תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

ancient doctors. But in this century certain writers, and among others the famous Berenger," went much farther, and employed the rules of logic and the subtilties of metaphysical discussions, both in explaining the doctrines of Scripture, and in proving the truth of their own particular opinions. Hence Lanfranc, the antagonist of Benenger, and afterward archbishop of Canterbury, introduced into the field of religious controversy the same philosophical arms, and seemed in general desirous of employing the dictates of reason to illustrate and confirm the truths of religion. His example in this respect was followed by Anselm, his disciple and successor in the see of Canterbury, a man of a truly metaphysical genius, and capable of giving the greatest air of dignity and importance to the first philosophy. Such were the beginnings of that philosophical theofogy, which grew afterward, by degrees, into a cloudy and enormous system, and from the public schools in which it was cultivated, acquired the name of scholastic divinity." It is however necessary to observe, that the eminent divines, who first set on foot this new species of theology, and thus laudably maintained that most noble and natural connexion of faith with reason, and of religion with philosophy, were much more prudent and moderate than their followers, in the use and application of this conciliatory scheme. They kept, for the most part, within bounds, and wisely reflected upon the limits of reason; their language was clear; the questions they proposed were instructive and interest. ing;

they avoided all discussions that were only proper to satisfy a vain and idle curiosity; and in their disputes and demonstrations, they made, generally speaking, a wise and sober use of the rules of logic, and of the dictates of philosophy [0 Their followers, on the contrary, ran with

Pa Otherwise called Berengarius, and famous for the noble opposition be made to the doctrine of transubstantiation, which Lanfranc so absurdly pretended to support upon philosophical principles. The attempt of this latter to introduce the rules of logic into religious controversy would have been highly laudable, had not be perverted this respectable science to the defence of the most monstrous absurdities.

b See Chr. August. Heumanni Præf. ad Tribbechovii Librum de Doctoribus Scholasticis, p. 14. The sentiments of the learned concerning the first author or inventor of the scholastic divinity, are collected by Jo. Franc. Buddeus, in his Isagoge ad Theolog. tom. i. p. 38.

c We shall here transcribe a passage from the works of Lanfranc, who is considered by many as the father of the scholastic system, that the reader may see how far the first schoolmen surpassed their disciples and followers, in wisdom, modesty, and candour. We take this passage from that prelate's book concerning the body and blood of Christ,* and it is as follows: “Testis mihi Deus est et conscientia mea, qui in tractatu

* Cap. vii. p. 236, opp. ed. Luc. Dacherii,

a metaphysical phrensy into the greatest abuses, and by the most unjustifiable perversion of a wise and excellent method of searching after, and confirming truth, they banished evidence out of religion, common sense out of philosophy, and erected a dark and enormous mass of pretended science, in which words passed for ideas and sound for sense.]

vi. No sooner was this new method introduced, than the Latin doctors began to reduce all the doctrines of religion into one permanent and connected system, and to treat theology as a science an enterprise which had hitherto been attempted by none but Taio, of Saragossa, a writer of the seventh century, and the learned Damascenas, who flourished among the Greeks in the following age. The Latin doctors had hitherto confined their theological labours to certain branches of the Christian religion, which they illustrated only on certain occasions. The first

production which looked like a general system of theology, was that of the celebrated Anselm ; this however was surpassed by the complete and universal body of divinity, which was composed, toward the conclusion of this century, by Hildebert, archbishop of Tours, who seems to have been regarded both as the first and the best model in this kind of writing, by the innumerable legions of system makers, who arose in succeeding times. This learned

divinarum literarum nec proponere nec ad propositas respondere cuperem dialecticas quæstiones, vel earum solutiones. Et si quando materia disputandi talis est, ut hujus artis regulis valeat enucleatius explicari, in quantum possum, per æquipollentias propositionum tego artem, ne videar magis arte, quam veritate, sanctorumque patrum auctoritate confidere.” Lanfranc here declares in the most solemn manner, even by an appeal to God and his conscience, that he was so far from having the least inclination to propose or to answer logical questions in the course of his theological labours, that on the contrary, when he was forced to have recourse to the science of dialectic, in order the better to illustrate his subject, he concealed the succours be derived from thence with all possible care, lest he should seem to place more confidence in the resources of art, than in the simplicity of truth, and the authority of the holy fathers. These last words show plainly the two sources from whence the Christian doctors had hitherto derived all their tenets, and the arguments by which they maintained them, viz. from the Holy Scriptures, which Lanfranc here calls the truth, and from the wrie 'tings of the ancient fathers of the church. To these two sources of theology and argumentation, a third was added to this century, even the science of logic, which however was only employed by the managers of controversy to repulse their adversaries, who came armed with syllogisms, or to remove difficulties which were drawn from reason and from the nature of things. But in succeeding times, the two former sources were either entirely neglected or sparingly employed, and philosophical demonstration, or at Jeast something that bore that name, was regarded as a sufficient support to the truth of religion.

d This body of divinity, which was the first complete theological system that bad been composed among the Latins, is inserted in the Works of Hildebert, published by Beaugendre, who shows evidently, in his preface, that Peter Lombard, Pullus, and the other writers of theological systems, did no more than follow servilely the traces of Hildebert.

prelate demonstrated first the doctrines of his system by proofs drawn from the holy Scriptures, and also from the writings of the ancient fathers of the church; and in this he followed the custom that had prevailed in the preceding ages; but he went yet farther, and answered the objections which might be brought against his doctrine, by arguments drawn from reason and philosophy; this part of his method was entirely new, and peculiar to the age in which he lived.

VII. The moral writers of this century, who undertook to unfold the obligations of Christians, and to delineate the nature, the extent, and the various Moral writers. branches of true virtue and evangelical obedience, treated this most exccllent of all sciences in a manner quite unsuitable to its dignity and importance. We find sufficient proofs of this in the moral writings of Peter Damien,' and even of the learned Hildebert. The moralists of this generally confined themselves to a jejune explication of what are commonly called the four cardinal virtues, to which they added the ten commandments, to complete their system. Anselm, the famous prelate of Canterbury, surpassed indeed all the moral writers of his time; the books which he composed, with a design to promote practical religion, and more especially his Book of meditations and prayers, contain many excellent things, several happy thoughts expressed with much energy and unction. [BF Nor did the mystic divines satisfy themselves with piercing, by extatic thought and feeling, into the sublime regions of beauty and love; they conceived and brought forth several productions that were destined to diffuse the pure delights of union and communion through enamoured souls.] Johannes Johannellus, a Latin mystic, wrote a treatise concerning divine contemplation ;" and Simeon the Younger, who was a Grecian sage of the same visionary

age

e It may not be improper to place here a passage which is taken from a treatise of Anselm's, entitled Cum Deus homo ? since this passage was respected by the first scholastic divines, as an immutable law in theology ; "Sicut rectus ordo exiget,” says the learned prelate," ut profunda fidei Christianæ credamus, priusquam ea præsumamus ratione discutere ; ita negligentia mihi videtur, si, postquam confirmati sumus in fide, non studemus quod credimus intelligere ;" which amounts to this, “That we must first believe without examination, but must afterward endeavour to understand what we believe." f See Petrus Damianus, De Virtutibus.

See Hildeberti Philosophia Moralis, et Libellus de IV. Virtutibus honestæ vilke. h See the Histoire Literaire de la France, tom. viii. p. 48. VOL. II.

26

nily.

class, composed several discourses upon subjects of a like nature. VIII. Among the controversial writers of this century,

we see the effects of the scholastic method that Toetsi diran Berenger and Lanfranc had introduced into the

study of theology. We see divines entering the lists armed with syllogisms, which they manage awkwardly, and aiming rather to confound their adversaries by the subtilties of logic, than to convince them by the power of evidence; while those who were unprovided with this philosophical armour, made a still more wretched and despicable figure, fell into the grossest and most perverse blunders, and seem to have written without either thinking of their subject, or of the manner of treating it with success. Damianus, already mentioned, 'defended the truth of Christianity against the Jews; but his success was not equal either to the warmth of his zeal, or to the uprightness of his intentions. Samuel, a convert from Judaism to Christianity, wrote an elaborate treatise against those of his nation, which is still extant. But the noblest champion that appeared at this period of time in the cause of religion, was the famous Anselm, who attacked the enemies of Christianity, and the audacious contemners of all religion, in an ingenious work, which was perhaps, by its depth and acuteness, above the comprehension of those whom it was designed to convince of their errors. [6 For it happened no doubt in these earlier times, as it frequently does in our days, that many gave themselves out for unbelievers, who knew not the first principles of reasoning, and whose incredulity was the fruit of ignorance and presumption, nourished by licentiousness and corruption of heart.]

IX. The famous contest between the Greek and Latin The controversy churches, which, though not decided, had how. Grecks and La- ever been suspended for a considerable time, was

imprudently revived, in the year 1053, by Michael Cerularius, patriarch of Constantinople, a man of a restless and turbulent spirit, who blew the flame of religious discord, and widened the fatal breach by new invectives and new accusations. The pretexts that were employed to justify this new rupture, were zeal for the

[ocr errors]

tios revived.

i. This work was entitled, Liber adversus insipientem, i. e. The fool refuted.

[ocr errors]

truth, and an anxious concern about the interests of religion; but its true causes were the arrogance and ambition of the Grecian patriarch and the Roman pontiff. The latter was constantly forming the most artful stratagems to reduce the former under his imperious yoke; and for this purpose, he left no means unemployed to gain over to his side the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, by withdrawing them from the jurisdiction of the see of Constantinople. The tumultuous and unhappy state of the Grecian empire was singularly favourable to his aspiring views, as the friendship and alliance of the Roman pontiff was highly useful to the Greeks in their struggles with the Saracens and the Normans, who were settled in Italy. On the other hand, the Grecian pontiff was not only determined to refuse obstinately the least mark of submission to his haughty rival, but was also laying schemes for extending his dominion, and for reducing all the oriental patriarchs under his supreme jurisdiction. Thus the contending parties were preparing for the field of controversy, when Cerularius began the charge by a warm letter; written in his own name, and in the name of Leo, bishop of Achrida, who was his chief counsellor, to John, bishop of Trani, in Apulia, in which he publicly accused the Latins of various errors. Leo IX. who was then in the papal chair, answered this letter in a most imperious manner; and not satisfied with showing his indignation by mere words, assembled a council at Rome, in which the Greek churches were solemnly excommunicated.'

x. Constantine, surnamed Monomachus, who was now at the head of the Grecian empire, endeavoured to stifle this controversy in its birth, and for that purpose desired the Roman pontiff to send legates to Constantinople, to concert measures for restoring and confirming the tranquillity of the church. Three legates were accordingly sent from Rome to that imperial city, who brought with them letters from Leo IX. not only to the emperor, but also to the Grecian pontiff. These legates were cardinal Humbert, a man of a high and impetuous spirit, Peter, archbishop of Amalfi, and Frederic, archdeacon and chancellor of the church of Rome. The issue of this congress was

k See an account of those errors, § xi.

I These letters of Cerularius and Leo, are published in the Annals of Baronius, ad An. 1053. The former is also inserted by Canisius, in bis Lection. Anliq. tom. iii. p. 281. ed, nov, Leonis Concilia, &c.

« הקודםהמשך »