Wesen des Bösen. Tüb. Zeitschr. für Theol. 1830, part i. p. 49, ss. part 3, p. 74, ss. His principal writings are: Dialogus de divisione naturæ lib. v. ed. *Th. Gale. Oxon. 1681-de prædestinatione Dei. Of his edition of Pseudo-Dionysius: Opera S. Dionysii latine versa, only the hierarchia cœlestis is extant in the first volume of the works of Hugo of St. Victor. His profound views concerning the Divine omnipresence and universal revelation, and his opinions on philosophy and religion, which he regarded only as different manifestations of the same spirit, are unequalled, and assign to him so high a place above the times in which he lived, that he was not condemned by the church until the thirteenth century." (Hase.) § 149. SCHOLASTICISM IN GENERAL. *Bulai historia Universitatis Parisiensis, Par. 1665–73. vi. fol. Semler, Einleitung in die dogmatische Gottesgelehrsamskeit (vor Baumgartens evangelischer Glaubenslehre, vol. i. p. 16, ss.) Brucker, historia Philosophiæ, Tom. iii. *Tennemann, Geschichte der Philosophie, vol. viii. and ix. *Hegel, Geschichte der Philosophie, vol. iii. part 2. Cramer, l. c. vol. 5. Engelhardt, Dogmengeschichte, p. 14, ss. Baur, Lehre von der Versöhnung, p. 142, ss. [Hampden, R. D., the Scholastic Philosophy considered in its relation to Christian Theology, in a course of Lectures delivered at the Bampton Lectures. London, 1837.] The exceedingly bold attempts of Scotus Erigena to effect a union between philosophy and theology, remained for some time without imitators, till the efforts of later theologians in the same direction, though in a less free spirit, led to what is commonly called Scholasticism.1 The scholastic divines had not, like the theologians of the earlier Alexandrian school, to trace the philosophical ideas that lay at the basis of that new and vigorous form of religion (Christianity), for the systematical development of which little had been done. On the contrary, it was their task to lay the foundation of a system of modern Christian philosophy on a system of doctrines which had been handed down from antiquity in a partially corrupt form.1 But in the absence of an independent philosophical system, they had again recourse to ancient philosophy, and formed an alliance with Aristotelianism, quite as unnatural as that which former theologians had formed with Platonism. Their philosophical inquiries had more regard to form than to matter, and were of a dialectic rather than of a speculative kind. Hence they were not so much exposed to the danger of letting loose their imagination, and entering upon vague and definite discussion (like the Gnostics), as to the adoption of narrow views, and to the danger of wasting their energies upon trifles and minutiæ. Thus a refined and subtile philosophy gradually brought about the downfall of scholasticism. On the other hand, it may be observed, that the endeavours of theologians to arrive at precise theological definitions, their scientific treatment of the doctrines, and the noble confidence which they displayed in the reasonableness of Christianity (notwithstanding existing prejudices), constituted the favourable aspect and the merit of scholasticism. At all events, it is certain, that this grand attempt led to the very opposite of that which was intended, that the freedom of thought was followed by the bondage of the letter, the confidence of faith by shameful scepticism.6 1 On the appellations Scholasticism etc. see du Fresne, p. 739. The derivation of the term in question, however, is not etymological, but historical. Comp. Schleiermacher, Kirchengesch. p. 466, ss. 2 During the preceding period Cassiodorus had given a summary of the dialectics of Aristotle, and Boëthius had translated a part of his work entitled Organon. But it was not until the present period that theologians became more generally acquainted with Aristotelianism, see § 151. Platonism, on the other hand, forms as it were the morning and the evening of the philosophy of the middle-ages; the one is represented by Scotus Erigena, the other by Marsilius Ficinus and others; even during the first period of scholasticism several of its adherents were under the influence of Platonism; it was not till the 13th century that it was supplanted by Aristotelianism. 3 "Scholasticism is the progress of the church towards a school, or as Hegel expresses it, though in other words: the Fathers have made the church, because the mind once developed required a developed doctrine; in after ages there were no more patres ecclesiæ, but doctores. The theologians of the primitive church had to create the material, or to expound that which was expressed in its simplest and most direct form in the Christian dogma; they had further to set forth this material in distinct doctrines and formula, to present it to the religious world, and to procure its general adoption. Scholasticism, on the contrary, presupposed all this. The material and the contents were given; it became now the task of theologians to effect a reunion between that which, having acquired the nature of an object (in relation to the mind), had been subsequently separated from it, and the mind itself—a union such as would constitute a subjective unity.” Baur, Versöhnungslehre, p. 147, 148. Comp. Baumgarten-Crusius, Lehrbuch, i. p. 445. Hegel, Geschichte der Philosophie, vol. iii. p. 138. 4 66 Those who compare the systems of Christian theologians with those of the Gnostics, for the most part forget that the systems of the latter have not the connection of philosophical reasoning, but only that of imagination. Staudenmaier, Erigena, p. 370. 5 As early as the time of Semler complaints were made of the unjust treatment which the scholastic divines had to suffer; Semler himself says: "The poor scholastici have been too much despised, and that frequently by people who would not have been good enough to be their transcribers." And Luther himself wrote to Staupitz, though he contributed much to the downfall of scholasticism: Ego Scholasticos cum judicio, non clausis oculis lego. ......Non rejicio omnia eorum, sed nec omnia probo, see de Wette, ì. p. 102. Comp. also Möhlers, Schriften und Aufsätze, vol. i. p. 129, ss. Ullmann (Joh. Wessel. p. 12) calls the scholastic theology: "in its commencement a truly scientific advance upon the past, in its entire course a great dialectic preparatory school of Christianity in the West, in its completion a grand, and highly finished production of the haman mind." See Baur, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, P. 11, p. 154, ss. § 150. THE PRINCIPAL SCHOLASTIC SYSTEMS. a. I, Period of Scholasticism to the time of Peter Lombard. Scholasticism took its rise in the monastic schools founded by Charlemagne and his successors. It was principally cultivated in the monastery called Bec in Normandy, where Lanfranc was a teacher.1 His disciple, Anselm of Canterbury, setting out from belief in the positive creed of the church, sought to attain the elevation of philosophical knowledge, as is manifest from his theory of satisfaction, no less than from his proof of the existence of God.2 His views on those points, as well as on the reality of general ideas, were opposed by Roscelinus,3 and Peter Abelard, the former of whom rested faith (in opposition to the theory of Anselm) on the evidence of perception, while the latter defended nominalism in opposition to realism. Hildebert a Lavardino (first bishop of Mans, and afterwards archbishop of Tours)5 adhered, like Anselm, with whom he was contemporary, to the positive creed of the church. Gilbert of Poitiers, on the contrary, was (like Roscelinus and Abelard) charged with heterodoxy. A peculiar tendency which connected mysticism with scholasticism, manifested itself in the writings of William of Champeaux, the tutor of Abelard, as well as in those of Hugo of St. Victor, and Richard of St. Victor.? After Robert Pulleyn, and other theologians beside those already named, had endeavoured to prove philosophically the doctrine of the church,10 Peter Lombard (who lived -- in the twelfth century) collected the existing materials in his "Sentences," and by his peculiar mode of treatment gave rise to that stiff and heavy method which was for a considerable time adopted by theologians in general.11 1 He died A.D. 1089. He came into notice principally by his controversy with Beranger, as will be more fully shown in the special history of doctrines. His works were published by d'Archery, Paris, 1648, fol. Comp. Möhler, gesammelte Schriften und Aufsätze. Regensburg, 1839, i. p. 39.-On the foundation of the monastery Bec, comp. Möhler, 1. c. 2 He was born at Aosta, in Piedmont, about the year 1034, occupied the see of Canterbury from the year 1093 (whence he is called Cantuariensis), and died A.D. 1109. Of his philosophical writings the most important is the work entitled: Monologium et Prologium (it contains a proof of the existence of God, and the doctrine of the Trinity). Extracts from it are given by Cramer, v. 2, p. 341–372. Among his theological works we may mention: de casu Diaboli, but especially the treatise: Cur Deus homo? lib. ii. (which contains a theory of the incarnation of Christ, and the redemption of man). In addition to these works he wrote: de conceptu virginali et originali peccato, de libero arbitrio, de concordia præscientiæ et prædestinationis nec non gratiæ Dei cum libero arbitrio, etc.-Opp. ed. *Gabr. Gerberon. Par 1675, f. 1721, ii. f. (Ven. 1744). A manual edition of the treatise: Cur Deus homo, was published by Heyder, Erl. 1834, 8. Concerning his life and works, comp. *+Möhler, gesammelte Schriften und Aufsätze. Regensb. 1839, i. p. 32, ss.; on his doctrines, comp. Möhler, 1. c. p. 129, ss.--Bilroth, I. G. F. de Anselmi Cantuariensis Proslogio et Monologio. Lips. 1832, 8, Frank, Anselm von Canterbury, Tüb. 1842, and J. A. Hasse, Anselm von Canterbury, I. part, Lps. 1843. 3 He is also called Rucelinus or Ruzelin; he was born in Lower Britanny, and was canon at Compiègne in the eleventh century. He is commonly regarded as the founder of the nominalists; see Chladenii Diss. hist. eccles. de vita et hæresi Roscelini. Erl. 1756, 4. On the contrast between nominalism and realism, which is more fully discussed in works on the history of philosophy, see Baumgarten-Crusius, de vero Scholasticorum Realium et Nominalium discrimine et sententia theologica. Jen. 1821, 4, Engel |