in agreement with revealed religion, but maintained that some important truths of the Christian system, such as the doctrine of the Trinity, lie beyond the range of the natural reason, and so could not have been ascertained by philosophy proper in the use merely of its own resources. Others again, while they were ready enough to philosophize, affirmed that philosophy and Christian theology might be, and indeed are, in antagonism upon certain points. Others, finally, were inclined to have little to do with philosophy, and to regard it as of little utility to the Christian Church. The first standpoint seems to have been characteristic of Erigena and Abelard. The second was the more prevalent view in the crowning era of scholasticism, and was held by Alexander Hales, Albertus Magnus, and Thomas Aquinas.

The third view emerged as scholasticism was on the eve of its decline, and was represented initially by Duns Scotus, and in a more ample and positive way by William Occam. The last view was naturally, in the different centuries, the view of the less speculative advocates of practical piety.

There was a tendency in the Middle Ages to exalt Aristotle as compared with Plato. At the culmination of this tendency, the verdict of the early centuries was completely reversed. Aristotle was lifted to a place of unrivalled eminence, and was deferred to as the great philosophic master. The explanation of this development is to be found in the differing demands of the two eras, and in the corresponding differences between the two philosophers. The early fathers were chiefly interested in spirit and content. Their highest appreciation was naturally elicited for a philosophy most akin to the spiritual impulses, the fresh life, and the upreaching aspirations which the new leaven of Christianity generated in the hearts of its converts. Hence Platonism, with its spiritual and ideal elements, commanded a foremost place among all the treasures of ancient philosophy. The theologians of the Middle Ages, on the other hand, had a superior interest in the task of embodying truth in formulas and systems. They had inherited a mass of dogmatic statements from the fathers. The materials for a great theological structure were at hand. Their work, as they understood it, was to put the materials together, and to prove the right of each to a place in the edifice of Christian truth. Hence they had a special appreciation for logical and encyclopedic works, and this turned them of necessity toward Aristotle, the father of logic, the most encyclopedic mind of the ancient world.

Notwithstanding their approximation in such an important point as the theistic character pertaining to both, the systems of Plato and Aristotle differed widely. Like the minds whence they emanated, the one may be characterized spoetic, the other as prosaic. "Plato is richly gifted with