Lugd. 1495. Fol.--Ejusdem, Centiloquium theologicum; Lugd. 1496. Fol.

Theologia naturalis, s. Liber creaturarum; authore Raymundo de Sabunde; Francf. 1635.

Gabrielis Biel, Collectorium in Libros IV. Sententiarum ; Tubing. 1502. II. vol. Fol.

SEC. 117. Causes of the downfall of scholastic theology.

The foundations of this theology were tottering; and the modes of proceeding in it, brought the germ of its dissolution along with them. They sought to exercise their own powers of investigation, and yet to leave the influence of the fathers untouched, and to construe the Bible only as they did. Unlike, as the theology of the fathers and the Aristoletian philosophy were, both in spirit and in first principles; an attempt was made, to unite them. This constitutional debility of the scholastic system, was the sooner shaken, in consequence of other causes. Many christians were disgusted with precepts, which merely exercised, or rather puzzled the understanding, with superfine speculations, and gave no nutriment to the soul; and this disgust was increased, by the disagreeable contests between the Thomists and the Scotists. John Charlier Gerson (d. 1320), Nicholas de Clemangis, and other discerning men, animadverted with earnestness upon the unprofitableness of such instructions. The revival of better taste, and a better knowledge of language, introduced contempt for the coarse style and the barbarous technicals of the scholastics. Confidence in the authoity of Aristotle was shaken, by the rise of new Platonists; and a more independent spirit, was anxious to break the fetters, in which the human mind had moved with so heavy a gait. Towards the end of this period, all the more discerning, looked upon scholasticism, as the relic of a more barbarous age, and an armory of rusty weapons.

Notice.

Jo. Gersonis Opera; studio Lud. El. Du Pin ; Antw. 1705. V. vol. Fol.

PART II.

THE HISTORY OF PARTICULAR DOCTRINES.

CHAPTER I.

THE CULTIVATION OF THE DOCTRINES PREVIOUSLY DEFINED.

SEC. 118. The existence of God.

John Damascenus founded belief of the existence of God, on the necessity of a first cause of all things, and on the marks of wisdom and design in the created universe. Anselm of Canterbury, with new and acute reasoning, inferred the existence of God, from the сопсерtion of an all-perfect being. But he met with an intelligent opponent, in Gaunilo a French Monk. His views were not adopted by Peter Lombard; but were so, by Thomas; who likewise bestowed attention on the proof from design, by Richard of St. Victor. Duns Scotus viewed the proof, from the mere conceptions of the mind, as unsatisfactory; and attributed entire adequacy, to the arguments from experience. William Occam represents all demonstration of the existence of God, as impossible; and Raymund of Sabunde, following the footsteps of Abelard, (Theol.christ.p.1349,) inferred our belief of God, very much in the manner of Kant, from the necessity, of supposing a Supreme Judge and Rewarder. (Theol. nat. Tract. 82, 83.)

Notices. Anselm Canterb. Proslogium et Monologium.(Gaunilonis) Liber pro insipiente, contra Anselmi in prcslogio ratiocinationem. Anselmi Liber apologeticus, contra Gaunilonem respondentem pro insipiente. (W.C. L. Ziegler's Contrabation to the history of belief of a God; (German,) Gotting. 1792.)

SEC. 119. Nature of God.

Pantheism, founded on the new Platonic notions, was brought forward, by John Scotus Erigena, and defended by Amalrich of Bena (A.D. 1204), and his pupil David Dinant; but it was rejected by the church, and confuted by Albert and Thomas. The incomprehensibleness of God, was maintained with great strenuousness; and three ways for attaining to a knowledge of God, were recommended; namely via eminentiae, via negationis, and via causalitatis. The divine attributes were inferred, from the idea of a supreme and necessarily existing Being. The omnipotence and omnipresence of God, in particular, were the subject of many questions and investigations. Also the unity of God, was evinced by numerous arguguments, by John Damascenus, Abelard, and Richard of St. Victor. On all these subjects, William Occam manifested the sceptical turn of a Bayle.

The theologians employed the greatest art, to make the doctrine of the Trinity more comprehensible, and to exhibit it as consonant with reason; but they came near to marring the received doctrines of the church. Roscelin was accused, by his opposers, of tritheism; and he was condemned in the council of Soissons, A. D. 1093. Abelard was taxed, sometimes with tritheism, and sometimes with Sabellian errors; the latter, with the most plausibility. Anselm and Richard of St. Victor, in their proofs of a Trinity, grazed lightly on Sabellianism; yet they met with no opposition; and the views of the latter, were again brought forward, by Alexander Hales and others. Even to Peter Lombard, great errors on this subject, were imputed, by Joachim, Abbot of Flora: but Innocent III. acquitted him, in the Lateran Council A. D. 1215. The nice distinction, which Gilbert of Porretta made, between God himself and the attributes of God, drew on him the attacks of St. Bernard, and

the animadvers' ons of the Councils of Paris and Rheims, A. D. 1147 and 1248. In general, the scholastics found, in the doctrine of the Trinity, copious matter for the most acute speculations concerning the three Persons, and their relations to each other.

SEC. 121. Creation, and Angels.

The Aristotelian hypothesis, of the eternity of the world, was confuted by the scholastics; and yet several of them, e. g. Thomas Aquinas, maintained that it could not be disproved, by the light of nature, but only by the testimony of revelation. The design of God in creation, was, according to Damascenus and Lombard, to make manifest to rational beings his goodness; or according to Thomas, to communicate himself, as the highest good, to other beings. On the doctrine concerning Angels, John Damascenus adopted the views of the pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita, in regard to the classification of the angels; and these views were received by the scholastics. In the Lateran Council, A. D. 1215, Pope Innocent III. established the positions, that the angels are spirits, and that God created them holy. The questions raised, concerning the nature and the creation of angels, and concerning the apostacy and influences of evil spirits, were almost innumerable. Lombard deemed it probable, that every soul is attended by a good and a bad angel; and this hypothesis was afterwards repeatedly brought forward.

SEC. 122. Doctrine of Providence.

Damascenus collected the most important ideas of the Greek fathers, respecting divine providence. The earlier scholastics touched on this subject, only occasionally, when they were treating of the wisdom, or of the will of God. Thomas Aquinas first gave it a full investigation. That this world is the best possible one, was held by Anselm and Abelard; Thomas and Durand believed, that God could have made a better. In regard to the divine cooperation, in the acts of his creatures, Durand contradicted the sentiments of Thomas. Upon

occasion of the rise of some Cathari, who leaned towards Manichaen sentiments; the righteousness of God in respect to the origination of evil, was further investigated by the scholastics, in accordance with the principles suggested by Augustine. In regard to moral evil, (that which merits punishment,) they discriminated between the antecedent will of God, and the consequent; and Thomas labored to prove, that, to the perfection of the world, beings were necessary, who were capable of sinning. Physical evil was considered as the inseparable, and in its effects, beneficial, consequence of sin.

SEC. 123. The person of Christ.

Although the Council of Chalcedon had published a determinate creed on this subject, yet the theologians involved themselves in new speculations and perplexities. The question, whether there should be attributed to Christ, only one simple will, or a twofold will, produced commotion in the East, and gave occasion to investigate more fully the theandric operations in Christ. But at length, the opinion of the Monothelites was put down, by the resistance made by the Popes, and, by the decision of the sixth ecumenical council, A. D. 680. The discussions, respecting the connexion of the two natures in Christ, were actively renewed, in the eighth century, in consequence of the Adoptionist contests; and the tenet. of the Adoptionists, [that Christ was the Son of God, only by adoption,] was condemned, by the French churches, and by the Popes. In the ninth century, Paschasius Radbert and Ratram of Corbie, involved themselves in a useless contest, respecting the manner in which Christ was born. Lombard, by his solicitude to evince the unity of the person of Christ, made such nice distinctions, as brought on him the charge of a new heresy, Nihilianism, [that the human nature of Christ, sepaate from the divine, was nothing.] In general, the theologians of the scholastic age, were not satisfied, with retailing the nice distinctions of the fathers, on this doctrine, but they added a great number of new questions and subtilties.