3 Certain errors of the scholastics, as well as the mystics, can scarcely be comprehended but from the monastic point of view. In earlier times the scholastic divines were monks of the order of the Benedictines, or of that of the regular canons; in later times the monks of the order of mendicant friars occupied the theological chairs (notwithstanding the opposition made by the university of Paris), and conferred degrees and preferments. We must also take into consideration the jealousy already alluded to between the different orders, which stands in intimate connection with the divisions among the scholastics.

Compare the doctrine of the Saints and of the Lord's Supper in the special history of doctrines.

Is it altogether accidental, that the cities of Strasburg and Cologne, which are distinguished by their cathedrals, were preeminently resorted to by mystical theologians? see Ch. Schmidt, Essai, p. 45 and 52. There is also an evident connection between the mystical tendency and romantic poetry (comp. Liebner, Hugo von St. Victor, p. 246), as well as, on the one hand, between the old German school of painting and mysticism, and on the other, between Italian art and the classical tendency mentioned § 154.

See Heeren, Entwickelung der Folgen der Kreuzzüge für Europa (historische Schriften, Göttingen 1808, vol. 2).

7 Comp. Hecker, der schwartze Tod im 14 Jahrhundert. Berlin 1832, 8.

8 Compare § 154.

9 See Llorente, Geschichte der Inquisition, Leipzig 1823.

10 ""

'Religion has undoubtedly gained the powerful, healthy and clear development of piety, and of Christian piety in particular, by the invention of typography. The sources of Christian knowledge and education have been multiplied by it ad infinitum, and what was formerly inaccessible has been placed within the reach of all classes of society," etc. Ullmann, Rede am vierten Säcularfeste der Erfindung der Buchdruckerkunst. Heidelberg, 1840, p. 20.

B. SPECIAL HISTORY OF DOCTRINES DURING THE

THIRD PERIOD

FIRST SECTION.

APOLOGETICO-DOGMATIC PROLEGOMENA.

TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY.-RELATION BETWEEN REASON AND REVELATION.-SOURCES OF REVELATION.—

SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION.

§ 157.

TRUTH AND DIVINE ORIGIN OF CHRISTIANITY.

The ground taken by apologetical writers of the present period, in opposition to all who were not Christians, was considerably different from that which had been occupied during the first period. On the one hand, the Judaism of the middle ages was not the same with that which Justin M. combated in his dialogue with Tryphon;1 on the other, the views of the Apologists of the middle ages on doctrinal subjects differed in many respects from those of the earlier Fathers. Other weapons were also required in the controversy with Mohammedanism than those which had been used against the ancient forms of Polytheism.2 But the scepticism and infidelity, which made their appearance, especially towards the close of the present period, within the church itself, both in a more open, and a more concealed manner, rendered a philosophical defence of the Christian religion still more

necessary, than those historical forms of religion which existed along with Christianity. Generally speaking, the Apologists adopted former methods of argumentation. The arguments derived from miracles and prophecies were retained, inasmuch as tradition had sanctioned them, though some writers possessed sufficient discernment to see that the religion of Christ recommends itself by its internal excellencies, without external miracles.5

1 Compare e. g. the manner in which Agobard upbraided the Jews of that time in his treatise de insolentia Judæorum, Opp. T. i. p. 59-66. See Schröckh, xxi. p. 302.

2 Compare the writings mentioned § 144, which were directed against Mohammedanism.-The heathen, i. e. the heathen philosophers in particular, were combated by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa catholicæ fidei contra Gentiles, Lugd. 1587, fol., which is not to be confounded with his larger work of the same name. Excerpts from it are given by Schröckh, xxix. p. 341, ss. Münscher ed. by von Cölln, ii. p. 100, ss.

3 Anselm himself held the principle: Fides nostra contra impios ratione defendenda est, non contra eos, qui se Christiani nominis honore gaudere fatentur. Epp. Lib. ii. 41. On the later apologetical writings of Savonarola and Ficinus, see § 154, 155.

4 A definition of miracle is given by Thomas Aquinas, p. i. quæst. 110, art. 4: Dicendum quod miraculum proprie dicitur, cum aliquid fit præter ordinem naturæ: sed non sufficit ad notionem miraculi, si aliquid fiat præter ordinem naturæ alicujus particularis, quia sic, cum aliquis projicit lapidem sursum, miraculum faceret, cum hoc sit præter ordinem naturæ lapidis. Ex hoc ergo aliquid dicitur esse miraculum, quod fit præter ordinem totius naturæ creata; hoc autem non potest facere nisi Deus, quia quidquid facit angelus vel quæcunque alia creatura propria virtute, hoc fit secundum ordinem naturæ, et sic non est miraculum. Unde relinquitur, quod solus Deus miraculum facere possit. From this objective definition of miracle, he distinguishes the subjective one: Sed quia non omnis virtus naturæ creatæ est nota nobis, ideo cum aliquid fit præter ordinem naturæ creatæ nobis notæ per virtutem creatam nobis ignotam, est miraculum quoad nos. From the same point of view he draws a distinction between miraculum and mirum. Comp. Baur, Trinitätslehre, ii. p. 749, 750.

+ Brischar, der Wurderbegriff des heiligen Thomas von Aquino, in der Tübinger quartalschrift 1845, part 3. Even as late as this period Ficinus and others appealed to the Sibylline oracles. See Schröckh, xxxiv. p. 352.

5

Among their number we may mention, e. g. Æneas Sylvius, see Platina in Vita Pii II. (towards the end).

§ 158.

REASON AND REVELATION, FAITH AND KNOWLEDGE.

Though all Christians were convinced of the truth and Divine origin of their religion (even where they knew it only through the impure medium of the doctrine of the church), yet speculative minds were desirous of possessing a clear insight into the relation between that which has regard to mankind in general, and that which refers to Christianity alone, between revelation and reason, between the Christian religion and philosophy. John Scotus Erigena was the first who manifested a leaning towards Christian Rationalism, and a union between it and Supranaturalism, by considering the true religion and true philosophy as one and the same thing, and by looking for the true source of religious knowledge in man himself, i. e. in his rational consciousness. But he did not deny the necessity of a positive revelation which has come from without.1 Abelard also thought that there is such a harmony between philosophy and Christianity, that the universally acknowledged truths of reason, and the moral laws with which the heathen were acquainted, are confirmed and enlarged by the higher authority of Divine revelation.2 According to Anselm, it is first of all necessary to receive by an act of faith the truths of revelation which have been sanctioned by the church, but he admitted that reason might afterwards examine the grounds of what is believed. He, too, proceeded on the

4

supposition that reason and revelation cannot contradict each other.3 Thomas Aquinas endeavoured to prove that the doctrines of Christianity, on the one hand, may be apprehended by reason, but, on the other, are above reason, and Duns Scotus pointed out the distinguishing features of revelation in short propositions.5 The mystics also admitted (though in a manner different from that of the scholastics) the existence of an immediate consciousness; their theory was nearest allied to that of Anselm. There was, however, this difference, that some of them (viz. those who adhered to ecclesiastical orthodoxy) maintained, that the internal revelations were in accordance with the doctrines of the church,6 while in the opinion of others (the fanatical mystics) the new revelations of the Spirit were sometimes openly opposed to the doctrines historically received, and even to Scripture itself.7

1

1 De divina præd. ap. Mauguin, T. i. c. 1. § 1 (quoted by Frommüller, 1. c. p. 50); Quid est de Philosophia tractare, nisi veræ religionis, qua summa et principalis omnium rerum causa et humiliter colitur et rationabiliter investigatur, regulas exponere? Conficitur inde veram esse Philosophiam veram religionem conversimque veram religionem esse veram Philosophiam (comp. Augustine, de vera rel. c. 5.) He thinks that self-consciousness is the last source of religious knowledge, div. nat. v. 31, p. 268: Nulla quippe alia via est ad principalis exempli purissimam contemplationem præter proximæ sibi suæ imaginis certissimam notitiam. But he does not on that account deny the necessity of an external (positive) revelation. On the contrary, he says: ii. 31, p. 85: Nisi ipsa lux initium nobis revelaverit, nostræ ratiocinationis studium ad eam revelandam nihil proficiet (comp. § 159, ss). Thus Scotus Erigena "may in a certain sense be called the author of Rationalism; but his Rationalism is very different from, and forms the strongest contrast with that perverse form of Rationalism which exists at the present day." Staudemaier, Freiburger Zeitschrift, 1. c. p. 241.

2 De Theol. christ. ii. p. 1211 (ed. Martène): Hinc quidem