Medieval Interpretation
--Lecture Notes for Topic 2.1.3- Religion 492

Last revised: 2/23/04 Explanation: Contained below is a manuscript summarizing the class lecture(s) covering the above specified range of topics from the List of Topics for Religion 492.  Quite often hyperlinks (underlined) to sources of information etc. will be inserted in the text of the lecture. Test questions for all quizzes and exams will be derived in their entirety or in part from these lectures; see Exams in the course syllabus for details. To display the Greek text contained in this page download and install the free BSTGreek True Type fonts from Bible Study Tools. Created by   a division of   All rights reserved©

Go directly to topic: 2.1.3 Medieval Interpretation 2.1.3.1 Before 800 Transition from Ancient World 2.1.3.2 From 800 to about 1150 Early Middle Ages 2.1.3.3 From about 1150 to 1350 High Middle Ages 2.1.3.4 From about 1350 to about 1500 Late Middle Ages 2.1.3.5 Summation Bibliography

2.1.3.1 Before 800, period transition from the ancient world
Assigned Readings for This Topic:
Gerald Bray, Biblical Interpretation: Past and Present, relevant sections in this chapter.

Resource Materials to also be studied:
Prof. Bray's characterization of this period, pp. 131-132:

This was one of transition from the ancient world, in which most people did not accept the permanence of the changes which had taken place since the fifth century. In theory, the Roman Empire continued to exist, with an Emperor at Constantinople, who would one day reclaim all the territories over which his forebearers had ruled. This seems like a fantastic dream to us, but it is what most people at the time believed, and it deeply affected their outlook. Intellectual life during this period remained vigorous in the East, thought increasing theological controversy led to a virtual ban on new biblical interpretation (at the Council in Trullo, 692). Scholarship also enjoyed a remarkable flowering in the British Isles, where Irish and, later, Anglo-Saxon monks carried on the traditions of antiquity. Elsewhere, however, this period was known as the 'Dark Ages' because of the generally low standard of learning.

John Cassian:

        A monk and ascetic writer of Southern Gaul, and the first to introduce the rules of Eastern monasticism into the West, b. probably in Provence about 360; d. about 435, probably near Marseilles. Gennadius refers to him as a Scythian by birth (natione Scytha), but this is regarded as an erroneous statement based on the fact that Cassian passed several years of his life in the desert of Scete (heremus Scitii) in Egypt. The son of wealthy parents, he received a good education, and while yet a youth visited the holy places in Palestine, accompanied by a friend, Germanus, some years his senior. In Bethlehem Cassian and Germanus assumed the obligations of the monastic life, but, as in the case of many of their contemporaries, the desire of acquiring the science of sanctity from its most eminent teachers soon drew them from their cells in Bethlehem to the Egyptian deserts. Before leaving their first monastic home the friends promised to return as soon as possible, but this last clause they interpreted rather broadly, as they did not see Bethlehem again for seven years. During their absence they visited the solitaries most famous for holiness in Egypt, and so attracted were they by the great virtues of their hosts that after obtaining an extension of their leave of absence at Bethlehem, they returned to Egypt, where they remained several years longer. It was during this period of his life that Cassian collected the materials for his two principal works, the "Institutes" and "Conferences". From Egypt the companions came to Constantinople, where Cassian became a favourite disciple of St. John Chrysostom. The famous bishop of the Eastern capitol elevated Cassian to the diaconate, and placed in his charge the treasures of his cathedral. After the second expulsion of St. Chrysostom, Cassian was sent as an envoy to Rome by the clergy of Constantinople, for the purpose of interesting Pope Innocent I in behalf of their bishop. It was probably in Rome that Cassian was elevated to the priesthood, for it is certain that on his arrival in the Eternal City he was still a deacon. From this time Germanus is no more heard of, and of Cassian himself, for the next decade or more, nothing is known. About 415 he was at Marseilles where he founded two monasteries, one for men, over the tomb of St. Victor, a martyr of the last Christian persecution under Maximian (286-305), and the other for women. The remainder of his days were passed at, or very near, Marseilles. His personal influence and his writings contributed greatly to the diffusion of monasticism in the West. Although never formally canonized, St. Gregory the Great regarded him as a saint, and it is related that Urban V (1362-1370), who had been an abbot of St. Victor, had the words Saint Cassian engraved on the silver casket that contained his head. At Marseilles his feast is celebrated, with an octave, 23 July, and his name is found among the saints of the Greek Calendar.
        The two principal works of Cassian deal with the cenobitic life and the principal or deadly sins. They are entitled: "De institutis coenobiorum et de octo principalium vitiorum remediis libri XII" and "Collationes XXIV". The former of these was written between 420 and 429. The relation between the two works is described by Cassian himself (Instit., II, 9) as follows: "These books [the Institutes] . . . are mainly taken up with what belongs to the outer man and the customs of the coenobia [i.e. Institutes of monastic life in common]; the others [the "Collationes" or Conferences] deal rather with the training of the inner man and the perfection of the heart." The first four books of the "Institutes" treat of the rules governing the monastic life, illustrated by examples from the author's personal observation in Egypt and Palestine; the eight remaining books are devoted to the eight principal obstacles to perfection encountered by monks: gluttony, impurity, covetousness, anger, dejection, accidia (ennui), vainglory, and pride. The "Conferences" contain a record of the conversations of Cassian and Germanus with the Egyptian solitaries, the subject being the interior life. It was composed in three parts. The first instalment (Books I-X) was dedicated to Bishop Leontius of Fréjus and a monk (afterwards bishop) named Helladius; the second (Books XI-XVII), to Honoratus of Arles and Eucherius of Lyons; the third (Books XVIII-XXIV), to the "holy brothers" Jovinian, Minervius, Leontius, and Theodore. These two works, especially the latter, were held in the highest esteem by his contemporaries and by several later founders of religious orders. St. Benedict made use of Cassian in writing his Rule, and ordered selections from the "Conferences", which he called a mirror of monasticism (speculum monasticum), to be read daily in his monasteries. Cassiodorus also recommended the "Conferences" to his monks, with reservations, however, relative to their author's ideas on free will. On the other hand, the decree attributed to Pope Gelasius, "De recipiendis et non recipiendis libris" (early sixth century), censures this work as "apocryphal", i.e. containing erroneous doctrines. An abridgment of the "Conference" was made by Eucherius of Lyons which we still possess (P. L., L, 867 sqq.). A third work of Cassian, written at the request of the Roman Archdeacon Leo, afterwards Pope Leo the Great, about 430-431, was a defence of the orthodox doctrine against the errors of Nestorius: "De Incarnatione Domini contra Nestorium" (P. L., L, 9-272). It appears to have been written hurriedly, and is, consequently, not of equal value with the other works of its author. A large part consists of proofs, drawn from the Scriptures, of Our Lord's Divinity, and in support of the title of Mary to be regarded as the Mother of God; the author denounces Pelagianism as the source of the new heresy, which he regards as incompatible with the doctrine of the Trinity.
        Yet Cassian did not himself escape the suspicion of erroneous teaching; he is in fact regarded as the originator of what, since the Middle Ages, has been known as Semipelagianism. Views of this character attributed to him are found in his third and fifth, but especially in his thirteenth, "Conference". Preoccupied as he was with moral questions he exaggerated the rôle of free will by claiming that the initial steps to salvation were in the power of each individual, unaided by grace. The teaching of Cassian on this point was a reaction against what he regarded as the exaggerations of St. Augustine in his treatise "De correptione et gratia" as to the irresistible power of grace and predestination. Cassian saw in the doctrine of St. Augustine an element of fatalism, and while endeavouring to find a via media between the opinions of the great bishop of Hippo and Pelagius, he put forth views which were only less erroneous than those of the heresiarch himself. He did not deny the doctrine of the Fall; he even admitted the existence and the necessity of an interior grace, which supports the will in resisting temptations and attaining sanctity. But he maintained that after the Fall there still remained in every soul "some seeds of goodness . . . implanted by the kindness of the Creator", which, however, must be "quickened by the assistance of God". Without this assistance "they will not be able to attain an increase of perfection" (Coll., XIII, 12). Therefore, "we must take care not to refer all the merits of the saints to the Lord in such a way as to ascribe nothing but what is perverse to human nature". We must not hold that "God made man such that he can never will or be capable of what is good, or else he has not granted him a free will, if he has suffered him only to will or be capable of what is evil" (ibid.). The three opposing views have been summed up briefly as follows: St. Augustine regarded man in his natural state as dead, Pelagius as quite sound, Cassian as sick. The error of Cassian was to regard a purely natural act, proceeding from the exercise of free will, as the first step to salvation. In the controversy which, shortly before his death, arose over his teaching, Cassian took no part. His earliest opponent, Prosper of Aquitaine, without naming him, alludes to him with great respect as a man of more than ordinary virtues. Semipelagianism was finally condemned by the Council of Orange in 529.

        Junilius ( jIounilo", Junillus), an African by birth, hence commonly known as Junilius Africanus. He filled for seven years in the court of Justinian the important office of quaestor of the sacred palace, succeeding the celebrated Tribonian (Procop. Anecd. c. 20). Procopius tells us that Constantine, whom the Acts of the 5th general council shew to have held the office in 553, succeeded on the death of Junilius, which may therefore be placed a year or two earlier. Junilius, though a layman, took great interest in theological studies. A deputation of African bishops visiting Constantinople, one of them, PRIMASIUS of Adrumetum, inquired of his distinguished countryman, Junilius, who among the Greeks was distinguished as a theologian, to which Junilius replied that he knew one Paul [PAUL OF NISIBIS], a Persian by race, who had been educated in the school of the Syrians at Nisibis, where theology was taught by public masters in the same systematic manner as the secular studies of grammar and rhetoric elsewhere. Junilius had an introduction to the Scriptures by this Paul, which, on the solicitation of Primasius, he translated into Latin, breaking it up into question and answer. Kihn identifies this work of Paul with that which Ebedjesu (Asseman. Bibl. Or. III. i. 87; Badger, Nestorians, ii. 369) calls Maschelmonutho desurtho. The work of Junilius was called "Instituta regularia divinae legis," but is commonly known as "De partibus divinae legis," a title which really belongs only to chap. i. It has been often printed in libraries of the Fathers (e.g. Galland, vol. xii.; Migne, vol. lxviii.). The best ed., for which 13 MSS. were collated, is by Prof. Kiln of W?g (Theodor von Mopsuestia, Freiburg, 1880), a work admirable for its thorough investigations, and throwing much light on Junilius.
        The introduction does not, as has been often assumed, represent an African school of theology, but the Syrian; and Kiln conclusively shews that (although possibly Junilius was not aware of it himself) it is all founded on the teaching of THEODORE of Mopsuestia.
        Junilius divides the books of Scripture into two classes. The first, which alone he calls Canonical Scripture, are of perfect authority; the second added by many are of secondary (mediae) authority; all other books are of no authority. The first class consists of (1) Historical Books: Pentateuch, Josh., Judg., Ruth, Sam., and Kings., and in N.T. the four Gospels and Acts; (2) Prophetical (in which what is evidently intended for a chronological arrangement is substituted for that more usual): Ps., Hos., Is., Jl., Am., Ob., Jon., Mic., Nah., Hab., Zeph., Jer., Ezk., Dan., Hag., Zech., and Mal. (he says that John's Apocalypse is much doubted of amongst the Easterns); (3) Proverbial or parabolic: the Prov. of Solomon and the Book of Jesus the Son of Sirach; (4) Doctrinal: Eccles., the 14 epp. of St. Paul in the order now usual, including Heb., I. Pet., and I. Jn. In his second class he counts (1) Historical: Chron., Job, Esdras (no doubt including Neh.), Judith, Est., and Macc.; (3) Proverbial: Wisdom and Cant.; (4) Doctrinal: the Epp. of Jas., II. Pet., Jude, II. III. Jn. Lam. and Bar. were included in Jer. Tobit is not mentioned, but is quoted in a later part of the treatise. Kihn is no doubt right in regarding its omission as due to the accidental error of an early transcriber; for no writer of the time would have designedly refused to include Tobit even in his list of deuterocanonical books. Junilius gives as a reason for not reckoning the books of the second class as canonical that the Hebrews make this difference, as Jerome and others testify. This is clearly incorrect with regard to several of them, and one is tempted to think (pace Kihn) that Junilius himself added this reference to Jerome and did not find it in his Greek original. The low place assigned to Job and Cant. accords with the estimate formed by Theodore of Mopsuestia. Junilius quotes as Peter's a passage from his second epistle, which he had not admitted into his list of canonical books. He describes Ps., Eccles., and Job as written in metre (see Bickell, Metrices Biblicae Regulae). The work of Junilius presents a great number of other points of interest, e.g. his answer, ii. 29, to the question how we prove the books of Scripture to have been written by divine inspiration.
        The publication of the work Kihn assigns to 551, in which year the Chronicle of Victor Tununensis records the presence at Constantinople of the African bishops Reparatus, Firmus, Primasius, and Verecundus. He thinks that Junilius probably met Paul of Nisibis there as early as 543. We do not venture to oppose the judgment of one entitled to speak with so high authority; but we should have thought that the introduction into the West of this product of the Nestorian school of theology took place at an earlier period of the controversy about the Three Chapters than 551. It is not unlikely that Primasius paid earlier visits to Constantinople than that of which we have evidence. A commentary on Gen. i. wrongly ascribed to Junilius is now generally attributed to Bede.

        Born at Cartagena, Spain, about 560; died 4 April, 636.
        Isidore was the son of Severianus and Theodora. His elder brother Leander was his immediate predecessor in the Metropolitan See of Seville; whilst a younger brother St. Fulgentius presided over the Bishopric of Astigi. His sister Florentina was a nun, and is said to have ruled over forty convents and one thousand religious.
        Isidore received his elementary education in the Cathedral school of Seville. In this institution, which was the first of its kind in Spain, the trivium and quadrivium were taught by a body of learned men, among whom was the archbishop, Leander. With such diligence did he apply himself to study that in a remarkably short time mastered Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. Whether Isidore ever embraced monastic life or not is still an open question, but though he himself may never have been affiliated with any of the religious orders, he esteemed them highly. On his elevation to the episcopate he immediately constituted himself protector of the monks. In 619 he pronounced anathema against any ecclesiastic who should in any way molest the monasteries.
        On the death of Leander, Isidore succeeded to the See of Seville. His long incumbency to this office was spent in a period of disintegration and transition. The ancient institutions and classic learning of the Roman Empire were fast disappearing. In Spain a new civilization was beginning to evolve itself from the blending racial elements that made up its population. For almost two centuries the Goths had been in full control of Spain, and their barbarous manners and contempt of learning threatened greatly to put back her progress in civilization. Realizing that the spiritual as well as the material well-being of the nation depended on the full assimilation of the foreign elements, St. Isidore set himself to the task of welding into a homogeneous nation the various peoples who made up the Hispano-Gothic kingdom. To this end he availed himself of all the resources of religion and education. His efforts were attended with complete success. Arianism, which had taken deep root among the Visigoths, was eradicated, and the new heresy of Acephales was completely stifled at the very outset; religious discipline was everywhere strengthened. Like Leander, he took a most prominent part in the Councils of Toledo and Seville. In all justice it may be said that it was in a great measure due to the enlightened statecraft of these two illustrious brothers the Visigothic legislation, which emanated from these councils, is regarded by modern historians as exercising a most important influence on the beginnings of representative government. Isidore presided over the Second Council of Seville, begun 13 November, 619, in the reign of Sisebut. But it was the Fourth National Council of Toledo that afforded him the opportunity of being of the greatest service to his county. At this council, begun 5 December, 633, all the bishops of Spain were in attendance. St. Isidore, though far advanced in years, presided over its deliberations, and was the originator of most of its enactments. It was at this council and through his influence that a decree was promulgated commanding all bishops to establish seminaries in their Cathedral Cities, along the lines of the school already existing at Seville. Within his own jurisdiction he had availed himself of the resources of education to counteract the growing influence of Gothic barbarism. His was the quickening spirit that animated the educational movement of which Seville was the centre. The study of Greek and Hebrew as well as the liberal arts, was prescribed. Interest in law and medicine was also encouraged. Through the authority of the fourth council this policy of education was made obligatory upon all the bishops of the kingdom. Long before the Arabs had awakened to an appreciation of Greek Philosophy, he had introduced Aristotle to his countrymen. He was the first Christian writer to essay the task of compiling for his co-religionists a summa of universal knowledge. This encyclopedia epitomized all learning, ancient as well as modern. In it many fragments of classical learning are preserved which otherwise had been hopelessly lost. The fame of this work imparted a new impetus to encyclopedic writing, which bore abundant fruit in the subsequent centuries of the Middle Ages. His style, though simple and lucid, cannot be said to be classical. It discloses most of the imperfections peculiar to all ages of transition. It particularly reveals a growing Visigothic influence. Arevalo counts in all Isidore's writing 1640 Spanish words.
        Isidore was the last of the ancient Christian Philosophers, as he was the last of the great Latin Fathers. He was undoubtedly the most learned man of his age and exercised a far-reaching and immeasurable influence on the educational life of the Middle Ages. His contemporary and friend, Braulio, Bishop of Saragossa, regarded him as a man raised up by God to save the Spanish people from the tidal wave of barbarism that threatened to inundate the ancient civilization of Spain, The Eighth Council of Toledo (653) recorded its admiration of his character in these glowing terms: "The extraordinary doctor, the latest ornament of the Catholic Church, the most learned man of the latter ages, always to be named with reverence, Isidore". This tribute was endorsed by the Fifteenth Council of Toledo, held in 688.

WORKS
        As a writer, Isidore was prolific and versatile to an extraordinary degree. His voluminous writings may be truly said to constitute the first chapter of Spanish literature. It is not, however, in the capacity of an original and independent writer, but as an indefatigable compiler of all existing knowledge, that literature is most deeply indebted to him. The most important and by far the best-known of all his writings is the "Etymologiae", or "Origines", as it is sometimes called. This work takes its name from the subject-matter of one of its constituent books. It was written shortly before his death, in the full maturity of his wonderful scholarship, at the request. of his friend Braulio, Bishop of Saragossa. It is a vast storehouse in which is gathered, systematized, and condensed, all the learning possessed by his time. Throughout the greater part of the Middle Ages it was the textbook most in use in educational institutions. So highly was it regarded as a depository of classical learning that in a great measure, it superseded the use of the individual works of the classics themselves. Not even the Renaissance seemed to diminish the high esteem in which it was held, and according to Arevalo, it was printed ten times between 1470 and 1529. Besides these numerous reprints, the popularity of the "Etymologiae" gave rise to many inferior imitations. It furnishes, abundant evidence that the writer possessed a most intimate knowledge of the Greek and Latin poets. In all, he quotes from one hundred and fifty-four authors, Christian and pagan. Many of these he had read in the originals and the others he consulted in current compilations. In style this encyclopedic work is concise and clear and in order, admirable. Braulio, to whom Isidore sent it for correction, and to whom he dedicated it, divided it into twenty books.
        The first three of these books are taken up with the trivium and quadrivium. The entire first book is devoted to grammar, including metre. Imitating the example of Cassiodorus and Boethius he preserves the logical tradition of the schools by reserving the second book for rhetoric and dialectic.

Book four, treats of medicine and libraries;
book five, of law and chronology;
book six, of ecclesiastical books and offices;
book seven, of God and of the heavenly and earthly hierarchies;
book eight, of the Church and of the sects, of which latter he numbers no less than sixty-eight;
book nine, of languages, peoples, kingdoms, and official titles;
book ten, of etymology:
book eleven, of man;
book twelve, of beasts and birds;
book thirteen, of the world and its parts;
book fourteen, of physical geography;
book fifteen, of public buildings and roadmaking;
book sixteen, of stones and metals;
book seventeen, of agriculture;
book eighteen, of the terminology of war, of jurisprudence, and public games;
book nineteen, of ships, houses, and clothes;
book twenty, of victuals, domestic and agricultural tools, and furniture.

        In the second book, dealing with dialectic and rhetoric, Isidore is heavily indebted to translations from the Greek by Boethius. Caelius Aurelianus contributes generously to that part of the fourth book which deals with medicine. Lactantius is the author most extensively quoted in the eleventh book, concerning man. The twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth books are largely based on the writings of Pliny and Solinus; whilst the lost "Prata" of Suetonius seems to have inspired the general plan of the "Etymologiae", as well as many of its details.
        Similar in its general character to the "Etymologiae" is a work entitled "Libri duo differentiarum". The two books of which it is composed are entitled respectively, "De differentiis verborum" and "De differentiis rerum". The former is a dictionary of synonyms, treating of the differences of words with considerable erudition, and not a little ingenuity; the latter an exposition of theological and ascetical ideas, dealing in particular with the, Trinity and with the Divine and human nature of Christ. It suggests, and probably was inspired by, a similar work of Cato's, It is supplementary to the first two books of the "Etymologiae". The "Synonyma", or, as it is sometimes called on account of its peculiar treatment, "Liber lamentationum", is in a manner illustrative of the first book of the "Differentiae". It is cast in the form of a dialogue between Man and Reason. The general burden of the dialogue is that Man mourns the condition to which he has been reduced through sin, and Reason comforts him with the knowledge of how he may still realize eternal happiness. The second part of this work consists of a dissertation on vice and virtue. The "De natura rerum" a manual of elementary physics, was composed at the request of King Sisebut, to whom it is dedicated. It treats of astronomy, geography, and miscellanea. It is one of Isidore's best known books and enjoyed a wide popularity during the Middle Ages. The authenticity of "De ordine creaturarum" has been questioned by some critics, though apparently without good reason. Arevalo unhesitatingly attributes it to Isidore. It deals with various spiritual and physical questions, such as the Trinity, the consequences of sin, eternity, the ocean, the heavens, and the celestial bodies.
        The subjects of history and biography are represented by three important works. Of these the first, "Chronicon", is a universal chronicle. In its preface Isidore acknowledges, his indebtedness to Julius Africanus; to St. Jerome's rendering of Eusebius; and to Victor of Tunnuna. The "Historia de regibus Gothorum, Wandalorum, et Suevorum" concerns itself chiefly with the Gothic kings whose conquests and government deeply influenced the civilization of Spain. The history of the Vandals and the Suevi is treated in two short appendixes. This work is regarded as the chief authority on Gothic history in the West. It contains the interesting statement that the Goths descended from Gog and Magog. Like the other Historical writings of Isidore, it is largely based on earlier works of history, of which it is a compendium- It has come down to us in two recensions, one of which ends at the death of Sisebut (621), and the other continues to the fifth year of the reign of Swintila, his successor. "De viris illustribus" is a work of Christian biography and constitutes a most interesting chapter in the literature of patrology. To the number of illustrious writers mentioned therein Braulio added the name of Isidore himself. A short appendix containing a list of Spanish theologians was added by Braulio's disciple, Ildephonsus of Toledo. It is the continuation of the work of Gennadius, a Semipelagian priest of Marseilles, who wrote between 467 and 480. This work of Gennadius was in turn, but the continuation of the work of St. Jerome.
        Among the scriptural and theological works of St. Isidore the following are especially worthy of note:
        "De ortu et obitu patrum qui in Scriptura laudibus efferuntur" is a work that treats of the more notable Scriptural characters. It contains more than one passage that, in the light of modern scholarship, is naive or fantastic. The question of authenticity has been raised, though quite unreasonably, concerning it.
        "Allegoriae quaedam Sacrae Scripturae" treats of the allegorical significance that attaches to the more conspicuous characters of Scripture. In all some two hundred and fifty personalities of the Old and New Testament are thus treated.
        "Liber numerorum qui in Sanctis Scripturis occurrunt" is a curious dissertation on the mystical significance of Scriptural numbers.
        "In libros Veteris et Novi Testamenti prooemia", as its name implies, is a general introduction to the Scriptures, with special introductions for particular books in the Old and New Testament.
        "De Veteri et Novo Testamento quastiones" consists of a series of questions concerning the Scriptures.
        "Secretorum expositiones sacramentorum, seu quaestiones in Vetus Testamentum" is a mystical rendering of the Old Testament books, of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josue, Judges, Kings, Esdras, and Machabees. It is based on the writings of the early Fathers of the Church.
        "De fide catholica ex Veteri et Novo Testamento, contra Judaeos" is one of the best known and most meritorious of Isidore's works. It is of an apologetico-polemical character and is dedicated to Florentina, his sister, at whose request it is said to have been written. Its popularity was unbounded in the Middle Ages, and it was translated into many of the vernaculars of the period. It treats of the Messianic prophecies, the passing of the Old Law, and of the Christian Dispensation. The first part deals with the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, and His return for the final judgment. The second part is taken up with the unbelief of the Jews, the calling of the Gentiles, and the passing of the Sabbath. In all, it is an appeal to the Jews to accept Christianity.
        "Sententiarum libri tres" is a compendium of moral and dogmatic theology. Gregory the Great and St. Augustine are the most generous contributors to its contents. The Divine attributes, creation, evil, and miscellanea are the subjects treated in the first book. The second is of a miscellaneous character; whilst the third deals with ecclesiastical orders, the judgment and the chastisement of God. It is believed that this work greatly influenced Peter Lombard in his famous "Book of Sentences",
        "De ecclesiasticis officiis" is divided into two books, "De origine officiorum" and "De origine ministrorum". In the first Isidore treats of Divine worship and particularly the old Spanish Liturgy. It also Contains a lucid explanation of the Holy, Eucharist. The second treats of the hierarchy of the Church and the various states of life. In it much interesting information is to be found concerning the development of music in general and its adaptation to the needs of the

Ritual.
        "Regula monachorum" is a manner of life prescribed for monks, and also deals in a general way with the monastic state. The writer furnishes abundant proof of the true Christian democracy of the religious life by providing for the admission of men of every rank and station of life. Not even slaves were debarred. "God", he said, "has made no difference between the soul of the slave and that of the freedman." He insists that in the monastery all are equal in the sight of God and of the Church.
        The first edition of the works of Isidore was published in folio by Michael Somnius (Paris, 1580). Another edition that is quite complete is based upon the manuscripts of Gomez, with notes by Perez and Grial (Madrid, 1599). Based largely upon the Madrid edition is that published by Du Breul (Paris, 1601; Cologne, 1617). The last edition of all the works of Isidore, which is also regarded as the best, is that of Arevalo (7 vols., Rome, 1797-1803). It is found in P. L., LXXXI-LXXXIV. The "De natura rerum was edited by G. Becker (Berlin, 1857). Th. Mommsen edited the historical writings of St. Isidore ("Mon. Germ. Hist.: Auct. antiquiss.", Berlin, 1894). Coste produced a German translation of the "Historia de regibus Gothorum, Wandalorum et Suevorum" (Leipzig, 1887).

        Ascetic and defender of Nicene Christianity, St. Maximus was born c. 580 into a noble family at Constantinople. A student of philosophy and theology, he served as imperial secretary to Heraclius until c. 614, when Maximus became a monk. During a Persian invasion in 626, he travelled first to Alexandria, then to Carthage, where he debated Pyrrhus, a monothelite. A number of African synods condemned Maximus for his insistence that Christ had a divine will and a human will, and Martin I invited Maximus to participate in the Lateran synod of 649. Four years later, he was arrested and tried at his birthplace for his refusal to adhere to the Typos of Constans II, which forbade the discussion of Christ's will or wills. Maximus was tortured and exile to Shemarum on the Black Sea, where he died of his injuries.
        Maximus preaches that Christ's Incarnation is the purpose of history because it restores the equilibrium destroyed by Adam's fall. If Christ is not fully God and fully man, argues Maximus, salvation is void. Maximus is the author of Four Centuries of Love, about asceticism and charity in daily life; Ambigua about the writings of St. Gregory the Theologian; and Mystagogia about the nature of the church. Maximus also commented on the works of Dionysios the Areopagite and on the Scriptures.

        An early medieval writer and abbot of the Benedictine Order, born in France, early in the eighth century; died after an abbacy of little more than a year at his monastery of St. Vincent on the Volturno, near Beneventum, in Southern Italy, 778 or 779. Autpert, if forgotten today, was not without a name in his own century. Charlemagne made use of his talents; Pope Stephen IV protected him; and the monastery where he spent many years, and of which he died abbot was famous among the great monasteries of Italy. He has sometimes been confounded with another Autpert who was Abbot of Monte Cassino in the next century, and who left a collection of sermons besides a spiritual treatise. His chief work is Expositio in Apocalypsim (P.L., XXXV, col. 2417-52).

        More than a thousand years before the start of the nuclear age, a diligent monk named Beatus from Liebana, nestled in the Cantabrian mountains of northern Spain, spent long hours pulling together page after page of words and pictures about the destruction of the world. Beatus' Commentary on the Apocalypse comprised writings of earlier Christians such as St. Augustine, St. Gregory, and Tyconius of North Africa. It included illustrations based on the Bible's last book, Revelation: men assaulted by lion-headed locusts, angels pouring blood and hail from the heavens, the Antichrist and his army attacking Jerusalem.
        Why did Beatus of Liebana go to so much trouble to assemble these images of apocalyptic horror? Historians and biblical scholars from the ninth century to the present have long assumed that Beatus was hoping to rally a Christian response to the Muslim invasion of Spain in 711, as if the invasion, indeed, signaled the impending Armageddon. But Distinguished Service professor John Williams, who has studied the text for 14 years, doubts this theory. First of all, he says, the mountains protected Liebana from the Muslim invasion. "And there's no mention of the Muslims anywhere in the text," he adds. Williams believes that Beatus had calculated that the world would end in the year 800 and, as a spiritual leader, felt responsible for people's salvation. "Beatus was writing a manual of warning," Williams concludes, "a manual instructing people how to prepare for the end of the world."
        Since the year 800 came and went without a tremor, you might expect Beatus' book to have fallen into disrepute. But monks in Spain and France, recognizing the biblical references in the text, believed it was God's prophesy--that Beatus had the right message but the wrong timing. Driven by similar religious duty, they labored to produce exact replicas of the manuscript.
        "In the course of four centuries," explains Williams, "the monks never changed a word of the text, and they never introduced changes into the composition of the pictures."  (Apocolypse Now? By Alan Friedman)

Bede

        Historian and Doctor of the Church, born 672 or 673; died 735. In the last chapter of his great work on the "Ecclesiastical History of the English People" Bede has told us something of his own life, and it is, practically speaking, all that we know. His words, written in 731, when death was not far off, not only show a simplicity and piety characteristic of the man, but they throw a light on the composition of the work through which he is best remembered by the world at large. He writes:

        Thus much concerning the ecclesiastical history of Britain, and especially of the race of the English, I, Baeda, a servant of Christ and a priest of the monastery of the blessed apostles St. Peter and St. Paul, which is at Wearmouth and at Jarrow (in Northumberland), have with the Lord's help composed so far as I could gather it either from ancient documents or from the traditions of the elders, or from my own knowledge. I was born in the territory of the said monastery, and at the age of seven I was, by the care of my relations, given to the most reverend Abbot Benedict [St. Benedict Biscop], and afterwards to Ceolfrid, to be educated. From that time I have spent the whole of my life within that monastery, devoting all my pains to the study of the Scriptures, and amid the observance of monastic discipline and the daily charge of singing in the Church, it has been ever my delight to learn or teach or write. In my nineteenth year I was admitted to the diaconate, in my thirtieth to the priesthood, both by the hands of the most reverend Bishop John [St. John of Beverley], and at the bidding of Abbot Ceolfrid. From the time of my admission to the priesthood to my present fifty-ninth year, I have endeavored for my own use and that of my brethren, to make brief notes upon the holy Scripture, either out of the works of the venerable Fathers or in conformity with their meaning and interpretation.

After this Bede inserts a list or Indiculus, of his previous writings and finally concludes his great work with the following words:

And I pray thee, loving Jesus, that as Thou hast graciously given me to drink in with delight the words of Thy knowledge, so Thou wouldst mercifully grant me to attain one day to Thee, the fountain of all wisdom and to appear forever before Thy face.

        It is plain from Bede's letter to Bishop Egbert that the historian occasionally visited his friends for a few days, away from his own monastery of Jarrow, but with such rare exceptions his life seems to have been one peaceful round of study and prayer passed in the midst of his own community. How much he was beloved by them is made manifest by the touching account of the saint's last sickness and death left us by Cuthbert, one of his disciples. Their studious pursuits were not given up on account of his illness and they read aloud by his bedside, but constantly the reading was interrupted by their tears. "I can with truth declare", writes Cuthbert of his beloved master, "that I never saw with my eyes or heard with my ears anyone return thanks so unceasingly to the living God." Even on the day of his death (the vigil of the Ascension, 735) the saint was still busy dictating a translation of the Gospel of St. John. In the evening the boy Wilbert, who was writing it, said to him: "There is still one sentence, dear master, which is not written down." And when this had been supplied, and the boy had told him it was finished, "Thou hast spoken truth", Bede answered, "it is finished. Take my head in thy hands for it much delights me to sit opposite any holy place where I used to pray, that so sitting I may call upon my Father." And thus upon the floor of his cell singing, "Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost" and the rest, he peacefully breathed his last breath.
        The title Venerabilis seems to have been associated with the name of Bede within two generations after his death. There is of course no early authority for the legend repeated by Fuller of the "dunce-monk" who in composing an epitaph on Bede was at a loss to complete the line: Hac sunt in fossa Bedae . . . . ossa and who next morning found that the angels had filled the gap with the word venerabilis. The title is used by Alcuin, Amalarius and seemingly Paul the Deacon, and the important Council of Aachen in 835 describes him as venerabilis et modernis temporibus doctor admirabilis Beda. This decree was specially referred to in the petition which Cardinal Wiseman and the English bishops addressed to the Holy See in 1859 praying that Bede might be declared a Doctor of the Church. The question had already been debated even before the time of Benedict XIV, but it was only on 13 November, 1899, that Leo XIII decreed that the feast of Venerable Bede with the title of Doctor Ecclesiae should be celebrated throughout the Church each year on 27 May. A local cultus of St. Bede had been maintained at York and in the North of England throughout the Middle Ages, but his feast was not so generally observed in the South, where the Sarum Rite was followed.
        Bede's influence both upon English and foreign scholarship was very great, and it would probably have been greater still but for the devastation inflicted upon the Northern monasteries by the inroads of the Danes less than a century after his death. In numberless ways, but especially in his moderation, gentleness, and breadth of view, Bede stands out from his contemporaries. In point of scholarship he was undoubtedly the most learned man of his time. A very remarkable trait, noticed by Plummer (I, p. xxiii), is his sense of literary property, an extraordinary thing in that age. He himself scrupulously noted in his writings the passages he had borrowed from others and he even begs the copyists of his works to preserve the references, a recommendation to which they, alas, have paid but little attention. High, however, as was the general level of Bede's culture, he repeatedly makes it clear that all his studies were subordinated to the interpretation of Scripture. In his "De Schematibus" he says in so many words: "Holy Scripture is above all other books not only by its authority because it is Divine, or by its utility because it leads to eternal life, but also by its antiquity and its literary form" (positione dicendi). It is perhaps the highest tribute to Bede's genius that with so uncompromising and evidently sincere a conviction of the inferiority of human learning, he should have acquired so much real culture. Though Latin was to him a still living tongue, and though he does not seem to have consciously looked back to the Augustan Age of Roman Literature as preserving purer models of literary style than the time of Fortunatus or St. Augustine, still whether through native genius or through contact with the classics, he is remarkable for the relative purity of his language, as also for his lucidity and sobriety, more especially in matters of historical criticism. In all these respects he presents a marked contrast to St. Aldhelm who approaches more nearly to the Celtic type.

WRITINGS AND EDITIONS
        No adequate edition founded upon a careful collation of manuscripts has ever been published of Bede's works as a whole. The text printed by Giles in 1884 and reproduced in Migne (XC-XCIV) shows little if any advance on the basic edition of 1563 or the Cologne edition of 1688. It is of course as an historian that Bede is chiefly remembered. His great work, the "Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum", giving an account of Christianity in England from the beginning until his own day, is the foundation of all our knowledge of British history and a masterpiece eulogized by the scholars of every age. Of this work, together with the "Historia Abbatum", and the "Letter to Egbert", Plummer has produced an edition which may fairly be called final (2 vols., Oxford, 1896). Bede's remarkable industry in collecting materials and his critical use of them have been admirably illustrated in Plummer's Introduction (pp. xliii-xlvii). The "History of the Abbots" (of the twin monasteries of Wearmouth and Jarrow), the Letter to Egbert", the metrical and prose lives of St. Cuthbert, and the other smaller pieces are also of great value for the light they shed upon the state of Christianity in Northumbria in Bede's own day. The "Ecclesiastical History" was translated into Anglo-Saxon at the instance of King Alfred. It has often been translated since, notably by T. Stapleton who printed it (1565) at Antwerp as a controversial weapon against the Reformation divines in the reign of Elizabeth. The Latin text first appeared in Germany in 1475; it is noteworthy that no edition even of the Latin was printed in England before 1643. Smith's more accurate text saw the light in 1742.
        Bede's chronological treatises "De temporibus liber" and "De temporum ratione" also contain summaries of the general history of the world from the Creation to 725 and 703, respectively. These historical portions have been satisfactorily edited by Mommsen in the "Monumenta Germaniae historica" (4to series, 1898). They may be counted among the earliest specimens of this type of general chronical and were largely copied and imitated. The topographical work "De locis sanctis" is a description of Jerusalem and the holy places based upon Adamnan and Arculfus. Bede's work was edited in 1898 by Geyer in the "Itinera Hierosolymitana" for the Vienna "Corpus Scriptorum". That Bede compiled a Martyrologium we know from his own statement. But the work attributed to him in extant manuscripts has been so much interpolated and supplemented that his share in it is quite uncertain.
        Bede's exegetical writings both in his own idea and in that of his contemporaries stood supreme in importance among his works, but the list is long and cannot fully be given here. They included a commentary upon the Pentateuch as a whole as well as on selected portions, and there are also commentaries on the Books of Kings, Esdras, Tobias, the Canticles, etc. In the New Testament he has certainly interpreted St. Mark, St. Luke, the Acts, the Canonical Epistles, and the Apocalypse. But the authenticity of the commentary on St. Matthew printed under his name is more than doubtful. (Plaine in "Revue Anglo-Romaine", 1896, III, 61.) The homilies of Bede take the form of commentaries upon the Gospel. The collection of fifty, divided into two books, which are attributed to him by Giles (and in Migne) are for the most part authentic, but the genuineness of a few is open to suspicion. (Morin in "Revue Bénédictine", IX, 1892, 316.)
        Various didactic works are mentioned by Bede in the list which he has left us of his own writings. Most of these are still preserved and there is no reason to doubt that the texts we possess are authentic. The grammatical treatises "De arte metricâ" and "De orthographiâ" have been adequately edited in modern times by Keil in his "Grammatici Latini" (Leipzig, 1863). But the larger works "De naturâ rerum", De temporibus", De temporium ratione", dealing with science as it was then understood and especially with chronology, are only accessible in the unsatisfactory texts of the earlier editors and Giles. Beyond the metrical life of St. Cuthbert and some verses incorporated in the Ecclesiastical History" we do not possess much poetry that can be assigned to Bede with confidence, but, like other scholars of his age, he certainly wrote a good deal of verse. He himself mentions his "book of hymns" composed in different meters or rhythms. So Alcuin says of him: Plurima versifico cecinit quoque carmina plectro. It is possible that the shorter of the two metrical calendars printed among his works is genuine. The Penitential ascribed to Bede, though accepted as genuine by Haddan and Stubbs and Wasserschleben, is probably not his (Plummer, I, 157).
        Venerable Bede is the earliest witness of pure Gregorian tradition in England. His works "Musica theoretica" and "De arte Metricâ" (Migne, XC) are found especially valuable by present-day scholars engaged in the study of the primitive form of the chant.

2.1.3.2 From 800 to about 1150, Early Middle Ages
Assigned Readings for This Topic:

Gerald Bray, Biblical Interpretation: Past and Present, relevant sections in this chapter.
 

Resource Materials to also be studied:
Prof. Bray's characterization of this period, p. 132:

This was the Early Middle Ages, when western Eruope began to forge a new culture and civilization. After about 1000 there was increasing stability, and centres of learning developed. A new scholarship came into being in the monasteries, and important schools were established, in which biblical exegesis was taught. These schools were attached to monasteries, and later to cathedrals. At first there was little originality in all of this, but that too appeared with time. By about 1150 western Europe was ready for intellectual take-off, and the golden age known as the High Middle Ages began.

Aleuin of York (fl. c. 796 - c. 804)

Claudius of Turin (d. c. 827)

Haimo of Auixerre (d. c. 855)

Rabanus Maurus (c. 776-856)

Paschasius Radbertus (d. 865)

John Scotus Eriugena (d. c. 877)

Remigius of Auxerre (d. 908)

Fulbert of Chartres (d. 1028)

Bruno of Würzburg (c. 1005-45)

Peter Damian (d. 1072)

Othlo of St Emmeran (d. c. 1073)

Berungar of Tours (d. 1088)

Bruno the Carthusian (c. 1030 - 1101)

Anselm (d. 1117) and Ralph (d. 1134 or 1136) of Laon

Anselm of Cantebury (1033-1109)

Life
        The father of medieval scholasticism and one of the most eminent of English prelates was born at Aost Piedmont in 1033. Anselm died at Canterbury, England on April 21, 1109. While a boy he wished to be a monk, but his father forbade it. When he was about twenty-three Anselm left home to live in Burgundy and France. After three years he went to Bec in Normandy where his celebrated countryman, Lanfranc, was prior. Here he became a monk (1060). He succeeded Lanfranc as prior in 1063, and became abbot in 1078. The abbey had possessions in England, which called Anselm frequently to that country. He was the general choice for archbishop of Canterbury when Lanfranc died (1089). However, the king, William Rufus, preferred to keep the office vacant, and apply its revenues to his own use. In 1093 William fell ill and, literally forced Anselm to receive an appointment at his hands. He was consecrated December 4 of that year. The next four years witnessed a continual struggle between king and archbishop over money matters, rights, and privileges. Anselm wished to carry his case to Rome, and in 1097, with much difficulty, obtained permission from the king to go. At Rome he was honored and flattered, but he obtained little practical help in his struggle with the king. He returned to England as soon is he heard of the death of William in 1100. But a difficulty arose over lay investiture and homage from clerics for their benefices. Thought a mild and meek man, Anselm had adopted the Gregorian views of the relation between Church and State, and adhered to them with the steadiness of conscientious conviction. The king, though inclined to be conciliatory, was equally firm from motives of self-interest. He had a high regard for Anselm, always treated him with much consideration, and personal relations between them were generally friendly. Nevertheless there was much vexatious disputing, several fruitless embassies were sent to Rome, and Anselm himself went thither in 1103, remaining abroad till 1106. His quarrel with the king was settled by compromise in 1107 and the brief remaining period of his life was peaceful. He was canonized in 1494.

Philosophical Writings
        As a metaphysician Anselm was a realist, and one of his earliest works, De fide Trinitatis, was an attack on the doctrine of the Trinity as expounded by the nominalist Roscelin. His most celebrated works are the Monologium and Proslogium, both aiming to prove the existence and nature of God. The Cur deus homo, in which he develops views of atonement and satisfaction which are still held by orthodox theologians. The two first named were written at Bec. The last was begun in England " in great tribulation of heart," and finished at Schiavi, a mountain villaffe of Apulia, where Anselm enjoyed a few months of rest in 1098. His meditations and prayers are edifying and often highly impressive. In the Monologium he argues that from the idea of being there follows the idea of a highest and absolute, i.e. self-existent Being, from which all other being derives its existences revival of the ancient cosmological argument.
        In the Proslogium the idea of the perfect being-" than which nothing greater can be thought "-cannot be separated from its existence. For if the idea of the perfect Being, thus present in consciousness, lacked existence, a still more perfect Being could be thought, of which existence would be a necessary metaphysical predicate, and thus the most perfect Being would be the absolutely Real. In its most simple form, this first version of the ontological argument is as follows:

1. The term "God" is defined as the greatest conceivable being
2. Real existence (existence in reality) is greater than mere existence in the understanding
3. Therefore, God must exist in reality, not just in the understanding.

        Anselm's main intuition is that the greatest possible being has every attribute which could make it great or good. Existence in reality is one such attribute. Anselm's actual argument is more complex than this, and is often reconstructed as a reductio ad absurdum (reduction to absurdity). Reductio arguments have two parts: a target argument, and a concluding argument which reduces the target argument to absurdity. His argument begins with some general assumptions which include the idea that (a) God exists in the understanding (b) Existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone. The first assumption simply means that we understand and can consistently think about the concept of God (whereas we could not think about the concept of a square circle, for instance). The second means that a real x is greater than an imaginary or merely conceived x (e.g. a real $100 is greater than an imaginary $100). Gaunilo, a contemporary monk of Anselm, wrote an attack on Anselm's argument titled "on behalf of the fool." He offers several criticisms, the most well known is a parody on Anselm's argument in which he proves the existence of the greatest possible island. If we replaced "an island than which none greater can be conceived" for "something than which nothing greater can be conceived" then we would prove the existence of that island. Gaunilo's point was that we could prove the existence of almost anything using Anselm's style of argument. The ontological argument is therefore unsound.

Theology
        The key to Anselm's theory of the Atonement was the idea of "satisfaction." In justice to himself and to the creation, God, whose honor had suffered injury by man's sin, must react against it either by punishing men, or, since he was merciful, the death of the God-man, which will more than compensate for the injury to his honor, on the ground of which lie forgives sin. Incidental features of his theory are 1) sin as a violation of a private relation between God and man, 2) the interaction of the divine righteousness and grace, and 3) the necessity of a representative suffering. In the Reformed doctrine, sin and the Atonement took on more of a public character, the active obedience of Christ was also emphasized, and the representative relation of Christ to the law brought to the front. In the seventeenth century the forensic and penal justice of God came into prominence. Christ was conceived of as suffering the punishment of our sin,-a complete equivalent of the punishment which we must have suffered, -on the ground of which our guilt and punishment are pardoned. In the following century, Owen held that the sufferings of Christ for sinners were not tantident but idein. In more recent discussions along this line, Hodge maintains that Christ suffered neither the kind nor degree of that which sinners must have suffered, but any kind and degree of suffering which is judicially inflicted in satisfaction of justice and law. There has indeed been no theory of the work of Christ which has not conceived of it is a satisfaction. Even the so-called moral influence theories center in this idea. It is therefore evident how fundamental is the idea of satisfaction presented by Anselm. Only it must be observed first that in the evolution of the Christian doctrine of salvation the particular way in which the satisfaction was realized has been differently conceived; and secondly, if the forgiveness of sin in Jesus Christ takes place only when the ethical nature of God is satisfied, the special form in which the satisfaction is accomplished is of subordinate importance. In one class of views-the representative or juridical-the satisfaction was conditioned on a unique and isolated divine-human deed-the death or the life and death of Christ; in the other theories, the satisfaction is threefold in the expression of the divine good-will, through the life and death of Christ, in the initial response of sinners to forgiving grace, and in the final bringing of all souls to perfect union with the Father.

Guibert of Nogent (1053-1124)

Rupert of Deutz (1070-c.1129)

Hugo of St Victor (c. 1096-1141)

Peter Abelard (1079-1142)

        Dialectician, philosopher, and theologian, born 1079; died 1142. Peter Abelard (also spelled Abeillard, Abailard, etc., while the best manuscripts have Abaelardus) was born in the little village of Pallet, about ten miles east of Nantes in Brittany. His father, Berengar, was lord of the village, his mother's name was Lucia; both afterwards entered the monastic state. Peter, the oldest of their children, was intended for a military career, but, as he himself tells us, he abandoned Mars for Minerva, the profession of arms for that of learning. Accordingly, at an early age, he left his father's castle and sought instruction as a wandering scholar at the schools of the most renowned teachers of those days. Among these teachers was Roscelin the Nominalist, at whose school at Locmenach, near Vannes, Abelard certainly spent some time before he proceeded to Paris. Although the University of Paris did not exist as a corporate institution until more than half a century after Abelard's death, there flourished at Paris in his time the Cathedral School, the School of Ste. Geneviève, and that of St. Germain des Pré, the forerunners of the university schools of the following century. The Cathedral School was undoubtedly the most important of these, and thither the young Abelard directed his steps in order to study dialectic under the renowned master (scholasticus) William of Champeaux. Soon, however, the youth from the province, for whom the prestige of a great name was far from awe-inspiring, not only ventured to object to the teaching of the Parisian master, but attempted to set up as a rival teacher. Finding that this was not an easy matter in Paris, he established his school first at Melun and later at Corbeil. This was, probably, in the year 1101. The next couple of years Abelard spent in his native place "almost cut off from France", as he says. The reason of this enforced retreat from the dialectical fray was failing health. On returning to Paris, he became once more a pupil of William of Champeaux for the purpose of studying rhetoric. When William retired to the monastery of St. Victor, Abelard, who meantime had resumed his teaching at Melun, hastened to Paris to secure the chair of the Cathedral School. Having failed in this, he set up his school in Mt. Ste. Genevieve (1108). There and at the Cathedral School, in which in 1113 he finally succeeded in obtaining a chair, he enjoyed the greatest renown as a teacher of rhetoric and dialectic. Before taking up the duty of teaching theology at the Cathedral School, he went to Laon where he presented himself to the venerable Anselm of Laon as a student of theology. Soon, however, his petulant restiveness under restraint once more asserted itself, and he was not content until he had as completely discomfited the teacher of theology at Laon as he had successfully harassed the teacher of rhetoric and dialectic at Paris. Taking Abelard's own account of the incident, it is impossible not to blame him for the temerity which made him such enemies as Alberic and Lotulph, pupils of Anselm, who, later on, appeared against Abelard. The "theological studies" pursued by Abelard at Laon were what we would nowadays call the study of exegesis.
        There can be no doubt that Abelard's career as a teacher at Paris, from 1108 to 1118, was an exceptionally brilliant one. In his "Story of My Calamities" (Historia Calamitatum) he tells us how pupils flocked to him from every country in Europe, a statement which is more than corroborated by Ihe authority of his contemporaries. He was, In fact, the idol of Paris; eloquent, vivacious, handsome, possessed of an unusually rich voice, full of confidence in his own power to please, he had, as he tells us, the whole world at his feet. That Abelard was unduly conscious of these advantages is admitted by his most ardent admirers; indeed, in the "Story of My Calamities," he confesses that at that period of his life he was filled with vanity and pride. To these faults he attributes his downfall, which was as swift and tragic as was everything, seemingly, in his meteoric career. He tells us in graphic language the tale which has become part of the classic literature of the love-theme, how he fell in love with Heloise, niece of Canon Fulbert; he spares us none of the details of the story, recounts all the circumstances of its tragic ending, the brutal vengeance of the Canon, the flight of Heloise to Pallet, where their son, whom he named Astrolabius, was born, the secret wedding, the retirement of Heloise to the nunnery of Argenteuil, and his abandonment of his academic career. He was at the time a cleric in minor orders, and had naturally looked forward to a distinguished career as an ecclesiastical teacher. After his downfall, he retired to the Abbey of St. Denis, and, Heloise having taken the veil at Argenteuil, he assumed the habit of a Benedictine monk at the royal Abbey of St. Denis. He who had considered himself "the only surviving philosopher in the whole world" was willing to hide himself -- definitely, as he thought -- in monastic solitude. But whatever dreams he may have had of final peace in his monastic retreat were soon shattered. He quarrelled with the monks of St. Denis, the occasion being his irreverent criticism of the legend of their patron saint, and was sent to a branch institution, a priory or cella, where, once more, he soon attracted unfavourable attention by the spirit of the teaching which he gave in philosophy and theology. "More subtle and more learned than ever", as a contemporary (Otto of Freising) describes him, he took up the former quarrel with Anselm's pupils. Through their influence, his orthodoxy, especially on the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, was impeached, and he was summoned to appear before a council at Soissons, in 1121, presided over by the papal legate, Kuno, Bishop of Praneste. While it is not easy to determine exactly what took place at the Council, it is clear that there was no formal condemnation of Abelard's doctrines, but that he was nevertheless condemned to recite the Athanasian Creed, and to burn his book on the Trinity. Besides, he was sentenced to imprisonment in the Abbey of St. Médard, at the instance apparently, of the monks of St. Denis, whose enmity, especially that of their Abbot Adam, was unrelenting. In his despair, he fled to a desert place in the neighbourhood of Troyes. Thither pupils soon began to flock, huts and tents for their reception were built, and an oratory erected, under the title "The Paraclete", and there his former success as a teacher was renewed.
        After the death of Adam, Abbot of St. Denis, his successor, Suger, absolved Abelard from censure, and thus restored him to his rank as a monk. The Abbey of St. Gildas de Rhuys, near Vannes, on the coast of Brittany, having lost its Abbot in 1125, elected Abelard to fill his place. At the same time, the community of Argenteuil was dispersed, and Heloise gladly accepted the Oratory of the Paraclete, where she became Abbess. As Abbot of St. Gildas, Abelard had, according to his own account, a very troublesome time. The monks, considering him too strict, endeavoured in various ways to rid themselves of his rule, and even attempted to poison him. They finally drove him from the monastery. Retaining the title of Abbot, he resided for some time in the neighbourhood of Nantes and later (probably in 1136) resumed his career as teacher at Paris and revived, to some extent, the renown of the days when, twenty years earlier, he gathered "all Europe" to hear his lectures. Among his pupils at this time were Arnold of Brescia and John of Salisbury. Now begins the last act in the tragedy of Abelard's life, in which St. Bernard plays a conspicuous part. The monk of Clairvaux, the most powerful man in the Church in those days, was alarmed at the heterodoxy of Abelard's teaching, and questioned the Trinitarian doctrine contained in Abelard's writings. There were admonitions on the one side and defiances on the other; St. Bernard, having first warned Abelard in private, proceeded to denounce him to the bishops of France; Abelard, underestimating the ability and influence of his adversary, requested a meeting, or council, of bishops, before whom Bernard and he should discuss the points in dispute. Accordingly, a council was held at Sens (the metropolitan see to which Paris was then suffragan) in 1141. On the eve of the council a meeting of bishops was held, at which Bernard was present, but not Abelard, and in that meeting a number of propositions were selected from Abelard's writings, and condemned. When, on the following morning, these propositions were read in solemn council, Abelard, informed, so it seems, of the proceedings of the evening before, refused to defend himself, declaring that he appealed to Rome. Accordingly, the propositions were condemned, but Abelard was allowed his freedom. St. Bernard now wrote to the members of the Roman Curia, with the result that Abelard had proceeded only as far as Cluny on his way to Rome when the decree of Innocent II confirming the sentence of the Council of Sens reached him. The Venerable Peter of Cluny now took up his case, obtained from Rome a mitigation of the sentence reconciled him with St. Bernard, and gave him honourable and friendly hospitality at Cluny. There Abelard spent the last years of his life, and there at last he found the peace which he had elsewhere sought in vain. He donned the habit of the monks of Cluny and became a teacher in the school of the monastery. He died at Chalôn-sur-Saône in 1142, and was buried at the Paraclete. In 1817 his remains and those of Heloise were transferred to the cemetery of Père la Chaise, in Paris, where they now rest. For our knowledge of the life of Abelard we rely chiefly on the "Story of My Calamities", an autobiography written as a letter to a friend, and evidently intended for publication. To this may be added the letters of Abelard and Heloise, which were also intended for circulation among Abelard's friends. The "Story" was written about the year 1130, and the letters during the following five or six years. In both the personal element must of course, be taken into account. Besides these we have very scanty material; a letter from Roscelin to Abelard, a letter of Fulco of Deuil, the chronicle of Otto of Freising, the letters of St. Bernard, and a few allusions in the writings of John of Salisbury. Abelard's philosophical works are "Dialectica," a logical treatise consisting of four books (of which the first is missing); "Liber Divisionum et Definitionum" (edited by Cousin as a fifth book of the "Dialectica"); Glosses on Porphyry, Boëius, and the Aristotelian "Categories"; "Glossulae in Porphyrium" (hitherto unpublished except in a French paraphrase by Rémusat); the fragment "De Generibus et Speciebus", ascribed to Abelard by Cousin; a moral treatise "Scito Teipsum, seu Ethica", first published by Pez in "Thes. Anecd. Noviss". All of these, with the exception of the "Glossulae" and the "Ethica", are to be found in Cousin's "Ouvrages inédits d'Abélard" (Paris, 1836). Abelard's theological works (published by Cousin, "Petri Abselardi Opera", in 2 vols., Paris, 1849-59, also by Migne, "Patr. Lat.", CLXXVIII) include "Sic et Non", consisting of scriptural and patristic passages arranged for and against various theological opinions, without any attempt to decide whether the affirmative or the negative opinion is correct or orthodox; "Tractatus de Unitate et Trinitate Divinâ", which was condemned at the Council of Sens (discovered and edited by Stölzle, Freiburg, 1891); "Theologia Christiana," a second and enlarged edition of the "Tractatus" (first published by Durand and Martène "Thes. Nov.," 1717); "Introductio in Theologiam' (more correctly, "Theologia"), of which the first part was published by Duchesne in 1616; "Dialogus inter Philosophum, Judaeum, et Christianum"; "Sententiae Petri Abaelardi", otherwise called "Epitomi Theologiae Christianae", which is seemingly a compilation by Abelard's pupils (first published by Rheinwald, Berlin, 1535); and several exegetical works hymns, sequences, etc. In philosophy Abelard deserves consideration primarily as a dialectician. For him, as for all the scholastic philosophers before the thirteenth century, philosophical inquiry meant almost exclusively the discussion and elucidation of the problems suggested by the logical treatises of Aristotle and the commentaries thereon, chiefly the commentaries of Porphyry and Boëtius. Perhaps his most important contribution to philosophy and theology is the method which he developed in his "Sic et Non" (Yea and Nay), a method germinally contained in the teaching of his predecessors, and afterwards brought to more definite form by Alexander of Hales and St. Thomas Aquinas. It consisted in placing before the student the reasons pro and contra, on the principle that truth is to be attained only by a dialectical discussion of apparently contradictory arguments and authorities. In the problem of Universals, which occupied so much of the attention of dialecticians in those days, Abelard took a position of uncompromising hostility to the crude nominalism of Roscelin on the one side, and to the exaggerated realism of William of Champeaux on the other. What, precisely, was his own doctrine on the question is a matter which cannot with accuracy be determined. However, from the statements of his pupil, John of Salisbury, it is clear that Abelard's doctrine, while expressed in terms of a modified Nominalism, was very similar to the moderate Realism which began to be official in the schools about half a century after Abelard's death. In ethics Abelard laid such great stress on the morality of the intention as apparently to do away with the objective distinction between good and evil acts. It is not the physical action itself, he said, nor any imaginary injury to God, that constitutes sin, but rather the psychological element in the action, the intention of sinning, which is formal contempt of God. With regard to the relation between reason and revelation, between the sciences -- including philosophy -- and theology, Abelard incurred in his own day the censure of mystic theologians like St. Bernard, whose tendency was to disinherit reason in favour of contemplation and ecstatic vision. And it is true that if the principles "Reason aids Faith" and "Faith aids Reason" are to be taken as the inspiration of scholastic theology, Abelard was constitutionally inclined to emphasize the former, and not lay stress on the latter. Besides, he adopted a tone, and employed a phraseology, when speaking of sacred subjects, which gave offence, and rightly, to the more conservative of his contemporaries. Still, Abelard had good precedent for his use of dialectic in the elucidation of the mysteries of faith; he was by no means an innovator in this respect; and though the thirteenth century, the golden age of scholasticism, knew little of Abelard, it took up his method, and with fearlessness equal to his, though without any of his flippancy or irreverence, gave full scope to reason in the effort to expound and defend the mysteries of the Christian Faith. St. Bernard sums up the charges against Abelard when he writes (Ep. cxcii) "Cum de Trinitate loquitur, sapit Arium; cum do gratiâ, sapit Pelagium; cum de personâ Christi, sapit Nestorium", and there is no doubt that on these several heads Abelard wrote and said many things which were open to objection from the point of view of orthodoxy. That is to say, while combating the opposite errors, he fell inadvertently into mistakes which he himself did not recognize as Arianism, Pelagianism, and Nestorianism, and which even his enemies could characterize merely as savouring of Arianism, Pelagianism, and Nestorianism. Abelard's influence on his immediate successors was not very great, owing partly to his conflict with the ecclesiastical authorities, and partly to his personal defects, more especially his vanity and pride, which must have given the impression that he valued truth less than victory.
        His influence on the philosophers and theologians of the thirteenth century was, however, very great. It was exercised chiefly through Peter Lombard, his pupil, and other framers of the "Sentences." Indeed, while one must be careful to discount the exaggerated encomiums of Compayré, Cousin, and others, who represent Abelard as the first modern, the founder of the University of Paris, etc., one is justified in regarding him, in spite of his faults of character and mistakes of judgment, as an important contributor to scholastic method, an enlightened opponent of obscurantism, and a continuator of that revival of learning which occurred in the Carolingian age, and of which whatever there is of science, literature, and speculation in the early Middle Ages is the historical development.

Zachary of Besançon (fl. c. 1150)

Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153)

        Born in 1090, at Fontaines, near Dijon, France; died at Clairvaux, 21 August, 1153.
        His parents were Tescelin, lord of Fontaines, and Aleth of Montbard, both belonging to the highest nobility of Burgundy. Bernard, the third of a family of seven children, six of whom were sons, was educated with particular care, because, while yet unborn, a devout man had foretold his great destiny. At the age of nine years, Bernard was sent to a much renowned school at Chatillon-sur-Seine, kept by the secular canons of Saint-Vorles. He had a great taste for literature and devoted himself for some time to poetry. His success in his studies won the admiration of his masters, and his growth in virtue was no less marked. Bernard's great desire was to excel in literature in order to take up the study of Sacred Scripture, which later on became, as it were, his own tongue. "Piety was his all," says Bossuet. He had a special devotion to the Blessed Virgin, and there is no one who speaks more sublimely of the Queen of Heaven. Bernard was scarcely nineteen years of age when his mother died. During his youth, he did not escape trying temptations, but his virtue triumphed over them, in many instances in a heroic manner, and from this time he thought of retiring from the world and living a life of solitude and prayer.
        St. Robert, Abbot of Molesmes, had founded, in 1098, the monastery of Cîteaux, about four leagues from Dijon, with the purpose of restoring the Rule of St. Benedict in all its rigour. Returning to Molesmes, he left the government of the new abbey to St. Alberic, who died in the year 1109. St. Stephen had just succeeded him (1113) as third Abbot of Cîteaux, when Bernard with thirty young noblemen of Burgundy, sought admission into the order. Three years later, St. Stephen sent the young Bernard, at the head of a band of monks, the third to leave Cîteaux, to found a new house at Vallée d'Absinthe, or Valley of Bitterness, in the Diocese of Langres. This Bernard named Claire Vallée, of Clairvaux, on the 25th of June, 1115, and the names of Bernard and Clairvaux thence became inseparable. During the absence of the Bishop of Langres, Bernard was blessed as abbot by William of Champeaux, Bishop of Châlons-sur-Marne, who saw in him the predestined man, servum Dei. From that moment a strong friendship sprang up between the abbot and the bishop, who was professor of theology at Notre Dame of Paris, and the founder of the cloister of St. Victor.
        The beginnings of Clairvaux were trying and painful. The regime was so austere that Bernard's health was impaired by it, and only the influence of his friend William of Champeaux, and the authority of the General Chapter could make him mitigate his austerities. The monastery, however, made rapid progress. Disciples flocked to it in great numbers, desirous of putting themselves under the direction of Bernard. His father, the aged Tescelin, and all his brothers entered Clairvaux as religious, leaving only Humbeline, his sister, in the world and she, with the consent of her husband, soon took the veil in the Benedictine Convent of Jully. Clairvaux becoming too small for the religious who crowded there, it was necessary to send out bands to found new houses. n 1118, the Monastery of the Three Fountains was founded in the Diocese of Châlons; in 1119, that of Fontenay in the Diocese of Auton (now Dijon) and in 1121, that of Foigny, near Vervins, in the Diocese of Laon (now Soissons), Notwithstanding this prosperity, the Abbot of Clairvaux had his trials. During an absence from Clairvaux, the Grand Prior of Cluny, Bernard of Uxells, sent by the Prince of Priors, to use the expression of Bernard, went to Clairvaux and enticed away the abbot's cousin, Robert of Châtillon. This was the occasion of the longest, and most touching of Bernard's letters.
        In the year 1119, Bernard was present at the first general chapter of the order convoked by Stephen of Cîteaux. Though not yet thirty years old, Bernard was listened to with the greatest attention and respect, especially when he developed his thoughts upon the revival of the primitive spirit of regularity and fervour in all the monastic orders. It was this general chapter that gave definitive form to the constitutions of the order and the regulations of the "Charter of Charity" which Pope Callixtus II confirmed 23 December, 1119. In 1120 Bernard composed his first work "De Gradibus Superbiae et Humilitatis" and his homilies which he entitles "De Laudibus Mariae". The monks of Cluny had not seen, with satisfaction, those of Cîteaux take the first place among the religious orders for regularity and fervour. For this reason there was a temptation on the part of the "Black Monks" to make it appear that the rules of the new order were impracticable. At the solicitation of William of St. Thierry, Bernard defended himself by publishing his "Apology" which is divided into two parts. In the first part he proves himself innocent of the invectives against Cluny, which had been attributed to him, and in the second he gives his reasons for his attack upon averred abuses. He protests his profound esteem for the Benedictines of Cluny whom he declares he loves equally as well as the other religious orders. Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Cluny, answered the Abbot of Clairvaux without wounding charity in the least, and assured him of his great admiration and sincere friendship. In the meantime Cluny established a reform, and Suger himself, the minister of Louis le Gros, and Abbot of St. Denis, was converted by the apology of Bernard. He hastened to terminate his worldly life and restore discipline in his monastery. The zeal of Bernard did not stop here; it extended to the bishops, the clergy, and the faithful, and remarkable conversions of persons engaged in worldly pursuits were among the fruits of his labours. Bernard's letter to the Archbishop of Sens is a real treatise "De Officiis Episcoporum". About the same time he wrote his work on "Grace and Free Will".
        In the year 1128, Bernard assisted at the Council of Troyes, which had been convoked by Pope Honorius II, and was presided over by Cardinal Matthew, Bishop of Albano. The purpose of this council was to settle certain disputes of the bishops of Paris, and regulate other matters of the Church of France. The bishops made Bernard secretary of the council, and charged him with drawing up the synodal statutes. After the council, the Bishop of Verdun was deposed. There then arose against Bernard unjust reproaches and he was denounced even in Rome, as a monk who meddled with matters that did not concern him. Cardinal Harmeric, on behalf of the pope, wrote Bernard a sharp letter of remonstrance. "It is not fitting" he said "that noisy and troublesome frogs should come out of their marshes to trouble the Holy See and the cardinals". Bernard answered the letter by saying that, if he had assisted at the council, it was because he had been dragged to it, as it were, by force. "Now illustrious Harmeric", he added, "if you so wished, who would have been more capable of freeing me from the necessity of assisting at the council than yourself? Forbid those noisy troublesome frogs to come out of their holes, to leave their marshes . . . Then your friend will no longer be exposed to the accusations of pride and presumption". This letter made a great impression upon the cardinal, and justified its author both in his eyes and before the Holy See. It was at this council that Bernard traced the outlines of the Rule of the Knights Templars who soon became the ideal of the French nobility. Bernard praises it in his "De Laudibus Novae Militiae".
        The influence of the Abbot of Clairvaux was soon felt in provincial affairs. He defended the rights of the Church against the encroachments of kings and princes, and recalled to their duty Henry Archbishop of Sense, and Stephen de Senlis, Bishop of Paris. On the death of Honorius II, which occurred on the 14th of February, 1130, a schism broke out in the Church by the election of two popes, Innocent II and Anacletus II. Innocent II having been banished from Rome by Anacletus took refuge in France. King Louis le Gros convened a national council of the French bishops at Etampes, and Bernard, summoned thither by consent of the bishops, was chosen to judge between the rival popes. He decided in favour of Innocent II, caused him to be recognized by all the great Catholic powers, went with him into Italy, calmed the troubles that agitated the country, reconciled Pisa with Genoa, and Milan with the pope and Lothaire. According to the desire of the latter, the pope went to Liège to consult with the emperor upon the best means to be taken for his return to Rome, for it was there that Lothaire was to receive the imperial crown from the hands of the pope. From Liège, the pope returned to France, paid a visit to the Abbey of St. Denis, and then to Clairvaux where his reception was of a simple and purely religious character. The whole pontifical court was touched by the saintly demeanor of this band of monks. In the refectory only a few common fishes were found for the pope, and instead of wine, the juice of herbs was served for drink, says an annalist of Cîteaux. It was not a table feast that was served to the pope and his followers, but a feast of virtues. The same year Bernard was again at the Council of Reims at the side of Innocent II, whose oracle he was; and then in Aquitaine where he succeeded for the time in detaching William, Count of Poitiers, from the cause of Anacletus.
        In 1132, Bernard accompanied Innocent II into Italy, and at Cluny the pope abolished the dues which Clairvaux used to pay to this celebrated abbey--an action which gave rise to a quarrel between the "White Monks" and the "Black Monks" which lasted twenty years. In the month of May, the pope supported by the army of Lothaire, entered Rome, but Lothaire, feeling himself too weak to resist the partisans of Anacletus, retired beyond the Alps, and Innocent sought refuge in Pisa in September, 1133. In the meantime the abbot had returned to France in June, and was continuing the work of peacemaking which he had commenced in 1130. Towards the end of 1134, he made a second journey into Aquitaine, where William X had relapsed into schism. This would have died out of itself if William could have been detached from the cause of Gerard, who had usurped the See of Bordeaux and retained that of Angoulême. Bernard invited William to the Mass which he celebrated in the Church of La Couldre. At the moment of the Communion, placing the Sacred Host upon the paten, he went to the door of the church where William was, and pointing to the Host, he adjured the Duke not to despise God as he did His servants. William yielded and the schism ended. Bernard went again to Italy, where Roger of Sicily was endeavouring to withdraw the Pisans from their allegiance to Innocent. He recalled the city of Milan, which had been deceived and misled by the ambitious prelate Anselm, Archbishop of Milan, to obedience to the pose, refused the Archbishopric of Milan, and returned finally to Clairvaux. Believing himself at last secure in his cloister Bernard devoted himself with renewed vigour to the composition of those pious and learned works which have won for him the title of "Doctor of the Church". He wrote at this time his sermons on the "Canticle of Canticles". In 1137 he was again forced to leave his solitude by order of the pope to put an end to the quarrel between Lothaire and Roger of Sicily. At the conference held at Palermo, Bernard succeeded in convincing Roger of the rights of Innocent II and in silencing Peter of Pisa who sustained Anacletus. The latter died of grief and disappointment in 1138, and with him the schism. Returning to Clairvaux, Bernard occupied himself in sending bands of monks from his too-crowded monastery into Germany, Sweden, England, Ireland, Portugal, Switzerland, and Italy. Some of these, at the command of Innocent II, took possession of Three Fountains Abbey, near the Salvian Waters in Rome, from which Pope Eugenius III was chosen. Bernard resumed his commentary on the "Canticle of Canticles", assisted in 1139, at the Second General Lateran Council and the Tenth Oecumenical, in which the surviving adherents of the schism were definitively condemned. About the same time, Bernard was visited at Clairvaux by St. Malachi, metropolitan of the Church in Ireland, and a very close friendship was formed between them. St. Malachi would gladly have taken the Cistercian habit, but the sovereign pontiff would not give his permission. He died, however, at Clairvaux in 1148.
        In the year 1140, we find Bernard engaged in other matters which disturbed the peace of the Church. Towards the close of the eleventh century, the schools of philosophy and theology, dominated by the passion for discussion and a spirit of independence which had introduced itself into political and religious questions, became a veritable public arena, with no other motive than that of ambition. This exaltation of human reason and rationalism found an ardent and powerful adherent in Abelard, the most eloquent and learned man of the age after Bernard. "The history of the calamities and the refutation of his doctrine by St. Bernard", says Ratisbonne, "form the greatest episode of the twelfth century". Abelard's treatise on the Trinity had been condemned in 1121, and he himself had thrown his book into the fire. But in 1139 he advocated new errors. Bernard, informed of this by William of St. Thierry, wrote to Abelard who answered in an insulting manner. Bernard then denounced him to the pope who caused a general council to be held at Sens. Abelard asked for a public discussion with Bernard; the latter showed his opponent's errors with such clearness and force of logic that he was unable to make any reply, and was obliged, after being condemned, to retire. he pope confirmed the judgment of the council, Abelard submitted without resistance, and retired to Cluny to live under Peter the Venerable, where he died two years later.
        Innocent II died in 1143. His two successors, Celestin II and Lucius, reigned only a short time, and then Bernard saw one of his disciples, Bernard of Pisa, Abbott of Three Fountains, and known thereafter as Eugenius III, raised to the Chair of St. Peter. Bernard sent him, at his own request, various instructions which compose the "Book of Consideration", the predominating idea of which is that the reformation of the Church ought to commence with the sanctity of the head. Temporal matters are merely accessories; the principal are piety, meditation, or consideration, which ought to precede action. The book contains a most beautiful page on the papacy, and has always been greatly esteemed by the sovereign pontiffs, many of whom used it for their ordinary reading.
        Alarming news came at this time from the East. Edessa had fallen into the hands of the Turks, and Jerusalem and Antioch were threatened with similar disaster. Deputations of the bishops of Armenia solicited aid from the pope, and the King of France also sent ambassadors. The pope commissioned Bernard to preach a new Crusade and granted the same indulgences for it which Urban II had accorded to the first. A parliament was convoked at Vezelay in Burgundy in 1134, and Bernard preached before the assembly. The King, Louis le Jeune, Queen Eleanor, and the princes and lords present prostrated themselves at the feet of the Abbot of Clairvaux to receive the cross. The saint was obliged to use portions of his habit to make crosses to satisfy the zeal and ardour of the multitude who wished to take part in the Crusade. Bernard passed into Germany, and the miracles which multiplied almost at his every step undoubtedly contributed to the success of his mission. The Emperor Conrad and his nephew Frederick Barbarossa, received the pilgrims' cross from the hand of Bernard, and Pope Eugenius, to encourage the enterprise, came in person to France. It was on the occasion of this visit, 1147, that a council was held at Paris, at which the errors of Gilbert de la Porée, Bishop of Poitiers, were examined. He advanced among other absurdities that the essence and the attributes of God are not God, that the properties of the Persons of the Trinity are not the persons themselves in fine that the Divine Nature did not become incarnate. The discussion was warm on both sides. The decision was left for the council which was held at Reims the following year (1148), and in which Eon de l'Etoile was one of the judges. Bernard was chosen by the council to draw up a profession of faith directly opposed to that of Gilbert, who concluding by stating to the Fathers: "If you believe and assert differently than I have done I am willing to believe and speak as you do". The consequence of this declaration was that the pope condemned the assertions of Gilbert without denouncing him personally. After the council the pope paid a visit to Clairvaux, where he held a general chapter of the order and was able to realize the prosperity of which Bernard was the soul.
       The last years of Bernard's life were saddened by the failure of the Crusade he had preached, the entire responsibility for which was thrown upon him. He had accredited the enterprise by miracles, but he had not guaranteed its success against the misconduct and perfidy of those who participated in it. Lack of discipline and the over-confidence of the German troops, the intrigues of the Prince of Antioch and Queen Eleanor, and finally the avarice and evident treason of the Christian nobles of Syria, who prevented the capture of Damascus, appear to have been the cause of disaster. Bernard considered it his duty to send an apology to the pope and it is inserted in the second part of his "Book of Consideration". There he explains how, with the crusaders as with the Hebrew people, in whose favour the Lord had multiplies his prodigies, their sins were the cause of their misfortune and miseries. The death of his contemporaries served as a warning to Bernard of his own approaching end The first to die was Suger (1152), of whom the Abbot wrote to Eugenius III: "If there is any precious vase adorning the palace of the King of Kings it is the soul of the venerable Suger". Thibaud, Count of Champagne, Conrad, Emperor of Germany, and his son Henry died the same year. From the beginning of the year 1153 Bernard felt his death approaching. The passing of Pope Eugenius had struck the fatal blow by taking from him one whom he considered his greatest friend and consoler. Bernard died in the sixty-third year of his age, after forty years spent in the cloister. He founded one hundred and sixty-three monasteries in different parts of Europe; at his death they numbered three hundred and forty-three. He was the first Cistercian monk placed on the calendar of saints and was canonized by Alexander III, 18 January 1174. Pope Pius VIII bestowed on him the title of Doctor of the Church. The Cistercians honour him as only the founders of orders are honoured, because of the wonderful and widespread activity which he gave to the Order of Cîteaux.

The works of St. Bernard are as follows:

"De Gradibus Superbiae", his first treatise;
"Homilies on the Gospel 'Missus est'" (1120);
"Apology to William of St. Thierry" against the claims of the monks of Cluny;
"On the Conversion of Clerics", a book addressed to the young ecclesiastics of Paris (1122);
"De Laudibus Novae Militiae", addressed to Hughes de Payns, first Grand Master and Prior of Jerusalem (1129). This is a eulogy of the military order instituted in 1118, and an exhortation to the knights to conduct themselves with courage in their several stations.
"De amore Dei" wherein St. Bernard shows that the manner of loving God is to love Him without measure and gives the different degree of this love;
"Book of Precepts and Dispensations" (1131), which contains answers to questions upon certain points of the Rule of St. Benedict from which the abbot can, or cannot, dispense;
"De Gratiâ et Libero Arbitrio" in which the Catholic dogma of grace and free will is proved according to the principles of St. Augustine;
"Book of Considerations", addressed to Pope Eugenius III;
"De Officiis Episcoporum", addressed to Henry, Archbishop of Sens.

His sermons are also numerous:

"On Psalm 90, 'Qui habitat'" (about 1125);
"On the Canticle of Canticles". St. Bernard explained in eighty-six sermons only the first two chapters of the Canticle of Canticles and the first verse of the third chapter.

There are also eighty-six "Sermons for the Whole Year"; his "Letters" number 530.
        Many other letters, treatises, etc., falsely attributed to him are found among his works, such as the "l'Echelle du Cloître", which is the work of Guigues, Prior of La Grande Chartreuse, les Méditations, l'Edification de la Maison intérieure, etc.

Peter Lombard (c. 1100-1160)

Source: The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Life
        Peter Lombard, a scholastic theologian of the twelfth century, was commonly known as "the Lombard" after his birthplace which actually was probably Novara. It is expected that he then moved to Lombardy approximately after his birth in 1105-1110 CE He died in Paris, France about 1160 (1164). Although his family was poor, he found powerful patrons such as St. Bernard, that enabled him to gain a higher education at Bologna, then at Reims in France, and finally in Paris. In Paris, Peter taught theology in the cathedral school of Notre Dame, and it was there he found the time to produce the works discussed later in this article. Their dates can be only approximately fixed. The most famous of them, the Libri quatuor sententiarum , was probably composed between 1147 and 1150, although it may be placed as late as 1155. Nothing is certainly known of his later life except that be became bishop of Paris in 1159. According to Walter of St. Victor, a hostile witness, Peter obtained the office by simony; the more usual story is that Philip, younger brother of Louis VII. and archdeacon of Paris, was elected but declined in favor of Peter, his teacher. The date of his death can not be determined with certainty. The ancient epitaph in the church of St. Marcel at Paris assigns it to 1164, but the figures seem to be a later addition. The demonstrable fact that Maurice of Sully was bishop before the end of 1160 seems conclusive against it, although it is possible that in that year he resigned his see and lived three or four years longer.

The Sentences
        The historic importance of Peter Lombard rests on his Sentences and the position taken by them in medieval philosophy. The earlier dogmatic theologians, such as Isidore of Seville, Alcuin, and Paschasius Radbert, had attempted to establish the doctrine of the Church from Bible texts and quotations from the Fathers. In the eleventh century this method gave place to dialectical and speculative working over of the traditional dogmas. Peter Lombard came into the field at a time when the now methods and their dialectical artifices were still exposed to wide-spread objection, but when the thirst for knowledge was exceedingly keen. One text-book after another was being published, the majority of them either issuing from the school of Abelard, or in some degree inspired by him. Of these works the greatest influence was attained by that of Peter, which was, for the time, an admirable compendium of theological knowledge. It is written under the influence preeminently of Abelard, Hugo of St. Victor, and the Decretum of Gratian. Whether Peter had himself seen the early writers whom he cites is frequently uncertain. Peter was a man of wide reading, but the works of the Fathers had been used again and again in long catent of "sentences " which rendered it unnecessary to go to the original treatises. As to his contemporaries, whom he knew thoroughly, he shows the influence of Abelard in his whole method and in countless details, while preserving a critical attitude toward his most pronounced peculiarities. On the other hand, he follows Hugo very closely and often textually, though here also with a tendency to avoid the purely speculative elements. For his sacramental doctrine, Gratian is very useful, especially through the quotations adduced by him and his legal attitude toward these questions.

Analysis of the Sentences
        The first book of the " Sentences ", deals, principally from a cosmological standpoint, with the evidences for the existence of God. For the doctrine of the Trinity he appeals to the analogies used since Augustine. However, he denies that any real knowledge of the doctrine can be obtained from these analogies without positive revelation and faith, and emphasizing the fact that human speech cannot give a satisfactory account of the nature of God. Joachim of Flore asserted that Peter changed the Trinity into a quaternity, and the charge was investigated at the Lateran Council of 1215. The basis of this charge was the manner in which he distinguished the divine substance from the three persons. Lombard asserted, as a realist, the substantive reality of this common substance. Joachim accused him of adding this substance to the three persons, but Innocent III. and the council decided that he was perfectly orthodox. The relation between the prescience of God and events is conceived in such a way that neither that which happens is the actual ground of the foreknowledge nor the latter of the former, but each is to the other a causa sine qua non . Predestination is thus, as a divine election, the preparation of grace and the foreknowledge and preparation of the blessings of God, through which man is justified. There is no such thing as merit antecedent to grace, not even in the sense that man can merit not to be cast away. The omnipotence of God consists in this, that he does what he wills and suffers nothing. A distinction is made between the absolute uncaused will of God, which is always accomplished, and what may be called his will in a loose sense. To the signa beneplaciti , the signs of the latter, including commands, prohibitions, counsels, operations, permissions, results do not always correspond-" for God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son, yet did not will it to be done."
        The second book of the Sentences deals with creation and the doctrine of the angels. Peter, following Hugo, considers the " image " and " likeness " of God as distinct, but does not decide for any of the three explanations of this distinction which he quotes. He rejects the traducianist theory of the origin of the human soul. He calls the will free, inasmuch as it " has power to desire and choose, without coercion or necessity, what it has decreed on grounds of reason," but he denies Abelard's theory that the moral character of an act depends on the will of the doer. Of some importance is the strong emphasis laid upon the actually sinful character of the nature derived from Adam, in conjunction with the condemnation of Abelard's proposition that " we inherit from Adam not guilt but penalty." In regard to grace he shows some independent thought, which had its influence on later teaching. Grace (gratia operans) is a power (virtus) which frees and heals the will, enabling it to perform good and meritorious works. Of grace and the will, grace is the more important. The third book deals with Christology, reproducing the traditional orthodox conceptions, but showing some influence from Abelard. One portion of this discussion brought him into suspicion of Nihilianism. He was accused by John of Cornwall and Walter of St. Victor, and more than one council took up the question without reaching a conclusion. The charge of Nestorianisn, which Gerhoh of Reichersberg brought against the Christology of his time, was made also against the Lombard. In regard to the atonement, he endeavored both to follow out the accepted system of his day and to make use of suggestions from Abelard. Christ merited glorification by his life, and by his death man's entrance into Paradise, his liberation from sin and its penalty and from the power of the devil. Christ as man is a perfect and sufficient sacrifice to achieve reconciliation, through the revelation of God's love made in his death; " the death of Christ then justifies us, when by it love is awakened in our hearts." Further, Christ sets man free from eternal punishment relaxando debitum; but to set man free from the temporal punishment, which is remitted in baptism and mitigated by penance, " the penances laid upon those who repent by the Church would not suffice unless the penalty borne by Christ were added to release us." There is a lack of clearness about this whole subject; the ideas of Abelard (Anselm is not noticed) show themselves now and again through all the effort to preserve the objective notion of the work of redemption.
        The fourth book deals with the sacraments. Here Peter follows Hugo and the Decretum of Gratian; and his teaching was of great significance for the later development. He was probably the first to make a distinct classification of seven and only seven sacraments; he laid down the dogmatic questions to be discussed under the head of each, and he introduced matter from church law into his discussion of the sacramental dogma. In regard to the Eucharist, he speaks of the " conversion " of one substance into the other, without defining any further, and denies both the symbolic view and the consubstantiation taught by some followers of Berengar. In his doctrine of penance he follows Abelard in seeking theoretical justification for the change which by this time had taken place in the practice.
        In spite of the cautious objectivity of the whole treatment, some of the propositions laid down in the "Sentences " were considered erroneous in after years. Walter of St. Victor asserts that at the Lateran council of 1179 it was proposed to condemn the Sentences but other matters prevented a discussion of the proposal. From the middle of the thirteenth century the University of Paris refused its assent to eight propositions, of a highly technical character, it is true, and Bonaventure declined to press them. Others were afterward added; but these objections did not interfere with the general popularity of the work, which had increased to such an extent by Roger Bacon's time (1267) that he could complain that lectures on it had forced those on Scriptural subjects into the background. Besides the " Sentences," other extant works of Peter Lombard are Commentarius in psalmos Davidicos and Collectanea in omnes D. Paitli epistolas both collections, in the manner of medieval Catenae, of quotations from patristic and early medieval theologians, with occasional independent remarks. A few unpublished manuscripts, some of them of doubtful authenticity, remain in various places. Of these the most important for a complete knowledge of the author are two manuscripts, one early thirteenth century, the other fourteenth, in the Bibliotheque Nationale at Paris, containing twenty-five festival sermons representing. a moderate type of medieval mystical theology, dominated by allegorical exegesis, but making some excellent practical points.

Source: The Catholic Encylopedia
        Theologian, b. at Novara (or perhaps Lumello), Italy, about 1100; d. about 1160-64. He studied first at Bologna, later on at Reims and Paris. St. Bernard, who had provided for his wants at Reims, gave him a letter of recommendation to the Abbot of St. Victor, Gilduin (1114-55). To judge from this letter, his stay at Paris was to be short: "per breve tempus usque ad Nativitatem Virginis". There is no evidence of his having gone back to Italy. We learn from John of Cornwall, his pupil, that he assiduously studied the works of Abelard, whose lectures he had probably followed about 1136. His own writings show the influence of his master. In 1148, he was at Reims in company with Robert of Melun, both being called "magistri scholares" by Otto of Freisingen; and he joined Adam du Petit-Pont, Hughes of Amicus, and others, in theological discussions with Gilbert de la Porrée. About the same time (1145-51) he wrote his "Book of Sentences". He was then professor at the school of Notre Dame.
        He was acquainted before this date with the works of Gratian the canonist, for he utilizes the "Decretum" in his "Sentences". About the same time he had in his hands the newly-finished translation of St. John Damascene by Burgundio of Pisa: all these details show the care he had to enlarge the circle of his knowledge. In 1152 Eugene III had a prebendaryship conferred on him by the Archbishop of Beauvais (Jaffé-Wattenbach, 9534). In 1158 or 1159 he was appointed Archbishop of Paris; but held the office for a short time only, being succeeded by Maurice de Sully, the builder of the present Cathedral of Notre Dame, in 1160 or 1161. He died some time after, but the exact date is unknown; it could not have been later than 1164; in the years that follow we sometimes meet his name in the cartulary of Notre Dame of Paris: the house he lived in is put up for sale; his original copy of the "Sentences" is bequeathed by Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury, to the library of Notre Dame. The old legend that makes him the brother of Gratian of Bologna and of Peter Comestor has no foundation whatever.
        The works of Peter Lombard include: (1) "Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul" which have come down to us in quite a number of manuscripts. They are chiefly a compilation of patristic and medieval exegesis, after the manner of the professors of the age and of the old "Catenae"; (2) "Sermons", which are also found in quite a number of manuscripts; they are rather dry, often allegorical, and always very methodical in their divisions; several of them are printed among the works of Hildebert du Mans and others; extracts of others have been published by Protois (cf. infra); (3) The "Sentences" ("Quatuor libri Sententiarum"). It is this theological work above all that made the name of Peter Lombard famous, and gives him a special place in the history of theology in the Middle Ages. Henceforth he is called the "Magister Sententiarum", or simply the "Magister". The work is divided into four books. In a long series of questions it covers the whole body of theological doctrine and unites it in a systematized whole. Towards the thirteenth century, the various books were divided into distinctiones (an old Latin word that first meant a pause in reading, then a division into chapters), though the author had done nothing more than to have the questions follow one another; in the manuscripts, these questions do not always bear the same title.
        The first book treats of God and the Blessed Trinity, of God's attributes, of Providence, of predestination, and of evil; the second, of the creation, the work of the six days, the angels, the demons, the fall, grace, and sin; the third, of the Incarnation, the Redemption, the virtues, and the Ten Commandments; the fourth, of the sacraments in general, the seven sacraments in particular, and the four last things, death, judgment, hell, and heaven. The "Book of Sentences" was written about 1150. In any case it was subsequent to the composition of the "Decretum" of Gratian of Bologna, which dates from about 1140 and contains pages that bear a striking likeness to the "Sentences". A careful examination of the texts cited in each author, in the same order, with the same inaccuracies or the same changes, Peter Lombard's citation of some "Dicta Gratiani", and his opposition to some of Gratian's opinions (e.g. on the question of the essence of marriage) -- all these facts prove the priority of the "Decretum" to the "Sentences"; the old view of the canonist Schulte has been abandoned for that of P. Fournier, who has demonstrated Peter's dependence on Gratian. A manuscript of the "Sentences" written in 1158 still exists, but there is every reason to believe that the work was finished some eight years earlier.
        On the other hand, Gandulph of Bologna, who has been credited with having inspired Peter, is later than the Lombard; he utilized, transcribed, or synopsized parts of the work of the "Magister Sententiarum". The method and purpose of the book found their explanation in the intellectual movement of the times: arguments from authority laying down the doctrine, and dialectics which reasons about dogma or conciliates the "Auctoritates" (as Abelard advised), are the most striking features in its composition. This work may be looked upon as the result of the two tendencies of the period: the one indulging, sometimes too much, in speculation, the other recurring to authority. It must be confessed that Peter Lombard tried to steer a middle course between these opposing tendencies. From Abelard, whose work had hardly lost its fascination in spite of the condemnations of Soissons and Sens, he borrows freely; but he is on guard against Abelard's errors. He has no desire to make Christian doctrine a matter for controversy after the manner of the "garruli ratiocinatores" against whom he has to defend himself. But he has no hesitation in exposing in a reasoned way the different points of doctrine: it is but the method followed with still greater success and depth by St. Thomas. He makes full use of the Bible and the Fathers, but he never goes to the point of refusing reason its due rôle. It is here that the works of the School of St. Victor are especially serviceable to him: he borrows considerably from Hugo's "De Sacramentis", as well as from the "Summa Sententiarum", which, though not written by Hugo, is very much indebted to him. In addition to the foregoing, mention must be made of Abelard, Gratian, Ivo of Chartres, and Alger of Liège as the chief sources of the "Liber Sententiarum".
        Among the Fathers of the Church Augustine is quoted about ten or fifteen times as often as Ambrose, Jerome, or Hilary; the Greek Fathers, with the exception of John Damascene, who is quoted about twenty-five times, are scarcely represented; the ante-Nicene writers, except Origen, are mentioned on no more than five or six occasions; nevertheless, one may say that the "Sentences", with Gratian's work, are the chief sources whence many theologians of the Middle Ages drew their knowledge of the Fathers. Peter's work is mainly a compilation. Whole "distinctions" have been traced in detail to their sources; scarcely more than ten lines have been found to be original. He makes no secret of this; his plan was to write a kind of Corpus which would save the trouble of looking up many different volumes. But this fact cannot blind us to the merits of his work; he opposed the excesses of the dialecticians and at the same time found a via media to calm the fears of those who advocated a complete separation of reason and dogma. He arranged traditional doctrines and theories in a system and summarized the controversies of the time and the opinions involved in the different questions. Besides, his attempted solutions of many questions roused the students' curiosity and led the professors to comment on him. On the whole and in spite of his connection with Abelard, he is orthodox; a proposition of his on "Christological nihilism" was condemned by Alexander III; other theses were abandoned in the century that followed; St. Bonaventure mentions eight of them and the University of Paris later added others. But the success of the book was incontestable; down to the sixteenth century it was the textbook in the university courses, upon which each future doctor had to lecture during two years.
        The want of originality and the refusal of the "Magister" to decide upon many points between two solutions were very favourable to the work of the masters who commented upon him. But the success of Peter Lombard was not immediate. Attacked sometimes during his lifetime, as Maurice of Sully among others relates, after his death he was bitterly inveighed against, especially by Gautier of St. Victor and by Joachim of Flora. This opposition even went so far as to try to get his writings condemned. In 1215 at the Lateran Council these attempts were baffled, and the second canon began a profession of faith in these words: "Credimus cum Petro [Lombardo]". The exegetical work and the "Sentences" of Peter Lombard have often been printed: the commentaries upon the Epistles of St. Paul in 1474, etc.; the "Sentences" were printed in 1472 and for the last time in 1892 (Paris). Migne contains these three works (P.L., CXCI, CXCII). The best edition of the "Sentences" is that which is found in the commentary of St. Bonaventure (Opera S. Bonaventurae, Quaracchi, 1885, I-IV).

        I've added info for a few of the above individuals, mainly those whose influence was greater and more lasting. The one thing you will want especially take note of: the writings are coming mostly from monks or from bishops who preside over a cathedral with an attached monastery. Under the provision of the Church, individuals could now begin devoting most all of their time to study and writing. The gradually emerging political stability in Europe offered these individuals the opportunity to work without the dangerous threats of warfare etc. swirling around them.
 

2.1.3.3 From about 1150 to about 1350, High Middle Ages
Assigned Readings for This Topic:
Gerald Bray, Biblical Interpretation: Past and Present, relevant sections in this chapter.

Resource Materials to also be studied:
Prof. Bray's characterization of this period, p. 132:

This was the High Middle Ages, the time of a powerful papacy, of knights in shining armour and of courtly love. It was also the time when universities came into being, of which the most famous were at Paris, Oxford, Cambridge and Cologne. This period also saw the greatest flowering of medieval philosophy, theology and mystical writing. The medieval world received its first great intellectual jolt with the translation of Aristotle (from Arabic, not Greek!) in the twellfth century. This was perceived as such a threat to the existing order that the study of Aristotle was continually being banned -- the last and most famous occasion being the condemnation of his works by the Sorbonne in 1277. By that time, however, Aristotle had been absorbed into the theological system of the church, thanks to the work of Thomas Aquinas (1226-1274), and his writings were no longer such a danger to the established order.

The Victorines

Hugh of St Victor (d. 1141)

      Life. Hugh of St. Victor was born at Hartingam in Saxony. From 1125 until his death in 1141 he taught at the abbey of St. Victor. He is regarded as the founder of the Victorine school.
         Sources. The mystical works of Hugh include De Arca Noe Morali, De Arca Noe Mystica, De Vanitate Mundi, De Arrha Animae, De Amore Sponsi ad Sponsam. These are published by Migne, Patr. Lat., Vols. CLXXV-CLXXVII. A special work dealing with the philosophy of the Victorines is Mignon's Origines de la scolastique, etc. (Paris, 1895).
        Doctrines. Hugh taught that the contemplation of invisible essences and causes is the true complement of philosophy. "Sapientes hujus mundi propterea stulti facti sunt quia soli naturali documento incedentes, exemplaria gratiae non habuerunt."{3} Reason cannot penetrate to the truths of the natural order unless aided by God: "Ratio per se non sufficit, nisi a Deo adjuta fuerit." All knowledge is but the preliminary to the mystic life which leads to God. In this mystic life we must distinguish the preparative stage in which the soul engages in soliloquy, etc., thought (cogitatio), by which the soul seeks God in the material world, meditation (meditatio), by which the soul seeks God in the interior of the soul itself, and contemplation (contemplatio), by which the soul is united immediately with God in supernatural intuition.{4}

        Richard of St. Victor, who succeeded Hugh as prior of St. Victor, taught from 1162 to 1173. Under his influence the mystic movement took up a position of more determined hostility to secular learning. The knowledge, Richard declared, of which profane philosophy boasts is nothing but error and vanity: "Suspecta est mihi omnis veritas quam non confirmat Scripturae auctoritas."{5} He observes with pleasure, "Multi qui prius fabricabant in officina Aristotelis . . . discunt cudere in officina Salvatoris."

Walter of St Victor (fl. c. 1150-1160)

It was, however, Walter of St. Victor, successor of Richard, who carried the mystic disapproval of secular learning to the extent of characterizing dialectic as "the devil's art." He wrote a work entitled In Quatuor Labyrinthos Franciae, in which Abelard, Peter of Lombardy, Peter of Poitiers, and Gilbert de la Porrée (the "four labyrinths") were denounced as heretics because they had treated with "Scholastic levity" the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation.

Hugh of St Cher (fl. c. 1230-1235)

        A Dominican cardinal of the thirteenth century; b. at St-Cher, near Vienne, in Dauphiné (France), about 1200; d. at Orvieto (Italy), 19 March, 1263.
        He studied philosophy, theology, and jurisprudence in Paris, and next taught law in the same city. In 1225 he entered the Order of St. Dominic, and soon discharged therein the office of provincial, and next (1230) that of prior of the Dominican monastery in Paris. He became the confidant and adviser of several bishops, and the trusty envoy of Gregory IX to Constantinople (1233). In 1244 Innocent IV raised him to the cardinalate, and was greatly helped by him at the Council of Lyons (1245). The same pontiff entrusted him with various important affairs, approved whatever changes Hugh suggested in the altogether too strict rule which Albert the Patriarch of Jerusalem, had wished to impose on the Carmelites, and after the death of the Emperor Frederick II, sent him as his legate to Germany. Alexander IV appointed him one of the examiners of the so-called "Evangelium Æternum".
        Chiefly through Hugh's exertions, the Dominicans were provided with a new Biblical "Correctorium", which is still extant in manuscript, and which is still known as "Correctorium Hugonis" and "Correctorium Praedicatorum". His "Postillae in universa Biblia juxta quadruplicem sensum, litteralem, allegoricum, moralem, anagogicum" has often been printed, and bears witness to his untiring industry as a compiler of explanations of the Sacred Text. He is justly regarded as the first author of a verbal "Concordance" to Holy Writ, a work which became the model for all following publications of the kind (see CONCORDANCES OF THE BIBLE). Cardinal Hugh composed also numerous shorter works, among which may be mentioned: "Speculum Sacerdotum et Ecclesiae"; "Sermones dominicales", "Sermones de Tempore et Sanctis"; "Commentarius in IV. libros Sententiarum".

        Philosopher, theologian, doctor of the Church (Angelicus Doctor), patron of Catholic universities, colleges, and schools. Born at Rocca Secca in the Kingdom of Naples, 1225 or 1227; died at Fossa Nuova, 7 March, 1274.

I. LIFE

        The great outlines and all the important events of his life are known, but biographers differ as to some details and dates. Death prevented Henry Denifle from executing his project of writing a critical life of the saint. Denifle's friend and pupil, Dominic Prümmer, O.P., professor of theology in the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, took up the work and published the "Fontes Vitae S. Thomae Aquinatis, notis historicis et criticis illustrati"; and the first fascicle (Toulouse, 1911) has appeared, giving the life of St. Thomas by Peter Calo (1300) now published for the first time. From Tolomeo of Lucca . . . we learn that at the time of the saint's death there was a doubt about his exact age (Prümmer, op. cit., 45). The end of 1225 is usually assigned as the time of his birth. Father Prümmer, on the authority of Calo, thinks 1227 is the more probable date (op. cit., 28). All agree that he died in 1274.
        Landulph, his father, was Count of Aquino; Theodora, his mother, Countess of Teano. His family was related to the Emperors Henry VI and Frederick II, and to the Kings of Aragon, Castile, and France. Calo relates that a holy hermit foretold his career, saying to Theodora before his birth: "He will enter the Order of Friars Preachers, and so great will be his learning and sanctity that in his day no one will be found to equal him" (Prümmer, op. cit., 18). At the age of five, according to the custom of the times, he was sent to receive his first training from the Benedictine monks of Monte Cassino. Diligent in study, he was thus early noted as being meditative and devoted to prayer, and his preceptor was surprised at hearing the child ask frequently: "What is God?"
        About the year 1236 he was sent to the University of Naples. Calo says that the change was made at the instance of the Abbot of Monte Cassino, who wrote to Thomas's father that a boy of such talents should not be left in obscurity (Prümmcr, op. cit., 20). At Naples his preceptors were Pietro Martini and Petrus Hibernus. The chronicler says that he soon surpassed Martini at grammar, and he was then given over to Peter of Ireland, who trained him in logic and the natural sciences. The customs of the times divided the liberal arts into two courses: the Trivium, embracing grammar, logic, and rhetoric; the Quadrivium, comprising music, mathematics, geometry, and astronomy . . . . Thomas could repeat the lessons with more depth and lucidity than his masters displayed. The youth's heart had remained pure amidst the corruption with which he was surrounded, and he resolved to embrace the religious life.
       Some time between 1240 and August, 1243, he received the habit of the Order of St. Dominic, being attracted and directed by John of St. Julian, a noted preacher of the convent of Naples. The city wondered that such a noble young man should don the garb of poor friar. His mother, with mingled feelings of joy and sorrow, hastened to Naples to see her son. The Dominicans, fearing she would take him away, sent him to Rome, his ultimate destination being Paris or Cologne. At the instance of Theodora, Thomas's brothers, who were soldiers under the Emperor Frederick, captured the novice near the town of Aquapendente and confined him in the fortress of San Giovanni at Rocca Secca. Here he was detained nearly two years, his parents, brothers, and sisters endeavouring by various means to destroy his vocation. The brothers even laid snares for his virtue, but the pure-minded novice drove the temptress from his room with a brand which he snatched from the fire. Towards the end of his life, St. Thomas confided to his faithful friend and companion, Reginald of Piperno, the secret of a remarkable favour received at this time. When the temptress had been driven from his chamber, he knelt and most earnestly implored God to grant him integrity of mind and body. He fell into a gentle sleep, and, as he slept, two angels appeared to assure him that his prayer had been heard. They then girded him about with a white girdle, saying: "We gird thee with the girdle of perpetual virginity." And from that day forward he never experienced the slightest motions of concupiscence.
        The time spent in captivity was not lost. His mother relented somewhat, after the first burst of anger and grief; the Dominicans were allowed to provide him with new habits, and through the kind offices of his sister he procured some books -- the Holy Scriptures, Aristotle's Metaphysics, and the "Sentences" of Peter Lombard. After eighteen months or two years spent in prison, either because his mother saw that the hermit's prophecy would eventually be fulfilled or because his brothers feared the threats of Innocent IV and Frederick II, he was set at liberty, being lowered in a basket into the arms of the Dominicans, who were delighted to find that during his captivity "he had made as much progress as if he had been in a studium generale" (Calo, op. cit., 24).
        Thomas immediately pronounced his vows, and his superiors sent him to Rome. Innocent IV examined closely into his motives in joining the Friars Preachers, dismissed him with a blessing, and forbade any further interference with his vocation. John the Teutonic, fourth master general of the order, took the young student to Paris and, according to the majority of the saint's biographers, to Cologne, where he arrived in 1244 or 1245, and was placed under Albertus Magnus, the most renowned professor of the order. In the schools Thomas's humility and taciturnity were misinterpreted as signs of dullness, but when Albert had heard his brilliant defence of a difficult thesis, he exclaimed: "We call this young man a dumb ox, hut his bellowing in doctrine will one day resound throughout the world."
        In 1245 Albert was sent to Paris, and Thomas accompanied him as a student. In 1248 both returned to Cologne. Albert had been appointed regent of the new studium generale, erected that year by the general chapter of the order, and Thomas was to teach under him as Bachelor. (On the system of graduation in the thirteenth century see ORDER OF PREACHERS -- II, A, 1, d). During his stay in Cologne, probably in 1250, he was raised to the priesthood by Conrad of Hochstaden, archbishop of that city. Throughout his busy life, he frequently preached the Word of God, in Germany, France, and Italy. His sermons were forceful, redolent of piety, full of solid instruction, abounding in apt citations from the Scriptures.
        In the year 1251 or 1252 the master general of the order, by the advice of Albertus Magnus and Hugo a S. Charo (Hugh of St. Cher), sent Thomas to fill the office of Bachelor (sub-regent) in the Dominican studium at Paris. This appointment may be regarded as the beginning of his public career, for his teaching soon attracted the attention both of the professors and of the students. His duties consisted principally in explaining the "Sentences" of Peter Lombard, and his commentaries on that text-book of theology furnished the materials and, in great part, the plan for his chief work, the "Summa theologica".
        In due time he was ordered to prepare himself to obtain the degree of Doctor in Theology from the University of Paris, but the conferring of the degree was postponed, owing to a dispute between the university and the friars. The conflict, originally a dispute between the university and the civic authorities, arose from the slaying of one of the students and the wounding of three others by the city guard. The university, jealous of its autonomy, demanded satisfaction, which was refused. The doctors closed their schools, solemnly swore that they would not reopen them until their demands were granted, and decreed that in future no one should be admitted to the degree of Doctor unless he would take an oath to follow the same line of conduct under similar circumstances. The Dominicans and Franciscans, who had continued to teach in their schools, refused to take the prescribed oath, and from this there arose a bitter conflict which was at its height when St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure were ready to be presented for their degrees. William of St-Amour extended the dispute beyond the original question, violently attacked the friars, of whom he was evidently jealous, and denied their right to occupy chairs in the university. Against his book, "De periculis novissimorum temporum" (The Perils of the Last Times), St. Thomas wrote a treatise "Contra impugnantes religionem", an apology for the religious orders (Touron, op. cit., II, cc. vii sqq.). The book of William of St-Amour was condemned by Alexander IV at Anagni, 5 October, 1256, and the pope gave orders that the mendicant friars should be admitted to the doctorate.
        About this time St. Thomas also combated a dangerous book, "The Eternal Gospel" (Touron, op. cit., II, cxii). The university authorities did not obey immediately; the influence of St. Louis IX and eleven papal Briefs were required before peace was firmly established, and St. Thomas was admitted to the degree of Doctor in Theology. The date of his promotion, as given by many biographers, was 23 October, 1257. His theme was "The Majesty of Christ". His text, "Thou waterest the hills from thy upper rooms: the earth shall be filled with the fruit of thy works" (Psalm 103:13), said to have been suggested by a heavenly visitor, seems to have been prophetic of his career. A tradition says that St. Bonaventure and St. Thomas received the doctorate on the same day, and that there was a contest of humility between the two friends as to which should be promoted first.
         From this time St. Thomas's life may be summed up in a few words: praying, preaching, teaching, writing, journeying. Men were more anxious to hear him than they had been to hear Albert, whom St. Thomas surpassed in accuracy, lucidity, brevity, and power of exposition, if not in universality of knowledge. Paris claimed him as her own; the popes wished to have him near them; the studia of the order were eager to enjoy the benefit of his teaching; hence we find him successively at Anagni, Rome, Bologna, Orvieto, Viterbo, Perugia, in Paris again, and finally in Naples, always teaching and writing, living on earth with one passion, an ardent zeal for the explanation and defence of Christian truth. So devoted was he to his sacred task that with tears he begged to be excused from accepting the Archbishopric of Naples, to which he was appointed by Clement IV in 1265. Had this appointment been accepted, most probably the "Summa theologica" would not have been written.
        Yielding to the requests of his brethren, he on several occasions took part in the deliberations of the general chapters of the order. One of these chapters was held in London in 1263. In another held at Valenciennes (1259) he collaborated with Albertus Magnus and Peter of Tarentasia (afterwards Pope Innocent V) in formulating a system of studies which is substantially preserved to this day in the studia generalia of the Dominican Order (cf. Douais, op. cit.).
         It is not surprising to read in the biographies of St. Thomas that he was frequently abstracted and in ecstasy. Towards the end of his life the ecstasies became more frequent. On one occasion, at Naples in 1273, after he had completed his treatise on the Eucharist, three of the brethren saw him lifted in ecstasy, and they heard a voice proceeding from the crucifix on the altar, saying "Thou hast written well of me, Thomas; what reward wilt thou have?" Thomas replied, "None other than Thyself, Lord" (Prümmer, op. cit., p. 38). Similar declarations are said to have been made at Orvieto and at Paris.
         On 6 December, 1273, he laid aside his pen and would write no more. That day he experienced an unusually long ecstasy during Mass; what was revealed to him we can only surmise from his reply to Father Reginald, who urged him to continue his writings: "I can do no more. Such secrets have been revealed to me that all I have written now appears to be of little value" (modica, Prümmer, op. cit., p. 43). The "Summa theologica" had been completed only as far as the ninetieth question of the third part (De partibus poenitentiae).
        Thomas began his immediate preparation for death. Gregory X, having convoked a general council, to open at Lyons on 1 May, 1274, invited St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure to take part in the deliberations, commanding the former to bring to the council his treatise "Contra errores Graecorum" (Against the Errors of the Greeks). He tried to obey, setting out on foot in January, 1274, but strength failed him; he fell to the ground near Terracina, whence he was conducted to the Castle of Maienza the home of his niece the Countess Francesca Ceccano. The Cistercian monks of Fossa Nuova pressed him to accept their hospitality, and he was conveyed to their monastery, on entering which he whispered to his companion: "This is my rest for ever and ever: here will I dwell, for I have chosen it" (Psalm 131:14). When Father Reginald urged him to remain at the castle, the saint replied: "If the Lord wishes to take me away, it is better that I be found in a religious house than in the dwelling of a lay person." The Cistercians were so kind and attentive that Thomas's humility was alarmed. "Whence comes this honour", he exclaimed, "that servants of God should carry wood for my fire!" At the urgent request of the monks he dictated a brief commentary on the Canticle of Canticles.
        The end was near; extreme unction was administered. When the Sacred Viaticum was brought into the room he pronounced the following act of faith:

If in this world there be any knowledge of this sacrament stronger than that of faith, I wish now to use it in affirming that I firmly believe and know as certain that Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, Son of God and Son of the Virgin Mary, is in this Sacrament . . . I receive Thee, the price of my redemption, for Whose love I have watched, studied, and laboured. Thee have I preached; Thee have I taught. Never have I said anything against Thee: if anything was not well said, that is to be attributed to my ignorance. Neither do I wish to be obstinate in my opinions, but if I have written anything erroneous concerning this sacrament or other matters, I submit all to the judgment and correction of the Holy Roman Church, in whose obedience I now pass from this life.

        He died on 7 March, 1274. Numerous miracles attested his sanctity, and he was canonized by John XXII, 18 July, 1323. The monks of Fossa Nuova were anxious to keep his sacred remains, but by order of Urban V the body was given to his Dominican brethren, and was solemnly translated to the Dominican church at Toulouse, 28 January, 1369. A magnificent shrine erected in 1628 was destroyed during the French Revolution, and the body was removed to the Church of St. Sernin, where it now reposes in a sarcophagus of gold and silver, which was solemnly blessed by Cardinal Desprez on 24 July, 1878. The chief bone of his left arm is preserved in the cathedral of Naples. The right arm, bestowed on the University of Paris, and originally kept in the St. Thomas's Chapel of the Dominican church, is now preserved in the Dominican Church of S. Maria Sopra Minerva in Rome, whither it was transferred during the French Revolution.
        A description of the saint as he appeared in life is given by Calo (Prümmer, op. cit., p. 401), who says that his features corresponded with the greatness of his soul. He was of lofty stature and of heavy build, but straight and well proportioned. His complexion was "like the colour of new wheat": his head was large and well shaped, and he was slightly bald. All portraits represent him as noble, meditative, gentle yet strong. St. Pius V proclaimed St. Thomas a Doctor of the Universal Church in the year 1567. In the Encyclical "Aeterni Patris", of 4 August, 1879, on the restoration of Christian philosophy, Leo XIII declared him "the prince and master of all Scholastic doctors". The same illustrious pontiff, by a Brief dated 4 August, 1880, designated him patron of all Catholic universities, academies, colleges, and schools throughout the world.

IIa. WRITINGS (GENERAL REMARKS)

        Although St. Thomas lived less than fifty years, he composed more than sixty works, some of them brief, some very lengthy. This does not necessarily mean that every word in the authentic works was written by his hand; he was assisted by secretaries, and biographers assure us that he could dictate to several scribes at the same time. Other works, some of which were composed by his disciples, have been falsely attributed to him.
        In the "Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum" (Paris, 1719) Fr. Echard devotes eighty-six folio pages to St. Thomas's works, the different editions and translations (I, pp. 282-348). Touron (op. cit., pp. 69 sqq.) says that manuscript copies were found in nearly all the libraries of Europe, and that, after the invention of printing, copies were multiplied rapidly in Germany, Italy, and France, portions of the "Summa theologica" being one of the first important works printed. Peter Schöffer, a printer of Mainz, published the "Secunda Secundae" in 1467. This is the first known printed copy of any work of St. Thomas. The first complete edition of the "Summa" was printed at Basle, in 1485. Many other editions of this and of other works were published in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, especially at Venice and at Lyons. The principal editions of all the work (Opera Omnia) were published as follows: Rome, 1570; Venice, 1594, 1612, 1745; Antwerp, 1612; Paris, 1660, 1871-80 (Vives); Parma, 1852-73; Rome, 1882 (the Leonine). The Roman edition of 1570, called "the Piana", because edited by order of St. Pius V, was the standard for many years. Besides a carefully revised text it contained the commentaries of Cardinal Cajetan and the valuable "Tabula Aurea" of Peter of Bergamo. The Venetian edition of 1612 was highly prized because the text was accompanied by the Cajetan-Porrecta commentaries . . . . The Leonine edition, begun under the patronage of Leo XIII, now continued under the master general of the Dominicans, undoubtedly will be the most perfect of all. Critical dissertations on each work will be given, the text will be carefully revised, and all references will be verified. By direction of Leo XIII (Motu Proprio, 18 Jan., 1880) the "Summa contra gentiles" will be published with the commentaries of Sylvester Ferrariensis, whilst the commentaries of Cajetan go with the "Summa theologica".
        The latter has been published, being volumes IV-XII of the edition (last in 1906). St. Thomas's works may be classified as philosophical, theological, scriptural, and apologetic, or controversial. The division, however, cannot always be rigidly maintained. The "Summa theologica", e.g., contains much that is philosophical, whilst the "Summa contra gentiles" is principally, but not exclusively, philosophical and apologetic. His philosophical works are chiefly commentaries on Aristotle, and his first important theological writings were commentaries on Peter Lombard's four books of "Sentences"; but he does not slavishly follow either the Philosopher or the Master of the Sentences (on opinions of the Lombard rejected by theologians, see Migne, 1841, edition of the "Summa" I, p. 451).

IIb. WRITINGS (HIS PRINCIPAL WORKS)

        Amongst the works wherein St. Thomas's own mind and method are shown, the following deserve special mention:
        (1) "Quaestiones disputatae" (Disputed Questions) -- These were more complete treatises on subjects that had not been fully elucidated in the lecture halls, or concerning which the professor's opinion had been sought. They are very valuable, because in them the author, free from limitations as to time or space, freely expresses his mind and gives all arguments for or against the opinions adopted. These treatises, containing the questions "De potentia", "De malo", "De spirit. creaturis", "De anima", "De unione Verbi Incarnati", "De virt. in communi", "De caritate", "De corr. fraterna", "De spe", "De virt. cardinal.", "De veritate", were often reprinted, e.g. recently by the Association of St. Paul (2 vols., Paris and Fribourg, Switzerland, 1883).
        (2) "Quodlibeta" (may be rendered "Various Subjects", or "Free Discussions") -- They present questions or arguments proposed and answers given in or outside the lecture halls, chiefly in the more formal Scholastic exercises, termed circuli, conclusiones, or determinationes, which were held once or twice a year.
        (3) "De unitate intellectus contra Averroistas" -- This opusculum refuted a very dangerous and widespread error, viz., that there was but one soul for all men, a theory which did away wth individual liberty and responsibility. (See AVERROES)
        (4) "Commentaria in Libros Sententiarum" (mentioned above) -- This with the following work are the immediate forerunners of the "Summa theologica".
        (5) "Summa de veritate catholicae fidei contra gentiles" (Treatise on the Truth of the Catholic Faith, against Unbelievers) -- This work, written at Rome, 1261-64, was composed at the request of St. Raymond of Pennafort, who desired to have a philosophical exposition and defence of the Christian Faith, to be used against the Jews and Moors in Spain. It is a perfect model of patient and sound apologetics, showing that no demonstrated truth (science) is opposed to revealed truth (faith). The best recent editions are those of Rome, 1878 (by Uccelli), of Paris and Fribourg, Switzerland, 1882, and of Rome, 1894. It has been translated into many languages. It is divided into four books: I. Of God as He is in Himself; II. Of God the Origin of Creatures; III. Of God the End of Creatures; IV. Of God in His Revelation. It is worthy of remark that the Fathers of the Vatican Council, treating the necessity of revelation (Coast. "Dei Filius", c. 2), employed almost the very words used by St. Thomas in treating that subject in this work (I, cc. iv, V), and in the "Summa theologica" (I:1:1).
        (6) Three works written by order of Urban IV --
        The "Opusculum contra errores Graecorum" refuted the errors of the Greeks on doctrines in dispute between them and the Roman Church, viz., the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, the primacy of the Roman pontiff, the Holy Eucharist, and purgatory. It was used against the Greeks with telling effect in the Council of Lyons (1274) and in the Council of Florence (1493). In the range of human reasonings on deep subjects there can be found nothing to surpass the sublimity and depth of the argument adduced by St. Thomas to prove that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son (cf. Summa I:36:2); but it must be borne in mind that our Faith is not based on that argument alone.
        "Officium de festo Corporis Christi". Mandonnet (Ecrits, p. 127) declares that it is now established beyond doubt that St. Thomas is the author of the beautiful Office of Corpus Christi, in which solid doctrine, tender piety, and enlightening Scriptural citations are combined, and expressed in language remarkably accurate, beautiful, chaste, and poetic. Here we find the well-known hymns, "Sacris Solemniis", "Pange Lingua" (concluding in the "Tantum Ergo"), "Verbum Supernum" (concluding with the "O Salutaris Hostia") and, in the Mass, the beautiful sequence "Lauda Sion". In the responses of the office, St. Thomas places side by side words of the New Testament affirming the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament and texts from the Old Testament referring to the types and figures of the Eucharist. Santeuil, a poet of the seventeenth century, said he would give all the verses he had written for the one stanza of the "Verbum Supernum": "Se nascens dedit socium, convescens in edulium: Se moriens in pretium, Se regnans dat in praemium" -- "In birth, man's fellow-man was He, His meat, while sitting at the Board: He died his Ransomer to be, He reigns to be his Great Reward" (tr. by Marquis of Bute). Perhaps the gem of the whole office is the antiphon "O Sacrum Convivium" (cf. Conway, "St. Thomas Aquinas", London and New York, 1911, p. 61).
        The "Catena Aurea' though not as original as his other writings, furnishes a striking proof of St. Thomas's prodigious memory and manifests an intimate acquaintance with the Fathers of the Church. The work contains a series of passages selected from the writings of the various Fathers, arranged in such order that the texts cited form a running commentary on the Gospels. The commentary on St. Matthew was dedicated to Urban IV. An English translation of the "Catena Aurea was edited by John Henry Newman (4 vols., Oxford 1841-1845; see Vaughan, op. cit., vol. II,) pp. 529 sqq..
        (7) The "Summa theologica" -- This work immortalized St. Thomas. The author himself modestly considered it simply a manual of Christian doctrine for the use of students. In reality it is a complete scientifically arranged exposition of theology and at the same time a summary of Christian philosophy (see SUMMÆ). In the brief prologue St. Thomas first calls attention to the difficulties experienced by students of sacred doctrine in his day, the causes assigned being: the multiplication of useless questions, articles, and arguments; the lack of scientific order; frequent repetitions, "which beget disgust and confusion in the minds of learners". Then he adds: "Wishing to avoid these and similar drawbacks, we shall endeavour, confiding in the Divine assistance, to treat of these things that pertain to sacred doctrine with brevity and clearness, in so far as the subject to he treated will permit." In the introductory question, "On Sacred Doctrine", he proves that, besides the knowledge which reason affords, Revelation also is necessary for salvation first, because without it men could not know the supenatural end to which they must tend by their voluntary acts; secondly, because, without Revelation, even the truths concerning God which could be proved by reason would be known "only by a few, after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors". When revealed truths have been accepted, the mind of man proceeds to explain them and to draw conclusions from them. Hence results theology, which is a science, because it proceeds from principles that are certain (Answer 2). The object, or subject, of this science is God; other things are treated in it only in so far as they relate to God (Answer 7). Reason is used in theology not to prove the truths of faith, which are accepted on the authority of God, but to defend, explain, and develop the doctrines revealed (Answer 8). He thus announces the division of the "Summa": "Since the chief aim of this sacred science is to give the knowledge of God, not only as He is in Himself, but also as He is the Beginning of all things, and the End of all, especially of rational creatures, we shall treat first of God; secondly, of the rational creature's advance towards God (de motu creaturae rationalis in Deum); thirdly, of Christ, Who, as Man, is the way by which we tend to God." God in Himself, and as He is the Creator; God as the End of all things, especially of man; God as the Redeemer -- these are the leading ideas, the great headings, under which all that pertains to theology is contained.

(a) Sub-divisions
The First Part is divided into three tracts:
        On those things which pertain to the Essence of God;
        On the distinction of Persons in God (the mystery of the Trinity);
        On the production of creatures by God and on the creatures produced.
The Second Part, On God as He is in the End of man, is sometimes called the Moral Theology of St. Thomas, i.e., his treatise on the end of man and on human acts. It is subdivided into two parts, known as the First Section of the Second (I-II, or 1a 2ae) and the Second of the Second (II-II, or 2a 2ae).
        The First of the Second. The first five questions are devoted to proving that man's last end, his beatitude, consists in the possession of God. Man attains to that end or deviates from it by human acts, i.e. by free, deliberate acts. Of human acts he treats, first, in general (in all but the first five questions of the I-II), secondly, in particular (in the whole of the II-II). The treatise on human acts in general is divided into two parts: the first, on human acts in themselves; the other, on the principles or causes, extrinsic or intrinsic, of those acts. In these tracts and in the Second of the Second, St. Thomas, following Aristotle, gives a perfect description and a wonderfully keen analysis of the movements of man's mind and heart.
         The Second of the Second considers human acts, i.e., the virtues and vices, in particular. In it St. Thomas treats, first, of those things that pertain to all men, no matter what may be their station in life, and, secondly, of those things that pertain to some men only. Things that pertain to all men are reduced to seven headings: Faith, Hope, and Charity; Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, and Temperance. Under each title, in order to avoid repetitions, St. Thomas treats not only of the virtue itself, but also of the vices opposed to it, of the commandment to practise it, and of the gift of the Holy Ghost which corresponds to it. Things pertaining to some men only are reduced to three headings: the graces freely given (gratia gratis datae) to certain individuals for the good of the Church, such as the gifts of tongues, of prophecy, of miracles; the active and the contemplative life; the particular states of life, and duties of those who are in different states, especially bishops and religious.
         The Third Part treats of Christ and of the benefits which He has conferred upon man, hence three tracts: On the Incarnation, and on what the Saviour did and suffered; On the Sacraments, which were instituted by Christ, and have their efficacy from His merits and sufferings; On Eternal Life, i.e., on the end of the world, the resurrection of bodies, judgment, the punishment of the wicked, the happiness of the just who, through Christ, attain to eternal life in heaven.
        Eight years were given to the composition of this work, which was begun at Rome, where the First Part and the First of the Second were written (1265-69). The Second of the Second, begun in Rome, was completed in Paris (1271). In 1272 St. Thomas went to Naples, where the Third Part was written, down to the ninetieth question of the tract On Penance (see Leonine edition, I, p. xlii). The work has been completed by the addition of a supplement, drawn from other writings of St. Thomas, attributed by some to Peter of Auvergne, by others to Henry of Gorkum. These attributions are rejected by the editors of the Leonine edition (XI, pp. viii, xiv, xviii). Mandonnet (op. cit., 153) inclines to the very probable opinion that it was compiled by Father Reginald de Piperno, the saint's faithful companion and secretary. The entire "Summa" contains 38 Treatises, 612 Questions, subdivided into 3120 articles, in which about 10,000 objections are proposed and answered. So admirably is the promised order preserved that, by reference to the beginning of the Tracts and Questions, one can see at a glance what place it occupies in the general plan, which embraces all that can be known through theology of God, of man, and of their mutual relations . . . "The whole Summa is arranged on a uniform plan. Every subject is introduced as a question, and divided into articles. . . . Each article has also a uniform disposition of parts. The topic is introduced as an inquiry for discussion, under the term Utrum, whether -- e.g. Utrum Deus sit? The objections against the proposed thesis are then stated. These are generally three or four in number, but sometimes extend to seven or more. The conclusion adopted is then introduced by the words, Respondeo dicendum. At the end of the thesis expounded the objections are answered, under the forms, ad primum, ad secundum, etc." . . . . The "Summa" is Christian doctrine in scientific form; it is human reason rendering its highest service in defence and explanation of the truths of the Christian religion. It is the answer of the matured and saintly doctor to the question of his youth: What is God? Revelation, made known in the Scriptures and by tradition; reason and its best results; soundness and fulness of doctrine, order, conciseness and clearness of expression, effacement of self, the love of truth alone, hence a remarkable fairness towards adversaries and calmness in combating their errors; soberness and soundness of judgment, together with a charmingly tender and enlightened piety -- these are all found in this "Summa" more than in his other writings, more than in the writings of his contemporaries, for "among the Scholastic doctors, the chief and master of all, towers Thomas Aquinas, who, as Cajetan observes (In 2am 2ae, Q. 148, a. 4) 'because he most venerated the ancient doctors of the Church in a certain way seems to have inherited the intellect of all'" (Encyclical, "Aeterni Patris", of Leo XIII).

(b) Editions and Translations
        It is impossible to mention the various editions of the "Summa", which has been in constant use for more than seven hundred years. Very few books have been so often republished. The first complete edition, printed at Basle in 1485, was soon followed by others, e.g., at Venice in 1505, 1509, 1588, 1594; at Lyons in 1520, 1541, 1547, 1548, 1581, 1588, 1624,1655; at Antwerp in 1575. These are enumerated by Touron (op. cit., p. 692), who says that about the same time other editions were published at Rome, Antwerp, Rouen, Paris, Douai, Cologne, Amsterdam, Bologna, etc. The editors of the Leonine edition deem worthy of mention those published at Paris in 1617, 1638, and 1648, at Lyons in 1663, 1677, and 1686, and a Roman edition of 1773 (IV, pp. xi, xii). Of all old editions they consider the most accurate two published at Padua, one in 1698, the other in 1712, and the Venice edition of 1755. Of recent editions the best are the following: the Leonine; the Migne editions (Paris, 1841, 1877); the first volume of the 1841 edition containing the "Libri quatuor sententiarum" of Peter Lombard; the very practical Faucher edition (5 vols. small quarto, Paris, 1887), dedicated to Cardinal Pecci, enriched with valuable notes; a Roman edition of 1894. The "Summa" has been translated into many modern languages as well.

IIc. WRITINGS (METHOD AND STYLE)

        It is not possible to characterize the method of St. Thomas by one word, unless it can be called eclectic. It is Aristotelean, Platonic, and Socratic; it is inductive and deductive; it is analytic and synthetic. He chose the best that could he found in those who preceded him, carefully sifting the chaff from the wheat, approving what was true, rejecting the false. His powers of synthesis were extraordinary. No writer surpassed him in the faculty of expressing in a few well-chosen words the truth gathered from a multitude of varying and conflicting opinions; and in almost every instance the student sees the truth and is perfectly satisfied with St. Thomas's summary and statement. Not that he would have students swear by the words of a master. In philosophy, he says, arguments from authority are of secondary importance; philosophy does not consist in knowing what men have said, but in knowing the truth (In I lib. de Coelo, lect. xxii; II Sent., D. xiv, a. 2, ad 1um). He assigns its proper place to reason used in theology (see below: Influence of St. Thomas), but he keeps it within its own sphere. Against the Traditionalists the Holy See has declared that the method used by St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure does not lead to Rationalism (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1652). Not so bold or original in investigating nature as were Albertus Magnus and Roger Bacon, he was, nevertheless, abreast of his time in science, and many of his opinions are of scientific value in the twentieth century. Take, for instance, the following: "In the same plant there is the two-fold virtue, active and passive, though sometimes the active is found in one and the passive in another, so that one plant is said to be masculine and the other feminine" (3 Sent., D. III, Q. ii, a 1).
        The style of St. Thomas is a medium between the rough expressiveness of some Scholastics and the fastidious elegance of John of Salisbury; it is remarkable for accuracy, brevity, and completeness. Pope Innocent VI (quoted in the Encyclical, "Aeterni Patris", of Leo XIII) declared that, with the exception of the canonical writings, the works of St. Thomas surpass all others in "accuracy of expression and truth of statement" (habet proprietatem verborum, modum dicendorum, veritatem sententiarum). Great orators, such as Bossuet, Lacordaire, Monsabré, have studied his style, and have been influenced by it, but they could not reproduce it. The same is true of theological writers. Cajetan knew St. Thomas's style better than any of his disciples, but Cajetan is beneath his great master in clearness and accuracy of expression, in soberness and solidity of judgment. St. Thomas did not attain to this perfection without an effort. He was a singularly blessed genius, but he was also an indefatigable worker, and by continued application he reached that stage of perfection in the art of writing where the art disappears. "The author's manuscript of the Summa Contra Gentiles is still in great part extant. It is now in the Vatican Library. The manuscript consists of strips of parchment, of various shades of colour, contained in an old parchment cover to which they were originally stitched. The writing is in double column, and difficult to decipher, abounding in abbreviations, often passing into a kind of shorthand. Throughout many passages a line is drawn in sign of erasure" (Rickaby, Op. cit., preface: see Ucelli ed., "Sum. cont. gent.", Rome, 1878).

III. INFLUENCES EXERTED ON ST. THOMAS

        How was this great genius formed? The causes that exerted an influence on St. Thomas were of two kinds, natural and supernatural.

A. Natural Causes
        (1) As a foundation, he "was a witty child, and had received a good soul" (Wisdom 8:19). From the beginning he manifested precocious and extraordinary talent and thoughtfulness beyond his years.
        (2) His education was such that great things might have been expected of him. His training at Monte Cassino, at Naples, Paris, and Cologne was the best that the thirteenth century could give, and that century was the golden age of education. That it afforded excellent opportunities for forming great philosophers and theologians is evident from the character of St. Thomas's contemporaries. Alexander of Hales, Albertus Magnus, St. Bonaventure, St. Raymond of Pennafort, Roger Bacon, Hugo a S. Charo, Vincent of Beauvais, not to mention scores of others, prove beyond all doubt that those were days of really great scholars. (See Walsh, "The Thirteenth, Greatest of Centuries", New York, 1907.) The men who trained St. Thomas were his teachers at Monte Cassino and Naples, but above all Albertus Magnus, under whom he studied at Paris and Cologne.
        (3) The books that exercised the greatest influence on his mind were the Bible, the Decrees of the councils and of the popes, the works of the Fathers, Greek and Latin, especially of St. Augustine, the "Sentences" of Peter Lombard, the writings of the philosophers, especially of Plato, Aristotle, and Boethius. If from these authors any were to be selected for special mention, undoubtedly they would be Aristotle, St. Augustine, and Peter Lombard. In another sense the writings of St. Thomas were influenced by Averroes, the chief opponent whom he had to combat in order to defend and make known the true Aristotle.
        (4) It must be borne in mind that St. Thomas was blessed with a retentive memory and great powers of penetration. Father Daniel d'Agusta once pressed him to say what he considered the greatest grace he had ever received, sanctifying grace of course excepted. "I think that of having understood whatever I have read", was the reply. St. Antoninus declared that "he remembered everything be had read, so that his mind was like a huge library" (cf. Drane, op. cit., p. 427; Vaughan, op. cit., II, p. 567). The bare enumeration of the texts of Scripture cited in the "Summa theologica" fills eighty small-print columns in the Migne edition, and by many it is not unreasonably supposed that he learned the Sacred Books by heart while he was imprisoned in the Castle of San Giovanni. Like St. Dominic he had a special love for the Epistles of St. Paul, on which he wrote commentaries (recent edition in 2 vols., Turin, 1891).
        (5) Deep reverence for the Faith, as made known by tradition, characterizes all his writings. The consuetudo ecclesiae -- the practice of the Church -- should prevail over the authority of any doctor (Summa II-II:10:12). In the "Summa" he quotes from 19 councils, 41 popes, and 52 Fathers of the Church. A slight acquaintance with his writings will show that among the Fathers his favourite was St. Augustine (on the Greek Fathers see Vaughan, op. cit., II, cc. iii sqq.).
        (6) With St. Augustine (II De doctr. Christ., c. xl), St. Thomas held that whatever there was of truth in the writings of pagan philosophers should be taken from them, as from "unjust possessors", and adapted to the teaching of the true religion (Summa I:84:5). In the "Summa" alone he quotes from the writings of 46 philosophers and poets, his favourite authors being Aristotle, Plato, and, among Christian writers, Boethius. From Aristotle he learned that love of order and accuracy of expression which are characteristic of his own works. From Boethius he learned that Aristotle's works could be used without detriment to Christianity. He did not follow Boethius in his vain attempt to reconcile Plato and Aristotle. In general the Stagirite was his master, but the elevation and grandeur of St. Thomas's conceptions and the majestic dignity of his methods of treatment speak strongly of the sublime Plato.

B. Supernatural Causes
        Even if we do not accept as literally true the declaration of John XXII, that St. Thomas wrought as many miracles as there are articles in the "Summa", we must, nevertheless, go beyond causes merely natural in attempting to explain his extraordinary career and wonderful writings.
        (1) Purity of mind and body contributes in no small degree to clearness of vision (see St. Thomas, "Commentaries on I Cor., c. vii", Lesson v). By the gift of purity, miraculously granted at the time of the mystic girdling, God made Thomas's life angelic; the perspicacity and depth of his intellect, Divine grace aiding, made him the "Angelic Doctor".
        (2) The spirit of prayer, his great piety and devotion, drew down blessings on his studies. Explaining why he read, every day, portions of the "Conferences" of Cassian, he said: "In such reading I find devotion, whence I readily ascend to contemplation" (Prümmer, op. cit., p. 32). In the lessons of the Breviary read on his feast day it is explicitly stated that he never began to study without first invoking the assistance of God in prayer; and when he wrestled with obscure passages of the Scriptures, to prayer he added fasting.
        (3) Facts narrated by persons who either knew St. Thomas in life or wrote at about the time of his canonization prove that he received assistance from heaven. To Father Reginald he declared that he had learned more in prayer and contemplation than he had acquired from men or books (Prümmer, op. cit., p. 36). These same authors tell of mysterious visitors who came to encourage and enlighten him. The Blessed Virgin appeared, to assure him that his life and his writings were acceptable to God, and that he would persevere in his holy vocation. Sts. Peter and Paul came to aid him in interpreting an obscure passage in Isaias. When humility caused him to consider himself unworthy of the doctorate, a venerable religious of his order (supposed to be St. Dominic) appeared to encourage him and suggested the text for his opening discourse (Prümmer, op. cit., 29, 37; Tocco in "Acta SS.", VII Mar.; Vaughan, op. cit., II, 91). His ecstasies have been mentioned. His abstractions in presence of King Louis IX (St. Louis) and of distinguished visitors are related by all biographers. Hence, even if allowance be made for great enthusiasm on the part of his admirers, we must conclude that his extraordinary learning cannot be attributed to merely natural causes. Of him it may truly be said that he laboured as if all depended on his own efforts and prayed as if all depended on God.

IVa. INFLUENCE OF ST. THOMAS (ON SANCTITY)

        The great Scholastics were holy as well as learned men. Alexander of Hales, St. Albertus Magnus, St. Thomas, and St. Bonaventure prove that learning does not necessarily dry up devotion. The angelic Thomas and the seraphic Bonaventure represent the highest types of Christian scholarship, combining eminent learning with heroic sanctity. Cardinal Bessarion called St. Thomas "the most saintly of learned men and the most learned of saints". His works breathe the spirit of God, a tender and enlightened piety, built on a solid foundation, viz. the knowledge of God, of Christ, of man. The "Summa theologica" may he made a manual of piety as well as a text-book for the study of theology (Cf. Drane, op. cit., p. 446). St. Francis de Sales, St. Philip Neri, St. Charles Borromeo, St. Vincent Ferrer, St. Pius V, St. Antoninus constantly studied St. Thomas. Nothing could be more inspiring than his treatises on Christ, in His sacred Person, in His life and sufferings. His treatise on the sacraments, especially on penance and the Eucharist, would melt even hardened hearts. He takes pains to explain the various ceremonies of the Mass ("De ritu Eucharistiae" in Summa III:83), and no writer has explained more clearly than St. Thomas the effects produced in the souls of men by this heavenly Bread (Summa III:79). The principles recently urged, in regard to frequent Communion, by Pius X ("Sacra Trid. Synodus", 1905) are found in St. Thomas (Summa III:79:8, III:80:10), although he is not so explicit on this point as he is on the Communion of children. In the Decree "Quam Singulari" (1910) the pope cites St. Thomas, who teaches that, when children begin to have some use of reason, so that they can conceive some devotion to the Blessed Sacrament, they may be allowed to communicate (Summa III:80:9). The spiritual and devotional aspects of St. Thomas's theology have been pointed out by Father Contenson, O.P., in his "Theologia mentis et cordis". They are more fully explained by Father Vallgornera, O.P., in his "Theologia Mystica D. Thomae", wherein the author leads the soul to God through the purgative, illuminative, and unitive ways. The Encyclical Letter of Leo XIII on the Holy Spirit is drawn largely from St. Thomas, and those who have studied the "Prima Secundae" and the "Secunda Secundae" know how admirably the saint explains the gifts and fruits of the Holy Ghost, as well as the Beatitudes, and their relations to the different virtues Nearly all good spiritual writers seek in St. Thomas definitions of the virtues which they recommend.

IVb. INFLUENCE OF ST. THOMAS (ON INTELLECTUAL LIFE)

        Since the days of Aristotle, probably no one man has exercised such a powerful influence on the thinking world as did St. Thomas. His authority was very great during his lifetime. The popes, the universities, the studia of his order were anxious to profit by his learning and prudence. Several of his important works were written at the request of others, and his opinion was sought by all classes. On several occasions the doctors of Paris referred their disputes to him and gratefully abided by his decision (Vaughan, op. cit., II, 1 p. 544). His principles, made known by his writings, have continued to influence men even to this day. This subject cannot be considered in all its aspects, nor is that necessary. His influence on matters purely philosophical is fully explained in histories of philosophy. (Theologians who followed St. Thomas will be mentioned in THOMISM. See also ORDER OF PREACHERS -- II, A, 2, d) His paramount importance and influence may be explained by considering him as the Christian Aristotle, combining in his person the best that the world has known in philosophy and theology. It is in this light that he is proposed as a model by Leo XIII in the famous Encyclical "Aeterni Patris". The work of his life may be summed up in two propositions: he established the true relations between faith and reason; he systematized theology.

(1) Faith and Reason
        The principles of St. Thomas on the relations between faith and reason were solemnly proclaimed in the Vatican Council. The second, third, and fourth chapters of the Constitution "Dei Filius" read like pages taken from the works of the Angelic Doctor. First, reason alone is not sufficient to guide men: they need Revelation; we must carefully distinguish the truths known by reason from higher truths (mysteries) known by Revelation. Secondly, reason and Revelation, though distinct, are not opposed to each other. Thirdly, faith preserves reason from error; reason should do service in the cause of faith. Fourthly, this service is rendered in three ways:

• reason should prepare the minds of men to receive the Faith by proving the truths which faith presupposes (praeambula fidei);
• reason should explain and develop the truths of Faith and should propose them in scientific form;
• reason should defend the truths revealed by Almighty God.

This is a development of St. Augustine's famous saying (De Trin., XIV, c. i), that the right use of reason is "that by which the most wholesome faith is begotten . . . is nourished, defended, and made strong." These principles are proposed by St. Thomas in many places, especially in the following: "In Boethium, da Trin. Proem.", Q. ii, a. 1; "Sum. cont. gent.", I, cc. iii-ix; Summa I:1:1, I:1:5, I:1:8, I:32:1, I:84:5. St. Thomas's services to the Faith are thus summed up by Leo XIII in the Encyclical "Aeterni Patris": "He won this title of distinction for himself: that singlehanded he victoriously combated the errors of former times, and supplied invincible arms to put to rout those which might in after times spring up. Again, clearly distinguishing, as is fitting, reason and faith, he both preserved and had regard for the rights of each; so much so, indeed, that reason, borne on the wings of Thomas, can scarcely rise higher, while faith could scarcely expect more or stronger aids from reason than those which she has already obtained through Thomas." St. Thomas did not combat imaginary foes; he attacked living adversaries. The works of Aristotle had been introduced into France in faulty translations and with the misleading commentaries of Jewish and Moorish philosophers. This gave rise to a flood of errors which so alarmed the authorities that the reading of Aristotle's Physics and Metaphysics was forbidden by Robert de Courçon in 1210, the decree being moderated by Gregory IX in 1231. There crept into the University of Paris an insidious spirit of irreverence and Rationalism, represented especially by Abelard and Raymond Lullus, which claimed that reason could know and prove all things, even the mysteries of Faith. Under the authority of Averroes dangerous doctrines were propagated, especially two very pernicious errors: first, that philosophy and religion being in different regions, what is true in religion might be false in philosophy; secondly, that all men have but one soul. Averroes was commonly styled "The Commentator", but St. Thomas says he was "not so much a Peripatetic as a corruptor of Peripatetic philosophy" (Opuse. de unit. intell.). Applying a principle of St. Augustine (see I:84:5), following in the footsteps of Alexander of Hales and Albertus Magnus, St. Thomas resolved to take what was true from the "unjust possessors", in order to press it into the service of revealed religion. Objections to Aristotle would cease if the true Aristotle were made known; hence his first care was to obtain a new translation of the works of the great philosopher. Aristotle was to be purified; false commentators were to be refuted; the most influential of these was Averroes, hence St. Thomas is continually rejecting his false interpretations.

(2) Theology Systematized
        The next step was to press reason into the service of the Faith, by putting Christian doctrine into scientific form. Scholasticism does not consist, as some persons imagine, in useless discussions and subtleties, but in this, that it expresses sound doctrine in language which is accurate, clear, and concise. In the Encyclical "Aeterni Patris" Leo XIII, citing the words of Sixtus V (Bull "Triumphantis", 1588), declares that to the right use of philosophy we are indebted for "those noble endowments which make Scholastic theology so formidable to the enemies of truth", because "that ready coherence of cause and effect, that order and array of a disciplined army in battle, those clear definitions and distinctions, that strength of argument and those keen discussions by which light is distinguished from darkness, the true from the false, expose and lay bare, as it were, the falsehoods of heretics wrapped around by a cloud of subterfuges and fallacies". When the great Scholastics had written, there was light where there had been darkness, there was order where confusion had prevailed. The work of St. Anselm and of Peter Lombard was perfected by the Scholastic theologians. Since their days no substantial improvements have been made in the plan and system of theology, although the field of apologetics has been widened, and positive theology has become more important.

IVc. INFLUENCE OF ST. THOMAS (HIS DOCTRINE FOLLOWED)

        Within a short time after his death the writings of St. Thomas were universally esteemed. The Dominicans naturally took the lead in following St. Thomas. The general chapter held in Paris in 1279 pronounced severe penalties against all who dared to speak irreverently of him or of his writings. The chapters held in Paris in 1286, at Bordeaux in 1287, and at Lucca in 1288 expressly required the brethren to follow the doctrine of Thomas, who at that time had not been canonized (Const. Ord. Praed., n. 1130). The University of Paris, on the occasion of Thomas's death, sent an official letter of condolence to the general chapter of the Dominicans, declaring that, equally with his brethren, the university experienced sorrow at the loss of one who was their own by many titles (see text of letter in Vaughan, op. cit., II, p. 82). In the Encyclical "Aeterni Patris" Leo XIII mentions the Universities of Paris, Salamanca, Alcalá, Douai, Toulouse, Louvain, Padua, Bologna, Naples, Coimbra as "the homes of human wisdom where Thomas reigned supreme, and the minds of all, of teachers as well as of taught, rested in wonderful harmony under the shield and authority of the Angelic Doctor". To the list may be added Lima and Manila, Fribourg and Washington. Seminaries and colleges followed the lead of the universities. The "Summa" gradually supplanted the "Sentences" as the textbook of theology. Minds were formed in accordance with the principles of St. Thomas; he became the great master, exercising a world-wide influence on the opinions of men and on their writings; for even those who did not adopt all of his conclusions were obliged to give due consideration to his opinions. It has been estimated that 6000 commentaries on St. Thomas's works have been written. Manuals of theology and of philosophy, composed with the intention of imparting his teaching, translations, and studies, or digests (études), of portions of his works have been published in profusion during the last six hundred years and to-day his name is in honour all over the world (see THOMISM). In every one of the general councils held since his death St. Thomas has been singularly honoured. At the Council of Lyons his book "Contra errores Graecorum" was used with telling effect against the Greeks. In later disputes, before and during the Council of Florence, John of Montenegro, the champion of Latin orthodoxy, found St. Thomas's works a source of irrefragable arguments. The "Decretum pro Armenis" (Instruction for the Armenians), issued by the authority of that council, is taken almost verbatim from his treatise, "De fidei articulis et septem sacramentis" (see Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 695). "In the Councils of Lyons, Vienne, Florence, and the Vatican", writes Leo XIII (Encyclical "Aeterni Patris"), "one might almost say that Thomas took part in and presided over the deliberations and decrees of the Fathers contending against the errors of the Greeks, of heretics, and Rationalists, with invincible force and with the happiest results." But the chief and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none of the Catholic doctors, is that the Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of the conclave to lay upon the altar, together with the code of Sacred Scripture and the decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs, the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration. Greater influence than this no man could have. Before this section is closed mention should be made of two books widely known and highly esteemed, which were inspired by and drawn from the writings of St. Thomas. The Catechism of the Council of Trent, composed by disciples of the Angelic Doctor, is in reality a compendium of his theology, in convenient form for the use of parish priests. Dante's "Divina Commedia" has been called "the Summa of St. Thomas in verse", and commentators trace the great Florentine poet's divisions and descriptions of the virtues and vices to the "Secunda Secundae".

IVd. INFLUENCE OF ST. THOMAS (APPRECIATION)

(1) In the Church
        The esteem in which he was held during his life has not been diminished, but rather increased, in the course of the six centuries that have elapsed since his death. The position which he occupies in the Church is well explained by that great scholar Leo XIII, in the Encyclical "Aeterni Patris", recommending the study of Scholastic philosophy: "It is known that nearly all the founders and framers of laws of religious orders commanded their societies to study and religiously adhere to the teachings of St. Thomas. . . To say nothing of the family of St. Dominic, which rightly claims this great teacher for its own glory, the statutes of the Benedictines, the Carmelites, the Augustinians, the Society of Jesus, and many others, all testify that they are bound by this law." Amongst the "many others" the Servites, the Passionists, the Barnabites, and the Sulpicians have been devoted in an especial manner to the study of St. Thomas. The principal ancient universities where St. Thomas ruled as the great master have been enumerated above. The Paris doctors called him the morning star, the luminous sun, the light of the whole Church. Stephen, Bishop of Paris, repressing those who dared to attack the doctrine of "that most excellent Doctor, the blessed Thomas", calls him "the great luminary of the Catholic Church, the precious stone of the priesthood, the flower of doctors, and the bright mirror of the University of Paris" (Drane, op. cit., p. 431). In the old Louvain University the doctors were required to uncover and bow their heads when they pronounced the name of Thomas (Goudin, op. cit., p. 21).
        "The ecumenical councils, where blossoms the flower of all earthly wisdom, have always been careful to hold Thomas Aquinas in singular honour" (Leo XIII in "Aeterni Patris"). This subject has been sufficiently treated above. The "Bullarium Ordinis Praedicatorum", published in 1729-39, gives thirty-eight Bulls in which eighteen sovereign pontiffs praised and recommended the doctrine of St. Thomas (see also Vaughan, op. cit., II, c. ii; Berthier, op. cit., pp. 7 sqq.). These approbations are recalled and renewed by Leo XIII, who lays special stress on "the crowning testimony of Innocent VI: `His teaching above that of others, the canons alone excepted, enjoys such an elegance of phraseology, a method of statement, a truth of proposition, that those who hold it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error (ibid.).'" Leo XIII surpassed his predecessors in admiration of St. Thomas, in whose works he declared a remedy can be found for many evils that afflict society (see Berthier, op. cit., introd.). The notable Encyclical Letters with which the name of that illustrious pontiff will always be associated show how he had studied the works of the Angelic Doctor. This is very noticeable in the letters on Christian marriage, the Christian constitution of states, the condition of the working classes, and the study of Holy Scripture. Pope Pius X, in several letters, e.g. in the "Pascendi Dominici Gregis" (September, 1907), has insisted on the observance of the recommendations of Leo XIII concerning the study of St. Thomas. An attempt to give names of Catholic writers who have expressed their appreciation of St. Thomas and of his influence would be an impossible undertaking; for the list would include nearly all who have written on philosophy or theology since the thirteenth century, as well as hundreds of writers on other subjects. Commendations and eulogies are found in the introductory chapters of all good commentaries. An incomplete list of authors who have collected these testimonies is given by Father Berthier (op. cit., p. 22). . . .

(2) Outside the Church
        (a) Anti-Scholastics -- Some persons have been and are still opposed to everything that comes under the name of Scholasticism, which they hold to be synonymous with subtleties and useless discussions. From the prologue to the "Summa" it is clear that St. Thomas was opposed to all that was superfluous and confusing in Scholastic studies. When people understand what true Scholasticism means, their objections will cease.
        (b) Heretics and Schismatics -- "A last triumph was reserved for this incomparable man -- namely, to compel the homage, praise, and admiration of even the very enemies of the Catholic name" (Leo XIII, ibid.). St. Thomas's orthodoxy drew upon him the hatred of all Greeks who were opposed to union with Rome. The united Greeks, however, admire St. Thomas and study his works (see above Translations of the "Summa"). The leaders of the sixteenth-century revolt honoured St. Thomas by attacking him, Luther being particularly violent in his coarse invectives against the great doctor. Citing Bucer's wild boast, "Take away Thomas and I will destroy the Church", Leo XIII (ibid.) remarks, "The hope was vain, but the testimony has its value". Calo, Tocco, and other biographers relate that St. Thomas, travelling from Rome to Naples, converted two celebrated Jewish rabbis, whom he met at the country house of Cardinal Richard (Prümmer, op. cit., p. 33; Vaughan, op. cit., I, p. 795). Rabbi Paul of Burgos, in the fifteenth century, was converted by reading the works of St. Thomas. Theobald Thamer, a disciple of Melancthon, abjured his heresy after he had read the "Summa", which he intended to refute. The Calvinist Duperron was converted in the same way, subsequently becoming Archbishop of Sens and a cardinal (see Conway, O.P., op. cit., p. 96). After the bitterness of the first period of Protestantism had passed away, Protestants saw the necessity of retaining many parts of Catholic philosophy and theology, and those who came to know St. Thomas were compelled to admire him. Überweg says "He brought the Scholastic philosophy to its highest stage of development, by effecting the most perfect accommodation that was possible of the Aristotelian philosophy to ecclesiastical orthodoxy" (op. cit., p. 440). R. Seeberg in the "New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia" (New York, 1911) devotes ten columns to St. Thomas, and says that "at all points he succeeded in upholding the church doctrine as credible and reasonable" (XI, p. 427). For many years, especially since the days of Pusey and Newman, St. Thomas has been in high repute at Oxford. Recently the "Summa contra gentiles" was placed on the list of subjects which a candidate may offer in the final honour schools of Litterae Humaniores at that university (cf. Walsh, op. cit., c. xvii). For several years Father De Groot, O.P., has been the professor of Scholastic philosophy in the University of Amsterdam, and courses in Scholastic philosophy have been established in some of the leading non-Catholic universities of the United States. Anglicans have a deep admiration for St. Thomas. Alfred Mortimer, in the chapter "The Study of Theology" of his work entitled "Catholic Faith and Practice" (2 vols., New York, 1909), regretting that "the English priest has ordinarily no scientific acquaintance with the Queen of Sciences", and proposing a remedy, says, "The simplest and most perfect sketch of universal theology is to be found in the Summa of St. Thomas" (vol. II, pp. 454, 465).

V. ST. THOMAS AND MODERN THOUGHT

        In the Syllabus of 1864 Pius IX condemned a proposition in which it was stated that the method and principles of the ancient Scholastic doctors were not suited to the needs of our times and the progress of science (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1713). In the Encyclical "Aeterni Patris" Leo XIII points out the benefits to be derived from "a practical reform of philosophy by restoring the renowned teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas". He exhorts the bishops to "restore the golden wisdom of Thomas and to spread it far and wide for the defence and beauty of the Catholic Faith, for the good of society, and for the advantage of all the sciences". In the pages of the Encyclical immediately preceding these words he explains why the teaching of St. Thomas would produce such most desirable results: St. Thomas is the great master to explain and defend the Faith, for his is "the solid doctrine of the Fathers and the Scholastics, who so clearly and forcibly demonstrate the firm foundations of the Faith, its Divine origin, its certain truth, the arguments that sustain it, the benefits it has conferred on the human race, and its perfect accord with reason, in a manner to satisfy completely minds open to persuasion, however unwilling and repugnant". The career of St. Thomas would in itself have justified Leo XIII in assuring men of the nineteenth century that the Catholic Church was not opposed to the right use of reason. The sociological aspects of St. Thomas are also pointed out: "The teachings of Thomas on the true meaning of liberty, which at this time is running into license, on the Divine origin of all authority, on laws and their force, on the paternal and just rule of princes, on obedience to the highest powers, on mutual charity one towards another -- on all of these and kindred subjects, have very great and invincible force to overturn those principles of the new order which are well known to be dangerous to the peaceful order of things and to public safety" (ibid.). The evils affecting modern society had been pointed out by the pope in the Letter "Inscrutabili" of 21 April, 1878, and in the one on Socialism, Communism, and Nihilism ("The Great Encyclicals of Leo XIII", pp. 9 sqq.; 22 sqq.). How the principles of the Angelic Doctor will furnish a remedy for these evils is explained here in a general way, more particularly in the Letters on the Christian constitution of states, human liberty, the chief duties of Christians as citizens, and on the conditions of the working classes (ibid., pp. 107, 135, 180, 208).
        It is in relation to the sciences that some persons doubt the reliability of St. Thomas's writings; and the doubters are thinking of the physical and experimental sciences, for in metaphysics the Scholastics are admitted to be masters. Leo XIII calls attention to the following truths: (a) The Scholastics were not opposed to investigation. Holding as a principle in anthropology "that the human intelligence is only led to the knowledge of things without body and matter by things sensible, they well understood that nothing was of greater use to the philosopher than diligently to search into the mysteries of nature, and to be earnest and constant in the study of physical things" (ibid., p. 55). This principle was reduced to practice: St. Thomas, St. Albertus Magnus, Roger Bacon, and others "gave large attention to the knowledge of natural things" (ibid., p. 56). (b) Investigation alone is not sufficient for true science. "When facts have been established, it is necessary to rise and apply ourselves to the study of the nature of corporeal things, to inquire into the laws which govern them and the principles whence their order and varied unity and mutual attraction in diversity arise" (p. 55). Will the scientists of to-day pretend to be better reasoners than St. Thomas, or more powerful in synthesis? It is the method and the principles of St. Thomas that Leo XIII recommends: "If anything is taken up with too great subtlety by the Scholastic doctors, or too carelessly stated; if there be anything that ill agrees with the discoveries of a later age or, in a word, is improbable in any way, it does not enter into our mind to propose that for imitation to our age" (p. 56). Just as St. Thomas, in his day, saw a movement towards Aristotle and philosophical studies which could not be checked, but could be guided in the right direction and made to serve the cause of truth, so also, Leo XIII, seeing in the world of his time a spirit of study and investigation which might be productive of evil or of good, had no desire to check it, but resolved to propose a moderator and master who could guide it in the paths of truth.
        No better guide could have been chosen than the clear-minded, analytic, synthetic, and sympathetic Thomas Aquinas. His extraordinary patience and fairness in dealing with erring philosophers, his approbation of all that was true in their writings, his gentleness in condemning what was false, his clear-sightedness in pointing out the direction to true knowledge in all its branches, his aptness and accuracy in expressing the truth -- these qualities mark him as a great master not only for the thirteenth century, but for all times. If any persons are inclined to consider him too subtle, it is because they do not know how clear, concise, and simple are his definitions and divisions. His two summae are masterpieces of pedagogy, and mark him as the greatest of human teachers. Moreover, he dealt with errors similar to many which go under the name of philosophy or science in our days. The Rationalism of Abelard and others called forth St. Thomas's luminous and everlasting principles on the true relations of faith and reason. Ontologism was solidly refuted by St. Thomas nearly six centuries before the days of Malebranche, Gioberti, and Ubaghs (see Summa I:84:5). The true doctrine on first principles and on universals, given by him and by the other great Scholastics, is the best refutation of Kant's criticism of metaphysical ideas (see, e.g., "Post. Analyt.", I, lect. xix; "De ente et essentia", c. iv; Summa I:17:3 corp. and ad 2um; I:79:3; I:84:5; I:84:6 corp and ad 1um; I:85:2 ad 2um; I:85:3 ad 1um, ad 4um; Cf. index to "Summa": "Veritas", "Principium", "Universale"). Modern psychological Pantheism does not differ substantially from the theory of one soul for all men asserted by Averroes (see "De unit. intell." and Summa I:76:2; I:79:5). The Modernistic error, which distinguishes the Christ of faith from the Christ of history, had as its forerunner the Averroistic principle that a thing might be true in philosophy and false in religion.
        In the Encyclical "Providentissimus Deus" (18 November, 1893) Leo XIII draws from St. Thomas's writings the principles and wise rules which should govern scientific criticism of the Sacred Books. From the same source recent writers have drawn principles which are most helpful in the solution of questions pertaining to Spiritism and Hypnotism. Are we to conclude, then, that St. Thomas's works, as he left them, furnish sufficient instruction for scientists, philosophers, and theologians of our times? By no means. Vetera novis augere et perficere -- "To strengthen and complete the old by aid of the new" -- is the motto of the restoration proposed by Leo XIII. Were St. Thomas living to-day he would gladly adopt and use all the facts made known by recent scientific and historical investigations, but he would carefully weigh all evidence offered in favour of the facts. Positive theology is more necessary in our days than it was in the thirteenth century. Leo XIII calls attention to its necessity in his Encyclical, and his admonition is renewed by Pius X in his Letter on Modernism. But both pontiffs declare that positive theology must not be extolled to the detriment of Scholastic theology. In the Encyclical "Pascendi", prescribing remedies against Modernism, Pius X, following in this his illustrious predecessor, gives the first place to "Scholastic philosophy, especially as it was taught by Thomas Aquinas", St. Thomas is still "The Angel of the Schools".

        Doctor of the Church, Cardinal-Bishop of Albano, Minister General of the Friars Minor, born at Bagnorea in the vicinity of Viterbo in 1221; died at Lyons, 16 July, 1274.
        Nothing is known of Bonaventure's parents save their names: Giovanni di Fidanza and Maria Ritella. How his baptismal name of John came to be changed to that of Bonaventure is not clear. An attempt has been made to trace the latter name to the exclamation of St. Francis, O buona ventura, when Bonaventure was brought as an infant to him to be cured of a dangerous illness. This derivation is highly improbable; it seems based on a late fifteenth-century legend. Bonaventure himself tells us (Legenda S. Francisci Prolog.) that while yet a child he was preserved from death through the intercession of St. Francis, but there is no evidence that this cure took place during the lifetime of St. Francis or that the name Bonaventure originated in any prophetical words of St. Francis. It was certainly borne by others before the Seraphic Doctor. No details of Bonaventure's youth have been preserved. He entered the Order of Friars Minor in 1238 or 1243; the exact year is uncertain. Wadding and the Bollandists bold for the later date, but the earlier one is supported by Sbaradea, Bonelli, Panfilo da Magliano, and Jeiler, and appears more probable. It is certain that Bonaventure was sent from the Roman Province, to which he belonged, to complete his studies at the University of Paris under Alexander of Hales, the great founder of the Franciscan School. The latter died in 1246, according to the opinion generally received, though not yet definitely established, and Bonaventure seems to have become his pupil about 1242. Be this as it may, Bonaventure received in 1248 the "licentiate" which gave him the right to teach publicly as Magister regens, and he continued to lecture at the university with great success until 1256, when he was compelled to discontinue, owing to the then violent outburst of opposition to the Mendicant orders on the part of the secular professors at the university. The latter, jealous, as it seems, of the academic successes of the Dominicans and Franciscans, sought to exclude them from teaching publicly. The smouldering elements of discord had been fanned into a flame in 1265, when Guillaume de Saint-Amour published a work entitled "The Perils of the Last Times", in which he attacked the Friars with great bitterness. It was in connexion with this dispute that Bonaventure wrote his treatise, "De paupertate Christi". It was not, however, Bonaventure, as some have erroneously stated, but Blessed John of Parma, who appeared before Alexander IV at Anagni to defend the Franciscans against their adversary. The Holy See having, as is well known, re-established the Mendicants in all their privileges, and Saint-Amour's book having been formally condemned, the degree of Doctor was solemnly bestowed on St. Bonaventure and St. Thomas Aquinas at the university, 23 October, 1267.
        In the meantime Bonaventure, though not yet thirty-six years old, had on 2 February, 1257, been elected Minister General of the Friars Minor -- an office of peculiar difficulty, owing to the fact that the order was distracted by internal dissensions between the two factions among the Friars designated respectively the Spirituales and the Relaxati. The former insisted upon the literal observance of the original Rule, especially in regard to poverty, while the latter wished to introduce innovations and mitigations. This lamentable controversy had moreover been aggravated by the enthusiasm with which many of the "Spiritual" Friars had adopted the doctrines connected with the name of Abbot Joachim of Floris and set forth in the so-called "Evangelium aeternum". The introduction to this pernicious book, which proclaimed the approaching dispensation of the Spirit that was to replace the Law of Christ, was falsely attributed to Bl. John of Parma, who in 1267 had retired from the government of the order in favour of Bonaventure. The new general lost no time in striking vigorously at both extremes within the order. On the one hand, he proceeded against several of the Joachimite "Spirituals" as heretics before an ecclesiastical tribunal at Città della Pieve; two of their leaders were condemned to perpetual imprisonment, and John of Parma was only saved from a like fate through the personal intervention of Cardinal Ottoboni, afterwards Adrian V. On the other hand, Bonaventure had, in an encyclical letter issued immediately after his election, outlined a programme for the reformation of the Re1axati. These reforms he sought to enforce three years later at the General Chapter of Narbonne when the constitutions of the order which he had revised were promulgated anew. These so-called "Constitutiones Narbonenses" are distributed under twelve heads, corresponding to the twelve chapters of the Rule, of which they form an enlightened and prudent exposition, and are of capital importance in the history of Franciscan legislation. The chapter which issued this code of laws requested Bonaventure to write a "legend" or life of St. Francis which should supersede those then in circulation. This was in 1260. Three years later Bonaventure, having in the meantime visited a great part of the order, and having assisted at the dedication of the chapel on La Verna and at the translation of the remains of St. Clare and of St. Anthony, convoked a general chapter of the order of Pisa at which his newly composed life of St. Francis was officially approved as the standard biography of the saint to the exclusion of all others. At this chapter of 1263, Bonaventure fixed the limits of the different provinces of the order and, among other ordinances, prescribed that at nightfall a bell should be rung in honour of the Annunciation, a pious practice from which the Angelus seems to have originated. There are no grounds, however, for the assertion that Bonaventure in this chapter prescribed the celebration of the feast of the Immaculate Conception in the order. In 1264, at the earnest request of Cardinal Cajetan, Bonaventure consented to resume the direction of the Poor Clares which the Chapter of Pisa had entirely renounced the year before. He required the Clares, however, to acknowledge occasionally in writing that the favours tendered them by the Friars were voluntary acts of charity not arising from any obligation whatsoever. It is said that Pope Urban IV acted at Bonaventure's suggestion in attempting to establish uniformity of observance throughout all the monasteries of Clares. About this time (1264) Bonaventure founded at Rome the Society of the Gonfalone in honour of the Blessed Virgin which, if not the first confraternity instituted in the Church, as some have claimed, was certainly one of the earliest. In 1265 Clement IV, by a Bull dated 23 November, nominated Bonaventure to the vacant Archbishopric of York, but the saint, in keeping with his singular humility, steadfastly refused this honour and the pope yielded.
        In 1266 Bonaventure convened a general chapter in Paris at which, besides other enactments, it was decreed that all the "legends" of St. Francis written before that of Bonaventure should be forthwith destroyed, just as the Chapter of Narbonne had in 1260 ordered the destruction of all constitutions before those then enacted. This decree has excited much hostile criticism. Some would fain see in it a deliberate attempt on Bonaventure's part to close the primitive sources of Franciscan history, to suppress the real Francis, and substitute a counterfeit in his stead. Others, however, regard the decree in question as a purely liturgical ordinance intended to secure uniformity in the choir "legends". Between these two conflicting opinions the truth seems to be that this edict was nothing more than another heroic attempt to wipe out the old quarrels and start afresh. One cannot but regret the circumstances of this decree, but when it is recalled that the appeal of the contending parties was ever to the words and actions of St. Francis as recorded in the earlier "legends", it would be unjust to accuse the chapter of "literary vandalism" in seeking to proscribe the latter. We have no details of Bonaventure's life between 1266 and 1269. In the latter year he convoked his fourth general chapter at Assisi, in which it was enacted that a Mass be sung every Saturday throughout the order in honour of the Blessed Virgin, not, however, in honour of her Immaculate Conception as Wadding among others has erroneously stated. It was probably soon after this chapter that Bonaventure composed his "Apologia pauperum", in which he silences Gerard of Abbeville who by means of an anonymous libel had revived the old university feud against the Friars. Two years later, Bonaventure was mainly instrumental in reconciling the differences among the cardinals assembled at Viterbo to elect a successor to Clement IV, who had died nearly three years before; it was on Bonaventure's advice that, 1 September, 1271, they unanimously chose Theobald Visconti of Piacenza who took the title of Gregory X. That the cardinals seriously authorized Bonaventure to nominate himself, as some writers aver, is most improbable. Nor is there any truth in the popular story that Bonaventure on arriving at Viterbo advised the citizens to lock up the cardinals with a view to hastening the election. In 1272 Bonaventure for the second time convened a general chapter at Pisa in which, apart from general enactments to further regular observances new decrees were issued respecting the direction of the Poor Clares, and a solemn anniversary was instituted on 25 August in memory of St. Louis. This was the first step towards the canonization of the holy king, who had been a special friend of Bonaventure, and at whose request Bonaventure composed his "Office of the Passion". On 23 June, 1273, Bonaventure, much against his will, was created Cardinal-Bishop of Albano, by Gregory X. It is said that the pope's envoys who brought him the cardinal's hat found the saint washing dishes outside a convent near Florence and were requested by him to hang it on a tree nearby until his hands were free to take it. Bonaventure continued to govern the Order of Friars Minor until 20 May, 1274, when at the General Chapter of Lyons, Jerome of Ascoli, afterwards Nicholas IV, was elected to succeed him. Meanwhile Bonaventure had been charged by Gregory X to prepare the questions to be discussed at the Fourteenth Oecumenical Council, which opened at Lyons 7 May, 1274.
        The pope himself presided at the council, but he confided the direction of its deliberations to Bonaventure, especially charging him to confer with the Greeks on the points relating to the abjuration of their schism. It was largely due to Bonaventure's efforts and to those of the Friars whom he had sent to Constantinople, that the Greeks accepted the union effected 6 July, 1274. Bonaventure twice addressed the assembled Fathers, on 18 May, during a session of the Council, when he preached on Baruch 5:5, and on 29 June, during pontifical Mass celebrated by the pope. While the council was still in session, Bonaventure died, Sunday, 15 July, 1274. The exact cause of his death is unknown, but if we may credit the chronicle of Peregrinus of Bologna, Bonaventure's secretary, which has recently (1905) been recovered and edited, the saint was poisoned. He was buried on the evening following his death in the church of the Friars Minor at Lyons, being honoured with a splendid funeral which was attended by the pope, the King of Aragon, the cardinals, and the other members of the council. The funeral oration was delivered by Pietro di Tarantasia, O.P., Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia, afterwards Innocent V, and on the following day during the fifth session of the council, Gregory X spoke of the irreparable loss the Church had sustained by the death of Bonaventure, and commanded all prelates and priests throughout the whole world to celebrate Mass for the repose of his soul.
        Bonaventure enjoyed especial veneration even during his lifetime because of his stainless character and of the miracles attributed to him. It was Alexander of Hales who said that Bonaventure seemed to have escaped the curse of Adam's sin. And the story of St. Thomas visiting Bonaventure's cell while the latter was writing the life of St. Francis and finding him in an ecstasy is well known. "Let us leave a saint to work for a saint", said the Angelic Doctor as he withdrew. When, in 1434, Bonaventure's remains were translated to the new church erected at Lyons in honour of St. Francis, his head was found in a perfect state of preservation, the tongue being as red as in life. This miracle not only moved the people of Lyons to choose Bonaventure as their special patron, but also gave a great impetus to the process of his canonization. Dante, writing long before, had given expression to the popular mind by placing Bonaventure among the saints in his "Paradiso", and no canonization was ever more ardently or universally desired than that of Bonaventure. That its inception was so long delayed was mainly due to the deplorable dissensions within the order after Bonaventure's death. Finally on 14 April, 1482, Bonaventure was enrolled in the catalogue of the saints by Sixtus IV. In 1562 Bonaventure's shrine was plundered by the Huguenots and the urn containing his body was burned in the public square. His head was preserved through the heroism of the superior, who hid it at the cost of his life but it disappeared during the French Revolution and every effort to discover it has been in vain. Bonaventure was inscribed among the principal Doctors of the Church by Sixtus V, 14 March, 1557. His feast is celebrated 14 July.
        Bonaventure, as Hefele remarks, united in himself the two elements whence proceed whatever was noble and sublime, great and beautiful, in the Middle Ages, viz., tender piety and profound learning. These two qualities shine forth conspicuously in his writings. Bonaventure wrote on almost every subject treated by the Schoolmen, and his writings are very numerous. The greater number of them deal with philosophy and theology. No work of Bonaventure's is exclusively philosophical, but in his "Commentary on the Sentences", his "Breviloquium", his "Itinerarium Mentis in Deum" and his "De reductione Artium ad Theologiam", he deals with the most important and difficult questions of philosophy in such a way that these four works taken together contain the elements of a complete system of philosophy, and at the same time bear striking witness to the mutual interpenetration of philosophy and theology which is a distinguishing mark of the Scholastic period. The Commentary on the "Sentences" remains without doubt Bonaventure's greatest work; all his other wntings are in some way subservient to it. It was written, superiorum praecepto (at the command of his superiors) when he was only twenty-seven and is a theological achievement of the first rank. It comprises more than four thousand pages in folio and treats extensively and profoundly of God and the Trinity, the Creation and Fall of Man, the Incarnation and Redemption, Grace, the Sacraments, and the Last Judgment, that is to say, traverses the entire field of Scholastic theology. Like the other medieval Summas, Bonaventure's "Commentary" is divided into four books. In the first, second, and fourth Bonaventure can compete favourably with the best commentaries on the Sentences, but it is admitted that in the third book he surpasses all others. The "Breviloquium", written before 1257, is, as its name implies, a shorter work. It is to some extent a summary of the "Commentary" containing as Scheeben says, the quintessence of the theology of the time, and is the most sublime compendium of dogma in our possession. It is perhaps the work which will best give a popular notion of Bonaventure's theology; in it his powers are seen at their best. Whilst the "Breviloquium" derives all things from God, the "Itinerarium Mentis in Deum" proceeds in the opposite direction, bringing all things back to their Supreme End. The latter work, which formed the delight of Gerson for more than thirty years, and from which Bl. Henry Suso drew so largely, was written on Mount la Verna in 1259. The relation of the finite and infinite, the natural and supernatural, is again dealt with by Bonaventure, in his "De reductione Artium ad Theologiam", a little work written to demonstrate the relation which philosophy and the arts bear to theology, and to prove that they are all absorbed in it as into a natural centre. It must not be inferred, however, that philosophy in Bonaventure's view does not possess an existence of its own. The passages in Bonaventure's works on which such an opinion might be founded only go to prove that he did not regard philosophy as the chief or last end of scientific research and speculation. Moreover, it is only when compared with theology that he considers philosophy of an inferior order. Considered in itself, philosophy is, according to Bonaventure, a true science, prior in point of time to theology. Again, Bonaventure's pre-eminence as a mystic must not he suffered to overshadow his labours in the domain of philosophy, for he was undoubtedly one of the greatest philosophers of the Middle Ages.
        Bonaventure's philosophy, no less than his theology, manifests his profound respect for tradition. He regarded new opinions with disfavour and ever strove to follow those generally received in his time. Thus, between the two great influences which determined the trend of Scholasticism about the middle of the thirteenth century, there can he no doubt that Bonaventure ever remained a faithful disciple of Augustine and always defended the teaching of that Doctor; yet he by no means repudiated the teaching of Aristotle. While basing his doctrine on that of the old school, Bonaventure borrowed not a little from the new. Though he severely criticized the defects of Aristotle, he is said to have quoted more frequently from the latter than any former Scholastic had done. Perhaps he inclined more, on the whole, to some general views of Plato than to those of Aristotle, but he cannot therefore be called a Platonist. Although he adopted the hylomorphic theory of matter and form, Bonaventure, following Alexander of Hales, whose Summa he appears to have had before him in composing his own works, does not limit matter to corporeal beings, but holds that one and the same kind of matter is the substratum of spiritual and corporeal beings alike. According to Bonaventure, materia prima is not a mere indeterminatum quid, but contains the rationes seminales infused by the Creator at the beginning, and tends towards the acquisition of those special forms which it ultimately assumes. The substantial form is not in Bonaventure's opinion, essentially, one, as St. Thomas taught. Another point in which Bonaventure, as representing the Franciscan school, is at variance with St. Thomas is that which concerns the possibility of creation from eternity. He declares that reason can demonstrate that the world was not created ab aeterno. In his system of ideology Bonaventure does not favour either the doctrine of Plato or that of the Ontologists. It is only by completely misunderstanding Bonaventure's teaching that any ontologistic interpretation can he read into it. For he is most emphatic in rejecting any direct or immediate vision of God or of His Divine attributes in this life. For the rest, the psychology of Bonaventure differs in no essential point from the common teaching of the Schoolmen. The same is true, as a whole, of his theology.
        Bonaventure's theological writings may be classed under four heads: dogmatic, mystic, exegetical, and homiletic. His dogmatic teaching is found chiefly in his "Commentary on the Sentences" and in his "Breviloquium". Treating of the Incarnation, Bonaventure does not differ substantially from St. Thomas. In answer to the question: "Would the Incarnation have taken place if Adam had not sinned?", he answers in the negative. Again, notwithstanding his deep devotion to the Blessed Virgin, he favours the opinion which does not exempt her from original sin, quia magis consonat fidei pietati et sanctorum auctoritati. But Bonaventure's treament of this question marked a distinct advance, and he did more perhaps than anyone before Scotus to clear the ground for its correct presentation. His treatise on the sacraments is largely practical and is characterized by a distinctly devotional element. This appears especially in is treatment of the Holy Eucharist. He rejects the doctrine of physical, and admits only a moral, efficacy in the sacraments. It is much to be regretted that Bonaventure's views on this and other controverted questions should be so often misrepresented, even by recent writers. For example, at, least three of the latest and best known manuals of dogma in treating of such questions as "De angelorum natura", "De scientia Christi", "De natura distinctionis inter caritatem et gratiam sanctificantem", "De causalitate sacramentorum", "De statu parvulorum sine baptismo morientium", gratuitously attribute opinions to Bonaventure which are entirely at variance with his real teaching. To be sure Bonaventure, like all the Scholastics, occasionally put forward opinions not strictly correct in regard to questions not yet defined or clearly settled, but even here his teaching represents the most profound and acceptable ideas of his age and marks a notable stage in the evolution of knowledge. Bonaventure's authority has always been very great in the Church. Apart from his personal influence at Lyons (1274), his writings carried great weight at the subsequent councils at Vienna (1311), Constance (1417), Basle (1435), and Florence (1438). At Trent (1546) his writings, as Newman remarks (Apologia, ch. v) had a critical effect on some of the definitions of dogma, and at the Vatican Council (1870), sentences from them were embodied in the decrees concerning papal supremacy and infallibility.
        Only a small part of Bonaventure's writings is properly mystical. These are characterized by brevity and by a faithful adherence to the teaching of the Gospel. The perfecting of the soul by the uprooting of vice and the implanting of virtue is his chief concern. There is a degree of prayer in which ecstasy occurs. When it is attained, God is sincerely to be thanked. It must, however, be regarded only as incidental. It is by no means essential to the possession of perfection in the highest degree. Such is the general outline of Bonaventure's mysticism which is largely a continuation and development of what the St. Victors had already laid down. The shortest and most complete summary of it is found in his "De Triplici Via", often erroneously entitled the "Incendium Amoris", in which he distinguishes the different stages or degrees of perfect charity. What the "Breviloquium" is to Scholasticism, the "De Triplici Via" is to mysticism: a perfect compendium of all that is best in it. Savonarola made a pious and learned commentary upon it. Perhaps the best known of Bonaventure's other mystical and ascetical writings are the "Soliloquium", a sort of dialogue containing a rich collection of passages from the Fathers on spiritual questions; the "Lignum vitae", a series of forty-eight devout meditations on the life of Christ, the "De sex alis seraphim", a precious opuscule on the virtues of superiors, which Father Claudius Acquaviva caused to be printed separately and circulated throughout the Society of Jesus; the "Vitis mystica", a work on the Passion, which was for a long time erroneously ascribed to St. Bernard, and "De Perfectione vitae", a treatise which depicts the virtues that make for religious perfection, and which appears to have been written for the use of Blessed Isabella of France, who had founded a monastery of Poor Clares at Longchamps.
        Bonaventure's exegetical works were highly esteemed in the Middle Ages and still remain a treasure house of thoughts and treatises. They include commentaries on the Books of Ecclesiastes and Wisdom and on the Gospels of St. Luke and St. John. In addition to his commentary on the Fourth Gospel, Bonaventure composed "Collationes in Joannem", ninety-one conferences on subjects relating to it. His "Collationes in Hexameron" is a work of the same kind, but its title, which did not originate with Bonaventure, is somewhat misleading. It consists of an unfinished course of instructions delivered at Paris in 1273. Bonaventure did not intend in these twenty-one discourses to explain the work of the six days, but rather to draw some analogous instructions from the first chapter of Genesis, as a warning to his auditors against some errors of the day. It is an exaggeration to say that Bonaventure had regard only to the mystical sense of Scripture. In such of his writings as are properly exegetical he follows the text, though he also develops the practical conclusions deduced from it, for in the composition of these works he had the advantage of the preacher mainly in view. Bonaventure had conceived the most sublime idea of the ministry of preaching, and notwithstanding his manifold labours in other fields, this ministry ever held an especial place among his labours. He neglected no opportunity of preaching, whether to the clergy, the people, or his own Friars, and Bl. Francis of Fabriano (d. 1322), his contemporary and auditor, bears witness that Bonaventure's renown as a preacher almost surpassed his fame as a teacher. He preached before popes and kings, in Spain and Germany, as well as in France and Italy. Nearly five hundred authentic sermons of Bonaventure have come down to us; the greater part of them were delivered in Paris before the university while Bonaventure was professor there, or after he had become minister general. Most of them were taken down by some of his auditors and thus preserved to posterity. In his sermons he follows the Scholastic method of putting forth the divisions of his subject and then expounding each division according to the different senses.
        Besides his philosophical and theological writings, Bonaventure left a number of works referring to the religious life, but more especially to the Franciscan Order. Among the latter is his well-known explanation of the Rule of the Friars Minor; in this work, written at a time when the dissensions vithin the order as to the observance of the Rule were so painfully marked, he adopted a conciliatory attitude, approving neither the interpretation of the Zelanti nor that of the Relaxati. His aim was to promote harmony in essentials. With this end in view, he had chosen a middle course at the outset and firmly adhered to it during the seventeen years of his generalship. If anyone could have succeeded in uniting the order, it would have been Bonaventure; but the via media proved impracticable, and Bonaventure's personality only served to hold in check the elements of discord, subsequently represented by the Conventuals and the Fraticelli. Following upon his explanation of the Rule comes Bonaventure's important treatise embodying the Constitutions of Narbonne already referred to. There is also an answer by Bonaventure to some questions concerning the Rule, a treatise on the guidance of novices, and an opuscule in which Bonaventure states why the Friars Minor preach and hear confessions, besides a number of letters which give us a special insight into the saint's character. These include official letters written by Bonaventure as general to the superiors of the order, as well as personal letters addressed like that "Ad innominatum magistrum" to private individuals. Bonaventure's beautiful "Legend" or life of St. Francis completes the writings in which he strove to promote the spiritual welfare of his brethren. This well-known work is composed of two parts of very unequal value. In the first Bonaventure publishes the unedited facts that he had been able to gather at Assisi and elsewhere; in the other he merely abridges and repeats what others, and especially Celano, had already recorded. As a whole, it is essentially a legenda pacis, compiled mainly with a view to pacifying the unhappy discord still ravaging the order. St. Bonaventure's aim was to present a general portrait of the holy founder which, by the omission of certain points that had given rise to controversy, should be acceptable to all parties. This aim was surely legitimate even though from a critical standpoint the work may not be a perfect biography. Of this "Legenda Major", as it came to be called, Bonaventure made an abridgment arranged for use in choir and known as the "Legenda Minor".
        Bonaventure was the true heir and follower of Alexander of Hales and the continuator of the old Franciscan school founded by the Doctor Irrefragabilis, but he surpassed the latter in acumen, fertility of imagination, and originality of expression. His proper place is heside his friend St. Thomas, as they are the two greatest theologians of Scholasticism. If it be true that the system of St. Thomas is more finished than that of Bonaventure, it should be borne in mind that, whereas Thomas was free to give himself to study to the end of his days, Bonaventure had not yet received the Doctor's degree when he was called to govern his order and overwhelmed with multifarious cares in consequence. The heavy responsibilities which he bore till within a few weeks of his death were almost incompatible with further study and even precluded his completing what he had begun before his thirty-sixth year. Again, in attempting to make a comparison between Bonaventure and St. Thomas, we should remember that the two saints were of a different bent of mind; each had qualities in which he excelled; one was in a sense the complement of the other; one supplied what the other lacked. Thus Thomas was analytical, Bonaventure synthetical; Thomas was the Christian Aristotle, Bonaventure the true disciple of Augustine; Thomas was the teacher of the schools, Bonaventure of practical life; Thomas enlightened the mind, Bonaventure inflamed the heart; Thomas extended the Kingdom of God by the love of theology, Bonaventure by the theology of love. Even those who hold that Bonaventure does not reach the level of St. Thomas in the sphere of Scholastic speculation concede that as a mystic he far surpasses the Angelic Doctor. In this particular realm of thelogy, Bonaventure equals, if he does not excel, St. Bernard himself. Leo XIII rightly calls Bonaventure the Prince of Mystics: "Having scaled the difficult heights of speculation in a most notable manner, he treated of mystical theology with such perfection that in the common opinion of the learned he is facile princeps in that field." (Allocutio of 11 October, 1890.) It must not be concluded, however, that Bonaventure's mystical writings constitute his chief title to fame. This conclusion, in so far as it seems to imply a deprecation of his labours in the field of Scholasticism, is opposed to the explicit utterances of several pontiffs and eminent scholars, is incompatible with Bonaventure's acknowledged reputation in the Schools, and is excluded by an intelligent perusal of his works. As a matter of fact, the half of one volume of the ten comprising the Quaracchi edition suffices to contain Bonaventure's ascetic and mystic writings. Although Bonaventure's mystical works alone would suffice to place him in the foremost rank, yet he may justly be called a mystic rather than a Scholastic only in so far as every subject he treats of is made ultimately to converge upon God. This abiding sense of God's presence which pervades all the writings of Bonaventure is perhaps their fundamental attribute. To it we may trace that all-pervading unction which is their peculiar characteristic. As Sixtus V aptly expresses it: "In writing he united to the highest erudition an equal amount of the most ardent piety; so that whilst enlightening his readers he also touched their hearts penetrating to the inmost recesses of their souls" (Bull, Triumphantis Jerusalem). St. Antoninus, Denis the Carthusian, Louis of Granada, and Father Claude de la Colombière, among others, have also noted this feature of Bonaventure's writings. Invariably he aims at arousing devotion as well as imparting knowledge. He never divorces the one from the other, but treats learned subjects devoutly and devout subjects learnedly. Bonaventure, however, never sacrifices truth to devotion, but his tendency to prefer an opinion which arouses devotion to a dry and uncertain speculation may go far towards explaining not a little of the widespread popularity his writings enjoyed among his contemporaries and all succeeding ages. Again Bonaventure is distinguished from the other Scholastics not only by the greater warmth of his religious teaching, but also by its practical tendency as Trithemius notes (Scriptores Eccles.). Many purely speculative questions are passed over by Bonaventure; there is a directness about all he has written. No useful purpose, he declares, is achieved by mere controversy. He is ever tolerant and modest. Thus while he himself accepts the literal interpretations of the first chapter of Genesis, Bonaventure acknowledges the admissibility of a different one and refers with admiration to the figurative explanation propounded by St. Augustine. He never condemns the opinions of others and emphatically disclaims anything like finality for his own views. Indeed he asserts the littleness of his authority, renounces all claims to originality and calls himself a "poor compiler". No doubt Bonaventure's works betray some of the defects of the learning of his day, but there is nothing in them that savours of useless subtlety. "One does not find in his pages", notes Gerson (De Examin. Doctrin.) "vain trifles or useless cavils, nor does he mix as do so many others, worldly digressions with serious theological discussions. "This", he adds, "is the reason why St. Bonaventure has been abandoned by those Scholastics who are devoid of piety, of whom the number is alas! but too large". It has been said that Bonaventure's mystical spirit unfitted him for subtle analysis. Be this as it may, one of the greatest charms of Bonaventure's writings is their simple clearness. Though he had necessarily to make use of the Scholastic method, he rose above dialectics, and though his argumentation may at times seem too cumbersome to find approval in our time, yet he writes with an ease and grace of style which one seeks in vain among the other Schoolmen. To the minds of his contemporaries impregnated with the mysticism of the Middle Ages, the spirit that breathed in Bonaventure's writings seemed to find its parallel only in the lives of those that stand nearest to the Throne, and the title of "Seraphic Doctor" bestowed upon Bonaventure is an undeniable tribute to his all-absorbing love for God. This title seems to have been first given to him in 1333 in the Prologue of the "Pantheologia" by Raynor of Pisa, O.P. He had already received while teaching in Paris the name of Doctor Devotus.
        The Franciscan Order has ever regarded Bonaventure as one of the greatest Doctors and from the beginning his teaching found many distinguished expositors within the order, among the earliest being his own pupils, John Peckham later Archbishop of Canterbury, Matthew of Aquasparta, and Alexander of Alexandria (d. 1314), both of whom became ministers general of the order. The last named wrote a "Summa quaestionum S. Bonaventura. Other well-known commentaries are by John of Erfurt (d. 1317), Verilongus (d. 1464), Brulifer (d. c. 1497), de Combes (d. 1570), Trigosus (d. 1616), Coriolano (d. 1625), Zamora (d. 1649), Bontemps (d. 1672), Hauzeur (d. 1676), Bonelli (d. 1773), etc. From the fourteenth to the sixteenth century the influence of Bonaventure was undoubtedly somewhat overshadowed by that of Duns Scotus, owing largely to the prominence of the latter as champion of the Immaculate Conception in the disputes between the Franciscans and Dominicans. Sixtus V, however, founded a special chair at Rome for the study of St. Bonaventure; such chairs also existed in several universities, notably at Ingolstadt, Salzburg, Valencia, and Osuna. It is worthy of note that the Capuchins forbade their Friars to follow Scotus and ordered them to return to the study of Bonaventure. The centenary celebrations of 1874 appear to have revived interest in the life and work of St. Bonaventure. Certain it is that since then the study of his writings has steadily increased.
        Unfortunately not all of Bonaventure's writings have come down to us. Some were lost before the invention of printing. On the other hand, several works have in the course of time been attributed to him which are not his. Such are the "Centiloquium", the "Speculum Disciplinæ", which is probably the work of Bernard of Besse, Bonaventure's secretary; the rhythmical "Philomela", which seems to be from the pen of John Peckham; the "Stimulus Amoris" and the "Speculum B.V.M.", written respectively by James of Milan and Conrad of Saxony; "The Legend of St. Clare", which is by Thomas of Celano; the "Meditationes vitae Christi" composed by a Friar Minor for a Poor Clare, and the "Biblia pauperum" of the Dominican Nicholas of Hanapis. Those familiar with the catalogues of European libraries are aware that no writer since the Middle Ages had been more widely read or copied than Bonaventure. The earliest catalogues of his works are those given by Salimbene (1282), Henry of Ghent (d. 1293), Ubertino of Casale (1305), Ptolemy of Lucca (1327) and the "Chronicle of the XXIV Generals" (1368). The fifteenth century saw no less than fifty editions of Bonaventure's works. More celebrated than any preceding edition was that published at Rome (1588-96) by order of Sixtus V (7 vols. in fol.). It was reprinted with but slight emendations at Metz in 1609 and at Lyons in 1678. A fourth edition appeared at Venice (13 vols. in 4to) 1751, and was reprinted at Paris in 1864. All these editions were very imperfect in so far as they include spurious works and omit genuine ones. They have been completely superseded by the celebrated critical edition published by the Friars Minor at Quaracchi, near Florence. Any scientific study of Bonaventure must be based upon this edition, upon which not only Leo XIII (13 December, 1885) and Pius X (11 April, 1904), but scholars of all creeds have lavished the highest encomiums. Nothing seems to have been omitted which could make this edition perfect and complete. In its preparation the editors visited over 400 libraries and examined nearly 52,000 manuscripts, while the first volume alone contains 20,000 variant readings. It was commenced by Father Fidelis a Fanna (d. 1881) and completed by Father Ignatius Jeiler (d. 1904): "Doctoris Seraphici S. Bonaventuræ S. H. B. Episcopi Cardinalis Opera Omnia, -- edita studio et cura P. P. Collegii S. Bonaventura in fol. ad Claras Aquas [Quaracchi] 1882-1902". In this edition the works of the saint are distributed through the ten volumes as follows: the first four contain his great "Commentaries on the Book of Sentences"; the fifth comprises eight smaller scholastic works such as the "Breviloquium" and "Itinerarium"; the sixth and seventh are devoted to his commentaries on Scripture; the eighth contains his mystical and ascetic writings and works having special reference to the order; the ninth his sermons; whilst the tenth is taken up with the index and a short sketch of the saint's life and writings by Father Ignatius Jeiler.
        We do not possess any formal, contemporary biography of St. Bonaventure. That written by the Spanish Franciscan, Zamorra, who flourished before 1300, has not been preserved. The references to Bonaventure's life contained in the works of Salimbene (1282), Bernard of Besse (c. 1380), Bl. Francis of Fabriano (d. 1322), Angelo Clareno (d. 1337), Ubertino of Casale (d. 1338), Bartholomew of Pisa (d. 1399) and the "Chronicle of the XXIV Generals" (c. 1368), are in vol. X of the Quaracchi Edition (pp. 39-72).

        Philosopher, surnamed DOCTOR MIRABILIS, b. at Ilchester, Somersetshire, about 1214; d. at Oxford, perhaps 11 June, 1294. His wealthy parents sided with Henry III against the rebellious barons, but lost nearly all their property. It has been presumed that Robert Bacon, O.P., was Roger's brother; more probably he was his uncle. Roger made his higher studies at Oxford and Paris, and was later professor at Oxford (Franciscan school). He was greatly influenced by his Oxonian masters and friends Richard Fitzacre and Edmund Rich, but especially by Robert Grosseteste and Adam Marsh, both professors at the Franciscan school, and at Paris by the Franciscan Petrus Peregrinus de Maricourt (see Schlund in "Archiv. Francisc. Histor.", IV, 1911, pp. 436 sqq.) They created in him a predilection for positive sciences, languages, and physics; and to the last-mentioned he owed his entrance about 1240 (1251? 1257?) into the Franciscans, either at Oxford or Paris. He continued his learned work; illness, however, compelled him to give it up for two years. When he was able to recommence his studies, his superiors imposed other duties on him, and forbade him to publish any work out of the order without special permission from the higher superiors "under pain of losing the book and of fasting several days with only bread and water."
        This prohibition has induced modern writers to pass severe judgment upon Roger's superiors being jealous of Roger's abilities; even serious scholars say they can hardly understand how Bacon conceived the idea of joining the Franciscan Order. Such critics forget that when Bacon entered the order the Franciscans numbered many men of ability in no way inferior to the most famous scholars of other religious orders (see Felder, "Gesch. der wissenschaftlichen Studien im Franziskanerorden bis um die Mitte des 13. Jahrhunderts", Freiburg, 1904). The prohibition enjoined on Bacon was a general one, which extended to the whole order; its promulgation was not even directed against him, but rather against Gerard of Borgo San Donnino, as Salimbene says expressly (see "Chronica Fr. Salimbene Parmensis" in "Mon. Germ. Hist." SS.", XXII, 462, ed. Holder-Egger). Gerard had published in 1254 without permission his heretical work, "Introductorius in Evangelium æternum"; thereupon the General Chapter of Narbonne in 1260 promulgated the above-mentioned decree, identical with the "constitutio gravis in contrarium" Bacon speaks of, as the text shows (see the constitution published by Ehrle, S.J., "Die ältesten Redactionen der Generalconstitutionen des Franziskanerordens" in "Archiv für Literatur- und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters", VI, 110; St. Bonaventure, "Opera Omnia", Quaracchi, VIII, 456).
        We need not wonder then that Roger's immediate superiors put the prohibition into execution, especially as Bacon was not always very correct in doctrine; and although on the one hand it is wrong to consider him as a necromancer and astrologer, an enemy of scholastic philosophy, an author full of heresies and suspected views, still we cannot deny that some of his expressions are imprudent and inaccurate. The judgments he passes on other scholars of his day are sometimes too hard, so it is not surprising that his friends were few. The above-mentioned prohibition was rescinded in Roger's favour unexpectedly in 1266. Some years before, while still at Oxford, he had made the acquaintance of Cardinal Guy le Gros de Foulques, whom Urban IV had sent to England to settle the disputes between Henry III and the barons; others believe that the cardinal met Roger at Paris, in 1257 or 1258 (see "Archiv. Francisc. Histor.", IV, 442). After a conference about some current abuses, especially about ecclesiastical studies, the cardinal asked Roger to present his idea in writing. Roger delayed in doing this; when the Cardinal became Clement IV and reiterated his desire, Bacon excused himself because the prohibition of his superiors stood in the way. Then the pope in a letter from Viterbo (22 June, 1266) commanded him to send his work immediately, notwithstanding the prohibition of superiors or any general constitution whatsoever, but to keep the commission a secret (see letter published by Martene-Durand, "Thesaurus novus anecdotorum", II, Paris, 1717, 358, Clement IV, epp. n. 317 a; Wadding, "Annales", ad an. 1266, n. 14, II, 294; IV, 265; Sbaralea, "Bullarium Franciscanum", III, 89 n. 8f, 22 June, 1266).
        We may suppose that the pope, as Bacon says, from the first had wished the matter kept secret; otherwise we can hardly understand why Bacon did not get permission of his superiors; for the prohibition of Narbonne was not absolute; it only forbade him to publish works outside the order "unless they were examined thoroughly by the minister general or by the provincial together with his definitors in the provincial chapter". The removal of the prohibitive constitution did not at once remove all the obstacles; the secrecy of the matter rather produced new embarrassments, as Bacon frankly declares. The first impediment was the contrary will of his superiors: "as your Holiness", he writes to the pope, "did not write to them to excuse me, and I could not make known to them Your secret, because You had commanded me to keep the matter a secret, they did not let me alone but charged me with other labours; but it was impossible for me to obey because of Your commandment". Another difficulty was the lack of money necessary to obtain parchment and to pay copyists. As the superiors knew nothing of his commission, Bacon had to devise means to obtain money. Accordingly, he ingenuously reminded the pope of this oversight, "As a monk", he says, "I for myself have no money and cannot have; therefore I cannot borrow, not having wherewith to return; my parents who before were rich, now in the troubles of war have run into poverty; others, who were able refused to spend money; so deeply embarrassed, I urged my friends and poor people to expend all they had, to sell and to pawn their goods, and I could not help promising them to write to You and induce Your Holiness to fully reimburse the sum spent by them (60 pounds)" ("Opus Tertium", III, p. 16).
        Finally, Bacon was able to execute the pope's desire; in the beginning of 1267 he sent by his pupil John of Paris (London?) the "Opus Majus", where he puts together in general lines all his leading ideas and proposals; the same friend was instructed to present to the pope a burning-mirror and several drawings of Bacon appertaining to physics, and to give all explanations required by His Holiness. The same year (1267) he finished his "Opus Minus", a recapitulation of the main thoughts of the "Opus Majus", to facilitate the pope's reading or to submit to him an epitome of the first work if it should be lost. With the same object, and because in the first two works some ideas were but hastily treated, he was induced to compose a third work, the "Opus Tertium"; in this, sent to the pope before his death (1268), he treats in a still more extensive manner the whole material he had spoken of in his preceding works. Unfortunately his friend Clement IV died too soon, without having been able to put into practice the counsels given by Bacon. About the rest of Roger's life we are not well informed. The "Chronica XXIV Generalium Ordinis Minorum" says that "the Minister General Jerome of Ascoli [afterwards Pope Nicholas IV] on the advice of many brethren condemned and rejected the doctrine of the English brother Roger Bacon, Doctor of Divinity, which contains many suspect innovations, by reason of which Roger was imprisoned" (see the "Chronica" printed in "Analecta Franciscana", III, 360). The assertion of modern writers, that Bacon was imprisoned fourteen or fifteen years, although he had proved his orthodoxy by the work "De nullitate magiæ", has no foundation in ancient sources.
        Some authors connect the fact of imprisonment related in the "Chronica" with the proscription of 219 theses by Stephen Tempier, Bishop of Paris, which took place 7 March, 1277 (Denifle, "Chartularium Universitatis Pariensis", I, 543, 560). Indeed it was not very difficult to find some "suspect innovation" in Bacon's writings, especially with regard to the physical sciences. As F. Mandonnet, O.P., proves, one of his incriminated books or pamphlets was his "Speculum Astronomiæ", written in 1277, hitherto falsely ascribed to Blessed Albert the Great [Opera Omnia, ed. Vives, Paris, X, 629 sq.; cf. Mandonnet, "Roger Bacon et le Speculum Astronomiæ (1277) in "Revue Néo-Scolastique", XVII, Louvain, 1910, 313-35]. Such and other questions are not yet ripe for judgment; but it is to be hoped that the newly awakened interest in Baconian studies and investigations will clear up more and more what is still obscure in Roger's life.
        The writings attributed to Bacon by some authors amount to about eighty; many (e.g. "Epistola de magnete", composed by Petrus Peregrinus de Maricourt) are spurious, while many are only treatises republished separately under new titles. Other writings or parts of writings certainly composed by him were put in circulation under the name of other scholars, and his claim to their authorship can be established only from internal reasons of style and doctrine. Other treatises still lie in the dust of the great European libraries, especially of England, France, and Italy. Much remains to be done before we can expect an edition of the "Opera Omnia" of Roger Bacon. For the present the following statements may suffice. Before Bacon entered the order he had written many essays and treatises on the subjects he taught in the school, for his pupils only, or for friends who had requested him to do so, as he confesses in his letter of dedication of the "Opus Majus" sent to the pope: "Multa in alio statu conscripseram propter juvenum rudimenta" (the letter was discovered in the Vatican Library by Abbot Gasquet, O.S.B., and first published by him in the "English Historical Review", 1897, under the title "An unpublished fragment of a work by Roger Bacon", 494 sq.; for the words above cited, see p. 500). To this period seem to belong some commentaries on the writings of Aristotle and perhaps the little treatise "De mirabili potestate artis et naturæ et de nullitate magiæ" (Paris, 1542; Oxford, 1604; London, 1859). The same work was printed under the title "Epistola de secretis operibus artis et naturæ" (Hamburg, 1608, 1618). After joining the order, or more exactly from about the years 1256-57, he did not compose works of any great importance or extent, but only occasional essays requested by friends, as he says in the above-mentioned letter, "now about this science, now about another one", and only more transitorio (see "Eng. Hist. Rev.", 1897, 500). In the earlier part of his life he probably composed also "De termino pascali" (see letter of Clement IV in "Bull. Franc.", III, 89); for it is cited in another work, "Computus naturalium", assigned to 1263 by Charles ("Roger Bacon. Sa vie, etc.", Paris, 1861, p. 78; cf. pp. 334 sqq.).
        The most important of all his writings are the "Opus Majus", the "Opus Minus", and the "Tertium". The "Opus Majus" deals in seven parts with (1) the obstacles to real wisdom and truth, viz. errors and their sources; (2) the relation between theology and philosophy, taken in its widest sense as comprising all sciences not strictly philosophical: here he proves that all sciences are founded on the sacred sciences, especially on Holy Scripture; (3) the necessity of studying zealously the Biblical languages, as without them it is impossible to bring out the treasure hidden in Holy Writ; (4) mathematics and their relation and application to the sacred sciences, particularly Holy Scripture; here he seizes an opportunity to speak of Biblical geography and of astronomy (if these parts really belong to the "Opus Majus"); (5) optics or perspective; (6) the experimental sciences; (7) moral philosophy or ethics. The "Opus Majus" was first edited by Samuel Jebb, London, 1733, afterwards at Venice, 1750, by the Franciscan Fathers. As both editions were incomplete, it was edited recently by J. H. Bridges, Oxford, 1900 (The 'Opus Majus' of Roger Bacon, edited with introduction and analytical table," in 2 vols.); the first three parts of it were republished the same year by this author in a supplementary volume, containing a more correct and revised text. It is to be regretted that this edition is not so critical and accurate as it might have been. As already noted, Bacon's letter of dedication to the pope was found and published first by Dom Gasquet; indeed the dedication and introduction is wanting in the hitherto extant editions of the "Opus Majus", whereas the "Opus Minus" and "Opus Tertium" are accompanied with a preface by Bacon (see "Acta Ord. Min.", Quaracchi, 1898, where the letter is reprinted).
        Of the "Opus Minus", the relation of which to the "Opus Majus" has been mentioned, much has been lost. Originally it had nine parts, one of which must have been a treatise on alchemy, both speculative and practical; there was another entitled "The seven sins in the study of theology". All fragments hitherto found have been published by J. S. Brewer, "Fr. R. Bacon opp. quædam hactenus inedita", vol. I (the only one) containing: (1) "Opus Tertium"; (2) "Opus Minus"; (3) "Compendium Philos." The appendix adds "De secretis artis et naturæ operibus et de nullitate magiæ", London, 1859 (Rerum Britann. med. æv. Script.). The aim of the "Opus Tertium" is clearly pointed out by Bacon himself: "As these reasons [profoundness of truth and its difficulty] have induced me to compose the Second Writing as a complement facilitating the understanding of the First Work, so on account of them I have written this Third Work to give understanding and completeness to both works; for many things are here added for the sake of wisdom which are not found in the other writings ("Opus Tertium", I, ed. Brewer, 6). Consequently this work must be considered, in the author's own opinion, as the most perfect of all the compositions sent to the pope; therefore it is a real misfortune that half of it is lost. The parts we possess contain many autobiographical items. All parts known in 1859 were published by Brewer (see above). One fragment dealing with natural sciences and moral philosophy has been edited for the first time by Duhem ("Un fragment inédit de l'Opus Tertium de Roger Bacon précédé d'une étude sur ce fragment", Quaracchi, 1909); another (Quarta pars communium naturalis philos.) by Höver (Commer's "Jahrb. für Philos. u. speculative Theol.", XXV, 1911, pp. 277-320). Bacon often speaks of his "Scriptum principale". Was this a work quite different from the others we know? In many texts the expression only means the "Opus Majus", as becomes evident by its antithesis to the "Opus Minus" and "Opus Tertium". But there are some other sentences where the expression seems to denote a work quite different from the three just mentioned, viz. one which Bacon had the intention of writing and for which these works as well as his proeambula were only the preparation.
        If we may conclude from some of his expressions we can reconstruct the plan of this grand encyclopædia: it was conceived as comprising four volumes, the first of which was to deal with grammar (of the several languages he speaks of) and logic; the second with mathematics (arithmetic and geometry), astronomy, and music; the third with natural sciences, perspective, astrology, the laws of gravity, alchemy, agriculture, medicine, and the experimental sciences; the fourth with metaphysics and moral philosophy (see Delorme in "Dict. de Theol.", s. v. Bacon, Roger; Brewer, pp. 1 sq.; Charles, 370 sq., and particularly Bridges, I, xliii sq.). It is even possible that some treatises, the connection of which with the three works ("Opus Majus", "Opus Minus", "Opus Tertium") or others is not evident, were parts of the "Scriptum principale"; see Bridges, II, 405 sq., to which is added "Tractatus Fr. Rogeri Bacon de multiplicatione specierum", which seems to have belonged originally to a work of greater extent. Here may be mentioned some writings hitherto unknown, now for the first time published by Robert Steele: "Opera hactenus inedita Rogeri Baconi. Fasc. I: Metaphysica Fratris Rogeri ordinis fratrum minorum. De viciis contractis in studio theologiæ, omnia quæ supersunt nunc primum edidit R. St.", London, 1905; Fasc. II: Liber primus communium naturalium Fratris Rogeri, partes I et II", Oxford, 1909. Another writing of Bacon, "Compendium studii philosophiæ", was composed during the pontificate of Gregory X who succeeded Clement IV (1271-76), as Bacon speaks of this last-named pope as the "predecessor istius Papæ" (chap. iii). It has been published, as far as it is extant, by Brewer in the above-mentioned work. He repeats there the ideas already touched upon in his former works, as for instance the causes of human ignorance, necessity of learning foreign languages, especially Hebrew, Arabic, and Greek; as a specimen are given the elements of Greek grammar.
        About the same time (1277) Bacon wrote the fatal "Speculum Astronomiæ" mentioned above. And two years before his death he composed his "compendium studii theologiæ" (in our days published for the first time in "British Society of Franciscan Studies", III, Aberdeen, 1911), where he set forth as in a last scientific confession of faith the ideas and principles which had animated him during his long life; he had nothing to revoke, nothing to change. Other works and pamphlets cannot be attributed with certainty to any definite period of his life. To this category belong the "Epistola de laude Scripturarum", published in part by Henry Wharton in the appendix (auctarium) of "Jacobi Usserii Armachani Historia Dogmatica de Scripturis et sacris vernaculis" (London, 1689), 420 sq. In addition there is both a Greek and a Hebrew grammar, the last of which is known only in some fragments: "The Greek grammar of Roger Bacon and a fragment of his Hebrew Grammar, edited from the MSS., with an introduction and notes", Cambridge, 1902. Some specimens of the Greek Grammar, as preserved in a MS. of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, had been published two years before by J. L. Heiberg in "Byzantinische Zeitschrift", IX, 1900, 479-91. The above-mentioned edition of the two grammars cannot be considered very critical (see the severe criticism by Heiberg, ibid., XII, 1903, 343-47). Here we may add Bacon's "Speculum Alchemiæ", Nuremberg, 1614 (Libellus do alchimia cui titulus : Spec. Alchem.); it was translated into French by Jacques Girard de Tournus, under the title "Miroir d'alquimie", Lyons, 1557. Some treatises dealing with chemistry were printed in 1620 together in one volume containing: (1) "Breve Breviarium de dono Dei"; (2) "Verbum abbreviatum de Leone viridi"; (3) "Secretum secretorum naturæ de laude lapidis philosophorum"; (4) "Tractatus trium verborum"; (5) "Alchimia major". But it is possible that some of these and several other treatises attributed to Bacon are parts of works already mentioned, as are essays "De situ orbis", "De regionibus mundi", "De situ Palæstinæ", "De locis sacris", "Descriptiones locorum mundi", "Summa grammaticalis" (see Golubovich, "Biblioteca bio-bibliografica della Terra Santa e dell'Oriente Francescano", Quaracchi, 1906, I, 268 sq.).
        If we now examine Bacon's scientific systems and leading principles, his aims and his hobby, so to say, we find that the burden not only of the writings sent to the pope, but also of all his writings was: ecclesiastical study must be reformed. All his ideas and principles must be considered in the light of this thesis. He openly exposes the "sins" of his time in the study of theology, which are seven, as he had proved, in the "Opus Majus". Though this part has been lost, we can reconstruct his arrangement with the aid of the "Opus Minus" and "Opus Tertium". The first sin is the preponderance of (speculative) philosophy. Theology is a Divine science, hence it must be based on Divine principles and treat questions touching Divinity, and not exhaust itself in philosophical cavils and distinctions. The second sin is ignorance of the sciences most suitable and necessary to theologians; they study only Latin grammar, logic, natural philosophy (very superficially!) and a part of metaphysics: four sciences very unimportant, scientiæ viles. Other sciences more necessary, foreign (Oriental) languages, mathematics, alchemy, chemistry, physics, experimental sciences, and moral philosophy, they neglect. A third sin is the defective knowledge of even the four sciences which they cultivate: their ideas are full of errors and misconceptions, because they have no means to get at the real understanding of the authors from whom they draw all their knowledge, since their writings abound in Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic expressions. Even the greatest and most highly-esteemed theologians show in their works to what an extent the evil has spread.
        Another sin is the preference for the "Liber Sententiarum" and the disregard of other theological matters, especially Holy Scriptures; he complains: "The one who explains the 'Book of the Sentences' is honoured by all, whereas the lector of Holy Scripture is neglected; for to the expounder of the Sentences there is granted a commodious hour for lecturing at his own will, and if he belongs to an order, a companion and a special room; whilst the lector of Holy Scripture is denied all this and must beg the hour for his lecture to be given at the pleasure of the expounder of the Sentences. Elsewhere the lector of the Sentences holds disputations and is called master, whereas the lector of the [Biblical] test is not allowed to dispute" ("Opus Minus", ed. Brewer, 328 sq.). Such a method, he continues, is inexplicable and very injurious to the Sacred Text which contains the word of God, and the exposition of which would offer many occasions to speak about matters now treated in the several "Summæ Sententiarum". Still more disastrous is the fifth sin: the text of Holy Writ is horribly corrupted, especially in the "exemplar Parisiense", that is to say the Biblical text used at the University of Paris and spread by its students over the whole world. Confusion has been increased by many scholars or religious orders, who in their endeavours to correct the Sacred Text, in default of a sound method, have in reality only augmented the divergences; as every one presumes to change anything "he does not understand, a thing he would not dare to do with the books of the classical poets", the world is full of "correctors or rather corruptors". The worst of all sins is the consequence of the foregoing: the falsity or doubtfulness of the literal sense (sensus litteralis ) and consequently of the spiritual meaning (sensus spiritualis ); for when the literal sense is wrong, the spiritual sense cannot be right, since it is necessarily based upon the literal sense. The reasons of this false exposition are the corruption of the sacred text and ignorance of the Biblical languages. For how can they get the real meaning of Holy Writ without this knowledge, as the Latin versions are full of Greek and Hebrew idioms?
        The seventh sin is the radically false method of preaching: instead of breaking to the faithful the Bread of Life by expounding the commandments of God and inculcating their duties, the preachers content themselves with divisions of the arbor Porphyriana, with the jingle of words and quibbles. They are even ignorant of the rules of eloquence, and often prelates who during their course of study were not instructed in preaching, when obliged to speak in church, beg the copy-books of the younger men, which are full of bombast and ridiculous divisions, serving only to "stimulate the hearers to all curiosity of mind, but do not elevate the affection towards good" ("Opus Tertium", Brewer, 309 sq.). Exceptions are very few, as for instance Friar Bertholdus Alemannus (Ratisbon) who alone has more effect than all the friars of both orders combined (Friars Minor and Preachers). Eloquence ought to be accompanied by science, and science by eloquence; for "science without eloquence is like a sharp sword in the hands of a paralytic, whilst eloquence without science is a sharp sword in the hands of a furious man" ("Sapientia sine eloquentia est quasi gladius acutus in manu paralytici, sicut eloquentia expers sapientiæ est quasi gladius acutus in manu furiosi"; "Opus Tertium, I, Brewer, 4). But far from being an idle fault-finder who only demolished without being able to build up, Bacon makes proposals extremely fit and efficacious, the only failure of which was that they were never put into general practice, by reason of the premature death of the pope. Bacon himself and his pupils, such as John of Paris, whom he praises highly, William of Mara, Gerard Huy, and others are a striking argument that his proposals were no Utopian fancies: they showed in their own persons what in their idea a theologian should be. First of all, if one wishes to get wisdom, he must take care not to fall into the four errors which usually prevent even learned men from attaining the summit of wisdom, viz. "the example of weak and unreliable authority, continuance of custom, regard to the opinion of the unlearned, and concealing one's own ignorance, together with the exhibition of apparent wisdom" ("Fragilis et indignæ autoritatis exemplum, consuetudinis diuturnitas, vulgi sensus imperiti, et propriæ ignorantiæ occultatio cum ostentatione sapientiæ apparentis"; "Opus Majus", I, Bridges, 1, 2).
        Thus having eliminated "the four general causes of all human ignorance", one must be convinced that all science has its source in revelation both oral and written. Holy Scripture especially is an inexhaustible fountain of truth from which all human philosophers, even the heathen, drew their knowledge, immediately or mediately; therefore no science, whether profane or sacred, can be true if contrary to Holy Writ (see "English Hist. Rev.", 1897, 508 sq.; "Opus Tertium", XXIV, Brewer, 87 sq.). This conviction having taken root, we must consider the means of attaining wisdom. Among those which lead to the summit are to be mentioned in the first place the languages, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic. Latin does not suffice, as there are many useful works written in other languages and not yet translated, or badly translated, into Latin. Even in the best versions of scientific works, as for instance of Greek and Arabic philosophers, or of the Scriptures, as also in the Liturgy, there are still some foreign expressions retained purposely or by necessity, it being impossible to express in Latin all nuances of foreign texts. It would be very interesting to review all the other reasons adduced by Bacon proving the advantage or even necessity of foreign languages for ecclesiastical, social, and political purposes, or to follow his investigations into the physiological conditions of language or into what might have been the original one spoken by man. He distinguishes three degrees of linguistic knowledge; theologians are not obliged to reach the second degree, which would enable them to translate a foreign text into their own language, or the third one which is still more difficult of attainment and which would enable them to speak this language as their own. Nevertheless the difficulties of reaching even the highest degree are not as insurmountable as is commonly supposed; it depends only on the method followed by the master, and as there are very few scholars who follow a sound method, it is not to be wondered at that perfect knowledge of foreign languages is so rarely found among theologians (see "Opus Tertium", XX, Brewer, 64 sq.; "Compendium Studii phil.", VI, Brewer, 433 sq.). On this point, and in general of Roger's attitude towards Biblical studies, see the present author's article "De Fr. Roger Bacon ejusque sententia de rebus biblicis" in "Archivum Franciscanum Historicum", III, Quaracchi, 1910, 3-22; 185-213.
         Besides the languages there are other means, e.g., mathematics, optics, the experimental sciences, and moral philosophy, the study of which is absolutely necessary for every priest, as Bacon shows at length. He takes special pains in applying these sciences to Holy Scripture and the dogmas of faith. These are pages so wonderful and evincing by their train of thought and the drawings inserted here and there such a knowledge of the subject matter, that we can easily understand modern scholars saying that Bacon was born out of due time, or, with regard to the asserted imprisonment, that he belonged to that class of men who were crushed by the wheel of their time as they endeavoured to set it going more quickly. It is in these treatises (and other works of the same kind) that Bacon speaks of the reflection of light, mirages, and burning- mirrors, of the diameters of the celestial bodies and their distances from one another, of their conjunction and eclipses; that he explains the laws of ebb and flow, proves the Julian calendar to be wrong; he explains the composition and effects of gunpowder, discusses and affirms the possibility of steam- vessels and aerostats, of microscopes and telescopes, and some other inventions made many centuries later. Subsequent ages have done him more justice in recognizing his merits in the field of natural science. John Dee, for instance, who addressed (1582) a memorial on the reformation of the calendar to Queen Elizabeth, speaking of those who had advocated this change, says: "None hath done it more earnestly, neither with better reason and skill, than hath a subject of this British Sceptre Royal done, named as some think David Dee of Radik, but otherwise and most commonly (upon his name altered at the alteration of state into friarly profession) called Roger Bacon: who at large wrote thereof divers treatises and discourses to Pope Clement the Fifth [sic ] about the year of our Lord, 1267. To whom he wrote and sent also great volumes exquisitely compiled of all sciences and singularities, philosophical and mathematical, as they might be available to the state of Christ his Catholic Church". Dee then remarks that Paul of Middleburg, in "Paulina de recta Paschæ celebratione", had made great use of Bacon's work: "His great volume is more than half thereof written (though not acknowledged) by such order and method generally and particularly as our Roger Bacon laid out for the handling of the matter" (cited by Bridges, "Opus Majus", I, p. xxxiv).
        Longer time was needed before Bacon's merits in the field of theological and philosophical sciences were acknowledged. Nowadays it is impossible to speak or write about the methods and course of lectures in ecclesiastical schools of the Middle Ages, or on the efforts of revision and correction of the Latin Bible made before the Council of Trent, or on the study of Oriental languages urged by some scholars before the Council of Vienne, without referring to the efforts made by Bacon. In our own day, more thoroughly than at the Council of Trent, measures are taken in accordance with Bacon's demand that the further corruption of the Latin text of Holy Scripture should be prevented by the pope's authority, and that the most scientific method should be applied to the restoration of St. Jerome's version of the Vulgate. Much may be accomplished even now by applying Bacon's principles, viz.: (1) unity of action under authority; (2) a thorough consultation of the most ancient manuscripts; (3) the study of Hebrew and Greek to help where the best Latin manuscripts left room for doubt; (4) a thorough knowledge of Latin grammar and construction; (5) great care in distinguishing between St. Jerome's readings and those of the more ancient version (see "Opus Tertium", XXV, Brewer, 93 sq.; Gasquet, "English Biblical Criticism in the Thirteenth Century" in "The Dublin Review", CXX, 1898, 15). But there are still some prejudices among learned men, especially with regard to Bacon's orthodoxy and his attitude towards Scholastic philosophy. It is true that he speaks in terms not very flattering of the Scholastics, and even of their leaders. His style is not the ordinary Scholastic style proceeding by inductions and syllogisms in the strictest form; he speaks and writes fluently, clearly expressing his thoughts as a modern scholar treating the same subject might write. But no one who studies his works can deny that Bacon was thoroughly trained in Scholastic philosophy. Like the other Scholastics, he esteems Aristotle highly, while blaming the defective Latin versions of his works and some of his views on natural philosophy. Bacon is familiar with the subjects under discussion, and it may be of interest to note that in many cases he agrees with Duns Scotus against other Scholastics, particularly regarding matter and form and the intellectus agens which he proves not to be distinct substantially from the intellectus possibilis ("Opus Majus", II, V; "Opus Tertium", XXIII).
        It would be difficult to find any other scholar who shows such a profound knowledge of the Arabic philosophers as Bacon does. Here appears the aim of his philosophical works, to make Christian philosophy acquainted with the Arabic philosophers. He is an enemy only of the extravagances of Scholasticism, the subtleties and fruitless quarrels, to the neglect of matters much more useful or necessary and the exaltation of philosophy over theology. Far from being hostile to true philosophy, he bestows a lavish praise on it. None could delineate more clearly and convincingly than he, what ought to be the relation between theology and philosophy, what profit they yield and what services they render to each other, how true philosophy is the best apology of Christian faith (see especially "Opus Majus", II and VII; "Compend. studii philos."). Bacon is sometimes not very correct in his expressions; there may even be some ideas that are dangerous or open to suspicion (e.g. his conviction that a real influence upon the human mind and liberty and on human fate is exerted by the celestial bodies etc.). But there is no real error in matters of faith, and Bacon repeatedly asks the reader not to confound his physics with divination, his chemistry with alchemy, his astronomy with astrology; and certainly he submitted with all willingness his writings to the judgment of the Church. It is moving to note the reverence he displayed for the pope. Likewise he shows always the highest veneration towards the Fathers of the Church; and whilst his criticism often becomes violent when he blames the most eminent of his contemporaries, he never speaks or writes any word of disregard of the Fathers or ancient Doctors of the Church, even when not approving their opinion; he esteemed them highly and had acquired such a knowledge of their writings that he was no way surpassed by any of his great rivals. Bacon was a faithful scholar of open character who frankly uttered what he thought, who was not afraid to blame whatsoever and whomsoever he believed to deserve censure, a scholar who was in advance of his age by centuries. His iron will surmounted all difficulties and enabled him to acquire a knowledge so far surpassing the average science of his age, that he must be reckoned among the most eminent scholars of all times.

        ECKHART, JOHANNES (?126o? 1327), German philosopher, the first of the great speculative mystics. Extremely little is known of his life; the date and place of his birth are equally uncertain. According to some accounts, he was a native of Strassburg, with which he was afterwards closely connected; according to others, he was born in Saxony, or at Hochheim near Gotha. Trithemius, one of the best authorities, speaks of him merely as Teutonicus. 1260 has frequently been given as the date of his birth; it was in all probability some .years.earlier, forwe know that he was advanced in age at the time of his death, about 1327. He appears to have entered the Dominican order, and to have acted for some time as professor at one of the colleges in Paris. His reputation for learning was very high, and in 1302 he was summoned to Rome by Boniface VIII., to assist in the controversy then being carried on with Philip of France. From Boniface he received the degree of doctor. In 1304 he became provincial of his order for Saxony, and in 1307 was vicar-general for Bohemia. In both provinces he was distinguished for his practical reforms and for his power in preaching. Towards 1325 we hear of him as preaching with great effect at Cologne, where he gathered round him a numerous band of followers. Before this time, and in all probability at Strassburg, where he appears to have been for some years, he had come in contact with the Beghards (see BEGUINES) and Brethren of the Free Spirit, whose fundamental notions he may, indeed, be said to have systematized and expounded, in the highest form to which they could attain. In 1327 the opponents of the Beghards laid hold of certain propositions contained in Eckharts works, and he was summoned before the Inquisition at Cologne. The history of this accusation is by no means clear. Eckhart appears, however, to have made a conditional recantationthat is, he professed to disavow whatever in his writings could be shown to be erroneous. Further appeal, perhaps at his own request, was made to Pope John XXII., and in 1329 a bill was published condemning certain propositions extracted from Eckharts works. But before its publication Eckhart was dead. The exact date of his death is unknown. Of his writings, several of which are enumerated by Trithemius, there remain only the sermons and a few tractates. Till the middle of the 1 oth century the majority of these were attributed to Johann Tauler, and it is only from Pfeiffers careful edition (Deutsche Mystiker d. XIV. Jahrhunderts, vol. ii., 1857) that one has been able to gather a true idea of Eckharts activity. From his works it is evident that he was deeply learned in all the philosophy of the time. He was a thorough Aristotelian, but by preference appears to have been drawn towards the mystical writings of the Neoplatonists and. the ~seudo-Dionysius. His style is unsystematic, brief and abounding in symbolical expression. His manner of thinking is clear, calm and logical, and he has certainly given the most complete exposition of what may be called Christian. pantheism.
        Eckhart has been called the first of the speculative mystics. In his theories the element of mystical speculation for the first time comes to the front as all-important. By its means the church doctrines are made intelligible to the many, and from it the church dogmas receive their true significance. It was. but natural that he should diverge more and more widely from the traditional doctrine, so that at length the relation between his teaching and that of the church appeared to be one of opposition rather than of reconciliation. Eckhart is in truth the first who attempted with perfect freedom and logical consistency to give a speculative basis to religious doctrines. The two most important points in his, as in all mystical theories, are first, his doctrine of the divine nature, and second, his explanation of the relation between God and human thought. (See MYsTIcIsM.)
        For the German writings of Eckhart see F. Pfeiffer, Deutsche Mystiker, vol. ii. (Leipzig, 1857), and F. Jostes, Meister Eckhart und seine Junger (Freiburg, 1895); for the Latin works, H. Denifle in A rchiv f. Lilt- und Kirche-rigeschichte d. M-ittelalters, ii. (1886), pp. 417-652, and v. (1889), pp. 349-364; German translations by G. Landauer, Meister Eckarts mystische ~Schriften (Berlin, 1903), and Bi~ittner (Leipzig, 1903 foIl.). See also A. Lasson, Meister Eckhart der Mystiker (1868); H. L. Martensen, Meister Eckhart (1842); J. Bach, Meister Eckhart der Vater der deutschen Speculation <1864); C. Ullmann, Reformatoren vor der Reformation (1842); W. Preger, Geschichte d. deutschen Mystik, i. (5874); and Em neuer Traktat M. Eckharts und d. Grundzuge der Eckhartischen Theosophie in Zeitschr. f. hist. Phil. (1864), pp. 163 foIl.; A. Bullinger, Das Christenthum im Lichte der deutschen Philos. (Dillingen, 1895); H. Delacroix, Le Mysticisme specutatif en Allemagne au XIV sicle (Paris, 1900); E. Kramm, Meister Eckhart -im Lichte der Denifieschen Funde (Bonn, 1889); R. Langenberg, Uber die Verhaltnisse Meister Eckharts zur niederdeutschen Mystik (Gottingen, 1896); W. Schopif, Meister Eckhart (Leipzig, 1889); A. Jundt, Hist. du pantheisme populaire au moyen age (Paris, 1875); art. in Het-zog-Hauck, Realencyklopdie (S. M. Deutsch); R. M. Jones, Mystical Religion (1909).

        Exegete, b. at Lyra in Normandy, 1270; d. at Paris, 1340. The report that he was of Jewish descent dates only from the fifteenth century. He took the Franciscan habit at Verneuil, studied theology, received the doctor's degree in Paris and was appointed professor at the Sorbonne. In the famous controversy on the Beatific Vision he took sides with the professors against John XXII. He labored very successfully, both in preaching and writing, for the conversion of the Jews. He is the author of numerous theological works, some of which are yet unpublished. It was to exegesis that Nicholas of Lyra devoted his best years. In the second prologue to his monumental work, "Postillae perpetuae in universam S. Scripturam", after stating that the literal sense of Sacred Scripture is the foundation of all mystical expositions, and that it alone has demonstrative force, as St. Augustine teaches, he deplores the state of Biblical studies in his time. The literal sense, he avers, is much obscured, owing partly to the carelessness of the copyists, partly to the unskillfulness of some of the correctors, and partly also to our own translation (the Vulgate), which not infrequently departs from the original Hebrew. He holds with St. Jerome that the text must be corrected from the Hebrew codices, except of course the prophecies concerning the Divinity of Christ. Another reason for this obscurity, Nicholas goes on to say, is the attachment of scholars to the method of interpretation handed down by others who, though they have said many things well, have yet touched but sparingly on the literal sense, and have so multiplied the mystical senses as nearly to intercept and choke it. Moreover, the text has been distorted by a multiplicity of arbitrary divisions and concordances. Hereupon he declares his intention of insisting, in the present work, upon the literal sense and of interspersing only a few mystical interpretations. Nicholas utilized all available sources, fully mastered the Hebrew and drew copiously from the valuable commentaries of the Jewish exegetes, especially of the celebrated Talmudist Rashi. The "Pugio Fidei" of Raymond Martini and the commentaries of St. Thomas Aquinas were laid under contribution. His exposition is lucid and concise; his observations are judicious and sound, and always original. The "Postillae" soon became the favourite manual of exegesis. It was the first Biblical commentary printed. The solid learning of Nicholas commanded the respect of both Jews and Christians.
        Luther owes much to Nicholas of Lyra, but how widely the principles of Nicholas differed essentially from Luther's views is best seen from Nicholas's own words. "I protest that I do not intend to assert or determine anything that has not been manifestly determined by Sacred Scripture or by the authority of the Church . . . . Wherefore I submit all I have said or shall say to the correction of Holy Mother Church and of all learned men . . . "(Prol. secund. in Postillas., ed. 1498). Nicholas taught no new doctrine. The early Fathers and the great schoolmen had repeatedly laid down the same sound exegetical principles, but, owing to adverse tendencies of the times, their efforts had partly failed. Nicholas carried out these principles effectively, and in this lies his chief merit — one which ranks him among the foremost exegetes of all times.

2.1.3.4 From about 1350 to about 1500, Late Middle Ages
Assigned Readings for This Topic:
Gerald Bray, Biblical Interpretation: Past and Present, relevant sections in this chapter.

Resource Materials to also be studied:
Prof. Bray characterizes this period as follows (p. 132):

        This may be called the Late Middle Ages. During this time Europe was devastated by the Black Death, and eastern Christendom (apart from Russia) fell under Muslim Turkish control. The church survived the exile of the pope in Avignon (1305-76) and the schism which followed (1378-1417), but by the fifteen century new intellectual movements were appearing once more, and this time they proved to be uncontrollable. The scholastic system of Thomas Aquinas fell apart, and there was no generally accepted replacement. Scholars increasingly went their own way, and questioned the authorities they had accepted in the past. Ancient documents were rediscovered, and efforts were made to popularize the new learning, especailly a knowledge of the Bible, which was still regarded as indispensable. Nationalism also made its appearance, the consciousness of belonging to a single civilization began to decline. Vernacular literatures now appeared, and, with the invention of printing, a vast new market for books opened up.
        The Bible was at the heart of all this, and both translation and interpretation took on a new urgency. Greek scholars arrived from the East, fleeing a dying Byzantium, and they brought with them a Christian learning which had previously been unknown. Scholars once more began to study the biblical languages, and discovered that the Latin Vulgate was less than perfect. They also discovered that many ancient traditions, such as the belief that the pope had received his authority from the Emperor Constantine, were false. The church could not cope with such a threat to its authority, and by 1500 it was losing control of biblical interpretation, which was now firmly in the hands of the new breed of Renaissance scholar. That, more than anything else, marked the end of the medieval order, and the beginning of a new stage in the cultural life of western Christendom.

John Wycliffe (Wyclif, Wiclif) (c. 1329-1384)---

1. The early life of Wycliffe at Oxford, and his increasing knowledge and understanding of the Scriptures.
        Nearly 700 years ago, probably in 1324, in Yorkshire, England, John Wycliffe was born. This was a period when great spiritual darkness lay across most of Europe. However, this brilliant man was used by God to influence greatly the spiritual life of England, and indeed much of Europe. Wycliffe has been called The Morning Star of the Reformation.
        Wycliffe was born at an important time in the history of England. This country was becoming recognised as a distinctive nation. The Norman Conquest had taken place in 1066, and the Frenchmen who had come to England with William the Conqueror, had been given lands there, and with their vast numbers of servants they had settled down. In consequence, there were people living in one country, but speaking two different languages. Gradually the English language grew out of a mixture of the old Saxon and the Norman French, and eventually by the time of Wycliffe, the two races had become united in one nation, speaking one language.
        Oxford University had achieved wide recognition and was considered by many to be the leading University in Europe. Academic qualifications were very highly valued and Wycliffe was greatly respected for his tremendous learning.
        However this was also a period when the power of the Papacy was very great. There was no true preaching of the Word of God. Most people never saw a Bible, let alone one written in English, and, even if they had seen one they probably would not have been able to read it. Most people believed that they were in bondage to the Church and its sacraments. They thought that indulgences (gifts of money) could purchase forgiveness for sins. In every area of life, the Church exercised enormous control. An example of this control is shown by the fact that if a man died without leaving something to the Church in his will, the Church took over his affairs.
        Vast sums of money went to the Vatican through direct taxation. As well, many English benefices were being given by the Pope to Italians, which meant that this money also found its way into the Vatican's coffers. A further aggravation to the English in this matter was the strong suspicion that much of the money was being used to help pay the armies of those with whom they were at war.
        When he was about thirteen, Wycliffe became a student at Merton College at Oxford. Sadly, rather than studying the Scriptures, men then spent their time studying writers such as Aquinas and Duns Scotus. However there had been one godly man who had been a professor at Merton College. His name was Bradwardine.
        Bradwardine was finishing his career at about the same time that the young Wycliffe was starting his. Bradwardine was ready to accept what God had revealed in His Word. He saw the path that others missed. He taught the truth of the Gospel that God alone is able to save men from their sins by His sovereign grace. Light began to dawn across Europe because of this great man.
        1348 saw the beginning of that terrible pestilence, known in history as the Black Death. This fearful plague started in Asia and spread westwards across Europe. By August of that year it had reached England. There was enormous loss of life in London, and it caused the death of about half the nation's population.
        Wycliffe was deeply affected by this disaster. Merle d'Aubigne records, "This visitation of the Almighty sounded like the trumpet of the judgement-day in the heart of Wycliffe." With desperate need he studied the Word of God that he might find a refuge from the judgement to come.
        While Wycliffe was a brilliant scholar, he never held an important office in the University itself. He was, however, very highly regarded, and even his enemies agreed that he was "the flower of Oxford". His studies covered a wide range of interests, including the law of optics, chemical analysis, physiological genesis of sleep, geometrical and arithmetical rules, and national economics.
        As well as Bradwardine, Robert Grosetete, Bishop of Lincoln, was another man whose writings were highly valued by Wycliffe. While such men were used by God to assist in Wycliffe's further knowledge, yet his understanding of the Scriptures was further advanced than theirs, and he was quite prepared to disagree with them when he felt it was necessary. Above everything else Wycliffe placed the Word of God, which was to him a beacon and a shining light in a world of gross spiritual darkness. (At this time there was no Bible written in English - it was only available in Latin.)
        As soon as Wycliffe saw a truth he declared it and acted upon it. This inevitably led to conflict and the remainder of his life was one of toil and trouble, though his industry was greatly used by God for the furtherance of the true Gospel. Wise and learned men consider that he did more than any other man to change the course of English history. Some, including John Foxe, also consider that he was more responsible than Luther for the Reformation in England. Many believe that Wycliffe's place in history has not received the recognition which it should have done. Some scholars say that without a knowledge of the work done by him and continued by his followers, the Lollards, we could not understand the English Reformation. Wycliffe's great strength was his adherence to the Scriptures. It was the faithful preaching and teaching from the Word of God which these men faithfully proclaimed which accomplished so much.
        Wycliffe grew spiritually as he gained greater knowledge and understanding of what the Word of God was teaching. He came to see that the whole system of Rome was at variance with the Scriptures. Foxe says that Wycliffe thought about how he was to approach this matter. He decided that it "should be done by little and little." Therefore he started with small issues and so opened for himself a way to deal with greater matters. Thus "he came to touch the matters of the Sacraments, and other abuses of the Church."

2. Wycliffe advises King Richard II in his troubles with the pope and this leads to Wycliffe being called before the bishops at Lambeth. God protects him and Wycliffe continues to speak against the pope and the terrible errors of the Catholic Church.
        If we remember that in England at that time there was no alternative to the Church of Rome, we begin to have some idea of the bravery of Wycliffe in attacking the institution which controlled the lives of every Englishman. Wycliffe began his attack on the Roman Church by exposing the wicked practises of the "begging friars". They caused much harm to the people and it was this which caused Wycliffe to speak out against them.
        Since the time of King John, England had been trying to gain its freedom from Rome. Because of a dispute over the appointment of the Archbishop of Canterbury, King John had been excommunicated by the pope. In the finish John had to submit unconditionally to the pope and to pay annually a large sum of money for the right to continue as King of England. This caused England much humiliation and is one of the reasons leading to the barons forcing John to sign the Magna Carta in 1215.
        This payment lapsed, but in 1365, Pope Urban V tried to reassert the Church's authority over England and he demanded the payment of this annual 'rental'. By this time, England was becoming more powerful. The enormous tactical defeat by the English Army, led by King Edward III, against the much larger French forces at the Battle of Crecy, in 1346, was still very much in the minds of Englishmen; so the pope had chosen an unwise time to demand this money. Adding to the resentment was the well-founded belief that these taxes would be used to pay the armies of England's enemies.
        King Edward called the parliament together and presented the pope's demands to them, and asked for their response. It is obvious from the replies, (recorded by Wycliffe), which were given by the various members of parliament in reply to the king, that Wycliffe had already been widely consulted and his ideas were very acceptable to these people. The decision by parliament was to reject totally the pope's claims. As Wycliffe wrote about this issue: "There cannot be two temporal sovereigns in one country; either Edward is king or Urban is king. We make our choice. We accept Edward of England and refuse Urban of Rome."
        This struggle gave Wycliffe a wonderful opportunity to express widely his views on the papacy and enabled him to greatly undermine its influence on the English people. However, the battle for authority between England and Rome continued, and at one time John Wycliffe was sent as one of the commissioners to a meeting with the papal delegates to Bruges in the Netherlands. After two years Wycliffe returned to England feeling that mostly the time had been wasted. However, by meeting with those who were closely associated with the pope, he came to a clearer understanding of the principles and motives which guided these men. He now spoke of the pope as anti-Christ. It would seem that the king rewarded his efforts at Bruges by appointing him Rector of Lutterworth.
        Wycliffe's influence upon the nation was growing. He was widely respected at Oxford, and he was influential with numerous members of parliament. The pope and his supporters were, of course, furious and sought by several means, including the issuing of papal 'bulls', to have Wycliffe imprisoned and punished for his 'heresy'.
        In 1377 Courtenay, Bishop of London, summoned Wycliffe to appear before him in St Paul's. Two very powerful friends, John of Gaunt (Duke of Lancaster) and Lord Percy (Earl Marshall of England) were with Wycliffe to lend him their support. Also a very large crowd had gathered to hear the proceedings, and it was with much difficulty that the three friends were able to make their way into the chapel where the meeting was being held. The bishop was angry when he saw the support Wycliffe was being given and there was a very heated exchange of words between Courtenay and John of Gaunt. Indeed it became such an uproar that the trial was abandoned and Wycliffe returned home.
        Even though Edward III and the Black Prince both died that year, the Black Prince's widow and mother of the new king, eleven-year-old Richard II, was very supportive of Wycliffe and was not afraid to make her views known. Parliament continued to seek the advice of Wycliffe in their dealings with the pope. This popularity of Wycliffe continued for a time. However, it seems that after 1378 his popularity began to wane in political affairs. Nonetheless, his spiritual influence continued to grow and in God's providence he was able to accomplish much in the remaining years of his life.
        Papal bulls were sent to England which allowed the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy the opportunity to call Wycliffe before them. This was done at Lambeth in April, 1378. A large crowd came with Wycliffe at this appearance, and the bishops were very aware of the support he was being given. During the proceedings a message arrived from the queen mother forbidding them to pass sentence on Wycliffe. This caused so much fear among the bishops and their supporters that they did not dare harm Wycliffe. He, however, made his position very clear in a lengthy written paper showing many of the errors of the papacy. He also pointed out the reforms which should be carried out if the Church was to be true to Christ and His commandments. Despite his enemies' hatred, God was his protection.
        David Fountain in his book, John Wycliffe, The Dawn of the Reformation, makes an interesting point. The pope wished to establish the Papal Inquisition in England. Wycliffe gave such wise advice to the government of his day that the pope was unable to do so. Even though English "heretics" were persecuted over the next 200 years, things would have been much worse if the pope had succeeded in his desire.
        It was at this time that the Papal Schism took place with a pope at Avignon, France, and another in Rome. Both claimed to be infallible and each excommunicated the other. Added to all the other things which had been happening, Wycliffe came to see clearly that the whole papal system was anti-Christian. He stated that the pope was the man of sin, "who exalteth himself above ... God", as II Thessalonians 2:4 tells us.

3. Wycliffe bravely deals with his enemies, he works on the translation of the Bible into English and he sends out men to preach the Gospel.
        Probably due to his increased workload and the numerous difficulties he had suffered, Wycliffe fell ill. When the friars heard of his illness they hurried to his bedside hoping that he would recant before his death. However Wycliffe was not going to change his mind. His response to them was, "I shall not die but live, and again declare the evil deeds of the friars." This prophecy was fulfilled and Wycliffe went on to the very important work of the translation of the Bible and the sending forth of his preachers, the Lollards.
        When he declared his views on the errors of transubstantiation, he was expelled from Oxford and lost the support of John of Gaunt. His political influence waned but his usefulness in spiritual matters increased. He retired to Lutterworth. With the death of the Primate, Sudbury, in the Peasant's Revolt of 1381, Wycliffe's old enemy, William Courtenay, became the Primate. In 1382 Courtenay called a synod to try to punish Wycliffe. However the building where they were meeting began to rock and the whole city of London was shaken by a powerful earthquake. Despite the upset caused by this earthquake, Courtenay continued with the trial of Wycliffe.
        The following year Wycliffe appealed to Parliament and he called for many changes in the way the Catholic Church was administered. He presented his reasons clearly. The Commons supported Wycliffe but when the trial was over, he went back to his parish of Lutterworth and faithfully continued in the work to which God had called him.
        Wycliffe only lived another two years but without his work commitments at Oxford, and with the assistance of others, he was able to complete the translation of the Bible into English. It is generally accepted that Wycliffe did the translation work on the New Testament, but Nicholas de Hereford and John Purvey translated the Old Testament under Wycliffe's supervision. (Not only should Wycliffe be recognised for his wonderful efforts in translating the Scriptures but many scholars believe that he should be accepted as the father of English prose.) Besides the work of translation he was enabled to develop, expound and publish his theological views as well as training and sending out his preachers. Despite these great tasks he acted as a true pastor to the congregation at Lutterworth. Copies of some of the sermons he preached there are still in print today.
        Today we almost take for granted that we should be able to read God's Word in our own language, but in Wycliffe's day this was certainly not the situation. Until Wycliffe produced his translation, Jerome's Latin Vulgate was the only version of Scripture available for English people to read. Added to this was a prohibition on anyone other than the clergy reading the Scriptures. Wycliffe's work in making the Scriptures available to ordinary people was much opposed by the clergy and some years later the Church passed a decree which virtually prohibited the translation of God's Word.
        Wycliffe believed that the translation of the Bible was absolutely essential. People had to be able to read God's Word in a language they could understand. He believed that the Scriptures were inspired by God and every part was to be accepted without reserve.
        Even with the translation completed, there still remained the enormous task of publishing. Every word had to be hand-written because the printing press had not yet been invented. Even today, after more than 600 years, there are about one hundred and seventy hand written copies still available. This gives us some idea of the great number of people who worked at this task for the even greater number who wished to have their own copy of the Scriptures. It has been estimated that it would have cost a man six month's wages to pay for a copy of the New Testament!
        As well as the work of translation, Wycliffe was diligent in sending out his 'Bible-Men'. These men were not laymen, but students who had come to embrace the theology propounded by Wycliffe as well as his practical principles. They were ordained men but without benefices and they did not have a bishop's licence.
        The advice given to these men by Wycliffe included the following: move about and do not settle; avoid bars and such places; study God's Word and preach it earnestly and faithfully. Soon these 'Bible-Men' had spread widely over England. Their enemies complained bitterly and tried hard to stop them. They were easily recognised by their dress of a long reddish-coloured gown and with a staff in their hand, but without shoes. They also carried Wycliffe's Bible, or, at least, a portion of it. They would preach in any place where there were people to listen.
        Wycliffe himself was considered by many to be the greatest preacher of his day. As in all his endeavours, he based his preaching on the Word of God. Wherever he spoke - at Lutterworth, or at Oxford, or in London - people listened. His sermons were full of Bible truth and he had great confidence in the effectiveness of the Word by the Spirit to bring people to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. By his preaching he gave a good example to his students. He also produced volumes of sermons in English. Some further advice he gave to his preachers was that they were to adapt their subjects to the understanding of the hearers. In his own discourses he basically divided his sermons into two sections - in the first he explained the meaning of the Bible passage and in the second he applied the doctrine to the needs of the congregation.

Points to ponder:

• How useful do you consider was Wycliffe's advice to his 'Bible-Men'?
• Why do you think he advised them to move about from place to place?
• Can you think of a verse in Scripture which would support his advice about avoiding bars and such places?
• Today we take for granted that we can own a Bible. Imagine if we had to pay hundreds of dollars to own just the New Testament! Think how we would fare if God's Word was taken away from us! How blessed we are in this land of ours.

4. Wycliffe's place in history.
        While all these things were going on, it was inevitable that his enemies would not be content to leave Wycliffe in peace, even though he had retired to Lutterworth. He was summoned to appear before the Pontiff in Rome but he suffered his first stroke and was unable to go. In his reply to the pope he said, among other things, that Christ has "taught me more obedience to God than to man." Despite his physical weakness, he continued with his preaching. During the worship service on December 29, 1384 he suffered his third stroke and died two days later. Over forty years later, by the order of a Church Council, his body and bones were exhumed and publicly burnt. His ashes were cast into the Swift River near Lutterworth with the idea that he would no longer have any influence, but the reverse was true. His teaching lived on and the Church of Rome was not able to silence him. As Thomas Fuller wrote, "And thus the ashes of Wycliffe are the emblem of his doctrine, which now is dispensed all the world over."
        Wycliffe was a man of great faith and it was in his last years that this faith shone the brightest. He had expected to die a martyr's death and he faced this with great courage and confidence in his God. It was not only the words of Wycliffe which caused people to be impressed but he lived what he preached. He was a true pastor. He did indeed have a sharp way with words but he was not personal in his attacks. A Lollard named Thorpe spoke of Wycliffe as having a "spare, frail, emaciated frame, in habit of life more innocent," and he also said that Wycliffe's influence over people was not just because of his great learning, but also because of his charm and simple way of life.
        This account of Wycliffe's life would not be complete without some record of his religious beliefs. He had a child-like faith in the Scriptures and this submission to God's Word brought him to the clear understanding of all the major doctrines. While Luther made plainer the truth of justification by faith, Wycliffe certainly held to this important doctrine. He always maintained the truth of the Lord Jesus Christ as the only Mediator between God and man. (It is interesting to note that Luther himself made use of a number of Wycliffe's writings in his own battles with the pope.)
        For Wycliffe, the Bible was the Word of God; Christ was the proper author of the Scriptures and because of this, it should be accepted as having the absolute authority of the Godhead. For those who would not acknowledge this authority, he could see no other explanation than their lack of true faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
        As he studied the Scriptures he came to see and to thoroughly believe, the doctrine of election. He held to this doctrine as firmly as Calvin, and like Calvin saw no contradiction between this doctrine and that of man's responsibility.
        Wycliffe came to deny all the distinctive beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church. He wanted the Church of God to be freed from its entanglements with the State - to be separate and not to rely on the financial support of the government. The free will offerings of the people should be the only revenue of the Church. He believed what was later spelled out clearly by Calvin in the 'regulative principles.' He did not believe as many did (and still do) that if a thing was not actually forbidden in the Scriptures that it was acceptable.
        The marriage of the godly Anne of Bohemia to Richard II of England led to spiritual links with Bohemia. Through the Queen's influence Wycliffe's works were taken to Bohemia where Jan Huss was greatly influenced by them. Jerome of Prague came to Oxford and he too came to embrace the doctrines promoted by Wycliffe and took his writings back to his own land. Thus Wycliffe's influence extended through Huss to Luther in Germany and then through Luther back to England.
        In the years after Wycliffe's death the work of the Lollards successfully continued despite severe periods of persecution. Today many Christian historians consider that this work continued to flourish and indeed was a major contributing factor to the way that the Reformation under Luther, Calvin and Knox proceeded in England and Scotland. Burrows said, in his book Wycliffe's Place in History,

        "It is not too much to say that it saved the English Reformation from the extravagances and errors which naturally sprang from the comparative suddenness of the change elsewhere."

        John Wycliffe was a man truly used of God in his own generation. Indeed through his work of translating the Scriptures from Latin into the English language, his expounding the truths of God's Word, and in sending out his preachers to bring the truth to the ordinary people, he has been greatly used of God to bring blessing to many who lived long after him. Wycliffe deserved the title of - The Dawn of the Reformation.

Points to Ponder:

• As you consider the life of John Wycliffe, what do you think was the greatest contribution he made to the Christian Church?
• How valuable do you think was the work of the Lollards? Do you agree with the historians that their ongoing work was a major contributing factor to the way the Reformation proceeded in England and Scotland?
• What made Wycliffe able to stand firm even in the midst of great persecution?
• Do you find it interesting that Wycliffe believed in justification by faith, election, and the regulative principle, and that he came to this knowledge simply by reading and believing God's Word, the Bible?

by Mrs Margaret Shand (Brisbane) "John Wycliffe," The Burning Bush
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bibliography
        d'Aubigne, J. H. Merle (1962) Reformation in England, The. Volume 1. London, Banner of Truth Trust. [reprinted from "The History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century" (1853)]
        Fountain, David (1984) John Wycliffe. The Dawn of the Reformation. Southampton, England, Mayflower Christian Books.
        Wood, Douglas C. (1984) The Evangelical Doctor. Welwyn, England, Evangelical Press.
        Wylie, Rev. J.A. (C1880) The History of Protestantism. Volume 1. London, Cassell, Petter and Galpin.

Jean de Charlier de Gerson
        The surname being the name of his native place, b. in the hamlet of Gerson 14 December, 1363; d. at Lyons, 12 July, 1429. The hamlet of Gerson has disappeared, but it was then a dependency of the village of Barby not far from Bethel, in the Diocese of Reims, and now included in the department of Ardennes.
        His father, Arnauld, and his mother, Elizabeth La Chardenière, were noted for their integrity and piety. They had twelve children, of whom Jean was the eldest. He attended the schools of Bethel and Reims and at the age of fourteen entered the famous Collège de Navarre at Paris, where he formed a life-long friendship with the rector, the illustrious Pierre d'Ailly of Compiègne. In 1381 Gerson obtained the degree of licentiate of arts under Maître Jean Loutrier; in 1388 he received that of Baccalarius Biblicus; in 1390 he lectured on the "Sententiæ", and in 1392 became a licentiate of theology. He was raised to the doctorate of theology in 1394, being then thirty-one years of age (cf. Denifle, Chartul. Univers. Paris, III). Beffore receiving the doctorate he had written several works. In 1387 he preached before Pope Clement VII of Avignon with a view to calling forth the condemnation of Jean de Monteson, a Dominican, who had denied the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin, and shortly afterwards he delivered a panegyric on St. Louis, King of France, thus making his debut in the oratorical career that was destined to become so brilliant.
        Although Gerson had won the doctorate only a year before his former teacher, Pierre d'Ailly, was named Bishop of Puy (1395), Benedict XIII chose him to succeed d'Ailly in the important position of Chancellor of Notre-Dame and of the university (13 April). Thenceforth he was actively interested in the extirpation of the schism which, for seventeen years, had divided the Church into two hostile parties that were numerically almost equal. The friend of peace and union, he always expressed a sober and moderate opinion in regard to both the Pope of Rome and the Pope of Avignon, and on all occasions showed a strong repugnance to the violent proceedings extolled by certain members of the university (Noël Valois, III, 71, 180). Appointed dean of the church of Saint Donatien at Bruges, Gerson remained there four years (1397-1401). It was at this period that he wrote the treatise, strongly theological and sober in tone, entitled: "Sententia de mode se habendi tempore schismatis" (Schwab, Johannes Gerson, Professor der Theologie und Kanzler der Universität Paris, 97, 152). He had not voted to withdraw obedience from the Pope of Avignon, for whom, in the beginning, France had declared herself (1398). He was one of the first to show that Benedict should be considered neither a heretic nor a schismatic, and that it was in no wise proper to introduce, on this plea, an action against him (Opp. Gersonii, II, ed. 1706, passim). Accordingly, he energetically demanded the restoration of obedience, that is to say, the cessation of that abnormal state that constituted a schism within a schism, but this conciliatory attitude, so conformable to his character, incurred much hatred. On 18 November, 1403, he was made curé of Saint-Jean-en-Grève at Paris, accepting the charge in addition to the office of chancellor; this favour was granted by Pope Benedict in recognition of Gerson's fidelity to him during his four years of enforced sojourn in his fortress at Avignon. The chancellor freely and openly rejoiced at the pontiff's release and the university selected him to congratulate Benedict at Marseilles. But this harmony was not to last. The university, again dissatisfied with Benedict, wished to renew the withdrawal of obedience that had so poorly succeeded the first time. D'Ailly and Gerson tried to oppose the movement both before and during the Council of Paris in 1406, and strove to urge upon their colleagues the necessity of more moderate proceedings. After long and animated discussion, they partially succeeded in obtaining that the withdrawal of obedience adopted by the members of the assembly was brought within certain limits (cf. L. Salembier, "Le grand schisme d'Occident", 221).
        D'Ailly and Gerson also formed a part of the solemn embassy sent to Benedict in 1407 and tried to prevail upon the pope to resign the papacy by a formal Bull; but the pontiff refused. Thereupon some of the delegates wished openly to break with him, but here again d'Ailly and Gerson caused more peaceable sentiments to triumph and laboured to retard the total rupture (L. Salembier, op. cit., 229). During the following year Gerson attended the Council of Reims and delivered the opening discourse. That same year, because of his efforts at reconciliation, d'Ailly aroused the indignation of the members of the university incensed against Benedict. The king espoused their quarrel and wished to have the bishop of Cambrai arrested; at this juncture Clémanges and Gerson, his ever- faithful pupils, wrote him touching letters of condolence [L. Salembier, "Petrus de Alliaco" (1887), 75; Opp. Gersonii, III, 429]. Gerson himself was soon to become acquainted with human vicissitudes and to be persecuted for another reason. On 23 November, 1407, the Duke of Orleans was assassinated in one of the streets of Paris by the cowardly hirelings of the Duke of Burgundy. With singular audacity, the Duke of Burgundy, John the Fearless (Jean sans Peur), assumed the responsibility of the deed, pleaded his own cause before King Charles VI and chose as his defending counsel, Jean Petit (8 March, 1408) who dared openly to profess the immoral theory of tyrannicide. The chancellor deemed it his duty to bring this doctrine before the Bishop of Paris and the professors of theology. The doctors first condemned seven, then nine of Jean Petit's propositions as erroneous and scandalous and these were thrown into the fire. Later, in the Council of Constance, Gerson again denounced the articles incriminated (June, 1415), and repeated the denunciation seven times within fifteen days. The Fathers passed sentence on this point (6 July), by condemning tyrannicide in a general way without, however, mentioning the name of the powerful Duke of Burgundy; this half-measure satisfied neither Gerson nor the Armagnacs who were at the council. The chancellor addressed the assemblasge in the name of the King of France, 5 May, 1416, and eloquently protested against the too moderate and indefinite sentence aimed at John the Fearless ("Opp. Gersonii", II, 328; V, 353, 355, 362 sq.; Labbe and Mansi, XXVII, 728 sqq., Schwab, op. cit., 609). Gerson had attended neither the Council of Pisa (1409), nor the Council of Rome (1412-13), but he had highly approved of both. His part in the Council of Constance was, however, an important one. He arrived at Constance, 21 February, 1415, with a delegation from the University of Paris. It is not necessary to enter here into the details of the trial of John Hus (Schwab, op. cit., 540-609), of the condemnation of the Flagellants ("Opp. Gersonii", II, 658, 660), of Gerson's differences with the English, nor of his doctrinal strife (1418) with Matthew Grabon, that great enemy of new religious orders ("Opp. Gersonii", I, 467). Mention will be made later of his attitude towards the three popes who then disputed the tiara, and of the theories that he set forth in the council in order to bring about the suppression of the schism.
        It was above all his struggles against John the Fearless that brought Gerson into unmerited disgrace. In Paris the Duke of Burgundy had before this provoked a riotous disturbance against him; his house had been plundered and he had only escaped assassination by taking refuge for two months up under the vaulted roofs of Notre-Dame. After the Council of Constance, whilst the pope, the emperor, and the fathers were returning with all due pomp to their respective countries (1418), Gerson learned that John the Fearless had sworn his destruction and that the "nation of Picardy" in the university had demanded that he be disclaimed, recalled, and punished atrociter ("Opp. Gersonii", V, 374; Denifle, "Chartul.", etc., IV, 300; Max Lenz, "Revue historique", IX, 470). To prevent his persecutor from having an opportunity to destroy him he left Constance, 15 May, 1418, and with André and Cresio, who had acted as his secretaries at the council, he took the road to exile. He retired to the Benedictine Abbey of Melk (Mölk) in Germany, the abbot of which he had known at Constance. The Archduke Frederick wished to gain him for the University of Vienna, and Gerson repaired thither but did not remain. Finally in November, 1419, the chancellor learned of the death of his sworn enemy, John the Fearless, who, by order of the Dauphin, had been slain on the bridge of the town of Montereau. Gerson at once set out for France but did not return to Pariis, which was torn by factions and was still in the hands of the Burgundians. He directed his steps towards Lyons, called thither by his brother who was prior of the Celestines and by the archbishop, Amédée de Talaru (Schwab, op. cit., 767 sqq.). Here he spent his last years in exercises of devotion and in performing his priestly functions. He also while at Lyons wrote various works, some of edification, some on mystical or pastoral theology, one especially being his well-known treatise: "De parvulis ad Christum trahendis". Combining example with precept, he loved to surround himself with little children in the church of Saint-Paul and delighted to teach them the elements of Christian doctrine. These ten years were the sweetest of his militant life, and the regrets of all good men followed him to the grave. Miracles were attributed to him and at least five martylrologies give him the title of Blessed. Over fifty particular councils and many ecclesiastical writers recommend to pastors "this great, pious and learned doctor, this ardent lover of souls, this incomparable director, this model of ministers of the Gospel". Statues have been raised to his memory at Paris and Lyons; in the church of the Sorbonne his picture is the companion to that of Bossuet.

VIEWS AS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH: COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE

        It is well known that what the theologians of the early part of the fourteenth century lacked most, was a fixed doctrine on what theologians to-day call the Traité de l'Eglise. Gallicanism was born of the false principles, or rather of the temporary expedients believed to be a necessity amid the unfortunate events of the Great Schism. Extenuating circumstances can be pleaded in Gerson's favour. He had been instructed by men who were none too stable, and had made a close study of William of Occam, the most evil genius of the fourteenth century. As we have seen, Gerson was generally more sensible and moderate in practice than in theory. Besides, it is now proved that several treatises, sometimes made the basis of an attack on his theological doctrine, were not his at all ("De modis uniendi; octo conclusiones quarum dogmatizatio utilis videtur ad exterminationem moderni schismatis; Sermo factus in die Ascensionis", 1409, etc.). In fact his Protestant or Gallican editors, von der Hardt, Richer, and Ellies-Dupin, have done his memory poor service by exaggerating or envenoming some of his propositions. It is but too true that in regard to the pope and the council, the chancellor maintained erroneous theories which were censurable and later condemned. In his opinion the sovereign pontiff is not the universal bishop possessing immediate power over all the faithful; his power is only subjective and executive ("Opp. Gersonii", II, 259, 279). Far from being infallible, he can even sometimes fall into heresy, in which event, if he still remain pope, the faithful are empowered to bind him, imprison him and even throw him into the sea (Ibid., 221; Noël Valois, IV, 84). Gerson's doctrine concerning the general council is no sounder. He admits the superiority of the Church and the œcumenical council over the pope, as he sees no other means of emerging from schism and returning to unity. With him temporary expedients become principles. It is what might be called ecclesiastical opportunism. Gerson is exclusively rational and practical, and the object of all his argumentation is the justification of the most extraordinary methods of procedure in order to attain the final result desired by him and by all Christendom. Hence, according to him, the sovereign pontiff is amenable to the council which may correct and even depose him ("Opp. Gersonii", II, 201).
        Regarding the convocation and composition of this assembly he declares, with d'Ailly, that the first four œcumenical councils were not convened by the authority of the pope and that not only cardinals, but princes, and in fact any Christian, can convoke a council for the election of a single and universally acknowledged pope ("De auferibilitate papæ", in Opp. Gersonii, II, 209 sqq.). He also maintains that pastors may be summoned to such an assembly and may have a deliberate voice as well as bishops ("De potestate ecclesiastica", in ibid., II, 249). None of the faithful should be excluded (ibid., II, 205). In all of these propositions is seen, as it were, a reflection of the extreme theses of the revolutionary Franciscan, William of Occam. Moreover, Gerson's attitude in the Council of Constance was in conformity with his principles. With the delegates from the University of Paris, he demanded that all three popes immediately tender their resignation (Feb., 1415). A convinced partisan of the superiority of doctors over bishops, he insisted, like d'Ailly, that the doctors of canon and even of civil law should have a voice in the deliberations of the council. This was in consequence of his democratic tendencies (cf. Salembier, Le grand schisme, 212, 299). He exalted to excess the omnipotence of the general council and pursued Pope John XXIII with unflagging energy (Schwab, op. cit., 507; von der Hardt, II, 265). He voted for the four famous articles of Constance (March 1415) which are the code of Gallicanism and pave the way for all the schismatic decisions of the assembly of 1682. Besides, he bodily maintained that these revolutionary principles were dogmas and wanted them carved on the stone of all the churches (Opp. Gersonii, II, 275). However in 1416 he was obliged to admit with sadness that voices were still raised in denial of the superiority of the council over the popes. Gerson attributed this "condemnable" obstinancy to the necessity of sycophancy, calling it "a deadly poison with which the organism of the Church is impregnated to the very marrow" (Ibid, II, 247). It is because of these openly erroneous principles that Gerson, like d'Ailly, his master, passed for a precursor of the Protestant Reformation. It is also for this reason that Protestant writers, such as A. Jepp and Winklemann, in Germany, and de Bonnechose, in France, compared him to Wyclif and John Hus. What has gone before, however, proves that these comparisons do Gerson injustice.

GERSON'S MYSTICAL THEOLOGY AND ORATORY

        Gerson's mystical theology has its own peculiar and original character; it is that of an eminent and almost impeccable master. First of all he distinguishes it from scientific theology which is abstract and discursive. His mysticism in its essence is an experimental knowledge of God which, by love, one perceives in himself. If the inferior powers remain in darkness, the superior faculties, the intellect, and especially pure love, have the freer play, and therefore constitute a sublime state of transport which surpasses all theoretical learning. This theology does not require great scientific attainments, it is within the reach of the most simple. Moreover, through close union with God, it gives us perfect contentment of soul with the entire and definitive appeasement of our desires (cf. Schwab, op. cit., 325; Ellies- Dupin, "Opp. Gersonii", I, clv). Gerson further distinguishes a practical part in his mystical theology and lays down the conditions and means (industriæ) preparatory to contemplation. These industriæ are as follows: (1) to await the call of God; (2) to know well one's own temperament; (3) to be heedful of one's vocation and one's state; (4) to aim constantly towards greater perfection; (5) to avoid as much as possible a multiplicity of occupations and, in any event, not to become absorbed in them; (6) to set aside all vain desire for learning, i. e. all idle curiosity; (7) to remain calm and practise patience; (8) to know the origin of the affections and passions; (9) to choose the necessary time and place; (10) to avoid extremes, either of abstinence or excess, in sleeping and eating; (11) to indulge in thoughts that excite pious affections; (12) to banish from one's mind all images, which is preëminently modus simplificandi cor in meditationibus and producendi contemplationem. Gerson's many treatises are in Vol. III of his works. He was one of the first to recognize and proclaim the supernatural vocation of Joan of Arc. He laboured diligently to promote devotion to the Blessed Virgin and St. Joseph and even dedicated to this saint a poem of 4600 lines entitled "Josephina". He was not the author of the "Imitation of Jesus Christ", and the reasons for this adverse opinion advanced by Rosweyde, Amort, Malou, Funk and Vacandard, seem convincing.
        He was one of the most eminent orators of his time and preached frequently, either in French or Latin, before the university, at court, in the principal churches of the capital or in his parish of Saint-Jean-en-Grève. It was in this parish that he preached the most of his sermons in French; these discourses, sixty-four in number, have been specially studied by the Abbé Bournet, later Bishop of Rodez and cardinal. In plan these instructions are almost the same as modern sermons but Gerson's learning is often deficient in taste and judgment, and he makes sometimes too pompous a display of incongruous quotations. From the point of view of doctrine he treats, for the greater part, ethical subjects and inveighs against intemperance and the dissoluteness of morals. He labours mainly for reform within, frequently exhorts to penance, and threatens his flock with the judgments of God, but does not leave them without words of hope and consolation. His style is far from uniform and differs according to his hearers. Cold and accurate in the setting forth of dogma, he most frequently stirs the passions and resorts largely to allegory and word-painting; his language, although having all the piquancy, naïveté, and originality of the old French chronicles, is always dignified and becoming.
        Gerson's works were published directly after the introduction of printing, first at Cologne in 1483 (4 vols. in fol., for details consult Schwab, op. cit. ad finem). Both French editions, the one by Richer (Paris, 1635, 4 vols.), the other by Ellies-Dupin (Antwerp, or rather Amsterdam, 1703, 5 vols. in fol.) were prepared under the influence of Gallican ideas and with a view to religious polemics. They were hastily and confusedly compiled without any great care and contain serious defects. However, the one by Ellies-Dupin is fairly complete and the first four volumes embody over 400 of Gerson's treatises. The references to Gerson's works in this article are to this edition.

(PAUL DE SANTA MARIA; Jewish name, SOLOMON HA-LEVI)
        A Spanish archbishop, lord chancellor and exegete, born at Burgos about 1351; died 29 Aug., 1435. He was the most wealthy and influential Jew of Burgos, a scholar of the first rank in Talmudic and rabbinical literature, and a Rabbi of the Jewish community. The irresistible logic of the Summa of St. Thomas led him to the Faith of Christ. He received Baptism, 21 July, 1390. His brothers Pedro Suares and Alvar Garcia, together with his daughter and four boys, aged from three to twelve years, were baptized with him. His wife Joanna died a Jewess shortly after. Paul de Santa Maria, as he was called, spent some years at the University of Paris, where he took his degree of doctor in theology. His sincerity, keen insight into human nature, thorough education, and soul-stirring eloquence marked him out as a prominent churchman of the future. In 1405 he became Bishop of Cartagena; in 1415, Archbishop of Burgos. In 1416 King Henry of Castile named him lord chancellor. After the king's death Archbishop Paul was a member of the council which ruled Castile in the name of the regent Doña Catalina, and by the will of the deceased king he was tutor to the heir to the throne -- later John II of Castile. The published writings of Archbishop Paul were:
        (1) "Dialogus Pauli et Sauli contra Judæos, sive Scrutinium scripturarum" (Mantua, 1475; Mains, 1478; Paris, 1507, 1535; Burgos, 1591).
        (2) "Additiones" to the "Postilla" of Nicholas of Lyra (Nuremberg, 1481; 1485; 1487, etc.; Venice, 1481, 1482, etc.). It is chiefly on the latter work that Paul's reputation as an exegete rests. The "Additiones" were originally mere marginal notes written in a volume of the "Postilla" which he sent to his son Alfonso. Their publication aroused Matthias Döring, the provincial of the Saxon Franciscans, to publish his "Replicæ", a bitter rejection of almost half of the 1100 suggestions and additions Paul had made. The converted Jew was superior to Nicholas of Lyra in Hebrew, but not in Biblical interpretations; in fact, Paul erred in not admitting an inspired allegorical meaning of Holy Writ, prejudiced against it, no doubt, by the extravagance of Talmudic allegorical fancies.
        (3) "De nomine divino quæstiones duodecim" (Utrecht, 1707). These tracts are excerpts from the "Additiones" in regard to Exod., iii, and are joined to the scholia of J. Drusius on the correct pronunciation of the name of Jahweh.
        Archbishop Paul was succeeded in the See of Burgos by his second son, Alfonso.

John of Ragusa
(Sometimes confounded with John of Segovia, q.v.).
        A Dominican theologian, president of the Council of Basle, legate to Constantinople, b. at Ragusa about 1380; d. at Argos, in the Peloponnesus, probably 1443. He entered the Dominican Order and devoted himself to the observance of the rule of his order and the study of the sacred sciences. By reason of his great attainments in theology, Scripture, and the Oriental languages, he was considered an oracle in his native Dalmatia. At the University of Paris he shone conspicuously and there received the doctor's cap about the beginning of the fifteenth century. In the year 1426 he was appointed procurator general of the Dominican Order, and went to reside at Rome under Pope Martin V. There he received marks of honour and esteem from the pope and the College of Cardinals, and the former eventually named him papal theologian for the General Council of Basle. John was, moreover, chosen to open the council, in place of Cardinal Julian Cesarini, who was detained by other business. Arriving at Basle on 19 May, 1431, he on the same day arranged with the Bishop of Basle for the opening of the council on the 23rd of the same month. The opening did not take place, however, until 23 July, 1431, in the cathedral church, when John preached from the text: "Et angelus testamenti, quem vos vultis. Ecce venit" (Mal., iii, 1). In the council he exonerated the absent cardinals from the charge of contempt (Feb., 1433). On eight mornings he spoke against the doctrines of the Hussites and crushed all that was reprehensible in that heresy.
        Having been sent as a legate of the council to Conatantinople to urge the reunion of the Eastern and Western Churches, John of Ragusa induced the Emperor John Paleologus and the Patriarch Joseph to send an embassy to the council through the treaty which they made with Pope Eugenius IV was broken by the Greeks. John afterwards sojourned at Constantinople to study the Greek language and to become better acquainted with the situation of ecclesiastical affairs. Here he completed an etymological work bearing upon the Greek text of Scripture and destined to be of service to Catholic controversialists in treating of the doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Ghost against the Greek schismatics. He returned to Bologna as a member of a deputation, to obtain from Eugenius IV an assurance that the pope would be present at the council. Having acceded to this request, Eugenius employed John once more to be the bearer of a document (dated 15 July, 1437) to the Greek emperor in which the emperor's assistance was invited at a meeting of the council to be held in some Italian city. John's subsequent course has been a subject of dispute: some authors assert that he remained in sympathy with the council, while others insist that he allied himself with Eugenius IV, who made him Bishop of Argos. It is probable that he took the side of Eugenius. His extant writings are: (1) Discourse against the Hussites delivered at the Council of Basle; (2) the Acts, or Reports, of his embassies to Constantinople, to be found among the Acts of the Council of Basle; (3) an account of his travels in the East, preserved by Leo Allatius. His work on Greek indeclinable nouns and Scriptural Greek etymology seems to have been lost.
        TOURON, Histoire des hommes illustres de l'Ordre de Saint Dominique (Paris, 1746); QUÉTIF AND ECHARD, Script. Ord. Praedicatorum (Paris, 1719).

It shall greatly helpe ye to understande Scripture,
If thou mark
Not only what is spoken or wrytten,
But of whom,
And to whom,
With what words,
At what time
Where,
To what intent,
With what circumstances,
Considering what goeth before
And what followeth.

2.1.3.5 Summation
Assigned Readings for This Topic:
Gerald Bray, Biblical Interpretation: Past and Present, relevant sections in this chapter.

Resource Materials to also be studied:
       In this section of the Bray textbook (pp. 143-144), four major points are made in regard to the issues related to interpretative methodology that dominate the Middle Ages in Prof. Bray's view. These are as follows:

1. It was necessary to determine both what the exact text of Scripture was, and how it should be interpreted.
2. It was necessary to have an agreed authority to mediate in matters under dispute.
3. It was necessary to edify the church with biblical teaching.
4. It was necessary to relate biblical teaching to other branches of knowledge.

Glosses, Glossaries, Glossarists
(IN CANON LAW)
        A gloss (Gk. glossa, Lat. glossa, tongue, speech) is an interpretation or explanation of isolated words. To gloss is to interpret or explain a text by taking up its words one after another. A glossary is therefore a collection of words about which observations and notes have been gathered, and a glossarist is one who thus explains or illustrates given texts. In Canon law, glosses are short elucidations attached to the important words in the juridical texts which make up the collections of the "Corpus Juris Canonici" (q.v.). But the term gloss is also given to the ensemble of such notes in any entire collection, e. g. the Gloss of the "Decretum" of Gratian, of the "Liber Sextus", etc. The Glossarists are those canonists who lived during the classic period of Canon law, from the twelfth to the fifteenth century, though many left works other than glosses. The canonists of Bologna in particular, favoured the method of the glossarists, and affixed to text and words the meaning which they should bear. In the beginning the masters noted down on their own copies of the "Decretum" of Gratian a few words by way of résumé, and as a help in their lectures; in course of time such notes passed into the copies of their pupils. These brief notes, at first inserted between the lines, soon overflowed the margins, and became copious enough to form a framework within which the real text was enshrined, as may be seen by an examination of ancient manuscripts and certain editions of the "Corpus Juris Canonici". Moreover, later glosses were of such ample proportions as to become at times small commentaries containing discussions on the opinions of previous canonists. As each master added his own gloss the notes began to swell in volume; but care was always taken to indicate the particular author by placing a significant abbreviation after his gloss, thus: Hug. or H. (Huguccio); Jo. Fa. or F. (Joannes Faventinus), etc. Gradually this mass of glosses took on in the schools a permanent form, a necessary condition to its usefulness in teaching; and became a kind of secondary canonical text, less authoritative, of course, than the original, but supplying material for oral commentary. Thus arose "ordinary gloss" (glossa ordinaria), endowed with a certain authority, not indeed official (as though it were actually the law on the point), but none the less real, since it represented the opinion and authority of the canonists who wrote it down, but chiefly because it expressed the teaching at the time. Hence it comes to pass that a medieval canonical gloss is often quoted even in our day; the quotation is made quite as the quotations from the canons or chapters ol the "Corpus Juris Canonici", except that the word on which the gloss bears is always indicated, e. g. "Gl(ossa)" in c. Licet, v, De Crimine falsi, vº (verbo) "Falsitatis" (the gloss on the word "falsitatis", in ch. Licet, fifth book of the Decretals).
        It is not easy to illustrate in a few words the legal learning that lies hidden in the glosses of Canon law collections. The principal heads of information are as follows:

résumé of the case;
determination of the question to be solved;
division of the text and statement of conclusions drawn;
interpretation of important words;
examples of real or fictitious cases showing the application of the law;
discussion of the various readings of the same text as given in different manuscripts;
countless references to parallel texts;
axioms or mnemonic helps (brocardica) often in leonine hexameter verses;
allusions to the teaching of various masters, and to solutions given on various occasions by pontifical letters.

        Evidently the juridical value of these glosses for the teaching of canon law in our day has greatly lessened; historically, however, they still offer much precious information, The more eminent of the glossarists will be treated biographically, in their own places among the canonists of renown. Attention will be confined here to what is strictly essential in this connection. The gloss of the "Decretum" of Gratian was the work of John Zimeke, called the Teutonic (Joannes Simeca Teutonicus), between 1211 and 1215; he profited by the notes of his predecessors as well as those which he had made himself. This work, remodelled and completed by Bartholomew of Brescia (Bartholomæus Brixiensis) in 1245 or 1246, became the "ordinary gloss" of the "Decretum". Before their incorporation in the collection of Gregory IX, the so-called Five Compilations of papal Decretals (Quinque compilationes antiquæ) had all been glossed. Tancredus, archdeacon of Bologna, had written on the first of these collections (the "Breviarium" of Bernard of Pavia) a gloss which was received as its "glossa ordinaria" until the appearance of the Decretals of Gregory IX in 1234. This last collection, as is known (see CORPUS JURIS CANONICI), caused the Five Compilations to disappear; in turn it was glossed by the masters of Bologna. The author of its "ordinary gloss" was Bernard of Botone, also known as Bernard of Parma (Bernardus Parmensis), who composed it shortly before 1263; afterwards it received many additions, especially from Joannes Andreæ, identified by the prefix Add. and at the end the initials Jo. Andr. It is to this famous canonist we owe the "glossa ordinaria" of the "Liber Sextus"; he wrote this glossa about the year 1305, Many manuscripts contain also the gloss of Joannes Monachus, famous as Cardinal Lemoine, written also about 1305. The gloss of Joannes Andreæ on the "Clementinæ", compiled soon after the appearance of this collection (1317), has become its "glossa ordinaria", with additions however by Franciscus de Zabarellis, later a cardinal, and Archbishop of Florence (died 1417). The "Extravagantes" of John XXII were glossed as early as 1325, by Zenzelin (Zenzelinus) de Cassanis. (See also CORPUS JURIS CANONICI; DECRETALS, PAPAL.) The "Extravagantes Communes" had no regular gloss, but when Jean Chappuis edited this collection, in 1500, he included glosses of many authors that he came across in his manuscripts. All the glosses of the Corpus Juris are given in the official edition of Gregory XIII (1582); since then they have not been revised, and recent critical editions of the text omit them.

Lectio Divina #1         John 14.25: "These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you (par'humin menon, literally, remaining with you)" is a statement implying Christ's presence among people which is partially complete. Such presence needs fulfillment by the Holy Spirit, the Paraklete, Para-kletos, whom the Father and Son send to be our constant companion. As Third Person of the Trinity, he represents a completion of the divine life. His proper name is intriguing, for it consists of the Greek preposition para ("in the presence of, before, beside") and the verb kleo ("to summon"). Since the Spirit proceeds from Father and Son, we may say that his task of enlightening persons naturally follows the task of Christ whose presence, as just remarked, is characterized by "remaining with you, par'humin.

        In light of these observations, refer to the following distinctly different three passages which help shed light on this mysterious divine presence:

        "The soul in its happiness finds itself standing midway in the Embrace and the Kiss of Father and Son. In a manner which exceeds description and thought, the man of God is found worthy to become not God but what God is, that is to say, man becomes through grace what God is by nature." William of St. Thierry, Epistle to Mt. Dieu (London, 1930), pp.259-63.

        "Now let us look at the nature of this eternal birth of the Son from the Father and see what we have to learn from it. The Father, as Father, turns to Himself with His divine comprehension. He sees Himself with a luminous understanding of the essential abyss of His eternal being, and out of this pure comprehension of Himself, He utters the word which is His Son. The eternal birth of the Son is nothing else than the Father's own knowing of Himself. The Son remains within the Godhead in unity of essence, and proceeds from the Father in difference of Person." John Tauler, The Birth of God in the Soul, a sermon in Spiritual Conferences (St. Louis, 1961), p.157.

        "Any prayer which, even unconsciously, treats god as an object cannot be a real prayer in spirit and in truth. God cannot, strictly speaking be an object, since the 'object' essentially depends on the subject who 'puts it before' himself (ob-jicit). One cannot properly speak of God in the third person, even if linguistic conventions can scarcely avoid doing so. God comes first. I am only in the Thou which God says to me. God alone is the first person. If it is to be true, our inner experience of God should be of him as a first person, the one and only I. As long as we try to reach God by forming concepts of him and thereby making him an object, we cannot find him. He is only to be found in the experience of my own I which is a participation (and not an outward projection) of the I of God. Yet the mystery of the I-Thou within the uniqueness of the essential I still remains. This is the whole mystery of the Holy Trinity in which man participates by the very fact of his creation and into whose fullness he is taken up by the grace of the divine adoption (cf. John 1.12; Romans 8.14+)" Abhishiktananda, Prayer (Philadelphia, 1973) p.73, footnote #1.

Check Bray's bibliography in appropriate chapter of the textbook.

Check the appropriate Bibliography section in Cranfordville.com