YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE
SCHOLASTIC PHILOSOPHY
CONSIDERED
IN ITS RELATION TO
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY,
IN
A COURSE OF LECTURES
DELIVERED BEFORE
THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD,
IN THE YEAR MDCCCXXXII.
AT THE LECTURE
FOUNDED BY JOHN BAMPTON, M.A.
CANON OF SALISBURY.

R. D. HAMPDEN, D|D. v
REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY>C(F OXFORD;
CANON OF CHRIST CHURCH, ETC.

SECOND EDITION,
WITH INTRODUCTION.

LONDON :
B. FELLOWES, LUDGATE STREET.
MDCCC XXXVII.

LONDON :
K. CLAY PRINTER, BREAD STREET-B ILL,
DOCTORS' COMMONS.

EXTRACT
FROM
THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT
OF THE
REV. JOHN BAMPTON,
CANON OF SALISBURY-

 " I give and bequeath my Lands and Estates to
" the Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars of the University
" of Oxford for ever, to have and to hold all and sin-
" gular the said Lands or Estates upon trust, and to the
" intents and purposes hereinafter mentioned ; that is to
" say, I will and appoint that the Vice-Chancellor of the
" University of Oxford for the time being shall take and
" receive all the rents, issues, and profits thereof, and
" (after all taxes, reparations, and necessary deductions
" made) that he pay all the remainder to the endowment
" of eight Divinity Lecture Sermons, to be established for
" ever in the said University, and to be performed in the
" manner following :
" I direct and appoint, that, upon the first Tuesday in
" Easter Term, a Lecturer be yearly chosen by the Heads
" of Colleges only, and by no others, in the room adjoin-
" ing to the Printing-House, between the hours of ten in
" the morning and two in the afternoon, to preach eight
" Divinity Lecture Sermons, the year following, at St.
" Mary's, in Oxford, between the commencement of the
" last month in Lent Term, and the end of the third week
" in Act Term." a 2

iv EXTRACT FROM CANON BAMPTON's WILL.
" Also I direct and appoint, that the eight Divinity
" Lecture Sermons shall be preached upon either of the
" following Subjects — to confirm and establish the Chris-
" tian Faith, and to confute all heretics and schismatics —
" upon the divine authority of the holy Scriptures — upon
" the authority of the writings of the primitive Fathers, as
" to the faith and practice of the primitive Church — upon
" the Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ —
" upon the Divinity of the Holy Ghost — upon the Articles
" of the Christian Faith, as comprehended in the Apostles'
" and Nicene Creeds.
" Also I direct, that thirty copies of the eight Divinity
" Lecture Sermons shall be always printed, within two
" months after they are preached, and one copy shall be
" given to the Chancellor of the University, and one copy
" to the Head of every College, and one copy to the Mayor
" of the city of Oxford, and one copy to be put into the
" Bodleian Library ; and the expense of printing them shall
" be paid- out of the revenue of the Land or Estates given
" for establishing the Divinity Lecture Sermons ; and the
" Preacher shall not be paid, nor be entitled to the revenue,
" before they are printed.
" Also I direct and appoint, that no person shall be
" qualified to preach the Divinity Lecture Sermons, unless
" he hath taken the degree of Master of Arts at least, in
" one of the two Universities of Oxford or Cambridge ;
" and that the same person shall never preach the Divinity
" Lecture Sermons twice."

PREFACE.

It is not an unusual effect of taking a particular
view of a subject, to give the appearance of over
looking another view of it, no less important than
that immediately presented. This is particularly
the case in a question of religion, in which the
mind naturally fixes its eye on the divine part
of the argument: and we are apt accordingly
to regard that as altogether slighted, because it
is not ostensibly brought under our survey.
I wish therefore to obviate any such miscon
ception of my design, in regard to the observations
contained in the present course of Lectures. I
am exclusively engaged in considering what I may
call a human section of the complex history of
Christianity. But I would not, at the same time,
be thought insensible to the divine part of the
history ; or to forget, even for a moment, the
holy Agent himself by whom the great work, in

VI PREFACE.
all its sacred outlines and living energy, has been
wonderfully wrought.
I request accordingly, that it may be remem
bered throughout, what is the immediate and
restricted business of my inquiry : that it presup
poses a Divine origin to the Christian revelation,
and a superintending Providence over its whole
course. This is my point of departure. Assuming
that the Holy Spirit has not been unfaithful to
his charge over the church of Christ, I have en
deavoured to take some account of that resistance,
which the human agent has opposed to the diifu-
sion of the truth as it was purely inspired. A
work of Christian evidences would have for its
leading idea the operation of the Divine Author
and Guardian of the Faith. Take, for instance,
the Gospels, or the Acts of the Apostles : and
it is the facts bearing on the character of the
Divine Being and the Divine dispensations, which
are solely or prominently brought to view. Hu
man sentiments and conduct are the mirror in
which the work of God is reflected. Or take
any merely human treatise on the evidences of
Christianity : and the object will be found to be,
to detect, amidst the various circumstances which

PREFACE. VU
have accompanied the rise and propagation of the
Gospel, the indications of a power, wisdom, and
goodness, more than human. As the present,
however, is not a work of evidences, but a par
ticular view of the connexion of human philosophy
with the given truths of the Scriptures, the agency
of man here forms the leading idea: and this
therefore I have singled out for particular obser
vation. There seems indeed to be an unreasonable jea
lousy in regard to any attempt to describe the
importance of the human means concerned in
the establishment and maintenance of the Gospel
truth. There is a proneness in professed de
fenders of Christianity, as also in the Christian
in general, to overstate the argument in its favour.
Whatever detracts accordingly from their own
undue estimate, they are apt to regard as taking
so much from the real evidence of Christianity.
But let us not estimate the cares of the Author
of our salvation for the security of his work, by
the standard of our fears. Let the human agents
whom he has employed in the furtherance of it,
have contributed their utmost either to support
or to thwart what He has begun, the work still

Vlll PREFACE.
remains his. As in the natural world ; corrup
tion and disease may mark for their own the
fairest works of the Divine hand, but cannot
unmake them : so neither are we to suppose that
the superintendence of Christ over his Church
no longer exists, because the fields of his vineyard
have been overrun with thorns and weeds.

C O N T E N T/S?,

LECTURE I. p. 3.
ORIGIN OF SCHOLASTIC PHILOSOPHY.
Nature of the Inquiry proposed, the force of Theory on Theo
logical language — the Scholastic Philosophy an important branch
of this General Inquiry — its connexion with the philosophy of
Aristotle — Neglect of consideration of its influence in comparison
with that of Platonism — the greater extent of its influence — its
more immediate interest.
The Scholastic Philosophy the result of a struggle between
Reason and Authority — its history to be traced to the ascendancy
of the Latin Clergy — contrast between the Greek and Latin
Fathers — Practical character of the Latins exemplified in their
leading men — strict correspondence sustained among them — Con
trast of state of Society in the East and the West — Civil disturb
ance and misery of the West favourable to the power of the Latin
Church — Rhetorical character of the Latin theological writers —
Fruitless attempt of Jerome to improve the Latin literature of his
time — Monastic Institutions of the West less enthusiastic than
those of the East — Origin of the Scholastic System more deve
loped in the progress of the Church, after the middle of the Vth
century. — The principle of liberty of reason which had led to the
power of the Church, operating within the Church, leads at once
to heresy and ecclesiastical coercion — Extent of jurisdiction over
opinion claimed by the Latin Clergy evidenced in the predes-
tinarian Controversy of the IXth century — Subsequent history a
continuance of the struggle between Reason and Authority in the
West. — Subjugation of the intellect leads to its insurrection —
Character of its efforts at this period.
The argumentative theology at length sanctioned by the Church
itself in its authoritative capacity — The Book of the Sentences —

X CONTENTS.
Albert the Great, and Thomas Aquinas, perfect the method
established — Success of Scholasticism owing to its combination of
unlimited discussion with deference to authority.
LECTURE II. p. 51.
FORMATION OF THE SCHOLASTIC THEOLOGY.
General statement of the evil of a Logical Theology — The
Church sanctions the use of Logic only as an art of defence —
Platonism the established Philosophy of the Church — An art of
Logic indispensable to the speculating Christian in the West —
Division of the Sciences in the middle age — Tendency of the
age to blend all into a metaphysical Logic, or Dialect — Logic
perverted into a Science of Investigation — Obstructions to the
real improvement of Logic — Ignorance of Aristotle's writings in
themselves — Importance of the writings of Boethius — Effect of
the Crusades in opening fresh sources of knowledge — Progress
of Scholasticism illustrated in the division of parties into Nomi
nalists and Realists — Triumph of Realism.
Realism, the scientific basis of Scholasticism — Nominalism,
the resource of the more liberal speculators — Opposition between
Duns Scotus and Ockam — Ascendancy of a Logical Philosophy
evidenced in the subsequent state of knowledge.
Theology erected into an exact demonstrative Science — its
Principles drawn from the incomprehensible nature of the Divine
Being — Regard to Authority maintained, by assigning Faith as
the preliminary to the whole Speculation — Aristotle's Philosophy
applied as a method of eliciting the Divine truths involved in the
Scripture — This resulted in a combination of the Ideal Theory
of Platonism with the Sensualism of Aristotle's Philosophy —
Logic the instrument in effecting this result — Union of Mysticism
and Argumentation in the Scholastic writings — Abuse by the
Schoolmen of the disputatious form of Aristotle's writings.
Fundamental errors of Scholastic Theology, 1. its neglect of
the Historical Nature of the Christian Scriptures — consequent
loss of the real instruction contained in them — 2. their Rhetorical
nature also overlooked in an exclusive attention to the mere
words of revelation — 3. their Ethical lessons also disparaged in
the pursuit of theoretic truth.

CONTENTS. XI
LECTURE III. p. 97.
THE TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSIES.
Questions on the Trinity naturally the first to engage the
attention of disputants — Their ecclesiastical and political import
ance in the early ages — Maintenance of the orthodox doctrine
chiefly owing to the Latin Church — Controversies on the subject
assume a scientific form in the Scholastic writings — Promiscuous
character of ancient Philosophy exemplified in the discussion —
Scholastic system applies the philosophy of mind to the inves
tigation of God from his Effects in the world — Doctrine of the
Trinity, in its principle, the ideas or reasons of all existing things,
traced to the Intellect of God — Description of the Scholastic
mode of rationalizing the doctrine — Orthodox theory of the
Divine Procession the exact view of the principle of Causation —
Extremes of Sabellianism and Arianism traced to their miscon
ception of this principle — Mischievous effect of the notion, that
doctrines must be defended from their speculative consequences —
Influence of Materialism — Rise of a technical phraseology —
Logical principles employed in settling the precise notions of the
different terms introduced — Popular illustrations of the Trinity
examples of this mode of philosophizing — Controversies turn
principally on the views taken of sameness, unity, diversity, &c.
— Differences between the orthodox and the Sabellians and Arians
in regard to the Divine Unity — Difficulties produced by the word
Persona, obviated by logical distinctions.
Illustration of the doctrine of the Incarnation from the prin
ciples of the established logical philosophy — It accounts for the
differences between the orthodox, the Nestorians, and Eutychians.
Application of this philosophy in the Controversies on the
Procession of the Holy Spirit — The words Filioque added to the
Nicene Creed — This addition ultimately maintained on logical
grounds. General practical reflections — Difficulties on the subject of the
Trinity metaphysical in their origin — Popular misapprehension of
the Divine Unity an instance of this — The various theories all
Trinitarian in principle — Simplicity of belief in Scripture facts,
the only escape from perplexity.

xii CONTENTS.

LECTURE IV. p. 153.
THE PELAGIAN CONTROVERSIES.— PREDESTINATION AND
GRACE.
Scholastic nature of controversies relative to Divine and Hu
man Agency — State of the West disposes the Latin Christians
to the discussion of such questions — Importance ofthe questions
in order to Church-government — The disputes here at first, less
philosophical in comparison with the Trinitarian — Consequent
laxity in the terms of the Pelagian theories, occasions more con
tinual disputes — The Schoolmen the first to systematize these
doctrines — Connexion of them with the previous theory of the
Trinity — Scholastic view of Predestination an application of
the Principle of Activity in the Divine Being to human actions —
Importance of excluding reference to the Divine Intelligence, in
our estimate of Predestination — Mode in which the notions of
Contingency and Necessity, Time and Eternity, were employed in
Scholastic reasonings. — The only proper difficulty on the subject
is, the prevalence of Evil — Notions of Optimism influential on
such speculations — The term Good in ancient philosophy coin
cident with an object of will — Reprobation consequently, as
implying evil willed, unknown to Scholastic system — Illustration
to be derived to our article on the subject from the theories
opposed by the Schoolmen— Dread of Manicheism in the Latin
Church. Scholastic notion of Grace as the effect of Predestination, both
physical and logical — The term Grace designates properly a
general fact of the Divine conduct — Application of Aristotle's
physical doctrines in the scholastic account of the process of
Grace — The theory of Transmutation — Instinctive Principle of
motion attributed to the System of Nature — Approximation to
Pantheism in this system.
Practical reflections — Truths of Grace and Predestination con
cern the heart principally — Theoretic statements of them must
always he peculiarly open to difficulty — The difficulties, evidently,
chiefly metaphysical — The doctrines, practically taken, full of
real comfort and peace.

CONTENTS. Xlll
LECTURE V. p. 207.
THE PELAGIAN CONTROVERSIES.— JUSTIFICATION.
Truths of Divine and Human Agency necessarily qualify each
other — Human Agency, as viewed in the Scholastic system, the
continued action of the First Cause — Justification, the law of
Divine Operation in the Salvation of Man — Sketch of the Chris
tian scheme involved in this principle — Theory of Human Agency
concerned first in accounting for Resistance to the Divine Will —
Difficulty, as felt in ancient philosophy, was to reconcile the fact
with the certainty of Science — Schoolmen adopt Aristotle's prac
tical views of human nature — Application of the term Corruption
founded on his physical philosophy — Theory of the Propagation
of Sin maintains the universality of the principle of Corruption —
Objections of Pelagius and Celestius to this theory — Error, both
of the Orthodox and of the Pelagians, in speculating on the nature
of Original Sin — Concupiscence — the application of this term to
Original Sin, derived from ancient divisions of the soul — Mate
rialism involved in the Speculation. — Doctrine of Original Sin,
the counterpart to the doctrine of the Incarnation — Disputes
between the Orthodox and the Pelagians turn on the force ofthe
terms Nature and Person — Connexion between the heresies of
Nestorius and Pelagius — Distinction between the effect of Adam's
sin, and the sin of subsequent parents on their posterity — View
of the Christian life, as a change, coincides with this theory of
Original Sin — Faith, the infused element of the new life — Doc
trinal statements of Justification by Faith, to be interpreted by
the light of Scholastic notions involved in it — Scholastic Notion
of Free-will, not opposed to Necessity, but to the Force of sin, in
enslaving the will — Introduction of the theory of Justice into the
Christian Scheme — Notion of Merit to be understood in connexion
with this theory ; as also of Merit of Condignity, Merit of Con-
gruity — Peculiar views of Repentance, as a compensation for
offence — of Punishment and Satisfaction, as applied to the Sacri
fice of Christ — of Self-Mortification and Supererogation— drawn
from^this theory of Penal Justice. ,
Inefficacy of Repentance to remove guilt, and need of Atone
ment, illustrated by these speculations— Debasing effect of Scho
lastic theory of Expiation — True view of Human Agency to be

XIV CONTENTS.
found in simple practical belief of the Atonement — Union of
Strength and Weakness, implied in this doctrine, coincident with
facts of human nature — Mischievous effect of speculative discus
sion of the subject — Moderation and forbearance of language on
the subject most accordant with the spirit of Protestantism.
LECTURE VI. p. 261.
MORAL PHILOSOPHY OF THE SCHOOLS.
No proper Moral Philosophy in the Scholastic System — Con
fusion of moral and religious truth injurious to both — Instance
in Paley's Moral Philosophy — Moral Truth at first taught on the
ground of Authority — Platonism influential in blending it with
Theology — Influence of Christian literature, the Sermons, and
legends of the Saints, Ambrose's Treatise " On the Offices of
" Ministers," Gregory's " Morals," Boethius' " Consolation of
" Philosophy" — Ethical science corrupted by being studied with
a view to the power of the Clergy.
Schoolmen systematize ethical precepts drawn from practice
of the Church — The Treatise " Of the Imitation of Christ"—
Plato's theological account of the Chief Good combined with
practical detail of Aristotle's Ethical Theory — Scholastic moral
system a development of the Divine Energy in man's internal
nature — Aristotle's notion of Happiness accordant with this view
— Scholastic gradations of moral excellence to be traced to this
fundamental idea — Hence, also, the importance attributed to the
life of contemplative devotion — The doctrine of Perfection —
Distinction of Counsels and Precepts — Outline of this double
morality seen in the Aristotelic notion of an Heroic Virtue —
Coincidence of Aristotle's theory of Good-Fortune with the
superhuman virtue of the Scholastic System — Connexion of
ethical doctrine of the Schools with notion of Original Sin —
Mortal and Venial Sins — Proper ground of this distinction —
Division of Virtue into Theological and Moral, and into infused
and Acquired — Doctrine of Gifts.
Origin of questions in Modern Moral Philosophy to be traced
to scholastic discussions — Instance in the idea of Moral Obli
gation — Extreme opinions as to the relative importance both of
Theology and Ethics — Proper province of Ethics, inquiry into
the principles of Human Nature — Revelation only gives new

CONTENTS. XV
objects to those principles — Importance of regarding the Science
of Ethics as in itself independent of Religion.
LECTURE VII. p. 307.
THE SACRAMENTS.
Doctrine of the Sacraments a continuation of the Scholastic
scheme of Divine Agency — Separate nature of the soul and
body assumed throughout the speculation — The Sacraments
viewed as the means of supporting and renovating the life of
the Soul — General notion of them founded on the belief in
secret influences — Belief in Magic auxiliary to this notion —
Connexion of Sacramental Influence with the doctrine of the
Incarnation — Agitation of the subject in the IXth century in
connexion with Alexandrian Philosophy — Difference of opinion
as to whether the Sacraments were signs or instruments — Pre
cision of language respecting the Eucharist in particular —
Preeminence assigned to this Sacrament attributable to the esta
blished theory of Sacramental Influence — Doctrine of Intention
— Question of the effect of the Vice of the Minister on the
efficacy of the Sacrament — Notion of impressed Character at
tributed to some of the Sacraments — Evident superiority of
Baptism and the Eucharist in comparison with the rest — Rough
form of the early Controversies on the Sacramental Presence of
Christ — The terms Substance and Species not taken at first
in a strict metaphysical sense — Aristotelic Philosophy of Mat
ter and Form, Substance and Accident, introduced to perfect
the theory of the Sacraments — This exemplified particularly in
Transubstantiation — Connexion of this doctrine with the power
of the Church enforces the assertion of the mystical virtue of
the consecrated elements — Physical theory of Transmutation
applied to the establishment of the Presence of Christ — Con
nexion with this, of the notion of the mysterious efficacy of
certain words — Realism involved in the further use of the no
tions of Substance and Accident in the account of Transub
stantiation — the theory of the doctrine at variance with popular
representations of it.
General reflections on the abuse of the doctrine of the Sacra
ments in the Scholastic System — its repugnance to the spirit of
Christianity — Necessity of vigilance against the temptations to
refinement on this subject.

XVI CONTENTS.
LECTURE VIII. p. 347.
NATURE AND USE OF DOGMATIC THEOLOGY.
Examination of the nature and use of Dogmatic Theology
suggested by previous inquiry — Confusion of thought on the sub
ject, evidenced in popular statements of the relation between Faith
and Reason— also in attempts to settle the necessary points of
belief — Discussion of the Scholastic principles : 1. that whatever
is first in point of doctrine is therefore true ; and 2. that the logical
consequence of any doctrine is necessarily true — The former prin
ciple, a remnant of Scholastic view of Theology as a demon
strative science — Universality and ubiquity of belief no tests of
divine truth — The principle only true when strictly confined to
Scripture facts — Contrast of the earlier and later Christian
writers in the tradition of doctrine — The preference for earliest
authorities inconsistent with the principle which establishes doc
trines by logical consequences — Symbolical nature of language
in its application to Theology — Unscriptural doctrines must
result from the method of logical deductions — Necessity imposed
in such a case of answering all objections — Impossibility of main
taining thus the principle of Authority — Progressive accumulation
of doctrines by such a mode of proceeding — Truth of Fact con
founded with Truth of Opinion in the Scholastic method — No
dogmas to be found in Scripture itself — Dogmas therefore to be
restricted to a negative sense, as exclusions of unscriptural
truth — Articles and Creeds not necessarily to be dispensed with,
because imperfect — Their defence however not to be identified
with that of Christianity — Use and importance of Dogmatic
Theology to be drawn from its relation to Social Religion.
Sum of the whole inquiry — Present interest of it — Scholas
ticism the ground of controversial defence to the Church of Rome
— Remnants of it in Protestant Churches in the state of Con
troversy, and in the importance attributed to peculiar views of
religious truth — Result of the examination sufficient to prove the
force of Theory on our Theological language — The impression
from this fact not to be transferred to the revealed truths which
are real parts of sacred history — Real beneficial effect of honest
search into the truths of Divine Revelation.

INTRODUCTION.

It is well known, that, as an Author, or rather par
ticularly as the Bampton Lecturer ofthe year 1832, I have
been the object of no common or measured attacks. Such
has been my singular infelicity! — or perhaps I should say,
felicity ; when I look to the advantage that must result to the
Truth, from general attention being drawn to that track of
Theology on which I have entered. It is not necessary
to describe how I have been assailed, not only by angry
publications, but by the more open polemics of ungentle and
disrespectful acts. All this being known to the world, some
perhaps have wondered that I have not been stirred up to
the conflict. Some may have thought, that I have been
wanting to myself, in not entering into personal controversy
with my adversaries ; and may have expected, that I should
at least shew some impatience under unmerited attacks,
some anxiety to vindicate myself from calumnious impu
tations. First then, I would observe, that I am, by natural dis
position, utterly averse to polemical disputation. I prefer
leaving the cause in the hands of the public ; having no
desire, that any thing advanced in my writings should stand
b

XV1U INTRODUCTION.
its ground by the temporary aid of argumentative defence ;
and being perfectly content that it should fall, if unable to
abide the test of time. I do not mean to say, that Theo
logical Controversy may not be carried on in a Christian
spirit; and that it may not sometimes do good. But its
observed tendency is, to hurt the Christian temper ; and its
use as an instrument of Truth is extremely hazardous.
In the next place, I have not felt that the writings so
vehemently railed against, have been substantially assailed.
I have been distressed — who cannot have been distressed ? —
to see questions of Truth, of Religious Truth above all,
arbitrated, like measures of political expediency, by personal
and party influence, by appeals to feelings and prejudices,
by the gathering of numbers, and the loudest cry. But where
was the argument, where the evidence of Truth, in such
proceedings ? So far as they admitted an answer, they have
received it in the sentence of public opinion. Setting
aside however these unargumentative attacks, I have really
seen nothing in those professedly argumentative, that should
demand an answer. I am not singular in discovering, even
in this class, much to offend the dispassionate inquirer.
What was wanted, was, temperate, and learned, and well-
reasoned discussion of the points at issue. Has such
appeared ? Of the reverse has there not been abundance ?
At the same time I do not presume to assert, that my
publications are without fault. Probably there are faults
and mistakes in them. Imperfections there are doubtless.
And I am quite ready to take blame to myself, if by an
incomplete development of my views, I should have given
occasion to any single-minded reader, to misapprehend my
meaning and adopt an error. But it does not appear, that
any such reader has been misled. On the contrary, I have

INTRODUCTION. XIX
the testimony of many to the right impressions, which they
have received from a perusal of my Bampton Lectures
and other publications. My present assailants certainly
have made a great parade of objections. With a minute
diligence, they have turned over the leaves, and drawn
their line on many a passage and many a word. But with
all these painful efforts, they have made out no case against
my argument. I see no reason, from what they have
alleged, for changing a single opinion, or retracting a single
statement. Nor indeed, in that posture of mind in
which they applied themselves to the work of criticism,
were they likely to discover any real objections. My
writings, it is clear, have been searched by them for evi
dence of principles to which they were themselves previously
opposed, and in justification of a course of conduct to
which they were already committed. And it seems a super
fluous labour to address refutation to constructions and
arguings, which derive their being and form from par
ticular minds, and are not based on free and large grounds
of inquiry.

Still, as public attention has been so earnestly importuned
to my writings, I have thought it advisable to avail myself
of the call for another Edition of my Bampton Lectures,
to give a general Introduction to the views contained in
them. The work itself, being originally intended for a
learned audience, may not unreasonably appear difficult to
some persons, even if there were no prejudices excited in
their minds against it. It seems expedient therefore, —
especially as the work will now undoubtedly find its way
to a much larger circle, — to prepare the general reader for
b2

XX INTRODUCTION.
entering on the argument, by some preliminary obser
vations. More particularly, now that much party-colouring has
been scattered over it, I feel it but due to my station, and
to the cause of Truth,— which I firmly hold to be on the
side of that work, — to endeavour to smooth the access to it,
and show, that candid readers have no real ground for
regarding it with suspicion. I have no expectation, in doing
so, that any thing I may say, will reconcile the determined
controversialist. Such an expectation would not be war
ranted by experience. I shall be happy, if, on the whole,
but one ray of light shall fall on the cloud of his mis
conceptions.

I. I would first point out what is the object proposed
in the Bampton Lectures. There has been much mis
representation on this head. The work has been held
up as an attempt to explain away Christian Truths — to leave
nothing of Christian Doctrine — to reduce the Creed of
the Christian to a few historical events, or else to cer
tain abstract general points in which the various opinions of
discordant sects may be found to agree — and generally to
unsettle the minds of believers as to what is Christian
Truth, and what is not. Unfair objection to my line of
argument has thus been raised; and persons have been
prevented from giving that calm, unprejudiced attention to
the subject, which it strictly requires. It is not only true
that men condemn what they do not understand ; but they
are disabled from understanding what they have been
taught to condemn.

INTRODUCTION. Xxi
Let me premise then that the Inquiry pursued in the
Bampton Lectures, leaves the Matter of Christian Doctrine
untouched. It is one thing to inquire into the Mode of
Statement, supposing the Substance of the Statement to be
true ; and another thing to inquire into the Matter or Sub
stance ofthe Truth stated. A Truth, whether we call it a Fact
or a Doctrine, is quite independent of any particular mode of
Statement. To take an extreme case : a Fact would be no less
a Truth, or rather no less a Reality, though there existed no
language in which it could be expressed, or though no
one had yet attempted to describe it in language. For
example, there are many Truths of Physical Science yet
undiscovered, and which no one consequently has ever
laid down in words ; but which must be regarded as pos
sessing a real existence, no less than those which have
been discovered and recorded in scientific phraseology.
The theories of modern Astronomy and modern Chemistry
were as true in ancient times as they are now, though, as
not known, they were never stated. Observation, indeed, of
the idioms of different languages will shew this sufficiently.
When the Romans called an army Exercitus, they gave it
a peculiar name founded on the excellence of their disci
pline, and significant of the importance which they attributed
to discipline. But had the Greeks a less real notion of an
army, or have we ourselves, because the terms denoting an
army both in Greek and English include no similar associ
ation ? The logician again learns from his science, that there
may be several propositions exactly equivalent in meaning,
though none of the words are the same. The historian may
relate the same fact in entirely different expressions, — expres
sions drawn from entirely different trains of thought. Sup
pose it possible for Thucydides and Clarendon to have drawn

XXII INTRODUCTION.
the same character ; — though both may have drawn it to
the life, under what variety of ideas would the charac
teristics ofthe two descriptions have been presented ! So too
different poets may describe the same substantial realities,
whilst the metaphors employed by them are derived from
their own peculiarities of observation and thought.
Now if this holds in other subjects, what is to prevent
its holding also in Theology ? What is there here to identify
modes of statement with the Truths themselves ; so that to
shew the one to be variable, is to shake the foundation of the
other? Is it true, or is it not, that there is a Technical sys
tem of phraseology, by which Religious Truth is expressed?
It cannot be denied that there is. For what else are the
terms, Substance, Person, Justification, Election, Rege
neration, Conversion, Corruption, &c. but Terms restricted
to a peculiar sense in the subject of Theology, and thus
constituting part of what is called a Technical System ? These
Terms indeed are so identified in popular usage with the
Religious Truths themselves, that advantage may be easily
taken of popular conceptions of the subject, to represent the
Statements of those Truths as identical with the Truths. And
an ignorant or unfair antagonist, the former not perceiving
the difference, the latter designedly confounding it, may thus
very readily induce persons to believe, that an inquiry into
the origin and nature of Doctrinal Statements, is a disputing
of Christian Doctrines in themselves. T6 Swpi£eiv yap ovk
ko-Ti twv iroWuv. But let those who have hitherto been
misguided, or who have not yet thought sufficiently of the
nature of the difference between Truths themselves and their
modes of Statement, now consider temperately, apart from
prejudiced views, and passionate appeals to their fears, and
controversial acrimony, whether there is not in reality this

INTRODUCTION. XXlll
difference. And let them know at any rate, that I have
had this difference in view throughout, in the theological
^discussions to which I am referring; these discussions
having to do, not with any explanations of the Christian
verities or Doctrines, as such, — as they exist, — as they are
revealed, — but with the Language and Forms of Expression
in which they are conveyed in Theological Systems.

Nor even in regard to the Statements of Christian Truths,
have I had any design of explaining them away, or con
demning them as wrong or untrue. As for explaining away
language that we have solemnly adopted and still retain, I
consider such a proceeding as dishonest. And so far from
condemning them, I conceive the adoption of them by the
Church as fully defensible. I believe that the leaders of the
Church did well, and could do no otherwise, at the time
when they sanctioned the introduction of our present Theo
logical Language ; acting, to the best of their judgment, for
the Church, in its capacity of " Keeper of Holy Writ," and
" Judge of Controversy." I would even go so far as to say
that, whilst Theological Terms are essentially mutable,
and therefore ought to be altered, should circumstances
require it, yet what the ancient rhetorician observes
of them is true, as a general rule ; ilia mutari vetat
Religio et consecratis utendum est. It is as with our
authorized Translation of the Bible. Where there are
inveterate pious associations with a peculiar phraseology,
a strong case must be shewn for breaking off those
venerable links, and offending not unreasonable prejudices.
But I would have these Terms, or Statements, rightly
appreciated and understood. I would have them freely

XXIV INTRODUCTION.
examined in their historical character. While I fully admit
that they demand to be treated with respect, for their known
use in maintaining the Truth, and especially in ages of ab
struse metaphysical ^speculation, I would remove from them
an excess of veneration due only to Divine Truth itself.
When in a Translation of the Bible, made in Henry
Vlllth's reign, it was proposed that several Latin words
should be retained, on the ground of their having such
peculiar force that it was impossible to represent them in
English, the suggestion was not so unreasonable as it may
now appear. It was quite right that the minds of men
should be gradually prepared for new expressions of religious
ideas. But for the same reason, when they are prepared
for receiving a different mode of expression, the terms
ought to be varied to suit the altered state of the case.
It is only carrying on the same principle, when we
adapt our Statements of Christian Truth to the particular
class of hearers with whom we have to do. We address
the educated man, and the rustic, the adult, and the child,
each in a different style : yet we do not conceive, that we
sacrifice one particle of real Christian Doctrine by such
variation of Statement. Our Catechism, for example, is not
conceived to differ at all, as to the substance of Christian
Truth, from the xxxix Articles, or the Homilies, or the
Liturgy, though it differs from them in its mode of impart
ing the Truth. Indeed, in so general a knowledge as that
of Christianity, intended for the instruction of all men, for
persons of every possible capacity, and every degree of
civilisation, and every condition of life, it is an indispens
able principle, that its Truths should admit of great variation
of Statement, without being impaired as to their vital force.
Unless this power of variation were conceded, the Church

INTRODUCTION. XXV
could not adequately fulfil its mission of teaching and con
verting the world.
Without an accurate knowledge of the History of Doc
trinal Statements, it is impossible for the members ofthe
Church to confess their Faith in the words which the Church
puts into their mouths, with a right and full understand
ing of the terms. If the history of these Terms were
known generally, I am convinced that many who now
object to the Statements, for example, of the Athanasian
Creed, would find their objections removed, so far as their
objections applied to these Statements. They would see the
reason, — I do not say of the Truths themselves in any degree
the more for this, but — why such or such expressions in
particular were used, and not others ; and they would, con
sequently, so far have a more enlightened perception of the
nature or meaning of that Creed. By such an examination,
some might lose that extravagant awe with which they
may have once regarded the very words of a Formulary:
but they would not cease, on that account, to value such ex
pressions : or, though some might abstractedly prefer a greater
simplicity of language, and less of technical precision, they
would not lightly relinquish Forms of Statement, which they
found to have been piously devised, and to have practically
served to the defence of sound Religion.
Further, let the use of such an Inquiry be considered, for
those who see no objection to any of our Doctrinal State
ments, and who unthinkingly identify them with the truths
themselves. There is such a thing as a cant of orthodoxy, as
well as a cant of fanaticism and hypocrisy. Persons may
repeat certain phrases, with a confidence that they under-

XXVi INTRODUCTION.
stand and value them, in proportion to their real ignorance
of their meaning, and without attaching indeed any distinct
meaning to the Terms which they repeat. The emphasis of
their assertion of the Theological Truth, is apt to become a
snare to them; inducing the delusion, that those cannot but
have a firm hold of what they profess, who are so staunch
and so correct in making their profession. Their fluency
in passing the watchwords of orthodoxy, and their exact
enunciation of its symbols, thus react on themselves injuri
ously. Their religion, unconsciously to them, becomes
merely verbal. They take the sign for the thing, the
counter for the money.
Now the Technical Terms of Theology are peculiarly open
to such an abuse. They are not, like those of Mathematics
or Physics, restricted to one particular sense, in which
exclusively they must be understood, or else the whole
structure of the Science falls to the ground. Nor are they
even as definite as moral terms in general, indefinite as these
are when compared with those of the exact sciences. It
has been acutely remarked, that whilst Technical Terms are
" the lights of Science," they have been in many instances
the " shades of Religion;" and that instead of being in
variably " signs" of the ideas which they were intended to
perpetuate, they sometimes become their " monuments/' —
not " signs," so much as memorials of ideas, which did
properly belong to them, but have now passed from them.a
Technical Terms in Religion become in fact the popular
terms. For example, no one thinks, when he uses the
term, Justification, that he is using a Technical Term, Some
may be surprized, or even offended, to hear the term
a Foster's Essay " On the Aversion of Men of Taste to Evangelical
Religion."

INTRODUCTION. XXVII
spoken of as a technical one ; so far has Technical Language
in Religion passed into common and popular use. Hence
the vagueness to which that language is peculiarly subject —
a vagueness, which no care of even the most perspicuous and
exact writer can entirely obviate. To some that Language
will convey no definite meaning. Some will take it in its
original sense ; others in a secondary one ; and different
hearers, perhaps each in a different sense ; each ascribing to
it the various complex notions which have grown around
it in his own associations. The very solemnity too attaching
to Religious Terms as symbols of Divine Truth, is apt to
awaken a feeling of Mysticism, which diverts some from the
task of defining and explaining them to themselves. Thus
do these Terms become mere sounds, or little more than
sounds, to many. And thus has been perpetuated, through
successive ages of the Church, that fruitful mother of Contro
versy, — Logomachy.
It is owing to these circumstances, that the retention of
an unvaried phraseology is far from being a certain means
of retaining the same Doctrines. " It must indeed be
" acknowledged," as the able Author just referred to
observes, " that in many cases innovations of Doctrine
" have been introduced partly, by ceasing to employ
" the Words which designated the Doctrines which it
" was wished to render obsolete ; but it is probable, they
" may have been still more frequently and successfully
" introduced under the advantage of retaining the Terms
" while the Principles were gradually subverted." The cant,
accordingly, which may disguise itself under the use of an
orthodox phraseology, is an evil strictly to be guarded
against by all who would cherish with a due jealousy the
sincerity of their faith. It is not of the worldly religionist

XXVIU INTRODUCTION.
that I speak ; it is not of that profession of the Truth, which
sounds a trumpet before it that it may have praise of men.
This is no delusion to the man himself in whom it is found.
It is scarcely a delusion to the world without him. But it
is to those who conscientiously hold what they profess, that
I address the observation. In laying a stress on the words
of their religious profession, they must watch, lest they be
beguiled of their simplicity, — lest they mistake their advo
cacy of the Truth for attachment to it, and their positiveness
of assertion for conviction.
To counteract this evil, no discipline can be more useful,
than an accurate study of the peculiar Language of Theology.
Thus only can we see the relation in which that Language
stands to the Sacred Truth itself, and duly estimate its im
portance. Reasonings may be well framed, and conclusions
accurately drawn, and systems of Theology erected, by the
mere use of the Terms of Theology as signs ; just as in
Arithmetic calculations are carried on, without referring,
at each step, to the particular things represented, and
by simply attending, during the process, to the relative
value of the numbers.1" For example, whether it be pounds
or pence that we have to deal with, the calculation
is the same; ¦ — -to avail ourselves of the result, we must
bear in mind the things to which it refers. But, whereas
calculations, however correct, are simply useless, unless
we interpret their results; — in Theology, our reasonings
are worse than useless, if they are nothing but reasonings ;
they incur the guilt of perverse disputing, and of an empty
form of godliness, unless we look from our conclusions to
the sacred objects about which they are conversant, and
b Berkeley " On the Principles of Human Knowledge."— Introd. i. [19,
and " Minute Philosopher," 7th Dialogue.

INTRODUCTION. XXIX
see that we really believe and cherish not mere names, but

Our Roman Catholic brethren, indeed, and some even
among ourselves, if I understand them rightly, regard the
Doctrinal Statements of the Church, as Forms of Doctrine
immediately communicated to the Apostles by our Lord
and the Holy Spirit, independent of Scripture, and tradi
tionally preserved through the successors of the Apostles.
In their view, the Church is not simply the keeper of
the oracles of God, and dispenser of the Gospel com
mitted to it by Christ, but the keeper of " Dogmas or
" Doctrines Deposited with it," of the " Decrees of Anti-
" quity," of the " Deposits and Trusts of holy Fathers." c
St. Paul is interpreted, in charging Timothy to " avoid
" profane babblings,"d as cautioning the Church against
admitting change, not only in doctrines and things, but in
sentences and definitions. The Formularies of Doctrine
are with them Divine Sayings, the counterpart of the
Divine Writings. The Nicene Creed, for example, is
a collection of some of these Divine Sayings, possessing
its own authority, independently of the Scriptures.6 To
c Depositorum apud se dogmatum custos. — Vincent. Lir. Commonit. c. 32.
Antiquitatis scita — Deposita sanctorum Patrum et commissa, c. 34. Scita
patrum— Definita majorum, c. 6.— This is the work constantly referred to by
Roman Catholic writers, as decisive of their view of Tradition.
d To-s fe&jAovs KevoQcovias,— according to Vincent, means, profanas vocum
novitates; vocum, id est, dogmatum, rerum, sententiarum novitates; qua?
sunt vetustati, quae antiquitati contraria? — Common, t. 33. But where is this
in the language of St. Paul ? St Paul explains his meaning by what he
elsewhere says of " foolish and unlearned questions," and of " profane, and
" old wives' fables."
e Such was not the view of Athanasius. Speaking of the term Homoousion in
that Creed, he says distinctly, the meaning was gathered out of the Scriptures—
¦/jvayK&re^o-av Kal airol alBis awayayw 4k rav Be'mv yptup&p ri\v SuLvotav.
De Dec. Nic. Synod. 20. p. 226. Oper. Tom. i. ed. 1698.

XXX INTRODUCTION.
depart, accordingly, at all from the Language of the
Formularies, they regard as deviating from Divine Truth
itself; — nay even more, than to depart from the express
words of Scripture. For the Scripture, it is admitted, may
be interpreted so as to give the sense of it in other words,
and may have conclusions drawn from it. But the very
Language of the Formularies, they hold to be fixed and
unalterable/ Now, though the position were granted,
(which cannot be,) that the Formularies of the Church
are Divine Traditions, what is to give them that higher
sacredness beyond the Written word, that they should admit
no change of phraseology ? Why are we not to interpret
and explain the Unwritten Word, as freely at least as we do
the Written ? Why are we to be religiously tied down to
the very words of the former, any more than to the very words
of the latter ? On the condition that we retain the substance
of each, why are we" to be restricted from varying the
mode of expression, more in one, than in the other ?
But perhaps the advocates of Traditionary Divine Truth
will shift their ground, and say, that the formal Statements
of Doctrine are traditionary limits to the Interpretation of
Scripture ; divine seals put upon one of the many Interpre
tations of the Text.
If there were proof of the existence of Divine Traditions,
either as independent Divine Truths, or as Divine Interpre
tations of Scripture, we should be bound to receive them
with no less affection and reverence than we do the sacred
Canon. This may well be conceded. All the word of God,
however given, is to be equally venerated. But there is no
proof ofthe existence of Traditions in either sense. In proof
of the point, it is argued, that the Gospel was preached and
' Nullam sustineat definitionis varietatem  Vine. Lir. Cammonit.

INTRODUCTION. XXxi
taught by word of mouth before it was written. But what
connexion is there between the admission of this fact, and
the conclusion that this primary teaching has been perpe
tuated by Tradition ?— It is said again that the Scriptures,
being added, could not destroy the primary authority
of the oral instruction. But it is at least as supposable,
that the Scriptures were an appointed substitute for the
oral teaching of the first inspired ministers, and a depository
of all they thought necessary for Salvation. — Nor, again, is
the argument drawn from the supposed reception of a
Doctrine from time immemorial in the Church, sufficient to
prove it a Divine Tradition. It may be a good reason for
believing a current maxim to be a law of Nature, that
no one knows the time when it appeared : but to establish a
Doctrine as Divine, it is essential that we should distinctly
know its origin. — If such arguments indeed had weighed
with our Reformers, they would surely not have accom
plished the work to which they were called. It was by
discarding Tradition as a Rule of Faith, that this great work
was achieved ; and by making reason and learning, under
the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the interpreters of the
Sacred Text.6
Now if the question were about the Fundamentals of
Religion, or what I call the Substantial Truths themselves, I
should be quite ready to grant that, — though these are not
. n See Bishop Marsh's Comparative View of the Churches of England and
Rome, c. vii. p. 152. I would strongly recommend a study of this work as
a protection against the fallacies on the subject of Tradition. — The student
should read also Bishop Taylor's Dissuasive from Popery, especially sections
1, 2, and 3 ofthe 1st Book ofthe 2d Part, and Stillingfleet's Rational Account
of the Protestant Religion, especially Part I. u. 6, Of the Infallibility of Tradition,
p. 161, ed. 1665. — For a full information, Bp. Marsh sends us to Bellarmine.
fellarmine's Four Books De Verio Dei Scripto etnon'Scripto, give a most suc
cinct and luminous view of the subject.

XXX11 INTRODUCTION.
Traditions, but Scripture-verities, resting exclusively on the
authority of Scripture, — there is yet the evidence of a con
stant Tradition attesting and confirming them, an evidence,
that from the outset of Christianity they have been ever
held and taught.
Take, for example, the doctrine of the Divinity of our
Lord; and look to St. John's Gospel alone. A general belief
in this truth is presupposed by this Evangelist throughout.
He takes no pains to prove it, as he would have done, had it
been generally doubted Or unknown. The manner in which
he proclaims the Word to be God and the Maker of all
things, shews that he is only authoritatively declaring a
known truth. What he labours to prove, (not that this either
was doubted by the Faithful, but it had been expressly
denied by Heretical teachers,) is, that the Lord of Heaven
and Earth was really made flesh, and dwelt among us, and
really died as man.h So too, the existence of a belief in the
distinctness of our Saviour's Person is intimated by St. John,
when he says, that " the Word was with God, and was God."
For he speaks of the Word there, as of One known to be
distinct from the Father, and teaches, that, notwithstanding
this distinctness, the Word is not separate from God in
Being and Divinity.
Of the substantial Christian Truths then, there may,
doubtless, be shewn an uniform Tradition accompanying
Scripture, having reference to Scripture, understood by
Scripture, and proving itself by Scripture, through all ngesS
of the Christian Church.
But this indisputable fact must not be confounded with the
assumption of the sameness of Doctrinal Statements in all
ages. These, it is equally clear, have not been the same
h See Irenaeus, Contra Ha?r. 1. 3, c. 11, torn. 1, p. 188, ed. Ven.

INTRODUCTION. XXXlll
always. The testimony of Tradition is as strong against
this sameness, as it is for the sameness of the Truths them
selves of Christianity. If we look to the latter, we may
justly speak of the later Creeds as the Apostles' Creed, no
less than the one which commonly passes by that name. If
we look to the former, — the modes of statement, — it is
plain, that the successive Creeds differ from each other :
and these differences of Statement are not merely the
manhood, and ripening of the doctrines according to the
analogy of Vincent,1 but new forms given to them by
discussion, — new definitions of them, — new limitations
added, — extraneous matter superinduced, in order to guard
and preserve them, as they travelled on, amidst disputes
and contradictions, in their proper integrity and sameness.
Some, however, carry their theory of the sameness of the
Statements of the Truth still further. According to some,
there has been no difference even in this respect: they
solve the appearance of difference by appeal to the Secret
Discipline of the Church. Following Clement of Alex
andria, whose writings are strongly tinctured with his
philosophic creed, they regard books as vulgar and im
perfect vehicles of Truth. Truth, according to them, is
treasured up far more sacredly in the bosom of the
sage or the priest, and far more safely dispensed by
oral communication.* They suppose the full doctrines of
1 Crescat igitur oportet, et multum vehementerque proficiat  sed
-'a suo duntaxat genere, in eodem scilicet dogmate, eodem sensu, eademque
jententia. Common, c. 28. Imitetur animarum religio rationem corporum,
&c. Ibid. c. 29, 30. Speaking of the hackneyed maxim of Vincent, " quod
ubique," &c.,'Stillingfleet very justly observes, he must "premise that rule to
be much more useful in discovering what was not looked on as a necessary
article of faith, than what was."— Rational Ace. part i. v>. 2, p. 56. 1665.
k See his Stromata, at the opening of the 1st Book and elsewhere.

XXXIV INTRODUCTION.
Christianity to have been divinely imparted to the first
teachers, as so many atropprira, so many mysterious sayings
of our Lord and His Apostles, confided to their solemn
keeping, to be wrapped and laid up with them, to be
cautiously disclosed only to the initiated and the proficient,
but reserved under the seal of silence from the profane
and the ignorant. These holier Truths, thus designedly
left unwritten and concealed, they further suppose to have
been gradually extorted from the living oracles in which
they were enshrined, and divulged to the world, by the
demands of controversy. They would make the Christian
mysteries, mysteries of man's keeping, not of God's; — as if
man's proclaiming a mystery of Religion could be a divulg
ing of it ; — as if any human curiosity could draw it forth ; —
as if a Christian mystery, though its sound were gone out
into all lands, did not remain as secret and holy as ever ; —
as if it were not the Church's glory freely to publish the
Gospel to every creature, whilst it leaves to God alone the
" glory of concealing !"
According to this theory, however, the sameness even of
the Statements of doctrines may be maintained: since the
later forms are then only the original ones brought out to
view. They had existed before in the Church secretly ; but
are now known at large, so far at least as writing can convey
them to the world, and compensate for the primitive, more
spiritual, oral instruction. Nor is it strange therefore that the
maintainers of this theory should object to a discussion of
the Language of Theology. For they have invested that
Language with a mystic sanctity, as the voice itself of the
Apostles ; and to unfold the meaning of the Terms, is with
them to uncover and look into the Ark of the Lord. It
remains for them, however, to shew that their theory has

INTRODUCTION. XXXV
any foundation, or is any thing more than a speculation
raised on the analogy of the twofold method of teaching
of the heathen Schools.
I have not space here to enter largely into the question of
Tradition. But as the whole subject appears connected
with my inquiry into Doctrinal Statements, and is but little
understood generally, it may be useful to add some obser
vations on the subject.
Tradition was not contradistinguished from Scripture in
the primitive times, either as a Rule of Faith, or as a Guide
to Sacred Truth. The Fathers of the first centuries found
that they could not argue with the Heretics of their day
from Scripture ; because those Heretics either corrupted the
Scripture; or objected to it as corrupted; or denied the
authority of certain portions of it ; or claimed the right of
interpreting it according to their own views ; or set up their
own teachers as a paramount authority. An appeal to
Scripture evidently presupposes an agreement in the Canon
of Scripture, in the Divine Authority of Scripture, and also
in certain Principles of Interpretation. But this appeal was
cut off from the Primitive Fathers by the peculiar condition
of Heresy in their day. They were obliged therefore
further to appeal to the Authority existing in the Churches
of the Faithful. And that Authority was to be put forward
by them in its proper strength, as originally derived from
Christ, and transmitted by an unbroken succession of
Pastors. The Heretic might say ; We too have the authority
of Christ. The reply to this on the part of the Fathers
was : Shew us your Succession; prove to us, that you have
regularly inherited the Doctrine of Christ : we can prove
that we have so received it by a perpetual Succession. As
c2

XXXVI INTRODUCTION.
you cannot shew this, you cannot pretend to the possession
of the Truth. Thus it is that Irenaeus maintains the cause of
orthodoxy against the Gnostics. Thus also Tertullian,
following his example, advises those who contend with
Heretics, not to appeal to the Scriptures, but to the con
stant Tradition of the Catholic Church. He recommends
the latter mode of argument, as cogent against those
with whom the Catholics had then to dispute. But he by
no means considers Tradition as a channel of Truth, distinct
from, and supplementary to, Scripture. He is express, no
less than Irenaeus, in referring to Scripture, in the very same
Tract in which he thus recommends the use of the argument
from Tradition,1" and there also insists upon the Authority
of Scripture as the proper source of Divine Truth. He
will not allow to Heretics even the right of appealing to
Scripture, because the Scriptures, he says, were not theirs,
but the property of the Catholics, to whom they had been
bequeathed. The Heretics, not having the Tradition of
Doctrine by a perpetual Succession of Christian teachers,
not having, that is, Doctrine handed down to them, were not
in rightful possession of Scripture, and were not therefore
to be argued with on the ground of Scripture. They were
to be met with the preliminary objection, that they did not
possess the geunine sources of Divine Truth. He does not
say that the Heretics had not the key to Scripture, the
traditional interpretations of Scripture; but they had not
the proper Authorities in their hands to refer to.
The argument from the Constant Succession of teachers
came home to the Heretics, for this very reason, that they
held a Secret Traditionary Doctrine. For they actually cited
i Contra Haer. 1. iii. cc. 1-5, p. 173. •» De Prescript. Hsreticor.

INTRODUCTION. XXXV11
those passages of St. Paul, " keep the deposit," &c. in
proof of the existence of such Secret Traditionary Doctrine.
Tertullian refutes this notion. But it was a decisive
refutation to those who held it, to prove to them, that, if
such Traditions existed anywhere, it could only be in the
Catholic Churches, where the Succession had been unbroken,
and to challenge its maintainers to show the like Succession
in their case. If there were no regular Succession, the sup
posed Secret Tradition could not have been preserved. — The
argument would further be very natural and proper in times
near the Apostolic. When the memory ofthe Apostles was
fresh, it would serve as a ready test of Doctrine. At such a
time too copies of the Scriptures were scarce ; and the ap
peal to them could not be always satisfied by actual reference.
— Now in the Catholic Church, this circumstance of uninter
rupted Succession will be found to hold good, because every
thing will be found in harmony with a true case. But the
Truth, it should be observed, does not rest on it, unless, like
the early Heretics, we hold a Secret Traditionary Doctrine
distinct from Scripture. For the maintenance of such a system
of Doctrine, the Perpetual Succession becomes indispensable.
It is so accordingly to the Roman Catholic. But it is not so
to the Protestant who grounds his doctrine on Scripture
exclusively. The Church of England Protestant, looking
to Scripture for every thing that he believes divinely re
vealed, does not hold lightly the claims of his Church to a
lineal inheritance of the Truth, bequeathed to the Church by
Christ and his Apostles. He would not be without that in
heritance. But he does not exalt what is an accompaniment,
and evidence of sound doctrine, and means of instruction in
it, into a Standard of Doctrine, or Divine Guide to Truth. He
does not pervert what, in its original use, was an argument

XXXV111 INTRODUCTION.
and test adapted for a peculiar case, into a general argument
and basis of Christian Truth for all ages and all cases. He
does not exalt what is an authentic and valuable Testimony;
into an Authority (in the modern sense of that term,) or
Rule and Criterion of Doctrine.
So far respecting the general design of my Bampton
Lectures. Agreeably to what I have here said, I have in
that Work described my business there, as an Inquiry into
the nature of Theological Terms. And as the Philosophy of
the Schools of the Middle Ages, or the Scholastic Philo
sophy, as it is called, presented copious and fresh materials for
tracing the history ofthe Statements of Doctrine, I selected
that particularly as the field of my observation. Not that 1
confined my observation strictly to the authors properly
denominated Scholastic; but I took their writings, as the
crisis of a method of philosophizing antecedent to them
selves ; as displaying at its maturity a mode of thinking and
reasoning, which had exerted a very considerable influence
in the formation of our Theological Language. For we
may speak of Scholasticism before the proper age of the
Schoolmen, as we may speak of Manicheism before the
Manicheans, and of Calvinism before Calvin.n
If any doubt the importance of this branch of Theo
logical study, I would refer them to the testimony of
Archbishop Bramhall on the subject.
Referring to Baxter, he says : " If his meaning only be,
" that he would not have our Catechisms or accommodations
" to be pestered and perplexed with the obscure terms and
" endless disputations of the Schools, I do readily assent.
" Scholasticism, it should be observed, is in itself no term of reproach.
Nor do I employ it as such.

INTRODUCTION. XXXIX
" But if he think that in the work of reconciliation there is
" no need of a Scholastic plane, to take away the crabbed
" knots, and to smooth the present controversies of the
" Christian world, I must dissent from him. We find by
" daily experience, that the greatest differences, and such
" as made the most noise and the deepest breach in the
" Christian world, being rightly and scholastically stated,
" do both become easy and intelligible, and now appear to
" have been mere mistakes one of another. And when
" many other questions are rightly handled after the same
" manner, I presume they will find the like end. When I
" was a young student in Theology, Dr. Ward declared his
" mind to me, to this purpose, that it was impossible that
" the present controversies ofthe Church should be rightly
" determined or reconciled, without a deep insight into the
" doctrine of the primitive Fathers, and a competent skill
" in School Theology. The former affordeth us a right
" pattern, and the second smootheth it over, and planeth
" away the knots." °
Supported by such authority, I may well recommend all
who would thoroughly acquaint themselves with inquiries
belonging to their Religion, to join to a " deep insight into
" the doctrine of the primitive Fathers," " a competent skill
" in School Theology." That a large proportion of even
students in Theology are not versed in these studies, is
but too evident. But I trust this reproach will not fall
on the generation of students yet to come. And if my work
on the subject shall happily contribute at all to remove
the prevailing ignorance, and invite attention to a class of
writings too much forgotten, and unjustly despised, I shall
° Vindic. of Grotius, p. 636.— Bramhall's Works, fol. 1676.

xl INTRODUCTION.
feel abundantly compensated for all the trouble and annoy
ance which it has occasioned me."

II. In pursuing my inquiry, I have been led to speak of
the Truths of Religion as Facts. To persons who have
thoroughly entered into the spirit of the Inductive Phi
losophy, it would be unnecessary to explain what I mean
by this term. Such persons would know, that this term is
not to be restricted to mere events or occurrences, or what
may be called historical or singular facts, but denotes, as I have
elsewhere said, whatever is,q — Universal, as well as Par-.
ticular, Truths, whether founded on Experience, or on the
Authority of Divine Revelation ; and that it is opposed to
Theory or Hypothesis. Thus the Divinity of our Lord is a
fact : His Consubstantiality with the Father and the Holy
Spirit, His Atonement, His Mediation, His distinct Person
ality, His perpetual presence with His Church, His future
Advent to judge the world, the Communion of Saints, the
Corruption of our Nature, the Efficacy of Divine Grace, the
Acceptableness of Works wrought through Faith, the Neces
sity of Repentance, — though stated in abstract terms, are
all Facts in God's spiritual kingdom revealed to us through
Christ. So I might proceed to enumerate, one after the
other, all the Christian verities. But these instances may
show, that it is not merely such Truths as our Lord's Birth,
and Crucifixion, and Resurrection, and Ascension, and the
P The reader may be directed, in order to a more systematic view of the
Subject, to the Article on Aristotle's Philosophy in the Encyclopaedia
Britannica, 7th edition; and the Article on Thomas Aquinas, and the Scho
lastic Philosophy, in the Encyclopaedia Metropolitana.
<1 Inaugural Lecture. — Note.

INTROeUCTION. xii
Miracles which He wrought, and the Descent of the Holy
Ghost, or the Call of Abraham, and the Thunders of Sinai,
and the Dedication of the Temple, that come under the
appellation of Facts, in the philosophical sense of that term.
These last indeed are Facts in a sense in which all the
Christian Truths cannot be said to be. They are Events ;
and are accordingly Facts in the popular, as well as the
philosophical, sense of the term. They form an historical
basis to the other Truths joined with them in the Christian
scheme ; not only being important in themselves, but also
serving as occasions for the development by the pen of In
spiration, of Truths beside and beyond themselves. This
relation between the two classes of Christian Truths is the
foundation of my observation, that the Truths declared in
Scripture are to be understood in their reference to the doings
of God in the world. Nothing was further from" my thoughts
than to say that Christianity is made up wholly of mere
Events, and has no Doctrinal Truths in it. I have wished
only to point out strongly a great characteristic of our Reli
gion, by which it is distinguished from all other religions
professing to have their sacred books. Our revelations, we
may say, were not the literary work of some sage or legislator,
or put forth as a mere writing or collection of writings :
but they are a series of historical revelations given at different
times, and in different manners, and by different messengers ;
each for its special purpose, in connexion with what was
then passing in the world ; and yet all having reference to
one great Evangelical purpose. Not so, for example, the
Koran. Here is the work of one man, dealt forth to the world
by himself as so many divine communications to him, and
having,no connexion in its parts with the history ofthe world.
This connexion of the Doctrinal Truth of Christianity

xiii INTRODUCTION.
with the Historical may be thus illustrated. Let us take
the doctrine of the Eucharist. The revelation of this
is founded on an actual occurrence in the lives of our
Saviour and his Apostles, and on a religious observance of
the Jews. Christ actually goes up to Jerusalem with his
disciples to keep the passover of the Jews. He appoints a
particular room, and there celebrates the Last Supper;
actually distributing the bread and wine to his disciples, and
imparting to them as he did so, a knowledge of the spiritual
participation of Himself in that holy institution. It is
also further related to that real oblation of Himself on
the Cross, which was soon to follow. Such a series of events
accordingly I call a basis on which the revelation of the
mystery is founded, as being the occasions or circumstances
out of which it takes its rise, and to which it refers. These
occasions, or circumstances, give an historical, as well as
doctrinal, reality to all the truths connected with the insti
tution. And though the words, This is my Body — This is
my Blood — are express affirmations of the mystery, — their
force and propriety are discerned, not by simply viewing
them as affirmations standing alone, but in connexion with
those events by which they were accompanied. — Take again
another example in the words of St. John, God is Love. It
is evident that the sacred meaning of this proposition also
does not consist in the proposition taken alone, but in
tracing it to that actual event in the sacred history, to which
it refers, — God's giving his only begotten Son, to the end that
all that believe in Him should not perish but have everlasting
life. For what else is that true saying and worthy of all men
to be received ; — and what else is the ground of its truth and
worthiness to be received;— but, " that Christ Jesus came
" into the world to save sinners," — actually was made flesh,

INTRODUCTION. xliii
and really offered Himself for sinful man? We might well
have believed the same, had it been solely the assertion
of the inspired writer. But that assertion is borne out and
explained, and invested with a dramatic energy, by the real
events to which it refers. Thus it may be truly said, that the
Truths of Scripture are not mere sayings or propositions,
such as might be stated in a book totally unconnected with
History, but are further connected with the real doings of
God in the world.
Still the other Truths, the Universal Facts as we may
contradistinguish them, have no less reality than the his
torical. They as truly exist, — are as much a part of the
Divine economy in the salvation of man, — as those which
have been enacted on the stage of the world. Let there
be but the evidence that God has spoken it, and the thing
said is as real as if it had been the object of our
experience. Christ's Intercession with the Father, for
example, though it is going on at this moment, and will go
on until the consummation of all things, is a certain fact.
We see not its beginning, or its end, or its process. But
God's word has declared that it is so. And this is enough.
We may call it therefore, in the strictest sense, a revealed fact.
Again, that " God worketh in us both to will and
" to do of his good pleasure," or, that we have no power
of ourselves to do any good thing without his Preventing
and Cooperating Grace ; this is a Revealed Fact — a Truth
of God's invisible kingdom, ever in course of accom
plishment, ever being realized. That our Lord is both
Perfect God and Perfect Man, in One Person, or as it is
technically expressed, the Doctrine of the Hypostatic
Union, is in like manner a Fact of the Gospel. Here
the Truth takes the form of an individual historical event.

Xliv INTRODUCTION.
Still it is also an Universal Fact, being a Truth which is
still in operation and will continue for ever, and which
would exist, though every human mind by which it is
apprehended, were to vanish from the world. — That the
two Sacraments have a vital efficacy, — Baptism, to re
generate us, and graft us into the body of Christ's
Church,— The Lord's Supper, to strengthen and refresh
the soul by the faithful reception of the Body and Blood
of Christ,— this is a further illustration of Facts of the
invisible kingdom of grace — and Universal Facts, because
they are of constant existence, whenever the Sacraments
are duly administered and received.
Lastly, in the doctrines of a Resurrection of the Dead
and a Final Judgment, we enunciate truths belonging to the
same invisible kingdom ; and which are therefore entitled to
the name of Facts, in the philosophical sense of that
term, though as yet they have not been accomplished. They
belong to His knowledge, who calls the things that are
not as though they were ; and accordingly, being communi
cated to us by His word, possess a reality, no less than
those facts of Divine Providence, which, having already
occurred, are only known to have occurred by Revelation.
For by Revelation clearly, we may have as full assurance of
what has not been yet but is still to come, as of what has
been and is otherwise unknown to us. The prophecies
and histories of the Sacred Volume are equally certain,
when viewed as portions of a Divine revelation. Both are
admitted to be true on the same grounds.
There is so little understanding except among persons
who have devoted themselves to scientific pursuits, of the
Method of the Inductive Philosophy, that it is not perhaps

INTRODUCTION. xiv
to be wondered at, that some have erred so strangely in
their estimate of my application to Religious Truths of a
term drawn from that philosophy. So much misconception
is there on the subject, that it may even estrange some
still more from a just view of the point I am now en
deavouring to establish, to be told that I have employed
a term of Philosophy. Some, I fear, have taken up the
notion that whatever belongs to Philosophy has nothing
to do with Religion. Or they have been taught that to
speak as a philosopher, is to be something very impious and
very odious — nothing short of being a rationalist. Or they
construe St. Paul's denunciation of the philosophy and vain
deceit of his days, into a censure of every connexion of Phi
losophy with Religion. It may be useful therefore, briefly
to explain, in reference to my present design, the great
principle of the modern Inductive Philosophy, — the prin
ciple of resting on ascertained Fact as the only proper
ground of knowledge, — obvious as what I shall say will
be to many persons, and inadequately stated as it will
appear to those who have deeply studied the subject.
Before the time of Lord Bacon, philosophers contented
themselves with reasoning from abstract notions and logical
definitions. They did not feel the necessity of examin
ing the notions from which they reasoned, whether
these were rightly drawn from things, or accurately deter
mined. They took them in the gross. They were not
indeed ignorant of the value of inductive reasoning. We
have some beautiful specimens of such reasoning in the
Dialogues of Plato. Such reasonings however as are found
in the discussions of the Ancient Schools, do not reach the
depth of Bacon's Inductive method.

xlvi INTRODUCTION.
If Motion, for example, was to be investigated, they did
not feel the necessity of searching out the principle itself so
named, but they assumed the general notion conveyed by
the term, as sufficiently correct ; and then considered how
they might best express that notion in a definition, and
divide it into its several kinds. Thus, the Greek philosophers
found that there were three kinds of phenomena which their
word KtVi/o-te expressed, — 1. Locomotion, 2. Increase and
Diminution, 3. Change of qualities, as in a vegetable by
decay; — and they accordingly called these so many kinds
of Motion. This was doing nothing more, however, than
stating in how many senses the term Motion was employed.
It gave no knowledge of the thing. It was merely logical
enumeration. Evidently, no physical discovery could be
made so long as Science was made to rest on such a basis.
Again it was enough with them that instances or par
ticulars were collected ; whilst the necessary process of in
vestigating each instance separately by itself, was overlooked.
The most vague notions consequently being involved in each
instance, it followed, that while the particular instances
established a general conclusion, that conclusion was little
else than verbal. Thus, according to the example given by
Bacon himself, the word Humid stands for operations of the
most inconsistent kind. It signifies, as he observes, " what
" easily diffuses itself round another body ; also what is in
" itself indeterminable and admits no consistency; also what
" easily yields on all sides ; also what easily divides and dis-
" perses itself; also what easily unites and collects itself; also
" what easily flows and is put in motion ; also what easily ad-
" heres to another body, and moistens it ; also what is easily
" reduced to a liquid, or melted when it was before a con-
" sistency." " Thus," as he adds, " if you take the term

INTRODUCTION. xlvij
" in one sense, flame is humid ; if you take it in another,
" air is not humid : if in another, minute dust is humid : if
" in another, glass is humid." r From which he concludes,
it is quite apparent, the notion of humid is abstracted from
water only, and common fluids, without due verifica
tion. Such then was the manner in which the ancient
Schools used abstract terms. It may be seen from such an
example, how delusive their conclusions must have been,
when instances were so roughly and hastily brought
together. A Philosophy of this kind resulted, as is clear, in a
Philosophy of Language only, or, in other words, a Logical
Philosophy. It sufficed to develop and explain the notions
contained in terms and propositions ; but it did not penetrate
within the veil of nature. It was of admirable use for form
ing classifications and systems, and cementing together the
parts of a Science ; but it left the basis of Science purely
notional and hypothetical.
How different was the proceeding of Newton, after the
modern Inductive method, in reaching his Theory of Gravity.
He commenced with an accurate examination of phenomena,
analysing these and reducing them to their simplest ele
ments, and so arriving at the laws of motion; bringing
an exact mathematical science to his aid in determining
them. To him it is of no consequence to what different
processes the term Motion is applied. He looks to the
thing, and goes to the foundation to discover what notions
ought to be held on the subject, not assuming what are
held, as the ancients did. This then was to establish a
philosophy of Fact in contradistinction to a philosophy of
Theory, or an Inductive system instead of a Deductive one,
' Nov. Org. Aph. 60.

xlviii INTRODUCTION.
and one that, instead of commencing with Definitions, re
sults in them.
Now some persons will say, this may be a very sound
method in Investigations of Nature ; but what has it to do
with Theological Inquiry ? I answer, that making allowance
for the different circumstances, the same rule of proceeding
applies both to Theology and Science. We do not indeed
find out by dint of mere study, the great Truths of Divine
Revelation. Together with the Bible they have been given
us in hand. But this can make no difference as to the charac
ter of the Truths. These are facts or realities in opposition
to mere theories or definitions or hypotheses, no less because
they have been distinctly pointed out to us by the finger
of God, than if we had originally discovered them, or could
discover them, by the ordinary steps of investigation. No one
surely will maintain that because Religious Truth has been
set forth in words, we may therefore argue from those words
as exact definitions of it. If the Bible furnished scientific
descriptions of things, instead of its employing, as it does,
popular language, there might be some ground for such a
supposition. But, even in such a case, there would be no
just ground for building up a Speculative System of Theology
on its words ; and for this obvious reason, that about things
Divine we can know nothing, beyond what God has been
pleased to reveal to us. The Speculative System so raised,
would be a knowledge of our own discovery, and would be
going beyond the word written. But so far as the investiga
tion of what has been revealed by God, is concerned, we
must employ the same Method as in Philosophy. If we
would learn what the Holy Spirit would have us learn from
the Bible; — if we would test, what we have received as

INTRODUCTION. Xlix
divine Truth, by the Bible;— we must study the Sacred
Records as we study Nature. The method of Induction is
to be used here, as there. Observations are to be classed.
Irrelevant matter is to be excluded. We are to proceed
step by step, in rising to the truth as it is written, and
in examining the Scriptures whether the things be as
we have been taught. This, however, is a very dif
ferent process from taking a proposition, and anatomiz
ing it, and arguing that such or such must be a revealed
truth, because it is logically deducible from that proposi
tion. Conclusions, so obtained, depend on our definitions
of terms, or the sense which we choose to give them ;
and are therefore only hypothetically true, in the same
manner as mathematical theorems. But if we follow the
method of Induction, and confine ourselves to Facts, ex
cluding all hypotheses, we shall arrive at absolute Truth, —
Truth not dependent on Phraseology. By this method, the
doctrines obtained from St. John's Gospel or any other
book of the Bible, would have equally resulted, had the
inspired writer employed an entirely different mode of
expression. For thus, the Truth is not regarded as essen
tially vested in the mere logical connexion of Terms ; but
Texts are compared with each other, and referred to the
spirit and meaning of the particular book in which they
occur, as well as of the Bible at large, and connected with
the whole scheme of Divine Providence and Grace.
Thus may modest and sober reasoning be employed in
the work of interpreting Scripture ; and there can be no
objection to Conclusions of this kind. In thus reasoning
on Scripture, we do only what God has laid upon us to
do in giving us His word. God has put His word, like
His works, before men. Both are open to misconstruction
d

] INTRODUCTION.
and misapplication. Ignorance and folly and ingenuity are
permitted to raise their systems out of each. And these
systems for a while prevail more or less. Some live their
centuries, others their years or their days. But they have
their allotted period; and sound Philosophy and sound Theo
logy are sure to triumph in the end.
Hence it appears what sort of Improvements may be
made in the subject of Religion. The great Truths of
the Gospel — what by our old divines are called the Fun
damentals of Religion— were undoubtedly known and pro
claimed at the earliest preaching of the Gospel. The
Scriptures must then have been rightly expounded, in
their bearings on man's Salvation, when Apostles and Apo
stolic men expounded them. Improvements in this subject
therefore cannot be new truths gained as in the Physical
Sciences. There cannot now, or at any future period,
be brought to light, for the first time, Truths necessary
for Salvation, unheard or untaught before. Improvements,
if there be any, must in effect be restitutions of the Ori
ginal Truths, revivals of the most ancient belief and practice,
returns to the simplicity of the first Fathers of our Faith.
In the lapse of time even the great saving Truths of the
Gospel may be partially obscured, — may be corrupted by
additions or diminutions, — may be disfigured by the lan
guage in which they are exhibited. What is obscure
therefore may be cleared up ; corruptions may be removed ;
imperfect statements may be corrected ; the object being kept
in view throughout, of maintaining and teaching no other
Faith than that once delivered to the Saints.
It is in this spirit, as I conceive, that Bishop Butler
speaks of Truths yet remaining to be discovered in the volume
of Revelation.

INTRODUCTION. li
" As it is owned," he says, " the whole scheme of
' Scripture is not yet understood ; so, if it ever comes
' to be understood, before the restitution of all things, and
' without miraculous interpositions, it must be in the
' same way as natural knowledge is come at: by the
' continuance and progress of learning and liberty; and
' by particular persons attending to, comparing, and pur-
' suing, intimations scattered up and down it, which are
' overlooked and disregarded by the generality of the
' world. For this is the way in which all improvements are
' made ; by thoughtful men's tracing on obscure hints,
' as it were, dropped us by nature accidentally, or which
' seem to come into our minds by chance. Nor is it at all
' incredible, that a book, which has been so long in the
' possession of mankind, should contain many Truths as yet
' undiscovered."3 Now, whether with Butler we apply the term Discovery,
or not, to the results of an increased acquaintance with the
sacred volume, it is evident that by an improvement in the
Interpretation and Exposition of the Bible much may be
effected. We may clear up what has been obscured, — draw
forth what has been little, or not at all, noticed, — state more
simply or more fully what has been perplexedly or imperfectly
taught, — confirm by fresh evidence what is already believed, —
on the whole, give more comprehensive views of the scheme
of salvation. Thus, though there can be no improvement
in Doctrine, as Doctrine stands for Truths Taught, there
may be improvement in the Exposition of Doctrine. As
there is an art of Grammar or Rhetoric, besides the dis
covery by observation of the principles of those Sciences ;
5 Butler's Analogy, p. 2, c. 3. See the same point simply and beautifully
touched by Irenaeus, Con. Haer. 1. 2, c 28, p. 156.
dZ

Iii INTRODUCTION.
so there is also a method of teaching out of Scripture,
after we have ascertained its sense. Various modes may
be adopted of arranging and stating the truths known,
as shall appear best for the conveyance of them to the
minds of men, — most suitable to each occasion and to the
capacities and condition of those who are to be taught. At
one time, a Scholastic method, and Scholastic phraseology,
would be properly employed, as most intelligible and satis
factory to educated and thinking people of the time. By
these means, False Doctrine would then be most effectively
denied, and True Doctrine asserted. But if the Church
were now called upon anew to assert the same truths, or
reprobate the same errors, it might not use exactly the
same words, or the same method, — some of the words
having become obsolete, or their meaning being changed,
and the method itself being superseded ; — but would adapt
its language to the habits of thinking and modes of speak
ing prevalent in the age. To assert the possibility of such
an improvement, is by no means to confound divine and
human knowledge. It is merely to say, that the same
revealed knowledge which man has at one time communi
cated to man in one way, he may at another time com
municate better in another way. It is not Neology that is
here advocated, but the true Christian Archaeology, if I
may so express myself; the maintenance of the doctrine
of Christ and his Apostles unchanged, under the vicissi
tudes of human institutions and character and language.'
Whenever indeed I reflect on the imputation of Ration
alism, or Rationalizing tendency, so boldly thrown out
against my writings, I am astonished at the criticism
t So speaks Eusebius: Tijj ipxatoXoylas ray rijs rmercpas StSao-KaXlas
loyfidrwv. Eccl. Hist. 1. 2. Proem.

INTRODUCTION. liii
which has embarked its zeal and its fortunes on such a
plank. The invidiousness of the charge, the timid credulity
with which it would be received by others jealous of any
sps'picion of their own orthodoxy, on the authority of per
sons professing to announce it after painful thought, and
at the sacrifice of personal feeling, might have suggested
the discretion of forbearing it except on the broadest ground
of evidence. If there is any thing to which my writings
have been uniformly opposed, it is Rationalism. I have no
leaning whatever towards such a mode of speculation ; nor
have I ever had ; from the first giving of my mind to these
studies, having been put on my guard against it, by a
familiarity with Butler's Analogy, — a work, the spirit of
which I have endeavoured to exemplify, to the utmost of
my power, in all that I have written." When'indeed I ex
pressly condemn speculative deductions from Scripture lan
guage, I condemn Rationalism, whatever form it may assume,
— whether it seek to explain away Divine Truth, or to sup
port that Truth by ingenious and subtile argumentation. I
have not, I confess, tried to escape from Rationalism by
running into Mysticism. But let not any fancy that they
do avoid Rationalism by such a resource : for Mysticism
itself is but an insane Rationalism.
III. Such Facts again as I call the substance of Revelation,
are not the mere residuum obtained after all that is mysterious
has been evaporated. This notion is a great misconception
of my meaning, — a misconception injurious at once to the
religious and the philosophical character of my views.
u After all the clamour that has been raised, it will not be thought irre
levant egotism, to mention, that I have the happiness of knowing that, as a
Public Examiner in the University, I was mainly instrumental in introducing
the works of Bishop Butler into the course of reading for Academical Honours.

Hv INTRODUCTION.
Philosophy searches out and holds the truth in all its length
and breadth, however strange and mysterious the result
may be. So does Theology. It does not attenuate or
simplify according to the vulgar conception of simplification ;
i. e. such as reduces the expression of the Truth to the
fewest elements. It labours to leave nothing unrecorded
which God has said ; and therefore terminates in a far more
complex apparatus of Divine Truth, than the speculatist would
leave by his systematic arrangements. I have said else
where1 that it is not the part of the Christian Theologian to
reduce to conformity the different Truths of Revelation — that
he must receive them all as they stand — that he falls short of
the Truth, if he seeks to assimilate it to the mere facts of
experience, forgetting the mysterious nature of that system
of things about which Revelation is conversant. If some
then can only understand by Facts, generalizations of
Scripture truth, — reductions of it to the standard of human
experience, — resolutions of it into analogies, — translations
of it into the perceptions of our own minds, — I would take
this opportunity of warning the public, that it is the mis
understanding of such persons, not mine. I believe and teach
that the Scripture Verities are, in their full extent, Realities ;
*. e. that they are conversant about objects having an existence
independent of our own minds or of any views that we may
take of them ; and that, so far from their Mysteriousness
being any objection to them, it is a necessary evidence of
their Truth. — Religion has its appropriate thoughts and feel
ings and actions, on the one hand, and the objects of
those thoughts, feelings, and actions, on the other. The
former have their reality in the Christian man; and without
them he has no religion, however correctly he may profess
1 Phil. Evidence, p. 291.

INTRODUCTION. lv
his belief of the existence of the objects of his Faith. The
latter have their reality external to man, and would be
no less what they are, though they had remained for ever
unrevealed ; as there may be many other Truths belonging
to the Gospel scheme, which only higher orders of beings
are permitted to know, and which probably they know
for their peculiar exercise and improvement. We should
be careful, not to confound the two departments of Religion,
and to apply what is said on one head, as bearing on the
other, or excluding the other. A theologian may insist on
the importance of rightly believing and receiving the sacred
truth, without intending for one moment to say, that right
thoughts or feelings about it constitute its whole importance. —
Should we not, for example, do injustice to the framers of the
Athanasian Creed, if we were to suppose because it says—
" He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the
" Trinity," — that it resolves the whole importance of the
Doctrine into right thinking about it, or mere subjective
truth ? — And so, on the other hand, a theologian may prove
the reality of the sacred truth, without adverting to its
practical reception in the heart and understanding of the
believer.

IV. It is in the sense explained above, that I have
maintained that no deductions or consequences drawn from
Scripture Language are to be received as matter of
Divine Revelation. I have not, it should be observed,
contended that no deductions whatever from Scripture
Truth are to be received, but that speculative deduc
tions or consequences from the language of Scripture, are
not to be held as necessary parts of Divine Revelation.

lyi INTRODUCTION.
Nor have I contended, that such deductions may not
be held as matter of probable truth, or with a pious reserve
for the imbecility and shortsightedness of the human faculties.
But I have argued that such deductions — i. e. consequences
drawn from the theories or notions involved, or supposed
to be involved, in Scriptural expressions — cannot be imposed
as matter of Divine Revelation.
I have not asserted, I wish it to be further observed,
that nothing can be proved out of Scripture; but that,
because a point may be urged as a consequence of some
thing else which is proved out of Scripture, that point
is not therefore to be received as a certain truth of Scripture.
Let any one state to himself this proposition — Whatever is
Divine Truth is proved by Scripture — and then ask himself,
whether the converse follows logically — that Whatever is
proved by Scripture is Divine Truth. Proving by Scripture
may be done in so many ways, that he must be a bold
person who would admit the principle that whatever claims
to be so proved is true. First, what is proof to one man
may not be so to another : one may think certain texts
insufficient, with which another is fully satisfied ; and one
man may «admit one kind of proof to be just, whilst another
denies the validity of it. If I affirmed that we must have
express words of Scripture for every thing that we allege as
Scripture Truth, this might be denying all use of reasoning
in application to the Bible. But I say rather with Bram-
hall : " I have never observed any thing more repugnant to
" the true sense of Scripture than some things which have
" been expressed altogether in the phrase of Scripture." y
Clearly, it is very possible for an ingenious person to string
together a number of Scriptural expressions as the declara-
y Vind. of Grotius, p. 637.

INTRODUCTION. 1

VII

tions of a Doctrine, which, on the whole, will not give a
Scriptural view of that Doctrine. Let me once for all then
inform the candid reader, that I hold the use both of deduc
tive and inductive reasonings in making out and expounding
the meaning — the religious meaning, of course, not the mere
grammatical one — of the Bible, as legitimate and necessary.
And let him not be misled by those who will not, or cannot,
appreciate the difference between thus establishing the re
vealed truths of Scripture, and deducing speculative doctrines
beyond the Scripture. I insist on Scripture truth as distinct
from Human truth, — the doctrines of God's word as distinct
from the commandments of men.
In short, I would have Christian Doctrine rested on Scrip
ture Evidence, and not on Human Argumentation. I would
have all the acuteness of the skilful logician applied to elicit
the Evidence contained in Scripture. But I would not have
any portion of Christian Doctrine made to stand upon Ab
stractions. The difference of the two proceedings may be
shown thus. Suppose a person to be charged with a crime.
Would it be considered sufficient to establish the charge,
that guilt might be inferred from the disposition and
character of the accused, or from any abstract notions or
prejudices concerning him? Would it not rather be required,
that some positive evidence should be produced, some real
circumstances connecting the accused with the crime
alleged? Surely no charge could stand without such proof;
except indeed before a Court of Inquisition. But at the
same time in collecting such evidence, and applying it to the
case, argumentation is required, and the acutest logician
will best bring that evidence to light. Look again to any
able work of Science. Take, for instance, Cuvier's Theory
of the Earth. There is close reasoning in that work ; but

Iviii INTRODUCTION.
the object of it all is to draw forth and establish those facts
on which his theory is founded. Contrast such a work
with a Treatise of the Ancient Physics : and the difference
between resting a doctrine on Evidence and on Argumen
tation, will be quite apparent. — In like manner, take
any of the Truths of Scripture; — as the Resurrection
of the Body. Suppose this truth rested on the abstract
proposition, that there is in the body an indestructible
element, the seed of the future body; it would then be
a mere speculative inference, though the Resurrection
of the Body so inferred, is itself a truth. Look, on the
other hand, to Christ Raised from the Dead, and to all
that the inspired writers have told us about His rising
again ; and we thus collect a body of Evidence, by
which the truth is irrefragably established. — At the same
time, it may demand much argument to put that evidence
out to view. There must be comparison of passages, illus
tration of one by the other, detection of latent coincidences,
proof of the bearing of texts on the point; all which requires
able reasoning, and will be accomplished more or less
successfully according to the argumentative acuteness of the
mind employed on it. — The same may be observed of the
Doctrine of Original Sin. No reasoning would be mis
applied, however long the chain of argument, which was
employed in eliciting the Scripture Evidence of the point.
But reasoning would be perversely employed, though it
happened in the result to support the truth, which should
deduce that doctrine, from the hypothesis of the transmission
of a substantial portion of the corrupt flesh of Adam to all
his descendants. — Or lastly, consider the doctrine of the
Trinity, as upheld by the various speculations which the
misapplied acumen of some of its early defenders brought

INTRODUCTION. Hx
to its support ; and it would then be improperly rested on
Argumentation. But conceive the same powers of reason
ing applied to the discernment of the intimations of the
doctrine scattered throughout Scripture, to the digest of
these, and the luminous disposition of them as matter of
Evidence ; and we cannot too highly approve such an applica
tion of reasoning.

V. I have directed attention to the different manner
in which Christian Truth is stated in the Scriptures and
in the Creeds and Formularies of the Church. Those
who have studied Ecclesiastical History know the reason
of this difference. Such persons are aware that Creeds
and Formularies have resulted from the necessities of the
Church in its progress ; partly for the early education of its
members, partly for a defence against heretical doctrines,
partly as a test of communion with the body of the Faithful.
They bear, consequently, in their result the marks of their
formation, and of the purpose for which they have been
framed. They have been obliged to advert to opinions
afloat at the time when they were made, and to contain
denials of those opinions or assertions of the contrary ; and
to adopt a phraseology drawn from modes of thinking pre
valent at the times when they were drawn up. Hence
too the form of Decisions or Decrees which they have
taken, or, to use the Greek term, Dogmas — determinations
of points in debate, without annexing the reasons on which
those determinations were founded.
Now the Scriptures cannot be called Dogmatic, or Doctri
nal, in the sense in which the Church Formularies are so

INTRODUCTION.

called. Let it be observed that I do not apply the term
Dogmatic to the Church Formularies in the popular dispara
ging sense of the term. But I apply it in its proper etymo
logical sense, as denoting the sentence, decree, definition,
determination of the Church on some controverted point/
And with respect to the terms Doctrine and Doctrinal, as ap
plied to the Formularies of the Church, I use them simply
to denote, what the Church teaches on certain points, and
not absolutely all the matters of Christian belief. In these
senses then, the Scriptures cannot be called Dogmatic, or
Doctrinal. For they are not decisions of the Church, or
Summaries of points taught by the Church. They are the
teaching of the Holy Spirit himself, the simple setting
forth of the counsel of God.
But if we understand by Dogmatic, a statement of
Truth on the Authority of the Teacher, as opposed to a
Theoretic or Scientific Statement of it, then I am quite
ready to admit that the Scriptures do contain Dogmatic
Truths. Every sentence uttered by our Lord and hi»
Apostles, may in this sense be called Dogmatic. In
this sense the word has been used by an eminent non
conformist divine in the following passage, to which I
fully assent, though, using the term Dogmatic in a different
sense, I have denied that the Scriptures are Dogmatic.
" Yet the Revelation contained in the Scriptures extends
" only to Facts, not to the theory of those Facts, or their
" original causes. The most important truths are commu-
" nicated in a dogmatic, not a theoretic manner. We are
" taught on the testimony of Him that cannot lie, insulated

* The term Dogma, however, soon came to be used as equivalent to Doc
trine in the popular sense. It may be said to be used so commonly in both the
Greek and Latin Fathers. It has also Classical Authority in the same sense.

INTRODUCTION. lxi
"facts, which we cannot connect with those reasons, with
" which they are undoubtedly connected in the Divine
" mind. They rest solely on the basis of Divine Authority;
" and we are left as much in the dark with respect to the
" mode of their existence, as if they were not revealed. He
" has given us reason to believe that the Godhead subsists
" in three persons ; distinct acts of personal agency being
" ascribed to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
" while worship and adoration are claimed for them sepa-
" rately : but the theory of this is utterly beyond our com-
" prehension ; nor does it appear to be any part of the
" intention of Scripture to put us in possession of that
" theory. Those who have ventured to approach too near
" this inaccessible light, though with honest and sincere
" intentions, have, for the most part, by attempting to explain
" it, involved the subject in deeper obscurity, and darkened
" counsel by words without knowledge.""
The like observation may be made with regard to the
term Doctrines. There are no Doctrinal Statements, such
as those of the Formularies, in the Scriptures themselves.
But if we understand by Doctrines, Truths taught — objects
proposed to human belief — mysteries of God inculcated on
our heart and understanding — in this sense, I am free to
admit, that there are Doctrines in the Scriptures ; and I have
accordingly popularly spoken of the Christian Truths as
Doctrines. For who would think of applying to ordinary
occasions, a distinction, restricting the term to an exact tech
nical sense, in which it is not commonly understood. Nor
is this admission at all inconsistent with what I have said
" Robert Hall's Sermon "On the Glory of God in Concealing." Works,
vol. v. p. 47. 3d ed.

lxii INTRODUCTION.
in my Lectures, and which has been carped at, (I have been
sorry to see,) with no better sense than feeling, that " strictly
" to speak, in the Scripture itself there are no Doctrines."
Besides, there is a still further ground of opposition
between the method in which Truth is stated in Scripture,
and in Church Formularies, in this respect. In Scripture,
Truth is urged upon us rhetorically, as well as in simple
declaration- — presented with inducements to belief, and
accompanied with motives to conduct. Scripture appeals
to our affections, as well as to our understanding, — and to
both at once; exciting attention and interest, and kind
ling emotions of piety and benevolence, whilst it declares
the Mysteries of God. In the Formularies, on the con
trary, there is no endeavour to persuade men to believe their
assertions. They are not calls to the Faith. They are
simply, Statements of the Truth — put in a precise form, so
that they may be distinctly apprehended, apart from all
known errors on the subjects of them. They study merely to
express the grammatical or literal sense, avoiding all meta
phorical or indirect mode of expression. We speak of
Scripture as animated, energetic, glowing ; as profitable, not
only for doctrine, but for reproof, for correction, for instruc
tion in righteousness : but it would be clearly improper to
characterize the Formularies of the Church in such language.
Hence it may be said, that St. Paul, or any inspired writer,
does not speak doctrinally or dogmatically, but eloquently,
and persuasively, and cogently ; that he does not philo
sophize, but preach and entreat and compel men to the
Faith : and generally, that the Scriptures do not contain
Doctrinal Statements, or Doctrines, — if that term be restricted
to an exact Technical sense, — but the Substance of those
Statements, the equivalents of those Doctrines which are

| INTRODUCTION. Ixiii
given precisely'in the Formularies of the Church. Doctrines,
however, in the popular sense of the term, they do contain,
and I will add, (for I firmly believe it) the same Doctrines
which are contained in the Formularies of the Church.
If it be considered why we call the Doctrines of our
Church Scriptural, it will be found to be because they may
be proved from Scripture. It is not because they are af
firmed totidem verbis in Scripture. We believe what is
" written" in Scripture, because it is Scripture. But we do
not confine ourselves to the express words of Scripture.
It is enough that we have the meaning of Scripture.
And this admission on the part of our Church, clearly
justified as it is by common sense, provides for a difference
between the language of Formularies and the language of
Scripture. It may, therefore, be not improperly said, that the
Doctrines, as worded in the Formularies, are not expressly
or verbally in the Scriptures, but are virtually, or substan
tially, or really contained in them, as being proved by the
Scriptures. For example, " the word Consubstantial," as
Bramhall says, " was not in the Creed before the Nicene
" Council, but the thing was, and was reduced from the
" Creed."" There has been controversial discussion on the point,
whether a Protestant is not bound by his exclusive reference
to Scripture as his Rule of Faith, to cite only express
words of Scripture for every doctrine, and precluded from
all reasoning, or drawing consequences, from the text of
Scripture. My argument has nothing to do with this ques
tion. All legitimate application of reasoning to the text of
Scripture, as I have shewn, I fully concur with. I am
not so absurd as to maintain a position, which Roman
b Schism Guarded, p. 347.

lxiv INTRODUCTION.
Catholics would press on the Protestant, as the effect of
the Protestant exclusive reliance on Scripture. If express
words of Scripture without reasoning on them, were enough
for proof of doctrine, the truth of Transubstantiation might
well be affirmed. And so Stillingfleet admits, in contro
verting the Jesuit's assertion, that on the Protestant ground,
Transubstantiation ought to be received.
" The question," says Stillingfleet, " being concerning
" matters of Doctrine, and not mere words, those things
" are expressly affirmed, which are evidently, and no other :
" for it is one thing for words to be expressly in Scrip-
" ture, and another for Doctrines to be so. For these latter
" are no further expressly affirmed there, than as there is
" evidence, that the meaning of such words doth contain
" such a Doctrine in them. As to take your own instance,
" This is my Body, we grant the words to be express ; but we
'' deny, that which he had then in his hands was his real Body
'' (for his hands were part of his real Body). Now, we do
" not say, that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is ex-
" pressly, but not evidently, contained here : for we say, the
" Doctrine is not there at all, but only that those are the
" express words ; ' this is my body :' as it is in other figura-
" tive expressions in Scripture.'' c
Nor am I a stranger to the fact, that it was a sophistical
expedient of the early Heretics, to charge the Orthodox
with introducing terms not found in Scripture. Whoever has
read but little of Athanasius, must know this, as well as
the reply justly made by that Father, that the thing intended
by those terms was in Scripture, though the terms were
not ; d and that piety might well employ them to exclude the
c " Rational account of the Grounds of Protestant Religion." Part 1. c 4.
p 105. Ed. 1665
rivwo-Kerw 5e" 'Sfttos, €i ris hort <ptXofia6^s, ort et Kal fi-fj ovrots iv rats ypatpots

INTRODUCTION. lxV
inventions of impiety. The same Father also, it will be re
membered, admits, that Scripture intimations of the Truth
would be better, as being more accurate ; but that the ver
satility of the Arian party, had obliged the Bishops as
sembled at Nice, to set forth, more plainly, XevKdrepor, such
expressions as subverted the heretical impiety. In the same
way, I hold that the Technical Language of Theology has
been both useful and necessary for maintaining the Truth;
whilst I point out its human origin, and connexion with the
reasonings of ancient Philosophy. Indeed I have said, and
still think, that there is an advantage in the use of this
Technical Language over the actual words of Scripture, for
stating points of doctrine; since we can modify it as we
please, and limit it accurately to the meaning we wish to
express. .
But whether I maintained or no, the necessity of ex
cluding all but Scripture terms from our statements of Doc
trine, such a notion has clearly nothing to do with the
argument of my Lectures. To state it correctly, the ques
tion I am there concerned with, is— Reasoning on the text
of Scripture being allowed, what is the right application of
reasoning ; Or, all Rationalizing of the word of God being
forbidden, when is reasoning duly employed in relation to
that word ? I argue only against what I consider a wrong
application of reasoning. Some seem to think that there
is wrong reasoning only on the side of unbelief and hetero-

elo-ti' al Xe£ets, dXXd, KaBairep dpiyrax irp&rzpov, rrpi 4k rwv ypaipav itai/omv
exovot, Kal ravri]V eK<poovovfxGvat oijfjLaivovai rols %xovoiv els Gvvlfieiav rr\v ctKoijv
ox6kXt\pov. De Dec. Nic. Synod, c. 21. p. 227. — Atari rolvvv dypdtpovs avroi
Ae"|e« irpbs dai^aav i<pevp6pres, oXriavrai. rovs ayp&tyois Ae|eaw evo-efiovvTas ;
k.t.X. Ib. c. 18. p. 224. — Kal prj dypdcpovs iweio-ayeo-Bai Ae|eis. Na! tSei,
cpai-nv &t> «al iyoyye' dxpiBltrrtpa yip ix r&v ypatpav /uaAAov ij e£ eripwv iarl
to Tijs dXr)feias yvaplo-fiaTa, k. t. X. Ib. u. 32. p. 237.

Ixvi INTRODUCTION.
doxy. But all logicians are aware, that right conclusions
may be connected with false premises. And experience
tells us, that a weak and wrong-headed person may be very
orthodox and sound in the opinions which he professes,
but weak and wrong-headed in his mode of defending them ;
— also, that ingenious persons may devise arguments more
specious than solid, for maintaining a true conclusion. I
have accordingly considered in my Bampton Lectures, a
particular case, in which Reasoning has been wrongly,
though piously and acutely, applied to the defence of Chris
tian truth. Admiring, as I do, the extraordinary powers
of reasoning, and of systematic arrangement, displayed by
the Schoolmen, and deeply respecting that tone of piety,
which subdues even their most hazardous speculations, I
still see the vanity of such reasonings as theirs, when
applied to the exposition of revealed truth; and have
accordingly drawn out some instances of these reasonings,
and traced their influence on our Theological Language.
This is what I have done. But I do not object, I re
peat, to the just application of reasoning to the Sacred
Text. VI. In reference to the same point, it may be further use
ful, for the sake of those who are not versed in the study of
Logic, to state, if I can do so in a manner to be understood,
that when we are in possession of the Premises of an
Argument, the Conclusion necessarily follows. Grant the
Premises, and you grant the Conclusion from them. The
Conclusion in an Argument, is the same that has been
already separately said in the Premises, summed up and
stated in one proposition. On this account it has been
urged as an objection to the Syllogism, though it is not an

INTRODUCTION. lxvii
objection, but the reason of its validity, that it involves
a petitio principii. The same thing which is inferred in the
Conclusion, has been already assumed in the Premises. Only
it was not known, or not observed, before we drew the Con
clusion, that it was contained or implied in the previous
admissions. The drawing the Conclusion, shews that it
was so implied or contained.
It would then be perfectly illogical and absurd for any
one to deny Consequences rightly drawn from admitted
Premises. If, for instance, Scripture shews, as it does,
that our Saviour is truly God as well as truly man, the
consequence is irrefragable that he united Two Natures in
One Person. For we have already set forth the same
Truth in the premises. Stated at length, the argument would
be, that whoever unites in himself the peculiar attributes
both of God and Man, unites in His person Two distinct
Natures. Our Saviour is clearly evidenced to us in this
light. Our Saviour, therefore, united in His Person two
distinct Natures. A consequence of this kind is nothing
more than what has been already affirmed in Scripture,
We have done nothing more than collect or put toge
ther the affirmations of Scripture. Though we may not,
therefore, read this conclusion totidem verbis in Scrip
ture, it is as much in Scripture as if it had been read
there totidem verbis. Whatever, then, can be thus
argued from Scripture, is as true as Scripture is true.
In this way, things spiritual are compared with spiri
tual, and a consistent sense is drawn out by just reason
ing on the comparison. If in one passage our Saviour
asserts, " He who hath seen me hath seen the Father,"
&c. and in another, " the Father is greater than I ;"
these are to be taken together, and we may reason from the
e2

lxviii INTRODUCTION.
.joint declaration, that He is neither to be separated from
the Father, nor to be confounded with the Father ;— in one
respect, He is one with the Father; in another respect,
the Father is greater than He. And a conclusion thus irre
sistibly follows, — which is no mere deduction from Terms,
but a result from all the passages bearing on each x>f these
heads, — adverse both to the Arian and the Sabellian notions
of our Lord.
But suppose now that a disputation turns on the Words,
Nature, Substance, Person, Foreknowledge, Priority,
Identity, &c, — and it is argued, that such or such expres
sions cannot be applied to the sacred subject under discus
sion, because such terms include certain ideas or exclude
certain ideas — and conclusions are drawn from the terms
against particular interpretations of Scripture, — all this is
mere logomachy. We have not the premises of our argu
ment in the Scripture, and we are not warranted, therefore,
in our conclusions. We reap where the Spirit has not
sown. We gather where He has not scattered. We
cannot, I mean, lay down definitions in Theology and
deduce consequences from them, and then identify those
consequences with the declarations of Scripture. Take
for example the passage of Scripture, " whom He did fore
know, also He did predestinate ;"&c— and let the attempt be
made to argue from this, that those who are thus described
as the objects of the Divine Foreknowledge must be saved.
To arrive at this conclusion, a definition must be stated or
implied of what the Divine Foreknowledge is ; and from
that it is concluded, that what is foreknown by God must
come to pass. Whereas all that appears from the passage
is, that what God foreknows will surely and infallibly come
to pass — that the matter is in the Hands of One who

INTRODUCTION. lxix
cannot fail or be deceived. There is nothing said about
the necessity of the case. It is a mere conclusion of human
reasoning, that it is impossible for it to be otherwise. The
event may or may not be in itself, so far as Scripture speaks
of it. Scripture only sets forth the unchanging goodness,
and steadiness of purpose, of Him in whom are the issues of
all things. So again to argue that because God gives
both to will and to do, Man has no free-will; or that
because Man is exhorted to repent and treated as free,
there is no Divine Predestination and Election ; these are
consequences not from Scripture premises, but from defi
nitions of free-will and predestination. The conclusion
from Scripture is, that man is free to choose and act, and
that God does predestine. Both these principles are
declared in Scripture, and the conclusion, therefore, is, that
both are true. To argue from either against the other,
is to bring forward a consequence drawn from human
notions to invalidate the Scripture Testimony. Such deduc
tions, in fact, are not consequences of Scripture. They
follow only from partial views of Scripture, and cannot
be regarded, therefore, as legitimate conclusions.
Or let us take the instance which I have referred to on
a former occasion, — our Lord's inference of the Resurrection
of the Dead from that passage of the Pentateuch, " I am
" the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of
" Jacob." There can be no doubt that this passage con
tains the elements of the proof of such a doctrine. Clearly
it was possible to draw the doctrine out of it. It was
possible, let me add, for mere man to have drawn it out.
But supposing that the inference had been so drawn before
our Saviour shewed the way, — would it have followed
necessarily? Would it have been more than a probable

lxx INTRODUCTION.
inference, as drawn by a mere human reasoner? None
but one divinely inspired could have laid down the pre
mise here — " God is not the God of the dead but of the
" living." All that a mere human reasoner could have stated,
would have been — " God is probably not the God of the
dead but of the living;" and his conclusion would only
have been accordingly, " there is probably a Resurrection
of the Dead." A sound and pious conclusion this would
clearly have been; and such as might have been held,
and was held, by pious Jews, before the revelation of
Jesus Christ on the subject; but which the Jews could
only know and fully accept as indisputably true, upon the
word of a distinct revelation. This is the ground on which
I have somewhere said, that it requires a new revelation
to substantiate certain conclusions of human reasoning in
Theology. Now, there are many consequences of this kind which
may be drawn from Scripture, and the deduction of which
may be an edifying exercise to the pious mind. Nay, to
such a mind it may be given by the Spirit of God, to
obtain a further view of the Divine Dispensations than is
given to the less humble and less patient inquirer.
Still such conclusions must be held by the believer only
as probable truths, or true opinions, so long as they re
main only probable, and are not positively revealed in-
ferences.e Such inferences, if drawn by inspired writers,
are put out of the region of probability by the warrant of

" But because there are no new revelations since the Apostles died,
" whatever comes in after them is only by man's ratiocination ; and therefore
" can never go beyond a probability in itself, and never ought to pretend
" higher, lest God's incommunicable right be invaded, which is to be Lord of
" all human understandings.'' — Bp. Taylor's Dissuasive from Popery, Second
Part, Book I. Sec. 14, p. 171.

INTRODUCTION. lxxi
the Inspiration under which they are stated. They are then
certainly and indisputably true. But it is not so with those
to which there is not the like attestation ; though they may
still be held and professed by Christians as parts of their
Theology. Even, too, when such opinions happen to attract
much discussion among Christians, and opposite conclusions
are drawn respecting the points to which they refer, — the
Church may interpose as Judge of controversy, and, for the
sake of peace, rule the points under debate, and require a
moderation in regard to them, on the part of its ministers
and teachers. Doctrines of this kind may justly be denomi
nated Theological Truths ; to distinguish them from those
higher Verities, the essentials of a Saving Faith, which are in
the most proper sense Articles of Faith. To this effect Bram-
hall says, — " That there is one God, and one Saviour Jesus
" Christ; that the life of the Saints is everlasting, and the fire
" of the Devils everlasting ; are Articles of Faith ; but every
" thing which may be deduced from these, is not a distinct
" Article of Faith." t It is one thing surely to deny that
such conclusions are entitled to rank with indisputable Ar
ticles of Faith, and another thing to allow them no impor
tance or truth whatever.
Take, for example, Paley's inference from the words of
St. Paul, " that we may present every man perfect in Christ
" Jesus." Pointing out that this is St. Paul's expression of
" his hope and prayer, that at the general judgment ofthe
" world he might present to Christ the fruits of his ministry,
" the converts whom he had made to his faith and religion,
" and might present them perfect in every good work ;" —
he adds, " if this be rightly interpreted, then it affords
r Schism Guarded, p. 400.

Ixxii INTRODUCTION.
" a manifest and necessary inference, that the saints in a
" future life will meet and be known again to one another :
" for how, without knowing again his converts in their new
" and glorified state, could St. Paul desire or expect to
" present them at the last day ?"g If we say a highly
probable inference, instead of " necessary," we may, indeed,
hold the doctrine here alleged by Paley as a Theological
Truth, but we could hardly say that it was distinctly re
vealed, or entitled to be called an Article of Faith in the
strict sense of the term.
Again, Bishop Horsley having declared his opinion in
favour of the notion held by several of the Fathers and the
Schoolmen, " that the existence of the Son flows neces-
" sarily from the Divine Intellect exerted on itself;" and
stated that it seemed to him to be founded in Scripture ; —
observes, — " By which I meant not to assert that it is so
" expressly declared in Scripture, that I would undertake
" to prove it by the Scriptures to others, in the same
" manner that I would undertake to prove that the world
" was created by Jesus Christ ; or that the one, like the
" other, ought to be made a branch of the public confession
" of the Church ; or that the disbelief of this particular
" principle is a circumstance that may in the least affect
" the integrity of any Christian's faith. It was not alleged
" as a principle, on which I meant at all to rest the credit
" of the Scripture doctrine; it was mentioned only as a
" principle which, true or false, was embraced by a certain
" set of writers, and serves to explain certain things said
" by them, which without it. are unintelligible, or at least
" liable to misrepresentation. At the same time, I dis-
" covered my own opinion about this principle, that I think
8 Paley's Sermons, p. 507.

INTRODUCTION. lxxiii
" it true, or likely to be true ; for it seems (that is the
" word I used) to be founded in Scripture. Many phrases
" of holy writ seem to me to allude to it; and to those
" who first thought of it, I doubt not, but that the same
" allusions seemed couched in the same phrases. Yet I
" will not undertake to teach every one to read the same
" sense in the same expressions. When I shewed that,
" from this principle once admitted, a strict demonstration
" might be drawn of the eternity of the second Person,
" it was not that I set any value upon that demonstration,
" as adding in the least degree to the certainty of the
" Scripture doctrine. Upon such points the evidence ol
" Holy Scripture is, indeed, the only thing that amounts
" to proof. The utmost that reasoning can do, is to lead
" to the discovery, and, by God's grace, to the humble
" acknowledgment of the weakness and insufficiency of
" reason ; to resist her encroachments upon the province
" of faith; to silence her objections, and cast down imagi-
" nations, and prevent the innovations and refinements of
" philosophy and vain deceit." h Here then, according to
Bishop Horsley, is a conclusion drawn from expressions of
Scripture, which, however, he does not venture positively
to assert as matter revealed. He holds it as a pious opi
nion which might be controverted.
Conclusions of these different kinds are found in our
xxxix. Articles. " Some of them," says Archbishop Bram-
" hall, are the very same that are contained in the Creed: some
" others of them are practical truths, which come not within
" the proper list of points or Articles to be believed : lastly,
" some of them are pious Opinions or Inferior Truths, which
" are proposed by the Church of England to all her Sons,
h Horsley's Replies to Priestley, p. 516-

1XX1V INTRODUCTION.
" as not to be opposed ; not as essentials of Faith necessary
"to be believed by all Christians, necessitate medii, under
" pain of damnation." * In other places, indeed, Bram-
hall comprehends the whole of the Articles under the title
of pious Opinions. " We do not suffer any man, (he says,) to
" reject the xxxix. Articles of the Church of England at
" his pleasure, yet neither do we look upon them as essentials
" of saving faith, or legacies of Christ and of his Apostles ;
" but in a mean, as pious Opinions fitted for the preservation
" of unity ; neither do we oblige any man to believe them,
" but only not to contradict them." k Stillingfleet, citing these
expressions of Bramhall with approbation, prefaces them
with the remark, that " the Church of England makes no
" Articles of Faith but such as have the testimony and
" approbation of the whole Christian world of all ages, and
" are acknowledged to be such by Rome itself; and in other
" things she requires Subscription to them, not as Articles of
" Faith, but as Inferior Truths, which she expects a submis-
" sion to, in order to her peace and tranquillity."
So again he speaks of " Articles of Faith" as distinct from
" Theological Verities." " Are not those properly Articles
of Faith, (he says,) as distinct from Theological Verities,
which are necessary to be believed by all?"m
Neither of these great Champions ofthe Protestant Faith
thought they were disparaging the Articles of the Church,
when they spoke of them in this manner. Whilst they
did not admit all Conclusions from Scripture to the rank
of Revealed Truths, they did not feel themselves precluded
from acknowledging that there were still vital substantial
Truths to be drawn from Scripture, which a man should hold
i Schism Guarded, p. 348. k Ibid, Sect. 1, ch. xi. p.345.
1 Ibid, p. 75. m Ration. Account, p. 54, ed. 1665.

INTRODUCTION. lxxV
as he values his salvation— such as the Unity and the Trinity,
—the Incarnation of the Word — the distinct Personality
of the Holy Ghost. Nor when Bramhall characterizes the
Articles collectively as pious Opinions, does he detract at
all from the certainty of the great Fundamentals included
among them. For so far as these have been controverted, so
far they may be spoken of as Opinions ; as we now familiarly
speak of Trinitarian or Unitarian Opinions, without sup
posing that we thus express any doubt of the truth and
certainty of the doctrine of the Trinity.
With regard to the imposing of consequences generally
as Articles of Faith, Bishop Taylor well observes : —
" The devesting the Church from the simplicity of her
" faith, is like removing the ancient landmark : you cannot
" tell by the mark in what country you are in, whether in
" your own or in the enemies'. And in the world nothing is
" more unnecessary. For if that Faith be sufficient ; if in
" that Faith the Church went to Heaven ; if in that
" she preserved unity and begat children to Christ, and
" nursed them up to be perfect men in Christ, and kept her-
" self pure from heresy, and unbroken by schism; whatsoever
" is added to it, is either contained in the article virtually, or
" it is not. If not, then it is no part of the Faith, and by the
" laws of Faith there is no obligation passed upon any man
" to believe it. But if it be, then he that believes the
" Article does virtually believe all that is virtually contained
" in it : but no man is to be pressed with the consequents
" drawn from thence, unless the transcript be drawn by the
" same hand that wrote the original ; for we are sure it came
" in the simplicity of it from an infallible spirit ; but he
" that bids me believe his Deductions under pain of dam-
" nation, bids me under pain of damnation believe that he is

lxxvi INTRODUCTION.
" an unerring logician : for which, because God has given me
" no command, and himself can give me no security, if I
" can defend myself from that man's pride, God will defend
" me from damnation.""
" But if any man will search into the harder things,
" or any more secret sacrament of Religion, by that means
" to raise up his mind to the contemplation of heavenly
" things, and to a contempt of things below, he may do it if
" he please, so that he do not impose the belief of his own
" speculations upon others, or compel them to confess what
" they know not, and what they cannot find in Scriptures, or
" did not reoeive from the Apostles. We find by experi-
" ence, that a long Act of Parliament, or an indenture or
" covenant that is of great length, ends none but causes
" many contentions ; and when many things are defined, and
" definitions spun out into declarations, men believe less, and
" know nothing more." °
" For although whatsoever is certainly deduced from any
" of these Articles, made already so explicit, is as certainly
" true, and as much to be believed, as the Article itself, be-
" cause 'ex veris possunt nil nisi vera sequi ;' yet, because it
" is not certain that our deductions from them are certain,
" and what one calls evident, is so obscure to another,
" that he believes it is false, it is the best and only safe
" course, to rest in that explication the Apostles have
" made," &c.p
" This I say, not that I believe it unlawful or unsafe for
" the Church, or any of the ' antistites religionis,' or any
" wise man, to extend his own Creed to any thing which
" may certainly follow from any one of the Articles ; but I
" Diss, from Popery, 2d Part, Sect. 4, b. 1, p. 162, 1564.
" Ibid, p. 167. » Liberty of Prophesying, Sec. I, p. 11— 450, 1822.

INTRODUCTION. lxxvii
" say that no such deduction is fit to be pressed on others as
" an Article of Faith ; and that every such deduction which
" is so made, unless it be such a thing as is at first evident
" to all, is but sufficient to make a human faith ; nor can it
" amount to a Divine, much less can be obligatory to bind
" a person of a differing persuasion to subscribe, under pain
" of losing his faith, or being a heretic. . . . And, therefore
" deductions, inevident, from the evident and plain letter of
" faith, are as great recessions from the obligation, as they
" are from the simplicity and certainty of the Article. And
" this I also affirm, although the Church of any one deno-
" mination, or represented in a Council, shall make the
" deduction or declaration." q

VII. What if the notions on which some of our Theologi
cal Terms are founded, are represented as unphilosophical in
character, — drawn, that is, from an Ancient Philosophy
which improved knowledge has since exploded; — does
this at all impair the value of those Terms for* the purposes
which they now serve ? If Religion was assailed by a false
Philosophy, which had its authority and weight at the time,
it was necessary to repel the assault by the same Philosophy.
For example : if the word Nature were used in an here
tical argument to impugn the full Truth of the Incarnation,
it became necessary for the defender of the Truth to
guard the Term, which he also acknowledged in the same
sense, or understood in a different sense, from such a mis
application of it. Thus guarding the Term from misap
plication, he effectually preserved the Truth down to the times
i Liberty of Prophesying, Sec. 1, 12. p. 451.

Ixxviii INTRODUCTION.
when the speculations themselves about the Term have lost
their force. And we may well be thankful for this service :
but we are not bound, at the same time, to respect the Phi
losophy involved in his argument.
Nor is it any thing against this admission of the useful
ness of the Scholastic Language, that the notions on which
it turns should be further described as unscriptural. If they
are drawn from Philosophy, (and whether they are so or not
is a mere question of fact,) it is plain that they are not scrip
tural in their origin ; — the Notions, let it be observed, which
are embodied in the Terms, not the Doctrines or Truths to
which those Terms are applied — Notions, which would have
been attached to the Terms, though the Scripture Truths had
not been thought of. Would any one, for example, suppose
that we were arguing against the religious obligation of
Sunday, because it was shewn that the name of the day was
of heathen origin ? As senseless is the clamour that the
scriptural foundation of the Christian Doctrines is denied, be
cause the phraseology in which they happen to be expressed,
is not throughout scriptural, but has been partly drawn from
profane sources, and moulded by controversy. Where, in
deed, was the faith of the Apostolic Fathers, and of all other
Christians who have believed in the Truths of Scripture,
before the established use of these Terms, if these Terms
involve vital Truth in themselves, apart from their application
to questions of Theology ?
In fact, nothing but extreme inattention to the nature of
language as an instrument of the human mind, could have
suffered any person to misconceive this point, as it has been
misconceived, or given him the power of misleading others so
perversely. I would recommend to the reader a study of
the 7th Dialogue of Bishop Berkeley's Minute Philoso-

INTRODUCTION. lxxix
pher, to clear up the mists which have been diffused over
this part of the subject. He will there see how Theological
Terms, no less than others, may be signs and instruments
of Truth, without conveying precise abstract ideas of the
things signified by them ; and that, therefore, we are not
obliged to adopt the Realism of the Scholastic Philosophy,
whilst we retain the phraseology. It may be of use to cite
one or two passages from that interesting Dialogue.
Having shewn how we have no idea of Force in the
abstract, and yet we have true and useful propositions about
Force, Berkeley remarks : —
" That which we admit with regard to Force, upon what
" pretence can we deny concerning Grace ? If there are
" queries, disputes, perplexities, diversity of notions and
" opinions about the one, so there are about the other also :
" if we can form no precise distinct idea of the one, so nei-
" ther can we of the other. Ought we not, therefore, by
" a parity of reason to conclude, there may be divers true
" and useful propositions concerning the one as well as
" the other ? And that Grace may be an object of our faith,
" and influence our life and actions, as a principle destruc-
" tive of evil habits and productive of good ones, although
" we cannot attain a distinct idea of it, separate or abstracted
" from God the Author, from man the subject, and from
" virtue and piety its effects?1
" But although terms are signs, yet having -granted that
" those signs may be significant, though they should not
" suggest ideas represented by them, provided they serve to
" regulate and influence our wills, passions, and conduct,
" you have consequently granted, that the mind of man may
" assent to propositions containing such terms, when it is so
' Minut.Phil. Dial. 7, Vol. ii, p. 213. 1820.

IxXX INTRODUCTION.
" directed or affected by them, notwithstanding it should not
" perceive distinct ideas marked by those terms. Whence
" it seems to follow, that a man may believe the doc-
" trine of the Trinity, if he finds it revealed in Holy
" Scripture, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,
" are God, and that there is but one God; although he doth
" not frame in his mind any abstract or distinct ideas of
" Trinity, Substance, or Personality; provided that this doc-
" trine of a Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier, makes proper
" impressions on his mind, producing therein love, hope,
" gratitude, and obedience, and thereby becomes a lively
" operating principle, influencing his life and actions agree-
" ably to that notion of saving faith which is required in a
" Christian."8 " Whatever their intention was, [that of the Nicene Fa-
" thers,] it could not be to beget nice abstracted ideas of
" mysteries in the minds of common Christians ; this being
" evidently impossible : nor doth it appear that the bulk of
" Christian men did in those days think it any part of
" their duty to lay aside the words, shut their eyes, and
" frame those abstract ideas ; any more than men now do
" of force, time, number, or several other things about
" which they nevertheless believe, know, argue, and dis-
" pute. To me it seems that whatever was the source of
" these controversies, and however they were managed,
" wherein human infirmity must be supposed to have had
" its share, the main end was not, on either side, to convey
" precise, positive ideas to the minds of men, by the use
" of those contested terms, but rather a negative sense,
*' tending to exclude Polytheism on the one hand, and
" Sabellianism on the other."'
¦ Minut. Phil. Dial. 7, Vol. li. p. 214. ' Ibid. p. 218.

INTRODUCTION. lxxxi
" It seems that what hath been now said may be applied
" to other mysteries of our religion. Original Sin, for
" instance, a man may find it impossible to form an idea of
" in abstract, or of the manner of its transmission ; and yet
" the belief thereof may produce in his mind a salutary
" sense of his own unworthiness and the goodness of his
" Redeemer: from whence may follow good habits, and
" from them good actions, the genuine effects of faith,
" which, considered in its true light, is a thing neither
" repugnant nor incomprehensible, as some men would
" persuade us, but suited even to vulgar capacities, placed
" in the will and affections rather than in the understanding,
" and producing holy lives, rather than subtile theories." u
" If the moment of opinions had been by some litigious
" divines made the measure of their zeal, it might have
" spared much trouble both to themselves and others.
" Certainly one that takes his notions of faith, opinion, and
" assent, from common sense, and common use, and has
" maturely weighed the nature of signs and language, will
" not be so apt to controvert the wording of a mystery, or
" to break the peace ofthe Church, for the sake of retaining
" or rejecting a term."x
To these passages of Berkeley may be subjoined the
following one of Horsley, in which he is speaking of the
mystery of the Incarnation.
" We shall not indeed find this proposition, that the
" existence of Mary's Son consisted from the first, and ever
" shall consist, in his union with the Word ; we shall not
" find this proposition in these terms in Scripture. Would
" to God, the necessity never had arisen of stating the
" discoveries of revelation in metaphysical propositions !
" Minut. Phil. Dial. 7, vol. ii. p. 219. * Ibid. p. 220.

lxxxii INTRODUCTION.
" The inspired writers delivered their sublimest doctrines
" in popular language; and abstained, as much as was
" possible to abstain, from a philosophical phraseology.
" By the perpetual cavils of gainsayers, and the difficulties
" which they have raised, later teachers, in the assertions
" ofthe same doctrines, have been reduced to the unpleas-
" ing necessity of availing themselves of the greater
" precision of a less familiar language. But if we find not
" the same proposition in the same words in scripture, we
" find in Scripture what amounts to a clear proof of the
" proposition, — we find the characteristic properties of both
" natures, the human and the divine, ascribed to the same
" person. We read of Jesus, that he suffered from hunger
" and from fatigue ; that he wept for grief, and was dis-
" tressed with fear ; that he was obnoxious to all the evils
" of humanity, except the propensity to sin. We read of
" the same Jesus, that he had ' glory with the Father
" before the world began ;' that ' all things were created
" by him, both in heaven and in earth, visible and
" invisible ; whether they be thrones or dominions or princi-
" palities or powers ; all things were created by him and for
" him,' and he ' upholdeth all things by the word of his
" power.' And that we may in some sort understand, how
" infirmity and perfection should thus meet in the same
" person, we are told by St. John, that the ' Word was
" made flesh.' It was clearly, therefore, the doctrine of
" holy writ, and nothing else, which the Fathers asserted,
" in terms borrowed from the schools of philosophy, when
" they affirmed, that the very principle of personality and
" individual existence, in St. Mary's Son, was union with
" the uncreated Word." y
5 Horsley's Sermon on the Incarnation, pp. 357 — 359.

INTRODUCTION. lxxxiii
VIII. But if the Philosophy was unsound from which the
Orthodox no less than the Heretic drew his arguments, it
may seem, that we can attribute no greater validity to the
orthodox conclusions than to those of the heretical reasoner.
This, however, does not follow. The question is: — does
the Orthodox Conclusion, though using the Phraseology
of an erroneous Philosophy, protect the Truth from the
shafts of that Philosophy, and keep it entire as it existed in
the Primitive Confessions ? If it does, (and a study of the
subject will show that it does,) the Conclusions are valid ; not
because the Philosophy is more sound in this case than in
the other ; but because they are safeguards of the Truth, —
because of their skilful and valuable application. Nor is
the introduction of this Philosophy into the Sacred Sub
ject thereby justified. It may still be far better that this
Philosophy should never have been introduced into it at all ;
in the same way, as evil in the world may be the means of
much greater good in the result, than if there had been no
evil; and yet it may have been far better for the world that
there had been no evil at all.2
Further, though we may approve certain Statements of
Doctrine as results, is it necessary that we should approve all
the reasonings and speculations on which those particular
modes of speaking have been founded ? Receiving the State
ments as results, we may find that we cannot alter them for
the better ; or the difficulty of the attempt may induce us to
acquiesce in what sufficiently declares the Truth, though we
may not abstractedly approve the Statement for its own sake.
But an approbation of the reasonings and speculations in
volved in a mode of Statement is quite another thing. I do
not think the Quakers were wise in changing the names of
2 See Origen Con. Cels. 1. iv. p. 210. ed. Spencer.— Butler's Anal. pt. i. c. 7.
/2

lxxxiv INTRODUCTION.
the months or days, because the existing names are drawn
from heathenism: but I do not feel myself committed by this
opinion, to approve the heathenism wrapped up in the popu
lar names. Neither am I excluded from freely discussing, and
objecting to, the Scholasticism involved in our Theological
Statements, because I approve the use of those Statements.
Nor am I bound to disapprove the latter, because I may
disapprove the former.
Nor does it follow that in objecting to Realism, as a
philosophical system, I should attribute no reality to the
objects about which Revelation is conversant. These may
be realities, (as they are,) and yet some of the Terms by
which they are expressed may be merely notional. For in
stance, the doctrine that there is a Life Everlasting, describes
a reality. It is not merely a nominal or metaphysical Truth,
but a truth which implies a real existence. And yet the
Terms themselves are abstract, representing ideas which
have no existence apart from living beings. a

IX. But perhaps, we are hereby induced to think less
hardly of heretical assailants ofthe Faith. Seeing that the
Orthodox as well as the Heretic have dealt in the specula
tions of an Ancient Philosophy, we may think less blame
due to Heretics than we at first supposed. — But are we
obliged to condemn others, in order to ensure our own title
to orthodoxy? We cannot, indeed, believe ourselves to
be right in our religious convictions, without believing all
dissentients from our views to be wrong. But this does not

a It is remarkable, that Realists have always been peculiar'y sensitive to
offence in regard to their theory.— Ol S' M rjj ISia, idv tis els r-fjv iSeaV, was
observed long ago by Aristotle.

INTRODUCTION. lxxXV
require that we should condemn and censure all who differ
from us, or that we should hold ourselves free from all
censure because we are correct in our belief. It is the
very spirit of the Church of England to admit that we are
not infallible, though we may not allow that we are in actual
error. Whilst, therefore, we detest all False Doctrine in
itself, we are bound to concede to dissentients that they
are not necessarily in error, though we believe them to be
in error. Such is the view given by Bishop Marsh of the
principle of the Church of England: —
" It has been frequently said, and very lately repeated,
" that, as the two Churches [of England and Rome] act
" alike in maintaining, each for itself, that it does not err,
" it is mere metaphysical subtlety to distinguish between
" the petty terms of ' does not,' and 'can not.' But these
" terms, insignificant as they may appear, denote nothing
" less, than two distinct principles of action ; and principles
" so distinct, that the one leads to charity and toleration, the
" other to intolerance and persecution. On the former
" principle, which is maintained by the Church of England,
" though we believe that we are right, we admit, that we
" are possibly wrong ; though we believe that others are
" wrong, we admit that they are possibly right ; and hence
" we are disposed to tolerate their opinions. But on the
" latter principle, which is maintained by the Church of
" Rome, the very possibility of being right is denied to
" those who dissent from its doctrines. Now, as soon as
" men have persuaded themselves, that in points of doc-
" trine they cannot err, they will think it an imperious duty
" to prevent the growth of all other opinions on a subject
" so important as religion. Should argument, therefore,
" fail, the importance of the end will be supposed to justify

lxXXvi INTRODUCTION.
" the worst of means. But the intolerance, thus produced
" by an imaginary exemption from error, is far from being
" confined to the Church of Rome. . . . And hence we
" may justly infer, that the same inquisitorial power, which
" has been exercised by the Church of Rome, would be
" exercised by others, who set up similar pretensions, if
" the means of employing that power were once at their
" command." b
In these views, Bishop Marsh is supported by the authority
of Archbishop Bramhall. " Cannot a man believe or hold
" his own religion to be true," says Bramhall, " but he must
" necessarily say, or censure, another man's, which he con-
" ceiveth to be opposite to it, to be false? Truth and false-
" hood are contradictory, or of eternal disjunction ; but
" there is a mean between believing or holding mine own
" Religion to be true, and saying or censuring another
" man's (which, perhaps, is opposite,) to be false, both
" more prudential and more charitable ; that is, silence ; to
" look circumspectly to myself, and leave other men to stand
" or fall to their own master. St. Cyprian did believe or
" hold his own opinion of rebaptization to be true, yet did
" not censure the opposite to be false, or remove any man
" from his communion for it. Rabshakeh was more censo-
" rious than Hezekiah, and downright Atheists than con-
" scionable Christians." c " Prejudice and self-love are like
" a coloured glass, which makes every thing we discern
" through it to be of the same colour ; and on the other side,
" rancour and animosity, like the tongue infected with choler,
" maketh the sweetest meats to taste bitter: in each respect,
-a
b Bishop Marsh's Lect. on the Criticism and Interpret, of the Bible,
p. 319, ed. 1828.
.c Schism Guarded, p. 397.

INTRODUCTION. lxxxvii
V censures are dangerous, and his principle pernicious, that,
" he who doth not censure every religion which he reputeth
" contrary to his own, hath no Religion.'"1
It is a great fallacy to argue from the case of Morality to
that of Theology, as some seem to do ; and to suppose that,
as to be virtuous implies a condemnation and abhorrence of
vice, so, to be correct in your religious views implies that you
must condemn and abhor whatever differs from you. For,
first, Virtue and Vice do not differ, as right and wrong opinions
differ. We cannot know what Virtue is, without a perception
of what Vice is. But many a Christian knows what is right
in Religion, without knowing any thing, or thinking any thing,
of erroneous belief. — Then, again, the law of Virtue is
written on every man's heart, so that he cannot commit vice
without self-condemnation. But we cannot say that shades
of Theological Opinion, or even essential Articles of Faith,
are distinguishable in the same way by every man. — Again,
immoral sentiments necessarily lead to immoral actions : not
so, however, heterodox doctrines; they may, or may not.- — But
even in regard to positive immoralities, we have our Saviour's
caution against a forward censoriousness, in that beautiful
account of the woman taken in adultery, and brought before
Him for condemnation. We are taught that it is no sign of
the greatest purity, to be too forward even in marking out the
vicious person. And still less may we suppose it a necessary
attendant on the most sincere Faith, to be eager to anathema
tize those who have not, or are supposed not to have, that
Faith.

d Schism Guarded, p. 398.

lxxxviii INTRODUCTION.
X. I have said enough, I hope, to shew the candid reader,
that I desire only to lead him to an enlightened acquaintance
with an important branch of Theological study ; the History
of the Technical Language employed in Theology. There is
nothing, I am persuaded, in this track of Inquiry which can
unsettle the Faith ofthe sincere Christian. Let it be pursued
patiently and honestly, and it must tend to Christian edifica
tion, — to an increased reverence for God's holy word, and an
increased acquaintance with it as the only standard of pure
Christian profession, — and a consequent scriptural conviction
of the truth and holiness of the Doctrines taught by our
Church. In concluding these observations, let me add, that as
I have objected to imputing the deductions of man's reason
to the Revealed word, — so, I would further object to having
the errors of another person's conclusions from my prin
ciples or language, imputed to me. Let what I have written
be fairly tried on its own merits, not on the demerits which
others would reflect upon it from their peculiar views.
Nothing is easier than to make out inconsistencies or
apparent contradictions in a writer, and to excite suspicion
against him. 'PpStov /cat acpavporipoiq. I confess I am not
solicitous about censures of this kind. I do not pretend to
justify every expression, or every argument, that I may
have used in the course of my writings. I am quite
aware that much that I have said, might have been said
better, — might have been more cautiously guarded against
cavil, — might have been worked up into more perfect
unity with the whole of my composition. But of this, at
the same time, I have a strong assurance, that my views
are fundamentally right ; and that any defect which may
exist, will be found only in the execution of the details.

INTRODUCTION. lxxxix
Whoever looks at my undertaking in a kindly spirit, and
at the same time with a just critical acumen and know
ledge of the subject, will see that I have written with
sincerity, and that there is the same train of thought per
vading all that I have said. If I have not done my subject
full justice, — if I have left much in obscurity, — if I have
thrown out roughly what either myself or others may
hereafter correct and perfect, — let me not be blamed so much
for what remains undone, as indulgently regarded for what
I have attempted. Whatever I may have expressed inaccu
rately, I am quite ready to alter, so as to make my sense
more understood. Whatever I may have argued incorrectly,
I am quite ready to amend. If some will still complain that
there should be any thing to need correction, they cannot
have considered with what labour Truth is sought, and how
happy we ought to be if we only find it at the last.
But though much of what I have said, were otherwise
expressed, or corrected, in deference to a candid criticism,
(which I am always ready to receive,) there would still re
main the substantial allegations of my Lectures, the positive
instances of the Scholastic formation of our Theological
Language to be disproved, in order to overthrow the truth
and importance of the Work.
For my part, I have found my own convictions of the
truth of the doctrines of the Church of England, strength
ened by the Inquiry pursued in these Lectures. But 1 do
not look to myself alone. I trust this Work is destined to
effect extensive good. I feel a confidence, that it will out
live the tumultuary shouts with which it has been assailed.
And I anxiously desire, that it should produce the same
salutary impression on the minds of others, which the Inquiry
itself has produced on mine. If I believed there were any

XC INTRODUCTION.
thing in it to shake the faith of the humble disciple, — to
obscure or lower the great truth of Christ Crucified, — to
lead any one to deny the Lord that bought him, or confess
his Saviour in any other sense than as " the Lord his
Righteousness," his " Lord and his God," in sincerity and
in truth, — or to apostatize in any degree from the pure
scriptural faith ofthe Catholic Church of Christ; — I would
be the first to erase such a passage from my Work, and
utterly to disown it.
The following passage of Augustine expresses the spirit,
in which I submit to the reader every particular statement,
as well as the whole Argument of my Work : —
Sane cum in omnibus Uteris meis, non solum pium lecto-
rem, sed etiam liberum correctorem desiderem, multo maxime
in his ubi ipsa magnitudo quwstionis utinam tarn multos in-
ventores habere posset, quam multos contradictores habet.
Veruntamen sicut lectorem meum nolo mihi esse deditum,
ita correctorem nolo sibi. Ille me non amet amplius quam
catkolicam fidem ; iste se non amet amplius quam catholi-
cam veritatem. Sicut illi dico ; noli meis Uteris quasi cano-
nicis scripturis inservire ; sed in Mis et quod non credebas
cum inveneris incunctanter crede, in istis autem quod certum
non habebas, nisi certum intellexeris, nolifirmiter retinere ; ita
illi dico ; noli meas literas ex tua opinione vel contentions, sed
ex divina lectione, vel inconcussa ratione, corrigere. Si quid in
eis veri comprelienderis, existendo non est meum, at intelligendo
et amando et tuum sit et meum. Si quid autem falsi conviceris,
errando fuerit meum, sed jam cavendo nee tuum sit nee meum.e
" In truth, whilst in all my writings, I desire not only a
" pious reader, but also a free corrector, most especially do
" I in these, where the very magnitude of the question
" De Trin. lib. iii. p. 9* of torn. iii. ed. Tigur.

INTRODUCTION. XC1
" makes me wish it could have as many to investigate
" it, as it numbers amongst its impugners. However, as
" I would not that my reader should be devoted to me, so
" neither would I have my corrector devoted to himself.
" Let not the former love me more than the Catholic Faith :
" let not the latter love himself more than the Catholic
" Truth. While, to the former I say, — Treat not my
" writings with a deference due to the canonical Scriptures ;
" but in the one, unhesitatingly believe what you did not
" believe, on finding it there ; in the other, however, retain
" not firmly what you were not convinced of, unless you
" should be fully convinced of it ; — to the latter I say,
" Correct not my writings out of your own opinion, or out
" of contention : but from the reading of the divine word,
" or by unshaken argument. Should you lay hold of any
" thing in them that is true, — in being so, it is not mine ;
" but by the understanding and the love of it, let it be both
" yours and mine. Should you, however, detect any thing
" that is false, — in the error, it may have been mine;
" but henceforth, by guarding against it, let it be neither
" mine nor yours."

LECTURE L
ORIGIN OF THE SCHOLASTIC PHILOSOPHY.

SUMMARY.
Nature of the Inquiry proposed, the force of Theory on Theo
logical language — the Scholastic Philosophy an important branch
of this General Inquiry — its connexion with the philosophy of
Aristotle — Neglect of consideration of its influence in comparison
with that of Platonism — the greater extent of its influence — its
more immediate interest.
The Scholastic Philosophy the result of a struggle between
Reason and Authority — its history to be traced to the ascendancy
of the Latin Clergy — Contrast between the Greek and Latin
Fathers — Practical character of the Latins exemplified in their
leading men — strict correspondence sustained among them —
Contrast of state of Society in the East and the West — Civil
disturbance and misery of the West favourable to the power of
the Latin Church — Rhetorical character of the Latin theological
writers — Fruitless attempt of Jerome to improve the Latin
literature of his time — Monastic Institutions of the West less
enthusiastic than those of the East — Origin of the Scholastic
System more developed in the progress of the Church after the
middle of the fifth century. — The principle of liberty of reason
which had led to the power of the Church, operating within the
Church, leads at once to heresy and ecclesiastical coercion —
Extent of jurisdiction over opinion claimed by the Latin Clergy
evidenced in the Predestinarian Controversy of the Ninth cen
tury — Subsequent history a continuance of the struggle between
Reason and Authority in the West. — Subjugation of the intellect
leads to its insurrection — Character of its efforts at this period.
The argumentative theology at length sanctioned by the
Church itself in its authoritative capacity. — The Book of the
Sentences. — Albert the Great, and Thomas Aquinas, perfect the
method established. — Success of Scholasticism owing to its com
bination of unlimited discussion with deference to authority.

B 1

i Peter IV. 11.
If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God.

E'i tic \a\e~i, wc \6yia. Qeov.

Si quis loquitur, quasi sermones Dei. Lat. Vulg.

LECTURE I.

Christianity had its beginnings amidst obstruc
tions of a twofold character ; the self-righteousness
of the human heart, and the presumption of the
human understanding. It had to war with the
pride of man, entrenched within these double for
tifications. Not only were those principles of our
nature, on which it was to exercise its sanctifying
influence, armed in hostility against it ; but those
on which it had to rely as the interpreters of its
overtures of peace and pardon, misconstrued and
misrepresented its heavenly message.
The history of infidelity and of heresy affords
abundant instances of this twofold counteraction to
the truths of the Gospel. It is not of the action of
the heart on the understanding, and of the under
standing on the heart, that I now speak. That
this mutual action and reaction take place in all
our decisions on moral questions, is undoubtedly
true ; and a highly interesting fact it is both to the
Theologian and the Moral Philosopher. The point,
however, on which I now insist, is the separate
influence of the two great classes of principles,

LECTURE I.

which our nature exhibits on the reception of divine
truth. There is a resistance simply moral, and
another simply intellectual ; — the force of Vice and
the force of Theory ; — both of which have played a
considerable part in the drama of Religion. Each
demands, accordingly, a distinct consideration from
those who would fully solve that great problem,
which the existence of a complex system of facts
and doctrines, under the name of Christianity, pre
sents to the thoughtful mind.
My purpose in the following Lectures is, to
examine into the influence of one of these Classes
of principles — those of the understanding ; — and to
endeavour to present to your notice the force of
Theory in its relation to the divine truths of our
Religion. It is that portion of the inquiry which
has attracted the least investigation in itself. For
though ecclesiastical histories purpose to give a
view of theological opinion, there is none that I am
acquainted with which has given an account of
the effect of Opinion as such on the doctrines of
Christianity. They give rather a view of human
passions in their relation to the divine truth, or of
human nature in general in its reception of the
Gospel. They do not show how the intellect of
man has insinuated its own conclusions into the
body of the revelation in the course of its trans
mission, and modified the expressions by which the
truth is conveyed.
I do not indeed purpose to enter into the whole
of so large an inquiry. Nor can I pretend, in the

LECTURE I. 7
compass of the present Lectures, to exhaust even a
part of it. I must content myself with laying
before you that portion of it which has forcibly
struck my own mind ; and which I hope may also
prove, both interesting in itself, and important to
the result of the whole inquiry into the theoretic
modifications of our theological language.
It is then to the effect of the Scholastic a Philo
sophy that I have directed my attention, and endea
voured to trace the modifications of our theological
language as illustrated in that vast theoretic system.
The existence alone of that system in the very
heart of the Christian Church for so many cen
turies — for more than a thousand years if we
comprise the period of its formation antecedent to
its perfect maturity, for more than five centuries if
we look only to its perfect development — is a most
striking fact. And I only wonder that it has not
attracted more notice than it has hitherto obtained.
We meet indeed with some incidental remarks in
works of philosophy or theology on the theoretic
character of the system. But with these remarks
it is usually dismissed as a method long gone by,
which has had its day and is now extinct, and
1 The word Scholastic has now obtained a secondary meaning
from the disputations with which it was connected. We see its
original sense in the following passage : — Omnes enim in scriptis
suis causas tantum egerunt suas ; et propriis magis laudibus
quam aliorum utilitatibus consulentes, non id facere adnisi sunt
ut salubres ac salutiferi, sed ut scholastici ac diserti haberentur.
Salvian. De Gubern. Dei, Praefat. ed. Baluz.

8 LECTURE I.
remains only a monument of frivolous ingenuity, to
be neglected and despised by the more enlightened
wisdom of the present age. But surely a pursuit
in which the human mind has been so long engaged,
and which has thus, as an indisputable matter of
fact, educated the human intellect in the West,
/or the larger views, and more elevated thoughts,
and more masculine vigour, of Modern Science
and Modern Theology, demands more respect,
more serious consideration. If it supplied, as it
undoubtedly did, the elements of our present im
provement, the stock of principles of which the
Reformation, both religious and intellectual, of the
sixteenth century, availed itself; to which that
Reformation was forced to address itself; whose
language it was forced to adopt in order to be
understood and received ; neither the historian of
the human mind, nor the student of Religion, ought
to leave this track of inquiry unexplored. The
Scholastic Philosophy in fact lies between us at our
present station in the world, and the immediate dif
fusion of the truth from heaven, as " the morning
" spread on the mountains," an atmosphere of mist
through which the early beams of Divine Light
have heen transfused. It has given the celestial
rays a divergency whilst it has transmitted them,
and, by the multiplicity of its reflections, made
them indistinct as to their origin.
To the members indeed of this University,
which, with such wisdom, has retained the study
of Aristotle's Philosophy, justly regarding it as the

LECTURE I.

strongest, best discipline of the mind, whilst it has
discarded the dialectical abuses of the system, the
inquiry into the nature of Scholastic Philosophy
peculiarly recommends itself. It becomes an inquiry
into the nature and effects of that very philosophy
which our University discipline upholds to a cer
tain extent. For the Scholastic method is nothing
more than a view of the philosophy of Aristotle,
as it was moulded by the state of civilization
and learning, and by the existing relations between
the civil and ecclesiastical powers in the course
of the middle ages. It is what the cherished
study of this place was at a period, when it was
pursued with an excessive intensity of devotion to
the combined authority of the Philosopher and the
gifted commentator on his doctrines. The erection
of this and other Universities was the great ex
ternal means by which the Scholastic Philosophy
was constituted into that form which it ultimately
attained. The chairs of theology and philosophy,
established here and elsewhere, were the oracular
seats, from which the doctrines of Aristotle were
expounded, as the rationale of theological and moral
truth. The collection of these several authoritative
decisions at length rose into a peculiar system of
Philosophy in itself; of which Aristotle indeed was
the foundation and cement, but the structure itself,
commentary piled on commentary, and conclusion
on conclusion.
It may appear strange, then, that whenever the
history of religious opinion has attracted attention,

10 LECTURE I.
curiosity should rather have been directed to the
effects of Platonism, than to those of the more
established Aristotelic philosophy. It is owing,
perhaps, to the circumstance that Platonism has been
more arrogant in its pretensions : it has aspired,
not to modify, but to supersede Christian truth.
Christianity had to struggle in its infancy against
the theology of the school of Alexandria, which
regarded the Christian system as an intrusion on
the philosophical ascendancy which it had hitherto
enjoyed. The New-Platonists disputed the ori
ginality of the Christian doctrine, asserting that the
sayings of our Lord were all derived from the doc
trines of their Master .* Nor was the mischief from
the Alexandrian School neutralized, when, its open
hostility being found ineffectual, disciples of that
school merged themselves into the Christian name.
The accommodation which then took place between
the theories of their philosophy and the doctrines of
the Faith, proved a snare to members of the Church.
Hence, upon the whole, resulted, even in the begin
nings of the Gospel, an ambiguity respecting the
De utilitate autem historise, ut omittam Grascos, quantam
noster Ambrosius qusestionem solvit, calumniantibus Platonis
lectoribus et dilectoribus, qui dicere ausi sunt, omnes Domini
nostri Jesu Christi sententias, quas mirari et prasdicare coguntur,
de Platonis libris eum didicisse, &c. Augustin. De Doct. Christ.
lib. II. c. 2. Vol. III. p. 12. ed. 4to. Venet. 1584.
Libros beatissimi Papse Ambr6sii credo habere sanctitatem
tuam ; eos autem multum desidero, quos adversus nonnullos
imperitissimos et superbissimos, qui de Platonis libris Dominum
profecisse contendunt, diligentissime et copiosissime scripsit.
Augustinus Paulino, Epist. XXXIII. Oper. Vol. II. p. 39.

LECTURE I. 11
peculiar rights of the antagonist systems. And
this ambiguity affected the question of the self-
originated divine character of the Christian Truth.
The attention of Theologians, therefore, could not
but be drawn to the subject. The Faith itself was
at stake in the endeavour to disentangle it from the
theories of the Platonizing Christians. It was to
be determined whether Christianity was a true reli
gion possessing an intrinsic authority. It has not
been so with regard to the Aristotelic philosophers.
These were in comparative obscurity when the
Alexandrian School gave the law to the literary
world. They did not put forward any preten
sions as the rivals of Christianity, but pursued
their own independent path, struggling rather
against the domination of the Platonists than
against the Christian innovator. The Church too
looked upon the Peripatetic school with shyness and
aversion at the first, regarding it as atheistic and
impious, the resource of heresy and religious perfidy;
whereas towards the Platonic system, the early
doctors entertained a tacit partiality, amidst their
actual hostility to the professors of that system.
Opposing Platonism, as a sect jealous of the rising
power of Christianity, they still felt no repugnance
to the intermixture of its speculations with the
vital truths of the religion. The philosophy of
Aristotle, on the contrary, crept into the Church
imperceptibly, and even against the consent of the
Church. No compromise took place between its
disciples and the members of the Church. There

12 LECTURE I.
was none of that ostentatiousness of principles on
their part, which characterized the proceedings of
the New- Platonic school in their intercourse with the
Church. But the logic of Aristotle continued from
time to time to supply the heretic with arms. And
this dexterous warfare, carried on by the heretic,
gradually brought the Church to the use of the
same arms which it had rejected with disdain.
Thus, amidst all the disavowals of the system which
it strenuously made, the Church became unawares
Aristotelic. It had learned the arts of its impugners,
and spoke the language of their theories in its own
authoritative declarations against them.
But in reality, the question of the influence of
Aristotle's philosophy is more important on this
very account, that it has been more subtile, more
silently insinuated into, and spread over, the whole
system of Christian doctrines. Being employed as
an instrument of disputation, it has not been con
fined, like Platonism, to certain leading points of
Christianity, as, for instance, to the doctrines of the
Trinity and the Immortality of the Soul, but has
been applied to the systematic development of the
sacred truth in all its parts. That complete dis
cussion, which the minutest points of Christianity
obtained under the discipline of the Aristotelic phi
losophy in the hands of the Schoolmen, has fixed
our technical language in every department of
Theology. I consider it therefore necessary for the
perfect understanding of those terms of our Religion,
which an established usage has now made the

LECTURE I. 13
unchangeable records of religious belief; which,
both the orthodox and the heretic, the catholic and
the schismatic, alike employ in all their religious
statements and arguments ; to examine to some
extent, how far their history may be traced in the
Aristotelic theories of Scholasticism.
In that familiarity which we have acquired from \
our infancy with the mysterious terms of Christian
Theology, the necessity of inquiring into their his
tory escapes our ordinary reflection. We little
think that we are walking among the shades of
departed controversies, among the monuments, and
the trophies, of hearts that have burned with zeal,
and of intellects that have spent themselves in the
subtilty and vehemence of debate. But as to the
unconscious traveller over ground which history or
poetry has ennobled, so to us, the land is mute :
it brings not the rich recollections of other men
and other days : and we pass on in careless haste,
thinking it enough, that these memorials of our
Fathers in the Faith serve the actual occasions of
our present convenience.
The Scholastic Philosophy, indeed, is pre-emi
nently a record of the struggle which has subsisted,
between the efforts of human reason, on the one
hand, to assert its own freedom and independence ;
and on the other hand, the coercion exercised
over it by the civil or ecclesiastical powers. In
the general survey of it, it will be observed to be
distinguished by two very opposite characteristics ;

14 LECTURE I.
an unbounded liberty of discussion, that advances
with unawed step into the most startling curiosities
of minute inquiry ; and a servile addiction to the
previous determinations and sanctions of the vene
rated doctors of the Church. Both these facts, so
conspicuous in the matured form of the Scholastic
Theology, are the surviving evidences of that strug
gle under which its system gradually rose and esta
blished itself. It was by its artful combination of
these two ingredients of the human judgment, — the
positiveness of dogmatism, and the waywardness of
private reason, — that its empire was decided. To
this combination we owe the precision and the com
pass of our theological language. No thought was
left unexpressed, which the captiousness of real or
imaginary objection might obtrude on the sacred
subject: no authority was passed by, without being
tasked for its contribution to the exact definition of
each point examined.
On the present occasion I shall address myself
principally to the development of these facts, as
they are illustrated in the History of the Scholastic
Philosophy ; reserving the consideration of the
general nature of the Philosophy itself, and the
illustrations to be derived from it to particular
terms of Theology, for the subjects of the following
Lectures. The origin of the Scholastic Philosophy carries
back our inquiry to the causes of the ascendancy

LECTURE I. 15
obtained by the Latin Clergy over the Greek. The
establishment of the Papal power of Rome was in
itself among the effects of that ascendancy — the
consummation to which it led. The real ground of
that Power lay more deeply than in the temporal
advantages which the see of Rome possessed, or in
the successful policy of its Bishops. The continu
ance of the Papal power, amidst its rapid transition
through the hands of successive Bishops, and these
also often individuals not distinguished by their
talents or their general merits in the ecclesiastical
body, argues the stability and perpetuity of a prin
ciple upholding that power, and guarding it against
the casualties of personal imbecility and worthless
ness. This principle was the predominant influence
of the Latin Clergy. The course of events in the
early history of the Church seemed to be eminently
favourable towards the preponderance of the Greeks.
Theirs were the Churches immediately founded by
the Apostles. Theirs was the language of the
sacred books and of philosophy. Theirs, with a few
exceptions, were the Apologies by which Chris
tianity defended itself against the assaults of the
Jew or the Pagan in the first centuries. It was their
writers who took the lead in systematizing the doc
trines of the Faith, and allied them with philosophy.
It was their Bishops who took the ostensible part
in the great Councils of the first four centuries, and
the first half of the fifth. In the course of that
period, too, occur the names of all the most illus
trious Fathers of the Greek Church ; Justin Martyr,

16 LECTURE I.
Origen, Eusebius of Csesarea, Athanasius, Basil,
the two Gregories, Chrysostom ; men of acute and
eloquent genius, as well as of intrepid energy. Still
the efforts of the Greeks may all be characterized as
eminently literary : as philosophical defences and
expositions of the Faith, more than practical ener
gies in its behalf. This I observe is their general
character ; not denying, at the same time, that there
are exceptions to this general remark, in some
striking instances of individual conduct, among
those to whom I have referred.
Contrast, on the other hand, the labours of the
Latin Clergy during the same period. The practical
character here shows itself as the prominent feature ;
the literary, or philosophical, being entirely subordi
nate to it. The Latins have not that splendid array
of philosophical writings, which the catalogue of the
Greek Fathers exhibits ; but they had sagacious
political leaders, popular advocates of the sacred
cause, men of extensive knowledge of the world
combined with a nervous enthusiasm of thought and
feeling. In Tertullian, for instance, we see the art
of the rhetorician united with the obstinacy and rude
vehemence of the practical enthusiast : in Cyprian,
amidst the placid flow of his style, the resoluteness
of moral feeling, which at length carried him to
martyrdom : in Lactantius and Arnobius, the per
suasiveness of advocates intent more on the effect of
their arguments than on their philosophical accu^
racy or logical cogency : in Jerome and Augustine
at once the rigour of logicians, the comprehensive

LECTURE I. 17
views of philosophers, the persuasiveness of orators,
the command of political leaders.
Jerome, perhaps, is one of the most extraordinary
instances which history exhibits, of the union of dark
and solitary abstractedness of mind, with dexterous
facility in wielding to theoretic views the complex
means which human society presents. His influence
was like that of invisible agency, proving its exist
ence by its effects, but defying our search into its
mysterious powers. Whether at Rome, dictating the
law of religion to devout followers, or lurking in
the wilds on the Syrian confines,0 or buried in the
seclusion of his monastery at Bethlehem, this extra
ordinary man appears to have secured in himself
the declining fortunes of orthodoxy, and effectually
established its future dominion in the Church.
Take again the case of Ambrose ; a civil officer
of Rome, in the full activity of youth, and as yet
unbaptized, suddenly called by the acclamations of
the people to the vacant archbishopric of Milan,
then the seat of the Western Empire.4 He united
the inflexible religion of Athanasius with the prac
tical dexterity of the man of the world : so that,
whilst he carried his principles into effect with a
straight-forwardness of purpose, which appeared the
result of a reckless enthusiasm, forcing its way in
c See his Epistle to Damasus. Hieronym, Oper. torn. II.
p. 131. — Note A. Appendix.
d Gregory Nazianzen also describes the election of a person
who had not even been baptized, to the bishopric of Csesarea. —
Note B.

18 LECTURE I.
spite of the current of human affairs: he yet, by
his penetration into characters and circumstances,
evidently calculated the force of resistance to be
encountered, and the ultimate superiority of his
influence. Study him in his different relations with
the Emperor Gratian, with Theodosius,e with Jus-
tina and the younger Valentinian ; and compare
with him the conduct of Athanasius in the like
circumstances. In the latter, we see a bold uncom
promising enthusiasm, a chivalrous ardour in the
cause of religion, undaunted by difficulties, acquiring
intensity by struggle with adventures : but through
out it is a theoretic enthusiasm which his conduct
displays. The actions of the man seem only the
bold expression of his theories. But in Ambrose
we contemplate the talent of the skilful Governor of
the Church ; a determination inspired by a confi
dence of actual power; and an exertion of that power
for the maintenance of his religious principles/
e Qui leges tulerat, quam patienter tulit sententiam sacerdotis
Mediolanensis. Et ne sententiam emolliti presbyteri, et prin-
cipibus applaudentis, fuisse teneram putes, a regalium usu
suspensus est princeps, exclusus ab ecclesia, et pcenitentiam
coactus est explere solennem. Joann. Saresberiens. Policraticus,
lib. IV. c. 6. p. 225.
f Christians in the IVth century had still retained a great
deal of heathen practice mixed up with their religion. Ambrose
acted the reformer by his authority. — Itaque cum ad memorias
sanctorum, sicut in Africa solebat, pultes, et panem, et merum
adtulisset, atque ab ostiario prohiberetur, ubi hoc Episcopum
vetuisse cognovit, tarn pie atque obedienter amplexa est, ut ipse
mirarer, quam facile accusatrix potius consuetudinis suae, quam
deceptatrix illius prohibitionis effecta sit. Augustin. Confess. VI.

LECTURE I. 19
Where again in the Greek Church shall we find
a parallel to Augustine, the individual to whom
perhaps, after the great Apostle ofthe Gentiles, the
Christian cause, so far as human ability has sup
ported it, owes principally its present strength and
triumph. There are in Augustine some lines of
character strongly resembling those of the Apostle
himself. He displayed an ardent zeal like that of
Paul ; a sleepless vigilance like that of Paul for the
spiritual needs of the Church ; like Paul also, a
vigorous power of argumentation, a perception of
the force of heretical objections, and an energy of
rapid retort. Like the Apostle again, he had been
the ardent devotee of a hostile system of religious
opinion. The Manicheism of his early life had
nourished the fire of enthusiasm in him ; as in the
youthful bosom of St. Paul the prejudices of a
Pharisee had glowed into the flames of a perse
cutor. Neither of them could take a passive sub
ordinate part in any course in which they might be
engaged. The parallel only fails, when we think of
the frankness and simplicity of the Apostle, com
pared with the shrewdness and versatility of the
Saint. We see the force of Augustine's character
in the management of the Church itself, the work
of greater difficulty, rather than in the dexterous
use of the civil power. The Church of the West
during the period when he flourished, the latter
cap. 2. In cap. 3 of the same book, Augustine gives an account
of the manner in which the time of Ambrose was occupied. —
Note C. C 2

20 LECTURE I.
half, that is, of the IVth century, and the com
mencement of the Vth, was daily becoming a more
complex machine, more unwieldy to ordinary
hands, demanding talents of the first order to grasp
its various relations, and a commanding moral
power to direct and control the whole system.
Such occasions, it has been often observed, are
always found to call forth the spirits that alone are
meet to cope with them. Jerome was a spirit of
this mould ; still more so was Augustine. He had
not the learning, or the eloquence, or the depth of
character which Jerome possessed ; but he had the
advantage of a more pliant temper, a more social
taste, a more personal influence — an influence, not
merely of respect for his station, and talents, and
moral power, but evidently of affection for the
man.8 In Jerome there was a strong tinge of
Oriental enthusiasm : Augustine was throughout the
Latin Churchman. It is the care of the Churches
which he evinces through his whole career : we
never lose sight of him as the Chief Pastor of the
flock, as the head of a vast spiritual community, for
which he appears to hold himself responsible. His
very writings, in fact, are so many actions. The
view of them as compositions is lost, in the im
pression which they give us, of the design of the
writer to produce some practical effect. We do him
injustice, when we contemplate him simply as the
writer, or the literary debater. In this respect we
8 See the Letter of Volusian. — Note D.

LECTURE I. 21
are apt to pronounce him inconsistent, or even con
tradictory to himself. But this very inconsistency
is a strong evidence of the really practical design of
the writer. He was too acute a logician, not to
see the speculative consequences of his own state
ments — too skilful a rhetorician, not to suspect that
his own positions might be urged against him.
But, at the same time, he had too deep an acquaint
ance with the practical course of things, not to be
aware, that the skill of the logician is not omni
potent over the affairs of life ; and that he who
would rightly avail himself of men and things, must
sometimes be content to wear that guise of paradox,
which the actual constitution of the world often
exhibits in itself.
A feeling of surprise indeed must arise in our
minds, when we look back to the IVth century,
and contemplate that restless activity by which the
leading members of the Latin Church were dis
tinguished. An active communication indeed sub
sisted throughout the Church at large. Athanasius,
from his retreat in the solitudes of the Thebaid,
could make his counsels felt in the heart of the
Empire ; and Chrysostom, from his exile on Mount
Taurus, could sustain an incessant intercourse with
the Faithful at the most remote places. But in the
Western Church more especially, the correspondence
of feelings and views was vigorously sustained by
the great leaders of the Church, evidently as the
great instrument of unity in doctrine and govern
ment. No point of heterodoxy was touched in one

22 LECTURE I.
part of the Empire, but it regularly spread in widen
ing circle until it reached the opposite extreme.
The Bishops and rulers of the Church had the
deacons and presbyters h at their command, to bear
their various communications of intelligence, and
their replies to the questions sent to them from the
distant provinces of their communion. Sagacious
practical men, at different important stations, formed
a chain of communication, which was kept in con
stant tension, and vibrated throughout wherever the
impression was made.1
The state of society, both civil and religious, in
the Western Empire, was such as to occasion and
promote the influence of the Latin Clergy. The
decline of the Roman Empire in the West exhibited
more of the character of a violent breaking up
and crumbling into pieces ; whilst in the East
there was a continuity of dissolution, like the silent
melting of a frozen mass, full of decay, yet pre
serving the general sameness of its form. The
calamities of the West had produced a shock
throughout society, and spread a demoralizing influ
ence through all classes of men. Paganism, which,
even in the IVth century, amidst the widely-extended
h Sanctum Presbyterum Firmum, anno prseterito ob rem
earum Ravennam, et inde Aphricam Siciliamque direximus,
quem putamus jam in Aphricae partibus commorari. Hieronym.
Augustino, Ep. XXX. Aug. Op. Vol. II. p. 36. col. 2. ed. quarto.
Has literulas de sancta Bethleem sancto presbytero Innocentio
dedi perferendas. Hieronym. Aug. Ep. XXIV. p. 29.
1 Note E.

LECTURE I. 23
dominion of Christianity, had not been effaced from
the intercourse and manners of civil life, reclaimed
to itself the waste which barbarian inroads had
made. A distrust of Providence, and a heathen
profligacy of manners, were the sad evidences of an
unchristianized people. Nor were the Clergy them
selves exempt from that general pollution which
took place at this period of confusion. But the
ecclesiastical society happily had the advantage of
some common principle of union, which no other
form of society in the West then enjoyed. They
presented the great check to the complete dis
organization of the whole frame of society. The
Church formed a refuge, where the sympathies of
human nature might once more be felt and an
swered — an asylum from the antisocial elements
which were raging without it. Every thing else
was become partial and local and insulated : Chris
tianity alone exhibited a character of ubiquity.
Under its shade were gathered all nations and
languages, without distinction of Jew or Gentile,
Greek or Barbarian, bond or free.
The Church accordingly, during the IVth and
Vth centuries, was strengthened by great accessions
to the ecclesiastical body from the mass of the
people, as well as from the higher orders of the
community.k But this very circumstance, whilst it
rendered the Latin Clergy the only really influential
power, tended, by the great preponderance which it
k Note F.

24 LECTURE I.
gave them, to render the Church in itself an instru
ment of disorganization. The immense disproportion
which existed between the spiritual chiefs, and the
body over whom they presided, in point of intel
ligence and moral culture, was a temptation to acts
of tyranny, and pride, and avarice. We hear of the
severe oppression in those times, of the inferior
clergy by the superior, and, in general, of the
encroaching and secular spirit of the priests.1 In the
mean time, however, the Latin Clergy, by effectual
steps, secured the throne of the Western Empire
to the Spiritual Power. The several Barbarian
Kings or Emperors, who held the temporal sway,
succeeded only to a portion of the rule of the
Csesars over the West. The real unchanging domi
nation, the truly Roman sway, was the spiritual
one ; lasting in its immortal principle through suc
cessions of dynasties ; often indeed veiling its high
pretensions under the language of adulation and
servility, as it did its persecutions in prayers of
charity and pity ; but at the same time " binding
" kings in chains and nobles in links of iron ;" — in
chains indeed of unearthly temper, and links of
iron that no hand was seen to forge, but against
which sinews of flesh could not avail.
An important difference is to be observed further
between the Greek and Latin controversialists; and
one which considerably affected the character of the
1 Note G.

LECTURE I. 25
Latins, in that point of view, to which I have been
directing your attention, in order to account for the
eventual triumph ofthe Latin Theology. The Greek
was by education a sophist in the proper sense of
that term. His business was Philosophy. But the
Latin Divines of the early centuries were chiefly of
the class of Orators, or Rhetoricians, by profession.
Tertullian, Cyprian, Lactantius, Arnobius, Minu-
cius Felix, Victorinus, Augustine, were all of that
class. Their employment had been either to defend
causes in the courts of judicature, or to instruct
others in the. arts of pleading and composition. The
necessity of the case had imposed this duty on the
Latins ; as all proceedings in the courts throughout
the Roman Empire, and all concerns of public busi
ness, indeed, were carried on in the Latin language.
On the other hand, Greek being cultivated as the
language of philosophy and literature, the idiom of
the learned and the refined, the accomplished master
of that privileged tongue was left to pursue the
speculations of his ancestors, on the high and subtile
questions, of the Origin of the Universe, of Fate
and Providence, and the Nature of Man.
We may clearly perceive a different character of
the earlier Latin Theology, as contrasted with the
Greek of the same period, in this respect. The
Latin flows on more diffusively, more irregularly,
more rhetorically, in a word, in his style of argu
mentation ; dwells on a point which he thinks
strong, without scrupling to recur to it, and insist
on it ; and is far less exact in the meaning which

26 LECTURE I.
he annexes to the terms employed. The Greek,
indeed, shews himself also a rhetorician ; rhetoric
being a branch of his universal philosophy. But he
is principally engaged in illustrating some tenet of
philosophy, and applying it to Christian doctrine.
He is more logical than the Latin, in this sense
that, he is intent rather on proving that something
which he maintains is true, than of enforcing a
belief in it. This, I observe, is the general character
of contrast : whilst we shall occasionally find the
Greek assuming the office of the Advocate, and the
Latin that of the Sophist.
In the schools established by the Emperor Valen-
tinian, in the middle of the IVth century, through
out the Roman Empire, we find the same contrast
in the means of education provided for the study of
the two languages. At the school of Constantinople,
probably the model of all the others, professors in
each department of literature were appointed ; ten
grammarians for each language ; but for the Greek,
a philosopher, and five sophists ; for the Latin,
three orators."1 The Latins, we find, travelled from
school to school, as their services might be required
in the rhetorical department. And they were thus
led to the study of Civil Law, to the deduction of
established principles of jurisdiction to particular
cases, and the mode of applying these principles in
practice. So that whatever philosophy they originally
possessed, was essentially dialectical and rhetorical.
m Stillingfleet, Origines Britann. Vol. I. pp. 212, 213.

LECTURE I. 27
It was no investigation of facts ; it was no discussion
of fundamental principles ; but a practical direction
and use of what was already established. If they
did attempt to philosophize more largely, the specu
lation relapsed into the professorial dogmatism in
which their minds had been trained.
The Greeks, accordingly, regarded the Latins with
disdain ; as nameless in the roll of Philosophy and
Theology. Jerome displayed an anxiety to remove
the unphilosophical character from the theology of
the Latin Church ; as at the most flourishing period
of the Republic, Cicero had endeavoured to remove
it from the Roman literature. " He applied him-
" self to the study of history and antiquity; partly,
" because he found," as Erasmus says in his Life,
" that up even to that time theology with the
" Latins was almost in its infancy, and on that
" account a great many were averse to the reading
" of the divine volumes ; hoping the result would
" be, that more would take delight in sacred litera-
" ture, should any one equal the majesty of theo-
" logy by the dignity of his style of discourse ; and
" partly, in order that there might be matter of
" reply to heathens who despised Christians as
" infants and ineloquent."" But Jerome failed in
the extent of his design, as Cicero also did in his
attempt to introduce a Roman philosophical litera
ture. The state of the Latin portion of the Roman
Empire did not admit of it. A practical theology
n Note H.

28 LECTURE I.
was wanted ; such as could serve the occasions of
men who had to take an active part in the business
of the Church ; and such as accorded with that bent
which the needs of social life had already given to
the minds of the Latins. This then was a theology
which partook more of the character of debate ; in
which the powers of the rhetorician might be suc
cessfully applied, for the carrying of some point in
dispute. The same practical character of the Latin Divines
was illustrated in the nature of the monastic insti
tutions of the West compared with those of the
East.0 There was none of that austerity originally
among the Latin monks, for which the Orientals
were conspicuous. There was no obligation of vows,
° Benedict, at the commencement of the Vlth century, was
the first to introduce vows and solemn engagements into the
monastic institutions of the West. Born in 480, in Italy, at
Nursia. Of the uncongeniality of the monastic life to the Latin world,
we have evidence in the description which Salvian gives of the
reception, which monks experienced in the streets of Carthage.
" If at any time," he says, " a servant of God, or one from the
" convents of the Egyptians, or from the sacred places of Jeru-
" salem, or from the holy and venerable retirements of the
" desert, came into that city on the office of his divine work ; as
" soon as he appeared to the people, he met with contumelies,
" sacrileges, and maledictions : nor this only ; but with the
" most wicked broad-laughs of flagitious men, and the detest-
" ing hisses of ridicule, was he beaten as with thongs." De Gub.
Dei, lib. VIII. p. 190. ed. Baluzii, Paris. 1669.
See Sulpicius Severus' account of the Monastery of St. Martin,
in the neighbourhood of Tours. Fit. B. Martin, cap. 10. — Note I.

LECTURE I. 29
no restriction to place or particular society. The
Latin of the IVth century retired from society, to
be relieved from the grievous burdens which the
iniquities of civil or ecclesiastical rulers laid upon
him ; to enjoy leisure from the functions of public
offices, from which the profession of a monk excused
him.p The Oriental seems to have retired in order
to be alone ; to luxuriate in the dreary and melan
choly loneliness of his meditations ; that he might
be dead to the world, and live to God and himself.
The Latin withdrew himself from other business, in
order to transact with a more intense devotion that
high calling, to which his spiritual citizenship had
exalted him. He sought solitude as a means of
acting more forcibly on the busy scene of society ;
of making his abstract contemplations enter into the
actions of other men ; and thus, even whilst per
sonally absent, being effectually present, amidst the
life of man. Thus were those who had left the life
of monks often called to the office of Bishops ; to
the active superintendence, that is, of the Church,
in the West. They had not disabled themselves, by
solitude, for active duties ; but, on the contrary,
disciplined themselves for office. And in the dis
charge of these duties, many of them shewed that
they had learned the arts of government, and could
carry their measures into effect, through a full
consciousness of their powers.
p Jerome's Life by Erasmus. Hieronym. Oper. Vol. I.
Note J.

30 LECTURE I.
I have dwelt considerably on the ascendancy of
the Latin Church, and the practical character which
it evidenced in contrast with the Oriental ; as I
conceive that the account of this influence of the
Latins, not only is the true view of the Origin of
the Scholastic Philosophy historically ; but contains
in it the general principles of that Philosophy, and
may give us a just Theory of its nature, antece
dently to its proper development. We may discover
in it two principles in action; the maintenance of
an internal principle of liberty in the soul of man
superior to all external restraints ; and the founda
tion of a spiritual authority on that principle,
superior to every other authority. The spiritual
principle was the great bond which drew men toge
ther from the colluvies of barbarism, in which all
civil society was involved at the approaching fall of
the Roman Empire in the West ; and the invisible
dominion founded on it, was that controlling power,
which ultimately became the irresponsible, infallible,
authority of the Latin Church. Neither of these
principles was as yet fully developed ; they were
as yet struggling for existence amidst the adverse
powers of civil commotion and tyranny. The ma
turity of the Scholastic Philosophy was a symptom
and test of their having reached their perfection. I
proceed to point out, how it resulted out of 'that
state of things in the Latin Church which I have
already laid before you.
The practical character of the Latin Theologians

LECTURE I. 31
is still more fully exemplified in the history of the
Church after the first half of the Vth century. The
management of the people, by imparting to them
spiritual counsel and guidance, the instruction of
the young, the regulation of monastic institutions,
the internal order of the ecclesiastical body itself,
the assemblage of Councils, constitute the chief
employment of the Latin Clergy. They succeeded,
in the course of a hundred and fifty years, in con
verting all the schools of learning established by the
Emperors into ecclesiastical societies, and all litera
ture and science into Theology : so that, at the
opening of the VHIth century, the face of civil
society was changed, and the monotony of religious
rule pervaded all things. The continued invasion
of Barbarians, whilst it interrupted the course of
literary labours, and diminished the chance of theo
logical improvement, gave opportunity for increas
ing the dependence of the people on the Clergy,
and kept the Clergy in constant watchfulness for
the maintenance of their spiritual ascendancy. The
importance which the Latin Clergy had acquired
during this interval, when philosophy was silent in
the Western world, and literature degenerated into
a pastime, is evidenced in the influence possessed by
Alcuinq and other ecclesiastics with Charlemagne.
An Anglo-Saxon ecclesiastic, from the school of
York, became the associate and the counsellor of
the greatest monarch of the age. The people were
q Alcuin, born at York about 735.

32 LECTURE I.
reduced to a state like that of the Israelites in
their days of oppression, when " there was no
" smith to be found in all the land of Israel, lest
" the Hebrews should make them swords or spears ;
" but all the Israelites were forced to go down to
" the Philistines to sharpen" the instruments of his
daily work. In the general disturbance of the West,
a second confusion of tongues had taken place ; and
the oracles, both of divine and human wisdom, were
no longer accessible to the mass of believers. The
Christian society at large consisted, in fact, of a
promiscuous assemblage of the most discordant
materials ; all complexions of Barbarian rudeness,
in juxta-position with the relics of Roman civi
lization. The Clergy alone spoke one language ;
sympathizing with all the shades of this vastly-
diversified community, as being drawn from all its
ranks. Possessing too a secret instrument of com
munication in their knowledge of the Latin, the
sacred language of their Theology, they were insu
lated from the surrounding flood of barbarism, and
held together as a mysterious privileged order.1
The same principle acted powerfully within
the sacred order itself. The gifted few of the
' To a certain extent it was required of the laity to make a
confession of Faith, both in the Latin language and in that of
their country. — Jubendum est ut Oratio Dominica, in qua omnia
necessaria humanaej vitas comprehenduntur, et Symbolum Apo-
stolorum, in quo fides Catholica ex integro comprehenditur, ab
omnibus discatur tarn Latine quam. Barbarice, ut quod ore con-
fitentur corde credant. Ex Concilio Cabilonensi, cap. 3. Abselardi
Oper. p. 369. ed Paris. 4to. 1616.

LECTURE I. 33"
Clergy, in relation to the rest of their own body,
were, through their enjoyment of leisure for
the cultivation of their own minds, and for the work
of ecclesiastical government, what the Clergy, on the
whole, were to the religious community. In this
state of things, the schools of Theology became
naturally the source of all intelligence and practical
government. Theologians alone had the secret qn
which the vitality of Power depended ; and the
Civil Rulers, therefore, who had any political saga
city, shewed it, in the dexterous use and direction of
the force, which they could not coerce, and which
was already in possession of the real dominion. The
great number of Schools, or Universities, instituted
or revived by Charlemagne, are evidences, at once,
of the ascendancy of the theological power, and
of the wise policy of the Emperor in availing him
self of it.
But that liberty of human reason, which formed
the basis of the great spiritual society, continued
at the same time to live in the bosom of the Church
itself. The very aggressions of the ecclesiastical
rulers on the liberty of the inferior members of
their own body, or on the community of the Faith
ful at large, tended to keep the spirit of personal
freedom of thought in a constant state of reaction.
The revival, if not the origin, of heresies, is in
a great measure an effect of this reaction. The
Church itself had called forth a principle of resist
ance to constituted powers. It had taught men
u

34 LECTURE I.
to feel, that there was a sentiment of personal inde
pendence which no external coercion could control.
It was only an extension of this sentiment to the
particular matters of religious belief, when indi
vidual members of the Church began to think for
themselves, and to form parties within the Church;
Heresies within the Church would present a refuge,
like that which the Church at large had presented
against the persecution of tyranny without in the
civil world.
The heresies of the West accordingly were par
ticularly distinguished by this character. They
were insurrections of human reason, rebellions
against the domination of the spiritual power.
Thus they were comparatively very few, at the
time when the human understanding was humbled
and debased by the ignorance and barbarism of the
age preceding the reign of Charlemagne. They
were more frequent in the East during the same
period. Here they were the offspring of philosophy,
of those relics at least of philosophy, which sub
sisted among a people still proud of their intel
lectual elevation above the rest of the world, and
cherishing their literature as the splendid and
endeared recollection of former glory. In the
West, however, Heresy produced little disturbance,
until the period, when the vigour, infused by more
active measures of education, roused the mind from
the apathy into which it had sunk. The Arian
controversy seems to have been only faintly pro
longed : and the opinions of the Semi-Pelagians in

LECTURE I. 35
the South of Gaul had never perhaps been entirely
silenced.8 But the Predestinarian dispute of the
IXth century gives us a lively picture of the con
flict, between the liberty of private reason and the
spiritual ascendancy of the Church. There we see
the effect of education, in awakening the dormant
power of the public mind, and the extent of juris
diction over opinions which the Latin Clergy
claimed. This controversy is particularly worthy
of remark in the history of the Scholastic Philo
sophy; as it appears the first occasion, on which
the Latins employed the speculations of human
reason, to counteract the unauthorized conclusions
of a member of their own body. John, surnamed
Scotus Erigena,' appellations denoting his race
and place of birth, a philosopher, at the court of
Charles the Bald, was engaged by Hincmar, Arch
bishop of Rheims, to answer the obnoxious positions
of the Predestinarian Gotteschalc." All previous
5 Note K.
' Scotus, as the common appellation of the inhabitant of
Ireland and Scotland ; Erigena, marking that he was born in
Ireland. Bede, speaking of Ireland, says : " Haec autem pro-
" prie patria Scottorum est ; ab hac egressi, ut diximus, tertiam
" in Britannia Brittonibus et Pictis gentem addiderunt." Hist.
Eccl. lib. I. c. 1. — He was born between 800 and 815: the
period of his death, according to Baronius, in 883. The story of
his having been pierced to death by the writing instruments
of the Scholars at Malmesbury, in a tumultuous assault in the
school, though scarcely credible in itself, is characteristic of
the insubordination and licence of the Schools of the middle
age. — Note L.
u Note M. D 2

36 LECTURE I.
defences of orthodoxy had been the works of the
Clergy, the spiritual advocates of the faith, the
Bishops and Saints of the Church. The works
themselves thus far had something of the spiritual
character in them ; — they were invested with the
authority of the holy persons, from whose dictation
they proceeded. But here we see a layman and a
philosopher by profession, employed as the chosen
advocate of the sentence of the spiritual ruler. The
force of reason evidently began to be acknowledged
and felt, as a powerful antagonist which the Church
had fostered in its own system, and against which
the Church therefore had need to fortify itself with
weapons of the same temper. The expedient,
indeed, was found to be of dangerous effect ; since
the philosophy of Erigena served rather to scatter
the seeds of still more dangerous perplexity to the
creed of the Church : and Hincmarx was forced to
disown the assistance which he had inconsiderately
invoked.51 From this period we may notice a continued
* Hincmar, driven from his see by an incursion of the Nor
mans, died December 21, 882, three years after the death of
the persecuted Gotteschalc, and in the 37th year of his
Episcopate. 1 Two Councils condemned the work of Scotus, as containing
hsereses plurimas, ineptas qusestiunculas, et aniles paene fabellas,
pluribus syllogismis conclusas, Scotorumque pultes puritati
fidei nauseam inferentes, &c. Find. Prcedestin. et Gratiae Hist.
et Chron, Synops. p. 12. in the work entitled, Veterum Auclorum,
qui IX sceculo de Prcedestin. et Gratia scripserunt, Opera et
Fragmenta, by Mauguin, 2 vols. 4to. Paris, 1650.

LECTURE I. 37
struggle in the Latin Church, between the advo
cates of Reason and the advocates of Authority.
The contest between Ratramn and Paschase on the
doctrine of the Eucharist ; of Lanfranc with Beren-
ger on the same subject ; of Anselm with Roscelin
on the nature of Universals ; the complaints of
Bernard against the dialectical theology of Abe-
lard ;z are all illustrations of the collision between.
Reason and Authority.3 All these disputes, in fact,
were in principle the same. They were only varied
forms of rationalism b — the pure exertions of the
mind within itself, conscious of its own powers,
and struggling to push itself forth against the con
stringent force of the Spiritual government. The
mind sought no diversion into the paths of general
literature ; — there was no study of history or natural
science; — none of these could afford it that relief
which it demanded, if even opportunities had existed
for the prosecution of such studies. An effort was
z Radbert Paschase, Abbot of Corbey in France, A.D. 844,
died April 26, 851. — Ratramn, or Bertram, a Monk of Corbey,
contemporary with Paschase. — Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canter
bury, consecrated 1070 ; died May 24, 1089. — Berenger, died
1088 ; his controversy with Lanfranc began in 1047. — Anselm,
Archbishop of Canterbury, born 1034, died 1109. — Roscelin,
died 1090. — Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux, the great Saint of the
Xllth century, born 1091.— Abelard, born 1079, died 1142.—
Note N.
a Note O.
b This term, having been lately appropriated to a particular
class of theological opinions, may require the explanation, that.
it is here used iu the general sense corresponding with its
etymology.

38 LECTURE I.
required, that immediately bore against the pressure
by which it was distressed. The reaction must be,
where the force had been directed. The Spiritual
power forbad the mind to think for itself, to use
its own faculties, to examine, to discuss, to object.
Obedience was become another word for Religion.0
It was no wonder, then, that some more liberal
spirits essayed those natural exertions of their
faculties on which the painful prohibition lay. It
was like one who had been bound hand and foot,
feeling the luxury of the limbs once more free,
and enjoying the perception that he yet has strength
and energy. It is enough for such an one, to
feel the play of his muscles, to exult that he has
broken the bands in sunder, and cast away the cords
from him. We can sympathize with the wildness
of his gesticulations, however distorting and fan
tastic. So we may appreciate the efforts of the
Rationalists of the middle ages. Their mind exulted
in the simple perception that it still was free.
It is impossible for us, at this day, to conceive
the force of the pressure of authority on the mind
in those ages. The Schools of Philosophy were
entirely in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Power.
The discipline of moral restraint was extremely
weak ; for we read of acts of the greatest outrage
' Aquinas, it is said, being asked why he had suffered hirn-
self to be annoyed by some troublesome brother of his Order,
who had worn him out with walking, answered, " By nothing
" else is Religion perfected but by Obedience." Vita S. Thomae
Aquin. Oper. Vol. I. ed. Antuerpiae, 1612.

LECTURE I. 39
committed by the students. The same spirit of
irregularity and violence, of which Augustine com
plains as disgracing the Schools of his day, at Car
thage, Milan, and Rome, seems to have descended
to those of the subsequent ages.d But, amidst the
moral disorder which prevailed, there was the
greatest severity of mental coercion/ The case
was similar in the monasteries : the greatest moral
irregularities f were suffered to exist in them, amidst
all the strictness of the creed professed, and the
solemnities of rituals, and rules.g A passive,
unthinking obedience to spiritual direction, was the
great object aimed at in all these institutions. It
was the intellect, therefore, that was the point of
attack, — the governing principle within the indi
vidual. If he were instructed in a school of
Philosophy, he was taught to think as his supe
riors thought. If he were brought under the rule
of a Religious Order, he was taught to sacrifice
his own personality in the will of the superior. It
was no desire accordingly of what we now under
stand by liberty, which actuated the struggles of
human reason : the licence of the times afforded a
d Augustin. Confess. 1. V. c. 8. c. 12.— Note P.
e Cod. Theod. 1. 14. tit. 9. A.D. 370, gives the severe restric
tions imposed on Students at Rome. Du Boullay cites a canon
of the IVth council of Tojedo to the same purport. Hist. Acad.
Paris, t. I. p. 76.
f Abelard was never noticed with censures on account of his
moral irregularities, whilst he was severely attacked for his
speculations. c Note Q.

40 LECTURE I.
sort of compensation for the miseries of social
tyranny : but it was a resistance to the internal spell
which bound the faculties; a resumption of the long-
lost perception of personal individuality. There
was no sympathy between the efforts of the Italian
Republics to obtain social liberty, and those within
the Church to recover personal freedom of thought;
though both efforts were proceeding at the same
period.11 It is a curious fact that the Spiritual Powers
persisted in strenuously opposing the successive
efforts of the Rationalists, and at the same time
gradually adopted the very system to which they
were so averse, into their own authoritative Theo
logy. They opposed, that is, both the principle of
the Rationalists, — the principle that human reason
was to be exercised in matters of religion, — and the
conclusions to which the unrestrained use of it had
led. But afterwards, when the books of contro
versialists had passed into records of opinions, they
readily adopted, as guides in their decisions of any
new opinions, the conclusions of that rationalizing
method which as such had been so passionately
denounced. Throughout the whole period, when
the Scholastic Philosophy may be said to have been
growing, we meet with constant disclaimers, on the

h This has been remarked by M. Guizot, in his admirable
Lectures on the History of Civilization in Europe. Cours d' His
toire Modeme, Lecon VI. p. 37. Paris, 1828.

LECTURE I. 41
part of Church-leaders, of the system itself — a con
stant appeal to the authority of the Scriptures and
holy Fathers against the rationalist spirit of the
times. Luther himself has not more vehemently
denounced the Scholastic Philosophy, than Bernard
and other Doctors anterior to the Reformation, have
declaimed against the importunateness of the spe
culations of their times.1 Thus even the celebrated
work of Peter Lombards Bishop of Paris in the
XHth century, did not escape the censures of theo
logians, at the time when it appeared.1 After
wards it was regarded with the highest veneration
as the precious depository of the Sentences of the
great Fathers and Luminaries of the Church ; and
became itself an Authority of the Church. Amidst,
too, all the prohibitions of Papal Legates in suc
cessive reformations of the University of Paris ;
amidst express instructions to the Clergy, that they
should seek rather to become theodidactif than
versed in the arts of human disputation ; appeared
the works of Albert, surnamed the Great, and of
his illustrious disciple Thomas Aquinas" — the most
elaborate specimens of that exercise of Reason
which the Church denounced. When the authors
themselves were dead, and the reputed sanctity of

• Note R.
Peter Lombard, Bishop of Paris 1159, died 1164.
i Note S. m Note T.
" Albert, born about 1193, died 1280. — Thomas Aquinas,
born 1224, died 1274 ; canonized by the Pope John XXII.
1323.— Note U.

42 LECTURE I.
their lives diffused a savour of religion over their
speculations, then the value of such subtile defences
of the doctrine of the Church against the like
assaults of a self-interpreting Reason was acknow
ledged : and these works, especially those of the
latter, — the Augustine, as we may call him, of the
middle age, — were consecrated with the appro
bation of the Spiritual Power, as part of the stock
of Ecclesiastical Authority.
The same effect, it may be observed, had taken
place in the lid and Hid centuries. The phi
losophizing Divines were continually objected to, by
those who held forth the Scripture as the only
Authority on sacred things. Still the philosophical
Theology proceeded. Clement of Alexandria,0 in
the lid century, undertook its special defence in
his work entitled Stromata, inculcating its sub
servience to Christian knowledge. This work after
wards passed into the Church as an authoritative
document. In the Latin Church the case was different in this
respect: that the peculiar authority which that
Church claimed, was derived immediately from the
practical influence of its great Divines, Jerome and
Augustine, the two, who may be regarded as, in an
especial sense, the Fathers of the Latin Church.
With their exertions, they established also their
writings, as a documentary appeal next in authority
to the Scriptures themselves. And though these
0 Died A.D. 220.

LECTURE I. 43
writings were extremely argumentative, they were
more the authoritative declarations of the spiritual
rulers, commanding the silence of other reasoners
in the presence of their judgment. We trace
accordingly in the Scholastic Philosophy a constant
preference for the authorities of these two, and of
Augustine more particularly, in whom the whole
power of the Latin Church ultimately resided. In
the Hd and Hid centuries, then, the opposition
was rather to the philosophies of Plato and Aris
totle, as corruptions of the simplicity of the faith.
Subsequently, the opposition of the Latin Bishops
and Saints was dictated by a jealousy for the esta
blished opinions and conclusions of the venerated
Fathers of the Church.1"
The work of Peter Lombard, which afterwards
constituted the great text book of the Scholastic
Theologians, and which established to that writer
the title of " The Master," or " The Master of the
Sentences," was exactly such an exposition of Chris
tian doctrine as we might have expected from that
conflict between Reason and Authority, which existed
in the Latin Church. It is an elaborate compila
tion of passages from the writings of the eminent
Latin Doctors ; a tissue stiff with antique embroi
deries, and displaying the ingenuity of the artist
who has so curiously wrought the patchwork into
a whole. He introduces little reasoning of his
own, only enough to give a consistency to his
p Note V.

44 LECTURE I.
citations, and he avoids all reference to the opinions
of heathen philosophers. He seems throughout on
his guard against the suspicion of exercising the
privilege of thinking for himself too far, endeavour
ing to shew, that he follows received opinions, rather
than his own speculations.4 The work was pro
bably written in imitation of a treatise of a Greek
Father of the VHIth century, — the treatise " On the
Orthodox Faith," by John, a Monk of Damascus,
celebrated in the Iconoclast disputes of his times,
or Damascenus, as he is usually termed; — a writer,
who sets out with the profession, that he states
nothing of his own, but only what the holy and wise
had taught.1 This work had been translated into
Latin,8 and was regarded with great deference by
q Aristotle is incidentally referred to by Lombard, Sentent. lib.
II. dist. 1. B, but not in the way of authority.
'Epui roiyapovv kpiov ovSiv' to. Sc anopaDrfV deioiQ re Ka'i aofdle
avl~pao~i \e\eypiiva avXkrtjoi-qv licdrio-opiai. Joan.Damasc. Dialectica.
Oper. vol. I. p. 9. He chiefly follows Gregory Nazianzen.
Peter Lombard, speaking of him, says : Joannes Damascenus,
inter doctores Gragcorum maximus, in libro quem de Trinitate
scripsit, quem et Papa Eugenius transferri fecit, &c. Sent. I. dist.
19. p. 59. ed. Louan.
s Eugenio tertio, summo Pontifice, liber de Fide Orthodoxa
Latine redditus est a Burgundione cive Pisano. Hac porro
translatione usi sunt Magister Sententiarum, Sanctus Thomas,
aliique subinde Theologi ....
Id enim proposuerat sibi, ut sua nequaquam, aut nova, cude-
ret, sed veterum potius placita, variis in voluminibus sparsa, in
unum opus theologicum congereret .... Quamobrem, nedum in
Oriente, verum etiam in Occidente, et apud Latinos, magna
semper fuit apud Theologos ipsius auctoritas. Le Quien, Pro-
legom. in lib. de Fid. Orth. Damasc. Oper. torn. I. p. 119.

LECTURE I. 45
the Latin Divines, for the very reason, probably,
that it was a mere record of opinions already sanc
tioned by the approbation of the Church. In Lom
bard, however, there is little ofthe logical precision
by which Damascenus is characterized. He is intent
on displaying his authorities for the positions
advanced. At the same time the form of Questions,
in which the several points of Theology are dis
cussed, shews the inquisitive spirit of the age in
which such a work appeared ; that, though Abelard
had been silenced by Councils, the spirit which
crowded his Lectures with hearers,* was still vigo
rous in the Church itself. The Book of the Sen
tences, so far as it was disputatious, expressed the
demands of this spirit ; so far as it was a com
pilation of authorities, maintained the spiritual
supremacy of the Church.u The previous remarks
have tended to shew, that the Latin Theology was
not averse to disputation, from its earliest period
of development : only it affected not a merely
literary disputation, but such as had reference to
some practical effect. The connexion then of dis
putation in this fundamental work of the Scholastic
1 Coactus est ille scripta sua coram igni dare. Nee idcirco
juventus studia aemulans ab eo defecit. Paul. JEmil. Veronens.
Hist. Franc. V. — Prcef. Apolog. Abaslardi Oper.
u In the time of Charles V. this work was held in so import-
.ant a hght, that of two Professorships instituted at Louvain by
that Emperor, one was appointed for the interpretation of the
Old and New Testaments, the other for the interpretation of the
" Book of the Sentences." Prcef. ad Pet. Lomb. Sent. Louan.
1553.

46 LECTURE I.
Theology, with the enforcement of deference to the
spiritual authority, gave it that popularity which it
obtained in the Church.x
But no sooner was the principle of such a work
recognized, than other works, answering the same
requisitions of human reason, appeared. The Xlth
and Xllth centuries had evinced extraordinary
activity in the exercise of the human intellect. But
the efforts then put forth were desultory and irre
gular. They were the results of individual enter-
prize and courage : like the voyages of mariners
pushing out to sea, not knowing where the tide and
winds might drive them. Now a principle was
established, according to which human reason might
freely expatiate. The liberty of commenting and
discussing without limit might be indulged, pro
vided the intellect confined itself within the range
of established authorities. The world of conse
quences and deductions was open to the Rationalist,
whilst that of First Principles was surrounded with
Stygian waters. What the speculator had to guard
against was, the appearance of proposing any thing
new ; any thing that did not admit of being traced
up to some received opinion. The suspicion of ori-
* Lombard profited at once by the previous labours of Abe-
lard, and by the example of the persecution which had attended
them. He was not only a hearer of Abelard, but is said to have
made Abelard's Treatise of Theology a frequent subject of his
study. Not. ad Hist. Calam. P. Abcelardi. — Oper. p. 1160.
Whilst he probably therefore derived much of his own Theology
from fhat work, he was careful to throw it into a less objection
able form.

LECTURE I. 47
ginality was fatal to the reputation of the Scholastic
Divine. " If any man speak, let him speak as the
" oracles of God ;" that is, according to the sense
of the Scholastic age, let him speak only the words
of those, whom God has successively sent as the
ministers and dispensers of sacred truth/ If it was
a point on which the Church had pronounced, that
was no longer a matter of opinion. It was to be
received as a sentence. To discuss it simply as an
opinion was heretical. Hence the expedient of Dis
tinctions ; the artifice, by which an acute Reason
could maintain its own hypothesis, consistently with
the devotion due to the prescriptions of authority.
It is under this point of view that we shall discern
the origin of that speculative dialectical character
which the Scholastic Philosophy assumed. It was the
crisis, when the reasonings of individual inquirers
ceased to be simply expressions of personal contem
plations, but were pursued on a systematic plan,
that combined in it the restless impatience of
the human mind, and the arbitrary determinations'
of the spiritual authority ; that made Heresy itself
the handmaid of orthodoxy ; like the fable, which
would represent pleasure and pain linked together
by the heads, as the means of neutralizing their
opposition^ Why this Philosophy assumed the particular
form which it actually exhibits ; — by what means
y Note W.
z Platon. Phsed. c. 9.

48 LECTURE I.
Aristotle became the great oracle of the system,
superseding the more theological philosophy of
Plato ; — and the general character imparted to the
Theology of the Western Church from that cir
cumstance ; will be the subjects of consideration
in my next Lecture.

LECTURE II.
FORMATION OF THE SCHOLASTIC THEOLOGY.

SUMMARY.
General statement of the evil of a Logical Theology — The
Church sanctions the use of Logic only as an art of defence—
Platonism the established Philosophy of the Church — An art of
Logic indispensable to the speculating Christian in the West —
Division of the Sciences in the middle age — Tendency of the
age to blend all into a metaphysical Logic, or Dialectic — Logic
perverted into a Science of Investigation — Obstructions to the
real improvement of Logic — Ignorance of Aristotle's writings in
themselves — Importance of the writings of Boethius — Effect of
the Crusades in opening fresh sources of knowledge — Progress
of Scholasticism illustrated in the division of parties into
Nominalists and Realists — Triumph of Realism — ¦
Realism, the scientific basis of Scholasticism — Nominalism
the resource of the more liberal speculators — Opposition between
Duns Scotus, and Ockam — Ascendancy of a Logical Philosophy
evidenced in the subsequent state of knowledge.
Theology erected into an exact demonstrative Science — its
Principles drawn from the incomprehensible nature of the
Divine Being — Regard to authority maintained, by assigning
Faith as the preliminary to the whole Speculation — Aristotle's
Philosophy applied as a method of eliciting the Divine truths
involved in the Scripture — This resulted in a combination of the
Ideal Theory of Platonism with the Sensualism of Aristotle's
Philosophy — Logic the instrument in effecting this result —
Union of Mysticism and Argumentation in the Scholastic
writings — Abuse by the Schoolmen of the disputatious form of
Aristotle's writings.
Fundamental errors of Scholastic Theology, 1. Its neglect of
the Historical Nature of the Christian Scriptures — consequent
loss of the real instruction contained in them. — 2. Their Rhe
torical nature ajso overlooked in an exclusive attention to the
mere words of revelation. — 3. Their Ethical lessons also dis
paraged in the pursuit of theoretic truth.

e2

Acts XIX. 8—11.
And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for
the space of three months, disputing and persuading the
things concerning the kingdom of God. But when divers
were hardened, and beheved not, but spake evil of that way
before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated
the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus.
And this continued by the space of two years ; so that all
they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus,
both Jews and Greeks.

EicteXQwi' Se etc rr/v cvvaywyrff, iirappr)o-ia(eTO, iirl [irjvag rpelg
SiaXeyofjLevog, Kal icelQiav ra. icepl rrjg (iaoikeiag tov Qeov. '€lg Si
Tivtg lo-KKrfpvvovTO Kal fjireidovv, KaKoXoyovvreg rr/v odor ivinrwv tov
wXrfQove, airoo-Tag air' avTwv, cKfiwpto-e rovg p.adrjra.g, Kad' rffiipav
SiaXeyopevog iv Trj a-^pKy Tvpuvvov Tivog. Towro Se iyivero iirl err)
Svo, &ote iravTag rovg KaroiKovvrag rifv 'Aaiav aKOvcrai rov \6yov
rov TLvpiov 'Irjaov, 'lovSaiovg re Kal "E,\\r]vag.

Introgressus autem synagogam, cum fiducia loquebatur
per tres menses, disputans et suadens de regno Dei. Cum
autem quidam indurarentur, et non crederent, maledicentes
viam Domini coram multitudine, discedens ab eis, segregavit
discipulos, quotidie disputans in schola Tyranni cujusdam.
Hoc autem factum est per biennium, ita ut omnes, qui
habitabant in Asia, audirent verbum Domini, Judasi atque
Gentiles. Lat. Vulg.

LECTURE II.

In my first Lecture, I have endeavoured to shew
the origin of the Scholastic Philosophy, in the pecu
liar circumstances of the Latin Church ; that it was
such a system, as naturally grew out of the struggle
continually subsisting in the West between Reason
and Authority. I now purpose to explain the
nature of that Philosophy itself, when it became the
acknowledged system of the Church ; to give some
account of its formation ; and of the general cha
racter of the Theology resulting from it.
The subject immediately before us, is one of
the most serious interest to all, who have a just
concern for the maintenance of sound practical
Christianity. We are now tracing to its origin
that speculative logical Christianity, which survives
among us at this day ; and which has been in all
ages the principal obstacle, as I conceive, to the
union and peace of the Church of Christ. To
some indeed the assertion may even seem strange,
that the cause of Christianity has suffered to such
extent, from the logical character of the speculations

54 LECTURE II.
adopted into its system. They may readily admit
in general terms, that the intermixture of any spe
culation whatever with the body of religious truth,
must be detrimental to that truth. But they may
not be aware, at the same time, of the mischief
arising from the purely logical character of the spe
culation. It will be the object of the whole of the
present course of Lectures, to point out this mis
chief. But in order that I may carry my hearers
along with me throughout in my design, I would
place in front of the observations now to be sub
mitted, the nature of that evil which Scholasticism
embodies in it, — the evil of a Logical Theology.
If it be inquired then, why a Logical Theology
should be injurious to the cause of Christian truth,
we must seek an account of the case, not in the
association of any particular truths of human reason
with those of revelation, but in the simple fact of
the irrelevance of all deduction of consequences to
the establishment of religious doctrine. The Scrip
ture intimates to us certain facts concerning the
Divine Being : but conveying them to us by the
medium of language, it only brings them before us
darkly, under the signs appropriate to the thoughts
of the human mind. And though this kind of
knowledge is abundantly instructive to us in point
of sentiment and action ; teaches us, that is, both
how to feel, and how to act, towards God ; — for it is
the language that we understand, the language
formed by our own experience and practice ; — it
is altogether inadequate in point of Science. The

LECTURE II. 55
most perfect reasonings founded on the terms of
theological propositions, amount only to evidences
of the various connexions of the signs employed.
We may obtain by such reasonings, greater precision
in the use of those signs. But the most accurate
conclusion still wants a key to interpret it. There
must be in fact a repeated revelation, to authorize
us to assert, that this or that conclusion represents
to us some truth concerning God.
If then it should appear, that the Scholastic Phi
losophy was in its fundamental character, a Logical
Theology, the nature of that evil which it has
imported into Religion, will be sufficiently apparent.
And antecedently to our entering into the exa
mination of particular points, the reason will be
seen in general, of that vast apparatus of technical
terms, which Christian Theology now exhibits. It
will appear, that, whilst theologians of the schools
have thought they were establishing religious truth
by elaborate argumentation, they have been only
multiplying and arranging a theological language.
Nor let it be thought that the evil has rested
here ; — that the mere futility of the process has
worked its own antidote. Experience tells us that
it has not rested here. The signs have been con
verted into things. The combination and analysis
of words which the Logical Theology has produced,
have given occasion to the passions of men, to arm
themselves in defence of the phantoms thus called
into being. Not only have professed theologians,
but private Christians, been imposed on, by the

56 LECTURE II.
specious religion of terms of Theology ; and have
betrayed often a fond zeal in the service of their
idol-abstractions, not unlike that of the people of
old, who are said to have beaten the air with
spears, to expel the foreign gods by whom their
country was supposed to be occupied.a For my
part, I believe it to be one of the chief causes of the
infidelity which prevails among speculative men.
Notions are proposed to them, which they feel them
selves competent to examine with freedom ; because
they have an instinctive perception of the source
from which they are derived. Every one who
reflects at all, has some knowledge of metaphysical
truth ; for it is the truth that is most intimate with
him. And when a reflecting person, accordingly,
has notions proposed to him, which he finds to be
part of the internal stock of principles belonging to
his nature, he is led to compare them with each
other, to discern contrarieties, and to reject what
perplexes and confounds him.
Premising these observations, with the view of
keeping steadily before the attention, the object,
not only of this Lecture in particular, but of the
whole course ; and as a general index to the
remarks which I shall be continually directing to
the same point ; I proceed now, to give a sketch
of the progress of Christian Theology to that state,
from which the evil consequences adverted to, have
flowed. These evil consequences have long been
fully acknowledged in the parallel case of Physical
° Herodotus, in his account of the Caunians.

LECTURE II. 57
Science. It has been admitted there, that conclu
sions from abstract terms, are no valid indications
of facts in nature. May we hope, that the time
will come, when the like will be as fully, and as
practically, admitted in Theology !
" Time was," says a Greek Father," " when
" things with us were flourishing and well-ordered ;
" when this exquisiteness, and precision, and tech-
" nicality, of Theology, had not so much as access
" to the divine courts ; when the saying or hearing
" any thing of subtilty, was accounted the same as
" playing tricks with pebbles that deceive the sight
" by sleight-of-hand, or as imposing on spectators
" in dancing with various and effeminate inflexions;
" when simplicity and ingenuousness of expression
" had the estimation of piety. But from the time
" of the Sexti and the Pyrrhos, the tongue of
" antithesis,0 like some grievous and malignant
" plague, has insinuated its corruption into our
" Churches, and frivolity has been considered eru-
" dition ; and, as the Book of the Acts says, we
" spend our time in nothing else but in telling or
" hearing something new."d
b Gregor. Nazianz. Orat. XXI. p. 380. ed. Prun. Paris, 1609 ;
also Orat. XXIII. p. 422.— Note A. Lecture II.
0 Antithesis was the favourite expedient ofthe heretic Marcion.
By stating antitheses, or contrarieties, in the Old and New Tes
taments, Marcion wished to prove, that the God of the Jews was
distinct from the God of the Christians. See Tertullian adv.
Marcion. lib. I. c. 11. lib. II. c. 29. — The expression appears to
be drawn from the ancient Physical Philosophy, in which the
doctrine of Contrarieties was a fundamental principle.
d Note B.

58 LECTURE II.
In this passage, Gregory Nazianzen, writing
during the keen agitation of the Arian disputes, is
expressing his strong dislike of that disputatious
logic, which had proved an active weapon of dis
turbance to the Church. Early in the Latin Church,
in the writings of Tertullian, we find the like remon
strances against the dialectical warfare with which
heresy assailed the doctrine of the Trinity.6 From
other ecclesiastical writers also, many passages might
be collected to a similar purport. And yet the great
Father of Latin orthodoxy, Augustine, expressly
directs the Christian student to acquaint himself
with the discipline of disputation, the Logic or Dia
lectic of those times ; characterizing it, as available
for "the penetration and solution of all kinds of
" questions in sacred literature ;" and only caution
ing against " a passion for wrangling, and a childish
" sort of ostentation of deceiving an adversary."1
To logical science, in fact, simply considered as
an art of defence, as a discipline of disputation
applicable to the service of orthodoxy, there was
never any indisposition on the part of the Church
authorities. The most violent declaimers against
the refinements of logic are often, on the contrary,
examples of the most strenuous and undaunted
argumentation in their own writings. As defenders
e Tertull. de Praescript. Haer. c. vii. p. 205. fol.
f Sed disputationis disciplina ad omnia genera quaestionum
quae in Uteris Sanctis sunt, penetranda et dissolvenda, et pluri-
mum valet : tamen ibi cavenda est libido rixandi, et puerilis
quaedam ostentatio decipiendi adversarium. August, de Doctr.
Christ, lib. II. c. 31.

LECTURE II. 59
of the sacred truth, they would justify themselves
by an appeal to the manner and the precept of the
Scriptures. The Epistles, it would be observed, were
for the most part works of controversy. St. Paul is
particularly represented in the passage of the Acts,
which I have already read, and in other places, as
" disputing and persuading the things concerning
" the kingdom of God."g The word "disputing" —
m the original, BiaXeyofievos- — would be recognised as
the technical term, by which the Greeks denoted
their familiar exercise of philosophical discussion ;
and which gave the name of Dialectic to their ori
ginal logical science. Again, in the conversations
of our Saviour himself, traces would be found of
the argumentative method of the ancient Schools :
such as the dilemma respecting the baptism of John :h
and the mode in which he sometimes evades a par
ticular question, by putting a question in return.
To the same purport would be interpreted, the de
scription of him in the midst of the Jewish Doctors,
hearing them and asking them questions.1 Such
passages as these are expressly referred to, indeed,
s Note C.
h This instance is still more striking when we refer to the
Greek, Matt. xxi. 24. 'Epwnjffw vpag Kq-ytb Xoyov eva — expres
sions which remind us of the Socratic method of disputation — the
erotetic method by which the Greek sage used to extort the truth
from his reluctant opponent in argument. See also Matt. xxii.
41—46. 1 'E-KepbrrwvTa. Luke ii. 46. Duodecim annos Salvator imple-
verat, et in templo senes de quaestionibus legis interrogans,
magis docet, dum prudenter interrogat. Hieronym. Epist. ad
Paulin. p. 6. Opera, Vol. I.

60 LECTURE II.
by theological writers, in order to prove, that the
science of argumentation is a just accomplishment
of the Christian, who would " give a reason of the
" hope that is in him." Still more, the word Logos
has been singled out for especial remark ; and its
application to Christ, as the Reason or Wisdom, and
Word, of God, has been cited, as an account of the
connexion of Logic, the science of words and rea
sons, with Christian Theology .k
It would appear, therefore, that the authorities of
the Church objected only to the employment of logic
in discussing questions of religion, when it was found
a vexatious instrument in the hands of the heretic.
Where the disputant professed an agreement with
the prescriptive views of the Church, there was no
objection in this case to the use of subtilties, which
otherwise incurred the severity of reprobation and
invective. Even sophisms, it was conceded, might
be rightly employed, where the design was, to esta
blish the orthodox truth, and subvert the false and
delusive conclusions of heresy.1 Thus was a kind
of Lacedaemonian policy pursued in regard to the
cultivation and exercise of logical science in the
Church. The member of the spiritual common
wealth was trained to acts of hostility against the
stranger and the enemy, but was most inconsistently
expected to live in quietness and inaction at home.
The whole institution was for war abroad ; whilst
he was strictly prohibited from displaying the skill
which he had acquired, in any occasion of domestic
" Note D. ' Note E.

LECTURE II. 61
grievance. The natural consequence was, that, as
the Spartan was restless within his own territory,
so the Christian logician was ever impatient to exert
his disciplined acuteness within the pale of the
Church itself.
Aristotle had been the great authority of some of
the early heretics. The speculations on the Trinity,
introduced by Artemon and Theodotus in the lid
century, were imputed to their study of Aristotle,
amongst other philosophers and authors of exact
science.™ A prejudice against Aristotle appears to
have been created from that circumstance among
the professors of Christianity ; so far, that " Aristo
telic subtilty " was the familiar expression for a minute
and captious logic ; and the name of the philosopher
himself became almost a by-word for the master
and guide of each adventurous reasoner in Theo
logy." Unjust and unreasonable as this imputation
was, it undoubtedly had its weight. It is enough
to give a name to any matter of objection, for the
many to join in the clamour against what they have
not examined, or have no disposition to examine.
Thus a traditional dislike to the logic, or rather the
philosophy in general, of Aristotle ; — for he was
chiefly known as a logical Philosopher ; — descended
from the early ages of the Church ; and his philo
sophy, accordingly, had to fight its way to the throne,
which it afterwards occupied with an undisputed,
unlimited, dominion.
So far, indeed, as Philosophy was owned by the
m Note F. n Note G.

62 LECTURE II.
Church, the Platonism of Alexandria was the ascend
ant system. The piety of Platonism, its abstracted
ness from the visible world, its elevation of the
moral sentiments, recommended it forcibly to the
imagination and the feelings of the contemplative
theologian. It appeared eminently, in contrast with
other systems, a knowledge of divine things ; a
knowledge, which led the mind to " acquaint itself
" with God, and be at peace." The Aristotelic Phi
losopher was regarded as a profane intruder, bring
ing the noisy jargon of the world into a sanctuary,
where every thought and feeling should be hushed
in holy contemplation. The busy spirit of the Latin
Churchman was a strong counteraction to this mys
ticism. Still the expressed partiality of Augustine
for the philosophy of Plato, combined with the in
vectives against Aristotle, thrown out from time to
time, had established that philosophy, in name at
least, as the orthodox system of the Western
Church.0 But whatever were the objections to Aristotle,
and to the art with which his name was associated,
it was impossible that logical science could remain
dormant in such a state of things, as that which the
Christian Church presented in the middle age. The
principles which I pointed out in my former Lec
ture, as conspiring to the rise of the Scholastic
Philosophy, the liberty of individual mind, and the
restraint of spiritual authority, would necessarily
force the mind into an artificial method of philoso-
" Note H.

LECTURE II. 63
phizing. The intellect was in a situation, analogous
to that of a heart cut off from all that used to give
play to its feelings, and turning inwardly to feed on
itself. An art of Logic answered these internal
cravings of the mind. It enabled the mind to wan
ton within the limits of prescribed hypotheses, and
to indulge in excursions which gave at least the
semblance of freedom to its efforts. Here was the
fundamental grievance, which led the intellectual
Christian of the middle age to cultivate a subtile
logic ; and raised the name of Aristotle to that
dreary eminence, from which he looks down on the
subject realms of Scholasticism.
The arts indeed were divided into different de
partments of study. The mystical number of Seven
completed the enumeration of them : but even in
this narrow range there was sufficient to exercise
and discipline the intellect, had they been independ
ently pursued. The three first, technically called
the Trivium, were Grammar,5 Logic, Rhetoric;
forming together the elementary instruction of the
Schools. The remaining four, under the corre
sponding name ofthe Quadrivium, or the Mathesis,
being Arithmetic, Geometry, Music," Astrology,1
p John of Salisbury gives an interesting account of what was
taught under the name of Grammar, in what he says of Bernard
of Chartres, in his Tract entitled Metalogicus, lib. I. cap. 24.
p. 780.— Note I.
q On the connexion of Music with Theology, see Abelard,
Introd. ad Theol. lib. I. Oper. p. 1017.— Note J.
1 Astrology was the name for what we now call Astronomy,
as well as for the mystical art of divination by the stars.

64 LECTURE II.
were the studies of the proficient. In fact, how
ever, no one of these sciences was independently
pursued. All were studied in subservience to Theo
logy ; as subordinate sciences, handmaids, and mi
nisters, to Theology, the queen-science, to which all
owed obeisance and service. The result was, of
course, that no one science was studied perfectly, or
on its own principles ; and soon, all were absorbed
in one vast speculation, in which Logic took the lead ;
but of which the constituent principles were, an
abstruse system of Metaphysics drawn from the
philosophy of Language.
The neglect into which the different arts fell in
process of time, is important to be observed ; for it
marks the direction, in which the efforts of specula
tion were then tending. The mind seized on every
subject in order to convert it into theological specu
lation. Logic, consequently, became more than a
mere instrument of disputation. It was converted
into a method of philosophy, an instrument for in
vestigating truth. As one of the Seven Arts, it was
neglected, no less perhaps than the rest. There was
no searching into its principles, with the view of
ascertaining a just theory of argumentation. Its
exaltation to the rank of the science of Investiga
tion, left the fields of its own proper region unculti
vated, amidst the vain ambition of conquests over
the empire of science. As an organ of philosophy,
it was explored only in its connexion with meta
physical truth ; as it serves, that is, to unravel those
associations of thought, of which it is the key, so

LECTURE II. 65
far as it is the result of them, — an effect produced
by the mind's operation within itself.
It is obvious, that the study of a Science solely
with a view to a particular object, and that too an
object not strictly connected with it, must narrow
and corrupt it. A very cursory survey of the
Dialectic, of Damascenus will shew, to what a
diminutive outline the noble Science of Aristotle
had dwindled in the Greek Church of the Vlllth
century. We find there, no longer an enlarged
philosophy of language, but mere Terminology ; a
collection of technical terms, explained, in imme
diate application to their theological use, and by
way of Introduction to Theology. Such, in a still
greater degree, was the Logic of the Latin schools.
It was only indeed at the time of Cicero, that Ari
stotle's writings were brought to light, from the long
obscurity in which they were buried. And it is
not asserting too much to say, that, even had the
Romans been disposed to encourage a speculative
philosophy, there was then no one competent, either
justly to value, or fully to explain, his logical doc
trines. An art of logic had long been current in
use, the Dialectic of the Stoics, which, so far from
opening the mind to the reception of a truly phi
losophical method, had diverted men from the right
pursuit, had prejudiced them with wrong notions
of the science. If Aristotle therefore were studied,
it would naturally be such portions of his Logic,
as coincided, or seemed to coincide, most with
the existing imperfect views, Hence the almost

66 LECTURE II.
exclusive study among the Latins of his treatise
entitled, The Categories, or Predicaments. Though
other treatises of his Logic were translated into
Latin, these soon fell into disuse. A compendium
of Dialectic, founded on the Categories of Aristotle,
and passed under the name of Augustine, became the
ordinary text-book, from which the whole science
was professed to be taught in the Latin schools,
down to the end of the Xllth century. Other ab
stracts of logic, drawn from Boethius, Cassiodorus,
and Capella, appear also to have been used ; and
each distinguished master, probably, composed his
own treatise of the art. But all were confined
to the same meagre technicalities, which alone
accorded with the corrupt theological taste of the
times. Whilst indeed the Church-authorities so jealously
watched the progress of logical speculation, the
writings themselves of Aristotle lay under a ban of
exclusion. Some of his treatises were actually coupled
in the same sentence which branded the heretical
disputer : — such was the prevailing ignorance, even
at the University of Paris, the principal school of
the Latin world, respecting the contents of those
volumes, which alone developed the principles of
the philosopher, of whom all professed themselves
disciples.3 This ignorance, and the fear resulting from it,
were the result of that state of things, in which we
- Note K.

LECTURE II. 67
find the Latin Church after the division of the
Empire. Reduced to an infrequent intercourse with
Greece, the Latin lost not only the knowledge, but
the language itself, of philosophy. He could no
longer avail himself of the treasures of Greek wis
dom in their own authentic depositories, but was
obliged to have recourse to the secondary channel
of translations and commentaries in, the Latin lan
guage. The very professors of science fell into a
decrepitude of learning, which needed every auxiliary
to its feebleness.
It was the noble conception of the admirable
Boethius to have repaired this loss to the Latin
world, and to have transfused into their own tongue
the principal documents of Greek philosophy ; not
only by translations, but by his own writings. He
applied himself to this vast undertaking, with a
spirit worthy of the best days of Rome, and a talent
for philosophy, cultivated by hearing the last suc
cessors of Plato and Aristotle, on the classic ground
itself where those philosophers had taught. Un
happily however, cut off by the cruel jealousy of
the Emperor Theodoric, in the midst of his patriotic
and gentle labours, he lived only to bequeath to the
Christians of the West an inconsiderable portion
of these comprehensive designs.
But what Boethius accomplished served, in fact,
to maintain the tradition of Philosophy, through the
dark period consequent on the opening of the Vlth
century, to the days of its incipient regeneration in
the Vlllth. He was to the Latin Science, what
f2

68 LECTURE II.
Augustine was, to the Latin Theology.1 His writ
ings were the foundation on which the Scholastic
Philosophy afterwards reared its complex system ;
so far as they presented an example to the Latin
Church, of that eclectic, philosophy of the New-Pla-
tonists, which combined the logic and metaphysics of
Aristotle with the fundamental theories of Plato.
The Latin Christians then, confined by the policy
of their Church, as well as by the circumstances of
the times, within the narrow boundaries of the
Latin Philosophy, became necessarily mere sciolists
in the very art which they ostentatiously professed.
In the Xlllth century however a marked im
provement is discernible. The Western Church
feels the influence of that general excitement and
renovation of society, which the transportation of
Europe into Asia by the first Crusades had pro
duced. An ardour is revived for the recovery of
the monuments of Greek Philosophy ; and several
of Aristotle's treatises, which had been unknown or
forgotten in the schools of the West, are now
brought home to the inquisitive Latin. An im
portant accession is made to the stock of Latin
literature, by translations from the works of Ara
bian philosophers, who had laboured in the expo
sition of Aristotle's doctrines. The genius of the
Arab, wild and waste as his own plains, imparts
1 Augustine knew nothing of the Greek Philosophy but
through translations. He had disliked and neglected the study of
Greek in his youth ; and his mature age called him to practical
labours of another kind. See his Confessions, lib. I. c. 14.
VII. c. 9. VIII. c.2.

LECTURE II. 69
the touch of its metaphysical enthusiasm to the
reanimated spirit of the Latin schools." And thus
at length Scholasticism, rich with the Aristotelic
spoils gathered by other hands, attains its fulness of
stature, as a logical philosophy, the interpreter at
once of Revelation and of Nature.
In the meantime however irregular efforts were
continually made towards an enlargement of the
basis of the Dialectical Science professed in the
Schools, and to introduce the Logic of Aristotle
himself.* Whilst some obstinately adhered to the
existing narrow system, content with the little
sphere in which they could exert a feeble talent
with address and applause ; or apprehensive of
danger from any experiment of improvement ; there
were others of vigour and penetration of mind,
beyond the horizon which limited their excursions,
or bold enough to risk the imputation of heresy in
their adventurous pursuit of the truth.
The question debated between the Nominalists
and Realists is a striking instance of this fact ; and
is of great importance consequently in tracing the
progress of philosophy among the Latins to its
ultimate development in the Scholastic system.
Unfortunately, there are no extant writings of
Roscelin, the ostensible head of the Nominalists of
the Xlth century ; so that it is scarcely possible to
ascertain what his precise opinion was. The evi
dent cause however of that violence with which his
logical theory was attacked, was, its supposed con-
" Note L. x Note M.

70 LECTURE II.
sequences in theology. He was accused of having
taught, that in expressing the doctrine of the Tri
nity, we might say three Gods, with as much pro
priety as we say there are three Persons ; if the
former were only sanctioned by the usage of speech.
Anselm of Canterbury, himself an acute reasoner,
to whom the opinion of Roscelin was reported as a
matter of heresy, had the candour to suspect the
justness of the imputation.7 But as the oracle of
orthodoxy of his time, Anselm still felt himself
called upon to check the progress of the heretical
logic. By his active vigilance, both as a writer and
a governor of the Church, the offending Nominalist
was silenced. But not so the cause itself of Nomi
nalism. This had too deep a seat in the requi
sitions of the human mind in that age ; it shrank
from the gaze of orthodoxy ; but it still grew in
the shades of the Schools.
The triumph of Realism is particularly to be
noticed here, as an instance of the very same prin
ciple which had given its general mould to the
Scholastic System. It was Philosophy held in sub
ordination to Church- Authority. It was that view
of the origin of human knowledge which carried
men from efforts of self-information, from exami
nation of nature, to repose on principles infused into
the mind by dictation from others. This theory,
by assigning, what metaphysicians call an objective
reality, to the general notions of the mind, made
>' Note N.

LECTURE II. 71
the whole of our knowledge deducible from abstract
ideas. A dictatorial and a speculative Theology
readily combined with such a theory. Men were
thus taught, to distrust the senses ; to distrust con
clusions from mere experience ; and to rely only on
the clear consequences of unquestioned speculative
principles. It was the maxim, Lnvisibilia non
decipiunt, made the ground of alliance between
Religion and Philosophy. Nominalism, on the con
trary, by denying any objective reality to general
notions, led the way directly to the testimony of the
senses and the conclusions of experience. Though
in the Scholastic age itself, the whole consequences
of that theory of human knowledge might not be
perceived, it would lead men certainly, even in
that dark period, to think more for themselves — to
examine their own convictions — to look to the
external evidence by which any given assertion
might be supported. For if it were admitted, that
the notions of the mind, expressed by general terms,
were not the actual representatives of objects exist
ing out of itself, men would no longer depend on
abstractions, as their sure and only means of know
ledge. They would doubt the physical truth of con
clusions resting solely on such evidence ; and would
be disposed at least to seek some ground of belief
elsewhere. The validity of an appeal to experience
would, of course, be but tremblingly entertained at
such a period, amidst the complete general sub
jugation of the intellect to the force of Religious
Authority. And we shall not be surprised there-

72 LECTURE II.
fore, that the Nominalists of that day, or of the
following century, did not push their theory to its
full consequences/
The triumph of Realism is coincident with the
ascendancy of the Scholastic Philosophy. It is just
at this point, that the maturity of the struggle
between Reason and Authority was consummated.
Albert and Aquinas/ by adopting the Realist doc
trine, gave its proper philosophical basis to Scho
lasticism. Before the middle of the Xlllth century,
when these great authors of the system flourished,
it could not be considered as having obtained any
definite scientific character. The ground-plan of
such a mode of speculation had been previously
sketched, with more or less distinctness, and parti
cularly, by Anselm, Abelard, and Lombard. But
these established the Principle, on which the spe
culation should henceforth proceed ; gave it a body
and a system, working out the original faint out
line from the more extensive materials supplied to
their hands.
The conflicts of argument at an earlier period,
shew the unsettled state of opinion as to the prin
ciple of the system, which those several efforts were
tending to erect. The questionings of the IXth
century on the nature of Christ's presence in the
Eucharist, evince a doubt as to the point where the
evidence of the senses ends, or how far such evi
dence might be admitted against internal convictions
* Note O.

LECTURE II. 73
of the mind. Here the original Platonism of the
Church ruled the case. A Real Presence was
asserted, which implied the deceptiveness of the
senses.3 Whilst however this decision prevailed, it
did not pass, we may observe, without a counter-
appeal on the part of the disputant of that age to
the validity of the testimony so imperiously set
aside. As we glance through the Xlth and Xllth cen
turies, we perceive the philosophical character of
Scholasticism coming more into view. In its pro
gress through that period, it exhibits not so much
the literary form as the professorial. We find
individuals eminent for their talents as lecturers,
like the Sophist of old, leading after them, by the
charm of their voice,11 troops of sequacious hearers,
as they went from place to place. This was a state
of effervescence. What was wanting evidently for
the literary perfection of the system, was a more
extensive acquaintance with the stores of ancient
philosophy. Individuals were vaguely seeking
rather to , originate systems of their own, than
working on any established method.
But the Scholasticism of Albert and Aquinas
a In the Catechismus ad Parochos, the direction is given to
the ministers of Religion, to withdraw their flocks, as much as
possible, from attending to the judgment of the senses. — Curan-
dum igitur est, ut fidelium mentes, quam maxime fieri potest,
a sensuum judicio abstrahantttr ; atque ad immensam Dei vir-
tutem et potentiam contemplandam excitentur. — Catech. ad
Paroch. p. 195. ed. 4to. Romae.
b Plato, in the Protagoras. — Note P.

/4 LECTURE II.
being once recognised as the philosophy of the
Church, we find the same spirit in action, which
had originally given birth to Scholasticism itself.
Nominalism seemed to be silenced ; but it was only
to recruit its vigour, and to struggle more effectually
against the ascendant doctrine of the Realists.
John Duns Scotus, and William Ockam, the two
most distinguished names of the following period,
are the personal representatives of the rival theories
as then subsisting in the philosophy of the Schools.0
Ockam, indeed, has obtained a merited celebrity
by the title of the second founder of the school of
Nominalism ; and from having, on that account,
incurred the condemnation of the ruling party in
the Church ; of the University at least of Paris,
the great centre of philosophical orthodoxy in those
times,* It is evident that, now that a proper
Church-Philosophy had been established, Nominal
ism was to the present system, what the previous
efforts of speculation had been, when the objection
was to all speculation whatever. It was regarded as
hostile to reasonings, on which a systematic per
fection had been given to the Christian truths. It
is remarkable, however, as illustrative of the matu
rity of the School-Theology ; of its perfect trans
formation, that is, into a Logical Philosophy ; that
Nominalism was maintained by Ockam, rather as a
question of Philosophy than of Theology.8 Prac-
c John Duns Scotus taught at Cologne in 1308. — William
Ockam died in 1343.
d Note Q. ' Note R.

LECTURE II. 75
tically he was a Realist, no less than his Master
Duns Scotus, whom he strenuously opposes in
theory : since we find both equally pursuing the
track of their predecessors, not only in the dry
syllogistic form of their arguments, but in the
importance attributed by them to abstract notions
in their respective speculations.
The XlVth century in fact, though it witnessed
the revival and spread of Nominalism, the germ of
a future revolution in science, exhibits precisely
that state of learning and literature, which might
be expected from the established ascendancy of a
Logical Philosophy. The dominion of a sterile
principle is shewn, in the blank waste which the
fields of knowledge present ; in the no-harvest pro
duced from even that happier soil on which the
hand of Roger Baconf had laboured. The senten
tious philosophy extracted from the writings of
Aristotle was wonderfully attractive to the sciolists
of the day ; as it furnished them with an ample
nomenclature of science, and enabled them to pro
nounce with little effort on every point of specula
tion. It was attractive also to the gifted spirits of
the age ; for they would see, that there was enough
deeply to interest and exercise the highest intellect,
in the questions excited by that master of exact
thoughts and comprehensive views. Whilst the
former class could thus readily fill the schools with
a wordy war, the latter spent their strength in
minute speculations subservient to the dominant
' Roger Bacon, born 1216, died 1294.

76 LECTURE II.
spirit of Scholastic Logic. Thus was the state of
things immovable for a period. A great effort
appeared to have been accomplished ; and men
rested for a while, in devout admiration and self-
complacency at what they had gained ; more
oppressed by the vast stores which had crowded on
them, than able to apply these treasures to any
solid account.
This state of quiescence sufficed however for the
perpetuity of the Aristotelic Philosophy in the
West, even after the revolutions of science which
characterised the following centuries. It is not
with a logical philosophy, as with any other system.
A particular theory in metaphysics, or physics, may
have its day and pass away. But a science, which
is an universal method — which is carried into
every subject — particularly one like this, entering
into the vitals of Religion, and entwining itself
with a parasitical fondness round the majestic body
of sacred truth — cannot be dispelled altogether by
any reformation. It becomes part not only of the
scientific language of a people, but the idiom in
which they express their ordinary ideas. This has
been eminently the case with the philosophy of
Aristotle, in its transition through the schools of
the middle age. It is in the very air of our
social life. Its legend, though worn, is not effaced
from the current coin of our philosophy and our
theology. On the present occasion, we are concerned with

LECTURE II. 77
its influence on our Theology : or, to state it more
explicitly, with the traces of itself, which it has left
on the terms familiarly employed in our creeds and
articles and expositions of religion. With a view
to this result, I shall now give some account of the
general character of Theology, as moulded by the
disputations of the Schools.
The tendency of the whole system which we
have been reviewing, was to erect Theology into a
perfect Science. It set out with the design of
enabling the Christian, when assailed on points of
heresy, or perplexed with questionings as to truths
simply proposed to his belief, to give a reason of
the doctrines of his Faith. Assuming that matters
of Faith might become matters of understanding to
those who believed; it attempted to establish, by
processes of reasoning from given principles of
Theology, each doctrine of Religion, independently
of the sacred authority on which it rests in the
Scripture. Arguments, proposed originally as
answers to an opponent, and availing properly only,
as solutions of particular objections, or refutations
of particular statements, were applied as grounds
of evidence, for the establishment of the truth uni-
" versally. And thus a vast collection of principles
was obtained, from which conclusions in Theology
might be drawn. At length Theology rose into a
regular demonstrative science, built up on axioms
of metaphysics, and cohering in all its parts by the
cement of logical connexion/ s Note S.

73 LECTURE II.
Rightly to conceive the nature of this scientific
or logical Theology, we must divest our minds of
that popular notion of Science which modern
improvements in Philosophy have introduced. It
is not the reduction and classification of facts,
which was understood as Science by the Scholastic
Philosopher. His notion of Science was deduced
from the ancient philosophy, which considered no
knowledge worthy of the name, but such as rested
on fixed indisputable principles ; — not, as those
collected from experience and observation, open to
exception and contradiction from varied and con
flicting experiences; — but possessing an intrinsic
necessary evidence ; of the nature, that is, of mathe
matical truth. When Theology then was exalted
by the Schoolmen to the rank of the queen-science,
and viewed as containing in it the primary truths
of all knowledge ;h it was conceived to be the
science of necessary principles, on which the
mind reposed with the fullest confidence, as
impossible to be otherwise than they are, and
therefore affording a sure ground for the conclu
sions of reason.
But to the Christian speculator, under such a
method, these principles would, of course, be sought
nowhere else, but in the Divine Being himself. He
h Secundum hoc quaerit sermocinales et logicas scientias, ut
ancillentur ad sciendi adminiculum et modum, sive addiscendi.
.... Impossible est, quod haec scientia finem in aliis scientiis
habet ; sed ipsa finis aliarum scientiarum est, ad quam omnes
alias referuntur ut ancillaa. Albert. Mag. in Lib. Sent. Tract. II.
qu. vii. fol. 7. — Also Aquin. S. Theol. Ima P. qu. i. art. 5.

LECTURE II. 79
who alone " changes not," would naturally be the
point of departure in such a philosophy. His
nature and attributes, so far as they were explained
by the light of reason, or revealed by the illumi
nation of Scripture, would alone present to the
inquirer that immobility and eternity and absolute
priority of truth, of which he was in quest.
It was a circumstance favourable to this scientific
Theology, that what the ancients called their First
Philosophy, or their abstract philosophy of Being,
they dignified by the name of Theology ; ' placing
under this head, the speculation concerning spiritual
natures, as well as the science of the principles of
the human mind. The application again, of the
term Truth to the person of Christ, as also of
Wisdom to the knowledge of the most sublime and
divine things, (both in the Scripture and in the
works of philosophers,) further promoted the erec
tion of Christian Theology into that exact theoretic
form, which it obtained in the Scholastic system.
Originating however in a combination of the
judgments of speculative Reason with the prescrip
tions of Authority, the system, at its maturity,
exhibits in its internal structure, the result of that
conflict of elements, out of which it had grown. Its
principles, as I have said, were to be drawn from
the nature of the Divine Being ; as the only sure
1 Est apud eundem Aristotelem, in Imo Metaphysicorum,
praeclara disputatio de summa ilia divinaque sapientia, mirifice
in Theologiam nostram congruens. Petavii Dogm. Theol. Pro-
le<*om. c. 8. — Also Aquinas, S. Theol. Ima P. qu. i. art. 6.

80 LECTURE II.
ground on which a Divine and Universal Philosophy
could fix its first steps. But where was the evi
dence or criterion of the truth of those principles ?
Given the nature of the Divine Being ; given the
principles themselves, immediately as they existed
in Him ; there could be no doubt of the truth of
the conclusions deduced from them. But it was ad
mitted that the nature of God, as He is in Himself,
is incomprehensible by the human faculties ; that we
cannot attain in the present life to the knowledge
of his essence.k This difficulty might appear insu
perable. But it was not so to the Schoolman versed
in an eclectic philosophy, in which the mysticism
of Plato was blended with the analytical method
of Aristotle. The principle of Faith here answered
the purpose of solving this speculative difficulty,
as well as of securing the prescriptive right of
Authority. Theology then, as a natural knowledge,
could not itself discover and establish the principles
on which it reasoned. It might, however, receive
those principles, through Faith, from an higher
science, the science or knowledge of God ; as one
human science receives its principles from another ;
as Music, according to the illustration of Aquinas,
assumes its principles from Arithmetic, or Perspec-
k The Scholastics inherited this admission not only from the
Platonic philosophy, but from their own early authorities.
Hilary has well expressed the truth. — Perfecta scientia est, sic
Deum scire, ut, licet non ignorabilem, tamen inenarrabilem
scias. Credendus est ; intelligendus est ; adorandus est ; et
his officiis eloquendus.- — S. Hilar, de Trin. lib. II. c. 7. torn. II.
p. 31.

LECTURE II. 81
tive frorn Geometry.1 If we believe the Scripture
accordingly, we may proceed to the exercise of
understanding : — the authority of Revelation being
conceded, Reason has its ground, on which it may
build its airy edifice of speculation.™
The object accordingly of the Scholastic Theology
was, to detect and draw forth from the Scripture,
by aid of the subtile analysis of the philosophy of
Aristotle, the mystical truths of God, on which the
Scripture-Revelation was conceived to be founded.
The Scripture itself, addressing us in the language
of our natural knowledge, conveys to us the prin
ciples of the Divine Science by analogies, which at
once intimate the truth, and veil it from human
apprehension. Philosophy applied to the Scripture,
dispels these shadows with which the truth as now
seen is overcast ; removes the veil which now inter-
1 Quasdam vero sunt, quae procedunt ex principiis notis lumine
superioris scientiae, sicut Perspectiva procedit ex principiis noti-
flcatis per Geometriam ; et Musica ex principiis per Arithme-
ticam notis. Et hoc modo sacra doctrina est scientia, quia
procedit ex principiis notis lumine superioris scientias, quae scilicet
est scientia Dei et beatorum. Unde sicut Musicus credit prin
cipia tradita sibi ab Arithmetico, ita doctrina sacra credit prin
cipia revelata sibi a Deo. Aquinat. Summa Theolog. Prima
Pars. qu. i. art. 2.
m Et ut alia taceam/quibus sacra pagina nos ad investigandam
rationem invitat ; ubi dicit, " nisi credideritis, non intelligetis,"
aperte monet, intentionem ad intellectum extendere, cum docet,
qualiter ad ilium debeamus proficere. Denique, quoniam inter
fidem et speciem, intellectum, quem in hac vita capimus, esse
medium intelligo, quanta aliquis ad ilium proficit, tanto eum
propinquare speciei (ad quam omnes anhelamus) existimo.
Anselm. De Incarnat. Verbi, praef. p. 33.
G

82 LECTURE II.
cepts our view ; withdraws our attention from the
mere symbols and signs ; and brings ultimately be
fore the eye of the mind, the mysterious, yet more
real, verities of the Divine knowledge.
Thus was the Idealism of the Platonic School
combined with the Sensualism of the Aristotelic.
The principles on which the Scholastic Theology
here professed to be based, were no other than the
Ideas of the Divine Mind, as assigned by the Pla-
tonists of the Alexandrian School. Translated into
the language of Aristotle, these Ideas of Platonism
became, in the Scholastic system, the Forms of
things ;¦ — the expression being adopted, by which
Aristotle denoted the differences or characteristics
that distinguish one object from another." By this
substitution of technical phraseology, was the phi
losophy of Aristotle brought to the support of a
Theory, which in his own writings he has strenu
ously condemned as a vain mystification of science.
The employment of Logic, as an organ of inves
tigation, naturally led to this result. The business
in which such a method of philosophizing was
really engaged — the utmost that it actually accom
plished, amidst all its curiosity and activity — was
to frame a science of exact definitions. Logical
distinctions and conclusions amount only to an
" Respondeo dicendum, quod necesse est ponere in mente
divina ideas. Idea enim Grace, Latine forma dicitur. Unde
per ideas intelliguntur formae aliquarum rerum, praeter ipsas res
existentes, &c. Aquinat. Summ. Theolog. Ima Par. qu. xv.
art. 1. — Also qu. xliv. art. 3. — Note T.

LECTURE II. 83
analysis of the notions involved in general terms ;
and when employed therefore to ascertain the na
ture of a thing, terminate in giving a more exact
notion of the term by which it is signified. Such
in fact was the science of Forms in Aristotle's Phi
losophy. They were strictly the logical definitions
of the species of things ; limits fixed in the region
of the mind alone ; and so far coincident with the
Ideas of the Platonists.
This then was a neutral ground between the two
philosophies, on which the Scholastic Theology took
its stand. Here, as in a point of contact, met the
theories peculiar to each,, to diffuse themselves after
wards in a vast system of Realism, that embraced
within it the whole world of science. For whilst
it was admitted with Aristotle, that our natural
knowledge originates in occasions furnished by the
observations of Sense, this sound experimental phi
losophy was absorbed and lost, in the more sublime
and mystical science, to which it was held to be the
mere introduction, or symbolical language.
We may see, at the same time, how the mystical,
and the practical character, originally belonging to
the Latin Theology, still continued to characterize
it, when it assumed the definite form of Scholas
ticism. The regard paid by the Schoolmen to the
mystical treatises of The Celestial Hierarchy, and
The Divine Names, — works, composed probably in
the Vth century, but, in the fashion of the age,0
° We must not suppose that there was always fraud designed
in such ascriptions of works to venerated names. There pro-
g2

84 LECTURE II.
ascribed to Dionysius. the Areopagite, the convert
of St. Paul at Athens, shews that their system did
not recoil even from the most extravagant mysticism
of contemplation.5 Indeed no further proof of the
fact is required, than the commentaries lavished on
the Book of the Canticles,9 at the different periods
of Scholasticism. Still, as we might expect, the
practical character is the more apparent. The fore
ground is filled with discussion and debate. We
find ourselves in the midst of arguers and masters
of Theology, to whose reasonings we must listen
with a docile attention ; whilst we bow in awe
before the mystic forms of a piety and a spirituality,
which cast their solemn shadows over the scene of
disputation.
bably was in this particular case, as it appears to have been a bold
effort on the part of the New-Platonism, to establish itself in the
Church. But in many cases, the practice appears to have been
adopted on rhetorical grounds, to give greater influence to the
arguments of a work. Alcuin used this method, with a view of
exciting emulation of the great writers of antiquity. Gibbon
mentions a supplicatory letter of Pope Stephen III. A. D. 754,
written in the name and person of St. Peter. Rom. Emp. c. 49.
It was in the same taste, that, at one time, writers of the middle
age used to assume after their own names, that of some classic
author. p The singular work of Erigena on The Division of Natures,
whilst as an original work of Philosophy it exhibited too bold
a form of metaphysical speculation for the taste of the Latin
Theologian, is an evidence of the strong current with which
Platonism flowed in the Western Church in the IXth century.
q It is curious to find Jerome, in prescribing a course of edu
cation for the infant grand-daughter of Paula, recommending the
study of the Canticles, as the ultimate point of her theological
progress. Hieronym. Epistol. ad Laetam. Opera, torn. I. p. 57.

LECTURE II. 85
The whole philosophy of Aristotle readily accom
modated itself to such a Theology. His physical
science is throughout logical, being indeed a body
of conclusions from his metaphysical doctrines.
His ethical science, though in its principles founded
on fact and observation, is thrown, in its didactic
form, into the same logical mould. So that, upon
the whole, his Philosophy, in its written form at
least, may justly be regarded, as a deduction of
given principles to the particulars implied in them ;
as a method of establishing truth, by processes of
reasoning, by discussion of questions on points of
speculation, rather than by interrogation of nature.
The method of a Logical Philosophy must con
sist chiefly of discussion of opinions. Argument,
and not evidence, will be the object of its pursuit.
It will be concerned in finding out, what may be
unanswerably affirmed, rather than what is the fact
and the truth of things. The interminable ques
tions of the Schoolmen were but an exaggeration
of the method of Aristotle himself; — a depraved
application of his maxim, that, " to propose doubts
" well,"r is of service for the discovery of truth.
This mode of proceeding was strictly their philo
sophical Analysis : in untying the perplexed knots
in which the ingenuity of speculation or fancy might
entangle a subject, they were opening, according
Bernard has eighty-six Sermons on the Canticles, and these form
only an unfinished work. — Note U.
r To Siawoprjaat KaXuig. Metaphys, 1. III. c. 1. — Also Topic.
1. I.— Ethic. I. VII.

86 LECTURE II.
to their views, the real nature of the subject so
involved. It was more indeed the example of the
Greek Sophists that they followed, than of Aristotle
himself in this respect. For though Aristotle may
ascribe too great importance to the discussion of
logical questions and difficulties, he has not so
entirely rested the truth of science upon them ; nor
has he descended to such frivolities of inquiry.
The Schoolmen, however, rest the whole strength
of their cause in the determination of questions.
Their whole Theology is a congeries of doubts ;
the effect of which is to leave the mind in a state of
Academic Scepticism, very different from that rea
sonable satisfaction which is apparently the object
of pursuit.8 They readily seized the manner of the
Philosopher, so far as it appeared on the surface of
his writings. They pronounced sententiously ; but
they omitted to philosophize largely. The vast
materials through which his research must have
extended, were to them a subterranean world, over
which they trod with unsuspecting step. What
added to their delusion was, that the writings of
Aristotle are, for the most part, suggestive treatises,
composed with reference to the oral instruction,
with which they were accompanied in their delivery.
Appearing consequently in the form of text-books,
they were easily converted into authorities, appli
cable in detached sentences to the decision of each
controverted point.
" See John of Salisbury, Policratic. lib. VII. c. 6. p. 425.
Melalogic. lib. III. pp. 839, 845.— Note V.

LECTURE II. 87
In Scholasticism accordingly the Dialectical Art
was all in all. Theology becoming a science founded
on Definitions, and being conceived to contain the
first principles of all other sciences, was forced to
have recourse to the analytical power of Lan
guage, the only means of combining into one mass
the various incongruous materials usurped into its
system. Each term of language being significant of
an indefinite number of particulars; and these par
ticulars again, when denoted by words, being each
significant of other particulars ; language presents
a medium of classification to an indefinite extent.
But the very medium of classification thus presented,
enabling the mind to combine things, independently
of actual observation of facts with a view to such
combination, imposes on us by the subtilty and
facility of its application. We believe that we have
combined real facts in nature, when we have only
explored and marked connexions which our own
minds have woven together.
Such then was the Theology of the Schools. It
is, in effect, what we designate in a word by Realism
— the conversion of mere Logical and Metaphysical
truth into physical — a description, as it were, of the
lands and seas of the visible world by an untravelled
eye, from a study of the map of the human mind.
For whilst some Scholastics professed to disclaim
the Realist doctrine, yet, as I have already observed
of the great leader of the Nominalists of the XlVth
century, all were practically Realists in this respect,

88 LECTURE II.
that they applied the analytical power of language
to the interpretation of nature. It may further
illustrate the character of a Theology so constructed,
to observe the analogy which it bears to the personi
fications of heathen mythology. The genius of
Paganism seized the fancy with some image of
loveliness or mirth or awe, expressing the tendency
ofthe mind to realize its own abstractions, in the
fabled beings of a many-peopled heaven. Scholas
ticism in like manner has its apotheosis of human
ideas ; only that here an exact Logic has worked
the transmutation, which Poetry effected in the
other. When a Theology of this a priori character was
established, it nullified the use of the Scripture as
a record of the divine dealings with the successive
generations of mankind. The voice of God was no
longer heard as it spoke " in sundry times and in
" divers manners " to holy men of old ; but simply
as uttering the hallowed symbols of an oracular
wisdom. The whole of Revelation was treated as
one contemporaneous production ; of which the se
veral parts might be expounded, without reference
to the circumstances in which each was delivered.
For what was termed in the Schools, the Analogy
of Faith, was not, as might be supposed, an inter
pretation of passages relatively to particular periods
and particular occasions, but merely the shewing
that " the truth of one Scripture was not repugnant

LECTURE II. 89
" to the truth of another." * The Bible thus lost
its most important characteristic in the comparison
with other assumed Revelations. The Koran is
professedly the effusion of a single writer ; — slowly
dealt out indeed at intervals as the calls of impos
ture suggested; and therefore spread over some
period in its actual delivery. But if we compare
it with our sacred books in this respect ; in the one,
we find a continuous rhapsody unconnected with
the solid materials of progressive history ; in the
other, we have details of successive events — docu
ments of history, of prophecy, and of precept —
published at distinct and wide intervals, relating to
the history of mankind at large, as well as to that
particular people among whom they were published.
If now we regard the Scriptures in the way of
the Schoolmen, as having God for their proper sub
ject, instead of reading them as a divine history of
man, we naturally neglect the analogies of times
and circumstances. The immutability of the Divine
Being, in the contemplation of whom we are then
exclusively engaged, is the prevailing object of our
inquiry. Distinctions of time lose all their import
ance in this point of view. Our business is, to col
lect into one theory every scattered intimation of
the Divine being and attributes.
If on the contrary we take the nature and con
dition of man under Divine Providence, as the great
' Analogia vero est, cum Veritas unius Scripturae ostenditur
veritati alterius non repugnare. Aquinas, Summ. Theolog. Ima
Par. qu. 1. art. 10,— Note W.

90 LECTURE II.
subject of our sacred Books, we are as naturally led
to study the facts recorded in the Scripture in their
real historical place. We then seek to learn, what
man has been at the infancy, and at the maturity, of
his condition in the world ; how he has been treated
by his Creator at different periods, and how he has
responded to that treatment. Hence results an his
torical theology, a register as it were of the religious
conduct of man under the government of God ; and
consequently principles of the Divine Character and
Government applicable to the future direction of
our lives. Such however was not the method of
the Schoolmen. They inverted the process, and
commenced with those notions in which they should
have ended their inquiry.
The theology of the Schools involved further a
total disregard of the Rhetorical nature of the
Scriptures. In the ascendancy of the spirit of dog
matism, every sentiment of holy exhortation, the
terrors of rebuke, the winnings of persuasion, the
piety of fatherly love, the commands of authority,
all disappear, except in the inert tangible material
of the words themselves, on which an unfeeling
reason may act. I need only advert here to the
effect produced on the doctrines of Grace by this
intrusive Logic. The truth of the Divine Predes
tination has suffered, perhaps more than any other,
from being treated in this way. We recoil from
the train of consequences which have been deduced
from it, and from the subtile speculations by which

LECTURE II. 91
the notion of it has been attempted to be defined.
But read it in the Scripture'; — take it as a word
of encouragement, as an unanswerable appeal to
the heart ; — feel it, that is, and be persuaded by
it, as an argument of the Holy Spirit pleading
with you; — and then you find, that it has not
been written in vain in the history of God's provi
dences. The subject of the Rhetorical nature of the
Scriptures is of large compass ; and one that, from
its real importance, deserves a more distinct con
sideration than it has yet obtained. I feel convinced
that, were due weight given to it in our theological
studies, it would tend more than any thing else,
to dissipate the wild theories of speculative religion
ists, and bring men to the true way of finding out
God in the Scriptures. At present however I only
allude to it, as the neglect of it was involved in that
kind of Theology, which the Schools established.
The Schoolmen had a high veneration for the text
of Scripture — not inferior, I should say, to that of
the most zealous Protestant. But it was an im
properly-directed veneration — a reception of the
Scripture, not simply as the living word of God,
but as containing the sacred propositions of inspired
wisdom. We know to what scrupulous nicety the
Jews carried their glosses of the older Scriptures.
Theirs was a respect simply for the words of God ;
not incompatible, as experience proved, with an
actual nullification of the Divine Word itself. Their
Scribes were expert in interpretation and comment,

92 LECTURE II.
whilst the people wandered as sheep not having a
shepherd. Thus did the theologians of the Schools,
with dutiful officiousness, gather up the fragments
of revealed truth ; but, in the mean time, they lost
the opportunity of feeding on the bread of God
which came down from heaven. Their piety be
came a superstition, transubstantiating the truth of
God into the verbal elements by which it was
signified. The preternatural enlargement of the logical
powers of the understanding, from being an effect of
the discipline of the Scholastic Philosophy, became
in its turn a cause of the morbid taste for verbal
exposition. The subject and predicate of Scriptural
propositions were examined in their respective force
of signification, with the view of ascertaining the
nature of the things described. This was done in
subserviency to the statement of theological defini
tion ; to fix exact limits within which the Catholic
faith might be included. As heresies multiplied,
more and more were such definitions required ; and
the verbal analysis of Scriptural propositions was
carried on to meet the increasing demand. And
thus, out of simple declarations of Scripture, a mass
of theories was constructed. In justifying their
practice by an appeal to the argumentative character
of the Scripture, they forgot to observe, that the
Scripture-arguments are arguments of inducement,
addressed to the whole nature of man — not merely
to intellectual man, but to thinking and feeling man
living among his fellow men ; — and to be appre-

LECTURE II. 93
qiated therefore in their effect on our whole nature."
They were like critics, examining some work of
art in the portions of its composition, and explor
ing the adjustment of each to a certain standard of
ideal perfection, instead of looking at the whole
as a production of taste, directed to interest a
spectator. From the observations already made, it would
appear that the ethical nature of the Christian
Scriptures had been insufficiently attended to by the
Divines of the Schools. Eager to erect their Theo
logy into a Philosophy of the Divine Being, they
were comparatively indifferent to the humbler truths
which lay in the walk of man's every-day life. But
they did not at the same time omit the considera
tion of human duties : as I shall have an oppor
tunity of shewing on a future occasion. What I
would point out now is, the disparagement of
Revelation, as a code of moral discipline ; and the
exaltation of Theology, in the sense of a Theoretic
Science, as the appropriate subject of the Inspired
" The remark applies as well to the evidences of Christianity.
No one, as far as I am aware, has so stated the force of the
Christian argument, except Bishop Butler. In the Chapter on
the subject in his Analogy, he points out that the true estimate
of the Evidences is in their effect. Each may be answered
separately ; but there is no denying the real effect produced by
them as a whole on our complex nature. Whoever has ex
amined them must feel that they impress him strongly ; or if
he refuses to admit the effect in his own case, he cannot but
allow that they are such as to produce an effect on men in
general. The last point is enough.

91 LECTURE II.
Volumes. This would follow indeed from the in
fluence of that dialectical spirit, with which they
pursued the whole inquiry into Divine Truth. Con
clusions, and not Precepts, or Rules of Conduct,
were the object of attention as they read; and
instead therefore of tracing the coincidence of re
vealed obligations with the internal laws of our
moral nature, they were intent only on applying
the rules obtained, whether from Scripture or from
the works of philosophers, to particular cases, and
forming a code of Casuistry rather than a Theory
of Moral Sentiments and Duties. Happily for the
ethical system of the Schools, the chief human
authority followed was that of Aristotle. The sound
sense of this philosopher was a corrective to the
extravagancies, into which their religious enthu
siasm, or their speculative refinement, separately
might have carried them. Fenced within the
inclosure of Scripture precepts, and under the
guidance of Aristotle, they reared a more compre
hensive and sober system of morality, than such as
would have resulted from their theological opinions
alone ; or from the maxims of the Christian
moralists who preceded them ; or from the con
dition of social life in the middle ages.

LECTURE III.
THE TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSIES,

SUMMARY.
Questions on the Trinity naturally the first to efigage'Tfie
attention of disputants — Their ecclesiastical and political import
ance in the early ages — Maintenance of the orthodox doctrine
chiefly owing to the Latin Church — Controversies on the subject
assume a scientific form in the Scholastic writings — Promiscuous
character of ancient Philosophy exemplified in the discussion —
Scholastic system applies the philosophy of mind to the inves
tigation of God from his Effects in the world — Doctrine of the
Trinity, in its principle, the ideas or reasons of all existing things,
traced to the Intellect of God — Description of the Scholastic
mode of rationalizing the doctrine — Orthodox theory of the
Divine Procession the exact view of the principle of Causation —
Extremes of Sabellianism and Arianism traced to their miscon
ception of this principle — Mischievous effect of the notion, that
doctrines must be defended from their speculative consequences —
Influence of Materialism — Rise of a technical phraseology —
Logical principles employed in settling the precise notions of the
different terms introduced — Popular illustrations of the Trinity
examples of this mode of philosophizing — Controversies turn
principally on the views taken of sameness, unity, diversity, &c.
— Differences between the orthodox and the Sabellians and Arians
in regard to the Divine Unity — Difficulties produced by the word
Persona, obviated by logical distinctions.
Illustration of the doctrine of the Incarnation from the prin
ciples of the established logical philosophy — It accounts for the
differences between the orthodox, the Nestorians, and Eutychians.
Application of this philosophy in the Controversies on the
Procession of the Holy Spirit — The words Filioque added to the
Nicene Creed — This addition ultimately maintained on logical
grounds. General practical reflections — Difficulties on the subject of the
Trinity metaphysical in their origin — Popular misapprehension of
the Divine Unity an instance of this — The various theories all
Trinitarian in principle — Simplicity of belief in Scripture facts,
the only escape from perplexity.

H

Rom. I. 20.
The invisible things of him, from the creation of the
world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that
are made, even his eternal power and Godhead.

Ta yap dopara avrov dirb Kriaewg KvtTfiov, ro'ig iroiypao'i iwov/xeva
Kadoparai, ijre aiSiog avrov Svvaatg Kal Beiorrig.

Invisibilia enim ipsius, a creatura mundi, per ea quae
facta sunt, intellecta, conspiciuntur ; sempiterna quoque ejus
virtus et divinitas. Lat. Vulg.

LECTURE III.

The consideration of the Trinitarian controver
sies naturally takes the lead in the present inquiry.
We have seen, that the Scholastic Philosophy had
for its basis a theoretic knowledge of the Divine
Being ; a knowledge of God as the Highest Cause
of all things, the Primary Being in the order of the
Universe. We have also seen, that it was a system
of Realism, employing terms denoting abstractions
of the human mind, as the philosophical accounts of
processes in nature ; and establishing revealed truths
by logical deduction. It was consistent therefore,
that theologians, the disciples of such a philosophy,
should commence their Books of Sentences, their
Sums of Theology, and their Commentaries, with
expositions of those First Truths which immediately
respect the Divine Being.*
Thus too, not only in the decrees of the Council of Trent,
but in our own Articles, the doctrines on this head occupy the
first place ; the Church of Rome evidently following that method
of Theology, which her great Doctors had sanctioned by the
authority of their practice ; whilst the Fathers of the Church of
England, even in shaking off the spiritual bonds of Rome, were
tacitly influenced by the discipline in which their minds had
been trained.
h2

100 lecture iii.
The controversies, however, involved in the doc
trine of the Trinity, are the least peculiar to the
Scholastic Theology, in point of fact. They were
congenial indeed to the spirit of that Theology, and
presented it with materials, on which it has amply
exercised its keen and inexhaustible research. But
the outlines were supplied to its hand, by the
labours of earlier disputation. It remained only for
the Schoolmen, to dilate, to give distinctness, to
methodize objections and replies, and to reduce each
member of the disputation to its proper place, in a
minutely-articulated system of Theology. This in
general is what they have accomplished : and they
have accomplished it, we must allow, with extra
ordinary penetration, with amazing compass of
thought, and, on the whole, with an admirable skill.
I speak more particularly of Aquinas, in whom, we
see the system, in its utmost perfection of workman
ship. The more indeed we study his writings, the
less we shall wonder, that the admiration of a specu
lative age should have crowned such labours, with
the titles of Angelic, Seraphic, Profound, and other
similar designations of honour, which distinguish
the several leading Doctors of the Schools.b
These controversies could not fail to attract the
curiosity of the Greeks, at an early period of the
Gospel. For their Philosophy, in itself a mass of
subtile speculation into the nature of Being, was
b Aquinas is styled the Angelic Doctor ; Bonaventura, the
Seraphic ; Alexander de Hales, the Irrefragable ; Duns Scotus,
the Subtile ; &c.

LECTURE hi. 101
confronted by a system of Theology, declaring facts
illustrative of the great First Being, the object
of their pursuit, and professing to have surpassed
the utmost reach of all former discoveries of the
truth. Looking from a distance at the ardour and bit
terness, with which minute points of difference were
debated, in the several attempts to perfect the theory
of the Trinity, we are apt to feel surprise at the
extraordinary excitement ; and either to pity, or to
smile at, such apparent waste of intellect and energy.
But such feelings are awakened only by very super
ficial views of the case. Adequately to conceive the
interest of theological questions, at the period, when
they were most keenly agitated, we must view them
under a political aspect. We must imagine, how
persons may have felt, whose social existence and
importance were regarded as at stake, in any shock
to the unity of the Faith. The theory of the Divine
Being was eminently that point, in which an unity
of opinion was indispensable to the religious society.
The smallest discrepancies in this primary article, —
the very base on which the society stood combined, —
compromised the principle of perfect unity, as really,
as the greatest differences. The abstract curiosity
of the question itself, and the habit of disputation,
contributed, undoubtedly, to give an eagerness, and
a relish, to controversies on the Trinity. But these
are not sufficient to account for the origin, and
the extent, of the interest excited. For the interest

102 LECTURE III.
evidently was not confined to the Church-leaders :
they were fully supported by the spirit existing in
the Christian public at large. The profane fami
liarity, with which articles of the Trinitarian ques
tion are said to have entered into the every-day
conversation of the times, characterizes the general
feeling on the subject, at a period, when the Spi
ritual Polity formed the great commonwealth of the
Roman world ; and whilst Philosophy, regarded as
identical with Theology, was essentially dialectical
or colloquial. There was, in fact, no other topic of
such common concern. The national bond of union
had been lost in the vague citizenship of the Roman
Empire ; and that Empire, now falling into dis
jointed masses, ceased to possess the charm of a
common welfare, or a common glory, for the indi
vidual members of it. But whilst the fabric of civil
society was daily decaying, the principle of religious
union, as I pointed out on a former occasion, was
diffusing and strengthening itself by sure advances.
In such a state of things as this, the bold assertion
of its characteristic doctrines, in their points of
contrast with the antagonist systems of Judaism and
Paganism, would naturally appear. Assertions of
its external evidences would diminish ; and its
internal system, the theory of the religion, would be
brought more prominently into notice. The battle
being won, the victors had only to proclaim the
name of the Lord in songs of triumph— to tell it
out among the heathen, that He was God alone.
It was then, in this day of triumph, that the peculiar

LECTURE III. 103
notions of God, involved in the internal system of
Christianity, were freely discussed in writing and
in conversation. When friend met friend, or
stranger met stranger, it was the natural inquiry,
what was doing in the great religious common
wealth. It was of less consequence, even politically,
to the mass of the people, what victories, Con
stantine, or Constantius, might have gained over
the arms of Imperial opponents, than to which party
of the theological disputants the reigning Emperor
inclined. The passionate obstinacy, with which the
people of Alexandria, and of Milan, supported the
cause of their Prelates, shews, how deeply implicated
the fortunes of individuals were, in the decisions of
questions on the doctrine of the Trinity.
What rendered these disputes more complex,
was, that they were agitated, whilst as yet an active
intercourse subsisted between the Greek and Latin
Churches, as members of one spiritual body. The
Latins were unable, on account of " the narrowness
" of their language and their poverty of terms,"0
to reach the precision and compass of the Greek
phraseology. But the Greeks, regarding their own
tongue as the sacred idiom of philosophy and the
ology, strove to impose their own modes of thought,
and their very words, on the reluctant sense of
the Latins. Even among the Greeks themselves,
c Gregory Nazianzen speaks of disputes having been caused,
Sta arevoTrjTa rfjc irapd rolg 'IraXdig y\i)Trrjc, Kal ovop-aTiov ireviav.
Orat. XXI. p. 395.

104 LECTURE III.
disputes were multiplied, as each employed the prin
cipal terms of the controversy in a strictly philoso
phical, or in a popular, acceptation ; as the habits of
thought in individuals, were coloured with Oriental,
or Greek, associations. So great indeed were the
impediments arising from the varied use of Terms,
where the whole discussion was fundamentally dialec
tical, that the measure of accommodation between
those who really agreed with each other, would
probably have failed in any other hands but those
of Athanasius. The years which that intrepid advo
cate of orthodoxy spent at Rome during his second
exile, when, with the sagacity of Themistocles, he
studied the language of the party, on whose protec
tion and influence he had thrown himself, gave him
a facility for overcoming the existing obstacles from
the discordances of language. He seized the points
of agreement between the contending parties, and,
by his wise and conciliatory policy, secured, at
least, a standard of orthodoxy for future ages of
disputation, both to the East and the West.d
But though Athanasius was the great author
of that thoretic agreement, which established the
orthodox doctrine of the Trinity ; the maintenance,
and diffusion of it, were owing principally to the
active zeal of the Latin Clergy. Nothing can
d The works of the Latin Fathers were sometimes translated
into Greek. We find Damascenus quoting passages from Ambro-
sius in Greek. Contra Jacobit., p. 443. Oper. Damasc. In
general however the Greeks were ignorant of the Latin literature.
— Note A. Lecture III.

LECTURE III. 105
declare this more strongly, than the fact, that the
original of the Athanasian Creed is a Latin com
position. It is sufficiently remarkable, that eccle
siastical history has not been able positively to
assign the authorship, or date, of the Creed as a
composition.6 It appears to me, that the silence
respecting the individual author was designed, or at
least his name was forgotten, in the wish to give
a higher authority to the document ; and that its
reception by us in its present form, as the " sym-
" bol" or " faith" of Athanasius, is an evidence of
the triumph of a party in the Church, thus de
claring their authoritative judgment, under the
sanction of a name, which expressed in itself every
thing hostile to Arianism. f The Greek placed
" the sword of Aristotle" in the hand of the Latin ;
but the spiritual legionary of Rome girded it on,
e Vigilius of Tapsus, to whom it has been ascribed, is excluded,
from the expressions not being those employed by him, in touch
ing on the same points. He uses the word, Unio, where the
Creed has Unitas. See Le Quien, in Dissert. Damascen. prefixed
to his edition of the works of Damascenus. Hilary of Aries, a
contemporary and correspondent of Augustine, has also been
supposed to be the author of the Creed ; and so has Vincent of
Lerins, of the same period. But the Creed throughout savours
more of the African Theology than of the Gallic. Many of the
expressions closely correspond with the language of Augustine
himself. f It is by no means necessary, as I have before observed, to
have recourse to the supposition of fraud, to account for the
attaching the name of a particular author to any writing. The
Schoolmen, however, cite the Creed as written by Athanasius
himself ; which was natural in an age ignorant of criticism, and
when Greek authors were read only in Latin translations.

106 LECTURE III.
and cleft with it the way for the orthodox truth,
through the opposing ranks of heresy and infidelity.
The jealousy, with which the Latin Church watched
the whole doctrine of the Trinity, corresponds with
this view. The Greeks sustained the debate more
on particular points, disputing about the parts ;
whilst the Latin seems to have looked on the whole,
as a deposit entrusted to his care. The Latin at
once looked to the effect of each proposition on
the whole question ; and raised his arm against the
authors of the heretical language, as against the
impious blasphemer, the denier of the truth con
cerning God.g
The living disputants however, who gave the
mould to the controversies on the Trinity, had long
passed away, when, with the rise of intellectual
activity in Europe, the quarrels of other days were
resuscitated in the Schools of a theological litera
ture. In the Volumes of the Scholastic divines, we
contemplate the phantoms of the departed, acting
over, in solemn representation, the pastimes of their
g So vigilant were they, that Hincmar of Rheims commanded
the ancient Hymn, Te Trina Deitas, to be altered to, Te Summa
Deitas, and wrote a book himself against it ; the former ex
pression admitting of a tritheistic construction. The alteration
however excited the jealousy of the other great party of the
Gallic Church, that of the South of Gaul ; and Ratramn of
Corbey was employed to defend the obnoxious expression ; which
he did in writing. The keenness of the Occidentals on the
Trinity, was probably the effect of persecution ; — the Arian
persecution in Africa, under the Vandals, and in France and
Spain, and even Italy, under the Visigoths. — Note B.

LECTURE III. 107
real life ; and the transactions of ages of tumult and
noise glide before our eyes, as in one panoramic
scene. It is here then, that the Trinitarian con
troversies fully reveal themselves as a Science.
They are no longer living energies, acted on by
events, and modified by personal intellect and cha
racter ; but a combination of logical theories, all
tending, as to a common point, to establish a per
fect theory of the Divine Being. The various
opinions of the early disputants, were, for the most
part, founded on, or maintained by, the same method
of philosophizing, of which the Scholastic system
was the mature development. The disputations of
the Schoolmen, accordingly, are, at once, an his
torical sketch of the Trinitarian question, and an
establishment of the theory of the Trinity by a
course of logical investigation. The Doctor of the
Schools, as the judge of the sacred cause argued
before him, hears the pleadings of the heretic, and
the replies of the orthodox ; and extracting the truth
from the conflict of opinions, pronounces it with
the weight of reason and authority, at once, as the
conclusion of the philosopher, and the sentence of the
master of theology.
Generally then, in the first place, I would observe
respecting the controversies on the Trinity, that the
only means of arriving at just notions of them, is,
to be aware of that promiscuous combination of
sciences, which formed the ancient Logical Philoso
phy ; and which was adopted into the Christian

108 LECTURE III.
Church, both as coincident with Theology, and as
an organ for the investigation of Truth. The
several disputations will be found to have for their
object ; either to explain the Being and Attributes of
God on assumed physical principles ; or to reconcile
the various hypotheses advanced with each other,
and illustrate them, in their connexions and con
sequences, by processes of argumentation, and exact
distinctions. But the two proceedings are con
tinually running into each other; as must be the
case, where metaphysical truth is only a refined
materialism, and physical truth is sought in the
abstractions of metaphysics : — which was eminently
the case in the Ancient Philosophy, and the Scho
lastic system founded on it.
The pantheism of the New-Platonists was an ex
treme case of the application of the logical method
of philosophizing. When nature is explored in the
mirror of the human mind, material objects are
easily represented to our thoughts, as possessing
only a shadowy metaphysical existence. The mind
becomes every thing in fact and reality, as it is
every thing in its power of conception and generali
zation.11 And when the philosopher is also a theo
logian, and carries up his speculation from the
Aristot. De Anim. 1. III. c. 9. rf ^pv^r) to. bvra irUg ean iravra.
Ibid. c. 3. Kal ev Si] ol Xiyovreg tt\v tbv^v eivai towov elSiiv' wXriv otl
ovte bXr], aXX' r/ vojjrcKr), ovre evreXe-^eia, aXXa Svva.fj.ei rd e'iSq 
bra v Se oimog EKaara yivrpai, tlig b iicWTi\p.ti>v Xiyerai o Kar ivipyeiav.
Aquin. Summa Theol. Prima Pars, qu. xiv. art. 1. — Note C.

LECTURE III. 109
human mind to the divine, the theory of material
nature resolves itself into the pure existence of the
Divine Being, in whose intellect are the primordial
causes, the immutable first principles of all existing
things. The Schoolmen, as I pointed out in my last Lec
ture, did not explicitly adopt the Platonic doctrine
of Ideas, the basis of the pantheistic philosophy.
They did not proceed to the extreme of resolving
all material things into mere phenomena, the simple
manifestations of the Divine Being : the more ex
perimental philosophy of Aristotle guarding them
from the express admission of this extreme theory :
but they virtually admitted it, in their a priori
method of tracing up all real existences to the
Being of God. Thus, according to their view, all
power, or wisdom, or goodness, observed in the
universe, were actual derivations of qualities, in
trinsically residing in God himself, and going forth
as it were out of Him into the works of his creation ;
not simply the evidences of the existence of such
qualities in Him as their Author and Giver ; but the
real presence of the Divine qualities themselves
analogically denoted by those terms. So again, the
relations of human life, as that of Father and Son,
were, according to their view, not original as
existing in human nature, but founded on their
archetypes in God. Appeal was made to that text
of St. Paul ; — " I bow my knees to the Father of our
" Lord Jesus Christ, from whom the whole family
" in heaven and earth is named," — ex quo omnis

110 LECTURE III.
patemitas in terris et in coelo nominata est ; — to
prove, that the filial relation among men, was only
an expression, or copy, of a prior relation, existing
between the Father and the Son in the Holy
Trinity.1 A philosophy of this kind led them to seek their
definitions of the Being and Attributes of God, in
the phenomena of the material world. The analo
gies of the physical universe were to such phi
losophers, more than presumptive proofs of the
existence and character of God : they were positive
resemblances, or participations, of the Divine Na
ture ; so that, in the survey of these, the mind
contemplates express manifestations of God himself.
This is the sense, in which the School-Divines speak
of our knowing God, only by the Effects of his
agency on the world. At the first view, they may
appear in this admission, the advocates of a cautious
inductive Theology, that modestly gathers up the
notices of God's agency scattered throughout nature.
But a closer attention to their method, will shew,
that this very notion of our Divine Knowledge, was
highly speculative ; that, as I have stated, it was a
discernment of God himself, as manifested in his
works, — a theory of the principles of the Divine
Nature, indirectly obtained through the veil of the
material world, but immediate and direct at the
'' This instance may suffice to shew the Scholastic miscon
ception of the real nature of Scripture-truth, when speculators
could so readily seize on a word to raise a system of Theology. —
• The argument is lost in our translation. — Note D.

LECTURE III. Ill
same time, so far as those principles were discernible
by the spiritualized intellect. k
Such was their construction of the Apostle's
words to the Romans ; " The invisible things of
" God are clearly seen, being understood by the
" things that are made :" words, perhaps, in them
selves, borrowed from the Platonic philosophy, but
clearly intended by the Apostle, in the practical
argument pursued in this Epistle, only to declare the
sure attestation of Nature to the Divine Being, by
whom its constitution and course have been framed.
As their Theology, accordingly, was the Science
of God, — an attempt to explore the mysterious
principles of the Divine Intelligence, on which the
truths of Revelation were conceived to depend, —
the Schoolmen set themselves in the first instance,
to rationalize the doctrine of the Trinity. The
intellectual grounds of this doctrine demanded to
be ascertained, and premised ; because these would
constitute the great First Reasons, or Principles,
k Manifestum est autem, quod ea quae naturaliter fiunt, de-
terminatas formas consequuntur. Haec autem formarum deter-
minatio oportet quod reducatur, sicut in primum principium,
in divinam sapientiam, quae ordinem universi excogitavit, qui
in rerum distinctione consistit. Et ideo oportet dicere, quod in
divina sapientia sunt rationes omnium rerum, quas supra diximus
ideas, id est, formas exemplares in mente divina existentes. Quae
quidem licet multiplicentur secundum respectum ad res, tamen
non sunt realiter aliud a divina essentia, prout ejus similitudo a
diversis participari potest diversimode. Sic igitur ipse Deus est
primum exemplar omnium. Aquinas, S. Theol. Prima Pars, qu.
xliv. art. 3. — Note E.

1 12 LECTURE III.
from which, the whole train of reasonings to the
rational principles of other doctrines, would neces
sarily be deduced. Or, to express it more accord
ing to their technical method, the Being of God,
considered abstractedly from the works of his cre
ation, presented to the Philosopher that ultimate
abstraction of which he was in quest ; — the Ideas,
or Forms, of all existing things of the Universe,
reduced to their perfect simplicity and immate
riality. Every particular subordinate theory of
doctrine drawn from the analogies of nature, would
thus be rationalized in the most intense degree ;
being contemplated, as it was the reason, the very
intelligence, of God himself.
For in order to understand the Scholastic mode
of proceeding, in their reasonings on this as well as
every other truth of Christianity, we must bear in
mind throughout, the nature of the inquiry under
taken. It was to assimilate and identify, as far
as possible, two apparently different systems — the
revealed, and the intellectual, world. The facts of
both were assumed; — those of the revealed world,
as given in the words of Scripture and in the autho
ritative decisions of the Church : those of the intel
lectual world, as ascertained by the principles of
the established philosophy. Their object then was,
to extort from that philosophy, a confession of the
mysterious wisdom, revealed in Scripture, and ex
pounded in the dogmas of Theology. The primary
truth therefore, which, in one sense, may be called
a Theory of all revealed truth ; as being, in the just

LECTURE IIL 113
View of it, the combined result of all the Scripture-
facts ; — the doctrine of the Trinity; — was to be
converted into a speculative a priori principle, — a
logical basis, from which all other facts of Scrip
ture, rationalized in like manner, might be demon
stratively concluded.
The controversies on the Trinity, accordingly, if
we view them in their result, were a determination
in precise terms of that account of the Divine
Being, which the Scripture-Revelation involved:
those terms being drawn from the analogies of
nature, in which the mysterious truth was conceived
to be veiled. But in their progress and formation, — -
in the views taken of those analogies on which the
reasonings are founded, — use is made of all existing
theories, in the different branches of science, whe
ther physical, metaphysical, or moral, as then under
stood and received.
The human mind, as I have observed, being taken
as the medium of philosophical observation in the
Scholastic system, the facts of Scripture and nature
were resolved into the fundamental principles of our
mental constitution. These presented in such a
method of inquiry, those ultimate truths which the
philosopher desired to reach. For after all the va
rious associations of thought have been analysed, —
after the utmost effort of minute subdivision of
notions, — there still remains an higher ground of
abstract contemplation ; that, in which all these

114 LECTURE III.
various ideas are resolved into the principle of Con
sciousness itself, — into the nature of the thinking
mind, in which all this wonderful mechanism of
thought is carried on.
It was observed then, that in the human mind
there were two distinct classes of facts ; those in
which the mind is exercised immediately on itself —
the intellectual principles ; and those in which it
applies itself, as it were, to external objects — the
moral principles. Plato, and Aristotle, had both'
recognized this division of the mind. The School
men inherited and availed themselves of this divi
sion, in their survey of the various manifestations of
God, for the erection of their philosophical system
of the Trinity.
The effects discernible in nature being summed
up in these primary laws of the human mind, and
there regarded as in their Causes ; the next step of
the speculation was, to trace the order of connexion
between these principles now viewed in the mind,
An object of our moral nature, as Aristotle had
pointed out, must first be apprehended by the intel
lect ; it must first be known in order to be pursued.™
m Necesse est autem quod amor a verbo procedat ; non enim
aliquid amamus, nisi quod conceptione mentis apprehendimus.
Unde et secundum hoc manifestum est, quod Spiritus Sanctus
procedit a Filio. Aquin. S. Theol. Prima Pars, qu. xxxvi. art. 2.
Sed Deum velle, habet aliud verum naturaliter prius eo, scilicet
Deum cognoscere, quoniam Deus naturaliter prius cognoscit quod-
libet volutum, quam velit illud. Omnis enim volutio est neces-
sario praacogniti, sicut tam Philosophis quam Theologis satis
constat. Bradwardin. De Causa Dei, lib. I. c. 12. p. 200.

LECTURE III. 115
The intellectual principle therefore was prior in
order to the moral — or the intellect prior to the
will. Thus far the speculation was merely human.
The various effects of nature were referred to their
great moving causes in the mind ; and a theory was
given, of the mode in which these causes moved, or
proceeded into effect. But the human mind being
formed in the image of God — being in itself an
effect of the agency of the Supreme Mind, — the
transition was easy, from the human principles of
causation, to the divine, as from the inferior and
derivative agency, to the superior and the original.
The mind therefore, its intelligence, and its will,
were contemplated, as they had their being, in the
mind, the intelligence, and the will of God. These
principles, accordingly, were the true analogies, cor
responding to the Scripture designation of the great
Divine Cause of all things, under the name of the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It only remained,
in reasoning upon these analogies, to take into view
the circumstances of imperfection and darkness,
under which they were discerned, — the proper
incomprehensibility of the Divine subject by the
human faculties in the present state. It was neces
sary further, to proceed by negations ; to abstract
from the divine truth, whatever was peculiar to the
ordinary human notion of Causation ; and so to
approximate to the notion of the Divine Being, as
He exists in himself, — to the thfeory of the Causa
Altissima, as it is purely the principle of causation.
Aquinas philosophizes concerning the Trinity
i 2

116 LECTURE III.
exactly in the way that I have described. Assuming
the process of the intellect and the will in man, as
the counterpart of the Scriptural truth which he
has undertaken to explain, he demonstrates the
theory of Divine Procession according to it. The
Son, the Logos, the Reason and Word of God, is the
principle of intelligence in the Divine Being, — the
internal word of God, expressing and comprehend
ing all the principles of created things, The Holy
Spirit is the Love of God towards his creation,
regarded as it subsists in his own nature ; as it
centres in the Divine Word, or Reason, or principle
of intelligence ; being the nexus, or bond of union
between the Father and the Word. But why, it
may be asked, is the one process called Generation;
the other simply Procession? — why is the Word
called the Son, and the Love of God called the
Spirit ? It is the resemblance of the thought to
the mind from which it proceeds, that gives the
appropriateness of the term Generation in its highest
sense, — that of like producing like, — to the Proces
sion of the Word or Reason of God ; and therefore,
the relation of the Word is represented, as that
between a Father and a Son ; and the Word is called
the Son. But in the process of the will, there is
no resemblance between the object on which it is
exerted, and the will itself. Hence, there is no
appropriate name for the proceeding of the Divine
Love, but the general one of Procession ; and this
relation in the Divine Being can only be expressed
by the name of Spirit, founded on the analogy of

LECTURE III. 117
spiration, or breathing, by which his derivation from
the Father and the Son is described in Scripture.11
In this speculation there is certainly a great deal
ofthe language of Platonism. In the Timceus, wej
find, the term p-ovojev^s, the unigenitus of the Latin
Fathers, more than once applied to the Universe, the
secondary Divine Being of the Platonic system ;
and the description of a third Being, as a bond
between God and the Universe — 8ea-/j,ov ev fieo-a
afMpoiv gwayooyov.0 But though there is a Platonic
under-current of thought in the scholastic theory, the
application of the theory is Aristotelic. Plato did
not attempt to shew the nature of the Divine Being,
as a Principle of Motion. His Deity was simply a
general Theory ofthe Universe. Whereas Aristotle
endeavoured to trace the successions of motions,
from the changes in the visible world, to their " First
" Mover" in God. His Deity was an abstract prin
ciple ; as that of Plato was ; but the theory was
drawn from a philosophy of Motion. The Schoolmen
n Aquin. S. Theol. Prima Pars, qu. xxxvii. art. 1. The expres
sion , ex substantia Patris, was appropriated to the Son ; so that,
though the Holy Spirit was spoken of as consubstantial with the
Father and the Son, it was not considered correct to describe the
Spirit, as of the substance of the Father, but only to apply to Him
the term proceeding from .the Father. See Abcelardi Introd. ad
Theol. lib. IL— Note F.
° Plato. Timaeus, p. 307. Bipont. Ed. elg SSe fiovoyevrig ovpavog
yeyoviig : and at the end of the Dialogue.
There is a reference also in this mode of philosophizing to
ancient theories of the Universe — as to the vovg of Anaxagoras,
and the principle of Love assigned by Hesiod and Parmenides. —
Note G.

118 LECTURE III.
accordingly considered the Being of God, not only
with the eye of Platonic mysticism, but further, as
the principle of Efficiency — the Cause from which
all Effects proceeded ; only viewing this principle of
Efficiency, or Causation, in that ultimate state,
where all outward effects vanished in the abstract
view of the Cause itself.
The orthodox theory of the Trinity, accordingly,
consisted in an exact scientific view of the prin
ciple of Causation. It was that theory, in which,
the efficient principles of the universe being traced
up to Mind, and the principles of intelligence and
action in the mind, were further regarded in the
Divine Being intrinsically ; as distinct from those
effects, by which they are outwardly displayed to
our contemplation. The heterodox in either ex
treme, whether those whose theories were charged
with unitarian consequences, or those who incurred
the imputation of tritheism, failed in speculating
concerning the principle of Causation. They did
not contemplate it in the ultimate evanescent state ;
as it exists purely internally in the Divine Being.
The Sabellian ~2wa\oi,cbr), or Unio, viewed the Cause
in the act of transition into Effect. It supposed the
Divine Being to be a vast tide of efflux and reflux, by
which the Deity was, continually, and successively,
protended from the Father, to the Son, and the Holy
Spirit.11 It thus did not view the Deity under those
p Aquinas, as well as the other Schoolmen, often present this
idea of the Divine Being. Quoting Damascenus, Aquinas says :
Unde et Damascenus dicit, quod principalius omnibus qua: de

LECTURE III. 119
negations or limitations, in which every thing of
Effect, as distinct from the principle of Causation,
disappeared. It contemplated the Deity, as, in a
manner, going out of Himself. The Arian exposed
himself to the charge of maintaining a tritheistic hy
pothesis, — or, if he denied this, an unitarian ; — whilst
he stated the principle of Causation in the Deity, in
combination with the effect produced ; regarding the
Son, as an effect produced by the Father, and the
Holy Ghost, as an effect produced by the Son. He
did not restrict his view, any more than the Sabel-
lian, to the simple point, where the Deity was
regarded as pure Efficiency, — pure Energy or Act,
as the Schoolmen speak ; but gave an account of
Him after a gross manner, as He is seen in the
material world.
All that was intended, at the first, by these spe
culations concerning the Divine Procession, was, to
present to the mind a view of the mysterious facts
of the Trinity, according to that theory of Causa
tion, which was the philosophical creed of the day ;
and thus to satisfy the questions of speculative men.
Origen indeed attributes the origin of all heresies in
religion, to the anxiety of inquisitive men to under
stand the doctrines of Christianity. Rather, they
were owing to the undue solicitude of Christians to
Deo dicuntur nominibus, est, Qui est. Totum enim in seipso
comprehendens, habet ipsum esse, velut quoddam pelagus substan
tia; infinitum et indeterminatum. Damascen. de Fid. Orth. I. 12.
Aquin. S. Theol. Prima Pars, qu. xin. art. 11. Also Joan. Duns
Scot. Quodlib. qu. xiv. fol. 41.

120 LECTURE III.
meet the objections of opponents. Theoretic views
of the Scripture Truth, it was thought, might be
useful in maintaining an argument with the infidel
philosopher, or the sceptical Christian ; they might
serve at least as arguments to the individual ad
dressed. But soon, the more scrupulous, or the less
philosophical, believer would take alarm at the
introduction into religion, of expressions apparently
foreign to the truth. The alarm would spread ; and
the leaders of orthodoxy would be roused to vindi
cate the sacred cause. The heretic philosopher
would be called on for his defence ; he would be
induced to maintain the position which he had ori
ginally advanced ; and his defence of his peculiar
view would then lead him into further speculations
on the subject. Thus were men of both parties, the
reputed orthodox, as well as the reputed heretic,
gradually forced into conclusions, and from these
conclusions into other premises, at which they might
at first have revolted. They gradually went deeper
and deeper, until at length their footing was lost,
and they abandoned themselves to the current.
/ When once the principle is recognised, that a doc
trine must be defended from all the consequences
deducible from it ; there is no extravagance of
theory, which the disputant may not be forced to
adopt, for the sake of saving his original hypo
thesis. When the Arian, for instance, explained the
Divine Procession, as an external efficiency in God,
it would naturally be argued, that, on this principle,

LECTURE III. 121
the Son was the creature of the Father. The same
reasoning would apply to the nature of the Holy
Spirit. Hence, by logical consequence, it would be
the creed of Arianism, that the Holy Spirit was the
creature of a creature ; and that both the Son and
the Spirit were inferior to the Father. Whether
this were the original creed of the Arian, or no, it
seems scarcely possible, but that, in the progress of
controversy, he should have been brought to the
admission of it. His theory assumed a distinctness
between the Father and the Son, analogous to that
between an effect and its antecedent cause. This
implied some interval of Time between the Two.
He was forced to admit this ; though he might
reduce the interval to the evanescent limit of a
moment. But it involved still the admission, that
the Son was not coeternal with the Father.
Again, the Sabellian Theory produced an indis
tinctness in the mode of apprehending the Son and
the Holy Spirit. Hence, it might naturally be said;
that the Sabellian made no real distinction between
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit : that the dis
tinction, according to him, existed only \o<ya>, logic
ally ; and he would be called on to defend himself
from the charge of asserting a verbal Trinity. In
maintaining his hypothesis, he would be led on, to
insist further on the validity of those distinctions,
which it asserted ; and these logical statements, or
verbal reasons, would tend to confirm his opponents
in their original view of his doctrine. He would
more and more establish the idea, that the Trini-

122 LECTURE III.
tarian distinctions, according to his doctrine, rested
only on definitions.
Notions of materialism, we may perceive, were
mixed up with these several theories of Causa
tion. The materialism of the Gnostic systems was
more open and avowed : it stands forth confessed,
particularly, in the trpofSoXrj, or prolation, of the
Valentinians.4 But though in the progress of the
Trinitarian speculations, the original materialism of
the Church-philosophy1 is partly disguised under
metaphysics and logic ; it may still be detected, as a
fundamental prejudice in the mind of the later spe-
culatist. Though he may be engaged in stating
only the modes of apprehending the subject ex
plained, — in shewing those just conceptions, which
the mind ought to form, ofthe primary principles of
the Divine Being, — he is continually perplexing the
subject with notions drawn from material things; —
appearing, at one moment, to take a word in its
q Tertullian speaks of the Son as, ex ipsius (Patris) substan
tia missum ; and as prolatum a. Patre ; defending the last assertion,
as distinct from the Valentinian probola, which implied separa
tion. Adv. Prax. c. vii. viii. p. 504.
r Augustine says, that it was his prejudice against the belief
of immaterial substance, that kept him back from an earlier
profession of Catholic Christianity. — Ipsum quoque Salvatorem
nostrum, unigenitum tuum, tanquam de massa lucidissimse mo-
lis tuee porrectum ad nostram salutem, ita putabam, ut aliud
de illo non crederem nisi quod possem vanitate imaginari.
Talem itaque naturam ejus nasci non posse de Maria Virgine
arbitrabar, nisi carni concerneretur. Confess, lib. V. c. 10.
Ibid. c. 14, lib. VI. c. 3.— Note H.

LECTURE III. 123
strictly logical sense, as descriptive only of a process
in the mind ; at the next moment, reasoning from it,
as if it described a process in nature. Thus even
in what was considered the orthodox view of the
Divine Proceeding,— avowedly a theory of the Deity
as the great First Cause, — materialism intruded
itself, in the attempt to trace the order of derivation
of the Son and Holy Spirit from the Father. Such
texts as ; Ex ore Altissimi prodii ; Eructavit cor
meum verbum bonum ; Ego de Patre exivi; Ego ex
Patre processi ; (I quote the translations used by
the Latins, as these illustrate better their mode
of deducing reasons from words of Scripture;) were
argued from, as proofs, that the Son was of the
same substance with the Father. s Then in applying
this notion, the metaphysical principle, that " what-
" ever is in God is God Himself," was appealed to,
as further proof, that the Son, being of the substance
of the Father, must also be God. '

s Verbo Domini cceli firmati sunt, et spiritu oris ejus omnis
virtus eorum ; applied by Anselm. De Process. Sp. p. 130.
Also by Ambrose and others. — Note I.
1 Ad primum ergo dicendum ; quod in inferioribus non pro
cedit persona a persona per amorem, ex defectu et materialitate
est personarum : scilicet quia non quicquid est in ipsis est
idem eis. Et ideo non procedit persona a persona, nisi divisione
alicujus ab ipsis : quod universaliter accipit virtutem ad forman-
dum totum. Et amor qui est in inferioribus, non est idem eis,
sed passio quaedam. Sed in Deo quicquid est, Deus est : et ideo
cum aliquid procedit ab ipso, tali in procedendo communicat
naturam divinam ; et modo emanationis, proprium accipit exis-
tendi modum quo persona est. Albert. Mag. in Lib. Sentent.
Tract. VII. qu. xxxi. fol. 84.

124 LECTURE III.
The theory however of the Divine Procession,
and its modifications by the Sabellian or Arian,
demanded their appropriate phraseology, without
which they could not be maintained. In fact, these
were only points of departure, from which the vari
ous controversies of the Trinity took their course.
The questions next arose, how to reconcile these
different views with the Unity of the Divine Being;
— how to discriminate between the Father, Son, and
Spirit ; and what common name was to be assigned
them. Then came also the disquisitions arising
from the Incarnation of the Word, and their re
action on the notions conceived of the Trinity ; and
the minute discussions concerning the relation of the
Holy Spirit to the other members of the Trinity, as
to the order and mode of procession ; and the re
action of these also on the original hypotheses of
the Trinity.
Now all such questions strictly, fall under the
general heads which constituted the Dialectical
Science of ancient times. The reduction of all ob
jects examined under certain classes ; their differ
ences under the common class to which they might
be referred ; their properties ; their circumstances ;
and that assemblage of classes on each particular
object, by which it is logically defined ; were the
points of inquiry with the dialectical philosopher.
So they were with the Scholastic Divine, in his
attempt to settle his theory of the Trinity. The
notions again of identity and diversity, similarity

LECTURE III. 125
and dissimilarity, priority and posteriority, coin-
stantaneousness, consecutiveness, &c, were, as Ari
stotle points out and illustrates, the great matter of
inquiry with the ancient dialectician." But these
are precisely what occupy the attention of the Scho*
lastic Divine, in all those subordinate, questions,
which arose out of the speculation concerning the
Processions in the Divine Being. I shall now illus
trate some of these points ; the limits of a discourse
obliging me to restrict myself to a specimen only,
in such abundant materials of evidence. A speci
men however may amply suffice for the induction
which I wish to establish, of the force of logical
theories, in the existing views and statements of the
Trinitarian doctrines.
The manner in which the Unity of God was main
tained in the different speculations, ofthe orthodox,
the Sabellian and the Arian, is extremely worthy
of observation. It was an Unity both physical
and logical which the orthodox held ; whereas the
Sabellian taught only a physical unity, the Arian
only a logical. The orthodox, for example, asserted
that there was no division, no separation, no trans
mutation, of the Divine Being, in the Trinity ; but
that the whole Deity was transfused (they employ
this very term) from the Father to the Son and the
Holy Spirit. To express this entire presence of
the Godhead in each, without any separation, they
u Aristot. Metaph. lib. III. c. 1. irepl oawv ol SiaXiKTiKot
ireipibvTai OKOire'iv.

126 LECTURE III.
adopted the word circumincessio, the wepi^ap-qo-is of
the Greeks ;x characterizing by it, as they conceived,
the Scripture account, / am in the Father, and the
Father in me, and that mutual Love of the Father
to the Son, which was the Holy Spirit proceeding
from both. Thus too they delighted to speak of
the Son, as of the Substance, or Usia, of the Father,
and of the whole Trinity, as Consubstantial, or
Homoousion/ The word Substance, by the am
biguity of its meaning, as also was the case with
the Usia of the Greeks, answered the purpose of
the orthodox Latin, in asserting at once a physical
and logical unity. It was employed without preci
sion ; sometimes to denote the material nature or
the principal portion of a thing ; sometimes as
synonymous with essence or the logical species ;
sometimes for individual Being, the support of
Attributes or Properties.2 It was taken accordingly
by the Latins into the account of the Trinity, rather
than Essence, which corresponded more closely
with the' Greek Usia ; as was also the term con
substantial, rather than coessential, the more exact
translation of homoousion. These terms served to
exclude the material notion of actual division or
motion in the Divine Being ; and at the same time,
affirmed, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,
all agreed in the same definition of Deity — that, so
* Kal ri\v ev aXXriXaig Trepiyjttpr\aw E-^ovtn Si^a irdarje (7vvaXot(pfj.g
Kal (Tvptyvpaewg- ovSe ih^iarapivtiiv, rj Kar obtrtav TEfivopeviov Kara
rf/v 'Apeiov Sialpemv. Damasc. De Fid. Orthod. I. p. 140.
y Note J. ' Note K.

LECTURE III. 127
far as they were God, there was no difference in the
account, and notion, of their Being. Such was the
unity, at once physical and logical, maintained by
the orthodox.
The Sabellian approached nearly to the orthodox
in his account of the Divine Unity ; since he not
only maintained the Divine distinctions, but was
willing also to use the term homoousion in the de
scription ofthe Trinity. The Latins indeed, during
the agitation of the Arian disputes, were taunted by
the Greeks, as symbolizing with the 'Sabellian : his
zeal for the consubstantiality, being construed into an
indiscriminateness in his notions of the Father,a
Son, and Holy Spirit. The stress of the controversy,
accordingly, between the Sabellian and the orthodox,
lay in the proof, that, in his application of the word
homoousion, the Sabellian maintained an actual soli-
tudeofthe Divine Being, — merely the physical notion
of usia or substance, and not the logical also; a
a Hilary of Poitiers, on making his appearance at the Council
of Seleucia, was anxiously inquired of concerning the faith of the
Gallic Church, which the Orientals suspected of Sabellianism.
Sulpicius Severus says : Is ubi Seleuciam venit, magno cum favore
exceptus, omnium in se animos et studia converterat, ac primum
quaesitum ab eo, quae esset Gallorum fides : quia turn, Arrianis
prava de nobis vulgantibus, suspecti ab Orientalibus habebamur,
trionymam solitarii Dei unionem secundum Sabellium credidisse ;
sed exposita fide sua, juxta ea quae Nicaeas erant a patribus con-
scripta, Occidentalibus perhibuit testimonium. Hist. Sacr. II.
c 42. p. 271.
Illud apud omnes constitit, unius Hilarii beneficio, Gallias
nostras piaculo haeresis liberatas. Ibid. c. 45. p. 279. See
Letter of Jerome, Note A. Lect. I.

128 LECTURE III.
sameness, that destroyed the distinction of numbef
in the members of the Trinity, and left only a dis
tinction of Names.1"
The Arian Unity was a logical, and not a physi
cal unity; because the difference which the Arian
assigned between the Father, Son, and Holy Spiritj
Would not admit the assertion of a sameness, or even
of a similarity, of substance, and left only a general
consonance in which the Holy Three agreed. The
term God, indeed, might be applied to each, accord
ing to the Arian notion ; but evidently only in a
generic sense, as equivalent to divine nature. Thus
it was, that the Arian asserted an unity in thought,
and will, and action ; interpreting, in this way, the
saying, I and the Father are one. He urged again
the text, the Father is greater than I, as evidence
against the unity of substance ; taking substance in
the sense of individual Being — the trpwrr] ovala of
the Categories. The orthodox, consequently, had to
shew against the Arian, that such an unity as this,
was a severing of the Godhead ; that it consisted
with so great a distinction between the Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit, as either to establish three Gods,
or otherwise, one Supreme God and two subordinate
Divine Beings.
The various illustrations of the Trinity from na
tural objects, employed in the writings ofthe Fathers
and the Schoolmen, are instances of the same dia
lectical spirit, which laboured to establish the Divine
Unity amidst the Trinitarian distinctions. The con-
" Note L.

LECTURE III. 129
nexion between the sun, the ray, and the heat;
the fountain, the stream, and the lake ; the seed,
the stalk, and the fruit ; the metal, the seal, and
the impression ; the memory, the intelligence, and
the will ; the premises and conclusion of a syllogism ;
and other like instances; — have been adduced on
this point, when the design has been, not so much
to establish the truth, as to illustrate it.c It is pro
bable, that such illustrations were drawn from the
explanation of Sameness, given by Aristotle. The
instance, indeed, of the application of the word same
to the water taken from the same fountain, is that
expressly given by the philosopher, in his Topics,
to shew, that things are called the same, so far
as they are very strongly alike.d The Christian
speculators, when pressed in argument to explain,
in what the identity of the Godhead consisted,
resorted to illustrations in which, a close resem
blance, or intimate connexion, was regarded as
equivalent to sameness. And we thus see the rea
son, why the Anomseans objected to the admis
sion of the expression, homoiousion, or similar
substance, into the Creed/ It was felt by these
reasoners, that similarity and sameness were con
vertible terms, when applied to the essence of a
thing. Accordingly, both Hilary and Basil were
disposed to sanction the term, on the same ground
on which the Ultra- Arians rejected it ; as equivalent,
" Note M. d Note N.
e Sulpic. Sever. Hist. Sacr. lib. II. c. 40.
K

130 LECTURE III.
that is, when rightly understood, to the homoousion
of Nice/
The disputation, in its progress, turned upon the
point, how far difference might be asserted, con
sistently with that sameness, which constituted the
Divine Unity of Being, or Substance. It was in
quired, whether the distinction could be rightly
expressed by hypostasis, or persona ; whether the
ideas involved in one, or the other, of these terms,
did not import too express and real, or too shadowy
a distinction. The difficulty here was ; to avoid dis
tinguishing the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in
such a way, as to represent them differing, as three
angels, or three men, differ from each other ; and
yet to preserve the real distinctions. Dialectical
Science furnished the expedients in this difficulty ;
and established that peculiar phraseology, which we
now use, in speaking of the Sacred Trinity, as three
Persons and one God.
The manner in which reasonings had been drawn
from the visible effects of Divine Power, Wisdom,
and Goodness, to the existence of a Trinity in the
f Testor me utrumque sensisse ; says Hilary, De Synod, lib. I.
— " If the term airapaXXaKTiHg be added to the term (homoiousion)
" I also admit it ;" Basil. Epist. ad Apollinar. Note to Damasc.
Dialectic, p. 38. — Hilary, De Trin. lib. IV. c. 4. p. 73. gives
several Arian explanations of the term homoousion. Arians en
deavoured to shew, that they objected to it, on grounds distinct
from those on which it was held by the orthodox. — Note O.

LECTURE III. 131
Divine Being, seemed to confound the Trinitarian
Distinctions with the Divine Attributes. It was
primarily important therefore to the Theologian, to
mark the difference between the two. He points
out accordingly ; that, whilst the Attributes of God
exist substantially — are of the substance or essence
of God, — or in logical language, belong to the
Category of Substance ; — the Trinitarian distinc
tions exist relatively, — or belong to the Category of
Relation ; the terms, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,
denoting intrinsic relations in the Divine Being,
agreeably to what I have before observed. Whence
it followed, that it would be improper to speak of
the divine power, or justice, or wisdom in the plural ;
for this would be to assert three Beings, or Sub
stances, in God. But there was no impropriety in
asserting three Relations ; since these differed in
properties only, and their distinctness did not mul
tiply, or separate, the Divine Substance/
But this idea of the Trinitarian Distinctions
could not alone satisfy the requisitions of a logical
philosophy. Distinct Relations must be in distinct
subjects. They could only be conceived, as they
were based on their peculiar supposita, or grounds.
s Ea vero quae significant essentiam adjective, praedicantur
pluraliter de tribus, propter pluralitatem suppositorum : Dicimus
enim tres existentes, vel tres sapientes, aut tres asternos et im-
mensos, si adjective sumantur. Si vero substantive sumantur,
dicimus unum increatum, immensum, et setemum, ut Athana
sius dicit. Albert. Mag. in Lib. Sentent. Tract. IX. qu. xliv.
fol. 94. Aquinas, S. Theol. Prima Pars, qu. xxxix. art. 3.
—Note P.
K 2

132 LECTURE III.
This was the occasion of the adoption of the word
Hypostasis, by the Greeks, and of Person, or Sub
sisting Person, by the Latins. Hypostasis indeed
was a word already consecrated to the use of Reli
gion, from its being employed by St. Paul in several
passages of his Epistles. It is obviously a technical
term, denoting that ultimate point of metaphysical
analysis, in which we conceive the bare existence of
any thing, apart from its properties : the expression
itself being a metaphorical one, drawn from a sup
position, that the connexion between the being and
the properties of a thing, resembles that between a
material prop, or base, and what it supports. It
will be found, I think, to be used in this fundamental
sense by the Apostle. The Greek therefore answered
strictly on the principles of his dialectical science,
when, being interrogated as to the point where he
rested the Trinitarian distinctions, he replied, that
they were three Hypostases.
But to the Latin, the want of a philosophical
vocabulary rendered the answer not so easy. When
the Latin was pressed with the question, — quid tres
or guid tria'? — what are the three ? — he found, that
his unscientific language denied him the means of
answering satisfactorily. He had no other word,
that sufficed at all to represent, what the Greek
intended by Hypostasis, but Persona : since Sub
stantia was already appropriated to denote the Divine
Being. What rendered Persona more applicable
to the high subject, was, that, in its transition to
denote an individual man, it was first applied to

LECTURE III. 133
individuals of dignity/ The Schoolmen are express
in pointing out, after Augustine, that the term was
adopted, not to express any definite notion, but to
make some answer, where silence would have been
better ; to denote, by some term, what has no suit
able word to express it.' But the term exposed
him to a double inconvenience. If it was under
stood, in its original sense, of a mask, or character
assumed, he was charged with Sabellianism ; if it
was taken in its acquired sense, it gave the sound
of Tritheism. On the one hand, the Arian, dis
satisfied with the term, still exacted of him, the
h Thus Aquinas says, Cum Persona importat dignitatem, &c.
S. Theol. Prima Pars, qu. xxix. art. 3. qu. xxxu. art. 3. He
argues, that the humanity in Christ is not a Person, because it
was assumed a digniori. Cicero uses Persona in this elevated
sense : as in, personae et dignitatis esse negent — De Fin. I. c. 1.
Blackstone states, in accordance with this, that the appellation of
" Parson" is " the most legal, most beneficial, and most honour-
" able title that a parish priest can enjoy ; because such a one,
" (as Sir Edward Coke observes,) and he only, is said vicem seu
" personam ecclesiae gerere.'' Commentar. B.I. c. 11. p. 384.
The use of the term was probably facilitated by its adoption
in the systems of Grammarians. The Scholastic writers draw
illustrations from the grammatical use of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd
Persons, to the Persons of the Trinity.
It is probable, as a friend has observed to me, that the associ
ation, which made Persona signify dignity, is the notion of the
public character, which every one in office must act. A private
person is not called upon to personate, or act, for instance, the
Magistrate, the Bishop, &c. But when such partes have been
given him in the drama of the world, he must use his authority
under the proper mask, or persona.
' Tres nescio quid, is the expression of Anselm, in his Monolo-
gium. — p. Lombard. Lib. Sentent. I. Dist. 25. — A quin. S. Theol.
Prima Pars, qu. xxxi. art. 2. qu. xxxn. art. 3. — Note Q.

134 LECTURE III.
confession of the three hypostases of the Greeks ;
and " branded him," on his refusal, as Jerome
indignantly complains, " with the cautery of the
" Union." k On the other hand, the difference
asserted was too great, to be consistent with an
unity of Substance, if by three Persons were con
ceived three individual Beings.
In order to obviate this last inference, it was
necessary to have recourse to the original subtile
speculation, on which the Procession of the Divine
Being was founded. It was pointed out, that the
objection arose, from an inattention to the peculiar
circumstances, to which the reasoning applied.
There was in God no distinction of matter and
form, as in all created things. In man we see the
two principles of matter and form, — the idea of the
Divine Intellect, and the material on which it is
impressed. The idea or form, when viewed out of
the Divine Being, must have a suppositum of
matter, on which it may act. It thus is individualized
in matter. The humanity imparted in each instance,
k In the Epistle to Damasus, before referred to ; and given
in Note A of Lecture I. — The anxiety to avoid Sabellianism
sometimes led the orthodox into tritheistic modes of expression.
Gregory Nazianzen, in Orat. I. speaks of " some over-orthodox
" persons," nveg twv trap' fip.1v ixyav 6p9oSo£,u>v, " having introduced
" polytheism." Aquinas, in like manner, observes, that, " for the
" purpose of stating the truth of Essence and Person, holy Doc-
" tors have sometimes spoken more expressly, than the pro-
" priety of speaking admitted." S. Theol. Prima Pars, qu. xxxix.
art. 5. Such appears to have been the case with Dr. W. Sher
lock, in his Defence of the Trinitarian Doctrine ; in which he
insisted on the notion of three distinct Minds. — Note R.

LECTURE III. 135
constitutes an individual Being, separate from other
instances in which the same operation takes place.
But in God there is no material individuation. In
Him the form and the suppositum are identical. So
that, whilst the Divine Nature is communicated,
and distinct relations therefore are constituted,
there is no separation of Beings. The persons
accordingly are Three, whilst the Divinity remains
One.1 Sometimes indeed the objection was answered in
another way. It was argued, that the Deity would
not be multiplied, though we might assert Three
Persons ; since it was only the usage of speech
which made us say Three Men — employing, that is,
the word man in the plural — of Three Individuals.
There was strictly only one humanity, the common
essence of all human individuals. This explanation,
however, merged the physical notion of the Divine
Being in the logical. m
1 Haec igitur est ratio, quare Socratem, et Platonem, et
Ciceronem, dicimus tres homines : Patrem autem, et Filium, et
Spiritum Sanctum, non dicimus tres Deos, sed unum Deum ;
quia in tribus suppositis humanae naturae sunt tres humanitates ;
in tribus autem personis est una divina essentia. Aquinas, S.
Theol. Prima Pars, qu. xxxix. art. 3.
Nam nee Deum, nee personas ejus cogitat ; sed tale aliquid,
quales sunt plures humanae personae. Et quia videt unum
hominem plures homines esse non posse, negat hoc ipsum de
Deo. Non enim idcirco dicuntur tres personae, quia sint tres
res separata?, sicut tres homines : sed quia similitudinem habent
quandam cum tribus separatis personis. Anselm, De Incar.
Verb. c. vi. p. 40.
m See Curcellsei Oper. p. 852.— Note S.

136 LECTURE III.
These several difficulties, in the explanation of
the Trinitarian doctrine, are well summed up and
stated by Aquinas, in a manner which throws light
on the logical character of the whole theory.
" It behoves us," he says, " in what we say of
" the Trinity, to beware of two opposite errors, tem-
" perately proceeding between both ; the error of
" Arius, who laid down, with the Trinity of Per-
" sons, a Trinity of Substances ; and the error of
" Sabellius, who laid down, with the unity of Es-
" sence, an unity of Person. To escape, then, the
" error of Arius, we must avoid, in divine things,
" the terms Diversity and Difference, lest the unity
" of Essence be destroyed. We may however use
" the term Distinction, on account of the Relative
" Opposition. Whence, if any where, in any au-
" thentic Scripture, diversity or difference of Per-
" sons is found, diversity or difference is taken for
" Distinction. Again, that the Simplicity of the
" Divine Essence may not be destroyed, the terms
" Separation and Division must be avoided, which
" are of a whole into parts. Again, that equality
" may not be destroyed, the term Disparity must
" be avoided. Further, that similitude may not be
" destroyed, the terms Alien and Discrepant must
" be avoided. . . . Further, to avoid the error of
" Sabellius, we should avoid Singularity, that the
" communicability of the Divine Essence may not
" be destroyed. . . . We ought also to avoid the term
" One Only, Unicum, that the Number of Persons
" may not be destroyed. . . . The term Solitary also

LECTURE III. 137
" must be avoided, lest the association, of Three
" Persons be destroyed.""
If we compare, with these general disputations
respecting the Trinity, the particular controversies
connected with the Incarnation and the Procession
of the Holy Spirit, we shall find them following the
same method.
The discussions on the Incarnation were, in like
manner, partly physical, partly logical. It was at
tempted to be explained, in what way the Son might
be said to be generated of the Father ; whether out
of the substance of God, or out of a common Di
vinity, of which each participates ; or by division
of the Paternal substance as a portion severed from
the Father : whether further, He is the Son of God
by nature, or necessity, or will, or predestination,
or adoption. The confusion of principles of differ
ent sciences in these promiscuous inquiries, is suf
ficiently apparent. But it was by such a philosophy
that the orthodox language was settled, declaring
the Son " begotten before all worlds ; of one sub-
" stance with the Father."
The account of the Incarnation itself was more
peculiarly logical ; still there was a mixture of phy
sical speculation respecting the principle of life in
man. The notion entertained, both by Fathers
and by Schoolmen, was, that the animating prin
ciple was infused into the body ; and thus, the inert
matter of the flesh became the living substantial
° Aquin. Summa Theolog. Prima Pars, qu. xxxi. art. 2. — Note T.

138 LECTURE III.
form of man. That all souls were consubstan
tial with the Deity, was an ancient Pythagorean
notion, that survived in the Church. Thus Ter
tullian speaks of man as animated out of the
substance of God. The observation of this fact
accounts for the opinion attributed to Apollinarius,
that the Divinity was the animating principle of
Christ. He was fearful of introducing a Quaternity
into the notion of the Divine Being, if it were con
ceived that our Lord possessed the Substance of
human nature, a sentient and intelligent human
principle, as well as the Substance of the Divinity ;
and was thus led to the denial of the perfect huma
nity of Christ/
The peculiarly logical part of the inquiry appears,
in the points of controversy between the orthodox
and the Nestorians and Eutychians. These were,
in respect to the Incarnation, analogous to the
disputes between the orthodox and the Sabellians
and Arians, on the general question of the Trinity.
The points of sameness and diversity were here
also to be exactly determined. The orthodox main
tained, that the notion of sameness here consisted,
in the Personal individuality of Christ, regarded as
a Member of the Trinity ; whereas the diversity was
in the two Natures, the divine and the human,
united in His Person. But the Nestorian offended

° Damascen. De Haeres. p. 77- note. — Lombard. Sent. II. Dist.
17. B. Putaverunt enim quidam haeretici, Deum de sua sub
stantia animam creasse, &c, p. 178. — See Ibid. Dist. 18. H. on
the Creation and Infusion of the Anima, p. 182. — Note U.

LECTURE III. 139
against the theories of the logical philosophy, in
stating two different hypostases, as the support of
those common properties which belonged to Christ,
and destroyed also the personal individuality. The
Eutychian maintained the personal individuality, but
destroyed the substantial differences. Theories of
the composition and mixture of bodies, entered
largely into these discussions : but they were still
metaphysical in principle, resulting only in settling
the connexion and relation of ideas concerning the
Incarnation. They terminated in the decision of the
place which the terms — Substance, Nature, Person, —
should hold in the definition of the whole nature of
Christ. And the excellence of the orthodox theory,
we may observe, consisted in its excluding from
that definition, all ideas imported from the physical
speculations, and reducing it to perfect consistency
with the original theory of the Divine Procession.
It brought the inquirer back to the point from
which he set out, to acknowledge the simple Di
vine Personality of the Saviour, — that He was the
Word made flesh. The disputes, at the same time,
were in many points merely verbal ; the contro
versialists reasoning about words which they took
in different senses/ We should observe, for in
stance, how the more general language, according to
p Apollinarius and Cyril took the word Nature in different
senses : Apollinarius, after the manner of the Oriental Chris
tians, for Essence, or Substance ; Cyril, in a popular sense, for
an individual thing in itself, whether essence, or hypostasis, or
person. Many Catholics thought, that to oppose Nestorius,
one Nature in Christ was to be professed, taking Nature in its

140 LECTURE III.
which, our Lord was described as having two whole
and perfect Natures, was preferred to the assertion
of two Substances. The term Nature here expressed
the proper Divinity and the proper Humanity ; —
the proper Divinity, as indicating that real persona
lity, which belonged to Christ, as very God of the
Substance ofthe Father ; the proper humanity, as in
dicating that abstract humanity, which He assumed
to the Divinity, by being made flesh of the Substance
of his Mother. It was adopted, evidently to avoid
the assertion, that our Lord assumed to the Divinity
any particular individual man ; which would have
implied a twofold personality/ We may observe
too, how the perpetual union of the Godhead and
the manhood in Christ, was secured, by the logical
basis, on which the distinct properties of the two
natures were rested. Being united in one hypo
stasis, — or, as it is expressed, the union being
hypostatical, — the two natures remain " indivisible
" throughout."1 Thus we find the language of our
common meaning. Dissert. Damasc. II. p. 42. — Contra Ja-
cobit. c. 52. p. 408. t. I. Oper. Damasc.
Monophysites objected to the illustration drawn from the
union of soul and body, to the two natures of Christ, arguing
that soul and body constituted only a single nature. Damasc.
Dialect. 41. p. 44.— Note V.
" Non enim est alius Deus, alius homo in Christo, quamvis
aliud sit Deus, aliud homo ; sed idem ipse est Deus, et qui homo.
Verbum enim caro factum, assumpsit naturam, aliam, non aliam
personam. Nam cum profertur homo, natura tantum quae com
munis est omnibus hominibus significatur, &c. Anselm, De
Incarn. Verb. c. 5. p. 39. — Note W.
' Thus Damascenus, " When once for all, the natures re-
" ceive the hypostatical union, Kaff viroaTaaiv evwoiv, they remain

LECTURE III. 141
article affirming in Christ, " two whole and perfect
" natures," " never to be divided."
The controversies relating immediately to the
Holy Spirit, became more dialectical in their pro
gress. At first, the Latins were content to speak of
the Holy Spirit, as the mutual Love of the Father
and the Son ; using the language of Platonism.'
Afterwards, as they came into collision with the
Greeks on the point of the procession of the Holy
Spirit from the Son, the disputation with their
philosophical antagonists obliged them to a more
precise, and strictly logical, mode of stating the
doctrine. This transition may be noticed, in the
treatise of Anselm on the Procession of the Spirit ;
a work composed in his more advanced age, after a
conference with the Greeks, in which he had taken
an active part. In this treatise there is no mention
of the original theory of the Latins, but the proof
of the point is rested entirely on logical grounds ;
such as, the necessity of identifying the Father with
the Spirit, or of asserting the procession of the Son
from the Spirit, if the procession of the Spirit from
the Son were denied.
" indivisible for ever, dSiaipeToi Elgrb wavTeXeg. Dialectica, cap.
67. Oper. p. 78. " for though the soul," he adds, " is parted
" from the body in death, still the hypostasis of both is the
" same."— Note X.
" Rationes praecipuae, quibus probatur Spiritum Sanctum a
Patre et Filio procedere, sumuntur ex verbis Dionysii, lib. de
Divinis Nomin. c. 4 ; ubi dicit, quod etiam in Deo extasim
facit divinus amor : non sinens ipsum sine genuine esse, &c.
Albert. Mag. in Sent. Tract. VII. qu. xxxi. fol. 73.

142 LECTURE III.
The point appears to have been left undetermined
during the heat of the Arian disputes. The heresy
of Macedonius, in stating the Holy Spirit to be a
creature, was only a form of Arianism; and did not
touch this question immediately.' The orthodox
seem to have avoided any express assertion of the
Procession from the Son ; both, as it was not re
quired in that state of the controversy, and as
the Procession from the Father was more directly
opposed, both to the Sabellian and Arian notions of
successive, or continuous, derivations/ But the spe
culations of the Nestorians concerning the Incarna
tion, were found to bring perplexity into the subject.
Aquinas expressly attributes to the Nestorians, as a
novel article, the doctrine, that the Holy Spirit does
not proceed from the Son ; referring to the Council
of Ephesus, in which a creed of the Nestorians was
condemned on that ground/ To those who, as the
' Theodoret objected to Cyril of Alexandria, for asserting the
procession of the Spirit from the Son ex Filio, as savouring of
the heresy of Apollinarius, and of Macedonius. Dissert. Da-
mascen. I. c. 2. De Fid. Orthodox. I. Damascen. Oper. torn. I.
p. 141. This appears to have been the foundation of the objections of
the Greeks to the insertion of the proceeding " from the Son."
Cavebant enim, Le Quien says, ne, Ariano more, Spiritus
Sancti productio in Filium prassertim refunderetur. Note at
p. 141. Damasc. Oper. torn. I. on the text of Damascenus,
ek rov tlov Se to Tlvevpa ob Xiyopev. The opposition once begun,
other reasons were of course readily devised, both for, and
against, the filioque.
* Ad tertium dicendum,"quod Spiritum Sanctum non proce-
dere a Filio, primo fuit a Nestorianis introductum, ut patet in

LECTURE III. 143
Nestorians, admitted two hypostases in Christ, there
was a logical difficulty, in admitting the procession
of the Spirit from the Son ; since it introduced a
Quaternity in God instead of a Trinity. At length,
having been gradually introduced, it seems, in the
course of divine service, in some Churches of the
West, the words Jilioque were sanctioned by the
Illrd Synod of Toledo, towards the close of the
Vlth century, when the Goths of Spain abjured
their Arianism. At the beginning of the IXth
century, the Gallo-Frank Church adopted the same
expression. Afterwards, but at what precise period
is a matter of uncertainty, at the instance of the
Western Churches, it received the sanction of the
Apostolic See/ The gradual admission and pre
valence of the article among the Latins, marks the
triumphs ofthe orthodox theology under the strong
hand of the Spiritual Power ; whilst, in the East,
the state of controversy, controlled by Imperial dis-
quodam symbolo Nestorianorum damnato in Ephesina Synodo.
Et hunc errorem secutus fuit Theodoritus Nestorianus, et plures
post ipsum. Inter quos fuit etiam Damascenus. Unde in hoc,
ejus sententiae non est standum. Quamvis a quibusdam dicatur,
quod Damascenus, sicut non confitetur Spiritum Sanctum esse
a Filio, ita etiam non negat ex vi illorum verborum. Aquinas,
S. Theol. Prima Pars, qu. xxxvi. art. 2.
We see also in this passage, how anxious the Schoolman was,
not to lose any authority that had once been sanctioned by the
Church. Even the opposing Greek must be brought over to his
side, if possible.
y Leo III. refused his authority for inserting the -words filioque,
into the Nicene Creed, simply on the ground of not altering the
original formulary ; professing at the same time his full assent to
the doctrine involved in the addition.

144 LECTURE III.
putants, would admit no alteration of the original
formularies/ It shews, how tenacious the Latin was,
of what had once been passed as a doctrine, by the
authority, or even the practice only, of his Church;
and with what pliant facility his logic could minister
reasons for its abstract truth, and incorporate it with
the system of his faith. The words were confessedly
an addition to the Nicene Creed. The Latins only
claimed to themselves the right, of more explicitly
stating the doctrine on that point/ But the Greek
urged the anathema of the Council against all who
should alter the words of the Creed, and fiercely
resisted all accommodation with the Latins on the
point. According to the Schoolmen, the ground,
in which the procession of the Spirit from the Son
was maintained, was altogether logical : since, as
they argue, unless it be allowed, there will be
no means of distinguishing the Holy Spirit from
the Son. Pt,elations, they observe, are only distinct
when they are opposed. Thus the Father has two
Relations, one to the Son, and the other to the
Spirit ; but these two relations, not being opposed,
do not constitute two Persons. The like then would

2 Ratramn of Corbey is said to have written a work, about
A.D. 868, against the Greeks. The title of it evidences the dif
ferent characters of the Greek and Latin disputants. Contra
opposita Graecorum Imperatorum Romanam Ecclesiam infaman-
tium, libri quatuor Rathramni Monachi. Mauguin, torn. II.
Dissert, c. 1 7. in his Collection of Tracts of the IXth century on
Grace and Predestination.
" Anselm de Process. Sp. Scti. Oper. torn. III. p. 134.—
Note Y.

LECTURE III. 145
be the case, if the relations ofthe Son and the Holy
Spirit to the Father were not opposed : whence it
would follow, that the Son and the Holy Spirit
were but one Person/
I have now taken a review of the principal parts
of the Trinitarian controversies, so far as I have
thought it necessary to illustrate the origin of our
theological vocabulary on this sacred subject. I have
some general remarks yet to offer, on the effect
produced on the whole doctrine, by the consider
ation of those scholastic discussions to which I have
called your attention.
. The examination then, I would observe, has forci
bly impressed on my mind the conviction, that the
principal, if not the only, difficulties on the doctrine
of the Trinity, arise from metaphysical considera
tions — from abstractions of our own mind, quite
distinct from the proper, intrinsic, mystery of the
holy truth in itself. Perplexities from the nature
of Number, of Time, of Being ; in short, all those
various conceptions of the mind which are its ulti
mate facts, and beyond which no power of analysis
can reach ; these, I think, the course of the present
inquiry has tended to shew, are our real stumbling-
block, causing the wisdom of God to be received
as the foolishness of man. These have forced
1 Aquin. S. Theol. Prima Pars, qu. xxxvi. a. 2. Respondeo
dicendum, quod necesse est dicere Spiritum Sanctum a Patre
esse. Si enim non esset ab eo ; nullo modo posset ab eo per-
sonaliter distingui, &c. — Note Z. L

146 LECTURE III.
themselves on the form of the Divine Mystery, and
given it that theoretic air, that atmosphere of
repulsion, in which it is invested.
The truth itself of the Trinitarian doctrine
emerges from these mists of human speculation,
like the bold, naked land, on which an atmosphere
of fog has for awhile rested, and then been dis
persed. No one can be more convinced than I am,
that there is a real mystery of God revealed in the
Christian dispensation; and that no scheme of
Unitarianism can solve the whole of the phenomena
which Scripture records. But I am also as fully
sensible, that there is a mystery attached to the
subject, which is not a mystery of God.
Take, for instance, the notion of the Divine Unity.
We are apt to conceive that the Unity must be
understood numerically ; b that we may reason from
the notion of Unity, to the properties of the Divine
Being. But is this a just notion of the Unity of
God ? Is it not rather a bare fact, a limit of specu
lation, instead of a point of outset ? For how was
b In Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. 45. p. 717, the question is
proposed, " If the nature of God is simple, how will it admit the
" number three?" &c.
Again, Integer, perfectus numerus Trinitatis est. Concil. Sir-
miens. A. D. 357. Hilar. De Synodis, Opera, p. 466. — Hpog
Se Kal (pvo-iKr) avayKT) povdSa elvag SvaSog dp-^v. Damasc. De Fid.
Orthod. I. c. 5.
The Valentinian System was a play of numbers. The Pytha
gorean part of Platonism, the philosophy of Numbers, it cannot
be doubted, must have exercised great influence over the minds
of the early philosophic Christians. So also would the Jewish
mystical application of Numbers, on the converts from Judaism.

LECTURE III. 147
it revealed in that system, in which it was the great
leading article of divine instruction ? When Moses
called upon the people ; — " Hear, O Israel, the Lord
" our God is one Lord ;" — was it not a declaration,
that Jehovah is not that host of heaven, — that multi
plicity ofthe objects of divine worship, which heathen
idolatry has enshrined, but the God in heaven, and
in the earth, and in the sea, — not the Teraphim of
domestic worship, but the Universal Governor, over
shadowing all things with the ubiquarian tutelage
of his Providence? Surely the revelation of the
Divine Unity was not meant to convey to Israel any
speculative notion of the oneness of the Deity ; but,
practically, to influence their minds in regard to the
superstitions from which they had been brought
out. It was no other than the command ; " Thou
" shalt have no other Gods but me."
Now, were this view of the Revelation of the
Divine Unity strictly maintained, would it not
greatly abate the repugnance often felt at the ad
mission of a Trinity in Unity ? We should profess,
that we only knew God, as the exclusive object of
divine worship ; and should acknowledge, that it
was quite irrelevant to our scheme of Religion,
either to demonstrate, or to refute, any conclusion
from the nature of Unity, concerning any further
revelation of the Divine Being. To deny a Trinity,
would then be felt the same, as to assert, that,
because Polytheism is false, therefore no new mani
festation of God, not resulting from the negation of
Polytheism, can be true. l2

148 LECTURE III.
There is another observation, which the present
inquiry has suggested, and which I think of great
importance, in order to a just view of the Trinitarian
Controversies. Let it then be remarked, that all the
theories proposed on the subject are Trinitarian in
principle. If the opinions of Praxeas, and Artemon,
and Theodotus, of Paul of Samosata, Noetus, Sabel
lius, and others, amounted to Unitarianism ; it was in
the way of consequence, or inference. They set out
with a Trinitarian hypothesis, and either explained
it away themselves by their speculations, or had the
consequences of their theories forced on them by
their adversaries, as the principles of their belief.
We can plainly perceive, though unfortunately but
very slight memorials remain to us of their dis
quisitions, that their anxiety was, to account for
certain acknowledged facts of the Scripture narra
tive. They refer to admitted manifestations of God,
as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit : and
the desire of accommodation to Jewish or Heathen
prejudices, the refutation of the theories of others,
the fancies of private speculation, — these, and other
influences concealed from our research, — suggest
to the several inquirers peculiar combinations, or
analyses, of the given facts, in their respective doc
trines of the Trinity. Take the reverse of the case,
and you will judge, what a difference would have
been in the language of these theorists. We should
have had no attempts to explain the Divine Unity
consistently with Trinitarian distinctions. They
would not have been employed in explaining away

LECTURE III. 149
distinctions, which they did not admit in some sense
at least. They would have simply explained, and
enforced, the Unity which they did admit. Or, had
they referred to Trinitarian distinctions as main
tained by opponents in argument, they would have
endeavoured to disprove them, instead of labouring,
as they have done, to retain these very views, how
ever imperfectly, erroneously, or vainly, in their
own systems.
One fact is clear through all this labyrinth of
variations which theological creeds have exhibited ; —
that there is some extraordinary communication
concerning the Divine Being, in those Scriptural
notices of God which have called forth the curiosity
of thinking men in all ages. To me it matters
little, what opinion on the subject has been prior,
has been advocated by the shrewdest wit or deepest
learning, has been most popular, most extensive in
its reception. All differences of this kind belong to
the history of the human mind, as much as to theo
logy, and affect not the broad basement of fact on
which the manifold forms of speculation have taken
their rise. The only ancient, only catholic, truth is
the Scriptural fact. Let us hold that fast in its
depth and breadth — in nothing extenuating, in no
thing abridging it — in simplicity and sincerity ; and
we can neither be Sabellians, or Tritheists, or Soci-
nians. Attempt to explain, to satisfy scruples, to
reconcile difficulties ; and the chance is, that, how
ever we may disclaim the heterodoxy which lurks
on every step of our path, we incur, at least, the

150 LECTURE III.
scandal at the hands of others, whose piety, or pre
judices, or acuteness, may be offended by our words.
I should hope the discussions in which we have
now been engaged, will leave this impression on the
mind. Historically regarded, they evidence the re
ality of those sacred facts of Divine Providence,
which we comprehensively denote by the doctrine
of a Trinity in Unity. But let us not identify this
reality with the theories couched under a logical
phraseology. I firmly and devoutly believe that
word, which has declared the Name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. But who
can pretend to that exactness of thought on the sub
ject, on which our technical language is based ?
Looking to the simple truth of Scripture, I would
say, in the language of Augustine, Hcec scio. Distin-
guere autem inter illam Generationem et hanc Pro-
cessionem, nescio, non valeo, non sufficio.& — Verius
enim cogitatur Deus, quam dicitur ; et verius est,
quam cogitatur." ¦i Contra. Maximin. III. p. 237. 4to ed.
" De Trin. VII. c. 4.

LECTURE IV
THE PELAGIAN CONTROVERSIES.
PREDESTINATION AND GRACE.

SUMMARY.
Scholastic nature of controversies relative to Divine and Hu
man Agency — State of the West disposes the Latin Christians
to the discussion of such questions — Importance of the ques
tions in order to Church-government — The disputes here at
first, less philosophical in comparison with the Trinitarian —
Consequent laxity in the terms of the Pelagian theories, occa
sions more continual disputes — The Schoolmen, the first to
systematize these doctrines — Connexion of them with the pre
vious theory of the Trinity — Scholastic view of Predestination
an application of the Principle of Activity in the Divine Being
to human actions — Importance of excluding reference to the
Divine Intelligence, in our estimate of Predestination — Mode
in which the notions of Contingency and Necessity, Time
and Eternity, were employed in scholastic reasonings. — The
only proper difficulty on the subject is, the prevalence of Evil —
Notions of Optimism influential on such speculations — The
term Good in ancient philosophy coincident with an object
of will — Reprobation consequently, as implying evil willed,
unknown to Scholastic system — Illustration to be derived to our
article on the subject from the theories opposed by the Schoolmen
— Dread of Manicheism in the Latin Church.
Scholastic notion of Grace as the effect of Predestination, both
physical and logical — The term Grace, designates properly a
general fact of the Divine conduct — Application of Aristotle's
physical doctrines in the* scholastic account of the process of
Grace — The theory of Transmutation — Instinctive Principle of
motion attributed to the System of Nature — Approximation to
Pantheism in this system.
Practical reflections — Truths of Grace and Predestination con
cern the heart principally— Theoretic statements of them must
always be peculiarly open to difficulty — The difficulties, evidently,
chiefly metaphysical — The doctrines, practically taken, full of
real comfort and peace.

James I. 17.
Every good gift, and every perfect gift, is from above,
and cometh down from the Father of hghts, with whom is
no variableness, nor shadow of turning.

n*a<ra Soaig dyaQrj, Kal wuv Suiprfpa reXeiov, dvuidev tori Kara-
pdivov dirb tov irarpog twv <jiwto>v, trap' oi ovk evi irapaXXayif T\
Tpoirfjg diroo-Kiairpa.

Omne datum optimum, et omne donum perfectum, de-
:sursum est, descendens a Patre luminum; apud quem non
.est transmutatio, nee vicissitudinis obumbratio. Lat. Vulg.

LECTURE IV.

In opening my inquiry into the influence of the
Scholastic Philosophy, as also in entering on the
illustration of it in the Trinitarian Controversies,
I had occasion to point out the fact of the real
ascendancy obtained by the Latin portion of the
Christian Church. It appeared that this ascendancy
was not at once decided and complete ; but that
still it was effectually achieved by those stirring
spirits, the great Latin Fathers of the IVth century.
A review of another class of controversies, which,
next to those on the Trinity, engaged and absorbed
the attention of Christian disputants, — the controver
sies relating to Divine and Human Agency, ^-will
still more illustrate this origin of the Scholastic
Philosophy, and its incorporation with Theology, as
a subtile instrument of spiritual power.
We now, indeed, enter on ground which is more
peculiarly that of Scholasticism ; where the Greek
Theology is comparatively silent, and the whole
moulding and ultimate complexion of the doctrines
professed, are the work of the Latins, or rather of
the influential portion of the Latins, the African
Churches, under the management of Augustine, at
the commencement of the Vth century. The Greeks,
looking more with the eye of philosophers than
of Church-leaders, at the questions of Divine and

156 LECTURE IV.
Human Agency, did not take a strictly theolo
gical interest in their decision. They regarded
these questions, rather as the proper matter of phi
losophical disquisition ; as they really are, when
justly considered ; since they suggest themselves to
the inquisitive mind, independently of any peculiar
views of God and man resulting from Revelation.
This field of disputation therefore, as a part of
Christian Theology, was left open to the busy intel
lect of the Latin Divines.
In the East indeed, there was not that call for
the decision of these questions, which existed in the
West. The attention of the Greeks was sustained
on parts of the Trinitarian controversies, at the
period when Pelagianism was producing a ferment
in the Latin Church. The uniformity ofthe general
state of things in the Eastern Empire, is strikingly
contrasted by the restlessness, and fever of change,
with which the West was troubled during the IVth
and Vth centuries. Though the East was the theatre
of wars during that period, there was no such uni
versal shock to the repose of the human mind,
as in the West, where revolution and confusion
had taken the place of regularity and order. The
world witnessed the sack and misery of the Im
perial City herself; whose fall might well seem the
prelude of the universal dissolution of society. All
was either ruin, or expectation of ruin. This
anarchy of social life in the West might naturally
represent itself to the religionist, as well as to the
profane and irreligious, as the disenthroning of

LECTURE IV. 157
Providence ; whilst the one would be confirmed in
his infidelity, the other would be staggered in the
confidence of his faith. To a Christian trained in a
speculative Theology, the difficulty would be aggra
vated. The immutability and perpetuity of order,
which he had been taught to ascribe to the Divine
Principles, would receive, to his apprehension, a
contradiction, in what he observed passing around
him. How prevalent such feelings were, we may
learn from the testimony of Salvian, a Gallic writer
of the Vth century, in his work " on the Government
" of God;" whose expressions, though allowance must
be made for a declamatory style, give a vivid repre
sentation of the disorder of the times, and of the
infidel distrust of Providence resulting from it. The
evil seems to have reached its height, when this
writer drew his picture of it. It was at such a
crisis, when Pelagianism began to make advances
in the world ; when opinions were disseminated,
which were regarded, or at least apprehended in
their consequences, as infringements on the great
truths of Providence and Grace, and as in this sense
harmonizing with the profane tendency of the age.a
Africa, however, continued for some time exempt
from the general ruin, and Augustine had leisure to
contemplate the rolling wave in its progress, before
a See also Augustine's complaint of the drunkenness which
prevailed in the African cities in his times ; and with which even
the celebration of the memory of the martyrs was profaned :
and the ineffectual attempts of the Bishops to check it. — Note A.
Lect. IV.

158 LECTURE IV.
at length the cities of Carthage and Hippo were
sweptunder it.h Jerome also, sequestered from every
thing but the storms of a passionate enthusiasm, at
his loved retreat in Palestine, could watch the state
of religious feeling at this crisis, and, himself un
moved, mingle with the agitating events of the
West. But the sceptre of spiritual power was then
passing from his veteran hands to the more vigorous
Bishop of Hippo ; c and, whilst his counsels and
example are sought in the difficulties of the struggle
against the Pelagianism of the times, it is the
African Divines, with Augustine at their head.
who take the lead in the controversies ; to whose
exertions the orthodox decision is owing. d Read the
repeated expostulations of the African clergy, con
veyed, in the form of respectful epistles, to the heads
of the Roman Church, on the case of Pelagius and
Celestius; and, under their half-expressed fears ofthe
orthodoxy of Rome, and their obsequious language
of duty, you will easily see, who are the real arbiters
of the dispute ; whose is the influential opinion,

b Jerome born A. D. 331, died in 420.
Augustine born A. D. 354, died in 430.
Pelagian Controversies began to be agitated in 405.
c Jerome, amidst his compliments of Augustine, still reminds
him who it is that makes these acknowledgments : Quem post
me, he says, in writing to Augustine, orientem in scripturarum
eruditione lsetatus sum. Epist. XIV. in Augustin. Oper. torn. II.
p. 19.— Note B.
d Prosper, in speaking of the Council of Carthage, says,
.... cui dux Aurelius, ingeniumque, Augustinus erat. Carrn..
de Ingralis. — Note C.

Lecture iv. 159
before which even the pride of the Apostolic See
must bow.e
The nature and the decision of the controversies
on Divine and Human Agency, bespeak entirely the
practical theology of the Western Divine. These
controversies were of leading importance in relation
to the government ofthe Church. Opinions, adverse
to a belief in the supremacy of Divine Providence,
were also adverse to the dependence of the spiritual
community, on the personal oracles of the Divine
Will, and visible ministers of the Divine Power. If
the real invisible Theocracy were not acknowledged
in the fullest sense, the principle of a deputed theo
cratic power would sink in estimation at the same
time ; and the hearts of the people would be se
duced from that loyalty, with which the sacerdotal
ministrations had been hitherto attended. So that,
even though the logic of Pelagius, and the known
purity of his character, might have acquitted him
from the charge of teaching a doctrine of ingrati
tude and rebellion against God ; yet it was probable,
that discussions, touching the nature and necessity of
Divine Grace, if they amounted only to a modera
tion of language on the subject, would raise ques
tionings and unsettle the faith of many/ Practical
men would readily see this, and, regarding the mat
ter, not as a point of disputation, but as a question
of government, would take their measures against
consequences probable in fact, rather than against
the abstract speculation itself.
e Note D. f Note E.

160 lecture iv.
It was also to hearts, which had so lashed them
selves to the helm of the Christian vessel, a ques
tion of piety or impiety, whether an exclusive, or
a qualified, ascription to God, of the glory of human
salvation, should be adopted in the dogmatic lan
guage of the Church. In opposing Pelagianism,
they conceived themselves pleading " the Lord's con
troversy" against His "ungrateful" creatures,8 and
felt their zeal, as Churchmen, stimulated by the
righteousness of the cause which they advocated.
To impute any efficacy to Human Agency, in the
great work of Salvation, might appear a denial of
God's mercy and power, — a disclaimer «of that Pro
vidence, whose blessing had hitherto crowned their
measures with success. They exulted in an oppor
tunity of vindicating the cause of God, through evil
report and good report ; rejoicing in the very hatred
incurred at the hand of the heretic.11

s Prosper's Poem against the Pelagians, is inscribed, De In-
gratis. Bradwardine, Archbishop of Canterbury in the XlVth
century, entitles his elaborate metaphysical work against Pela
gianism, De Causa Dei. Bradwardine died in 1349.
b They perverted our Lord's declaration, " Rejoice when
" men hate you and persecute you," &c.
Macte virtute, says Jerome, writing to Augustine, in orbe
celebraris ; catholici te conditorem antiques rursum fidei vene-
rantur, atque suspiciunt : et, quod signum majoris glorias est,
omnes hseretici detestantur, et me pari prosequuntur odio ;
ut, quos gladiis nequeunt, voto interficiant. Epist. 25. —
Augustini Oper. torn. II. p. 29. 4to ed.
Gregory Nazianzen speaks with exulation of the shocking
manner of Arius's death. Arius is uniformly regarded by the
orthodox Fathers as another Judas.

lecture iv. 161
The Pelagian controversies, accordingly, evi
denced a different character, at their outset, from
that by which the questions on the Trinity were
distinguished. The assertion may seem paradoxical;
but it may be said, that they were more properly
religious than the Trinitarian ; that is, they were
viewed more immediately in their reference to the
general sentiments and conduct of Christians, and
decided, in the first instance, on practical grounds.
The disputes on the Trinity, indeed, more properly
belonged, in principle, to Christianity ; as, on the
other hand, the Pelagian controversies, in principle,
belonged to Philosophy. But, in the discussions of
the former, Christianity was almost forgotten in the
philosophical spirit with which they were pursued.
And so, in the discussions of the latter, the proper
philosophical arguments, by which the truths, re
specting Divine and Human Agency might have
been fairly appreciated, were neglected ; and points
of abstract inquiry were decided by their probable
effect on human practice. The consequences of
certain opinions were estimated in each case, both
in the Trinitarian, and the Pelagian disputes. A
Theology, essentially logical, shewed itself in the
one as in the other. Only, in the Trinitarian dis
putes, the argumentation was exclusively and strictly
logical ; in the Pelagian, the logical and practical
consequences were confused together. Because
such an effect would probably follow such an opi
nion in the conduct of the Christian, therefore, it
was argued, the opinion must be untrue.
M

162 lecture iv.
Thus the objection, which Jerome adduces against
the theory of the power of man imputed to Pela
gius, is, that it tended to an " apathy " and " a sin-
" lessness," ' such as was inculcated by Stoic or
Pythagorean, and consequently would lead to a
state of inaction and presumptuous security. The
imputation, surely, is groundless and unphilosophical
as an argument against the truth of the theory;
though, as a practical objection, and rhetorically
employed, it may avail. In like manner Augustine
argues, that, if the doctrine of Pelagius were ad
mitted, the importance of Baptism would cease ;
men would no longer think it necessary to resort to
the laver of regeneration, to be washed from pol
lutions which they did not acknowledge. Again,
that the duty of Prayer would be neglected : in
vain would our Lord have commanded men to
pray, that they be not led into temptation, when
the self-fortified soul felt, within itself, the fond
presumption that it was safe.
We may perceive, then, in the origin of these
controversies, a confusion of rhetorical and logical
argumentation ; such as might naturally have been
expected from the rhetorical school, in which the
Latin Fathers were trained, and. from that prac
tical design which was ever uppermost in their
minds in all their theological discussions. Had
these controversies, in their connexion with Chris-
1 'A7ra0aa et dvapaprriata. It is curious to find the very same
consequences imputed to Calvinism in more modern times. — ¦
Note F.

lecture iv. 163
tianity, been as fully treated by the Greeks as the
Trinitarian were, we should have found a more
exact technical vocabulary on the several points
of discussion, as well as a more logical deduction
of consequences, at the outset of the disputation.
As it was, they were left by the Latin Fathers
in the unscientific, floating form of practical con
clusions. The Latins had not the acumen, and
the expertness, of the Greek theologian ; as nei
ther had they a proper instrument of philosophy
in their language ; to enable them to draw those
lines of discrimination, on which an exact theoretic
phraseology could be constructed. Indeed, they had
no design of so stating the truths of Divine and
Human Agency. They were bent on resisting a
practical mischief. And hence has resulted that very
remarkable difference in the comparison with the
Trinitarian controversies. A copious phraseology,
an exactness and rigour of statement, are charac
teristic of the Trinitarian theories, from the first
full discussion of them. On the Pelagian question,
we seek in vain, in the writings of Augustine, any
positive, dogmatic language, by which an exact
theory of Divine and Human Agency, in their
relation to each other, may be enunciated. This is
evidenced in the fact, that the orthodox, the Jan-
senists, the Thomists, and the Jesuits, or Molinists,
all equally refer themselves to the authority of that
Father. Something must be allowed in such re
ferences for the obligation felt by the several dis
putants, to maintain their agreement with so catholic
m 2

164 lecture iv.
an authority. Something too must be allowed for
the unphilosophical nature of the Latin language.
Still, had Augustine spoken with more dogmatical
precision on the subject, there would not have been
that plausibility of evidence in his writings to views
so opposed.
The observation is illustrated in the disputes sub
sisting on the Question, after the death of Augus
tine, and in the difficulty manifested, in the course
of these discussions, of ascertaining the precise views
of Augustine himself. In the monasteries of the
South of Gaul, not long after the death of Augustine,
objections were raised against some of his assertions,
as destructive of the freewill of man.k The autho
rity of the Father was maintained at the expense
of the orthodoxy of his objectors ; who, as not
advancing to the full length of the Great Master's
language, were accused as favourers of Pelagius,
or as Semi-Pelagians. But we do not find any
thing of this kind taking place, in regard to the
great authorities on the question of the Trinity.
There is no ambiguity, for instance, on the Trinity,
as to the precise doctrine of Athanasius, or Gregory
Nazianzen. The precision of the Greek Philosophy
guards the doctrines of these writers throughout.
k Mera piv rot ye davarov rov iv byioig Avyovarivov r\pc\avr6 riveg
twv iv t£> KXi'ipu) to pev Svaaejjeg Kparvveiv Soypa, KaKtig Se Xeyeiv
'Avyovarivov Kal Siaavpeiv, wc avaipeatv rov dvre^ovatov elarfyrjoa-
pevov. 'AX\a Kal KeXearivog b 'Pwjujje, virip te delov dvSpog, Kal
Kara tojv dvaKivovvrw rifv a'ipeaiv, rbig iy^ytploig ypd(pu>v iwiaKOiroig,
rr/v Kwovpivr/v irXdvrjv earrfaev. Photii Biblioth. C. 53. Voss.
Hist. Pelag. lib. r. c 30. p. 81.

LECTURE IV. 165
The same is observable in Augustine himself, in his
treatises on the Trinity. But, where he had not the
previous clearing of the question, in its theological
bearings, by the labours of Greek theologians, he is
more the practical reasoner than the accurate theo
rist ; stating rather what may check a growing evil,
than what is calculated to set at rest a speculative
question. I do not indeed say this, as supposing
that any speculative statement, or scheme, of Di
vine and Human Agency, could set the question
at rest. Experience proves the contrary. It opens
too many attractive views to the curiosity of the
human mind, for speculation to acquiesce in any
given definition of the subject. But I merely wish
to point out the state, in which the Pelagian con
troversies descended to the Church : particularly
as it affords some solution of the general state of
those controversies in all ages of the Church. It
is a striking fact, that Trinitarians, with little ex
ception, are all now agreed among themselves :
whilst, in regard to the Pelagian controversies,
there subsists the greatest variety of opinion in
whole Churches and among individuals. Each spe
culator has his theory, his peculiar view; — each
separate communion some antagonist statement on
the several points involved in them. Now, it is not
enough to say, that one class of truths is more prac
tical than the other, and therefore more awakens
the attention and interest of thinking persons. Those
who rightly discern and value the Trinitarian truths,
will hardly allow, that there are any truths of the

166 LECTURE IV.
Gospel more strictly practical than these. But, even
on that supposition, there will still remain to be ac
counted for, a remarkable difference, in the opening
for controversial discussion, presented in the terms,
by which the truths relative to Divine and Human
Agency are expressed. There is a great deal of
definition and of apparent precision of language on
the subject. But, with all its formality, the dis
putation bears the mark of its rhetorical origin,
leaving an escape for the theorist to raise up his
own system even on the terms of its theories.
In the revival of the Pelagian Question in the
IXth century, in the discussions on Predestination
to which I alluded in my first Lecture, an attempt
was made by Erigena to introduce the language of
philosophy into the subject. He laboured to prove
against the unfortunate Gotteschalc, who had
deduced from the writings of Augustine " a twofold
" Predestination," as it was termed, — a Predestina
tion to Life, and a Predestination to Death, or
Reprobation, — that it was impossible for the doc
trine of Reprobation to be true ; on the grounds,
that Death and Sin, and Evil in general, were non
entities, mere negations, that had no proper being,
and therefore could not pre-exist in the mind of
God, or be predestined. This conclusion, however,
of Erigena, being founded on an abstruse, mys
tical philosophy, not very intelligible to an age of
literature, only then emerging from the barbarism
of preceding times, obtained no favourable reception

LECTURE IV. 167
with the Church. In fact it only roused a spirit
of resistance. The Southern Church of Gaul felt
alarmed for the authority of Augustine. Not only
were individuals engaged in replying to the argu
ments of Erigena ; but even the Church of Lyons,
softer in temper t than her sister of Rheims,1
published her strictures on the arguments of the
philosopher, and her remonstrances against the
persecution of Gotteschalc ; characterizing, as
" inhuman cruelty," the violence with which the
poor sufferer had been treated.™
This resistance against a more theoretic view of
the doctrines involved in these controversies, was
a further means of keeping the discussion in that
practical form, in which it had been bequeathed
to the Church by Augustine. The writers against
Erigena, Retramn of Corbey, Prudentius, Bishop
of Troyes, and Florus, a Deacon of Lyons, are all
strongly opposed to a scientific discussion of the sub
ject. They rule the question by the simple autho
rity of Scripture and the Fathers ; objecting to
Erigena, on the very ground, that he had corrupted
the simplicity of the truth by refinements of reason-
ing." Such then was the form, in which the Theories
1 The Southern part of Gaul had a larger infusion of Roman
Civilization, and this is seen in the different character of the
Church there, as compared with the Northern.
m Note M of Lecture I.
" These several writings are in the Collection, by Mauguin,
of Authors of the IXth century on Grace and Predestination.

168 LECTURE IV.
belonging to the Pelagian Question descended to the
proper age of Scholasticism— the period, when the
disputations of the Schools were reduced to a sys
tematic form in consequence of the fuller introduc
tion of the Aristotelic Philosophy. Therefore it is,
that I characterize this class of controversies, as more
peculiarly Scholastic than the Trinitarian. The
conclusions to be established were handed down to
the Schoolmen, in the volumes of their own great
Master. But these conclusions wanted contexture
and theoretic stability. It yet remained, for the
doctrines on these points to be moulded into a ra
tionalized system of Theology ; to be deduced in
connexion with the Principles of the Divine Being,
already laid down as the scientific basis of all truth.
It has been seen, in the account which I gave of
the theories proposed on the Trinity, that the ground
of the speculation was, the notion of God, as the
Principle of Causation or Efficiency ; that this no
tion itself was drawn from analogies in the human
mind, viewed as the means of tracing up the facts
of the visible world to their fixed principles in God.
The speculations on the Pelagian Question, as
developed in the Scholastic system, were an appli
cation of this fundamental principle of the Theology
to a particular class of facts ; those produced by
moral and intellectual Beings. The theory of God,
as a Trinity in Unity, had respect, according to the
scholastic views, to the whole universe : it was the
mysterious solution of the whole order of things ;

LECTURE IV. 169
containing in it the immutable reasons, or principles,
of all existences whatever. The account, however,
of the peculiar phenomena attending the thoughts
and actions of rational agents, such as angels and
men — and of men more particularly, as the subjects
of Divine Grace revealed in the dispensations of
religion — suggested occasion for a more explicit and
distinct inquiry. A theory of Providence, therefore,
was to be drawn out ; of the connexion rather of
Providence with the natural and revealed condition
of human nature.
The Schoolmen, accordingly, proceeded to philo
sophize on the mode, in which the Will of God
fulfilled itself, consistently with the free-will of man.
The spirit of their Theology made it incumbent on
them to demonstrate the operation of the Divine
Will, as the sole Master- Will, comprehending in
itself the derived and subordinate wills of all other
agents. And here the important point to be observed, in
developing the force of theory on the doctrines now
under review, is, the reason, why they referred the
speculation to the Will, rather than to the Intelli
gence of God. It was in pursuance of a maxim of
their adopted philosophy, that "mere intelligence
" moves nothing," — is no cause of production or
change.0 The inquiry was essentially concerned
about a theory of change, — an account of a class of
ever-flowing, variable, phenomena. To understand
this, we should be aware of the extent of meaning
" Aristot. Ethic. VI. Siavoid S' avrri ovQev kive'i.

170 LECTURE IV.
attached to the word Motion, in the ancient Physics.
It included under it much more than we apprehend
by the term ; applying to any change whatever that
might occur, either in the internal structure, or
external form of bodies, no less than to their change
of place. As the nature of the soul was classed
among the objects of physical inquiry, any modifi
cation of the soul, by its exertion in action, came
under this definition of Motion. We may judge
then of the connexion of the maxim, to which I have
referred, with the theory of Divine Agency. In
exploring the principle of actions, we exclude from
the induction whatever belongs to the simply intel
lectual view of their nature. We look only to the
motive principle. We are sufficiently accustomed,
indeed, to ascribe the moral nature of actions to the
motives exemplified in them. But we little think of
the abstruse philosophy on which the expression is
founded; that it is a rejection of every thing else
but the Will, — the principle of Activity, — from the
abstract theory of human conduct.
The doctrine of Predestination, accordingly, is a
reference of actions to their primary Motive, the
great principle of all Activity, the Will of God. The
reasons or ideas of actions, as of all other effects
throughout the Universe, might have existed eter
nally in the Divine mind ; like the principles of an
art in the mind of the artist : but nothing would
have been created, no action would have taken
place, unless the Divine Will had stretched out the
hand of God to the work. It was the- Will of God

LECTURE IV. 171
that occasioned the Divine Intelligence, the wisdom
or word of God, to go forth, and diffuse the Divine
power, wisdom, and goodness over the works of a
visible world.
From the perfect simplicity, indeed, of the Divine
nature, the Will of God is identical, as the School
men assert, with his Intelligence ; as both are also
identical with his Being. p But, in speculating
concerning the principle of voluntary actions, it is
important that the attention should be confined
strictly to that ultimate abstraction which properly
represents their nature in the Being of God — the
simple principle of the Divine Will.
Had the views of the Schoolmen, and of others
who have philosophized after them, been confined
strictly to this point, much perplexity of thought on
the questions arising out of the subject would have
been avoided. A simple solution in that case would
have been given of the effects of subordinate agents,
by deducing them from the great law of the Divine
Will. This class of variable phenomena would, at
least, have been simplified, by being contemplated
as His agency, in whom is no variableness, nor
shadow of turning. They would have been deprived
of their anomalous character, by the steadiness of
purpose with which such a theory would invest them.
p Et sic oportet in Deo esse voluntatem, cum sit in eo intel-
lectus. Et sicut suum intelligere est suum esse, ita et suum esse
est suum velle. — Aquinas, Sum. Theol. Prima Pars, qu. xix.
art. 1. Quia essentia Dei est ejus intelligere et velle. Ibid. art. 4.

172 LECTURE IV.
But the intellectual principle, as being physically
inseparable from the moral, has been also brought
into the speculation : and the stability, attributed to
this principle, has been taken into the view of the
origin of those changes which the moral world
exhibits. Conclusions have been drawn from that
other maxim of ancient philosophy, that what is
known — whatever is the object of Science — must be
fixed and immutable. It has been forgotten in the
course of inquiry, that the speculation is concerning
the principle of change, — that it is an endeavour to
ascertain some limit to those variable results which
the human will produces, by viewing them in their
original cause of variation, itself immutable, the Will
of God.
Thus, when any event or effect is simply regarded
in its reference to the Will of God, the assertion
which it becomes us to make respecting it, is that its
accomplishment could not eventually be resisted;
could not be frustrated. The design of that act of
volition must surely be effected : the wills of all
subordinate agents must work together with that
sovereign Will, which pursues its own purposes
through their agency. In the acts of Human will
there is no assurance of the result being the object
intended ; there is no certainty of correspondence
between the motive and the effect, because of the
various obstacles arising from the conflicting wills of
different individuals. But, even ofthe Human will, we
may predict a certain result, in proportion as the agent
appears to have calculated justly the resistance, or the

LECTURE IV. 173
cooperation, to be expected from the wills of others.
Now the Divine Will is only an extreme case of
this analogy, — - a case in which are included the
wills of all creatures, — where the purpose, accord
ingly, will surely be accomplished, not only amidst
the utmost variety and complexity, and apparent
contradiction of human wills, but by means of that
very entangling and contrariety of motions which
puzzle the eye of the human spectator. Take
however the Divine Intellect into the account ; re
gard any given effect as the simple object of Divine
knowledge ; and we must then say that the effect
could not be otherwise ; the result, in any other
form, becomes inconceivable and self-contradictory:
as known to God, it must be infallibly and specula
tively true : a conclusion which brings us immedi
ately to a doctrine of Necessity, or Fatalism.
The Schoolmen attempted, in this speculation, to
solve the difficulty which had perplexed the ancient
philosophers. Whilst some of these resorted to the
notion of a sovereign fate, or a principle of malig
nity, or necessity — and the more pious to that of a
providence — to explain the devious course of human
events ; all may be regarded, as having admitted
the impossibility of reducing this class of facts to
any strictly scientific principles. They were placed,
indeed, among those truths which were held to be
essentially variable or Contingent, in contradistinc
tion to those which were called Necessary, as capable
of being referred to fixed laws. So that whilst the

174 LECTURE IV.
philosopher assigned these several abstract causes
for the variable phenomena of actions, it was not a
solution of the facts that he proposed, but a con
fession of his ignorance of any proper philosophical
account of them.
The Platonic doctrine of an abstract Idea of Good,
was the nearest approach to such an account. This
was, however, an attempt to reduce the calculations
of moral judgment, to the certainty which belongs
to the purely intellectual perceptions, rather than a
theory that applied itself to the actual anomalies of
human life. But the Schoolmen, adopting Aristotle's
practical view of the subject, admitted, with that
philosopher, the uncertainty of human conduct in
its dependence on the free-will of man. At the
same time, as theologians and logicians, they felt
themselves bound to reconcile this admission with
the fixedness of those Ideal Principles, from which
all this devious course of human actions primarily
originated. The manner in which they effected the recon
ciliation, is extremely worthy of our notice, as an
instance of the dependence of their Theology on
metaphysical theories. The explanation rests entirely
on assumed definitions of Time and Eternity. These
are contrasted with each other ; Time, as the " mea-
" sure of motion," — Eternity, as the " measure of
" permanent being." Whilst events therefore, viewed
in connexion with the capacities of finite beings,
develope themselves successively and are uncertain,
or contingent, as arising but of their proximate causes;

LECTURE IV. 175
they are fixed and immutable in their " presentiality"
before God, whose eternity admits no change, no suc
cession.9 i
It is sufficiently clear, I think, from these diffi
culties, and their proposed solution, that the meta
physics of a logical philosophy have tied the knot,
in which this subject has been involved. Realism
converted distinctions, which are the mere crea
tions of the mind, into differences in the nature of
things. For the terms, Necessary and Contingent,
express nothing more than laws of thought, the
varied character of evidence belonging to dif
ferent perceptions of the mind: the necessity im
puted to the, objects of Divine knowledge being a
consequence from the notion of immutability j the
contingency imputed to the facts of human life,
being the simple evidence of experience, which may
vary, ^and even be directly contrary, without any in
trinsic absurdity. Whence, the attempt to reconcile
them is only to confound two distinct classes of
mental facts. The Schoolmen, indeed, were not
ignorant of the nature of this distinction ;l but the
logical basis of their Theology obliged them to
interpret it in the way in which they have done.
The necessity, and fixedness, and eternity of the
Divine Being, were the given principles, which their
method called upon them to apply to the facts of
human experience. They commenced with the
' Note G.
* Aquinas, Sum. Theol. Prima Pars, qu. xix. art. 3. — Note H.

176 LECTURE IV.
rigour of logic, and were forced to throw its chains
over the stream of human affairs.
The only proper difficulty in the subject of
Divine Agency, — that which has more strictly the
force of objection against it, — is, the fact observ
able in the world, of apparent resistance to the will
of God, by the deep and wide prevalence of evil.
This fact impugns the very ground on which the
truth of the Divine Agency is founded ; since the
good designed in the constitution of the world, is
the evidence to us of that great law of natural reli
gion, — that God wills the happiness of his creatures.
In short, it is principally, if not solely, from a con
viction of the Divine good-will, that we assign to
God the operation of will at all.
But even this difficulty, real as it is (for the
existence of sin and misery in the world is as clear
a fact as any in its history,) is greatly aggravated
by that speculative optimism which seems a funda
mental prejudice or instinct of our minds. The
maxim that nature works all things for' the best —
that there is nothing imperfect or vain in her sys
tem—was the form which this idea assumed in the
ancient philosophy. It would be well, if we held it
simply as a general truth, highly important for our
practical needs ; as a resource in the perplexities of
life ; but rejected it altogether as a ground of spe
culation. For as soon as we begin to reason from
it, that, " of two ends, the better must be the design
" of Providence ;" as the ancients did reason, and as

LECTURE IV. 177
we are ourselves apt to do ; we incur difficulties
arising from our own conceptions of what is best.
We have then to satisfy the importunate requisitions
of imaginary hypotheses.
When we come indeed to examine the subject
more closely, as it is illustrated by that Logical
Philosophy on which our attention is now engaged,
the theory itself of Predestination will be found to
involve reasonings on this fundamental principle.
It is, in fact, a speculation founded on our moral
nature ; which cannot rest satisfied, until it has
modelled the system of Grace, as of Nature, after its
own tendencies towards an excellence and perfection
beyond its positive experience. The Father of
Modern Philosophy has observed, that the human
intellect supposes a greater regularity and equality
in things than it actually finds. This is particularly
the case in the world of religion. Captivated with
the contemplation of the eternal destinies of man, it
loves to trace the links, which bind together the
remote parts of the mysterious life of the soul, in
continuous and uniform series. It will not acquiesce,
therefore, in the naked declarations of Scripture on
the subject of Human Salvation. It eagerly seizes on
the truths contained in these, to recast them in the
mould which its own imaginations have framed.
Hence that charm, which doctrines of Absolute
Predestination, Indefectible Grace, Assurance of
Salvation, and the like, possess both for the phi
losopher and the vulgar. The mind is placed by them
in a commanding elevation, from which it beholds
N

178 LECTURE IV.
the whole course ofthe Christian life stretched before
it. It feels itself transported into the very region
which properly belongs to religion ; where the
amazement of thought, naturally excited by the
subject, seems to be answered by the majesty and
sublimity of the scenery presented. Otherwise, it
might be matter of surprise, how pious and amiable
men have delighted in stern and appalling views of
the Divine Predestination ; not scrupling to declare
the devout emotion, with which they could con
template the terrors of Divine wrath, sentencing the
sinner to everlasting dereliction and misery.8
To understand, however, the theoretic nature of
Predestination, we must enter more fully into the
ethical speculation, of which it is the counterpart in
the system of Religion : if, at least, we would rightly
estimate the meaning of the dogmatic declarations
on the subject.
Whatever is the object of a natural passion, or
active principle of the soul, was termed, in the lan
guage of ancient philosophy, " a good," and an "end;"
— an end, because the affection, or active principle,
when duly exerted, was conceived to rest in its
object, then attained or completed ; — a good, because
nature does nothing in vain, and suggests no object
to the desires of man, without a beneficial design.
The notion of Good became thus essentially
attached to an object of the will ; or was rather the
8 Note I.

LECTURE IV. 179
result of such an association. Accordingly, whatever
was desired, was represented to be a good, either
real or apparent ; — a real good, if the affections were
rightly constituted ; — an apparent good, pursued
as real, where the affections were disordered and
perverted. This general view of moral facts will be
recognized as pervading the ethical philosophy of
Aristotle. And hence the great business of that
philosophy, as of the ancient Ethics in general, was,
to find out the general law of Good, or great End of
Actions ; the object universally aimed at, though
often under mistaken views, in the various moral
facts which human life exhibits ; or, as it was
abstractedly termed the Chief Good, — the ultimate
End, or in Scholastic language, Final Cause, of all
actions. Now, if we conceive this Theory of Actions trans
ferred to the Divine Being, we shall obtain a just
view of what the Schools intended by the doctrine
of Predestination. The End, or Final Cause, of all
the actions of God, — of all exertions of his will, —
could be no other than his Goodness. As, under
the view of religion, the Chief Good of Man must
be God himself, so, to the will of God, there could be
no other object than the Divine goodness itself. So
far then as all things done in the universe were the
actions of God, they were referable to the great law
of good, original in the nature of the Divine Being.
Nothing evil, as such, could be referable to God,
because what was evil could not be conceived to be
the object of Will at all, much less of the perfect
n2

180 LECTURE IV.
Divine will. It was wrong therefore, according to the
Scholastic doctrine, to speak of the predestination of
evil. The wicked might be said to be predestined to
punishment, but not to the evil committed by them.
This was only the result of their, improper exercise
of their own will ; through which, as individuals,
they missed the good designed for them by God ;
and, in thus missing it, sinned against the benevolent
constitution of God. Good would surely follow,
whatever might be the actions of the individual,
however evil these might be in their immediate result,
since nothing else but goodness could be the object
of the Divine Will. God therefore could not be
said to will the evil action of the sinner ; though
He might " permit" it, in order to that ultimate
good which He educes out of it. The use of the
word Permission may be remarked here ; as it has
passed into modern use, and is employed still to
remove the objection arising from saying, that God
appoints or decrees evil. Taken in its popular sense,
it only removes the difficulty a step further; as it
still leaves the question, why God does not interfere
to prevent the evil done and suffered in the world.
But the scientific use of it, by Aquinas, seems to be,
to avoid making evil an object of volition ; and yet
not to exclude it from the cognizance and control of
Divine Providence as an event.'
Reprobation accordingly, in the Calvinistic sense,
had no place in the Scholastic theology. Predesti
nation, regarded as the sole primary cause of all our
'Note J.

LECTURE IV. 151
actions as they are moral and Christian — as they
have any worth in them, or any happiness — was
asserted in that Theology in the most positive man
ner ; though different Doctors varied in further
expositions of its nature.*1 But Reprobation, as it
implies a theory of the moral evil of the world, I
think I may confidently say, is no part of the Sys-
temf The term, indeed, is derived to us from the
Schoolmen ; and so far they are chargeable with
having perplexed theology, with the disquisitions
arising out of it. But, had they employed the term
to denote an antecedent will, on the part of God, of
the sin and misery of the wicked, they would have
contradicted that philosophy, from which they drew
their speculation on the subject.
Whether it becomes us to theorize at all on the
subject, is another question. But if there must be
theory, the Schoolmen were so far right, that they
simply endeavoured to trace the divine Goodness,
as manifested by Nature and Revelation, to its
primary cause in the Divine Being. Their theory
inculcated the great truth that the apparent ano
malies of the world were in reality instances of the
same general law ; that the evil actually found in
nature, was not the design of God, or the effect of
any Principle of Evil. This is their Predestina
tion. And they assert Election accordingly, in the
same manner, as part of Predestination. Election,
" Note K.
x Aquinas, Sum. Theol. Prima Pars, qu. xxiii. art. 3. —
Note L.

182 LECTURE IV.
according to them, is an analysis of Predestination,
considered as a moral act : since, where there is good
willed, there must be the love, and consequently the
choice of the persons so predestined/
Looking indeed back to the origin of the question
of Divine Agency in the Latin Church, to the cha
racter and conduct of Augustine, who gave the first
impulse to it ; and observing at the same time the
mode in which it is explained by the Schoolmen ; I
cannot but think, that the dogmatic assertion of
Predestination is primarily to be understood solely
in opposition to Manicheism, and its kindred errors,
with which Pelagianism was associated : that the ex
clusive design of it was accordingly to maintain a
theory of Divine Goodness, — to exhibit the moraland
religious world in harmony with the physical, that
God might be seen as all in all. The Latin Church
appears to have felt a constant dread of the influx
of Manicheism. The cry of Manicheism was sure
to rally defenders round the standard of orthodoxy.
The poor sufferers, cruelly executed at Orleans in the
Xlth century, were murdered under the plea of their
profession of Manicheism. The alarm was spread
against the rising sect of the Albigenses of Thou-
louse, in the following century, on the same ground.2
y Note M.
1 The Pelagians seem to have retorted the charge of Mani
cheism on the Orthodox: — Catholicos Manichaeorum nomine
criminantur.— Contr. Duas Epist. Pelag. ad Bonifac. lib. ii.
Augustin. Oper. torn. vii. p. 286. — Note N.

LECTURE IV. 183
Augustine naturally felt a strong antipathy to that
error, from which he had, with many painful strug
gles, extricated himself. Whilst the disciple of
that gross, material philosophy, he had been accus
tomed to regard Evil as a substantial or corporeal
element of the Universe, coordinate with Good.
Having once overcome this noxious prejudice of his
early creed, he shrank from any approach to it after
wards, as from an antichristian enemy. We see
this in his manner of treating the questions raised
by Pelagius. He is constantly viewing them in
their connexion with the Manichean doctrines. As
a practical man, bent on carrying a point of Church-
government, he calls attention to the unpopular
consequences of the Pelagian notions ; calculating
doubtless that the alarm of Manicheism would come
with full force from one, able to speak, from his
own experience, of its delusions.
The antipathies of Augustine descended, with his
doctrines, to the Schoolmen. Following his foot
steps, they sought only to set forth his views of the
Divine Agency, as of every other question of theo
logy, with theoretic precision.
It would appear, accordingly, that the Scholastic
doctrine of Providence, and of Predestination as a
part of Providence, is opposed to philosophical
notions of Providence current in the early ages of
the Church. In speaking indeed of the Divine
Power, Aquinas expressly points this out.
" There have been some," he says, " as the
" Manichees, who said that spiritual and incorporeal

184 LECTURE IV.
" things are subject to divine power, but visible
" and corporeal things subject to the power of a
" contrary principle. Against these then we must
" say, that God is in all things by his Power.
" There have been others again, who, though they
" believed all things subject to divine power, still
" did not extend divine Providence down to these
" lower parts : in whose person it is said, in Job
" xxii. ' He walks about the hinges of heaven, and
" ' considers not our concerns.'3 And against these
" it was necessary to say, that God is in all things
" by his Presence. There have been again others,
" who, though they said all things belonged to the
" Providence of God, still laid it down, that all
" things were not immediately created by God ; but
" that He immediately created the first creatures,
" and these created others. And against these it
" was necessary to say, that He was in all things
" by his Essence."11
These are the theories, accordingly, which should
be studied, in order to have a right conception of
the definition of Predestination, as given in the
Scholastic writers, and from them derived to modern
Theology. But, if this be the case, the most important
" Job xxii. 13, 14. " And thou sayest, How doth God know ?
" can He judge through, the dark cloud ? Thick clouds are a
"covering to Him, that he seeth not; and He walketh in the
" circuit of heaven." "
b Aquinas, Sum. Theol. Prima Pars, qu. viii. art 3.

LECTURE IV, 185
element for a right judgment of the doctrine, as
professed by our Church, has been generally over
looked. Divines have been anxious to shew, that our
Reformers were not of the same opinion on this
subject as Calvin. It is evident, however, that the
statement in our Articles could not have been
expressly opposed to Calvinistic views. For such an
opposition would imply, that the theories opposed
were prevalent at the time ; whereas they were
maintained at their greatest height after the com
position of our Article. Theory is met by counter-
theory, when the language of erroneous speculation
has begun to infect the orthodoxy of the Church.
A speculation, indeed, may have been in existence
— may have been growing, — as many of the Trini
tarian theories were, before they obtained the
names by which they are now known. So un
doubtedly was, what is now called Calvinism. Still
it would not be opposed by a dogmatic statement,
until the profession of the theory was become
notorious, and troublesome to the leading Clergy of
the times.
It has been often observed of our XVIIth Article,
that, whilst it declares a predestination to Life and
Glory, it is reserved on the subject of Reprobation,
speaking on this point in the language of practical
admonition. c It is no little confirmation of this
c The allusion at the end ofthe Article to the " Will of God"
should be particularly noticed, as illustrative of the train of
thought throughout it, and also the correction of the expression
by the terms joined with it :— " that Will of God is to be

186 LECTURE IV.
view, that it coincides exactly with the theory of
Divine Agency, developed in the reasonings of
the Scholastic Philosophy. From observing this
coincidence, I should conclude, that our Reformers,
feeling themselves called upon by the state of opinion,
to make some authoritative statement on the subject,
and led also to speculate on it, from their own
education in the theories of Scholasticism ; returned
to the original mode in which the truth had been
theoretically propounded. They saw, at least, the
moderation of that language : the notions involved
in it, were their philosophical creed : and they
wisely preferred it to the extreme views of some of
their contemporaries.
Consistently with this notion of Predestination,
Grace is set forth by the Scholastic writers as the
" Effect of Predestination," or Predestination as the
" Preparation of Grace." Both indeed are spoken
of as Divine " ordinations" to the Life Eternal, d
and are equally characteristic therefore of the Divine
Agency, as taught in the Scholastic Theology. But,
the Pelagian controversies have given a more Chris
tian emphasis to the term Grace, by its employment
as the antagonist statement to the anathematized
doctrines of Pelagius; and made it equivalent
" followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word
" of God." These last words call us from the theoretic sense of
the " Will of God " to the practical one of the precepts contained
in Scripture.
d Aquinas, Sum. Theol. PrimaPars, qu. xxiv. art. 3. — NoteO.

LECTURE IV. 187
practically to the whole of Gospel-truth. So that,
in fact, it more properly represents the part of God
in the scheme of human salvation, than any other
term of Theology.
Amidst the copious matter of inquiry, which a
term, so pregnant with theological interest, presents
to our hands, I confine myself to what belongs
more strictly to the notion of Divine Agency — the
point particularly selected for illustration in the
present Lecture.
First then I would call attention to the word
Grace itself. The sense, which the discussions of
Pelagianism have impressed on the term, is par
ticularly to be noticed. The dogmatic manner
in which we now speak of " the grace of God," —
placing it in contrast with the powers of human
nature, or with nature in general, — conveys the idea
of something positive in God, something that admits
of explanation as to what it is, — of definition, and
distribution into its various kinds. We hear of
grace operating and cooperating ; grace prevent
ing and following; grace of congruity, grace of
condignity. But how erroneous is the conception
produced in the mind, by these several modes of
speaking ? When we try the notion of Grace by a
survey of the Scripture-dispensations, what is it but
a general fact, a summary designation of the various
instances of benevolent, pitiful condescension on
the part of God, to the wants and helplessness of
man? It is thus that " grace and truth" are said

188 LECTURE IV.
to come by Jesus Christ. The mission of Christ
to the world was the strongest instance of the
benevolent exertion of God for our good. Thus
St. Paul speaks of the grace of God having appeared
unto all men, in sending his Son into the world,
characterizing by the word grace this act of heavenly
interposition. Thus, too, we are said to be " saved
" by grace ;" the Apostle alluding, evidently, as
before, to the act of Christ's coming into the world
and dying for our sins. Again, we are desired to
pray for "grace," — and grace is said to be "given"
to us. These last instances convey a dogmatic im
pression ; but when we consider them more strictly,
they resolve themselves into concise modes of
speaking, adapted to the purpose of giving a distinct .
and striking view of the fact to which reference is
made. We pray, that is, that God will graciously
help us ; and, in acknowledging the gift of grace, we
deny our own sufficiency, and declare that what we
do good, is of God working in us both to will and
to do. The word Truth is subject to the like
erroneous conception ; but here we are not apt to
fall into the realism of supposing something in God
positively denoted by the term : since it has not
been equally the occasion of religious dispute.
It is then from Scholasticism that we have derived
this positive sense. Those subdivisions which I have
referred to, of "preventing" and "following" grace,
grace "operating" and " cooperating," and others
which our Church has not adopted ; are expressly
taken from the Scholastic Theology. Grace i3

LECTURE IV. 189
treated of in this system, as something " infused"6
into the soul, by virtue of which the sinner is jus
tified, and the operation of which on the heart it
is endeavoured to trace through the stages of its
process/ The order of ideas pursued, may be stated gene
rally as the following. Grace is first communicated
to the soul of man in baptism, as an infused prin
ciple superadded to his natural powers, — as the seed
of a new birth regenerating the soul. Hence is
obtained the primary impulse, the original motive
or efficient cause, by which the sinner is set forward
on the course of the Life eternal. This produces in
him a motion towards God ; in which state it is called
"a preventing" and an " operating " grace ; — pre
venting, as it precedes all motion on the part of
man ; — operating, as it is the sole mover or motive
principle. The soul of man being thus set in action
towards God, is brought to feel its own sinfulness.
But, though it has received this divine seed, —
this element of holiness and future happiness, — still
the natural powers are unable to expand and mature
the germ, that it may grow to the life everlasting.
The progress of the soul must therefore be sustained
by him, who gave it the principle of spiritual

e Aquinas, Summa. Theol. Prima Ildas.
f One of the questions discussed by Aquinas is, Utrum Gratia
ponat aliquid in Anima. S. Theol. Prima Ildas. qu. ex. art. 1.
which he decides in the affirmative. — Note P.

190 LECTURE IV.
life. The desire of holiness and the hatred of sin
are implanted : but the temptations to which the
weakness of the flesh exposes the regenerated soul,
must be resisted by continued divine assistances, by
grace following and cooperating. And the soul,
contemplated in this state of progress, is said to be
endued with the " grace of perseverance." g And
when, at last, the course in which the soul has been
proceeding through this continued divine aid, is
completed ; still grace is needed, that it may obtain
remission of sins — a pardon of that guiltiness which
even repentance cannot obliterate from the soul.
Finally, by grace it is glorified in the presence of
God. Such is an analysis of the progress of the soul
enjoying the " habitual gift of grace," as taught by
the School divines. It is justification, if the pro
cess of grace be considered in its effect on the sinner.
It is predestination, if it be contemplated in God
himself, as the effect of his eternal Love. It is Salva
tion, if the antecedent agency of the Son of God be
the point from which the process is viewed. It is
sanctification, if it be referred to the operation ofthe
Holy Spirit, whose " gift" it is, and whose peculiar
office it is, thus to move and quicken the soul.h

g The KapTEpia of Aristotle — the power of holding out against
temptations from pain — is what Augustine and the Schoolmen
understood chiefly by Perseverance. The transition of the
word into a symbol of mystical doctrine, is among the curious
instances of the disguise of Aristotle's philosophy under terms
of Theology. Aquin. S. Theol. Prima Ildas. qu. cix. art. 10.
" Note Q.

LECTURE IV. 191
In examining this account of the nature of Grace ;
whilst we fully acknowledge the general truth im
plied in it, that all our salvation is of the free
gift and goodness of God ; we may clearly perceive,
that the mode of thinking is founded on principles
of ancient physical philosophy : in which, accord
ingly, we must seek the account of our technical
language on the subject of Divine Agency.
I. The doctrine of Transmutation was a vital
principle in Aristotle's Philosophy. According to
this doctrine, any object in nature might be trans
muted into another — the actual form of any thing,
not depending on its being constituted of any par
ticular substance or matter, but on the presence of
its constituent properties. When those properties
were removed by the presence of other natures, with
which they could not coexist, the thing itself was
changed. It passed into that other form, to which
these new qualities belonged. I shall have occasion
to illustrate this point further, when I come to
speak of the doctrine of Transubstantiation, into
which it enters more particularly. I allude to it
only now, for the sake of illustrating the notion,
by which our Christian state under the influence of
Grace is described. If it be allowed, that the state
of holiness and perfection to which the Gospel seeks
to bring us, is a state for which we are not fit in our
present condition, evidently we must undergo some
change, some special adaptation for that glory which
we are destined to receive. The qualities then, to

192 LECTURE IV.
speak in terms of the ancient philosophy, of that
form which we are to assume, must be brought to
our present nature. The holiness of the Gospel
state must be superinduced on the intrinsic unholi-
ness in which we now stand. In a word, we must
be transformed. The old things must pass away,
and all must become new} We must cease to be
what we were, and be new creatures. On this prin
ciple, then, the presence of the grace of God is
indispensably necessary to render us meet for the
inheritance of the saints. It comes and displaces
that previous form of unrighteousness which once
was our nature. Thus is it true both scripturally
and philosophically ; " Except ye be converted, and
" become as little children, ye cannot inherit the
" kingdom of heaven." As we have borne '•' the
" image of the earthy," we must also bear " the
" image of the heavenly." We must be " trans-
" formed" by the renewing of our mind — Christ
must be "formed" in us.
II. But the proper and full solution of the lan
guage adopted by Augustine, and after him by the
School Divines, in the Doctrines of Grace, is to be
found in the refined Materialism of the ancient
1 Baptismus adhibetur hominibus in hac vita, in qua homo
potest transmutari de culpa in gratiam: sed descensus Christi
ad inferos, exhibitus fuit animabus post hanc vitam, ubi non
sunt capaces transmutationis prasdictae. Et ideo per baptismum
pueri liberantur a peccato originali et ab inferno : non autem
per descensum Christi ad inferos. Aquin. S. Theol. Illtia P.
qu. lu. art. 7.

LECTURE IV. 193
theological philosophy of Nature. According to
Aristotle, Nature was in itself an instinctive prin
ciple of motion and rest. It was a vast system of
distinct powers, ever exerting themselves, and real
izing by this activity the various forms of physical
being. But what was it that sustained this activity?
what was it that kept Nature in this state of effort —
in this restless pursuit of that perfection of being, in
which alone it could rest — throughout the various
things of the universe ? It was the great Principle
of Beauty and Goodness — the abstract perfection of
the whole Universe — the Chief Good — which ani
mated and moved each member in the system of
Nature. The great struggle ofthe whole, — the effort
of each particular thing in Nature — was ; to attain
to this ultimate form of beauty and perfection.
There could be no quiescence in any thing, so long
as it had not accomplished its utmost effort, in order
to the attainment of this End — this Final Cause, of
all its motion. This pure abstraction of Excellence
pervaded all things alike — the inanimate as well as
the animate — the irrational no less than the rational.
All in their measure felt its influence3 — the transi
tory things of the world aiming at its immortal excel
lence by successive productions and reproductions of
themselves ; and the durable, as the heavenly bodies,
attaining more perfectly to a perception of the Di
vine Principle, by their invariable and endless revo
lutions. In rational Beings, it was the great End
1 The idea may be traced in the language of Hooker, at the
end ofthe 1st book ofthe Ecclesiastical Polity.
o

194 LECTURE IV.
to which all their desires tended, the Active Cause
of all their activity, — that gratification which they
pursued more or less rightly and fully, as their
passions were governed, and their intellect was cul
tivated; — the real happiness aimed at under all the
manifold and capricious disguises of pleasure. Here
then was the Divinity of the philosophic system of
the Universe. Hence its designation, in the language
of Aristotle, as the First Mover, itself unmoved ; —
that which being itself invariable, impassible, eter
nal, acted on, and moved all things, from the great
est to the least. Hence, too, we find the Schoolmen
speaking of the Deity, as pure Act — pure Energy —
Power, whose development and operation were
coinstantaneous with, and inseparable from, its ex
istence. This was a system of Theism, which trembled on
the verge of Pantheism — of a system that is, which
sinks individual existence in the vague notion of
One instinctive Universal Divine Being. And it
was soon, we find, so perverted by the Stoics,
and by the Alexandrian School, in which the Pla
tonic doctrine of Ideas assumed this modification.
Its ready transition, also, into a system of Fatalism
is sufficiently apparent. The connexion of all the
motions in the universe with the First Mover,
exhibits the analogy of a chain of links depending
from the Divine Being, in a series of perpetual con
nexion. It becomes a doctrine of Necessity, or Fate,
or Destiny, according as the peculiar views of the
philosopher impart to it their shade.

LECTURE IV. 195
Theories of this kind, we know, were extremely
prevalent at the time when the Pelagian controver
sies were agitated. In the Vth century, indeed,
vigorous efforts were made to restore the modern
Platonism to its empire in the Church and in the
Schools. The publication at that period of the
mystic Treatises of the Pseudo-Dionysius, was an
effort of this kind. During this age too, Proclus,
the distinguished disciple of the Alexandrian school,
presided in the school of Athens. In the Vlth
century, Simplicius and others were employed in
accommodating the theories of Platonism to those of
Aristotle, and forming, out of the union, an Eclectic
Philosophy, in which the dogmas of Alexandria
were the dominant principles. At the same time,
Boethius, at Rome, was engaged in the like labour.
We see also, at the opening of the Vllth century,
the prevalence of a doctrine of mystic connexion
between the things of the world and their great pri
mary Cause, in the conjoined Unitarianism and
Fatalism of the Mahometan Creed. In the IXth
century again, we find the pantheistic philosophy
attracting the notice of the Western Church, by the
fame of Erigena, the eminent advocate of the
Theory in its boldest form.
But the adoption of Aristotle's system of nature,
in its more genuine principles, introduced a more
express reference to the doctrine of Motion, in the
language of the Schools, on the subject of Grace.
The material analogies were then fully introduced,
as a means of explaining those invisible motions
o2

196 LECTURE IV.
which the Spirit of God works on the soul. In this
system, neither was the Deity identified with the
individual acted on, nor was the individual annihi
lated in the Deity ,k The distinctness of the divine
agent and the human recipient was maintained ; in
accordance with the Scripture revelation of God, as
a sole Being, separate in his nature from the works
of his Providence and his Grace. Still the notion of
Him as an Energy — as a moving Power — entered
into all their explanations of the Divine Influence
on the soul. So far they were strictly Aristotelic.
But, with this exception, the Platonic notion of a
real participation of Deity in the soul of man per
vaded their speculations. Aristotle's idea of human
improvement and happiness was rather, that of
a mechanical or material approach to the Divine
Principle — an attainment of the Deity as an end of
our Being. We see a great deal of this in the scho
lastic designations of the progress of man in virtue
and happiness. Plato's view, on the other hand, was
that of assimilation, or association with the Divinity.
This notion more easily fell into the expressions of
Scripture which speaks of man as created in the
image of God ; of our future state as like that of
the angels of God ; and which holds out to us an
example of Divine Holiness for our imitation.
k In saying this, I must make an exception with respect to the
language of some Scholastic writers ; as, for instance, that of
Abelard ; whose expressions, in his " Introduction to Theology,"
are decidedly pantheistic ; identifying the Holy Spirit with the
Anima Mundi of the Stoics.

LECTURE IV. 197
The pantheistic notion then of a participation of
Deity, or an actual Deification of our nature, l is the
fundamental idea ofthe operation of Grace according
to the Schoolmen. The Aristotelic idea of motion —
of continual progress — of gradual attainment of the
complete form of perfection — is the law, by which
this operation of Grace is attempted to be explained.
Expressions of Scripture also coincided with this
view; so far as our state in this world is spoken
of, as a going on towards perfection — as a growing
in grace; and we are exhorted to be unmoveable,
always abounding in the work of the Lord."1 In
fact, this system, made up of Platonic and Aristotelic
views, was regarded as sanctioned by the Apostle,
in his application of that text of philosophy : " In
him we live, and move, and have our being.""
The soul, it was conceived, might be transformed by
the operation of motives extrinsic to itself ; by im
pulses from evil spirits; as also by the Spirit of God:
it might assume the "form of godliness," without
1 A quin. Prima Ildas, qu. cxn. art. 1. Donum autem gratias
excedit omnem facultatem naturae creatae, cum nihil aliud sit,
quam quaedam participatio divines naturae, quas excedit omnem
aliam naturam : et ideo impossibile est, quod aliqua creatura
gratiam causet. Sic enim necesse est, quod solus Deus deificet,
communicando consortium divinse naturae, per quandam simi-
litudinis participationem ; sicut impossibile est, quod aliquid
igniat, nisi solus ignis.
" 1 Cor. xv. kSpdim yivEade, dpeTaKtvtjToi, — agreeably to Aris
totle's description of the virtuous character, fjefiaiiog, aperauv fir u>c,
eXbiv, one, not to be changed by any disturbing force from its
present course.
" Acts xvii. 28. ev avrip yap £iopiv, Kal Kivovpeda, Kal iapiv.

198 LECTURE IV.
" the power."0 But, when the work of Grace was
complete in the soul, the form of godliness was the
Energy of power coming down from the Father of
lights and Author of all goodness.
Accordingly, by the Schoolmen, the natural powers
and capacities of men are regarded as the materials
on which the Divine Grace operates. The freewill
of man, as we shall see hereafter, is not impaired
by this supernatural action. p Their idea rather is,
that the will of man thus obtains its proper freedom,
is enabled to act freely, unimpeded by those
obstacles which the corruption of nature places in its
way. Still, the notion throughout, on which they
proceed, is that of material impulse, of gradual
progress and alteration, from a state of alienation to
one of holiness and perfect conformity with God.
To turn, however, from these speculations, in
themselves, to the view of the Divine Agency, which
the study of them brings before us.
First, I would observe, the importance of the
0 2 Tim. iii. 5. E-^ovTeg popcpoiaiv evaEpeiag, rrfv Se Svvapiv avrrjg
ripvrfpivoi. The notion of Energy may also be perceived in the
language of St. Paul ; as in Eph. iii. 20. " the power that
worketh in us" — rrjv Svvapiv -ri\v ivepyovpev-qv ev ifpiv — Also
Eph. i. 11. " who worketh all things after the counsel of his own
will" — rov rd iravra ivepyovvrog Kara rrjv fiovXrjv tov deXr'iparog
avrov. p Si bene considerentur quae dicta sunt : aperte cognoscitur,
quia cum aliquid dicit Sacra Scriptura pro gratia, non amovet
omnino liberum arbitrium, neque cum loquitur pro libero arbitrio
excludit gratiam, &c Anselm. De Concord. Grat. et Lib. Arb.
Op. torn. iii. p. 278.

LECTURE IV. 199
consideration, that the theory of the Divine Pre
destination, on which our doctrinal statement is
founded, is a much more simple one than is
commonly supposed. It is not at all concerned
with explaining the origin of Evil. It is only a
theory of God's mercy in Christ, deduced from its
originating cause in the Being of God. I have
already pointed out this. I repeat it now, as it is a
view of the subject on which I am desirous of fixing
your attention. A theory of Reprobation is, on the
other hand, a theory of the origin of Evil ; and, so
far therefore from being deducible from our doctrinal
statements on Predestination and Grace, is the very
doctrine to which these statements are opposed :
unless we are to suppose that a philosophical
theology, in which the framers of our Articles had
been trained, had no influence on their minds. But
the exact accordance of our Article on Predesti
nation, with what appears the true Scholastic notion
of the subject, is, to me, ample evidence, that this
notion was the doctrine designed.
I am not prepared, at the same time, to vindicate
those statements in their theoretic points, as the
proper way in which the Divine Predestination
and Grace should be apprehended by the Christian.
These are truths, it cannot be too often repeated,
which concern more the heart than the intellect;
and, in defining which accordingly, every attempt,
however exactly and piously worded, must fail ;
much more, any theory of them drawn from ante
cedent speculations on the Nature and Will of God.

200 LECTURE IV.
To Scholasticism indeed, though the theories of
Predestination and Grace, which it taught, are of
a less complex form than is commonly supposed,
we may trace the origin of those idle questions,
with which this department of Theology has been
vexed ; such as, whether Predestination is certain ;
whether there is Assurance of salvation; whether the
number of the Elect is fixed ;q whether all are pre
destined. These, and similar questions incidental
to the general inquiry, have been naturally laid hold
of by theologians, following the example of the
Doctors of the middle age, from whom they received
the speculation itself. And this effect shews the
evil of any speculation at all on the subject. It
only marks out the lines of future disputation. If
these truths are to be defined, the only legitimate
mode is, the laborious, historical, experimental one,
formed on a comprehensive and accurate study, under
the guidance of that selfsame Spirit, whose ways we
are exploring, of every fact of Nature and Scripture,
and the collection of these into a general law of
the Divine Procedure. But this is the work of a
Christian life ; it is a process of induction which
can only be carried on, where there is a disposition
The different opinions on this point, were : 1. that as many
.should be saved of men, as had fallen of angels ; 2. as many of
men, as of angels who had stood in their obedience ; 3. as many
of men, as of fallen angels ; and besides, as many, as the whole
number of angels created. Aquinas refers to these different
opinions, and wisely concludes, that the number of the elect, to
be placed in supreme happiness, is known to God alone. Sum.
Theol. Prima Pars, qu. xxiii. art. 7.

LECTURE IV. 201
and an activity, in doing the Divine Will, and
obeying the Divine Motions. Otherwise we are but
tracking the arrow through the air, or the keel of
the vessel through pathless waters.
But the assertion of them in the theoretic form,
as primary truths concerning the Divine Being, can
never be free from objection. We have then, as it
were, placed in our hands, the great Original Reasons
of things — the first definitions, from which all other
truths are, of course, conceived to be deducible ;
and nothing inconsequent to them can, without the
greatest difficulty, be admitted. Whatever we do
then concede to the independent perceptions of our
reason, it is with a kind of resignation to a mystery
that overwhelms the faculties — a resignation, very
different from that of the heart bowed down before
God. The truths, theoretically stated, are so essen
tial to the very idea of God, that we adopt them
immediately, as self-evident axioms ; and we expect,
in the theology raised upon them, the demonstra-
tiveness of truths deduced from unquestionably
premises. The dominion of a Logical Theology/ie*
here, accordingly, particularly to be dreaded. / Itsr
delusions are fostered, by the nature of the prin«
ciples themselves, on which it is here exercised^
Experience has shewn, how ready the minds of men
are, even at this day, to treat the question of Divine
Agency, as a matter pregnant with consequences,
or inferences, rather than as one of simple, moral
acquiescence and obedience. Even the piety of men
turns from its own proper task, to minister to the

202 LECTURE IV.
appetite of speculation. The desire to establish the
name of God, as first in the thoughts, involves them
in paradox on every subordinate subject. Let it
then be examined by such persons, whether, little as
it may have been thought, they have not been
pursuing the necessity and cogency of logic, in their
theological opinions ; whether the notions of Divine
Agency, on which they so insist, are not merely
the connexions of conclusions and consequences with
assumed hypotheses and definitions.
With respect then to the doctrines expressive of
Divine Agency, I would observe, as I did of those
concerning the Trinity, the difficulties belonging to
them arise from metaphysical speculations. Here,
they are the result of the primary ideas, which the
mind combines together in its complex idea of God.
Or, it would be more correct, perhaps, to speak of
them, as the result of these several ideas in them
selves ; — as of priority, necessity, power, will ; all
mere abstractions of the mind, and, as such, capable
of being discerned in their consequences and con
tradictions; but very fallacious tests of what is
conclusive, or inconclusive, in facts out of the region
of the mind itself. The whole philosophy of the
Schools on the subject of Divine Agency, let it be
remembered, is founded on an application of pro
cesses in the mind to processes in nature. And our
technical language on the subject has been inherited
from the Schools. I only wish it then to be
considered, whether our difficulties may not be

LECTURE IV. 203
ascribed to our false philosophy more than to our
Religion. Could we read the language of the Apostle Paul,
on which so much stress is commonly laid, as deci
sive of this question, — without prejudice, — without
thinking of the volumes of controversy which have
been employed on it, or the arguments that we have
heard, — I feel persuaded, that we should draw no
speculative doctrines of Divine Predestination and
Grace from his Epistles. We should only see the
Apostle declaring the same fact, which all Nature
and Revelation proclaim ; that our God is a " God
" very nigh unto us;" whose goodness is as un
changeable as his Being ; and who will surely per
fect those counsels of love, in which he gave his
Son, from everlasting, for the salvation of man. St.
Paul's references to the Divine Agency are all of
this character. They suggest to us thoughts of
God, on all occasions of our life, in all difficulties of
our temporal and spiritual condition. Are we de
jected and despairing of our spiritual life ? " God,"
we are assured, " will not forsake his elect, whom He
" hath foreknown." He has blessed us ; He has
mercifully revealed his salvation to us : we have an
earnest then, that He, who is unchangeable, has not
lightly begun a good work in us, but will most
surely accomplish it. " Why art thou so disquieted,
"my soul?" says the anxious inquirer. "Hope
" thou in the Lord," is the answer ; " He is thy
" helper and defender :" " a very present help in
" time of trouble." Ascribe your salvation to God,

204 LECTURE IV.
and you rest on a rock which the rains and the
storms shall assail in vain. Are we again proceed
ing on our way cheerfully in the hope of everlasting
life ? " Work out your salvation with fear and
" trembling, for it is God that worketh in you, both
" to will and to do." Be encouraged to proceed ;
for you are armed with a strength not your own,
and a work that is of God, cannot come to nought ;
and yet " with fear and trembling ; " for the respon
sibility of a work to which God has set his hand, is
an heavy one, — that should make the heart serious
amidst its gladness. These are the words, with
which one Christian would naturally comfort and
encourage another. And such, accordingly, may
well be conceived the stress of the Apostle's asser
tions respecting Grace and Predestination. It is
the Charity that " never faileth," which he is incul
cating throughout, where many have erroneously
thought that he was proclaiming the wonders of the
Divine knowledge. Banish the scientific notion of
Predestination and Grace ; for nothing can come
of it, but the confidence of mere reason, and a false
enthusiasm, that fashions the idol before which it
prostrates itself. Take up the truths as the Divine
Law of Love, and you will find in them something
more than that fixedness and quiescence, which is
sought in the abstractions of Theory ; you will
find rest and peace to the soul in Jesus Christ.

LECTURE V.
THE PELAGIAN CONTROVERSIES.
JUSTIFICATION.

SUMMARY.
Truths of Divine and Human Agency necessarily qualify each
other — Human Agency, as viewed in the Scholastic system, the
continued action of the First Cause — Justification, the law of
Divine Operation in the Salvation of Man — Sketch of the Chris
tian scheme involved in this principle — Theory of Human Agency
concerned first in accounting for Resistance to the Divine Will —
Difficulty, as felt in ancient philosophy, was to reconcile the fact
with the certainty of Science — Schoolmen adopt Aristotle's prac
tical views of human nature — Application of the term Corruption
founded on his physical philosophy — Theory of the Propagation
of Sin maintains the universality of the principle of Corruption —
Objections of Pelagius and Celestius to this theory — Error, both
of the Orthodox and of the Pelagians, in speculating on the
nature of Original Sin — Concupiscence — the application of this
term to Original Sin, derived from ancient divisions of the soul —
Materialism involved in the Speculation. — Doctrine of Original
Sin, the counterpart to the doctrine of the Incarnation — Disputes
between the orthodox and the Pelagians turn on the force of the
terms Nature and Person — Connexion between the heresies of
Nestorius and Pelagius — Distinction between the effect of Adam's
sin, and the sin of subsequent parents on their posterity — View
of the Christian life, as a change, coincides with this theory of
Original Sin — Faith, the infused element of the new life — Doc
trinal statements of Justification by Faith, to be interpreted by
the light of Scholastic notions involved in it — Scholastic Notion
of Freewill, not opposed to Necessity, but to the Force of sin, in
enslaving the will — Introduction of the theory of Justice into the
Christian Scheme — Notion of Merit to be understood in con
nexion with this theory ; as also of Merit of Condignity, Merit
of Congruity — Peculiar views of Repentance, as a compensation
for offence — of Punishment and Satisfaction, as applied to the
Sacrifice of Christ — of Self-Mortification and Supererogation —
drawn from this theory of Penal Justice.
InefBcacy of Repentance to remove guilt, and need of Atone
ment, illustrated by these speculations — Debasing effect of Scho
lastic theory of Expiation — True view of Human Agency to be
found in simple practical belief of the Atonement — Union of
Strength and Weakness, implied in this doctrine, coincident with
facts of human nature — Mischievous effect of speculative discus
sion of the subject — Moderation and forbearance of language on
the subject most accordant with the spirit of Protestantism.

John I. 12, 13.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to
become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his
name : which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the
flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

"Octoi Se eXafiov avrov, eSwKev avrotg ifovaiav reKva Qeov yeve-
adai, rotg tnorevovaiv eig to ovopa avrov. oIovk il\ alpdrtav, ovSe ek
OEXyparog aapKog, ovSe t/c deXriparog avSpug, &XX iK Qeov eyev-
vrjdtfaav.

Quotquot autem receperunt eum, dedit eis potestatem
filios Dei fieri, his, qui credunt in nomine ejus, qui non ex
sanguinibus, neque ex voluntate carnis, neque ex voluntate
viri, sed ex Deo nati sunt. Lat. Vulg.

LECTURE V.

The consideration of our theological language on
the subject of Divine Agency, has tended to shew,
that the peculiar technical forms of these doctrines
were impressed on them by the ancient Logical Phi
losophy ; from the necessity, as it was supposed, of
tracing the series of effects in the conduct of man,
to some primary efficient cause, the origin of the
motion towards eternal happiness, in the soul ofthe
sinner. I now come to those views of Human
Agency, which are contained in the doctrines of
Original Sin, Faith, Merit, Repentance, Atonement.
And, with respect to these also, I am concerned to
point out, both, how they arose out of the established
method of Philosophy in the middle age, as ques
tions to be determined, and what are the theories
involved in their expression.
In a systematic Theology, these two classes of
doctrines necessarily qualify each other. The views,
either of Divine or of Human Agency, as they
are dogmatically stated, involve ideas which in
clude, or exclude, ideas in those of the opposite class.
If, for instance, the Divine Predestination is stated
strongly, as the everlasting" purpose of God, by
which the soul of the sinner is freely justified ; — true
as the fact is here intended to be described, yet, by
inference from this assertion, we destroy the power

210 LECTURE V.
of man in the work of his justification. Or if, on
the other hand, the truths of man's free agency are
premised in all their proper force ; the abstract
statement involves the denial of the sole power of
God. The perception of such consequences acts on
the mind of the framers of Systems of Theology ;
and, according to the view predominant in their own
creed, they place in the foreground the doctrines,
from which the notions that they would inculcate
may be logically deduced. Such is the nature of all
dogmatic statements on these subjects, and which
necessarily arises from the speculative force of the
terms in which the doctrines are conveyed.*
Such, however, was the mode in which the doc
trines, now under our consideration, received their
original form. They stand forth, to the view of
our speculative reason, with a point and precision
given to them by the action of disputation. They
excite in us the idea of accuracy of thought, of de
finiteness of conception ; and we contemplate them
with a fearful suspicion, lest we should err to the
right hand, or to the left, in our mode of embracing
them. In order, indeed, to the systematic perfection of
the Scholastic Theology, it was necessary to adjust
the speculative views ofthe truths of Human Agency,
to the previous theories of the Divine. It was essen
tial to this logical method, that they should appear
strictly the consequences of the former assumptions.
° Note A. Lect. V.

LECTURE V. 211
That they were the physical consequences, or natural
effects, of the Divine Efficiency, was already appa
rent from the very method of their deduction.
We were led up to consider them in God as in their
real cause. But when the facts of Divine Agency
were expressed in propositions, they were subjected
to the test of logical disputation ; and it was neces
sary therefore, to be able to demonstrate the logical
connexion of the two classes of propositions, no less
than the physical connexion of the two classes of
facts, respecting Divine and Human Agency.
Looking to these two circumstances, we shall see
the occasion of the peculiar mode of statement of
Original Sin, Faith, Merit, and other doctrines,
in which the work of man is contemplated in con
nexion with the work of God ; and which, together,
constitute the whole Law of the Divine Life of man,
characterized by the term Justification.
In pursuing the present subject, though we are
immediately employed in considering the condition,
sentiments, and actions of man, it is Divine Agency,
we must observe, that we are tracing throughout :
otherwise, we shall lose the real solution of the
dogmatic language, on the several points touched
in the controversies on which we are now engaged.
For such, it should be remembered, is the nature of
the Theology which has descended to us, as mem
bers of the Western Church. It is the Science of the
Divine Being ; in our present subject more parti
cularly, an application of the principles ofthe Divine
p2

212 LECTURE V.
Knowledge, to the revealed economy of the world.
All that we call human agency, is, in the expression
of Scholasticism, the " Highest Cause," acting by
" secondary " causes. The expression, secondary
causes, is familiar to us, but it is strictly Scholastic :
it guards the notion of the sole proper agency of
God. This notion of the Divine Being was the very
essence of Scholasticism — at once its theory and its
practice. The Theology of the Schools, as the sub
tile instrument of a Theocratic Power, addressed
itself to the study of the principles, by which it
could command the elements of social order; to the
development of that Primary Energy, which ani
mates and controls the restless course of human
operation. Its ambition was, to place the first link
of the golden chain, from which the heavens and
the earth were hung, in the intellectual grasp of
the ruler of the Church ; from whom the subject-
faithful should devoutly receive the law of action
and belief.
Whilst therefore those portions of the Pelagian
Controversies, on which I am now entering, may, by
way of distinction, be classed under the head of
Human Agency, and some, perhaps more properly,
under the head of Divine Agency in connexion with
Human; yet the whole inquiry is a prosecution of
the subject of the former Lectures, and more parti
cularly of the last. It is the Divine Energy that
we are still employed in investigating, — the opera
tion of that " Pure Act," in scholastic phrase, as it
works in the actions of man. The Schoolmen,

LECTURE V. 213
indeed, proceeding in regular series, have traced the
Divine Energy through the nature and actions of
Angelic Beings ; and so brought the speculation
down to the agency of man. The intelligence and
will of angels, and their power of good and evil in
the world, are discussed with the same minuteness
of speculation, as other parts of their philosophy ;
and in strict accordance with the working out of
their whole system. b Nor is even this part of their
system without its interest, in the history of the
notions now entertained, on the influence of good
and evil spirits, and on the Fall of Man. But the
more immediate importance of the views opened, in
their speculations concerning Human Agency, calls
for the direction of our attention to these exclusively,
on the present occasion.
Justification, then, (for under this general head
may be classed all those doctrines which more
immediately concern the agency of man,) is, in the
Scholastic view, the general law, according to which,
the Divine Energy operates, or takes effect, in the
salvation of man. It is described, by Aquinas, as
" the Effect of Grace Operating." It is analogous,
in the Divine Life of man under the influence of
Grace, to the law of Virtue in the natural and moral
life of man. And the way in which this appears,
is, that we require some supernatural means, in
order to that supernatural End, which Christian
b Anselm has a Treatise, De Casu Diaboli, in which he specu
lates concerning the will ofthe Evil Spirit.

214 LECTURE V.
salvation — the final fruition of God — holds out to
our attainment. It is the Divine Goodness indeed,
according to the Scholastic Philosophy, which we
instinctively aim at, in our natural pursuit of
happiness ; as I lately pointed out. Evidently,
however, man, as also all creatures throughout the
world, attain to the Divine Goodness naturally,
only so far as their constitution admits. The tree
cannot reach a stature, or a beauty of foliage, for
which there is no provision in its nature. Nor can
the moral agent exceed the bounds, which have
been assigned to his capacities in adaptation to his
present state. But everlasting happiness, consisting
in the enjoyment of the immediate presence of God,
is a thing entirely disproportioned to our present
faculties and capacities. No natural law of adjust
ment of our internal powers can suffice for this
transcendant object. Supposing our present capa
cities enlarged and improved, by discipline and
cultivation, to their utmost perfection, we must still
conceive them deficient, when we look to the im
mensity of the object for which they are destined.
It is plain, therefore, that mere moral cultivation is
not the whole law, by which the eternal perfection
of man's nature is to be attained. Some other
principle must be concerned in bringing about the
result. There can be no rule of intrinsic propriety
or fitness here. It must be a gifted righteousness,
by which we tend towards such a perfection of
being. Justification, accordingly, is the general law, as I

LECTURE V.

215

have said, by which the Divine Energy developes
itself in the human agent. It comprehensively
denotes the effect of grace in its whole process ; as it
regenerates, sanctifies, and glorifies the soul of man.
The same process, indeed, may, as I have before
observed, be called Sanctification ; as referred im
mediately to the Holy Spirit dwelling in the heart
of the faithful. But the term Sanctification does
not express the moral agency, in the nature of man,
by which the Final End is attained. And this seems
to be the reason, why the Schoolmen have been
so diffuse on the idea of Justification ; and why
Sanctification has remained, more a word of piety
and feeling, than a technical term of Theology.
It is then, in the Analysis of Justification, that we
must explore the principles of Human Agency,
recognized in the philosophical theology of the
schools. The divergency of the law of Divine
Agency into the several principles of the Human
Constitution, as they were understood and reasoned
upon in the philosophy of the times, will disclose to
us the views of the Schoolmen on the questions of
Human Agency ; and account for many expressions
on the subject in our systematic theology.
Taking then the Scripture facts : that mankind
is in a fallen, degraded state ; that this state is not
an accidental one, attributable to any particular
generation of men, or period of the world, but that it
began with the beginning of our race ; that it is a

216 LECTURE V.
state of moral disorder, offensive to God, and
excluding from his favour ; that we are therefore in
a state of danger, as well as of incapacity of happi
ness ; that, however, God has interposed, in mercy,
to save us from this danger, and retrieve this
incapacity, by giving his Son Jesus Christ to die for
us, whose death is our death unto sin, and his
resurrection our resurrection to holiness and life
everlasting ; that Repentance and Faith are the
great means, by which the benefits of his Passion
are brought home to those to whom they are
revealed ; that much accordingly is left to us to do,
amidst all our natural weakness and helplessness ;
— taking, I say, these facts, as a general account of
what the Scripture includes under Justification, let
us examine into the action of the Scholastic
Philosophy on the doctrines raised on them.
The difficulty which meets the speculator on
Human Agency, in its connexion with the Divine,
in the first instance, is, to account for the principle
of Resistance to the Will of God, which the facts
exhibit. It is not simply a Theory of the Origin
of Evil that is here required. This inquiry is satis
fied to a certain point, in the Christian scheme of
Salvation ; so far as it ascribes the first act of sin,
and the actual sins of all men, to the instrumentality
of the Evil Spirit.0 This circumstance answers the
c Deus est universale principium omnis interioris motus hu-
mani : sed quod determinetur ad malum consilium voluntas
humana, hoc directe quidem est ex voluntate humana, et dia-

LECTURE V. 217
question, how sin and death came into the world.
But it leaves unexplained the fact, that the will of
man does not invariably fulfil the Will of God ;
that, instead of tending naturally towards that good
which God designs in his creation, it has a dispo
sition and bent towards evil. In the account of this
fact must lie the proper, efficient cause of that evil,
which has ensued, and ensues, from the temptations
of wicked spirits. These temptations only present
an occasion of falling. The cause, or motive prin
ciple, of the disorder and misery of the world, must
be traced to the will of man himself.
The root of the difficulty was, that it seemed im
possible to conceive any Will whatever, as inclined
to evil. It was essential to the very nature of Will,
according to the established philosophical opinion,
as I stated in my last Lecture, that the object of
Will should be good ; and, according to the theo
logical philosophy, that this object should be exclu
sively the Divine Goodness.
Whilst a difficulty of this kind could not escape
the penetrating research of the ancient philosophers,
the difficulty to them arose principally from their
abstract notions of Science, rather than from ethical
theory. It was the immutability of Science, which
they were anxious to maintain. They could not
conceive any force in the mind, capable of counter-
bolo, per modum persuadentis, vel appetibilia proponentis.
Aquin. S. Theol. Prima Ildse, qu. lxxx. art. 1. — Sap. 2. Invidia
diaboli mors intra vit in orbem terrarum, is frequently quoted to
this purport.

218 LECTURE V.
acting that of first, fixed principles. They were
anxious to reduce morality to a theoretic precision.
But the observed discrepance between the specula
tive and practical conclusions of men, shook their
fundamental positions respecting the certainty and
imperiousness of Science. Socrates, accordingly, at
once denied the fact, that Evil was voluntarily
chosen in any case. Aristotle, however, with a more
practical wisdom, took the fact as he found it ; con
tenting himself with an analysis of it into the gene
ral laws of our nature involved in it ; — the existence
of propensities, neutral in themselves, but suscep
tible of good or evil ; and varying, according to their
exercise, in combination with the rational principle;
so that inordinate, disproportionate indulgence of
them had the power of deteriorating the moral na
ture, and depraving the Will. Whence, he drew his
outlines of Virtue from a theoretic state of man ;
from that superinduced constitution of our internal
nature, in which all the propensities were conceived,
in perfect adjustment to the real value of their ob
jects ; and thus coincident with the principle of
Reason ; when the Will that is, was firmly and
invariably towards good.
The Scriptures gave the Christian Philosopher a
clue to the interpretation of this fact, so far as they
gave a history of the first transgression, and de
clared its perpetuity and universality in the world.
But they gave no particular account of the mode, in
which the moral disorder of the world was pro
duced, or of what had rendered it inveterate in the

LECTURE V. 219
race of man. They only so far gave the material of
future speculation on the subject, as they asserted,
that man came perfect from the hands of the Crea
tor, being formed in the Divine Image ; and that his
iniquity was a subsequent, acquired condition of
being. The Schoolmen set themselves to explain
both the origin and the perpetuity of the evil ;
adapting to this purpose the physical and ethical
theories of Aristotle.
The perfect man of the philosophers' theory,
became, in their system, man as originally created
in his physical and moral integrity of being : when
all the internal principles were in their due pro
portions to each other, and to the final cause, or End,
of the whole, the Divine Goodness. Man, as he is
seen in the world, was man in a state of deficiency,
or of privation of original righteousness, or justice ;
of that state, namely, in which all the principles
were in their due subordination to God ; or, to state
it more in the phraseology of the Schools, rightly
ordered towards the Supreme Good.
The adoption of this view of Human Nature by
the Schools, is the point which immediately calls
for our notice, as it explains the word Corruption,
in its application to the evil of our moral condition.
It is a term of ancient philosophy, denoting the dis
solution of the internal nature of a thing — the
undoing of its actual constitution — not the annihi
lation of a nature, as we are apt to suppose. It is

220 LECTURE V.
opposed to Generation, or Production, signifying,
that man, as he is evil, is not the work of God, but
is unmade, as it were, in what he had been made by
God ; that he has lost that proper form, in which he
had his being in the intellect and will of God.d We
could not, for instance, apply the word to the noxious
disposition of a brute-animal, since there is no
destruction of principle in this case.6 The violence
of the brute is part of its original constitution, of
the form of its being. It only applies to the circum
stances of a creature, in which a different nature has
existed, and has undergone alteration, or become
degenerate. It is, in itself, no account of an evil,
more than of a good disposition. It is simply the
transition into another nature or form : and it only
obtains a bad sense from the theological notion, that
what has passed from that form in which it came
from the Creator, must have lost in excellence and
worth. In its general use, however, in the ancient
physics, it may denote the transition into a nobler
nature, as well as into an inferior ; as into the form
of the tree from the corruption of the seed.f
Original Sin, accordingly, is always defined by
\ the Schoolmen in negative terms, as a want of
" Corrupta, id est, amittentia formam suam. — Aquinas, Sum.
Theol. Prima Ildae, qu. cxix. art. 1.
" Aristot. Ethic, vii. et alib.
f St. Paul's words in 1 Cor. xv. 36. are clearly founded on
this philosophical notion : only to give a rhetorical point to his
argument, he substitutes the word airodavt], instead of that pro
perly expressing corruption.

LECTURE V. 221
original justice, carentia justitice originalis ; or an
inordinateness of the desires ; or, as in our IXth
article, a fault, and depravation of nature, vitium ac
depravatio naturce. The last, indeed, is the most truly
technical description of it ; expressing, accurately,
the peculiarity of the theory, on which the doctrinal
statement of Original Sin has been founded.
This theory of the Evil of the world involved
also other theories of the same Logical Philosophy.
The universality of the principle was to be demon
strated. How could it apply, it would be argued,
to the case of the infant soul, snatched out of the
actual pollutions of the world, as the tender lamb of
his flock taken up by the shepherd into his own
bosom ? The theorist, not content with referring to
the Redeemer's love, as the simple earnest of the
blessedness of the little innocent, sought how to con
nect this fact with the universal need of redemption.
It was to be brought, therefore, under the theory of
Original Sin. This occasioned the introduction of
the term Propagation into the account of the origin
of evil. If the corruption of nature descended by
" propagation," then would it exist even in the
guileless infant. And the theory, as thus stated,
would be the logical correspondent to the doctrine
of Grace. If on the one hand all were under
Grace ; if it was God that worked all in all ; on the
other hand all would be concluded under Sin. An
universal cause, identical in all instances, would be
exhibited on each side ; a principle of Life and a

222 LECTURE V.
principle of Death, acting invariably, and communi
cating their nature to the multitude of individuals.6
The Pelagians, however, were not satisfied with
this account of the matter. Admitting that evil
existed in the world, and that the transgression of
Adam had been injurious to his posterity ; they still
denied its transmission, in the way of an hereditary
taint, Pelagius believed, as fully as his opponents,
that mankind were in a worse state, in conse
quence of the first sin ; but, looking to the moral
nature of man, and finding that neither praise nor
blame was given for what we are by nature, but for
what we do, he held, that, as virtue was not born
with us, so neither was vice.11 He contended, ac
cordingly, for a moral influence of prevarication
of Adam on his posterity ; that the first sin was
hurtful to the human race ; not by propagation, but
by example ; non propagine, sed exemplo ; not be
cause they who were propagated from him, drew
from him any vice, any fault ; but because all that
have afterwards sinned, have imitated him, the first
8 Concedat Jesum etiam parvulis esse Jesum, et, ut per eum facta
omnia fatetur, per id quod est verbum Deus, ita etiam parvulos
ab eo salvos fieri fateatur, per id quod est Jesus, si vult esse
catholicus Christianus. Sic enim scriptum est in evangelio : " Et
" vocabunt nomen ejus Jesum ; Ipse enim salvum faciet popu-
" lum suum :" in quo populo sunt utique et parvuli. Salvum
autem faciet a peccatis eorum. Sunt ergo et in parvulis peccata
originalia, propter quae Jesus, i. e. Salvator, possit esse et ipso-
rum. — Augustin. De Nupt. et Concup. lib. II. ad fin.
h Apud August. De Peccat. Orig. lib. II. p. 217.

LECTURE V. 223
sinner :' and that infants were not in the same state
as Adam before transgression ; because he was capa
ble of obeying a precept, whilst they had not, as yet,
the exercise of free-will. Celestius, in like manner,
rested the corruption of our nature on moral
grounds ; arguing that sin was not born in us, but
was the fault of the Will." Only he went further
than his master, in refusing to anathematize those,
who said, that the sin of Adam was hurtful to him
self alone ; and in asserting, still more expressly, that
no infant was under the obligation of original sin.
Though the language of the Pelagians did not
adequately express the inveteracy of that sinfulness
of human nature, which Scripture and the world
declare with one voice ; we must allow, I think, that
their grounds were right, so far as they attempted to
give a moral account of the fact ; and that their oppo
nents were wrong, so far as they attempted to give a
physical or material account of it. The notion of
Augustine, indeed, corresponded with the Platonic
notion of good and evil, as abstract, a priori grounds

1 Pelagius may have been led to this mode of expression by a
study of ancient philosophy. We may perceive something like
the contrast between the Pythagorean pipr\aig and the Platonic
pediiitg in the opposing theories. The orthodox account for the
universality of evil by " participation '' of the common nature ;
the Pelagians, on the principle of " similitude,'' or imitation.
k Omne malum quod peccatum definitur, asseritis, non in
natura, sed in sola voluntate consistere, &c. Augustin. Contr.
Julian, lib. III. p. 323. — Quia non naturae delictum, sed volun
tatis esse demonstratur. Celestius, ap. August, de Pec. Orig. IL
p. 256. torn. VII.

224 LECTURE V.
of right and wrong in human conduct ; as what
constituted, by the participation of them in each in
stance, the actual good and evil of the world. The
notion of the Pelagians was in accordance with that
of Aristotle ; who held, that we were endued with
capacities of virtue and vice, but that virtue and
vice, moral good and moral evil, were only the
results of acting, of exercising those capacities well
or ill. Their theory of human sinfulness sufficiently
accounted for the actual sins of men. It shewed
how our nature might be depraved or improved ;
that it's actual depravation consisted in transgres
sions, like those of the First Parent ; but it left
unexplained the tendency to sin existing in human
nature ; a fact evidenced in the difficulty of re
sistance to temptation ; in the self-denial which
right conduct exacts ; — " the law warring in the
" members," as the Scripture calls it. The follow
ing evil example, the assimilating of ourselves to
the first transgressor, is only one mode by which
this evil tendency finds its way into our conduct,
and betrays itself. In itself it is something beyond,
and more intimate with our feelings. It had been
well, if the orthodox had contented themselves with
the name of Original Sin, to designate this moral
fact ; and whilst they disclaimed the Pelagian theory
of Example, or Imitation, as inadequate to the solu
tion of the fact, themselves abstained from speculat
ing concerning it. But disputation called upon them
to define and pronounce. They thus essayed, what
neither Scripture had authorized, nor human reason

LECTURE V. 225
could reach : — to explain the mode of human cor
ruption ; to analyze, by language, the thing denoted
by the term Original Sin, when the only subject
before them was a general fact, requiring to be
simply and clearly stated.
The positive manner, in which Augustine declares
the transmission of the material element of corrup
tion from Adam to the whole race of mankind, laid
the groundwork of the scholastic discussions on the
subject. The idea that prevails throughout these,
is, of a positive deterioration of the carnal nature —
that, which, according to ancient philosophy, was
the seat of the " affections and lusts," — the " con-
" cupiscible part of the soul." This part of the soul
was considered as intermediate to the material and
the purely intellectual; and as inseparable from
matter ; whilst the intellect alone was the immortal
spiritual principle. In the language of ancient phi
losophy, it was spoken of, as at variance with the
intellect ; in a state of disobedience and faction
against the authority of the higher part of our
nature; as the corruptible principle, that weighed
down and impeded the immortal intellect. It was
also conceived to be that part of the soul, in which
the weakness of man — his want of self-command —
is exhibited ; and in which were to be explored
all those facts, which declare the inconstancy and
mutability of human will.1 This principle, then,
J Aristot. Eth. vii.
Q

226 LECTURE V.
in the constitution of our nature, presented a basis
for the physical speculations of the Schools, con
cerning the corruption of man. We may trace
this connexion of ideas in the word "passion;'"
which, though properly equivalent to " affection," or
" feeling," has acquired, in modern ideas, the sense
of an " evil affection ; " evidently derived from the
practice of considering our nature as having its evil
resident in the affections."1 The expressions of St.
Paul, conveying his ideas of the actual depravity of
man, in terms ofthe established philosophy of human
nature, were eagerly laid hold of, as confirming this
theory of the seat of human frailty. His denoting
our corruption, as "the flesh lusting against the
" spirit, and the spirit against the flesh," corresponds
with the struggle, conceived by the philosopher be
tween the antagonist principles of our nature ; and
implies also the intimate connexion of the affections
with the flesh."
It was stated, accordingly, that the flesh, the con-
cupiscible part of our nature, was vitiated by the
m Passio, in lingua Latina, maxime usu loquendi Ecclesiastico,
non nisi ad vituperationem consuevit intelligi. Augustin. De
Nupt. et Concup. lib. II. E. p. 280. torn. VII.
Passiones irascibilis ad passiones concupiscibilis reducuntur,
sicut ad principaliores, inter quas concupiscentia vehementius
movet, et magis sentitur, ut supra habitum est. Et ideo concupis
centia attribuiter tanquam principaliori, et in qua quodammodo
omnes aliae passiones includuntur. Aquinas, S. Theol. Prima
Ildae, qu. lxxxii. art. 3. in discussing the question, Utrum origi-
nale peccatum sit concupiscentia ?
They are Xoyoi 'ivvXoi, " principles inhering in matter,"
according to Aristotle. De Anima, lib. I. c. 1.

LECTURE V. 227
sin of the first man ; the soul itself not being con
taminated, as being distinct from the fleshly prin
ciple. A deep wound was inflicted, it was said, by
the malice of the Devil : the material idea still, we
may perceive, running through the description : that
wound, being sin, was fatal to our very life. By
this sin, our nature being changed for the worse,
not only became sinful, but even propagated sin
ners. The evil, indeed, was not a substance in
itself; to assert this, would have been Manicheism ;
it was a vitiation of the original flesh, transmitted
like hereditary diseases which shew themselves in
the body.0 It was remitted in baptism to each
individual ; the condemnation was removed, by the
remission of sins, through Christ, obtained in that
sacrament. But the evil in itself — the Concupis
cence1" in which it existed — still remained in the
material nature derived from Adam, and sustained
its noxious vitality in the successive generations of
men.q ° August. De Nupt. et Concup. lib. II. H. p. 279- torn. VII.
v The Schoolmen differ as to the point whether Original Sin is
Concupiscence, or simply the Privation of original justice. See
the disputes between the Dominicans and Franciscans at the
Council of Trent. Fra Paolo's History, translated by Courayer,
lib. II. p. 273. — I take on this point, as on every other concerned
in the present inquiry, what appears to me the prevalent view,—
the notion which runs through the system ; though the particular
definitions of it may differ.
q Aristotle was aware of the fact, that the nature of man is
subject to hereditary influences ; as he remarks, that children
appear to derive something from their parents, [diroXavovra,]
in his Politics, lib. VII. c. 16 ; but he has not speculated
about it.
q2

228 LECTURE V.
Our Church, happily, has avoided that extreme
dogmatism on the subject, which the scholastic phi
losophy instances ; and which some of her own mem
bers would elicit from her language. We find, indeed,
the terms ofthe schools adopted in the Article on Ori
ginal Sin, and a train of thought on the subject follow
ing their speculations. But in speaking of Original
Sin, it does not expressly assert its descent in the way
of propagation ; it affirms only the general law under
which all sons of Adam are born into the world. It
does not, in fact, define the nature ofthe thing, though
it appears to do so in terms : it only lays down its
effects, their depth, and their universal extent. It
is impossible, at the same time, to deny, that its
language on the subject bears the impress ofthe scho
lastic theories. And those expositors of her doctrine,
who would draw from this article a sentence of
what is called the " total corruption" of our na
ture, appear to me to take an improper advantage
of those theoretic expressions.1 They are, probably,
not aware, that they are carrying back the doctrine
of the Church into the realism of the scholastic phi
losophy. For what else is the description of a total
corruption, but a material theory of the nature so
' The strength of the expressions (quam proxime, and " very
"far gone") is to be estimated, by their opposition to that tran-
scendant holiness, which human nature may be conceived to
possess, whilst as yet instinct with original righteousness, and
the perfect image of Divine goodness. Compare the fallen con
dition of man with the scholastic notion of his first state ; and
no words can be strong enough, to tell the depth to which he
has fallen.

LECTURE V. 229
corrupted, as of a mass which has undergone a dis
solution and internal alteration, • so as to be no
longer, in any respect, what it was ? though even
under this point of view, the modern speculator has
exceeded the philosophical basis of his doctrine, in
making the privation total, which the Schools speak
of as only partial.8
The Schoolmen, however, have not hesitated to
speak expressly on the subject in terms of Ma
terialism. They describe the corruption of our
nature as the material cause of sin. They speak
of all men being in the first man : and explain it by
saying, that, whatever is in human bodies, existed
" materially and in the way of causation," in the
first man. For Adam, according to Peter Lombard,
transmitted a portion of his substance to his de
scendants, which has continued the same, only being
augmented in bulk by food, without receiving any
external addition ; and being continued downwards
from him by successive multiplications of itself.'
5 Note A. Lect. V.
' Quibus responderi potest, quod materialiter atque causaliter,
non formaliter, dicitur fuisse in primo homine, omne quod in
humanis corporibus naturaliter est, descenditque a primo parente
lege propagationis, et in se auctum et multiplicatum est, nulla
exteriori substantia in id transeunte ; et ipsum in futuro resur-
get. Fomentum quidem habet a cibis, sed non convertuntur
cibi in humanam substantiam, quas scilicet per propagationem
descendit ab Adam. Transmisit enim Adam modicum quid
de substantia sua in corpora filiorum, quando eos procreavit;
id est, aliquid modicum de massa substantise ejus divisum est,
et inde formatum corpus filii, suique multiplicatione, sine rei
extrinsecse adjectione, auctum est: et de illo ita augmentato

230 LECTURE V.
The identity of the sinful principle was thus strictly
maintained by them, in the sense of an original,
invariable matter, reproduced under the infinite
variety of individual forms in which it was con
tained. This notion, partly physical and partly logical, is
the application of Aristotle's principles of Matter,
Form, and Privation. It proceeds on the assumption,
that there is some common Nature in all things that
we designate material ; and that this common nature
is only diversified externally by the various forms
with which it is invested. It continues in all things,
under all their transmutations or transitions, sus
ceptible of every modification which the perpetual
flux of sensible things superinduces. Hence, evi
dently, the immortality and invariableness of the
principle of corruption ; the poison wears not out ;
the tyrant never dies ; for it bears a charmed exist
ence ; amidst the fluctuations and revolutions of
generations, it preserves its sullen stability and
vigour. It is probable then that Pelagius and Celestius
intended only to oppose this material theory ; and
to explain the fact of Human Sinfulness, as I
have said, on moral grounds. In the fact itself, as
appears, they did not differ from the orthodox : so
aliquid inde separatur, unde formantur posterorum corpora : et
ita progreditur procreationis ordo lege propagationis, usque ad
finem humani generis. Itaque diligenter ac perspicue intelli-
gentibus patet, omnes secundum corpora in Adam fuisse per
seminalem rationem, et ex eo descendisse propagationis lege.
Pet. Lombard. Sentent. lib. II. dist. 30.

LECTURE V. 231
far that they were acquitted of heresy, both at Rome
and at Jerusalem. But the acute logic ofthe African
divines traced their explanations to the consequences;
and their influence was interposed to maintain the
uniformity of doctrine in the Church.
To form a right conception of the doctrine of
Original Sin, we should view it together with the
doctrine of the Incarnation, which is its exact coun
terpart. In the theory of the Incarnation, our Lord
is described as assuming to his Divinity, not any
human being in particular, but manhood, human
nature itself. He was made " man of the substance
" of his mother ;" yet without sin, — without the cor
ruption derived to all other sons of Adam, not con
ceived, as He was, by the immediate operation of the
Holy Spirit. Much subtile disquisition was em
ployed to shew, how the nature, which He inherited
from Adam, was not corrupted; but such as it
existed before the transgression of Adam. The will
therefore, it was argued — the principle of motion —
in him was perfectly just and good. It was in his
power, accordingly, to generate others like himself;
as it was, in the corrupt will of Adam, to generate
others in the likeness of his corruption. To this
purport were interpreted the words, being "born in
" Christ," being "born of God." In each case
accordingly, both in the benefits of the Incarnation
and the Evils of the Fall, all men were collectively
regarded as one man ; and the blessing and the curse
descended, by vital communication, with the heads

232 LECTURE V.
of the race : realism representing each Christian as
having a proper physical identity, in the unre
generate state, with Adam ; in the regenerate, with
Christ. Such undoubtedly was the Scholastic notion
fundamentally, both of the effects of the Fall, and
of the Incarnation. This view exactly accords with
the Theory of Grace, which I before stated. It
was the Will of God, bringing those, whom he had
chosen in Christ, to Himself. This blessed effect
took place, when, by the process of justification, the
sinner was incorporated into the body of Christ, and
made one with Christ.
The disputes indeed between the Pelagians and
the Orthodox, when traced to their real origin, were
disputes as to the force and propriety of the terms
Nature and Person, in their application to moral
facts. The ostensible difference was concerning
Grace ; to what periods of the Christian progress
in justification, the description of the operation of
Grace was appropriate. The Pelagians did not deny
that Grace was necessary to the Christian life : at
what time the Divine Operation properly assumed
the name of Grace, was the principal question
with them. But, if we examine the disputations
themselves, they turn upon the point, whether
Sin is a quality of nature, or an accident of per
sons. The Pelagian account, however, of human
depravity, clearly did not correspond with the doc
trine of Grace connected with the Incarnation. The
Pelagians, therefore, were regarded as denying that

LECTURE V. 233
grace with which their theory of corruption did not
logically correspond. Both Pelagius and Celestius
disclaimed the imputation : but the logical conse
quence was sufficient for a conviction of heresy. The
orthodox, on the other hand, clung to the term
Nature, as indispensable to the theory of Grace.
They confessed, indeed, that sin originated in the
will of man : for, to have denied this, would have
been to shake their whole theory of Divine Agency.
But, in order to secure, as it were, a raft on which
the noxious contagion might float down the stream
of human generation, they insisted on the term
Nature as the only proper designation of the moral
fact.u It is the same philosophy which has occasioned
the distinction of Sin into Original and Actual :
the term Actual expressing the personal developr
ment of that sin, which is conceived antecedently to
exist in the common nature of all men, and in each
individual, consequently, as participating that com
mon nature.
The apparent connexion of the heresies of Nes-
torius and Pelagius further illustrates this point.
We find at the same Council of Ephesus, at which
Nestorius was condemned, Pelagianism also attract
ing notice.3" There was an evident correspondence
between the two heresies in this respect ; that they
were both disputes about the notions attached to the

u See Anselm. De Cone. Virg. et Pec. Orig. — Note B.
1 Note C.

234 LECTURE V.
Terms Nature and Person. Nestorius, in denying
that the Virgin Mary was the mother of Godf and
thus separating the personality of Christ as man,
from his personality as God, gave ground for the
supposition, that Christians were not born of God —
made one with the Father and the Son — in that
intimate sense which the orthodox doctrine implied.
Nestorius, however, appears to have differed from
the orthodox principally in this ; that he viewed dis
tinctions, which the orthodox regarded as different
Natures, under the notion of different Persons.
Pelagius, on the other hand, making Original Sin a
matter of personal distinction, abandoned that unity
of nature, in which the invariableness of Human
Corruption was conceived to consist.
We may further see the importance of the dis
tinction between Nature and Person, in regard to the
doctrine of Original Sin, in the Scholastic explana
tion of the reason, why the First Sin only trans
mitted its effects to the posterity of Adam ; why
subsequent sins, or even those of a man's immediate
Parents, are not equally injurious in their conse
quences. It was contended, in answer to such
questions, that it was only the nature of the species,
and not the individual peculiarities, that could be
transmitted from generation to generation. The
first sin of Adam deprived human nature of its ori
ginal justice, — altered its natural constitution ; — but

! To state it more correctly, he objected to the word deoroKog,
Deipara, as applied to Christ.

LECTURE V. 235
not so the subsequent sins either of Adam or of
others : these were merely personal ; did not alter
the general nature once corrupted.2
It was a consequence of this notion of Original
Sin, that the elements of the Christian Life should
be, in the strictest sense, a change, a transformations
a renewal. It was necessary that we should be " born
" again." To counteract that living death within
us, a new life from God must be imparted. Hence
that view of Faith, in the scholastic system, as an
" Infused principle." " As in Adam all die, so in
" Christ shall all be made alive." All were corrupted
in the flesh by Adam's transgression ; all must be
quickened by the righteousness of Christ. If we
regard this reasoning as a description of conjoined
events in each case, it is undoubtedly scripturally
just. The connexion ofthe universal ruin of man —
whatever may be the nature of that ruin — with the
sin of the first transgressor ; and the connexion of
universal salvation — whatever may be the nature of
that salvation — with the righteousness of Christ; are
facts, which the word of truth has inseparably bound
together. The logical deduction, however, of one
from the other, is what I am now pointing out.
The state of man, under Original Sin, being that
of a Privation, he was without that perfect consti
tution of his nature, in which all his principles were,
in proportion to each other, and rightly ordered to
'¦ Aquinas, S. Theol. Prima Ildse, qu. lxxxi. art. 1 and 2.
—Note D.

236 LECTURE V.
the final end of them all — the Divine Goodness. This
inherent evil must be remedied by the presence of
some effectual antidote. Scripture fully revealed
that antidote in the perfect righteousness of the Son
of God. But, how to apply that righteousness to
the individual sinner — how to exhibit its power of
transforming and renewing the fallen nature of man
— was the question. Here, too, Scripture provided
an answer to the real difficulty. It has told us, that,
" by grace ye are saved through faith, and that not
" of yourselves ; it is the gift of God ;" that those
who " believe, and are baptized, shall be saved."
Faith, then, as emanating from the grace of God,
and having for its principal object the righteousness
of Christ, is the new principle of life in man. Bap
tism indeed is requisite as the " sacrament of faith,"
— as the mystical act of the new birth ; at once the
visible and spiritual incorporation with Christ. But
Faith must first come down from above to the soul,
and turn it towards God. It is the principle by
which the Life and Immortality of the second Adam
are generated in the soul. It is the grace of Christ,
by which, antecedently to any acts of the Christian
life, a spiritual power is given to the soul, and the
heir of corruption becomes the child of God.a
It is important to observe accurately this physical
notion of Faith, as an infused principle, the origin
of a new life ; because it serves to account for that
a Gratia Christi traducitur in omnes qui ab eo spiritualiter
generantur per fidem et baptismum. Aquin. S. Theol. Prima
Ildae, qu. lxxxi. art. 3.

LECTURE V. 237
priority, which is ascribed in such strong terms, in
our Articles, to Faith, among the acts of the Chris
tian life. On this view of the case, it appears as
inconsequent and absurd to suppose, that any Chris
tian works can be performed without Faith ; as to
suppose that the natural actions of life can be per
formed before the principle of life exists in us.
" Whatever is not of faith" is then literally " of sin."
It proceeds from that nature in which the seed of
corruption exists with unchecked influence — from
" the natural man," which has already displeased
God in our first parent, and cannot please God under
any modification, but in itself must deserve the
wrath of God. Even works that might be called
good, as they result from Nature, have then the
nature of sin, peccati rationem habent, — belong to
that unregenerate principle which is called Sin, — and
come into the estimate of our natural disability to
please God. Scripture, indeed, asserts the difficulty,
the folly, the sinfulness of any endeavour to work
out our own salvation on our own strength ; and
therefore lays such stress on the principle which
sends us to the altar of the Cross. But not em
ploying definitions, in its delivery of divine truth,
it avoids that paradoxical air, which appears in all
systematical developments of the nature of Faith.
There is one passage, in which it seems to give
a logical account of Faith, in the Epistle to the
Hebrews ; where Faith is described, as " the sub-
" stance (hypostasis) of things hoped, the evidence
" (elenchus) of things not seen." But even here,

238 LECTURE V.
when the Apostle is speaking in the terms of a
logical philosophy, it is not speculative truth that
he is engaged in treating, but practical. He is giving
that idea of Faith, which may excite in his brethren
a principle of conduct, exceeding the narrow range
of present things, and expanding itself to those
nobler views opened by a revealed hope to the Chris
tian eye.
Some judgment may be formed, from these con
siderations, to what extent the difficulties attending
the notion of Faith, and of Works done before Justi
fication, may be attributed to the abstract theories
preserved in the technical language, of Theology.
And I would draw attention to those theories, there
fore, as solutions of the difficulties ; and as among
the illustrations of the important fact, that there
exist perplexities in Theology, which do not involve
real scriptural difficulties : there arising necessarily
a stiffness and positiveness of doctrine, from the
very nature of systematic statements.
What strivings, indeed, and heart-burnings would
have been saved to the Christian world, had the
proper negative notion of Faith been strictly guarded :
had Faith been cherished in the heart, simply, as the
heaven-sent keeper of God's own sanctuary, there to
drive away the proud imaginations of the worldly
spirit, and to still the anxieties of the contrite, self-
despairing soul. In this sense, Justification by
Faith only is the sum of Christianity. View the
truth in this broad historical form ; and then, to add
to the assertion of it, the necessity of conditions, is

LECTURE V. 239
to counteract the proper efficacy of Jesus Christ.
But, throw the great Christian Fact into the form
of a dogma, and it is immediately acted on by the
philosophy of language. It becomes matter of
inquiry, what Justification is, what Faith is ; and
distinctions are introduced, to obviate consequences
from this or that statement. Hence too, the impor
tunate comparison between Faith and Works, as to
their relative importance.b
Faith, being regarded as the infused principle of
a new life, does not supersede the natural faculties
of man, nor does it destroy the inborn principle of
corruption. The infection of evil is in the flesh,
and there, as the School Divines explicitly assert, it
remains, even in the regenerate. The divine seed is
in the higher spiritual part of our nature, and is
a new power by which the subjugation of the cor
rupt passions of the inferior part, the lusts of the
flesh, is gradually accomplished. By faith in Christ,
through baptism, being born of God, we need still
to grow in that life, to proceed from our state as
babes in Christ, to the measure of the stature of the
fulness of Christ. It is by this procedure, through
the continued assistances of grace, that as we become
stronger in the Lord, the offending Adam within
us becomes weaker; our holiness and our security
b From the scholastic distinction between Implicit and Ex
plicit Faith, we may trace the assertion, that the " Fathers
" looked not for transitory promises," &c. The invariableness
and sameness of the object of Faith was thus maintained.

240 LECTURE V.
increasing together. So far then from man's free
will being impaired, by the divine life thus growing
within us, under the blessing of Him who first gave
it, our free-will is in reality established. Our con
dition, antecedently to these influences, is one of
slavery ; we are sold under sin — in bondage to the
lusts of the flesh : we could not then do what we
would, and we did what we would not. But having
received the new creation in Christ, we commence
the mastery of the rebellious passions ; and so long
as the spiritual life is cherished within us, our
power daily increases.
This then is the scholastic notion of free-will. It
means a liberty from compulsion, as distinct from
a liberty from necessity.0 When the Schoolmen
assert in the language of our Article, that we have
no power without the grace of God preventing us
that we may have a will, and working with us when
we have that will ; they mean that we cannot be said
to be free to will or to do what we design, so long
as we are in the mere state of sons of Adam ; that
our real power is that command of the passions in
obedience to the will of God, which the new life of
Faith brings with it. Thus the responsibility of
man, instead of being lessened by the consideration
of the Divine Influence on his soul, is, in fact, in
creased ; agreeably to the scripture-declaration that,
" to whom much is given, of him much will be re-
" quired." In the state of nature, we are powerless
Libertas a coactione, and libertas a necessitate. — Note E.

s LECTURE V, 241
against the assaults of temptation — under grace the
means of victory are placed in our hands.
It appears, that our Article on Free-will is framed
with the same view ; to declare,. I mean, that our
proper responsibility, as Christians, commences at
the time of our receiving divine assistance. We are
apt to suppose, that free-will consists in the circum
stance oi originating our own purposes ; in not being
actuated by any thing extrinsic to ourselves. This,
at least, is not the accurate theological sense of the
term. It is here the actual power, viewed in itself'
at the moment of exertion ; the power shewn in
doing what we wish, or of doing otherwise, whatever
may have been the inducements to this or that mode
of action previously. And this power, evidently, is
increased, by whatever removes obstacles, by what
ever strengthens the reason, and enforces the
dictates of conscience.
In carrying on our estimate of the effect of the
Scholastic Philosophy on the scheme of human
agency, involved in our theological language, we
should bear in mind the view of human responsibility,
which is given under the analogies of Scripture.
We are described, as subjects owing certain duties
of allegiance to a king, — as soldiers enlisted under
the Captain of Salvation, — as servants having cer
tain services to perform for a master, — as labourers
having certain works to execute for an employer.
By these several analogies does the Gospel strik
ingly depict to us the condition, under which we

242 LECTURE V.
are placed in the world. The principle throughout
is, that our thoughts, our actions, our works, are
dues that we owe to God ; — that we are not
properly our own ; — that our time and industry are
not at our own disposal ; — but that we are under an
obligation of working for Him who has bought us,
redeeming us from the captivity into which we had
been sold, and now employing us in his own
service. Judaism had already taught mankind to
regard God as a Governor, dispensing rewards and
punishments to men, as his subjects, according to
the works performed in his service ; as they kept,
or broke, his commandments, statutes, and ordi
nances. To this description of human agency, in
relation to God, Christianity succeeded. A principle
of obligation was adopted in the Gospel scheme,
analogous to that of the Jewish. The service of the
Israelite was due, because God had brought them
out of the land of bondage, and settled them in his
own land, Himself the founder of the colony. The
service of the Christian was due, because Christ
had interceded for them — had won them out of the
hand of the enemy, and given them both liberty and
life. Hence the language of that great Christian
rule : " When ye shall have done all those things
" which are commanded you, say, We are unprofit-
" able servants, we have done that which was our
" duty" — o o>cbei\opev — which was owing from us,
to do.
Under such a scheme of human agency, the
character of Justice would be the natural and

LECTURE V. 243
comprehensive description of right conduct. Men
would be led to inquire, what the Lord had required
of them, — by what inducements he had called upon
them to obey, — by what punishments he had threat
ened disobedience ; and in regard to themselves, how
far they had fulfilled their task, how far they might
aspire to his rewards, or had subjected themselves
to his punishments. The estimate of these circum
stances appeals to our sense of Justice ; to that virtue
which dispenses to each his due, both relatively to
himself and to other members of the same com
munity ; and which presupposes an authority by
which its awards may be distributed and enforced.
Judaism accordingly inculcated this leading notion
both of Divine and Human Agency. The Israelite
was never suffered to forget, that Jehovah was a
just God, the Judge of the earth. He was taught
to examine himself; whether he had done justly —
what was the righteousness of his conduct — whether
he had incurred Divine Displeasure by any defect
of his duty, or might hope reward from his obe
dience. The Lord reasons with him, whether the
Lord's " ways are not equal, and the ways of his
" people unequal:" whether " the Judge of all the
" earth" would not " do right" Agreeably to this,
Christ is " the Lord our Righteousness," or " the
" Lord our Justice :" and the Apostle speaks of God
having shewn his justice in the act of justifying
sinners through Christ. We trace, indeed, the same
idea in some of the principal terms of Christianity,
evidently drawn from legal or equitable proceedings
r2

244 . LECTURE V.
in the dispensing of Justice ; as in the terms,
Mediator, Advocate, Intercessor, Justification, Re
mission, Pardon. It runs through the whole of
St. Paul's exposition of the state of man under the
Gospel. The introduction of the notions of Merit and
Demerit into Theology, is to be explained on this
principle. Original Sin, being a fault of nature,
could not indeed, as such, be a personal fault ;
and yet it subjected the individual man to the
punishment of sin ; in itself deserving God's wrath
and damnation. The guiltiness of the nature
involved in it the demerit of the person. Thus,
even those who had not personally sinned after the
similitude of Adam's transgression, stood personally
unholy in the sight of God, and obnoxious to
punishment : d the offending nature cried aloud for
the Divine Wrath. Nor could the Christian, in the
most advanced state of Justification, be regarded
otherwise than as personally sinful and unholy ;
because it is his being essentially and virtually in
Christ — his being " accepted in the beloved" — that
entirely constitutes his meritoriousness. Though the
act of sin may have passed away, the guiltiness still
remains ; and even his case therefore is one of
demerit. For there is this difference in regard to
the application of the merits of Christ to the Chris
tian ; that a personal merit does not result to him
a Punishment, poena, as distinct from guilt, culpa. We see
this distinction referred to in our XXXIst Article, — " in remis-
" sionera pcenae aut culpae."

LECTURE V. 245
individually, from his union with Christ ; as a per
sonal demerit does to the son of Adam, from his
being in Adam. The natural unholiness in which
he stands before God, excludes the idea of any per
sonal merit in him, whilst, by grace, he is admitted
to the glorious privilege of the sons of God. Eternal
life remains the gift of God ; for the regenerate
Christian has still the guilt of that sin, whose wages
are death.
We attach, at present, an exclusive idea to the
term Merit, different from that properly belonging
to it as a technical term of Theology. We are apt
to regard it as denoting, strictly, praiseworthiness,
moral title to reward. We should revert rather
to its original meaning, which is to be sought in its
connexion with the ancient theories of Justice. It
is hence that it has been introduced into the account
of Justification. Now the notion of Justice, we
know, according to the ancient philosophy, was fun
damentally political. It was conceived to have place
only among the members of the same community,
personally equal among themselves, and acting under
a common authority. It was the rule by which the
respective claims of individuals so circumstanced
might be adjusted. In order to that comparison
which such an adjustment of claims requires, some
common measure is required ; and this, as applied
to each, is the " worth," or merit of the indi
vidual, the value of his services. Now the first
application of the term merit to Christian Theology,
appears to have been exactly of this nature. The

246 LECTURE V.
great Christian society was viewed by the speculator,
in its relation to God as its Governor and Judge.
The principle, which Human Authority can apply
only to external actions, was applied to the invisible,
internal principles of our nature, cognizable by the
Divine Authority. It began to be considered what
man had done, or could do, in the way of claim on
the Justice of God. Then the doctrine of Original
Sin came into the consideration on the one hand —
that of the Incarnation and Righteousness of Christ
on the other ; — and the estimate of Merit accord
ingly was to be drawn from a comparison of what
man now is, at once a Fallen and a Saved creature,
with what he once was, when perfect from the
hands of his Maker. From this comparison would
result the conclusion, that man could have no merit
whatever in the eye of God. Then only could he
earn the reward of happiness, when all the principles
of his nature, as originally constituted, tended
towards that Divine Goodness which was their real
End. Now he entered on his career of service a
debtor to the Justice of God, not a claimant on it.
He had only merited Punishment by his intrinsic
delinquency. But, in the righteousness of Christ,
a title to reward was found. The submission of
Christ to the Divine Will had been voluntary ; He
had earned a recompence for services given to God,
without a previous debt of service unpaid ; and an
abundant reward was bestowed on Him, overflowing
with Divine goodness to the sons of his Love.
The expressions, Merit of Condignity, Merit of

LECTURE V. 247
Congruity, if examined on this ground, resolve
themselves into less exceptionable modes of describ
ing Human Agency in the work of Justification, than
they appear at first sight. With the practical evil
of so characterizing any actions of man, I am not
now concerned. But their theoretic truth is to
be seen, in their consistency with the philosophical
notion of Merit, as the measure of political justice,
and the theological description of it, as the effect of
cooperating grace. For, whilst it is his own gifts,
which God rewards in those whom He accepts in
Christ, He cannot be otherwise than just in bestow
ing these rewards. This requires that the rewarded
should be brought under the notion of worthiness f
and should thus have merit of condignity; relatively,
that is, to God, as a just Judge. Such was the
doctrine understood in those words of St. Paul :
" Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of
" righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous
" judge, shall give to me in that day."f Merit of
congruity, on the other hand, is the work of the
Christian viewed relatively to the mercy of God. If
God, that is, mercifully rewards, then there must be,
as a correspondent to this excellent mercy on his
e " Whoever has Grace," Aquinas says, " is on that very
" account worthy of eternal life." Quicunque enim gratiam
habet, ex hoc ipso dignus est vita aeterna. Summ. Theol. Prima
Pars, qu. xxiv. art. 4.
f 2 Tim. iv. 8. rfjg Swaioovvrig areipavog, ov drroStoaet poi 6
Kvpiog iv EKEivrf rrj r/pipa, 6 Skawg Kpirrig. Aquinas, S. Theol.
Prima Hdas, qu. cxiv. art. 3.

248 LECTURE V.
part, a congruity, or suitableness, in the person to
whom it is vouchsafed. The two expressions are
correlatives to the Grace of God viewed as the gift
of a just and merciful Judge.g
The doctrine of Repentance, as exhibited in the
Theology of the Schools, also takes its expression
from Aristotle's Theory of Justice. Aquinas places
it under the head of Commutative Justice, or that
exercise of Justice by which due compensation is
awarded for an offence committed. It is the poena,
the satisfaction, or requital, due for the offence,
voluntarily taken on himself by the offender, as dis
tinct from the infliction of it by a judge. And the
indispensable necessity of it is rested, by Aquinas,
on this ground ; because an offence against God is
in direct opposition to Grace : the goodwill of God,
the only cause of goodness in man, is turned from
the offender ; and God cannot remit the offence
without a change of will, which in him is impos
sible. The offender therefore must himself be
turned towards God, by a detestation of the past
sin, and a resolution of amendment.
In the consideration, however, of this doctrine, we
may observe a striking difference in comparison with
others relating to human agency. To the reduction of
the subject under the head of Penal Justice, maybe

% The proper sense of Merit may be seen in that fine expres
sion of Tacitus ; — iisque virtutibus iram Caii Caesaris meritus.
Agricola, c. 4. — Note F.

LECTURE V. 249
ascribed, in great measure, the unscriptural notions
and unholy practices which grew up in the Church,
in regard to the expiation of offences, and their re
spective criminality. The word poena alone gave
opportunity for introducing into religion, all the
subtile casuistry and technical distinctions of Civil
Law. Hence too the sacramental character with
which Repentance has been invested under the name
of Penance,h the application of a penal code of re
ligion demanding the ministrations of the priest.1
Thus the subject of Repentance, instead of taking
its place by the side of Faith, in the discussions
of the Schoolmen, is passed over as a doctrine
of the Gospel, with slight notice. But as a Sacra
ment, and a ritual of punishment, it obtains a full
consideration. We may perceive the effect of this
mode of treating the subject in our Articles : there
being none expressly on the doctrine of Repentance ;
whilst there is reference to the questions raised on
the subject by the Scholastic philosophy, in the
Articles which speak of Penance, Purgatory, and
Masses. b The translation of the Latin Vulgate has here sanctioned a
most important deviation from the simplicity of the Greek ori
ginal, in the use of the terms poenitentiam agite, for the simple
peravoe'ire. 1 The expression of Aristotle, KoXdaeig elaiv iarpEtai rivEg, was
adapted to the explanation of the efficacy of suffering to expiate
guilt. See Aquin. Summ. Theol. Prima Ildae, qu. lxxxvii. art. 7-
— unde non habet simpliciter rationem poenae, sed medicinae.
Nam et medici austeras potiones propinant infirmis, ut conferant
sanitatem, &c.

250 LECTURE V.
The application of the term Punishment to the
sacrifice of our Saviour, belongs to the same philo
sophy. It was contended, that an offence being an
act of the will, must also be removed by the will ;
that whatever indulgence the will had allowed itself,
the same ground must be recovered by suffering;
that thus the equality of justice might be main
tained. Hence it would be construed, that the
passion of our Lord, being accepted by God as the
means of human salvation, must be a punishment
(poena) sustained by Him equivalent to the delin
quency of sinful man. And this further accounts to
us for the theological use of the word " Satisfac-
" tion." It declares the sufferings of Christ to be the
voluntary payment, on his part, of what was other
wise not owing from Him, to the Divine Justice^
Hence too would arise the notion, that self-morti
fication would recommend us to the favour of God :
in fact, that, the more voluntarily such chastise
ment of ourselves was undertaken, the more effec
tual would be the compensation for offence.
Hence also the fond impiety of Supererogation.
The compensation might be supposed to exceed the
weight of the offence, where the depth of the sor
row for personal Sin might produce an excess of
personal infliction. And it might be concluded that
this excess, beyond the requisitions of justice, would
redound to the remission of the offences of others.k
j Note G.
k Aristotle's idea of taking from the "gain," of the offender,
and adding this difference to the " loss" of the sufferer, and

LECTURE V. 251
The Reformation opposed a practical check to
these refinements of Christian truth. It was an
energetic practical amendment that was here needed.
And our Church, accordingly, has here declared
against the abuses, which had perverted the doc
trine of Repentance ; instead of addressing itself to
the decision of the speculative nature of Repentance
considered as a doctrine of the Gospel.
It is to be remarked, however, how strongly the
inefficacy of Repentance to wipe away guilt, and re
store the sinner to his lost state, has impressed the
minds of those, who have thought on human nature
with any depth of philosophy. It is of little pur
pose, to urge the natural placability of the Divine
Being, his mercy, his willingness to receive the peni
tent. God, no doubt, is abundantly placable, merci
ful, and forgiving. Still the fact remains. The
offender is guilty : his crime may be forgiven, but
his criminality is upon him. The remorse which
he feels — the wounds of his conscience — are no fal
lacious things. He is sensible of them even whilst
the Gospel tells him, — " Thy sins be forgiven thee —
" Go, and sin no more." The heart seeks for re
paration and satisfaction : its longings are, that its
sins may be no more remembered, that the cha
racters in which it is written may be blotted out.
Hence the congeniality to its feelings of the notion
of Atonement. It is no speculative thought which
then taking the mean, in order to obtain the equality of justice,
pervades the speculation. — Note H.

252 LECTURE V.
suggests the theory : speculation rather prompts to
the rejection of it : speculation furnishes abstract
reasons, from the Divine Attributes, for discarding
it as a chimera of our fears. But the fact is, that
we cannot be at peace without some consciousness
of Atonement made. The word Atonement, in its
true, practical sense, expresses this indisputable fact.
Objections may hold against the explanations of the
term ; they are irrelevant to the thing itself denoted
by the term. Turn over the records of human
crime ; and, whether under the forms of supersti
tion, or the enactments of civil government, the fact
itself constantly emerges to the view. All concur
in shewing, that, whilst God is gracious and merci
ful, repenting Him of evil, the human heart is in
exorable against itself. It may hope — tremblingly
hope — that God may forgive it, but it cannot forgive
itself. This material and invincible difficulty of the case,
the Scripture Revelation has met with a parallel
fact. It has said, we have no hope in ourselves ;
that looking to ourselves, we cannot expect hap
piness ; and, at the same time, has fixed our atten
tion on a Holy One who did no sin ; whose perfect
righteousness it has connected with our unrighte
ousness, and whose strength it has brought to the
evil of our weakness. Thus Christ is emphatically
said to be our Atonement ; not that we may attri
bute to God any change of purpose towards man by
what Christ has done ; but that we may know, that
we have passed from the death of sin to the life of

LECTURE V. 253
righteousness by Him; and that our own hearts
may not condemn us. " If our heart condemn us
" not," then may we " have peace with God;" but,
without the thought of Christ, the heart, that has
any real sense of its condition, must sink under its
own condemnation.
The bane of this philosophy of expiation was,
not that it exalted human agency too highly, but
that in reality it depressed the power of man too
low. It was no invigoration ofthe mind, no cheer
ing of the heart, to masculine exertion, in working
out the great work of salvation, by exaggerated, yet
noble, views of what man could accomplish. But it
checked the aspirings, both of the heart and of the
intellect, by fixing them at a standard, that had only
the mockery of Divine strength, and not the reality.
It brought men to acquiesce in a confession of im
potence, without carrying them at once to the throne
of Grace. The ecclesiastical power stood between
the heart and heaven. Atonement was converted
into a theory of Commutation degrading to the
holiness of God, whilst it spoke the peace of God in
terms of flattering delusion to the sinner. The value
of confessions and rites of penance was acknow
ledged; and, accepting this vain substitute for that
assurance of Atonement, which alone can satisfy the
longing soul with goodness, men looked no further :
their proper power was exchanged for a servile
dependence on the ministrations of the priest — the
presumed all-sufficiency of a man like themselves.

254 LECTURE V.
On the other hand, the true scriptural practical
view of Human Agency is to be seen in the great
truth of Atonement, simply believed and acted on,
without the gloss of commentators, or the refine
ments of theorists. These are but attempts to weigh
the ocean in the hollow of the hand. Take the
truth simply, and what does it mean but that God
is infinitely just and merciful, visiting iniquities to
the third and fourth generation, and yet shewing
mercy to thousands — that we cannot please Him by
our works, or our sacrifices, or our prayers, but yet
we can do all things, by Christ strengthening us,
working for us, offering Himself for us, praying for
us. The doctrine declares to us at once how much
is out of our power, and yet how much is in our
power. And, by combining these two apparently
contrary facts in one scheme of human agency, it
imparts to us the true secret of our Power against
the temptations and dangers of the world.
For, let it be considered, whether it is not
precisely by such a combination of strength and
weakness, that ability and success in worldly conduct
are attained. Every one, who attentively considers
the state of the case, must perceive that Revelation
has only extended to the spiritual world two classes
of facts evidenced in the natural. In every exercise
of our minds, in every action or event, are we not
conscious that much is left in our own power ? Do
we not see the fact strikingly displayed in the
conduct of men whom we call great ; whose great
ness evidently consists in this, that, by dint of their

LECTURE V. 255
intellect and moral energy, they bring the train of
events into their own power, exercising an arbitrary
influence over the voluntary actions of other men ?
But again, on the other hand, do we not find, also, a
stint and a bound put to this our intrinsic power ?
It is equally apparent, that the issues of events are
not in the hand of the thinker, or the counsellor, or
the agent. There is something like a chain of causes,
in the connexion of circumstances themselves —
something of an involuntary process in the associa
tion and current of our own thoughts. So real is
all this, — (and this is the point particularly to be
observed in illustration of Human Agency, in con
nexion with the Divine,) — that our actual power, in
each instance of exertion, depends in great measure
on our assumption of this fact — the fact, that things
are not in our power ; and our adaptation, con
sequently, of our conduct to it. For thus we see
even the great men of the world have chiefly
owed their failure to the circumstance ; that they
overlooked this clear fact : their former success
emboldening them to an exclusive trust in their own
power, and closing their eyes to the commanding
influences out of their own sphere of action.1 Thus
are energy and repose, intrepidity and diffidence,
magnanimity and humility, at once, inculcated on us
in the course of nature. We cannot sleep nor stop,
thinking that the controlling Power by which events
are disposed, will work without us : we cannot lean
1 Hence prosperity was represented in ancient mythology, as
provoking the envy of the Gods.

256 LECTURE V.
on our own activity, trusting that we can work
without the power from above. Whoever duly
estimates these things, will readily see that Scripture
enforces on us no strange thing, when it tells us,
that we are " saved by grace," that " our sufficiency
" is of God;" and again, he who " doeth the will of
" God, is accepted by him," and that every man
" shall receive according to his works."
But whoever acknowledges both these principles
as fhe complex Law of Actions under both the
spiritual and natural government of God — will, at
the same time, see that the truths of human sinful
ness, of Repentance, of Atonement and Satisfaction
made for sin, are only varied expressions of this
great law ; as being declarations of the weakness
and the strength of man : — the union of strength
and weakness, constituting his real power in the
events of time — his justification in eternity.
Disputation, however, as we have seen, has not
suffered the plain method of Religion to take its
course. Speculative statements have been made ;
and from these, certain consequences have been
deduced : and the Scripture has been searched to
verify these deductions. In the pursuit of these
discussions, a technical phraseology has been intro
duced : and, to systematize the whole, definitions and
explanations have been drawn from the physical
and moral sciences, and woven into Theology by
the subtleties of Logic.
t- The Reformation, by the blessing of God, has
cleared away, from a large portion of Christendom,

LECTURE V. 2 57
those practical mischiefs, of which the speculations
on the nature of justification were, partly the cause,
and partly the palliation. We still, however, feel
the effects of them in the discussions which abound
among Protestants, on the questions arising out of
this subject. Unscriptural practices were to be
assailed, against men who possessed an admirable
art of polemical defence; and by men who had sat
at the feet of the Doctors of the Schools, It is
nothing strange therefore, that the truth, so main
tained, should bear the scars of the conflict through
which it had to struggle. It is nothing strange,
that the dialectical spirit should have survived
among Protestants, even on the very points on
which Protestantism took its firmest stand.
It is worthy of our remark, that those Protestants
who have advanced to extremes in opposing the
errors of Rome ; both, those who have opposed
them on the ground of Superstition, — and those
who have been unreasonably jealous in the cause
of Reason, — have adopted more of the speculative
method connected with those errors, than the more
moderate reformer. For what is all that accuracy
and positiveness, with which some persons state
their views of Justification, but the point and pre
cision of theory? What is all that profession of
Rational Religion, with which some maintain the
natural efficacy of Repentance, but a dogmatism
founded on theory ? We may learn, from these ex
tremes, that, the more indistinct our language is on
this sacred subject, — the less of theoretic principle it

258 LECTURE V..
embodies in it, — the more closely do we imbibe the
true spirit of Protestantism ; — the more faithfully
do we walk in the path of that Holy Spirit, whose
" ways are in the deep," and whose " footsteps are
" not known."

LECTURE VI.
MORAL PHILOSOPHY OP THE SCHOOLS.

SUMMARY.
No proper Moral Philosophy in the Scholastic System — Con
fusion of moral and religious truth injurious to both — Instance
in Paley 's Moral Philosophy — Moral Truth at first taught on the
ground of Authority — Platonism influential in blending it with
Theology — Influence of Christian literature, the Sermons, and
legends of the Saints, Ambrose's Treatise " On the Offices of
" Ministers," Gregory's " Morals," Boethius' " Consolation of
" Philosophy" — Ethical science corrupted by being studied with
a view to the power of the Clergy.
Schoolmen systematize ethical precepts drawn from practice
of the Church — The Treatise " Of the Imitation of Christ" —
Plato's theological account of the chief Good combined with prac
tical detail of Aristotle's Ethical Theory — Scholastic moral sys
tem a development of the Divine Energy in man's internal nature
— Aristotle's notion of Happiness accordant with this view —
Scholastic gradations of moral excellence to be traced to this
fundamental idea — Hence, also, the importance attributed to
the life of contemplative devotion — The doctrine of Perfection —
Distinction of Counsels and Precepts — Outline of this double
morality seen in the Aristotelic notion of an Heroic Virtue —
Coincidence of Aristotle's theory of Good-Fortune with the super
human virtue of the Scholastic System — Connexion of ethical
doctrine of the Schools with notion of Original Sin — Mortal and
Venial Sins — Proper ground of this distinction — Division of Vir
tue into Theological and Moral, and into Infused and Acquired-
Doctrine of Gifts.
Origin of questions in Modern Moral Philosophy to be traced
to scholastic discussions — Instance in the idea of Moral Obli
gation — Extreme opinions as to the relative importance both of
Theology and Ethics — Proper province of Ethics, inquiry into
the principles of Human Nature — Revelation only gives new
objects to those principles— Importance of /regarding the Science
of Ethics as in itself independent of Religion.

Matt. XIX. 16, 17.
And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master,
what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life ?
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good ? there
is none good but one, that is, God : but if thou wilt enter
into life, keep the commandments.

Kai ISov, eig irpoaEXOtvv, elwev avriS' AiSdaKaXe dyade, ri dyadov
icoir\au>, 'iva e-^w ^ooifV altoviov ; 0 Se eiirev avrv' Ti pe Xeyeig
dyadov ; ovSelg ayadbg, el pri eig, 6 Qeog. Ei Se deXeig eiaeXdelv £<e
rrjv ^tarjv, ri]pr\aov rag ivroXug.

Et ecce, unus accedens, ait illi ; Magister bone, quid boni
faciam, ut habeam vitam asternam ? Qui dixit ei : Quid me
interrogas de bono ? Unus est bonus, Deus. Si autem vis
ad vitam ingredi, serva mandata. Lat. Vulg.

LECTURE VI.

I come now to take a more intimate view of the
Scholastic Philosophy — its mode of treating the Law
written in our hearts, and the influence which it has
exercised on the frame, and the language, of Morals,
in modern times. This is a department of the in
quiry, not only possessing the highest interest in
itself, and demanding for its own sake a much
greater attention than it has yet received, but strictly
belonging to the history of our theological language.
The intellectual and moral instincts of man were
regarded, by the School-Divines, as the materials on
which the sacred elements of divine truth were to
act ; and, by this action, to assimilate them to the
Divine Nature. It was not an operation merely in
the way of instruction, of elevation of sentiment,
of purification of feeling, that was here understood ;
but an identification, if I may so say, of the divine
things, with the purer and nobler principles of our
nature. The truths of Revelation were to be steeped
into the heart. And the inquiry, therefore, into the
Philosophy of Human Life, was pursued by them,
as containing the elements and the development of
their theological system. It is, in fact, Moral Theo
logy, rather than an account of man's moral nature ;
so that, whilst real truths of morality are alleged,
the truths, as such, are overlooked : the illustration
of the given Divine Theory is all that is sought in

264 LECTURE VI.
them. It is the Life of God in the soul of man,
that is presented to our notice.
The close connexion of Theological and Moral
Truth, has been of serious injury to both depart
ments of human knowledge. The assertion may
seem strange ; but, when it is fully considered, it
will, I think, appear ; that Theology and Ethics are
entirely distinct in their nature, — in the principles, I
mean, on which they are based ; and that, therefore,
to mix up principles of the one with principles of
the other, must tend only to confusion of thought
and speculative error on each subject. That they
are closely connected in their results and applica
tions, must be fully admitted. But this connexion
is only like that of Mathematics with Physics, or
Anatomy with Medicine : both, that is, must be
taken into account, in the practical application of
one or the other. In speculation however, and in
their theories, they are perfectly distinct.
I. In Theology, human nature is regarded under
a single point of view, that of its relation to the
Author of its existence. The office of Theology is
to solve such questions as these ; which cannot but
occur to every thoughtful man, as he contemplates
himself amidst the vast scenes of the universe :
Whence am I ? What is my nature and condition
here ? What my connexion with the past and
with the future ? Why am I sensible of so much
pain or of so much pleasure ? What is the great

LECTURE VI. 26*5
end of all these various connexions and relations
of events, so entangled and perplexed with each
other, and yet, amidst all this apparent disorder, so
instinctive with design, and order, and uniformity ?
Theology, accordingly, takes man under its survey
as a whole. It is not as an intellectual being, or as
a moral being, simply, that it regards him, but as a
compound of natures ; the compound being that he
really is, in his animal life, as well as in his life of
thought and action : and so proceeds to inform and
guide him in those high truths, of which this com
plex system demands the resolution. It acquaints
him that he is the creature of a benevolent and
wise God, — that he is living under divine govern
ment, — that he is in a state of discipline, — that his
natural weakness has been provided for by divine
intercession, — that all things are working together
for good ; giving him supernaturally so much of the
history of God's special providences, as may be ne
cessary to pierce through the gloom of the present
world, and lift up his eyes to the sanctuary, from
which alone help can come down to him.
II. Moral Philosophy, on the other hand, surveys
human nature in its moral and intellectual consti
tuents, as they are related and combined principles
of action. Every action that we see outwardly, —
every judgment that we exercise within ourselves, —
every feeling, as we indulge or control it, — presents
a moral phenomenon demanding explanation. The
questions that arise here, are : Is there any common

266 LECTURE VI.
principle, which may give us the Law of these vari
ous facts ? What is that principle ? Is it instinctive
or factitious ? or is it, in the result, an intellectual
perception, or a sentiment of the heart, or both
united ? These, and other such questions, are what
properly engage the moral philosopher. But here,
it must be seen, we are concerned only with a
particular class of facts, and that a very different
one from the theological. The inquiry is bounded
by a far narrower horizon. The relation of parts
in the internal structure of our moral nature, is
what now occupies the attention. It is the little
world within us that we are examining : and we are
endeavouring to ascertain the springs which set it
in motion, and the end to which all combine. The
extent of Moral Philosophy, indeed, embraces the
views of man's social and religious nature ; and, in
these respects, it seems a science of greater compre
hension, than according to the limits which I have
stated. But these views belong to the same funda
mental principle, the science of man in his internal
nature : since the social and religious instincts are
as much parts of that nature, as those which more
immediately respect the individual.
It is clear, that, if principles of one kind of know
ledge be applied to the facts of another, only con
fusion and error must result. The application is
purely hypothetical, though the principles thenselves
may be perfectly true. This is readily acknowledged
in the case of mere sciences. Every one now sees,

LECTURE VI. 267
that mathemetical theories can be of no avail, to in
terpret the nature of physical facts. But it was not
so obvious to the ancient philosopher, who constructed
his system of the universe on mathematical or logical
data, nor to the physiologists who united medicine
with geometry. Nor does it now appear inconsistent
to many, to blend together principles of Theology
and Morals. The close connexion of these, in their
application, is the fallacy that misleads such persons.
But a combination of results is, evidently, a very
different thing from coincidence in principles. An
example may illustrate this. Paley has endeavoured
' to combine the separate principles of Ethics and
Theology, in his Moral Philosophy. He was not
satisfied with that kind of certainty, which moral
truths appeared to possess. Probably, as a mathe
matician, he exacted, for his own satisfaction, some
firm principle, from which the rules of morality
might be deduced with logical precision. Sound
philosopher as he was practically, he still aimed at
a theoretic demonstrativeness in ethical science, of
which all sciences conversant about facts must, by
their very nature, be incapable. What, then, has
been the consequence of this attempt to establish
morality on an immovable basis ? Instead of esta
blishing morality, it has, in reality, weakened the
theory of moral truth. The whole of morality, ac
cording to his view, resolves itself ultimately into
Religion. The theological principle, on which he
bases his system, — the duty of conformity to the Will
of God, — is perfectly just and true in itself. But, in

268 LECTURE VI.
making that principle a ground of morality, he has
destroyed the independent character, and, with this,
the philosophical truth of Ethics, as a science of
human nature. The broadness of the principle
tramples upon the little world of principles, which
lie within man himself. It has been often argued ;
that, if the theory of Paley were acted on simply,
evil might be done with a view to a good result :
there is, in fact, no such thing as evil in itself, as
there is nothing good in itself, where the tendency
of actions is the criterion of their worth. The only
error which can be committed then, is a speculative
one, — that of not having generalized sufficiently, so
as to see, that the conduct pursued, is not, in fact, the
Will of God ; as not being conformable with the
general law of the Divine procedure. It must be a
return to the consideration, whether evil is not
something resting on its own grounds, independently
of the mere tendency of actions, that can check the
agent, in following up the theological principle by
immoral, practical consequences. Paley himself has
ingeniously argued against this construction ; and
successfully ; so far as to shew, that the immoral con
sequences do not logically follow from his theory.
It must be admitted, that no action, conformable to
the Will of God, can, as such, in any case be pro
ductive of Evil. If we assume conformity to the
Will of God, as a definition of right, nothing evil
can be inferred from it. But the logical consist
ency is not the point in question. The test of the
theory is, its adaptation to human nature. And its

LECTURE VI.

269

erroneousness is sufficiently shewn, by its tendency to
mislead even the wish to do good. It is the mistake
of acting upon an anticipated result, out of our own
power ; when the very attainment of that result is,
a consequence of having acted previously according
to the laws of our nature. Religion, in ^ruth,
begins where morality ends. Let each action be
done as it is morally right. We are encouraged
then to proceed, for we are sure that it has the
sanction of God. Whatever may be the immediate
effect of it, We know that God will ultimately reward
it. Whatever may be its intrinsic imperfection, we
rely on his mercy in Christ, and the grace of his
Spirit, to give it a worth not its own, and consecrate
it to the doing of his Will.
The source of that confusion of Theology and
Morals, which I have noticed, is to be traced back
to the origin itself of Moral Truth ; first of all, in
its being handed down in the forms of maxims and
proverbs, the traditional wisdom of other days.
Moral truths thus rested, in the first instance, on
Authority ; being propagated from age to age, as
venerable precepts of immemorial usage, or as the
sacred sayings of some reputed sage. This mode
of their reception imparted to them more of a
religious, than of a philosophical, character. They
would carry with them something of that awe,
which the mystery of their origin, and the names
of ancient sages, could not but awaken in the mind.
Particularly, when moral truths were conveyed,

270 LECTURE VI.
amidst the political regulations, and the rewards
and punishments, of civil enactments, — as they are
found in the Pentateuch, and in the extant Politics
of early legislators or philosophers, — men would be
induced to regard morality as a matter of ordinance ;
as what exacted their obedience ; rather than as the
internal discipline of their affections.
In the next place it should be observed, that, so
far as morality was reduced to any system in the
ancient philosophy, it was not exempt from that in
discriminate endeavour at scientific exactness, which
corrupted the other branches of philosophy. Until
the time of Aristotle, indeed, it appears to have been
strictly included among the number of demonstrative
sciences. For even Socrates, with all his practical
excellence as a moralist, still considered Ethics as
on a footing with arts and sciences — as what
required only to be known, in order to be fully
possessed — and as what might be acquired by mere
instruction. Aristotle, with a much more sagacious
sense, exposed the fallacy of this prevalent idea,
and set the example of a truly practical system of
Ethics. But his system did not become the popular
philosophy of Greece. His writings being long
lost to the world soon after his death, the more
established system of Plato maintained its ground on
this, as on other points of philosophy. This system,
which was chiefly an expansion and adjustment of the
Pythagorean speculations, perpetuated that mystical
form in which the great Master had delighted to

LECTURE VI. 271
invest his theories. According to the Platonic doc
trine, morality was based on immutable speculative
principles, the abstract species, the real constituents,
according to his view, of every thing denominated
good. This was to take morality out of the sphere
of man's moral nature, and place it in a kind of
philosophical pietism. He rejected, accordingly,
the notion, that man was the "measure" of moral
excellence, and admitted no standard of human
perfection below that of the Deity Himself. His
religion and his morality, following the Pythagorean
train of thought with little variation, coincided in
the maxim, that the business of man was the Imi
tation of God. Thus was the confusion of ethical
and theological truth begun in that method of
philosophy, which first obtained the sanction of the
Christian Church. The principle of the Imitation
of God, so elevating in its conception, and so
accordant with the language of Scripture, being
found in the volumes of philosophy, — a precedent
was established, for conjoining the two classes of
truth in one promiscuous speculation.
It is thus that Augustine speaks of Plato's system
of morals, as the only one compatible with Chris
tianity. Having alluded to the different opinions
concerning good, which made man himself, more
or less, the seat of good : " let all these," he says,
" yield to those Philosophers, who have said not
" that man was happy, in enjoying the body, or in
" enjoying the mind, but in enjoying God."a ....
De Civ. Dei, lib. VIII. c. 8.

272 LECTURE VI.
who have " determined, that the end of good is, to
" live according to virtue ; and that this result
" could be to him only, who had the knowledge
" and imitation of God."1'
The same tone of thought runs through the
Greek Fathers. The noble and seductive language
of Plato, respecting the Chief Good, was too strong
a temptation to be resisted by the ingenuity of the
philosophical Christian, accustomed to the theoretic
spirit of the ancient masters, and anxious for some
fixed, eternal ground, on which moral truth might
be rested. The metaphysical abstraction of Plato
was thus, with the universal assent of the Schools,
embodied in the Christian truth of the living God ;
at once the object of devout contemplation, and the
immutable principle of Ethical Inquiry.
The state of literature in the Western Church,
after the period of Augustine, to the close of the
Vlllth century, was such as to confirm the con
nexion already established between Theology and
Ethics. The compositions of this time were all of
a theological cast. Sermons, and legends of Saints,
constituted the mental employment of those, who
were the oracles of knowledge to the Christian
world. And the Sermons of this period, it should
be remarked, were not of a controversial character,
directed to the establishment of points of doctrine,
but chiefly moral reasonings and exhortations. If
b August. De Civ. Dei, lib. VIII. c. 9.

LECTURE VI. 273
we look, for instance, into those of Cesarius,c the
most eminent of the Bishops of Southern Gaul
during the first half ofthe Vlth century, — and which
are a highly favourable specimen of the literature
of that day, — we find them consisting of argu
mentative expostulation on the conduct of Chris
tians. The legends of the Saints, the romance of
religion, as we may term them, are also practical
appeals to the Christian world, — endeavours to in
terest either the imagination, or the feelings, in the
energetic pursuit of religious action. Throughout
all this period, accordingly, the intermixture of
theology and ethics was proceeding. From the
adoption, by the Clergy, of the language of ethical
exhortation, in the service of religion, the truth,
which cultivates the sentiments and rectifies the con
duct, was confounded with that which regenerates
and quickens the soul. The same cause, which, in
the first dawnings of ethical science, had acted in
obscuring its philosophical character — its reception
in an authoritative form — also acted powerfully
within the Church. Moral truth was received from
the lips of the venerated ministers of the divine
word, and imbibed rather, as the precious dews of
heaven falling on the passive soil, than as the heart of
one man pouring itself out on the heart of another.
The Latins, indeed, were not altogether without
some elementary ethical treatises in their own
c Cesarius, Bishop of Aries from A.D. 501 to 542; born
in 470. His Sermons are printed in an appendix to the Sermons
of Augustine, in torn. V. Oper. ed. fol. 1683.
T

274 LECTURE VI.
language. The " Offices" of Cicero appear to have
been familiarly known to them. But they were not
satisfied to derive precepts of morality from a heathen
source. They seem to have been fearful of detract
ing from the intrinsic authority of Scripture morals,
if they conceded any originality of thought to heathen
precepts of duty. Where they acknowledged the
correctness of such precepts, they insinuate, at the
same time, that it was a wisdom borrowed from the
Christian Revelation. Ambrose, accordingly, com
posed a treatise, in three books, after the plan of
Cicero's Offices, on the " Offices of Ministers ;" sub
stituting the hopes and sanctions of the Gospel for
the worldly principles of the Roman philosopher,
and the examples of Jewish and Christian devotion
for those of Greek or Roman virtue. The work,
as is indicated by its title, was designed exclusively
for the Clergy .d But the treatise which obtained
the greatest popularity, if we may judge from its
frequent quotation in the Scholastic writings, was
" The -Morals" of Gregory the Great. Gregory was
a fierce opponent of secular learning ; and, like Am
brose, was only desirous of supplying the studious
Clergy with a manual of ethical instruction, which
should supersede the reading of a work of heathen
literature. This was no proper attempt, therefore, to
d Augustine characterizes this work thus, in writing to Je
rome : — nisi forte nomen te movet, quia non tarn usitatum est
in ecclesiasticis libris vocabulum Officii, quod Ambrosius noster
non timuit, qui suos quosdam libros utilium prseceptionum ple-
nos, de Officiis voluit appellare. Epist. XIX. Oper. Tom. II.
p. 24. ed. 4to.

LECTURE VI. 275,
establish a Science of Morals. It was only a trans
fusion of theological doctrine into the technical
phraseology of the Ancient Ethics ; in itself utterly
barren of all sound instruction as to the foundation
and nature of human duties. Consequently, it only
promoted the confusion, already begun, and sanc
tioned by the practice of the Church, between moral
and religious truth ; as embodying that confusion in
a text-book, and consecrating it by the authority of
a high ecclesiastical name.
Nor ought the mention to be omitted in this
place of the well-known treatise of Boethius, on the
" Consolation of Philosophy." It may be described
as a manual of philosophic devotion ; the effusion
of the piety of an elegant mind, grateful for those
literary delights, which had soothed its anxieties,
and strengthened its resignation. It is important
in the history of the ethics of the Schools ; as it is
a work, which attracted the study of the scholastic
theologians, serving as the basis of elaborate com
mentaries : and it tended, accordingly, to promote
and establish that contemplative religious character,
with which the moral philosophy of the Schools was
tinctured at its outset.
But what contributed, perhaps, more than any
thing to this confusion of Theology and Ethics,
was, the spiritual power, which the Latin Church
had been acquiring, more and more, throughout this
period, over the consciences of men. The Church be
came the dupe of its own ambitious pretension. The
laity were brought into captivity to the imperious
t2

276 lecture vi.
sense of their spiritual leaders ; from whom, not
only the theories of the faith were to be sought ; but
also the practical doubts, the heresies of conscience,
were to obtain their answer. The exigencies of such
a complex and subtile government demanded its own
peculiar code of spiritual legislation. A system of
moral rules was required, which should be in strict
accordance with the theocratic principle, in which
the power of the Clergy consisted. They must be
such, whose lines should continually terminate in
some religious object, and mingle the passiveness of
the votary with the active obedience of the subject.
They must be enforced by rewards and punishments,
to sustain the idea of subjection to the spiritual
guide ; and these rewards and punishments must be
such, as the spiritual arm alone could administer.
But the rules and sanctions of conscience, when thus
applied, would evidently lose their nature, as simple
laws of . morality. Whatever validity they pos
sessed, would result from the principle of spiritual
subjection ; from the notion, that they were pre
scribed by a Power which held the soul in its grasp.
And the assumption of this power, by the Clergy,
made them, as I have said, the dupes of their own
pretension. As they mistook subtilty of speculative
distinctions for theology, so they also mistook casu
istry for moral philosophy, and the indulgences and
penances of spiritual discipline for Religion.
The monastic institutions, in 'themselves an effect
of the confusion of theology and morality, tended,
in their turn, to foster that confusion. The mix-

lecture vi. 277
ture of ritual and moral precept in these institu
tions, and the blending of the whole under the name
of Religion ; so that those who lived under these
systems, obtained the exclusive appellation of the
Religious ; — must have forcibly cemented the two
ideas of virtue and holiness, as representations of
one and the same principle. The devoutness, the
submissiveness, the self-annihilation of the holy re
cluse, commanded the attention of the world ; and
naturally became, in the popular estimate, equiva
lents for the self-examining conscience and internal
convictions of right.
The fact, indeed, is, that the right of private
judgment, in morality, was as effectually excluded
by the spiritual power of the Church, as it was in
articles of faith. Both the rule of conduct, and the
rule of belief, were to be received implicitly. The
questioning of the heart, and of the intellect, were
equally superseded. The whole came to this, that
Christian perfection was reduced to the surrender of
the will ; so that nothing enjoined by the command of
a religious superior, was either wrong or impossible.5
The labours of the Schoolmen, in Morals, gave a
speculative harmony and perfection to the system
which had grown out of the practice of the Church.
In constituting an exact science of Theology, it was
their part to collect the fragments of ethical juris
diction, which lay scattered in the sermons, and
• Note A. Lect. VI.

278 lecture vi.
legends, and institutions, and discipline of the
Church ; and to mould them, in accordance with the
language of Scripture, and the theories of their the
ology. Professed works of ethics were composed by
some of them : and commenting on the Ethics of
Aristotle became part of the labours of the Schools.
But though this exercise of powerful minds on moral
truth, could not but elicit some scattered lights on
the subject, ethical science may still be regarded as
having slumbered through the darkness of the middle
age. The proper character of it, indeed, is seen in
the devotional work which appeared in the XVth
century, the celebrated treatise by Thomas a Kem-
pis, of the " Imitation of Christ." This work was
a vigorous effort of that moral study which had
been cultivated in the Church, to extricate itself
from the fetters of a systematic theology ; a disen
gagement, as it were, of the spirit of the theological
morality, from the forms in which it had been em
bodied. Its great popularity marks, both the bent
which previous ethical systems had given to the
general taste, and the intrinsic defects of them. It
was the ethics of religion that men wanted ; and, at
the same time, they wanted the pure substance with
out the technical alloy, with which it had been con
founded. To proceed, however, in giving an account of the
peculiar character imparted to ethics by the method
of the Schools, — I would observe, in the first place,
that here also, as in the purely speculative part of their

LECTURE VI. 279
system, they united the precision and detail of Ari
stotle's ethical system, with the fundamental doctrines
of Plato. They have taken, that is, as their great
principle, Plato's theological account of the Chief
Good. It is established as their point of outset, that,
as the inquiry is into the end of all human actions,
the mind must first lay hold of that principle itself,
— that great end, or Chief Good. On the participation
of this, must depend the goodness of all particular
actions. And a collection of moral rules, accordingly,
directed to the good or happiness of man, would be
deducible as consequences from this their general
idea or constituent nature.
But, to the Christian moralist, this Chief Good
could be no other than God Himself, as revealed in
the Scriptures. Indeed, the Scriptures themselves
suggested, in some passages; a view of God in accord
ance with this notion ; as where the Psalmist says :
" whom have I in heaven but thee ? and there is
" none upon earth that / desire beside thee ; " and
in the passage which I have already read : " there
" is none good but one, that is, God."
Whilst, then, the notion of God, as the Chief Good,
had been originally received into the Church, inde
pendently of Aristotle's Philosophy, the peculiar
modification of that notion by the Schoolmen was
obtained from the physical theory of Aristotle, which
I had occasion to describe in a former Lecture. I
pointed out, that, according to Aristotle, it was the
pure principle of Excellence and Beauty that gave

280 LECTURE VI.
its perfection to each existing thing: at once the
motive principle, and final cause, of all the activity
of Nature ; and therefore characterized by him, as
Energy, intrinsic Activity, or, in the Scholastic
translation of the expression, " Pure Act."
The theories of Divine and Human Agency, as I
have endeavoured to shew, were applications of this
Principle of Energy to the Divine dealings mani
fested in the salvation of man. It remained yet to
develop its workings in the internal mechanism of
man's moral nature ; to illustrate here also, that
God was all in all ; realizing, by His vital operation,
the harmony and perfection of the various powers
of the soul.
How readily the Ethical System of Aristotle fell
into this theoretic mould, will appear, if due con
sideration be given to the language, in which Ari
stotle himself has expressed his notion of Human
Happiness. His description of it, as Energy, is
evidently not an accidental one, but in strict unison
with his physical doctrine. He has in view the
idea of the soul's exerting itself by natural efforts,
in order to the full development of its powers, and
attainment of the End of its Being ; when it should
have infinitely approximated to, and identified itself,
as it were, with, that divinity with which it is instinct.
Such, indeed, is his account of Pleasure ; which he
considers as the indistinct, unconscious pursuit of
a divine principle, with which all things are, more
or less, instinctively animated. His theory of

LECTURE VI. 281
Happiness sought only how to conspire with, and aid,
these natural tendencies existing in the human soul ;
so that in each instance of action, in every percep
tion and thought, this pleasure might be attained ;
and nature thus wrought to its utmost perfection.
Transfer this doctrine of the Philosopher to the
Christian Schools, and you have the notion incul
cated in the Ethics of the middle age, of the
fundamental principle of morality. God is conceived
to be the moving cause of all that effort, which the
soul puts forth in reaching after happiness. It is the
operation of Divine Goodness, which sets in motion,
and carries forward, and invigorates the soul, in
order to its perfection of being.
The coincidence of the ideas of Virtue and Power f
in their Ethical System, is an illustration of this
notion. For, according to such a philosophy of
Human Actions, Virtue would be that state of the
soul in which all its faculties were fully exerted :
in which there was, not only a tendency towards
the Chief Good, but a vigorous and invariable co
operation with the Divine Energy — a command, or
power, established by the higher principles of our
nature, over the inferior animal propensities.
From this complex notion of the Chief Good, both
as the Deity Himself, and as essentially Energy, or
Operation, we may trace those gradations of moral
f The word Svvapig is frequently translated by Virtus. The
Divine Attribute of " Power," is expressed both by Virtus and
Potentia. Our familiar use ofthe word " virtually," is an illus
tration of the same point.

282 LECTURE VI.
excellence which the ethical discipline of the Latin
Church has established.
First, we may remark, Happiness was placed out
of the confines of this present world. It could only
be sought by abstraction, by self-denial, and a pro
cess of devotedness to the One Supreme Good. The
body was an incumbrance to the soul, impeding
its motions towards the Principle of Life and Joy,
and obscuring its perceptions of its real happiness.
Self-denial would, on such a view ofthe case, consist
in the mortification of the body ; not in the com
mand ofthe passions, amidst the various occupations
of life, but in renouncing those occupations alto
gether — not in disclaiming our own righteousness
— not in living to men as to God — but in living,
as out of the world, and to God alone. This is
clearly the effect of holding forth the Deity as the
real object of attainment ; to be reached by efforts
of ardent exertion, and by expansion of the powers
of the soul beyond their present limits. The
soul becomes virtually its own divinity, when the
Deity, towards whom its desires are thus strained, is
regarded, in this physical sense, as the great end of
its pursuit. Hence the distorted and discoloured
view, which human life exhibits by the light of such
a theory. The blessings which God has scattered
around us, to cheer us on our way, and the active
occupations, with which He would have us con
tribute to the mutual benefit of each other, lie in
deep shadow, as regions which the sun of heaven
never visits.
Under such a theory, we need not wonder at the

LECTURE VI. 283
rise of mysticism, or any of the extravagancies of
fantastic piety. So long as the attainment of God
is proposed as a process of spiritualization, it is
perfectly natural, that, in minds of an enthusiastic
or melancholy temperament, a violent effort should
be made to realize at once, or approach as nearly
as possible, the ultimate end of the aspirant soul.
The Love of God becomes the sole exclusive prin
ciple of action, not as it is the bond of peace and of
all virtues, but as it is in itself the most intense
expression of the soul's effort — the condensation of
all the affections and desires into one divine ardour.
The frenzied self-devotion of those saints of the
East, who passed their lives on pillars or in caverns,
and the Quietism g of Fenelon, were only various
instances of the same principle carried to its full
extent, under different modifications of personal
character and circumstances.
Again, we may observe the influence of Aristotle's
notion of " Energy" in the speculations by which
the Latin Clergy established the superiority of that
mode of Life to which they were themselves devoted,
and in the estimation of which, among the members
of the Church, their spiritual influence depended.
5 The r/pepia of the intellect, according to Plato and Aristotle.
— So Duns Scotus, Sent. III. dist. xxviii. fol. 56. Licet ergo
solum infinitum bonum quietet voluntatem ; et hoc in quantum
infinitum bonum : non tamen oportet quodlibet bonum finitum,
secundum gradum suum in bonitate, magis et minus quietare :
quia isti gradus sunt accidentales per comparationem ad ex-
trinsecum quietandum.

284 LECTURE VI.
If Happiness was Energy, — the more intensely,
and the more purely, the soul might be exerted,
— the fuller, and the purer, would be the happi
ness attained ; the more nearly would the soul be
brought to the fruition of God. But no other state
of life presented such opportunities ; in no other
employment was the action so uninterrupted, as in
that of the speculative theologian. We find, in
fact, the very same arguments employed by them,
in asserting the godlike preeminence of the thought
ful solitary above the rest of mankind, which are
alleged by Aristotle in favour of the Theoretic Life
over the Practical. h The Philosopher, having proved
that happiness was, by its nature, " Energy," was
obliged to explain this idea, consistently with the
acknowledged superiority of the intellectual nature
, of man. He insists, accordingly, that the occupa
tions of the mind were no less really practical,
than the business of active life ; that the philo
sopher was as completely energetic in his pursuits,
as the man who took a more personal part in the
concerns of social life. So that, perfect happiness,
according to Aristotle, consisted at once in leisure and
in activity — in that state of life, consequently, which
comprized both ; where no worldly avocations should
interfere, no pressing calls of personal, or social,
demands on the time and thoughts, should disturb
the busy tranquillity of the intellect.1 This was
h Aquin. S. Theol. Prima Ildse.qu. clxxix. clxxx. clxxxi. —
Note B.
1 Aristot. Ethic. X. Polit. VII. 3. Mag. Mor. I. 35.

LECTURE VI. 285
precisely such a defence, as would serve the cause of
the scholastic theologian. He must command the
admiration and respect of mankind, as leading a
life to which few could attain ; as having approxi
mated, during his earthly career, to the sublime
purity, of which the full attainment was necessarily
reserved for a higher state of being ; when the body
should no longer cloy and weigh down the soul.
He required to be regarded by mankind in that
point of view, in which his participation of a com
mon corrupt nature should least appear, — in which
the divine principle of pure and ceaseless energy
should be evidently predominant.11
Hence was established the doctrine of Perfection.
The Christian, who, by cooperating with the infused
principle of grace, should cultivate the divine prin
ciple within him, would regularly advance toward
I that End or Chief Good — the Deity — which
! was the consummation of his being. The religious
devotee, intent only on the immovable End of all
human exertions, and not disquieting or interrupt
ing his own progress by vain pursuit of the mutable
goods of life, would reach the ultimate object, his
perfection, by the most compendious process. The
more he lived in theory, the more would the theory
of human perfection be realized in him. For here
also Aristotle's philosophy of nature served the
purpose of their speculation. In assigning the
different classes of Being throughout the universe,
" See Hooker, Eccl. Pol. B. I. s. 11. p. 256—261. 8vo.

286 LECTURE VI.
their degrees of approximation towards the universal
End which actuated their motions, he argues, that
those are the highest and most excellent natures,
which attain the ultimate End by the least effort ;
tending immediately, without any disturbance or
variety of movement, towards the Divine Principle.
What the heathen Philosopher applied to the visible
luminaries of the heavens, was transferred by the
Christian speculatist to the invisible hierarchy of the
angelic host, and from them, in succession of order,
to the saints of God on earth. Angels and holy men
accomplished, by direct and immediate methods of
operation, the attainment of the Sovereign Good ;
which others reached only by circuitous and inter
rupted ways, and by a multitude of repeated endea
vours. To support this theory of Perfection, many of
our Lord's expressions were adduced : such as ; " if
" thou wilt be perfect, go, and sell all that thou
" hast, and give to the poor ; — be ye perfect, as your
" Father in heaven is perfect ; — I have many things
" to tell you, but ye cannot bear them now" — that
is, as it was interpreted, " not in your present im-
" perfect state." His declaration also concerning
some, who had " made themselves eunuchs for the
" kingdom of God's sake," was cited to the same
purport. As evidences again of the same point,
those texts were adduced which speak of the per
fection of Charity, or the Love of God. Charity,
according to this theory, is that which at once unites
the soul to God ; bringing the individual, in whom
it dwells, into direct contact with the End of his

LECTURE VI. 287
pursuit. St. Paul, therefore, might be conceived to
have justly pronounced, that charity was greater
than faith and hope : and St. John to have expressed
the same truth, when he says ; " that perfect love
" casteth out fear ;" — and whosoever abideth in love,
" abideth in God, and God in him."
Two different tracks of Life were thus pointed
out to the pursuit of men by the Moral Theology
ofthe Schools ; — the direct and immediate, but strait
path of spiritual abstractedness ; and the indirect
and vulgar road through the impediments of worldly
occupations : — the one adapted for those higher na
tures, for whom the restraints of law were not de
vised, — in whom the divine principle predominated,
— in whose hearts the thrones of spiritual power
were erected : the other the walk of inferior souls,
blest indeed with divine influence, but still engaged
in the commerce of the world, and needing the
further aid of admonition and direction from their
spiritual superiors. Each mode of life, consequently,
had its correspondent Rule. The perfect life was
that which conformed to the loftier principle of the
Divine Counsels ; whilst the imperfect, that ofthe
mere proficient — of him who was content to tread
the humbler path of duties of indispensable neces
sity — was ordered by the divine Precepts} The
former would be a system of conduct, derived from
1 Aquinas Summa Theolog. Prima Ildae, qu. c. art. 2. Et ideo
manifestum est, quod lex divina convenienter proponit prse-
cepta de actibus omnium virtutum : ita tamen quod quse-
dam, sine quibus ordo virtutis (qui est ordo rationis) observari

288 LECTURE VI.
that state of intimate communion with God, in which
the divine life of the soul consisted ; — rules drawn
from the relation of Friendship ; — the fulfilment of
duties not obligatory in themselves : whereas the
latter — the life of Precepts-— would be a system of
conduct accordant with that state of remoteness
from the Divine End, in which the less holy stood ;
and a law derived, accordingly, from the strict re
quisitions of Justice.
Do we not recognize here the double morality of
heathen philosophy, — the strict right, — the wise
man of the Stoics, — in the perfect Christian ; the
proprieties, or offices, as they were called, in the
imperfect services of the ordinary Christian, who,
whilst mixing in the concerns of the world, yet pur
sues right to a certain extent, according to his capa
city of attainment.™
The outline, however, of this artificial and enthu
siastic distinction may be traced in the ethical sys
tem of Aristotle himself. Aristotle has clearly
placed the perfection of man's nature out of the
non potest, cadunt sub obligatione prsecepti : qusedam vero,
quas pertinent ad bene esse virtutis perfectse, cadunt sub ad-
monitione consilii.
*° Thus Ambrose, in his Treatise of Offices, expressly says,
Hoc etenim KaropOoipa, quod perfectum et absolutum officium
est, a vero virtutis fonte proficiscitur. Cui secundum est com
mune officium, quod ipso sermone significatur non esse, arduse
virtutis ac singularis, quod potest pluribus esse commune ....
Alia igitur prima, alia media officia. Prima cum paucis, media
cum pluribus .... Duplex enim forma perfectionis : alia me-
dios, alia plenos numeros habens : alia hie, alia ibi : alia se
cundum hominis possibilitatem, alia secundum perfectionem
futuri. De Offic. Ministr. lib. III. c. ii. p. 110.

LECTURE VI. 289
sphere of the strictly moral duties. He has spoken
of a Virtue beyond the natural capacity of man ;
and which he designates an heroic or divine Virtue,
as contrasted with fhe Vice, that degrades man
below the standard of Human Vice." In asserting
also the preeminence of the purely intellectual life,
in the scale of moral excellence and happiness, he
reduces the moral virtues to a degree of worth,
which may very naturally have promoted the scho
lastic theory of a twofold Virtue. The virtues,
simply ethical, he describes, as necessary to the
intellectually happy man, that he may do his part as
man0 — may live as a man amongst men. Reflected
in the Christian mirror, this picture, from the hand
of the philosopher, represents the ascetic pietist,
descending from the lofty region of devotional con
templation, to the ordinary duties of the weaker and
less spiritual brother.
There is a curious passage, indeed, in one of his
ethical works, in which Aristotle expresses himself
still more strongly on that kind of excellence, which
is attained, not by dint of human exertion, or by
the regular use of the faculties, but is the result of
an immediate Divine impulse.p In his system,
this Divine impulse is, simply the instinctive force
n This is illustrated by the fact, that the first step, in a process
of Canonization, is a sentence from the Pope, declaring that the
candidate for saintship had practised Christian virtue in gradu
heroico. 0 Aerfaerai ovv roiv roiovnov rrpbg to dvdpunreveadai. Ethic. X.
c. 8.
" Note C. U

290 LECTURE VI.
of Nature, operating in such cases not by the or
dinary course : and he refers to it, as an account
of what is called good-fortune, or success dispro-
portioned to the apparent means employed. This
description became, in the scholastic system, the
triumphant career of the holy man under the in
fluence of Divine Grace, realizing a perfection
of conduct, that transcends the power of human
principles. Connecting, again, this notion of superhuman
virtue with that of the principle of Corruption, the
Original Sin of man's nature, we see the peculiar
complexion of the Virtue, to which the Schoolmen
gave the highest place in the rewards of heaven. It
was the Virtue of Conquest, — that by which the fuel
(fomes) of Concupiscence — the lust of the flesh —
was subdued and quenched. For this was the
earthly principle, — that which turned away the soul
from God ; the direct contrary, therefore, to the
principle of Grace, by which the soul is turned to
God. If one was the greatest virtue, the other would
therefore be the greatest vice. Hence, the rigid rule
of a life of celibacy was established, as the perfection
of morality. And hence, chiefly, that inveterate
prejudice, by which we are disposed even now, to
identify moral purity with the converse of sen
suality ; overlooking other principles of our nature,
no less difficult and no less necessary to be con
trolled, in order to right conduct and happiness.
The distinction of Sins into Venial and Mortal,

LECTURE VI. 291
is deduced from the same notion of the Chief Good.
Since the whole excellence of the Christian life con
sisted in its direction towards God, as the ultimate
object of all its aims ; whatever tended to withdraw
the soul from this direction, tended towards the
death of the soul ; or, in the language of the Schools,
was a mortal sin. Whatever, therefore, touched the
fundamentals of belief, or any express disobedience
to the commands of God, was, as they described it,
an " inordinateness " of the affections ; it rendered
the desires "inordinate" — put them out of that
course, in which they were rightly ordered towards
God. Sins of unbelief, of heresy, contumacy in
error, impenitence, rejection of the spiritual autho
rity ofthe Church, were therefore mortal sins. Venial
Sins, on the contrary, were such as were committed
in the inferior path of Christian discipline ; such as
occurred by the force of temptations, acting on the
concupiscible part of our nature. The heart might
be right towards God, and therefore guiltless of
offences destructive to the soul in themselves. Yet,
so far as these offences turned the soul towards the
changeable goods of the world, they were sins
injurious to the Christian progress and aim. They
came into the class of Venial, on the ground, that
here the religious principle was not deficient ; and
the circumstances, accordingly, under which they
were committed, might be taken into consideration
as excuses. These were the sins of frailty and
infirmity, occasioned by the conflict between the evil
desires remaining from Original Sin, and the Divine
u2

292 LECTURE VI.
principle infused into the soul by Grace. In the
development of this part of their ethical system, the
observations of Aristotle on the force of the desires
in counteracting the reason, and on the voluntary
nature of actions, were their chief guide and autho
rity. The degrees of extenuation, or indulgence, to
different offences in the Venial class, are ascertained
by the principles of his philosophy.
The whole consideration of this subject may be
regarded indeed, as the popular ethics of the Schools ;
as a system of condescension to the weaknesses of
the subject-disciple ; by which, at the same time,
the power over his conscience was artfully main
tained. The rule, in itself, is a just and sound one,
when confined to its proper exercise. Its sphere,
is, in the intercourse of thought between man and
man ; to regulate the judgments which each passes
on the conduct of another. Indulgence becomes, on
this ground, the strict law of right. A sense of our
own infirmity, a consideration of the condition of
man in the world, of our imperfect knowledge of
the heart, a genuine fellow-feeling, are the great
principles which here must guide our moral de
cisions. And the several decisions of the heart,
framed on these principles, constitute a tacit code of
Venial offences, known by the name of Candour, or
Equity, or Kindness, or Good-will. The Scholastic
philosophy converted this law, with great address,
to the service of the ecclesiastical power.
To the same principle may be traced the divisions

LECTURE VI. 293
of Virtue, into Theological and Moral, and into In
fused and Acquired. The theological virtues are
Faith, Hope, and Charity ; each of which has God
Himself for its object; Faith, it is stated, having
respect to the Divine Truth, Charity to the Divine
Goodness, Hope to the greatness of the Divine Om
nipotence and Kindness. The Moral Virtues are
those, by which the nature of man is regulated with
respect to human things. These are comprehensively
denoted by the Schoolmen, under the name of The
Four Cardinal Virtues ; agreeably to the arrange
ment in the Morals of Gregory, and which seems
indeed the most ancient division of Virtue; — Pru
dence, Justice, Fortitude, Temperance.01 These*
together with the theological virtues, making up the
mystical number of seven, (which their method
delighted in tracing out in different objects,) com
prised all the various duties belonging to man, as
he respects " God, his neighbour, or himself." We
readily see the connexion of the Theological virtues
with the perfection of the Speculative Life. Such
a system left scarcely any place for the simply Moral
virtues ; so far as these were employed in the lower
sphere of merely human duties. These virtues, how
ever, were consecrated to the divine service, by the
distinction between Infused and Acquired Virtue.
Acquired Virtue was the simple result of our na
tural instincts, cultivated by exercise and matured-
q Schoolmen refer to Wisdom, viii. 7. If a man love right
eousness, her labours are virtues : for she teacheth temperance
and prudence, justice and fortitude.

294 LECTURE VI.
into habits. But Infused Virtue was, the same
moral qualities perfected in us by Divine influence :
the theological virtues, in themselves, the gifts of
God, being the principles of the Infused virtues, in
like manner as the natural instincts are the princi
ples of the Acquired virtues. As the Acquired vir
tues, then, fitted men for human affairs ; so the
Infused virtues, it was represented, qualified men
to be " citizens of saints and domestics of God."
Their system, we find, provided for the growth and
expansion of the seed of divine grace — the element
of the heavenly life in the human soul — in a manner
analogous to the improvement of our natural moral
instincts ; by accessions, that is, of the same kind
to the original principles. The soul proceeded in the
divine life, as in the moral ; increasing in favour
with God, as, according to the theory of Aristotle,
it advances in its natural conquest over the passions.
A still further distinction of moral excellence was
derived from the Scripture-declaration of the mani
fold offices of the Holy Spirit, in the sanctification of
the human heart. These were the qualities of wis
dom, science, understanding, counsel ; — the effects of
the Holy Spirit on the rational principle of the soul :
fortitude, piety, fear — the effects of the Holy Spirit
on the affections. They were denominated the Seven
Gifts of the Spirit; the enumeration being drawn
from that passage of Isaiah, which declares the Spirit
of the Lord, as " resting," and " as the Spirit of
" wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel

LECTURE VI. 295
" and might, the Spirit of knowledge and of the
" fear of the Lord." As Gifts they differed from the
Infused Virtues, in being higher means of perfection?
immediate divine instincts, — dispositions prompting
to follow the divine motions, and carrying man at
once to acts beyond those of human virtue.
In the further development of their Ethical
System, the Schoolmen closely follow the method
of Aristotle's Ethics throughout. Aquinas, in par
ticular, has illustrated the application of Aristotle's
principles to Christian morality, with an admirable
comprehension of the subject, and sometimes with
a knowledge of human nature, which, though briefly
and darkly intimated, has scarcely been surpassed
by the modern philosopher. On the moral por
tion of his great argument, he seems to feel his
strength more than elsewhere; and, though still
encumbered with the armour of his technical sys
tem, exerts a more independent power. For,
though he explains the formal divisions of Virtue
received in the Church, he still pursues the inquiry
into all the different heads of Aristotle's more
copious enumeration, and shews their consistency
with the tenour of Christianity. This portion,
indeed, of the labours of Aquinas, is particularly
interesting to the inquirer into the history of Moral
Philosophy, and of its connexion with Theology. It
shews to what extent, our phraseology on moral sub
jects, has been derived from the Latin versions of
Aristotle's expressions of moral ideas; and how

296 LECTURE VI.
! deeply we are indebted to the Scholastic Philosophy
for its transfusion of the valuable theories of that
philosopher, into this department of science.
By looking, indeed, to this source, we find the
origin of the whole of the questions which have
engaged the attention of the modern ethical philo-
[ sopher, as well as of our ordinary language on
moral subjects. The question of the nature of
Moral Obligation, and the very use of the term Ob
ligation, are derived from this source. It is strictly
connected with that view of Justification, which I
endeavoured to explain in my last Lecture. In con
sequence of Original Sin, man comes into the world
a debtor to Divine Justice. He is under an obliga
tion to punishment, on account of his deficiency from
that form of Original Justice, in which he rendered
to God all that service of love, which the great good
ness of God demanded. Hence our terms, due, and
duty, as employed to express right conduct. But
the use of these words has created, at the same time,
a speculative difficulty, which does not properly be
long to the subject. Philosophers, we find, have
been anxious to solve the question, — why man is
obliged to the performance of right; and have
sought, accordingly, for some enforcement of virtue,
beyond the simple fact, that virtue is a perfect law
in itself. Religionists, accordingly, have drawn
down an unnecessary force from the law of God, con
sidered as the rewarder and punisher in a future state;
whilst the irreligious have had unholy recourse to the
arm of social power. The truth is, that the term

LECTURE VI. 297
Obligation is a religious one; introduced into
Morality by that peculiar connexion, which the
speculative Theology of the Schools established,
between Religion and Morality. The Divine Law,
the principle of the Divine Being Himself, was to
be traced downwards in its operation on fallen man;
and its powerful efficacy was to be asserted, as well
as its transcendant goodness, in the blessing, and in
the vengeance, with which it was accompanied.
The subject on which I have been discoursing, is
much too large even to be touched adequately, in
the compass of a single Lecture. My object, however,
is chiefly to point out the origin of that prejudice,
by which the distinct provinces of Theology and
Morality have been popularly confounded : and I
therefore confine myself to such a view of the Scho
lastic Ethics, as exhibits its connexion with Theology.
It is in this respect, that the ethical system of the
Schools has been injurious to Moral Philosophy ;
whilst it has conferred important benefit, as I have
observed, by its introduction into modern language
of the practical science of Aristotle ; — an effect,
that each individual has unconsciously experienced,
in the tone which education and society have given
to his mind. What is more familiar to us, I may ask,
before we have begun to reflect on the words which
we employ, than to speak of the motives and the
ends of actions ? But, in using these terms, we are
speaking in the theories of what we are apt to

298 LECTURE VI.
regard, as an absurd and exploded philosophy, of no
interest to ourselves.
It is to the technical language, indeed, of the
School-Ethics, that we may ascribe the extrava
gance of those Modern Philosophers, who have
reduced all actions to the necessity attributed to
motion consequent on impact, or to the results
produced by the powers annexed to material nature.
The origin, indeed, of this modern " necessity," is
precisely the realism of the Schools. Actions have
been analysed mentally into motives and ends, and
this mental distinction has been converted into forces
and effects. Consequently, the very distinction
between rational and material agents has been
confounded, by such a mode of philosophizing. For
it is the characteristic of the former, that they are
agents in themselves, — endued with a principle of
motion intrinsically, in their own nature, — -and
therefore spontaneous and variable in their course of
action : — whilst the latter, having no such principle
in themselves, depend for their actions on their
relations to other objects.
The influence of the scholastic blending of Theo
logy and Ethics is evidenced in the very general
confusion of thought still observable on this point.
There are two extreme opinions on the subject : that
on the one hand, which regards ethical principles, as
unholy and forbidden ground to the Scriptural
religionist ; as enervating and debasing the sacred

LECTURE VI.

299

truth ; that on the other hand, which considers no
system of religious truths obligatory on the belief
and the conduct, unless it can be reduced to some
principle of our moral nature. Evidently, the
limits and proper department, of these two great
portions of our moral instruction, are not attended
to, in these extreme views. Too much is ascribed
to Theology in the one, too much to Morality in
the other. According to the former, we can do
nothing to the glory of God, unless his glory is the
object immediately present to our thoughts in each
action. According to the latter, the truth of human
nature is disparaged, by the endeavour to kindle
the natural sentiments ofthe heart with the celestial
fire of the altar. The distinct provinces of intel
lectual and revealed knowledge have often been
remarked, with a view to silence the objections of
such speculators. But I think this account of the
matter by no means meets the difficulty of the case,
which arises as much from an improper estimate of
the moral, as of the intellectual powers ; and that a
further answer to it should be sought, in a just view
of the relation of Moral Philosophy to Theology.
Morality then, it should be observed, is the
science of our own internal nature. It ascertains all
those principles by which we are actuated in our
sentiments and conduct, and establishes the general
law in which they all agree. Its office is throughout
one of discovery. The existence of these principles
is assumed ; and the facts, both of our observation
and our consciousness, are examined, with a view to

300 LECTURE VI.
their discovery. But all these inquiries are only
satisfied to lead to another, which is quite beyond
the ^province of the moralist to answer, as to the
ultimate reference of all this complex machinery
which we have been studying ; whether it is a whole
in itself, or there is something beyond it, in which
it originated, and to which it tends. The Christian
Revelation has answered this, by shewing the refer
ence of these principles to the invisible, eternal
world ; giving us an account of their origin in the
dispensations of Providence, and the ultimate effect,
in a future life, of their present observed tendencies.
We should observe, then, that it is only results of
which Revelation informs us, the ultimate relations
and effects of what we have already ascertained, or
are able, by inquiry of ourselves, to ascertain. It
is highly important to observe this ; because our
popular language on the subject confounds the dis
tinction, between the principles of our conduct and
the results to which they tend. We are apt to
speak of Religion, as supplying fresh motives of
conduct. But, in fact, the principles of our moral
nature are the motives, the only motives to actions,
as, to use an imperfect analogy, the springs and
wheels of a machine are the motives to its action :
and the truths of Christianity are presented to those
principles, as objects towards which they should
tend. There is thus infinite room for addition to
our actual moral improvement, by the presentation
of new and more glorious objects to our moral prin
ciples ; whilst, at the same time, there is no addition

LECTURE VI. 301
of even a single new moral fact to the history of our
internal nature. Results may be unfolded to us»
utterly beyond the reach of all conclusions from
observation and consciousness ; and these results
may open objects to our faith, and, through faith,
to all the principles of our nature ; whilst the prin
ciples themselves are unchanged, and unchangeable,
so long as man, and the world around him, are what
they are.
But this confusion of results with the motives of
conduct takes place when the religious principle is
substituted as the spring of action : as, when it is
argued, that no action can have any moral value,
except it be done immediately and exclusively, on a
nwtive of glory to God. The glory of God supplies,
indeed, the great religious centre of our actions :
they are incomplete and irreligious, if they terminate
in worldly objects. But our actions must still be
performed according to the laws of our nature. They
must originate within us ; they must be morally
right in themselves, in order to their sanctification
in the great object, which Religion holds out to our
view. Christianity, in fact, leaves Ethical Science, as
such, precisely where it found it : all the duties which
Ethical Science prescribes, remain on their own foot
ing ; not altered or weakened, but affirmed and
strengthened by the association of Religion. And, so
independent is the Science of Ethics, of the support,
and the ennobling, which it receives from Religion,
that it would be nothing strange, or objectionable, in

302 LECTURE VI.
a Revelation, were we to find embodied in its lan
guage, much of the false Ethical Philosophy, which
systems may have established.1 This, I conceive,
would appear to those, who bear in mind the real
distinctness of Religion and Moral Science, nothing
more objectionable, than the admission into the sa
cred volume of descriptions involving false theories
of Natural Philosophy. There is greater affinity to
revealed truth in the nature of Moral Philosophy ;
because it has, in common with Religion, the hap
piness of man for its object : but a coincidence of
object is different from an actual agreement in the
means employed. Holiness, separation from the
world, devotion, stillness of the thoughts and the
affections, are the means of Religion: — Ethics are
all activity, all business. Neither will answer the
purpose of the other : both are indispensable to the
perfection and happiness of human nature.
Let those, then, who would endeavour to substitute
one for the other, either Theological Truth for Moral,
or Moral for Theological, reflect whether they are
not bringing into competition two classes of truth
which have no rivalry with each other. Let them
think whether religion may not be true and obli
gatory, though it may touch on points beyond the
sphere of their moral anticipations : and whether the
' In consequence of incorporating all Science with Theology,
and making Theology itself a Science, the notion arose, that
nothing could be true in any science that was not accordant
with the Scripture. — Quicquid enim in aliis scientiis invenitur,
veritati hujus scientise repugnans, totum condemnatur ut falsum.
Aquin. Summ. Theolog. Prima Pars, qu. i. art, 6.

LECTURE VI. 303
theory of morality may not remain, amidst all the
light of Revelation, a valid philosophy of life, soli
citing in itself, their earnest study, in order to a
right appreciation of religious truth. Nothing is
more wanted in these days, than an accurate ac
quaintance with the truths of Ethics, to disperse
the clouds, which the prejudices of theological theory
spread over human nature. Doctrines in Religion
are advanced, which could not hold their ground for
a moment, if Moral Philosophy were duly studied,
and its truths were practically applied, as a basis of
Christian truth. It would be seen, that, in many
instances, men were maintaining positions at variance
with indisputable facts of the human constitution,
and rashly overthrowing, at once, the evidence and
the application of the sacred truth which they would
advocate.

LECTURE VII.
THE SACRAMENTS.

SUMMARY.
Doctrine of the Sacraments a continuation of the Scholastic
scheme of Divine Agency — Separate nature of the soul and
body assumed throughout the speculation — The Sacraments
viewed as the means of supporting and renovating the life of
the Soul — General notion of them founded on the belief in
secret influences — Belief in Magic auxiliary to this notion —
Connexion of Sacramental Influence with the doctrine of the
Incarnation — Agitation of the subject in the IXth century in
connexion with Alexandrian Philosophy — Difference of opinion
as to whether the Sacraments were signs or instruments — Pre
cision of language respecting the Eucharist in particular —
Preeminence assigned to this Sacrament attributable to the esta
blished theory of Sacramental Influence — Doctrine of Intention
— Question of the effect of the Vice of the Minister on the
efficacy of the Sacrament — Notion of impressed Character at
tributed to some of the Sacraments — Evident superiority of
Baptism and the Eucharist in comparison with the rest — Rough
form of the early Controversies on the Sacramental Presence of
Christ — The terms Substance and Species not taken at first
in a strict metaphysical sense — Aristotelic Philosophy of Mat
ter and Form, Substance and Accident, introduced to perfect
the theory of the Sacraments — This exemplified particularly in
Transubstantiation — Connexion of this doctrine with the power
of the Church enforces the assertion of the mystical virtue of
the consecrated elements — Physical theory of Transmutation
applied to the establishment of the Presence of Christ — Con
nexion with this, of the notion of the mysterious efficacy of
certain words — Realism involved in the further use of the no
tions of Substance and Accident in the account of Transub
stantiation — the theory of the doctrine at variance with popular
representations of it.
General reflections on the abuse of the doctrine of the Sacra
ments in the Scholastic System — its repugnance to the spirit of
Christianity — Necessity of vigilance against the temptations to
refinement on this subject.
x2

Luke VIII. 43—48.
And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years,
which (had spent all her hving upon physicians, neither
could be healed of any, came behind him, and touched the
border of his garment : and immediately her issue of blood
stanched. And Jesus said, Who touched me ? When all
denied, Peter and they that were with him said, Master,
the multitude throng thee and press thee, and sayest thou,
Who touched me ? And Jesus said, Somebody hath touched
me : for I perceive that virtue is gone out of me. And
when the woman saw that she was not hid, she came trem
bling, and falling down before him, she declared unto him
before all the people for what cause she had touched him,
and how she was healed immediately. And he said unto
her, Daughter, be of good comfort : thy faith hath made
thee whole ; go in peace.

Kat yvvif ovaa ev pvaei aiparog biro ertiv SwSeko, rjriQ eig larpovc
irpoaavaXwaaaa oXov tov fiiov, ovk "layyaev vir ovSevbg depairevdrjvai,
TrpoaeXdovaa biriaQev, rjtparo rov KpaaireSov tov ipariov avrov' Kal
irapa-^pf/pa Earr\ if pvaig rov aiparog avrfjg. Kal elirev 6 'Irfaovg'
Tig 6 aipapevog pov ; 'Apvovpevwv Se iravriov, elirev b Xierpog,
Kai oi per avrov' ''Eiriardra, ol o)(Xoi avviy(pvai ae Kal dirodXi@ovai,
Kal Xiyeig' Tig 6 atpapevog pov ; 'O Se 'h/aovg elirev' "H\par6 pov
rig' eyiv yap 'eyvuiv Svvapiv eh\eXQovaav air' epov. 'iSovaa Se >;
yvvrj on ovk eXade, Tpipovaa })X9e, Kal irpoaweaovaa avrS, Si ffv
alrtav jj\baro avrov airriyyeiXev avro) iv&iiriov iravrbg rov Xaov, Kal
<l>g iddrj irapaxprfpa. 'O Si elirev avrfj' Qapaei, dvyarep' f] irlarig
aov aeauiKe ae. iropevov eig elpifvrfv.

Et mulier qusedam erat in fluxu sanguinis ab annis duo-
decim, quas in medicos erogaverat omnem substantiam suam,
nee ab ullo potuit curari : Accessit retro, et tetigit fimbriam
vestimenti ejus: et confestim stetit fluxus sanguinis ejus.
Et ait Jesus : Quis est qui me tetigit ? Negantibus autem
omnibus, dixit Petrus, et qui cum illo erant : Praeceptor,
turbae te comprimunt et afnigunt, et dicis : Quis me teti
git ? Et dixit Jesus : Tetigit me aliquis ; nam ego novi
virtutem de me exiisse. Videns autem mulier quia non la-
tuit, tremens venit, et procidit ante pedes ejus : et ob quam
causam tetigerit eum, indicavit coram omni populo, et quem-
admodum confestim sanata sit. At ipse dixit ei : Filia,
fides»tua salvam te fecit ; vade in pace. Lat. Vulg.

LECTURE VII.

The preceding views of the Scholastic system
have presented the action of a subtile system of
Materialism, commencing with the Divine Grace
infused into the soul, and working itself out by the
various principles of human nature. The Will of
God, regarded as the primary cause of all activity,
has been traced, as it takes effect in the operations
of the Christian soul, and raises up the fallen child
of Adam to the perfection of the sons of God.
It can hardly have escaped observation, that, in
the course of these explanations of the process of
Grace, an entire distinctness has been assumed for
the soul, as the living and thinking principle of
man's nature. It was the established doctrine, that
the soul was infused into the body, as I have before
observed. The body, or the flesh, was conceived
to be fitly disposed for the reception of the soul ;
and then the soul, being infused, gave the form
of Human Nature. An evident reason of this
opinion is to be seen in the anxiety to maintain the
proper incorruptibility of the soul. If the soul were
not generated, it could not be corrupted. It might,
indeed, be infected ; be subjected to guilt and
punishment by its union with a corrupt flesh ; but,
being created fresh by the hand of God, immediately,
in each instance of a human being, it was, in itself, a
divine principle, independent of the corruptible body

310 LECTURE VII.
with which it was associated. Hence it was said,
that original sin produced a deformity of the soul.
It destroyed that due constitution of the principles
of man's fleshly nature, which disposed it perfectly
for the reception of the soul. The expression itself
of Form, as applied to the soul, was derived from
Aristotle ; the separate creation, and infusion of it
into the body, were modifications of the Platonic
theory of its preexistence. The Scholastic doctrine,
combining both these principles, made the ground
work of a system, which developed the process of
the soul towards a state, when the flesh should no
longer be an obstruction to its energy, and it should
appear in its proper nature and perfection, as the
form of the human being.
This notion of the separate existence of the soul
has so incorporated itself with Christian Theology,
that we are apt, at this day, to regard a belief
in it as essential to orthodox doctrine. Even in
maintaining that such a belief is not essential
to Christianity, I may incur the appearance of
impugning a vital truth of religion. I cannot, how
ever, help viewing this popular belief as a remnant
of scholasticism. I feel assured that the truth of
the Resurrection does not depend on such an
assumption ; that the Life and Immortality of man,
as resting on Christ raised from the dead, is a certain
fact in the course of Divine Providence ; whatever
may be the theories of the soul, and of its connexion
with the body.
Accordingly, instead of a general simple acknow-

LECTURE VII. 311
ledgment of the Salvation of the Gospel, we have
seen, how the process of Grace has been traced by the
Latin theologians, as it repairs the natural defects
of the soul, and brings it into union with Christ.4
The theory of the Sacraments, on which I now
enter, proceeds on the same view of Human Salva
tion. It is an account of the application of the
Passion of Christ to the healing of the soul — a
collection of remedial measures, by which its
languors and infirmities may be relieved and
strengthened. The Incarnation of Christ is regarded
as the primary efficient cause of health to the soul :
dispensed by the several Sacraments as the instru
mental and secondary causes. As the Incarnation
itself was an union of the Divine Word with human
nature, so the Sacraments, according to the theoretic
view of the Scholastic philosophy, were mystical
unions of words with sensible things, by which the
real Passion of Christ was both signified and applied
to the soul of man — the visible channels, through
which virtue was conveyed from Christ Himself to
his mystical body, the Church.
The doctrines of Original Sin and of the
a What our Lord says, in answer to Martha's declaration,
" I know that he shall rise again," when he proclaims Himself
the Resurrection and the Life, is to this point. The Jews,
then, entertained a philosophical belief of a future state. Our
Lord tacitly reproves an assurance on such grounds, by his
strong reference to Himself ; "/am the Resurrection and the
" Life ; whosoever believeth in me, shall live, though he die,"
&c. — Note A. Lecture VII.

312 LECTURE VII.
Incarnation represented mankind under two ex
tremes of individuality : as one with Adam in sin ;
as one with Christ in perfect righteousness. An
account was wanted of the union of these two
extremes — a bridge, by which the mind might pass
from one theory to the other. This was presented
in the doctrine of the Sacraments. They brought
the two extremes into connexion. They connected
fallen man with regenerate man, marking, as it were,
the several stages of transition, from the state of
corruption to that of glory. Theologians have not
been content to rest on the simple fact of the Divine
Ordinance, appointing certain external rites as
essential parts of Divine service on the part of man,
available to the blessing of the receiver. But they
have treated the Sacraments as effusions of the
virtue of Christ, physically quickening and strength
ening the soul, in a manner analogous to the
invigoration of the body by salutary medicines.
The word Sacrament itself, as understood in the
Latin Church, is founded on this notion. Though
derived from the military oath of the Romans, and
so far bearing the mark of that derivation, as it
denotes a solemn pledge of faith on the part of the
receiver, — in its established theological use it corre
sponded more properly with pLvcrrripiov of the Greeks.
It expressed, at first, accordingly, any solemn, mys
terious truth of Religion; and afterwards, by the
usage of the Schools, was appropriated to those acts
in particular, by which grace was conceived to be
imparted to the soul, under outward and visible

LECTURE VII. 313
signs. The definition indeed, given in the Catechism
of the Church of England, is exactly what the
Scholastic theory suggests ; so far, at least, as the
language of it characterizes the nature of a Sacra
ment. It is, in the subsequent application of this
definition, that the Church of England has modified
and improved on the fundamental idea of the Scho
lastic doctrine ; whilst the idea itself is preserved, as
being part of the very texture of technical theology. b
It was, however, in just logical connexion with
this theory, that the Latin Theology deduced the
Seven Sacraments of the Church of Rome. They
are applications of the Passion, or the Priesthood of
Christ, as it is otherwise expressed by the School
men,0 to Christians, either individually, or as mem
bers of the Christian Society. On the first ground,
the rites of Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist,
Penance, Extreme Unction, obtain their sacramental
nature ; on the latter, the rites of Orders and
Matrimony come into the same estimate. The great
Christian community, both as a whole and in its
parts, must be kept animate with the Divine Grace
flowing from Christ its head. Baptism confers the
grace of Regeneration, the new spiritual life, by
which man becomes the child of God. Confirmation
gives the increase of that Life. By the Eucharist it
b Invisibilis gratise visibile signum, is the usual definition of
a Sacrament in the school-writers. The words are drawn from
Augustine.- — -Note B.
0 Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod per omnia Sacramenta fit
homo particeps sacerdotii Christi, &c. Aquin. Sum. Theol. III.
Pars, qu. lxiii. art. 6.

314 LECTURE VII.
is strengthened and vivified : by Penance, recruited
from the effects of sin : Extreme Unction removes
the last relics ofthe sinful nature, preparing the soul
for its departure. These, then, are the influences of
Christ's passion on Christians, in their personal
capacity. But the Christian Society needs to be
supported, both in its natural and in its spiritual
existence. The grace annexed to Matrimony sup
ports the natural life, in order to the spiritual ; since
the Christian must first be born into the world, that
he may afterwards be regenerated in Christ. The
sacrament of Orders, analogous to Matrimony in
the spiritual community, is the grace of Christ's
passion, continuing the vital succession of Ministers,
the living instruments, through whom all grace is
imparted to the Church. d
Rightly, then, to understand the doctrine of the
Sacraments in general, we must look to the theory
of secret influences on which it is based, the mys
terious power, conceived to belong to certain things,
or actions, or persons, of effecting changes not
cognizable by the senses, and changes, as real as
those apparent to observation. It is true indeed,
that, in the Christian application of this theory, the
power was not conceived to belong intrinsically to
the things themselves. They were only subordinate,
instrumental causes, by which the Divine Agency
accomplished its ends. Christ was held to be the
sole primary cause of Grace, however given. In
d Note C.

LECTURE VII. 315
this respect, the mystical philosophy of secret agents
in nature was christianized. But, though it might
thus be denied, that any proper efficacy was attri
buted to the symbol employed in the administration
of a Sacrament, still its power of communicating
grace instrumentally, was asserted in the strongest
manner. Illustration was drawn from the manner
in which any instrument of art performed its work.
The artist, or workman, was properly the executor
of it, as the designer of the result : the instrument
executed it, according to its adaptation, as an
instrument, to produce the result.6
The general belief in Magic, in the early ages of
the Church, may sufficiently account for the ready
reception of such a theory of Sacramental influence.
The maxim of Augustine, Accedit verbum ad ele-
mentum, etfit Sacramentum, appears to be, in fact,
an adaptation of the popular belief respecting the
power of incantations and charms, to the subject
of Religion. The miracles themselves, indeed, of
our Saviour were supposed to act in this manner,
even by those who did not impute them to the
agency of evil. His word, or His touch, was sought
for by persons acknowledging in faith the reality of
his mission. " Say in a word only," said the Cen
turion, " and my servant shall be healed." The
woman, who forced her way through the crowd,
fully trusted that she should be made whole, if she
could touch but the hem of the garment of Jesus.
And our Saviour, whose condescension was shewn
e Note D.

316 LECTURE VII.
even to the prejudices of his faithful followers, often
accompanied the working of his miracles with
significant actions. In the instance of the woman,
indeed, thus suddenly cured, He is described as
having perceived that some one had touched Him,
by the fact, that virtue had gone out of Him ; — a
mode of speaking, characteristic of the prevalent idea
concerning the operation of Divine Influence, as of
something passing from one body to another.
The physical philosophy received in the Schools,
was in itself favourable to this doctrine of sacra
mental efficiency. Nature being regarded as a
system of powers inherent in matter, it would be
easily conceived, that these powers might be secretly
directed by that Sovereign Will which gave them
being. As they operated visibly in various ways
through the Divine Word, so they might also act
invisibly for the production of spiritual effects.
The Word which spoke things into being, could
surely influence the mode of their operation.
This doctrine, however, of the Sacraments appears
to have subsisted in the Church without question
ing, and consequently without much precision
of opinion on the subject, until the agitation of the
controversies respecting the nature of Christ/ These
1 Ratramn was engaged in a controversy on the manner
of Christ's Birth. Paschase also wrote on the same point in
opposition to Ratramn. The coincidence of this controversy
with that on the Eucharist, further illustrates the connexion of
the points disputed in each. — Note E.

LECTURE VII. 317
would evidently affect the notion of a communicated
virtue derived to the powers of nature from his
Person. If, according to Nestorius, God and man
were not united in one Person in Jesus Christ, it
might naturally be inquired, whether the " Virtue
" of his Passion," obtained sacramentally, flowed
from the Divinity or from the Humanity ; since his
Passion was thus considered as distinct from his
Divine Nature. Accordingly, at the Council of
Ephesus, two opinions on this article were con
demned : one asserting " the flesh of the Son of
" man," to mean some one among men, into whose
flesh and blood the earthly substance of bread should
be changed ; the other asserting, that the individual,
whose flesh and blood should have this salutary
efficacy, should be some eminently holy person — the
temple of God — in whom God should dwell in the
truest sense.8 Whether, indeed, such opinions were
actually held in the form here stated, may be doubted.
But it seems evident, from the notice itself of dif
ferent opinions on the Eucharist in the time of
Nestorius, that the popular notion of sacramental
influence, was affected by his theory of the Incarna
tion. The communication of secret virtue by the
sacramental symbol, seemed to be broken in its first
link, if the Divinity were separated from the Hu
manity of Christ : and speculation exerted itself to

g I have taken this account from Lanfranc, De Corp. et Sang.
Domini, c. xvii. p. 242. Oper.— Note F.

318 LECTURE VII.
find a stay, on which the sacred chain might be
fastened. Afterwards, the Alexandrian Philosophy, as re
vived by Erigena, seems once more to have
awakened the opinions of speculative men on the
question of Sacramental influence. The Eucharist
again, as the most complex subject of disquisition,
was the point of the general question, to which
attention was particularly directed. There is no
extant work of Erigena on the subject, though we
find allusions, in subsequent writers, to his doctrine,
set forth, as it seems, in some express treatise. There
remain, however, other treatises of the same period,
those of Paschase and Ratramn, of which I have
had occasion to speak before : and these, though
entirely confined to a discussion of the Eucharist,
indicate a general agitation of the question concern
ing the manner, in which grace was communicated
by the Sacraments. That inquiry should have been
directed to the presence of Christ in the consecrated
bread and wine, seems to have been only accidental
from the circumstance, that the celebration of the
Eucharist was more identified with divine worship
than the other Sacraments.
It appears that the Alexandrian Philosophy re
vived the question, by removing all actual power
from nature, and reducing all natural effects to the
sole agency of the Deity. There would be, accord
ing to this philosophy, no real instrumentality in
the Sacraments. All would be the immediate action

LECTURE VII. 319
of the Deity. The virtue attributed to the sacred
symbols would therefore vanish. They would not
contain Christ's passion by real participation in
themselves. They could only act as the representa
tives, or signs, of his presence, not as the causes, or
instruments, of his operation on the soul.
The popular and orthodox doctrine, however, was,
that the Sacramental influence was a power of cau
sation. Accordingly at this period, when disputation
began again to be the pastime of theologians, the
notion was strenuously opposed, that the Sacrament
of the Eucharist was a sign only, and not the actual
presence of the crucified body of Christ. The
orthodox, indeed, maintained that it was a sign, so
far as it consisted of visible symbols ; but they
further contended, that a real efficacy must be im
puted to the operation so signified. The collision,
however, of adverse statement, forced them into a
precision of language, which, probably, but for the
force of controversy, would have had no place in
this department of theology. It is no inconsiderable
evidence of this observation, that the precision of
language has occurred on that particular Sacrament,
which was the immediate matter of discussion, — the
Eucharist. The nature of Christ's presence in
Baptism might have been attempted, no less, to be
defined: but here the point is left comparatively
open to opinion ; whilst, respecting the Eucharist,
the path of orthodoxy is rigidly marked out to the
disciple ofthe scholastic theology.
The opposition of controversy, whilst it led the

320 LECTURE VII.
orthodox to assert an actual presence of the incar
nate Christ, under the sacramental symbols of bread
and wine, made them charge their adversaries with
holding the Sacraments to be only signs, — memo
rials of Christ's passion, and not the actual oblation.
And this may account for the pointed expression
in our Article, that " the Supper of the Lord is not
" only a sign of the love which Christians ought to
" have among themselves, but rather is a Sacrament
" of our Redemption." In denying an actual com
munication of Christ to the sacred emblems, it
became necessary to guard against the construction
of asserting a merely commemorative rite, and thus
evacuating the Sacrament of its holy burthen of
Grace. For neither Ratramn, in opposing the
doctrine of Paschase, nor afterwards Berenger, in
advocating the views of Erigena against Lanfranc,11
appear to have held, that the Eucharist was nothing
more than a sign. Ratramn, indeed, distinctly asserts
a real presence, though he does not admit a presence
of the crucified body of Christ in the consecrated
bread and wine. It is a real and true presence
that he asserts ; — the virtue of Christ acting in the
way of efficacious assistance to the receiver of the
Sacrament. The Church of England doctrine of
the Sacraments, it is well-known, is founded on the
views given by this author. Cranmer and Ridley
are said to have studied his work together, and to
have derived their first ray of light on the subject
from that study.'h Note G. ' Note H.

LECTURE VII. 321
The relative importance of the Eucharist, in com
parison with the other Sacraments, and, indeed, with
the whole doctrine and ritual of Christianity, in the
system of the Church of Rome, may be drawn from
this primary notion of sacramental efficiency. It
may well be asked, why this sacred rite should
stand so preeminent in the scheme of Christianity.
.1 do not say, that it ought not to hold a principal,.
station among the observances of a holy life. But
it is the doctrinal supremacy given to it, to which
I refer. View it, as it exists in the Roman Church,
and it is there found absorbing into it the whole, it
may be said, of Christian worship. There, the
ministers of religion seem to be set apart chiefly for
this sacred celebration : it is the spiritual power of
their office — the essence of their priesthood. If we
ask then, why this particular Sacrament should have
attained this superiority over all other rites of Chris
tianity, we may find an answer in the Scholastic
theory. Whilst the other Sacraments, recognized
by that theory, participate of the virtue of Christ's
passion, this is the passion itself of Christ, — the
whole virtue of his priesthood mystically repre
sented and conveyed. The priesthood of Christ
comprehending in it the whole of Christianity, the
rite by which that priesthood was especially signi
fied, would become the great act of human ministra
tion, when the notion was once established of an
instrumental causality attached to the use of the
sign. The importance which this Sacrament ob
tained, appears, accordingly, to have increased, in

322 LECTURE VII.
proportion as controversy more explicitly shaped
the doctrine, giving a greater point and boldness to
the assertion of a real oblation of Christ. It was
freely admitted, that Christ was offered once for all
on the Cross ; that henceforth He is seated at the
right hand of the Divine Majesty, to die no more.
But the sacrifice performed by the priest was still a
real offering of Christ ; as being the appointed chan
nel, through which the expiatory virtue of the Great
Sacrifice descends in vital efflux from the person of
the Saviour .j
The necessity of a general " Intention" on the
part of the priest administering a Sacrament, to "do
" what the Church does, and intends," by that Sa
crament, is founded on the same mystical construc
tion of the rite, as an actual communication with
Christ Himself. Inanimate things, so far as they
act instrumentally in communicating the virtue of
Christ's passion, act simply according to the laws of
their nature, moved by the impulse given to them
externally. But the human agent, the animated in
strument1' of the sacramental Virtue, being in him
self a principle of motion, operates by the moral,
and therefore variable, power of freewill, in pro
ducing the mystical result. This doctrine led, of
course, to many questions on the point ; such as,
whether the forgetfulness of the Priest, the omission
of any expression, the variation of words in the
form of consecration, would affect the validity of the
' Note E. k Aristotle's 'ip-^vypv opyavov.

LECTURE VII. 323
Sacrament. These difficulties, however, were skil
fully evaded, by resolving the personal individuality
of the Priest into the general abstract personality of
the Church. As officiating in the Sacrament, he
appeared in the person of the Church. The ques
tion then only was, whether the general intention
of the Church was fulfilled in the act of consecra
tion. Whatever arose from the mere person of the
priest as an individual man, could not vitiate the
rite.1 Hence, though the nature of man, as a volun
tary agent, was included in the theory of the
Sacraments, the personal vice of the officiating mi
nister could not impede the due consecration of the
rite. The Church itself could not err. He there
fore, in whom the person of the Church was
vested, if only it was his design to act in that
capacity, and to do the work of the Church, could
not fail in the performance of the rite. The mys
tical virtue was brought down to the sacred ele
ment, though the lips were unholy that pronounced
the transforming benediction. Thus it was argued,
the baptism of Judas was valid, because it was per
formed with the authority of Christ ; whilst the
baptism of John was not valid, as not being the act
of the Church.™
We are ready, indeed, ourselves to admit, that
the vice of the Minister does not impede the effect
of the Sacrament. For it is evident, that, where
the Faith of the receiver is the true consecrating
1 Note F. m Note G.
y 2

324 LECTURE VII.
principle, — that which really brings down Christ to
the heart of each individual, — the personal delin
quency of him who administers it, cannot deteriorate
the Sacrament itself. There seems, indeed, scarcely
sufficient reason for the introduction of an express
article on the subject, when it is once fully understood
on Protestant grounds. We see, however, the occa
sion of it, in the Scholastic theory of the Sacraments.
The immediate occasion, indeed, in the case of our
Articles, was, the canon of the Council of Trent upon
the subject. But the importance attributed to the
point by so distinct a notice of it, belongs to the re
condite philosophy of sacramental influence. An
authority and sanctity were to be maintained for the
Church, as the sole and certain instrument of
sacramental grace, against all objection to the indi
vidual agents, to whose hands her rites should be
intrusted. It was an admirable expedient, indeed,
of ecclesiastical policy, thus to rest the power of the
Church on the purity and indefectibility of an abs
traction. Religious imagination was sustained on
the picture of the Church, as the great Mother of
the Faithful, cherishing her beloved children in
her pure bosom ; whilst her many-handed agents in
the world were securing their hold on the con
sciences of men, by that prerogative of veneration
which they enjoyed in her person." Realism here
n We should observe the confusion of ideas prevalent in the
early Church on the subject of Baptism. The Church was con
sidered as " the body of Christ." The Church also was " the
" mother of the faithful." Hence, being baptized, and being

LECTURE VII. 325
became an effectual means of power. The Clergy
being regarded in their collective character, as
representatives of the person of the Church, ex
hibited an uniform, undying, principle of opera
tion. The stability and eternity of a Theory were
substituted for the variable and conflicting views in
religious belief and action, which the actual facts of
the Church presented.
The same principle was applied to the body of
the Faithful at large ; as, for instance, in the
administration of Baptism to Infants, the scholastic
ground on which the validity of such baptism is
asserted, is, that the Faith of the Church is
accepted, instead of that of the individual.0 The
will of the Infant is incapable of putting any bar to
the reception of the rite ; and the intention of
the Church therefore, it is alleged, fully avails in its
behalf. Such, then, is the characteristic idea which
pervades all the Sacraments, according to the enu
meration of them given by the School-authors, and
adopted by the Church of Rome. But it should be
remarked, that of the seven, whilst all were held to
made a " member of the body of Christ," and being " incor-
" porated " into the Church, became equivalent expressions.
Hence too the Church was said to " generate " sons by baptism.
Auguslin. contr. Donatist. I. c. 10. et alib.
° By Canon XIII. of Sess. VII. of the Council of Trent, the
Faith of the Church is stated to be the 'ground on which infants
are baptized. This accords with the language of Augustine. —
Note H.

326 LECTURE VII.
be means of Grace, and divinely instituted, the two,
which we hold exclusively as Sacraments, were
considered as of more imperative obligation on the
Christian world at large. Baptism, Confirmation,
and Orders, indeed, were distinguished from the
rest in this respect ; that they were conceived to
impress a Character on the Soul — an indelible mark,
by which the Soul is consecrated to the service of
God. Hence it was maintained that these rites
could never be repeated. Though Baptism might
have been administered by the hands of a heretic,
yet, if the rite had been performed, it was enough.
The Christian " character" had been impressed, and
the baptized was already a member of the Church.
Cyprian, in his zeal against heresy, had maintained
the contrary ; requiring, that those who had been
baptized by heretics should be rebaptized by the
orthodox. p But the opposite doctrine prevailed in
the Church, and was established by the authority
of Augustine. It gave, in fact, to the Church
a power over all who had once been baptized,
whether within or without her pale ; so that the
spiritual terrors might be applied to such persons,
to compel them to the faith in which they had
been baptized.5 We may perceive a trace of the
" Note I.
9 See this in the Council of Trent, Sess. Sept. de Bapt. — Si
quis dixerit hujusmodi parvulos baptizatos, cum adoleverint in-
terrogandos esse, an ratum habere velint, quod Patrini eorum
nomine, dum baptizarentur, polliciti sunt, et si se nolle respon-
derint, suo esse arbitrio relinquendos, nee interim poena ad
Christianam vitam cogendos, nisi ut ab Eucharistiae, aliorumque

LECTURE VII. 327
scholastic doctrine of " impressed character," in
the scrupulous care shewn by our Church in the
Baptismal Service, to ascertain whether Baptism has
been already performed rightly ; and in the provi
sion (itself a scholastic one) of conditional Baptism,
in cases where doubt may exist of its previous due
administration. r
The doctrine of Baptism, indeed, was what
naturally attracted the attention of the Church in
the early ages. Its connexion with the doctrine of
Original Sin brought it into prominent notice,
during the Pelagian Controversies. And, before the
rise of these controversies, we see the extravagant
opinion entertained of its sacramental power, in the
practice of delaying the reception of it until the
approach of death.3 So that the indispensable
necessity of Baptism had been established, before the
period of Scholasticism. Both Pelagius and Celestius
Sacramentorum perceptione arceantur, donee recipiscant, ana
thema sit. Canon xiv.
r It is suggested by the Cardinal Caietan, in his commentary
on the Summa of Aquinas, Ilda Ildse, qu. i. art. 3. ed. Antuerp.
s Augustine's account ofthe delay of his own baptism illustrates
this. Feeling himself dangerously ill in his youth, he eagerly
demanded baptism. He recovered; and it was postponed, for
the reason, that, if he should live, he would contract fresh im
purity. — Et conturbata mater carnis mese, quoniam et sem-
piternam salutem meam carius parturiebat corde casto in fide
tua, jam curaret festinabunda, ut sacramentis salutaribus ini-
tiarer et abluerer, te Domine Jesu confitens in remissionem pec-
catorum, nisi statim recreatus essem. Dilata est itaque mun-
datio mea, quasi necesse esset, ut adhuc sordidarer, si viverem ;
quia videlicet post lavacrum illud, major et periculosior in sor-
dibus delictorum reatus foret. Confess, lib. I. c. 11.

328 LECTURE VII.
maintained the necessity of Baptism. The orthodox
differed from them, in asserting that, without bap
tism, none could be saved. It was allowed, indeed,
by the Schoolmen, that the wish (votum) to receive
baptism might avail, in a case of impediment to the
actual reception of it : as also in regard to the
Eucharist. The blood of martyrdom too was sup
posed to flow with regenerating efficacy. For thus
had the holy Innocents been baptized in blood : the
sword of the murderer consecrating them to the
Saviour, for whom they unconsciously suffered.
But, as no wish, or vow, of receiving the rite could
be conceived by the Infant, it was impossible that,
dying unbaptized, — humanity may shrink at the
recital of such a tenet, — it could escape the punish
ment due to Original Sin.
The Eucharist also, though not regarded of the
same absolute necessity as Baptism, was a rite,
which could be omitted, with safety, by none who
were capable of desiring it. In fact, these two
ordinances, amidst all the scholastic subtleties with
which they are surrounded, bear evident marks
of being considered, as of an higher origin, and a
more divine import.1 They are clearly the Sacra
ments of the primitive Church, whilst the rest have
' Unde manifestum est, quod sacramenta ecclesiae specialiter
habent virtutem ex passione Christi, cujus virtus quodammodo
nobis copulatur per susceptionem sacramentorum. In cujus
signum, de latere Christi pendentis in cruce, fluxerunt aqua et
sanguis, quorum unum pertinet ad baptismum, aliud ad eucha-
ristiam, quae sunt potissima sacramenta. Aquin. Summa Theol.
Illtia Pars, qu. lxii. art. 5.

LECTURE VII. 329
obtained that rank through the ingenuity of theo
logians, seeking to give a numerical perfection to
their system in all its parts, and to trace out a
minuteness of correspondence in the Sacraments to
the Seven Virtues, and Seven Gifts of the Spirit.
Peter Lombard, I believe, was the first who assigned
that number to the Sacraments.11
The controversies of the IXth and Xlth centuries
exhibit the theory of the Sacraments, in what may
be called an unfinished state. They are only the
commencement and outline of what was afterwards
worked out by the introduction of the philosophy
of Aristotle into the subject. The disputes had
been, whether there was a real Divine efficacy in
the consecrated symbols themselves, so that they
were no longer the same as before consecration ; or
whether they remained the same in themselves, and
yet possessed a mystical efficacy, in the act of being
received. The point in controversy is, in what sense,
the words "really" and "truly" are to be under
stood, when affirmed of the presence of Christ. Both
parties affirm that Christ is really and truly present in
the Eucharist ; both affirm that a change is worked
on the Bread and Wine by consecration, so that
they then are verily and indeed the Body and Blood
of Christ. But on one side it is denied, that this
reality and truth are to be sought in the Bread and
" The question of the Number of the Sacraments was one of
considerable perplexity at the Council of Trent. Courayer,
translat. of Sarpi, torn. I. p. 376.

330 LECTURE VII.
Wine ; or that the change is a physical one, though
real as to efficacy or virtue. On the other side, it
is contended, that this reality and truth of the
Divine presence, must be in the consecrated ele
ments themselves ; or otherwise they are mere signs
without any latent virtue. But in this case, the
Sacraments of the New Law, (as the Christian
sacraments were termed, in contrast with the types
and ordinances of Judaism,) would be inferior to
those of the Old Law. For the latter, it was ad
mitted, were the shadows of Christ — they contained
Christ in the way of anticipation : — whereas the
latter would be thus reduced to empty Signs.
The word Substance, we may observe, was em
ployed in these controversies ; but it was not used
in that exact metaphysical sense, in which we find
it employed in the Trinitarian controversies, or
which it acquired in the course of the Scholastic
discussions. The Latins of the IXth century were
infants in philosophy, compared with their pre
decessors of the IVth century. They understood,
accordingly, at this period, by Substance, chiefly the
gross idea, which we commonly attach to the term,
when we speak of the Substance of any thing, mean
ing the principal or most important part of it. The
idea of Substance, as the support or basis of acci
dents, was not familiarly recognized, it seems, by the
Latin of the middle age, until the revived study of
Aristotle had once more restored it to that sense.
The like observation is to be made with regard
to the word Species, as it was employed in the

LECTURE VII. 331
sacramentarian controversies of the IXth and Xlth
centuries. It was not then restricted to a meta
physical sense, but rather simply expressed the
physical objects themselves, to which it was applied.
The species of bread and wine, that is, were not the
abstract natures of bread and wine, but the com
pound things themselves, as really existing. The
term, as introduced into this subject, was derived
to the Latin Church, not from philosophy, but from
the ordinary forms of Roman exaction of tribute ;
according to which, certain articles were to be fur
nished to the government in the species — the articles
themselves — as distinct from their equivalent in
money.* It remained then for later discussion, for the
restless, penetrating spirit of Scholasticism, to ana
lyze, by the philosophical power of language, the
operation of Grace in the Sacraments. The subtile
speculations about matter and form, substance and
accident, were accordingly introduced, to establish
and perfect the theory of instrumental efficiency
ascribed to the rites themselves. And it is upon
these speculations that the doctrine of the Sacra
ments, and in particular of Transubstantiation, is
maintained in the Church of Rome even now ;
amidst all the accessions of light from improved
science, which the world has obtained since the days
of Scholasticism. A review of any of the defences
of Transubstantiation, which have been put forth in
1 Note I.

332 LECTURE VII.
the course of the last few years, will convince any
one how completely bound up with the theories of
substance and accident, and matter and form, that
tenet is ; and that, consequently, the tenet and the
theories must be false or true together. But if, as
is the fact, those theories are mere assumptions in
physics, not resting on observation, but distinctions,
existing only in the mind, and applied to the analysis
of external objects ; it must appear, that the process
of Transubstantiation is entirely an assumed one,
and that it ought to be discarded as an idol, at once,
of religion and of philosophy.
We hear it sometimes stated, as if Transub
stantiation were a dogma suddenly introduced into
the Church ; — as if Innocent III. and the IVth
Lateran Council, had, by the declaration of the
article, accomplished a triumph over human reason
and sound religion. But this appears to me a very
mistaken view of the doctrine. It has a much deeper
origin ; growing, in fact, out of the natural Realism
of the human mind. It was a gradual extension of
the same principle which corrupted the doctrines
of the Trinity and of Divine Grace, to the doctrine
of the Sacraments. The principle floated down the
stream ofthe philosophical Theology of the Schools;
and, from time to time, fastened itself round each
projecting point that met its course. That the
doctrine of the Eucharist in particular, should have
been the principal occasion of the speculation con
cerning the Sacraments in general, may be accounted
for, in the importance which that Sacrament

LECTURE VII. 333
had assumed in the practice of the Church. The
sacrificial character of the Church-minister was
especially involved in it. And the leading Clergy,
accordingly, were peculiarly sensitive to any opinion,
which seemed to examine too closely, the mira
culous virtue claimed for the rite. From the time
of Erigena, there had been constant endeavours,
to attain more exact ideas of the nature of the
sacrifice performed in the Eucharist, on the one
part ; whilst, on the other, a fear lest the authority
of the Church should be shaken, called forth de
fenders of the miraculous import of the consecra
tion. The treatise of Paschase was a bold attempt
to settle the doubts and speculations of the time, by
a strong and confident assertion of the power as
sumed for the ministration of the priest. It did not,
however, settle the question even in the Church
itself. Not only did Ratramn freely discuss the
mode of Christ's presence ; but differences of opinion
must have existed generally, when we find Leotheric,
Archbishop of Sens, charged with heterodoxy on
the subject, in the very commencement of the Xlth
century ; and afterwards, in the course of the same
century, Berenger appearing the forward advocate
of the moderate doctrine.y The obstinacy, indeed,
with which Berenger resumed his profession of the
obnoxious opinion, argues the general interest taken
in the question, as also the support and countenance
which he must have obtained from others, agreeing
in his views, though not equally ready to encounter
y Note J.

334 LECTURE VII.
the persecution, attendant on a more open dissent
from the orthodox rule.

When the Schools took up the formal discussion
of the doctrine of the Sacraments, the general theory
was to be adjusted to those views of the Eucharist,
which the progressive realism of orthodoxy had
created. It was to be shewn, how the actual con
version of the Bread and Wine into the Body and
Blood of Christ took place, according to recognized
physical principles, the supposed agents in producing
the result.
I have already had occasion to point out the
extent, to which the theory of Transmutation was
carried in the physical system of Aristotle. It was
conceived to be a sufficient account of all the variety
of appearances which Nature exhibits. The forms
of things were continually coming and receding in
the ceaseless flux of sublunary nature ; contraries
expelling contraries ; whilst a common matter sub
sisted, the same in all things, and becoming all
things, as the various forms of things successively
acted on it. I have pointed out all this nearly in
the same manner before. But the notions of Form
and Matter require to be more particularly noticed,
in reference to our present subject, in their con
nexion with the mystical philosophy of the Divine
Word. A Christian Philosopher could not adopt
such a theory of Nature, (for in itself it was strictly
atheistic ; it described nature as an omnipotent
energy in itself, working out its own instinctive

LECTURE VII. 335
tendencies,) without modifying it by the principles
of his Theology. He did not therefore conceive
these forms, in nature, to be independent of the Di
vine Reason or Word. Interpreting those passages
of Scripture which speak of things made by the
Word of God, as denoting expressly the creative
efficacy of the Second Person of the Trinity, he
connected the communication oi forms to matter
with the Word of God throughout ; that is, he
conceived the Divine words uttered, to carry that
mystical creative force, which belonged to the Divine
Word as existing in the Trinity.2 Hence it was,
that certain words, accompanying the celebration of
a Sacrament, were said to be the Form of the Sa
crament. In a manner analogous to the original
formation of all things by the Divine Word acting
on matter, it was conceived, that the sacred words
pronounced by the Priest came with power to the
element or matter, and imposed on it a mystical or
sacramental form.3 Thus a Sacrament has been
described as consisting of matter and form : — the
matter being the water, or the bread and wine ;
or, in Confirmation, the chrism ; in Penance, the
contrition of the penitent : the form, the parti
cular words of consecration uttered by the priest.
Hence, too, the use of the word Element itself, to
denote the consecrated bread and wine ; these being
viewed, like the four imagined elements of the
z Aquinas, Sum. Theol. Illtia Pars, qu. lxxviii. art. 4. —
Note K.
a The priest is therefore said, conficere Sacramentum.

336 LECTURE VII.
material world, as the bases of the sacred natures
into which they were transformed. A certain mat
ter and certain form are thus considered as indis
pensable to a Sacrament.6
This part of the theory of Transubstantiation
applies to all the Sacraments in common. But it
did not fully explain that point in which the Eu
charist differed from all other Sacraments, as being
the whole virtue of Christ's priesthood, whereas the
others were only participations of that virtue. It
was to be further shewn, therefore, with regard to
this, how the esse, or substance, of Christ, was
brought down to the consecrated elements. This
was, in fact, the establishment of the term Transub
stantiation as the orthodox language of the Latin
Church. Christ had been asserted to be substan
tially present in the Eucharist during the contro
versies of the IXth and Xlth centuries. But, as I
observed, the term Substance was not yet commonly
interpreted in its proper metaphysical sense. The
increasing acquaintance with Aristotle's Philosophy
subsequently to that period, both demanded and
suggested a further and more minute explanation.
The term substance now came to be viewed in
; its logical and metaphysical sense, as the support of
accidents, — as that nature of a thing which may be
b Hence the inquiries in our Baptismal Service. " With
" what matter was this child baptized 1" " With what words
" was this child baptized ?" " Because some things," it is said,
" essential to this Sacrament may happen to be omitted through
" haste."

LECTURE VII. 337
conceived to remain, when every other nature is
removed or abstracted from it — the ultimate point
in analysing the complex idea of any object. The
term Accident, on the other hand, denotes all those
ideas which the analysis excludes, as not belonging
to the mere Being or Nature of the object.
But by the fallaciousness of Realism, both Sub
stance and Accident being understood to denote
parts in the physical composition of bodies, the
application of this doctrine to the presence of Christ
in the Eucharist, was naturally suggested. If
Substance and Accident were parts of things, they
might be conceived in a state of separation. The
substance of any thing might be present, whilst the
accidents were absent : and the substance of one
thing might be changed for the substance of
another, whilst the accidents remained.
It being admitted, then, that there was a trans
forming power in the words of Consecration ; whilst,
at the same time,- it was evident, that no visible or
sensible change was wrought on the bread and wine ;
it was urged, that the change had taken place in the
substance of the sacred elements. The Substantial
Forms of bread and wine were no longer in existence,
at the instant that the words of Consecration were
completed ; but they were displaced by the Sub
stance of Christ. The accidents of bread and wine, —
the taste and colour, and other such qualities, —
were not supposed, indeed, to be in Christ " as in
" their subject ;" though they evidently remained
after the change of the substance, to which they had

338 LECTURE VII.
belonged. In general, however, the accidents are
represented, in the mystical phraseology of Plato
nism, as outward veils, under which the real spiritual
substance of Christ is latent.0
This explanation raised a number of minute
questions, as to the mode of coexistence of accidents
with a substance not belonging to them, and of their
existence out of a subject ; as to whether the acci
dents of the bread and wine possessed the power of
nourishing ; and the like. The discussion of such
points exactly suited the genius of the Scholastic
Philosophy, and at length matured the theory of the
Eucharist, as professed in the Latin Church, under
the name of Transubstantiation.
In no point is the prodigious influence, which the
Scholastic Philosophy has had on the world, more
apparent, than in this particular article. Antece
dently to experience, we might have regarded it as
impossible, that a doctrine so abstruse, — so remote
from religion when viewed in its source, — not
appealing to any sentiment of the heart, — not
captivating the judgment by the sublimity of its
conception, — should have become a corner-stone of
faith to a large proportion of the Christian world.
I do not speak of its absurdity ; for it is clearly not
c The ingenuity with which the scholastic system is brought
into unity, should not pass unobserved here. As Christ has not,
in the scholastic view of the Eucharist, the forms of flesh
and blood, it might seem that Transubstantiation did not pre
serve the man. Still this could not be the case ; since it was
determined that forma substantialis hominis is anima rationalis.

LECTURE VII. 339
absurd, if, by that expression, we mean its in
consistency with reason. It is, on the contrary,
perfectly consistent with reason, if we grant the
hypotheses in philosophy on which it is founded.
And, even in those hypotheses themselves, there is
nothing intrinsically absurd. We can only say, with
our present light in physical science, that they are
unphilosophical and untrue. The abstruseness of
the speculation is what I remark, considered
together with its popularity. It proves, how entirely
subjugated the human understanding has been, to
the imperious reason of the Church-leaders of the
middle age. The doctrine was shaped to meet the
cavils and disputations of the spiritual body among
themselves, that no dissentient leader of a party
might produce schism in the Church ; but that,
whilst the living oracles of faith all spoke one lan
guage, a delusive consistency might pass for the
singleness of truth with the multitude of the faithful.
If the disputatious leader of opinion were silenced,
it was enough to secure the assent of the sequacious
herd of believers. Sometimes, indeed, expedients
were adopted to interest the imagination in favour of
the dogma, by descriptions of miraculous appearances
of flesh and blood, or of an infant, in the celebration
of the Eucharist.4 But the resort to these methods
of proof, shews, that the doctrine of Transubstan
tiation, in its speculative form, was not adapted to
conciliate the attention of the vulgar, but rather the
logical armour of the Church, in its contests with
4 Note L.
z 2

340 LECTURE VII.
logical opponents. For these alleged miraculous
appearances were at variance with the proper
speculative notion of the Real Presence. These led
the people to believe, that it was the passible body
of Christ locally present in the elements: whereas
the philosophical doctrine was, that the substance
of Christ only was present — that nature by which
He is the Christ ; and which might be represented
in an infinity of instances, whenever the sacrifice of
the Eucharist should be offered ; without being mul
tiplied in itself, or without being broken and divided
in itself, however the consecrated elements should
be physically separated into parts. The proper doc
trine of the Real Presence was a logical unity — an
ens unum in multis ; — an idea, quite beyond the
reach of the unscientific intellect. The violence
again with which the Cartesian philosophy was
attacked, still further shews how closely implicated
was the doctrine of sacramental influence with the
ancient metaphysics. That philosophy was no
direct attack on Transubstantiation : but as rejecting
the Aristotelic theory of Matter and Form, and
therefore evidently militating with the established
notion of Transubstantiation, it had to bear the
brunt of opposition from the Schools. The polemi
cal discussions which it occasioned, are monuments
of the keen anxiety, with which the shadowy out
works of the doctrine were guarded, against the
assaults of a novel method of philosophy. Had the
doctrine been simply rested on the Divine Word, it
would have had nothing to fear ; but, cased as it

LECTURE VII. 341
was in metaphysical armour, it sensitively shrank
from collision with the weapons of an Ideal Philo
sophy.6 Briefly, however, to review in conclusion that
doctrine of the Sacraments, which we have been
considering. It appears, that the simplicity of Scripture truth hasi
been altogether abandoned, in the endeavour to raise
up, on the solemn ordinances appointed by our Lord,
for the edification, and charity and comfort of his
Church, an elaborate artificial system of mystical
theurgy. In the views of the Scholastic system
which have previously occupied our attention, the
Divine Being and Agency were the leading ideas.
God Himself was displayed as the great subject ; —
his power, wisdom, and goodness, as developed in
his own Being, and as diffused in the works of his
Providence and Grace. The speculation was human ;
but the burthen of it was divine. But, though it is
the same thought prolonged here also, it must be
observed, that the divine argument here is subor
dinate to the human agency involved in it. The
history of the Sacraments, in the Scholastic system,
is, God working by the instrumentality of man. The
theory is of the divine causation ; but the practical
power displayed, is, the sacerdotal : the necessary
instrument for the conveyance of Divine Grace,
becoming in effect the principal cause.
Surely it requires no research into ecclesiastical
0 NoteM.

342 LECTURE VII.
history or philosophy, to see that so operose a sys
tem is utterly repugnant to the spirit of Christianity.
Contemplate our Saviour at the Last Supper, break
ing bread, and giving thanks, and distributing to
his disciples ; and how great is the transition from
the institution itself to the splendid ceremonial of
the Latin Church ? Hear Him, or his Apostles,
exhorting to Repentance ; and can we suppose the
casuistical system to which the name of Penance has
been given, to be the true sacrifice of the broken
and contrite spirit ? Or, if we think for a moment
of Jesus Christ, taking the little children in his
arms and blessing them, and declaring that " of
" such is the kingdom of God ;" and then revert to
the minute inquiries, as to the state of infants dying
unbaptized; — do we not seem, to have exchanged
the love of a Brother, for the cold charities of
strangers to our blood, not knowing the heart of
man, and dealing out a stinted measure of tender
ness, by the standard of abstract theory, and the
law of logical deduction ?
Thanks to the Christian resolution of our Re
formers, they broke that charm which the mysti
cal number of the Sacraments carried with it, and
dispelled the theurgic system which it supported.
We are not, perhaps, sufficiently sensible of the ad
vantages, which we enjoy through their exertions in
this respect — exertions which cost them so many
painful struggles, even to the bitterness of death.
They have taken our souls out of the hand of man,
to let them repose in the bosom of our Saviour and

LECTURE VII. 343
our God. We have been enabled thus to fulfil the
instruction of Scripture, to " come boldly to the
" throne of Grace," and ask of Him who gives liber
ally, and denies to none. The perplexities and dis
tress of heart, of which we have been relieved, none
perhaps can now adequately conceive. We must
ask of those, who have experienced the false comfort
of that officious intercession of the sacramental sys
tem of the Latin Church. They will tell us, that,
under that system, they knew not the liberty of the
Gospel. They were unhappy without resource. Their
wounds are opened, but there was none to heal.*
But, though we are free from the yoke which
the Sacramental ritual imposes on members of the
Roman Communion, we still require watchfulness
against the temptation to refine on the subject, and
lest we enslave ourselves to a kind of priestcraft
in our own minds. The tendency to raise questions
about Baptism, in modern times, is an evidence of
this spirit of refinement. Men are not content with
the simple declarations ; — " Repent, and be bap-
" tized :" — " Except a man be born of water and the
" Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God:"
" Go, and teach all nations, baptising them in the
" name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost:" —
nor will they acquiesce in the duty of conforming
their practice to these Scriptural injunctions. But
it is thought by some, that the question must
further be decided, whether Baptism is in all cases
equivalent to Regeneration. They propose a ques-
' Note N.

344 LECTURE VII.
tion, that is, as to the intrinsic efficacy of the
rite ; — a difficulty, which practical Christianity by
no means calls upon us to decide, and the decision
of which, after all, can be only speculation. In
regard, indeed, to both the Sacraments, singleness
of heart is the only human means that we pos
sess, of apprehending their true import. " He
" which hath said," observes Hooker, " of the one
" Sacrament ; ' Wash, and be clean ;' hath said con-
" cerning the other likewise ; ' Eat, and live.' If
" therefore," he continues, (I quote his words for
their general application to the whole subject of
the Sacraments,) if " without any such particular
" and solemn warrant as this is, that poor distressed
" woman, coming unto Christ for health, could so
" constantly resolve herself; ' May I but touch the
" ' skirt of his garment, I shall be whole ;' what
" moveth us to argue of the manner how life should
" come by bread; our duty being here but to take
" what is offered, and most assuredly to rest per.
" suaded of this, that, can we but eat, we are safe ?
"... What these elements are in themselves, it
" skilleth not ; it is enough, that to me which take
" them, they are the body and blood of Christ : his
" promise in witness hereof sufficeth : his word he
" knoweth which way to accomplish : why should
" any cogitation possess the mind of a faithful com-
" municant, but this ; O my God, thou art true ! O
" my soul, thou art happy !"g
8 Eccl. Pol. V. 67.

LECTURE VIII.
NATURE AND USE OF DOGMATIC THEOLOGY.

SUMMARY.
Examination of the nature and use of Dogmatic Theology
suggested by previous inquiry — Confusion of thought on the sub
ject, evidenced in popular statements of the relation between Faith
and Reason — also in attempts to settle the necessary points of
belief — Discussion of the Scholastic principles : 1. that whatever
is first in point of doctrine is therefore true ; and 2. thatthe logical
consequence of any doctrine is necessarily true — The former prin
ciple, a remnant of Scholastic view of Theology as a demon
strative science — Universality and ubiquity of belief no tests of
divine truth — The principle only true when strictly confined to
Scripture facts — Contrast of the earlier and later Christian
writers in the tradition of doctrine — The preference for earliest
authorities inconsistent with the principle which establishes doc
trines by logical consequences — Symbolical nature of language
in its application to Theology — Unscriptural doctrines must
result from the method of logical deductions — Necessity imposed
in such a case of answering all objections — Impossibility of main
taining thus the principle of Authority — Progressive accumulation
of doctrines by such a mode of proceeding — Truth of Fact con
founded with Truth of Opinion in the Scholastic method — No
dogmas to be found in Scripture itself — Dogmas therefore to be
restricted to a negative sense, as exclusions of unscriptural
truth — Articles and Creeds not necessarily to be dispensed with,
because imperfect — Their defence however not to be identified
with that of Christianity — Use and importance of Dogmatic
Theology to be drawn .from its relation to Social Religion.
Sum of the whole inquiry — Present interest of it — Scholas
ticism the ground of controversial defence to the Church of Rome
— Remnants of it in Protestant Churches in the state of Con
troversy, and in the importance attributed to peculiar views of
religious truth — Result of the examination sufficient to prove the
force of Theory on our Theological language — The impression
from this fact not to be transferred to the revealed truths which
are real parts of sacred history — Real beneficial effect of honest
search into the truths of Divine Revelation.

Jeremiah XXIII. 28.
He that hath my word, let him speak my word faith
fully. What is the chaff to the wheat ? saith the Lord.

isn-nsi ]3^ib-nn rxa^ nai i$v ins na? n$N:i
: nirp-DNa

Qui habet sermonem meum, loquatur sermonem meum
vere. Quid paleis ad triticum ? dicit Dominus. Lat. Vulg.

LECTURE VIII.

The examination in which I have been engaged,
involves the consideration of two principles of
Theology: 1. That whatever has been originally
established in Religion is true; whatever is subse
quent, or may be shewn to have arisen at any par
ticular period during the progress of the Gospel, is
corrupt ; 2. That whatever may be deduced by
necessary inference from any established proposition,
must also be true. These principles were employed
by the School-divines in two ways : either to prove
the affirmative of any point ; or to demonstrate the
erroneousness of any assumed truth. I purpose now
calling your attention to a discussion of these fun
damental principles; and, from this discussion, to
deduce the nature and use of Dogmatic Theology.
The consideration of our Religion, under this last
point of view, is naturally brought before the mind,
by the inquiries which I have been pursuing into
the effect of Scholasticism on our theological lan
guage. For the question arises : If a technical
statement of the Sacred Truth necessarily involves
so much of human theory — if, as has been shewn,
the Christian doctrines, in their mode of expression,
carry so much of the speculation of an antiquated
philosophy ; — how far are all human formularies of
faith to be admitted ; and what is the ground, on

350 LECTURE VIII.
which they rest their pretension fo be received by
the Scriptural Christian ?
The discussion on which I am now entering, is
an arbitration of the point, where Divine Truth
ends, and Human Truth commences ; or, where
the certainty of Divine Fact ceases, and the
probability of Opinion takes its rise, in matters of
Religious belief and conduct. For it is the con
fusion of the limits of these two things, that brings
perplexity into the subject ; occasioning fallacious
inductions from one ground of assent to the other.
The dialectical .theologian calls upon us to receive
his sentences, as the voice of God which none can
gainsay ; building the necessity of pious submission
on the theoretic necessity of demonstrative argu
mentation : or, on the other hand, he appeals ro our
reason, and insists on our accepting, as irrefragable
conclusions, what no conclusion of reason can
establish, and what ought to rest solely on the
authoritative Word of God.
Hence it is that writers, in different ages of the
Church, have been so often employed in debating
the respective provinces of Faith and Reason. A
confusion of thought has been constantly prevalent
on the subject. The very circumstance of treating
Faith and Reason as distinct principles, is an evi
dence of this confusion : as if the assent to Divine
Truth could be an act of Faith, in any way distinct
from an act of Reason. The mischief of such a
statement of the case is, indeed, too apparent from

LECTURE VIII. 351
experience. The indolent, or the sensitive, mind,
readily seizes on a distinction, which, to the one,
saves the trouble of thought and diligent examina
tion, — to the other, supplies a pious sentiment for
the acceptance of any wild, or even repulsive doc
trines of religion. To say ; this is of Faith, — that is
of Reason, — peremptorily silences all suspicions and
misgivings of the judgment and the heart. Persons
are thus led to overlook the analogy of God's deal
ings with his creatures ; and to imagine, that the
truths of the world of Grace are to be received
and judged, by a different set of principles from
those which are applied to the ordinary providences
of God. On this hypothesis, there is nothing so
extravagant that may not be admitted as part of
Divine Truth. Indeed, the more extravagant any
proposed doctrine is, the more attractive should it
be, on such a principle, to the religious inquirer :
since it is then, a more striking exemplification of
the contrast supposed between truths of Faith and
Reason. Many a devout and excellent mind, I fear,
has been seduced from sober religion, by this specu
lative distinction between Faith and Reason : or, at
least, where fanatical doctrine has been adopted, it
has furnished a defence, against which, all attempts
to convince of error have been necessarily unavailing.
What, however, has been at bottom the real object
of all these inquiries, is, to ascertain the distinction
between dogmas and facts of Religion. Men have
found both rested on the same footing. They have

352 LECTURE VIII.
felt perplexed at the evident discrepance between the
two things so associated ; and their prejudices, not
suffering them to make the requisite separation, they
have applied themselves to laying down limits,
beyond which human reason could not proceed.
Thus it is sometimes stated, that Reason is con
cerned about the evidence of Religion, Faith about
the things revealed; — a distinction, which leaves the
real matter of dispute altogether untouched; since
it is about the various things themselves proposed
to our belief, that we want a criterion. It appears
to me, that such a mode of stating the case is further
highly objectionable ; on the ground that we may
be thus led to ascribe to Tradition the authority of
Scripture, and to receive the Truth of Man, with
the deference due only to the Truth of God.
The want of a proper satisfaction on this ques
tion, is evidenced also in the floating state of opinion,
as to what doctrines are to be regarded necessary
to be believed and professed, and what may be vari
ously held without danger to salvation} The dis
putes on these points are remnants of the scholastic
spirit, which reduced all religion into theoretic dog
mas. The comparative importance of- theories may
be reasonably examined ; for, as such, they may be
viewed in their relations and consequences. The re
lation of any particular theory to the Divine Being
* See Bramhall's " Schism Guarded," Works, fol. 1677- pp.
400 — 402.— Stillingfleet' s " Rational Account," &c. Works, fol.
1709. vol. iv. pp. 51— 54, -Note A. Lecture VIII.

LECTURE VIII. 353
immediately, or its consequence as affecting our pri
mary notions of the Divine Being, will, of course,
render that theory one of principal importance ; that
is, in religious conduct, of indispensable necessity in
order to salvation. But, when we have once sepa
rated matters of religion into simple facts divinely
revealed, and theories of divine truth founded on
those facts ; there can be no question of relative
importance in what we receive as purely divine.
The theology resulting from such an estimate, is
either altogether entirely worthy of our acceptance,
or is open to the strict examination of our reason
as to its probability. Between facts, all of which
are admitted to be real signatures of God in his
dealings with man, there is no comparison, no
choice. All must be equally received and followed
as true. It is not for us to decide, what instances
in the display of God's providences, are more or
less important. To overlook any one in the con
struction of a religious system, would be as unphi
losophical as it would be impious. But, so far
as doctrines are deductive statements — conclusions
drawn from the facts, or words, of Divine Reve
lation, — they may be examined by that reason
which deduces them. It being granted that they
follow from the data of Scripture, it is to be seen,
whether they are such as ought to have been de
duced ; whether they have the support of evidence,
from their general accordance with Scripture, — from
the concurrent opinion of the wise and the unpre
judiced, — and from other considerations of this kind.
A A

354 LECTURE VIII.
And the degree of evidence, resulting from such
considerations, must decide the theological truth and
relative importance of such conclusions.
Let us inquire then, in the first instance, into
that principle of the Scholastic Theology : — that
whatever is originally established as a point of doc
trine, is therefore true ; whatever has subsequently
arisen, is corrupt :b — and let us see, whether it has
not had a considerable influence in producing that
confusion of thought, which we find existing on the
subject of Dogmatic Theology.
Justly to examine this principle however, let us
take it as it is stated by the great authority on this
point, Vincent of Lirins : according to whom the test
of orthodoxy is ; that a doctrine should have been be
lieved in all places, and in all times, and by all men ;c
and any doctrine accordingly, which does not bear
these marks of catholicity, must be heretical.
Now it appears to me, that the principle itself,
current as it is in the language of Protestants,
is a relic of that Philosophy, which sought, with
such anxious search, for a speculative certainty to
b Tertullian states it thus, using it as a decisive argument
against the heretic : Hanc regulam ab initio Evangelii decucur-
risse, etiam ante priores quosque hsereticos, nedum ante Praxeam
hesternum, probabit tam ipsa posteritas omnium hasreticorum,
quam ipsa novellitas Praxeae hesterni. Quo perseque adversus
universas haereses, jam hinc praejudicatum sit ; Id esse verum,
quodcumque prius, id esse adulterum quodcumque posterius.
Adv. Prax. II. p. 501.
° Commonitorium, p. .317. ed. Baluz. Quod ubique, quod sem
per, quod ab omnibus, creditum est.

LECTURE VIII. 355
moral facts ; finding no rest until it had reduced the
variable truth connected with human life, to the
same exactness which belongs to truth purely me
taphysical. The eternity and immutability attri
buted to the theorems of science, would in such a
state of philosophy as that of the primitive and
middle ages of the Church, seem to be still more
appropriately the characteristics of that Wisdom
which descended from above. For the wisdom given
by Revelation was, as I have throughout been endea
vouring to shew, conceived, in the theory of the
Schools, to be a demonstrative science, established
by necessary links of dependence on primary truths
concerning God. Theology, accordingly, was a sci
ence on a footing with other sciences, or rather with
what we now call the exact sciences, as contrasted
with sciences resting on observation and experience.
But an assumption ofthe nature of Theology so
erroneous, naturally led to the assumption also of a
test of its truth, founded on the fundamental miscon
ception. The universality, and the ubiquity of be
lief, were thus applied to the case of theological
doctrine, as equivalents, in this instance, to the
eternity and immutability of the principles of scien
tific demonstration. These views of divine truth
were, at least, approximations to the certainty be
longing to pure science. And hence the truth which,
in its proper nature, and in order to its due recep
tion, appeals to the candour, the fairness, the piety
of the individual Christian, was brought under the
iron sway of speculative argumentation. In short,
A A 2

356 LECTURE VIII.
the belief of man, the rebellious, uncontrollable prin
ciple of his nature, was subdued to that passive
obedience which the imperative force of reason in
itself exacts.
But it is only an assumption, as I further would
proceed to shew, that universality and ubiquity are
thus made the tests of religious doctrine. No uni
versality or ubiquity can make that divine, which
never was such. It is a mere prejudice of veneration
for antiquity, and the imposing aspect of an unani
mous acquiescence, (if unanimous it really be,) which
make us regard that as truth, which comes so recom
mended to us. Truth is rather the attribute of the
few than of the many. The real Church of God
may be the small remnant, scarcely visible amidst
the mass of surrounding professors. Who then shall
pronounce any thing to be divine truth, simply be
cause it has the marks of having been generally or
universally received among men?
If we go back to the primitive age of Apostles
and Evangelists, the acknowledged inspired teachers
of our Religion, who received their instructions by
the hearing of the ear and the seeing of the eye,
and the handling of the Word of Life, and to whom
God spoke in the thoughts of their hearts ; there
can be no doubt that the principle holds to the
fullest extent. To doubt it then, is to raise a ques
tion, whether there has been a case of inspiration,
or to what extent inspiration may be regarded as
a ground of authority. Assuming, however, that
there is a clear case of inspiration established in

LECTURE VIII. 357
regard to our sacred Books, — that they are a com
plete volume of inspiration, — and that this inspiration
extends to all matters pertaining to the kingdom of
God, which we are concerned to know, — it follows,
that whatever is recorded in those books is indis
putably true ; and that nothing independent of these
books, or not taken from them, can possess the same
authority, — not to say in degree only, — but even in
kind. For this is divine truth ; whatever is dis
tinct from it, is human. So that, in the history of
doctrines, when we look to their Scriptural source,
we may affirm, that whatever is first is true, what
ever is of a subsequent period is corrupt.
But, the moment that we step out of this sacred
inclosure, the maxim proves to us a most fallacious
guide. In fact, the reverse of it is much nearer to
the truth. For, if we consider what the state of
things was, when the first inspired teachers disap
peared from the world, we shall find it extremely
adverse to the maintenance and propagation of the
truth as it was purely inspired.
Take first into view the novelty of the case. The
new leaven of divine truth was just infused into the
mass of complex human opinions ; those opinions,
the results of associations and habits, not only diver
sified in themselves, but fundamentally heathen
or Jewish, discordant with the spirit of the Gospel.
What chance could a pure religion have had in
such a state of things, of being generally simply
received as a collection of divine truths ? Would
not those obstacles, that we know to have existed

358 LECTURE VIII.
in the minds of the Apostles, antecedently to their
divine illumination, exist at least equally in the
minds of first converts not enjoying the like illu
mination from above ? The ear of the world was
not attuned to the songs of Sion; and, though in
some honest and good hearts, finely sensible to the
touch of the Holy Spirit, they may have awakened
concordant emotions, yet, in very many instances,
the immortal sounds would be lost in the dissonant
murmurs of irreligious thoughts and feelings. To
suppose it otherwise, is to go against the analogy of
all similar cases. It is to suppose, that knowledge
could be obtained without previous training ; that
the air of divine truth could be commonly breathed,
amidst an atmosphere charged with heathen pro-
faneness, and the carnal prejudices of Judaism.
But not to dwell on these presumptions of the
state of the case ; what is the fact, when it is dis
passionately considered, as to the immediate suc
cessors of the Apostles ? Take even the very period
when the Apostles themselves were teaching ; when
the Holy Spirit Himself went about with those
chosen vessels of divine truth, putting into their
hearts and mouths what they should say. At this
very period, the most wild theories were incorpo
rated with Christianity : the hearer of an Apostle
sought to obtain from him with money, the power
of the Spirit, the strength itself of the Apostle's
labours in the Gospel. But to come to the period
of the Apostolic Fathers. Whatever praise we may
assign to them for their ardour and firmness as

LECTURE VIII. 359
believers, can we justly ascribe to them the merit of
accurate expositors of Christian Truth ? Impar
tiality, I think, requires us to say otherwise. Were
we to endeavour, indeed, to form a sytsem of divi
nity out of these writers, it would be found neces
sary to explain away many of their positions and
expressions in order to bring them into accordance
with the admitted truths of Scripture. As evidences
of the essence and spirit of the Gospel, as it was
handed down from its outset, they are invaluable ;
as testimonies of the earnestness of individuals, — of
their Christian character and Christian hopes, — the
writings are also highly interesting and important :
but as authorities decisive of what is true or what
is false in theological statement, they are in reality
less valuable than the writings of a subsequent age.
The remark may be extended to the Fathers of
the Hid and IVth and Vth centuries, in compa
rison with each other. Compare Tertullian at the
end of the lid century, with Augustine at the end
of the IVth, and this difference is readily perceiv
able. In Tertullian, we see nothing of the deliber
ation, the accuracy, the thoughtful sedulity of
Augustine ; but he at once rudely throws out his
thoughts, as if dealing blows on his adversary, and
caring nothing but for the force with which he
strikes. Augustine is strenuous in his dogmatism ;
but he is prudent at the same time, subduing the
vehemence of the personal combatant, into keeping
with the heart ofthe theological diplomatist. Whilst,
then, from Tertullian, we should gather many

360 LECTURE VIII.
expressions of Scriptural truth inconsistent with the
truth itself; in Augustine, the systematic caution
with which he writes, acts in some measure as a
security against such a perversion. And the later
writer, accordingly, is the more authentic oracle of
what is true, or what is false, in theology, than the
earlier. The Montanism, indeed, of Tertullian has
served as a practical caution against the abuse of
his authority. Otherwise, perhaps, we should have
seen his doctrines quoted with that reverence, which
prejudice ascribes to his place in the roll of ecclesi
astical tradition. Justin Martyr and Origen, at the
distance of about an hundred years from each other,
are instances to the same point. Origen had a far
more capacious mind than the Syrian martyr — a
far greater penetration of thought ; — combining a
philosophical power of discerning analogies with an
acuteness of logical deduction. Origen, no doubt,
must be read with a very severe scrutiny : we must
be ever on our guard against the enthusiasm of spe
culations, raised on the stores of a vast erudition,
and tinged with the many-coloured hues of Oriental
and Greek philosophy. But, at the same time, he
is, I conceive, a much more important author than
Justin, the nearer to the Apostolic times, in order
to the decision of a disputed point of theology. The
comparison, indeed, of Justin and Origen illustrates
the case forcibly ; since, in respect of piety and
Christian feeling, both have powerful claims on our
love and veneration. Both were sincere Christians
in their writings and in their actions. And yet,

LECTURE VIII. 361
viewing them as equal in this respect, we cannot
rest on the authority of Justin, with the confidence
due to the inquisitive spirit of Origen.
And yet I do not mean that either Augustine or
Jerome, or any other ecclesiastical writers, are,
because they are later, more truly excellent as
Church authorities. I speak only relatively, as
examining the position, whether the most ancient
are, as such, the most valid authorities in doctrine.
The later writers have, indeed, their peculiar danger
— the danger arising from their greater art and tact
in the management of controversy.
It was only, indeed, about the commencement of
the IVth century, that Christians began to appear
at the Schools established by the Emperors. And
it is from that period that Christian Literature
properly commences. Previously it was heathen
philosophy, accommodated to the delivery of Chris
tian Truth : so that from those who undertook the
defence or explanation of Christian doctrines, the
Truth received a large portion of alloy in its trans
mission. Consequently the earlier Fathers are, in
reality, much less instructive than the later.
There is one excellence that they possess in
the contrast with the later, — a far more valuable
excellence indeed than that of mere exactness of
theological statement, — the greater piety, and Chris
tian spirit, of some of the primitive Christian Fathers,
as compared with some of the later, whose authority
is chiefly employed in the Church. Had the rever
ence to antiquity been rested on this ground, no

362 LECTURE VIII.
complaint could have been made. It is, as if we
were drinking of the pure fountain, near its rise,
before it was rendered turbid in its passage into the
world. For the same reason, the errors of the
primitive Fathers are much less dangerous in their
effect than those of their successors. Their errors
are left loose and indefinite on the surface of their
Christian system. The Fathers of the IVth century
incorporated their errors with the Gospel itself.
But practical Christianity, and dogmatic Christianity,
are two very different things. And conclusions
belonging to the one, have been improperly trans
ferred to the other.
Not only again was the early Christian literature
generally defective ; but the language itself, in which
Christian doctrines should be expressed, was yet to
be formed. The terms in which the truth was to
be appropriately signified, required to be acted on
by the force of usage, like all other significan'
expressions. It was yet to be ascertained, what
proper meaning the tacit convention of theological
writers should affix to them. The latitude with
which some of the most important terms of Theology,
as substance, nature, person, were used in the earlier
writers, is a sufficient evidence of this. None,
indeed, of the strictly technical terms may be said to
have been settled in their use, until controversy had
given them their mould and temper. To seek, ac
cordingly, among the earlier Fathers of the Church,
for authorities by which conflicting doctrines may
be decided, is often only to embarrass ourselves with

LECTURE VIII. OOd
an unsettled phraseology ; or to extort from words
a sense which they could not have at the time when
they were written. The method, like the torture of
the ancient judicial investigations, forces the indi
vidual expressions thus examined, to confess what
they do not mean, — to disburden themselves of a
burden, with which they have not been charged.4
From these considerations it may be concluded,
that the principle is at least a very doubtful one,
which would lead us to ascribe any peculiar au
thority in the decision of religious truth, to the
declarations of the primitive Christian writers ;
Christian writers, I say, as distinct from the Inspired
Authors, to whom alone that deference is due.
But, have the advocates themselves of this prin
ciple adhered to it in fact ? Have they not rather
completely departed from it, in their adoption of
that other principle of their theology ; that whatever
is logically deducible in the way of consequence
from any given divine truth, must also be true ?
Let us then proceed to examine this point, both in
itself, and in its connexion with the other assumption
of Scholasticism.
That the principle in itself is most fallacious,
must appear from what I have, on a former occasion,
stated, respecting the nature of a Logical Theology.
It was shewn, that the terms of all theological
propositions are mere assumptions in their applica
tion to Theology, — a symbolical language, derived
d Note B.

364 LECTURE VIII.
from the operation of the mind about the objects of
the natural world. Hence it is evident, that con
clusions drawn from these terms, are nothing more
than further connexions of that symbolical language :
and that there the proper use and application of
them is terminated. The interpretation of them to
denote new facts in the Divine scheme of things,
is perfectly arbitrary ; as hypothetical, indeed, as
if we had at once assumed the facts themselves
to which we apply them. It is like starting from
an inaccurate algebraic statement, and working
out results by the established rules of calculation.
It is like making every circumstance in an emblem
or metaphor, the ground of scientific deduction.
Only the delusion of applying an ingenious instru
ment to the solution of the case, makes the
apparent solution seem satisfactory. The cogency
and perspicuity of logic are mistaken for the certain
and clear discovery of religious truth. This ob
servation cannot be too much insisted on ; as the
practice is, by no means, restricted to the davs of
scholasticism; but is to be met with every day, both
in writings and in conversation. We cannot be too
often reminded, that the terms employed in theolo
gical discussion are no classifications of theological
ideas and terms. They are simply the superscrip
tions, or labels, by which we denote several classes
of facts, respectively placed under them, as it were.
This is the nature of language as applied to nature.
Still more so is it, when language is applied to
Theology.

LECTURE VIII. 365
In the scholastic ages, indeed, theologians looked
more to the consequence than to the position itself.
The method of theology then pursued, being essen
tially argumentative ; thedeep-thoughted eye learned
to dive to the lowest point of any given principle,
and, with unwearied vision, to seize the most remote
deductions, as if they were present on the surface.
The heretical disputant in vain fluttered and shifted
his position. The serpent-gaze of the subtile logi
cian was still watching the tendency of all his efforts,
and bound him by an irresistible fascination to the
spot from which he was anxious to escape.
It is this circumstance, it may be remarked by
the way, which renders it so very difficult to ascer
tain the precise shades of opinion, by which differ
ent heresies are distinguished. Consequences have
been imputed as principles of belief; and the dis
putants on each side not questioning the fairness of
the imputation, an ambiguity has resulted in regard
to the original tenets opposed.
But the great mischief of adopting this rule in
Theology, appears in the fact, that no purely Scrip
tural truth can be maintained consistently with its
admission. The theologian who is influenced by it
will be ever solicitous against exposing his doctrine
to the censure of the captious objector. What a
temptation then is here, to the minute adjustment
of doctrines to the cavils of the theorist ? The pain
ful pursuit of the dogmatist will be to attain that
precise form of expression, which shall obviate, as
far as possible, every objection that may be raised

366 LECTURE VIII.
from the existing state of knowledge in the different
departments of science. He must be prepared to
shew, that this, or that notion, is implied, or ex
cluded, in his doctrine, as the case may require.
Nor is this all. He must be further able to de
monstrate, that his collection of doctrines coheres
as a system ; that no assertion is made on one
head that may not be strictly reconciled with an
other, and with every other. Here again, then, his
mind must be kept intent on a process, very dif
ferent from that of the mere follower of Revela
tion. He must be engaged in giving a theoretic
perfection to his enunciations of the sacred truth ;
in regulating the terms of one proposition, so as to
accord with the terms of another ; and that the whole
system may appear compacted of harmonious parts.
Such a theology is inevitably driven to abstrac
tions — to the subtile inventions of the mind itself —
in its statements of Scripture-truth. The simple
facts of Revelation must, by their nature, be open
to objections, and, it may be said, to unanswerable
objections ; because these facts belong to an order
of things, of which we do not directly know the
general laws. The more indeed we approximate
to a knowledge of these general laws, the more will
such objections disappear. But as we never can
arrive in this state of our being, at a proper know
ledge of them ; numerous anomalies, the evidences
in truth of our real ignorance of the subject, must
always exist. For, what is the explanation of an
objection but a demonstration, that an apparent

LECTURE VIII. 367
anomaly resolves itself into some general fact better
known? It is only where the mind has exactly
framed to itself the ideas comprized in any given
doctrine, or expression of doctrine, that it can
demonstrate the inconsequence of all objections
whatever. Objections may be equally futile against
the bare revealed facts : but they cannot be
decisively proved to be so ; since the facts are not
founded on any precise estimate of ideas involved in
them : and in regard to these, therefore, objections
may be suffered to stand, without any detraction from
our theology. The case, on the other hand, of a
metaphysical theology imperatively demands their
solution. Is it then for a moment to be supposed,
that the simplicity of the Faith can be held, where
such a principle of Theology is recognized? Is it
not evident rather, that the Faith, as it is in Christ,
must be corrupted? The conclusions of human
reason will naturally be intruded on the sacred
truth. The fact will be accommodated to the
theory : and exactness of theological definition will
usurp the place of the plain dictates of the Holy
Spirit. The instances adduced, in the course ofthe present
Lectures, of the Scholastic mode of establishing
doctrines, abundantly illustrate these observations.
The principle of Consequences was, indeed, the life
and soul of the Scholastic system, as such. Scholas
ticism only adopted the principle of Authority, so far
as it artfully insinuated itself into the established

36S LECTURE VIII.
Church system ; maintaining the unity and infalli
bility of the Church, amidst its own unauthorized,
adventurous theology.6
For we may observe how impossible it was,
to adhere to the simple principle of authority in
fact, whilst theological truth was pursued by pro
cesses of argumentation. A system of truth so
formed would necessarily be progressive. Fresh
objections against particular parts of the system
would arise from time to time, as the state of know
ledge varied, and as curiosity was attracted to points
of controversy. But it was not competent to the Scho
lastic theologian to avoid the determination of such
questions. He was assailed within his own terri
tory. His own arms were hurled against him. His
logical theology could no longer stand, if the hostile
consequences were not fenced off. The necessity of
the case would call upon him constantly to proceed
in the decision of questions ; and thus to add to his
number of doctrines ; until at length he would be
found, far to have exceeded the narrow base of the
prescriptive Theology with which he commenced.
Hear the testimony of Augustine to this effect:
" Many things," he says, " were latent in the Scrip-
" tures ; and, when heretics were cut off, they agi-
" tated the Church of God with questions. The
e The principle of authority (to adopt an illustration sug
gested by a friend) acted as the barrier in the lists of ancient
tournaments. The combatants might use every art and device
within the lists : but when either of them was pressed against the
immovable fence, he was not allowed any attempt to break
through or overleap it : he must surrender, or perish.

LECTURE VIII. 369
" latent things were opened, and the Will of God
" was understood. . . . Many, therefore, who were
" excellently qualified for discerning and handling
" the Scriptures, were latent in the people of God,
" and did not assert the solution of difficult ques-
" tions, when no calumniator threatened. For, was
" the subject of the Trinity perfectly treated, before
" the barkings of the Arians ? Was the subj ect of
" Repentance perfectly treated, before the opposi-
" tion of the Novatians? So, neither was the subject
" of Baptism perfectly treated, before the contradic-
" tion of the rebaptizers, who were put out. Nor
" concerning the very unity of Christ were the
" statements exactly drawn out, until after that the
" separation began to annoy the weak brethren. So
" that those who had the skill to treat and resolve
" these points, to prevent the perishing of the weak
" thus solicited by the questions of the impious,
" drew forth, and made public, by discourses and
" disputations, the hidden things of the Law."f
It is expressly acknowledged, we find, that doc
trines grew under the hands of disputants : that even
the most sacred articles of the Trinity, and of the
Incarnation, only gradually reached their perfect
dogmatic expression. I might multiply quotations
to the same purport, from various writers of the
Scholastic age. I may, indeed, sum them up by
stating it as their uniform confession, that the
speculations of " heresy," — in other language, the
conclusions of human reason, — forced the Church
* August, in Psalm. LIV. torn. vm. p. 177. quarto ed. — Note C.
B B

370 LECTURE VIII.
into successive adoptions of additional doctrinal
statements ; that is, unless a particular enunciation
of sacred truth had been sanctioned by the Church
on each occasion, "the calumny of heretics could
" not have been quieted." s
That articles, indeed, might become doctrines at
one time, which had not been so at another, is ad
mitted, in the distinction drawn by Aquinas between
what is heresy and what is not. The same opinion,
if held antecedently to the determination of the
Church, would not be heretical : it was so, when
once the Church had pronounced.11
It appears, then, that the Church-leaders, in the
endeavour to maintain at once an authoritative and
an argumentative Theology, incurred the error of
confounding truth of Fact with truth of Opinion.
It is the nature of the truth of Fact, to admit no
additional certainty from the progress of discussion.
If a fact, indeed, is questionable, then may discus
sion, and subsequent inquiry, establish it with an
evidence, which it did not appear originally to
possess. Such a fact partakes of the nature of the
Truth of Opinion. But the facts of the Scripture-
records are assumed not to belong to this class, by
all who acknowledge the divine character of our
e Note D.
h Non enim, ut quisque primum in fide peccarit, hsereticus
dicendus est ; sed qui, Ecclesiae auctoritate neglecta, impias
opiniones pertinaci animo tuetur. Catechism, ad Parochos, p. 80.
Romae, 1761 —Note E.

LECTURE VIII. 371
sacred books. Any fact, therefore, that is found
expressly written in the Bible, must be regarded, by
virtue of its sole and primary existence there, to be
ascertained with an evidence to which no further
proof can add reality. We may, indeed, and we
often do, bring confirmation to Scripture-facts, by
historical or philosophical evidence. But this is
always done on the assumption for the purpose
of argument, that the fact so established is antece
dently questionable ; and with the view of proving
the divine authority of the whole Revelation. Take
the fact as a portion of an authentic history of
God's providences ; and it appears to the eye graven
with an iron pen on the rock, in characters as bold
and strong as the rOck itself. But the truth of
Opinion is of a nature to be modified, and improved,
and established, by the course of time, — by the pro
gress of civilization, and arts, and knowledge, — by
accessions of experience, — by the conflict of judg
ments. Here also there is occasion for personal
influence and authority, in guiding the minds of
individuals. It would be quite unreasonable in
matters of opinion, for those duly conscious of their
own disadvantage for the formation of just views,
whether from natural incapacity, or the want of
experience, or defect of skill in any particular
subject, to reject the conclusions of the wise and the
experienced. As the great philosopher himself ob
serves ; " one ought to attend to the undemonstrated
" assertions of the wise, more than to the demon-
" strations of others." It is essential indeed to the
bb2

372 LECTURE VIII.
truth of Opinion, that it be held as variable ; that
one should be always open to new light,— to new
conviction. Whereas a fact of the Gospel is such,
that, were an Angel from heaven to preach to us any
thing different from it, our ears must be stopped to
the sound ; we must reject it as untrue.
Now the Scholastic Philosophy, in its construction
of a theological system of Christianity, necessarily
overlooked this very important distinction. It boldly
stepped beyond the bare facts of Scripture, in the
assumption of theoretic conclusions from them, as
the principles of its theology ; and then retired upon
the authority of that Scripture, from which it had
presumptuously departed ; demanding the certainty
of fact, for the dictates of progressive, varying,
opinion. Had it called upon the Faithful to respect the
learning, the zeal, the piety, the candour of the
Master in Theology ; had it insisted on a patient,
docile hearing of opinions, hoary with age, and con
secrated by venerable names in Church-History ; it
would have recognized a sound theory of Tradi
tion.1 But we should not then have had dogmas
intruded into the place of Religion, and arbitrations
of doubts forced on the conscience of believers, as
the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking by the minis
ters and stewards of the divine mysteries.
It might have been supposed, that the very
1 Reasonings from authority, when thus regulated, are coin
cident with probabilities. See the opening of Aristotle's Topics.
The word evSoc\ov expresses such coincidence.

LECTURE VIII. 373
discussion of religion in the form of doubts, would
have palpably shewn the impropriety of proposing
truths so obtained, as matters of Revelation ; since
the truths of religion were thus exhibited as appeals
to the reason of man. A doubt is, by its nature,
relative to human reason ; and the settlement of it
by argument, is a simple decision of human reason.
If the conclusion be received on the authority ofthe
reasoner in his sacerdotal character ; the previous
doubt and the argumentation are perfectly irrelevant.
So anomalous, indeed, is the mode of proceeding
in the Scholastic development of Christian Theo
logy, that it is only capable of solution, as appears
to me, from the fact noticed at the commencement
of these Lectures ; that the Scholastic system was a
prolonged struggle between Reason and Authority.
The effort throughout is, to maintain both principles.
But the method of Theologybeing originally founded
in speculation and resistance to mere authority, we
find traces of this beginning, in the compromise of
principles which the maturity ofthe system displays.
It is ratiocination that triumphs ; and Logic domi
neers over Theology.
The previous discussion has, I trust, prepared the
way for the conclusions, which I wish now to submit
to your consideration, as to the nature and use of
Dogmatic Theology.
It is evident, I think, from the inquiry which I
have been pursuing, on the whole, as well as more
immediately from the preceding observations, that

374 LECTURE VIII.
the doctrinal statements of religious truth, have
their origin in the principles of the human intellect.
Strictly to speak, in the Scripture itself there are no
doctrines. What we read there is matter of fact:
either fact nakedly set forth as it occurred ; or fact
explained and elucidated by the light of inspiration
cast upon it. It will be thought, perhaps, that the
Apostolic Epistles are an exception to this observ
ation. If any part of Scripture contains doctrinal
statements, it will, at any rate, be supposed to be
the Epistolary. But even this part, if accurately
considered, will not be found an exception. No one
perhaps will maintain, that there is any new truth of
Christianity set forth in the Epistles ; any truth, I
mean, which does not presuppose the whole truth
of Human Salvation by Jesus Christ, as already
determined and complete. The Epistles clearly
imply that the work of Salvation is done. They
repeat and insist on its most striking parts ; urging
chiefly on man, what remains for him to do, now
that Christ has done all that God purposed in
behalf of man, before the foundation of the world.
Let the experiment be fairly tried : let the in
veterate idea, that the Epistles are the doctrinal
portion of Scripture, be for a while banished from
the mind : and let them be read simply as the works
of our Fathers in the Faith — of men who are com
mending us rather to the love of Christ, than
opening our understanding to the mysteries of
Divine Knowledge : and, after such an experiment,
let each decide for himself, whether the practical, or

LECTURE VIII. 375
the theoretic, view of the Epistles, is the correct one.
For my part, I cannot doubt but that the decision
will be in favour of the practical character of them.
The speculating theologian will perhaps answer, by
adducing text after text from an Epistle, in which
he will contend that some dogmatic truth, some
theory, or system, or peculiar view of divine truth,
is asserted. But " what is the chaff to the wheat ?"
I appeal, from the logical criticism of the Apostle's
words, to their Apostolical spirit — from Paul philo
sophizing, to Paul preaching, and entreating, and
persuading. And I ask, whether it is likely that
an Apostle would have adopted the form of an
epistolary communication, for imparting mysterious
propositions to disciples, with whom he enjoyed the
opportunity of personal intercourse ; and to whom
he had already " declared the whole counsel of
" God ;" whether, in preaching Christ; he would
have used a method of communicating truth, which
implies some scientific application of language, — an
analysis, at least, of propositions into their terms, —
in order to its being rightly understood ? And I
further request it may be considered, whether it
was not, by such a mode of inference from the
Scripture-language, as would convert the Epistles
into textual authorities on points of controversy,
that the very system of the Scholastic Theology was
erected. >
Dogmas of Theology then, as such, are human (
authorities. But do I mean to say by this, that

376 LECTURE VIII.
they are unimportant in Religion, or that they are
essentially wrong, foreign to true Religion, and
inconsistent with it ? I wish rather to establish their
importance and proper truth, as distinct from the
honour and verity of the simple Divine Word.
We have seen how Doctrines gradually assume
their form, by the successive impressions of con
troversy. The facts of Scripture remain the same
through all ages, under all variations of opinions
among men. Not so the theories raised upon them.
They have floated on the stream of speculation. One
heresiarch after another has proposed his modifica
tion. The doctrine, so stated, has obtained more or
less currency, according to its coincidence with
received notions on other subjects, — according to the
influence possessed by its patrons, or their obstinacy
against persecution. Nearly the whole of Chris
tendom was, at one time, Arian in profession. k At
one time, Pelagianism seemed to be the ascendant
creed of the Church. ' In such a state of things, it
was impossible for the Scriptural theologian, even
if not himself susceptible of the seductive force of
a Logical Philosophy, to refrain from mingling in
the conflict of argument. Orthodoxy was forced
to speak the divine truth in the terms of heretical
speculation ; if it were only to guard against the
novelties which the heretic had introduced. It was
the necessity of the case that compelled the orthodox,
as themselves freely admit, to employ a phraseology,
k Note F. ' Note G.

LECTURE VIII. 377
by which, as experience proves, the naked truth of
God has been overborne and obscured.
Such being the origin of a Dogmatic Theology,
it follows, that its proper truth consists in its being
a collection of negations ; of negations, I mean, of
all ideas imported into religion, beyond the ex
press sanction of Revelation. Supposing that there
had been no theories proposed on the truths of
Christianity ; were the Bible, or rather the divine
facts which it reveals, at once ushered into our
notice, without our knowing that various wild no
tions, both concerning God and human nature, had
been raised upon the sacred truths : no one, I con
ceive, would wish to see those facts reduced to the
precision and number of articles, any more than he
now thinks of reducing any other history to such a
form. We should rather resist any such attempt as
futile, if not as profane : or, however judiciously
such a selection might be made, we should undoubt
edly prefer the living records of the Divine Agency,
to the dry and uninteresting abstracts of human com
pilers and expositors. But, when theoretic views
are known to have been held and propagated ; when
the world has been familiarized to the language of
these speculations, and the truth of God is liable to
corruption from them ; then it is, that forms of ex
clusion become necessary, and theory must be re
torted by theory. This very occasion, however, of
the introduction of Theory into Religion, suggests
the limitation of it. It must be strictly confined to
the exclusion and rejection of all extraneous notions

378 LECTURE VIII.
from the subjects of the sacred volumes. Theory,
thus regulated, constitutes a true and valuable phi
losophy, — not of Christianity, properly so called, —
but of human Christianity, — of Christianity in the
world, as it has been acted on by the force of the
human intellect.
This is the view which I take, not only of our
Articles at large, but in particular, of the Nicene
and Athanasian Creeds, as they stand in our Ritual,
or are adopted into our Articles. If it be admitted
that the notions on which their several expressions
are founded, are both unphilosophical and unscrip
tural ; it must be remembered, that they do not
impress those notions on the Faith of the Christian,
as matters of affirmative belief. They only use the
terms of ancient theories of Philosophy, — theories
current in the Schools at the time when they were
written, — to exclude others more obviously injuri
ous to the simplicity of the Faith. The speculative
language of these Creeds, it should be observed, was
admitted into the Church of England as established
by the Reformers, before the period, when the genius
of Bacon exposed the emptiness of the system, which
the Schools had palmed upon the world as the only
instrument for the discovery of all Truth. At such
a time, accordingly, the theories opposed in the
original formularies of the orthodox, would be
powerfully felt as real obstacles to a sound belief in
Christian Truths ; and the terms, declaring the or
thodox doctrine, would be readily interpreted by the
existing physical and logical notions. The minds of

LECTURE VIII. 379
men would be fully preoccupied with the notions of
matter, and form, and substance, and accident ; and,
when such notions had produced misconception of
the sacred Truth, it would be a necessary expedient,
to correct that misconception by a less exceptionable
employment of them.™
If this account of the origin and nature of Dog
matic Theology be correct, surely those entirely
pervert its nature, who reason on the Terms of
doctrines, as if they were the proper ideas belonging
to Religion ; or who insist on interpretations of
expressions, whether as employed by our Reformers,
or the primitive believers, in a positive sense ; with
out taking into their view, the existing state of
theology and philosophy at the different periods of
Christianity. Creeds and Articles, without such pre
vious study, are as if they were written in a strange
language. The words, indeed, are signs of ideas to
us, but not of those ideas which were presented to
the minds of men, when the formularies were writ
ten, or when they were adopted by the Church.
But here the question may be asked, how far on
these grounds Creeds and Articles may be retained
when the original occasion for them has ceased?
The answer of Hooker will readily occur to many ;
that the occasion having ceased, it by no means
follows that the statements themselves should no
longer be of use ; n a fact that may be illustrated
m Note H.
n Eecles. Polity, b. V. 42. p. 167, &c. vol. II. 8vo. ed. 1807.

380 LECTURE VIII.
by several analogies. But the case of Articles is a
peculiar one in this respect ; that the result itself is
conceived to be an evil, or, at least, an alternative
to avoid an evil ; it being admitted to be better,
except by way of antidote against heretical doc
trine, that there should be no other Articles but
the Word of God itself. It appears to me, then,
that the occasion for Articles will probably never
cease. Were the Realism of the human mind a
transient phenomenon, peculiar to one age, or one
species of philosophy, and not, as is the fact, an
instinctive propensity of our intellectual nature ;
then it might be supposed, that the unsoundness of
a metaphysical and logical Theology being once
fully admitted, the cumbrous machinery might be
removed, and the sacred truth allowed to stand
forth to view, in its own attractive simplicity. But
such a result seems rather to be wished, and prayed
for, by a sanguine piety, than reckoned upon in
the humbling calculations of human experience.
In the mean time, it were well to retain, amidst
all its confessed imperfections, a system of tech
nical theology, by which we are guarded, in some
measure, from the exorbitance of theoretic enthu
siasm. It would be a rashness of pious feeling,
that should at once so confide in itself, as to throw
down the walls and embankments, which the 'more
vigilant fears of our predecessors have reared up
around the City of God. In the present state of
things, such a zeal for the Faith would look more
like the ostentatiousness of Spartan courage, than

LECTURE VIII. 381
the modest discipline of the soldiers of Christ, trust
ing in his arm for success, and yet availing them
selves of all natural means of strength, which their
reason points out.
The force, indeed, of History must always act on
a literary age : and an influence is exercised, by
former speculators, on the opinions and conduct of
their successors. We cannot therefore conclude ;
that because the original occasion of Creeds and
Articles had ceased, there are actually no existing
prejudices of a like kind, kept alive by the tradition
of former opinions, to be obviated by the like theo
retic statements.
At the same time we must not suppose, that the
same immutability belongs to Articles of Religion,
which we ascribe properly to Scripture-facts alone.
As records of Opinions they are essentially variable.
It is no impeachment of their truth, to regard them
as capable of improvement, — of more perfect adapta
tion to the existing circumstances of the Church at
different periods. As to the difficulty and hazard
of any actual alteration, I have nothing to say. I
do not presume to say, that alteration is actually
required. I am merely addressing myself to the
general question, as to the capacity of improvement
in Church-Creeds and Articles, with the view of
suggesting a right theory of the subject. To deny
the essential variableness of such documents, is, to
admit an human authority to a parity with the au
thority of Inspiration. It is to incur the imputation,

382 LECTURE VIII.
which members of the Roman Communion have
sometimes brought against the Church of England;
that, professing to make the Scriptures the sole Rule
of Faith, we have inconsistently adopted another
Rule of Faith in the deference paid to our Articles.
It is a temptation, indeed, to which the members of
any particular communion of Christians are peculiarly
exposed — to identify the defence of the formularies
of the Communion with the defence of Christianity.
It is like securing the fortifications of the city,
instead of looking to the strength and discipline
of its garrison as the main resource. As belonging
to a Communion, we must be able to shew that we
have good reason for our preference. And it is
enough for this purpose, to prove that our Church
is truly Scriptural in its basis, walking in the foot
steps of the Holy Spirit, and drinking of the pure
fountain of inspiration. This is the sole proper
notion of the infallibility of a Church. For it is an
infallibility not its own, but of God present with
it. We are not called upon, to defend every parti
cular expression which has been adopted into its
formularies. This would be, to make it infallible in
itself. It would be, to suppose, that a fortress, strong
in its internal resources, must fall, because some of
its outworks are not impregnable. And we may
find indeed at last, that, by such a proceeding, we
are tenaciously cleaving to means of defence, which
the present state of religion and knowledge entirely
supersedes ; as we might suppose the inhabitant of

LECTURE VIII. 383
a castle fortified in feudal times, imagining himself
safe amidst his walls, against assaults from modern
inventions in the art of war.
The use and importance then of Dogmatic Theo
logy are to be estimated, from its relation to the
Social Profession of Christianity. It is, in regard to
Christianity, what political institutions are in regard
to the social principles of our nature. As these
principles are the real conservative causes of human
society ; and political institutions are the supports
and auxiliaries ; so are the dogmas of Theology en
forcements by external barriers, of the saving, quick
ening truths of the Gospel. The imperfection of
man is equally the occasion of both. Were all men
just the social instincts would develop themselves,
without the artificial methods of civil government.
So, were all the humble disciples of Christ, Christian
sentiment would speak in its own accents, and not
be constrained to learn the foreign tongue of tech
nical theology. The case appears to be this. The
agreement of a community in certain views of
Scripture-facts is presupposed. The problem be
fore the Dogmatic Theologian is, to preserve that
agreement entire ; to guard it from a latitudinarian-
ism which would virtually annul it ; and to prevent
its dissolution by innovators, either within or with
out the religious society. The anathemas of Creeds
and Councils can only be justified on this ground.
They are the penalties of social Religion. The
authority of the Church, which has prescribed any
particular collection of Articles to its members, by

384 LECTURE VIII.
the use of these invisible sanctions, calls upon them,
not to profess its doctrines lightly and unadvisedly ;
but to bear in mind the awful responsibility at
tached to matters of divine Revelation ; and that it
is about these they are engaged, when they set their
hand to Articles or any professions of doctrine.

I have now completed the inquiry which I pro
posed into the influence of the Scholastic Philosophy
on our Theological Language ; at least to the ex
tent which the present occasion permitted ; and suf
ficiently, I trust, to the establishment of the fact;
that this Philosophy is the basis of all our most im
portant technical terms, and modes of thinking, both
in Religion and in Ethics. I have also, in this last
Lecture, discussed the principles of Authority and
of Reason, which the Scholastic system embodied in
itself; and have endeavoured to draw the line of dis
tinction between a legitimate combination of them
in a system of Dogmatic Theology, and that arrogant
method of universal speculation, which, commencing
with the confusion of all human truth, ends in the
confusion of Divine Truth with human.
Nor let it be supposed, that the speculative Theo
logy into which I have been examining, is a thing
of another day — a mere matter of curiosity to the
literary or ecclesiastical historian. I should have
failed indeed in the present attempt to bring the
subject before you ; if this should be the impression

LECTURE VIII. 385
from it. Scholasticism indeed has passed away, as
to its actual rude form, in which it appeared in the
middle age. But its dominion has endured. In
the Church of Rome, indeed, it still holds visible
sway ; clothed in the purple of spiritual supremacy,
and giving the law of Faith to the subject-con
sciences of men. Those who are at all acquainted
with the public documents of that Church, as esta
blished by the Council of Trent, or with its con
troversial writers, will attest the general observation;
that it is the metaphysics of the Schools, which form
the texture of the Roman Theology, and by which
that system is maintained. In the destitution of
Scripture-facts for the support of the theological
structure, the method of subtile distinctions and
reasonings has been found of admirable efficacy. It
eludes the opponent, who, not being trained to this
dialectical warfare, is not aware, that all such ar
gumentation is a tacit assumption of the point in
controversy ; or is perplexed and confounded by the
elaborate subtilties of the apologist. No argument
indeed from fact can suffice against the artifice of
distinctions. The expert metaphysician is ready
with some new abstraction, as soon as he is assailed
with an adverse position or consequence ; and the
objector feels himself entangled in meshes, against
which his strength, however superior, is wasted in
unavailing efforts. The resistance, which the Roman
Church has shewn against improvements in Natural
Philosophy, is no inconsiderable evidence of the con
nexion of the ecclesiastical system with the ancient
c c

386 LECTURE VIII.
Logical Philosophy of the Schools. There has been
a constant fear, lest, if that philosophy should be
exploded, some important doctrines could not be
maintained." But though the sorceries of the Scholastic Theo
logy have been dispelled where the light of Refor
mation has been received ; yet the transformations
of religious truth, which they effected, could not at
once be reversed by the same effort of improvement.
The minds of men had been trained to think and
speak of divine things, in the idiom of Scholasti
cism. So that, not only the reformer in Philosophy,
but the reformer in Religion also, was compelled to
use the phraseology of the system which he assailed.
Thus, through its technical language, has Scholasti
cism survived even in Protestant Churches. Clearly,
we may trace its operation in the controversies agi
tated among Protestants about Original Sin, Grace,
Regeneration, Predestination ; — all which, when
strictly considered, are found to resolve themselves
into disputes concerning the just limits of certain
notions, — into questions of the exactness of pro
posed definitions. So again, it is not uncommon
to find, even among our own theologians, one
doctrine insisted on, as necessary to be admitted
in order to the reception of another. Original Sin,
for instance, is not unfrequently inculcated, as es
sential to be believed to the fullest extent, in order to
an acceptance of the truth of the Atonement : as if
the truth of either doctrine were a matter of logical
"Note I.

LECTURE VIII. 387
deduction, or dependent on the truth of the other :
whereas, in the correct view, each is an ultimate fact
in the revealed dispensations of God, resting on its
own proper evidence. Once acknowledging, indeed,
the reality of the Christian Revelation, we are bound
to refer the whole of Human Happiness to the me
diation of Christ ; though the Scriptures had been
entirely silent respecting the fact of the intrinsic
sinfulness of man. And conversely ; we should have
been under an obligation of acting, as feeling our
selves under sin, and naturally incapable of hap
piness ; had the Scriptures simply stated our incapa
city and misery, without revealing the mercies of
the Atonement.
The real state of the case then is, that the spirit
of Scholasticism still lives amongst us : that, though
we do not acknowledge submission to its empire, we
yet feel its influence.0
At the time, indeed, when Luther raised his voice
against the corruptions sanctioned by the Roman
Church, the complaint was, that the spiritual lessons
of Scripture were become a dead letter. There were
however, even at that time, men of deep and fami
liar acquaintance with Scripture, the votaries of an
ardent and sincere piety. Their religion, however,
was inaccessible to the poor, and the illiterate, and
the busy. It was the privilege of the theologian, —
of the holy and speculative recluse. The mass of
° The practice itself of preaching from Texts of Scripture is
a remnant of Scholasticism. At the time of the Reformatio!)
it was carried to the most absurd excess. — Note J.
C C 2

388 LECTURE VIII.
the people indolently, or superstitiously, reposed on
the sanctity of their Fathers in religion ; and sought
their rule of faith and conduct, in devout attendance
on the vicarious ministrations of the man of God.
In a word, Religion was become a professional
thing. None could be truly and properly religious,
but those who were versed in the logic and casu
istry of a scientific theology. Therefore it was, that
Luther so vehemently proclaimed the great doc
trine of Justification by Faith alone : setting himself
against that divorce of Theology and popular Reli
gion, by which the Gospel had in effect been unevan-
gelized and desecrated. And are there not still traces
amongst us, of a separation between the religion of
the few and the religion of the many ? The delusion
tindeed has passed away in its theoretic form ; that
true religion can consist in any thing but in holiness
of active life, — in an habitual conduct conformed to
the example of our Lord Jesus Christ. But the
principle of that separation, against which the Re
formation was directed, is still seen in that enthu
siasm, which, even in these days, loves to diffuse
itself in sentimental religion; — which spends the
strength of devotion in holy thoughts, — the lux
ury, like the Scholastic Piety, only of the pure, the
cultivated, the sensitive, and the ardent mind. It
is now an enthusiasm of the heart, rather than of
the intellect. But the principle is still the same. Re
ligion is converted into Theological Contemplation.
The examination which I have been pursuing,

LECTURE VIII. 389
has led me over much entangled ground ; from
which I can hardly hope to have extricated myself,
in a way to satisfy the views, or scruples, of all
whom I address. But the peculiar difficulty of
forming just estimates of controversial statements,
— and of seizing the shifting lights of philosophical
theories, as they have passed over the truths of
Revelation, and given to them their various hue,
— will obtain for me, I trust, a patient and candid
construction of opinions expressed. It would ill
become me, indeed, to dogmatize on a subject, in
which I am directly engaged in illustrating the
injurious effects of Dogmatism in Theology ; and
especially before an audience, from some of whom
I should rather expect the judgment of a point, than
endeavour to impose my own opinion. It must be
admitted, I think, on the whole, that the Force of
Theory has been very considerable in the modifica
tion of our Theological language. And I would
submit to your reflection, whether that force has
been sufficiently allowed for, either in our general
profession of Christianity, or in our controversies on
particular articles of Doctrine ?
But, however successfully I may have established
the desired conclusion ; there may, I fear, remain in
some minds, — where there has existed an indiscrimi
nate veneration of the names and terms attached to
Christianity, as of parts of the holy religion itself, —
a painful impression of mistrust, — a suspicious
reasoning with themselves ; that, either the argument

390 LECTURE VIII.
must be erroneous, or they have followed cunningly-
devised fables — the imaginations of the sophistical
wisdom of this world — as the Gospel of Truth ? For
the sake of such persons, I would once more call
attention to the divine part of Christianity, as
entirely distinct from its episodic additions. What
ever may have been the motives and conduct of
successive agents employed in its propagation from
age to age ; whatever may have been the specula
tions of false Philosophy on the facts of Christianity;
those facts themselves are not touched; — theyN
remain indisputable, so far as any objections on such
grounds can avail. These facts form part of the
great History of mankind : they account for the
present condition of things in the world : and we
cannot deny them without involving ourselves in
universal scepticism. There can be no rational
doubt ; that man is in a degraded, disadvantageous
condition, — that Jesus Christ came into the world,
in the mercy of God, to produce a restoration of
man, — that He brought Life and Immortality to
light by his coming, — that He died on the Cross for
our sins, and rose again for our justification, — that
the Holy Ghost came by his promise to abide with
his Church, miraculously assisting the Apostles in
the first institution of it, and, ever since that period,
interceding with the hearts of believers. These, and
other truths connected with them, are not collected
merely from texts or sentences of Scripture : they
are parts of its records. Infinite theories may be
raised upon them ; but these theories, whether true
fcrJ

LECTURE VIII. 391
or false, leave the facts where they were. There is
enough in them to warm and comfort the heart ;
though we had assurance of nothing more.
It is an excellent effect indeed of unprejudiced
theological study, — a reward, it may be called, of
our honesty in the pursuit, — that our sensitiveness
to particular objections diminishes, as we advance in
the investigation. If there are any therefore, whose
anxiety for the sacred cause has been awakened by
any observations in the course of the present Lec
tures ; I exhort them to proceed, fearless of any
ultimate shock to the real truth of Christianity by
the most searching investigation. The knowledge
of the speculations, which have mingled with the
statement of the truth, cannot but be, in the result,
of the greatest service. It will enable the theo
logical student to see, that objections against the
theoretic parts of doctrines (and objections are prin
cipally of this kind) are no objections against the
fundamental doctrines themselves — the revealedfacts
— which are really and in themselves, independent
of those theories. And, — what is of even still
greater, far greater, importance to him as a Chris
tian, — it will inculcate on him candour, forbearance,
charitable construction of the views of others, an
humble and teachable disposition towards God.

APPENDIX. NOTES.

APPENDIX.

LECTURE I.
NOTE A. p. 17.
J- HAVE translated the following epistle of Jerome, wish
ing to give the general reader a more obvious view of the
style of intermingled address and authority which appears
in it ; and which affords a fair specimen of the general cha
racter of the writer : though it is impossible by translation,
to present a full idea of the art of the composition ; as the
very collocation of the words is studied, both to please the
ear and give point to the expressions.
Jerome'1 to Damasusf
Since the East, jarred by inveterate fury ofthe people
among themselves, tears piecemeal the Lord's tunic "with-
" out seam and woven from the top ;" and foxes exter
minate the vine of Christ jc so that, amidst " the broken
" cisterns that hold no water," d it may with difficulty be
discovered, where is the " sealed fountain, and the in-
" closed garden :" I have, therefore, thought it right to
consult the chair of Peter, and the faith approved by apo
stolic lips ; demanding my soul's food from the same source
now, whence formerly I took on me the vestments of
Christ.e Nor, in truth, could the vast expanse of liquid element,
a Hieronymi Oper. ed. Erasmi, 1565. torn. II. p. 131.
>> Damasus, a Spaniard by birth; Bishop of Rome from A.D. 367 to
A. D. 384. Jerome had been his ecclesiastical secretary.
c Cantic. ii. 15. d Jerem. ii. 13.
c Alluding to his ordination at Rome, or more probably to his baptism
there.

396 APPENDIX.
and the interjacent length of lands, restrain me from
searching for the precious pearl. Wherever the carcase is,
there are the eagles gathered together. The patrimony
being squandered by an evil offspring, with you alone is
preserved uncorrupted the inheritance of the fathers. There
the earth with fruitful glebe returns an hundredfold the
pure seed of the Lord : here, overwhelmed in the furrows,
the wheat degenerates into darnel and wild oats. Now in
the West the sun of justice rises ; but in the East, that
Lucifer who had fallen, has placed his throne above the
stars. You are the light of the world ; you the salt of the
earth ; you the vessels of gold and silver : here the vessels
of clay, or wood, await the rod of iron and eternal con
flagration. Although therefore your greatness deters me,
still your kindness invites me. From a priest I ask the
victim of salvation ; from a shepherd the protection of the
sheep. Let invidiousness droop; let the ambition of the
Roman summit recede. It is with the successor of the
fisherman, and the disciple of the cross, that I am speak
ing. For my part, except as following Christ, I associate no
firstf in communion with your Blessedness ; that is, with
the Chair of Peter : on that rock, I know, the Church was
built. Whoever without that house has eaten of the lamb,
is profane. If any one is not in the ark of Noah, he will
perish when the flood prevails. And because for my of
fences,8 I have migrated to that solitude which parts Syria
from the adjacent Barbarian confines ; and I am unable
always to ask the holy thing h of the Lord from your Sanc
tity, at such intervening spaces ; I therefore follow your
colleagues here, the Egyptian Confessors; and lurk, my
self a little bark, under ships of burden.1 I know not
Vitalis ; Meletius I reject ; I am ignorant of Paulinus.k
i To shew that He did not give precedence to the Patriarch of Antioch.
% As doing penance by self-mortification.
h Erasmus explains this of the body of Christ, or the Eucharist.
1 As contrasting liis own affected littleness with the full-freighted sanctity
of the Egyptian monks.
k All bishops of the Arian party at Antioch.

NOTES TO LECTURE I. 397
Whoever gathers not with you, scatters : that is, who is
not of Christ, is of Antichrist.
Now therefore, alas! after the Nicene faith, after the
Alexandrian decree made in concurrence with the West,
the novel expression of three hypostases is exacted of me,
a Roman man, by the Arian Prelate and the people of the
Canape.1 Who are the Apostles, I pray, that have handed
down such things ? Who is the new master of the nations,
- — the Paul, — that has taught them ? Let us ask them ;
what they conceive can be understood by three hypostases.
Three persons subsisting, they say. We answer, that we
so believe. The sense is not enough ; they are importu
nate for the term itself: because some unknown poison
lurks under the syllables. We exclaim, if any one con
fesses not three hypostases, or three enhypostata, — that
is, three subsisting persons, — let him be anathema. And
because we do not get words by heart, we are judged here
tical. If any one ^however, understanding by hypostasis,
usia, does not say, one hypostasis in three persons, he is
alien from Christ. Yet under this, confession, we are,
equally with you, branded with the cautery of the Union.™
Determine if it is your pleasure, I beseech you; I shall
not fear to say three hypostases : if you order it, let a new
faith be framed after the Nicene ; and let us who are the
orthodox confess in like words with the Arians.
The whole school of secular literature knows nothing
else by hypostasis, but usia. And who, I ask, with sacrile
gious mouth will proclaim three substances. One and sole
is the nature of God, which truly is. For, what subsists,
i The curve of the coast of Cilicia, so called.
m The familiar name for Sabellianism. Union however scarcely gives the
same idea as the Latin Unio. The term Cautery is borrowed from the
practice of branding a mark on the young soldier. — So again he says in an
epistle to the Presbyter Mark : Haereticus vocor, homusion praedicans trini-
tatem. Sabellianse impietatis arguor ; tres subsistentes, veras, integras, per-
fectasque personas, indefessa voce pronuntians. . . . Quotidie exposcor fidem ;
quas sine fide renatus sim. Confiteor ut volunt ; non placet. Subscribo ;
non credunt. Opera, torn. II. p. 315.

398 APPENDIX.
has not from any other ; but is its own. Other things
which are created, though they seem to be, are not ; because
at one time they were not ; and that which has not existed
may again not exist. God alone, who is eternal, — that is,
who has no beginning, — holds truly the name of Essence.
Therefore also to Moses from the bush, he says, " I am
" that I am ;" and again, " He that is sent me." There
existed truly then, angels, heaven, earth, seas. Yet how
does God vindicate to Himself properly the common name
of Essence? But, because that nature alone is perfect,
and one Deity subsists in three persons ; which truly exists,
and is one nature ; whoever says, that three are, — that is,
that three hypostases are, that is, usiw ; — under the name of
piety, attempts to assert three natures.
And if this be so, why are we by walls separated from
Arius ; when in perfidy we are coupled with him ? Let
Ursicinus " be joined with your Blessedness ; let Auxen-
tius ° be associated with Ambrose. Far be this from the
Roman Faith. Let not the religious hearts of the people
imbibe so great a sacrilege. Let it suffice us to say ; one
substance, three persons subsisting, perfect, equal, co-
eternal. Let there be no mention of three hypostases, with
your leave ; and let one be held. It is of no good sus
picion ; since, in the same sense, the words are dissentient.
Let the traditional mode of belief suffice us. Or, if you
think it right, that we should say three hypostases with
their interpretations, we refuse not. But believe me, poison
lurks under the honey : an angel of Satan has transfigured
himself into an angel of light. They interpret hypostasis
well ; and when I say, that I hold what they themselves
expound, I am judged heretical. Why so anxiously do
they hold one word ? Why do they lurk under an am
biguous expression? If I so believe, as themselves affect
to think ; let them permit me also to speak their own sense
in my own words.
n An Arian competitor with Damasus for the papal see.
0 Arian Bishop of Milan, predecessor of Ambrose.

NOTES TO LECTURE I. 399
I therefore beseech your Blessedness, by the Crucified
One, the salvation of the world, — by the homoousion Tri
nity, — to give me authority by your letters, either to for
bear saying, or to say, the hypostases. And lest perhaps
the obscurity of the place in which I am living, may escape
your search, be so gracious as to transmit your writings
by your letter-carriers, to Evagrius, the presbyter, who
is well known to you; at the same time, to signify with
whom I should communicate at Antioch : since the people
of the Campe, coupled with the heretics of Tarsus, are
only ambitious that, supported by the authority of your
communion, they may proclaim three hypostases in the
ancient sense.
NOTE B. p. 17.
After the death of Auxentius, the city of Milan was
thrown into commotion by the contending factions of the
Arians and the Orthodox ; each seeking to elect as suc
cessor to the see, a man of their own party. Ambrose
appears in the Church, in his capacity of Prefect of Italy,
to quell the disturbance : when suddenly, according to his
biographer Paulinus, the voice of an infant in the crowd
called out the name of Ambrose. The name was received
as an happy omen by the assembled multitude, and spread
from mouth to mouth, until the uproar of acclamation pro
claimed the choice of the people to have fallen on the Pre
fect himself. He leaves the Church, ascends the tribunal
of justice, and tries the constancy of his , electors, as Pau
linus proceeds to relate, by a severity unusual in him, the
question by torture. Still the people continue their ac
clamations, " Thy sin be upon us ;" " Thy sin be upon
" us ;" — thus silencing any scruples of his conscience. He
attempts further to decline their importunity by flying
from the city at midnight ; and his escape being prevented,
afterwards conceals himself in a private house. But all
being unavailing, the reluctant Prefect at length con
sents to take on him the burden of the sacred office,

400 APPENDIX.
and ascends the step to the honours of his future saint
ship. We may not unreasonably suspect in this instance, a
dissimulation like that of some civil rulers, who have de
clined in appearance, a proffered crown, the real object of
their ambition. This is the more likely, when we find,
according to the same authority, Probus, the Praetorian
Prefect, by whom Ambrose was sent to quell the com
motion at Milan, instructing him to " go and act, not as
" judge, but as bishop :" and hailing afterwards, in the
election of Ambrose, the fulfilment of his word.p
Ambrose himself thus speaks of his own election.
Quam resistebam ne ordinarer, postremo cum cogerer,
saltern ordinatio protelaretur ! Sed non valuit praescriptio
prsevaluit impressio. Tamen ordinationem meam occiden
tales episcopi judicio, orientales etiam exemplo, probarunt,
Et tamen neophytus prohibetur ordinari, ne extollatur su
perbia. Si dilatio ordinationi defuit, vis cogentis est :
non deest humilitas competens sacerdotio, ubi causa non
hseret, vitium non imputatur. Ambros. Epistol. LXIII.
Oper. torn. ii. p. 1037.
Dicetur enim: Ecce ille non in ecclesiae nutritus sinu,
non edomitus a puero, sed raptus a tribunalibus, abductus
de vanitatibus saeculi hujus, a praeconis voce ad psalmistse
adsuefactus canticum, in sacerdotio manet, non virtute sua,
sed Christi gratia, et inter convivas mensae caelestis re-
cumbit. Serva, Domine, munus tuum ; custodi donum
quod contulisti etiam refugienti. Ego enim sciebam quod
non eram dignus vocari episcopus ; quoniam dederam me
saeculo huic, &c. Ambros. De Pcenit. lib. II. Oper. torn. n.
p. 432.
Unus enim verus magister est, qui solus non didicit quod
omnes doceret: homines autem discunt prius quod doce
ant, et ab illo accipiunt quod aliis tradant. Quod ne ipsum
quidem mihi accidit. Ego enim raptus de tribunalibus,
r Ambrosii Vit. per Paulinum. — The work is addressed to Augustine. Pau
linus, the author, was a deacon, and notary, or secretary, to Ambrose.

NOTES TO LECTURE I. 401
atque administrationis infulis, ad sacerdotium, docere vos
coepi, quod ipse non didici. Itaque factum est ut prius
docere inciperem, quam discere. Discendum igitur mihi
simul, et docendum est : quoniam non vacavit ante discere.
Ambros. De Officiis Ministror. I. c. 1.
The instance given by Gregory Nazianzen, of a similar
election, is the following one.
'Dig S' eig irXelovg rov Srjpov Siaipedevrog, Kal aXXuiv dXXov
irpofiaXXopivwv, oirep ev rolg roiol/roig <piXe~t avp(3alveiv, wg eKaarog
ETV)(ev fj <j>iXlag irpog rtvag e-^wv, r) irpbg dcbv evXafieiag, reXog
cvpopovr/aag b Srjpog dirac, rov irpwrov irap' avroig 'iva, pio) pev
eh]eiXeypevov, o'virui Se roi Qeiio (iairriapari Kareatypayiapevov, rovrov
itKovra avvapirdaavTEg, Kal dpa arpariojriKfjg -%Eipbg avXXapouivrig
avroig rrfviKavra iiriSrjpovarig Eirl rb j3fjpa edsaav, Kal rolg iiriaKO-
iroig -irpoariyayov, TEXEaQrfvai te ifk\iavv, Kal Kyfpvyffifvai, iteSoi
fiiav avapiZavreg' ov Xiav pev evraKTtog, Xiav Se iciaroig Kal Sia-
rrvpiog. Kq-vravda ovk eartv eItteIv, ov riva evSoKipiirepov eKeivov,
Kal deoaejiearepov, SiiSeii,ev b Kaipbg. rl yap yiverai; Kal iroi
irpoijXdev r; ardaig; efiiaaQ-qaav, rfyviaav, avEKi'ipv^av, kirl rov
dpovov edeaav, \eipl pdXXov, rj yvwpn, Kal Siadiaei irvevparog.
k. r. X. Orat. XIX.
Mentioning a recurrence of these contentions, he adds :
Kai if araaig i\v, baif Qepporipa, roaovro) (cat bXoywripa. Ov yap
fiyvoElro rb virEpdipov, &airep ovS' ev darpaaiv rjXiog, dXXa Kal Xiav
eiciSfXov i\v, rolg re aXXoig diraat, Kal rov Xaov paXtara roi eyKpiroj
re Kal Kadaputraru), oaov re irepl ro flfjpa, Kal b'aov ev rolg KaB' fipdg
"Na^apdioig' e(f dig 'iSet rag roiavrag 7rpo/3oXag Keiadat povoig, rj
on paXiara' Kal oi/Sev dv v\v rdlg iKKXrfaiaig kokov' dXXd prj
rolg evu-opojrdrotg re Kal Svvarairaroig, rj <f>opq Sifpov Kal dXoyia,
Kal rovrdiv avrwv paXiara rolg Evwvordrotg. vvv Si kivSvvevoj
rag Srjpoaiag dpydg kvraKrwripag v-iroXapfiavew roiv rfpEripwv,
a'tg f/ 0£('a \apig Eiri(j>r)pi£ETai, Kal fieXrioj roiv roiovroiv SwiKrfrrjv
ij>6(iov, % XSyov. Orat. XIX. Oper. ed. Par. 1609. pp. 308.
310. Jerome admits the right of the people to call to the
clerical office, when, in writing to Rusticus, he says : —
DD

402 APPENDIX.
et te, vel populus, vel pontifex civitatis, in clerum ele-
gerit. Hieron. ad Rustic. Monach. Oper. torn. i. p. 47.

NOTE C. p. 19.
The following passage gives a lively picture of the occu
pations of Ambrose.
Non enim quasrere ab eo poteram, quod volebam, sicut
volebam, secludentibus me ab ejus aure atque ore catervis
negotiosorum hominum, quorum infirmitatibus serviebat.
Cum quibus quando non erat, quod perexiguum temporis
erat, aut corpus reficiebat necessariis sustentaculis, aut lec-
tione animum. Sed cum legebat, oculi ducebantur per
paginas, et cor intellectum rimabatur, vox autem et lingua
quiescebant. Saepe, cum adessemus, non enim vetabatur
quisquam ingredi, aut ei venientem nuntiari mos erat, sic
eum legentem vidimus tacite, et aliter numquam: seden-
tesque in diuturno silentio, (quis enim tam intento esse
oneri auderet?) discedebamus, et conjectabamus eum parvo
ipso tempore, quod reparandae menti suae nansciscebatur,
feriatum ab strepitu causarum alienarum, nolle in aliud
avocari, et cavere fortasse, ne auditore suspenso et intento,
si qua obscurius posuisset ille, quem legeret, etiam expo-
nere necesse esset; aut de aliquibus difficilioribus discep-
tare quaestionibus, atque huic open temporibus impensis,
minus quam vellet voluminum evolveret; quamquam et
caussa servandae vocis, quae illi facillime obtundebatur, pot-
erat esse justior tacite legendi. Quolibet tamen animo
id ageret, bono utique ille vir agebat. Augustin. Confess.
VI. 3.
Ambrose however amply testifies to his own influence.
Quasi vero superiore anno, quando ad palatium sum
petitus ; cum praesentibus primatibus ante consistorium trac-
taretur ; cum imperator basilicam vellet eripere ; ego tunc
aulae contemplatione regalis infractus sim, constantiam
non tenuerim sacerdotis, aut imminuto jure discesserim?
Nonne meminerunt, quod ubi me cognovit populus pala-

NOTES TO LECTURE I. 403
tium petisse, ita irruit, ut vim ejus ferre non possent;
quando comiti militari cum expeditis ad fugandam multi-
tudinem egresso obtulerunt omnes se neci pro fide Christi.
Nonne tunc rogatus sum, ut populum multo sermone mul-
cerem? sponde*em fidem, quod basilicam ecclesiae nullus
invaderet? Et cum pro beneficio meum sit officium pos-
tulatum ; tamen quod populus ad palatium venisset, mihi
invidia commota est. In hanc igitur invidiam me redire
desiderant. Revocavi populum, et tamen invidiam non
evasi ; quam quidem invidiam ego temperandam arbitror,
non timendam. . . . Quid enim honorificentius quam ut
imperator ecclesiae filius esse dicatur ? Quod cum dicitur,
sine peccato dicitur, cum gratia dicitur. Imperator enim
intra ecelesiam, non supra ecclesiam est: bonus enim in>
perator quaerit auxilium ecclesiae, non refutat. Epist. XXI.
Oper. torn. n. col. 871—873.
The whole epistle is worth attention, as an evidence of
the high tone which the Latin Church-leader could as
sume. In Epistle XXII. addressed to his sister, we have
an account of the finding of the bodies of the martyrs
Gervase and Protase, and of the wonder-working power
attributed to them, of such timely service to Ambrose in
the defence of his church at Milan.
NOTE D. p. 20.
The letter of Volusian to Augustine is chiefly remark
able, as shewing the easy familiarity with which doubts on
the most important doctrines could be proposed to Au
gustine without offence. This letter is that of a young
man, freely stating some difficulties started in conver
sation respecting the Incarnation, and asking a solution
of them from one, whose character and opinion were
felt to be entitled to entire respect. Jerome also was
open to inquiries from his followers and admirers ; as
we perceive from his epistles to Paula and Eustochium,
discussing scripture-difficulties. But he seems to have
required a more implicit devotion to his authority ; a refer-
d d 2

404 APPENDIX.
ence to him as to an oracle of scriptural interpretation,
and not merely the arbiter of controversy. Augustine
appears to great advantage, in point of affability and good-
humour, in the contrast with him, in the correspondence
which passed betwen them on Jerome's translation of
some passages of the Bible. Augustine addressed to him
three letters, before he could obtain an answer. In re
plying, Jerome complains of what Augustine had called
questions, as reprehensions of his works ; and of the length
to which he must proceed, were he to answer them to his
wish. Praetermitto, he says, salutationis officia, quibus
meum demulces caput ; taceo de blanditiis, quibus repre-
hensionem mei niteris consolari.q Again, in a subsequent
epistle, charging Augustine with dispersing throughout
Italy some strictures on his translation of a passage in the
Epistle to the Galatians, he says : Nonnulli familiares mei
et vasa Christi, quorum Hierosolymis et in Sanctis locis
permagna copia est, suggerebant, non simplici a te animo
factum, sed laudem atque munusculos et gloriolam populi
requirente, ut de nobis cresceres ; ut multi cognoscerent,
te provocare, me timere ; te scribere ut doctum, me tacere,
ut imperitum ; et tandem reperisse qui garrulitati meae
modum imponeret, &c.r He entreats Augustine to let
him rest in his old age ; senem latitantem in cellula la-
cessere desine ; but tells him also that he still has power,
and may be roused to conflict. Augustine's reply, though
managed with art, is calm and softening. It appears, by
the subsequent correspondence, to have produced the effect
which he desired. The affectionateness of the character
of Augustine, is evident, from the manner in which he
speaks in his Confessions, of his mother, Monica, and of
his friends, Alypius and Nebridius.
NOTE E. p. 22.
I have already referred to the correspondence between
i Epist. XI. in Augustin. Oper. ed. 4to. torn. II. fol. 14.
' Epist. XIII. fol. IS.

NOTES TO LECTURE I. 405
Augustine and Jerome. Augustine's name was known
throughout the whole world.8 Questions were brought
to Jerome on various matters from Italy, from Spain,
from Africa, from Greece, from Gaul, and from the ex
tremities of Germany. Paulinus,' Bishop of Nola, was
another principal link in the communication between mem
bers ofthe Latin Church in the IVth century. The case of
Vigilantius shews how quickly intelligence was conveyed
from remote places. A presbyter at the foot ofthe Pyre
nees ventures to declaim against the abuses which had
crept into the Church, against the honours at the tombs of
martyrs, against prayers for the dead, and the austerities
and frivolities which had usurped the place of Christian
discipline. Two neighbouring presbyters, Riparius and
Desiderius, send his writings through the hands of an
other brother, Sisinnius, to Jerome. The principles of
this reformer were not confined to himself, but were ad
vocated by some bishops, and the contagion appeared to
be spreading. The acrimony of Jerome was immediately
called into action ; and he pours forth a torrent of invec
tive, the fruit of a night's lucubration, against the un
happy Vigilantius, or " Dormitantius," as he parodies the
name. This letter, or pamphlet, was transmitted by the
same Sisinnius, who was employed by Jerome on other
occasions in the like service ; and who, proceeding first to
Egypt, would diffuse the intelligence also in that part of
the world."
The'rapid circulation of the several epistles which passed
between Augustine and Jerome, is evident, from the no
tices of the circumstance which occur in. the course of
them.* But the Pelagian Controversy is a still more
8 Episcopus in toto orbe notissimus. Hieronym. Augustino. Ep. XI.
Augustin. Oper. 4to. torn. II. fol. 41.
* Paulinus, born A.D. 354 : died in 431.
u Adv. Vigilant. Hieronym. Oper. ed. Erasm. torn. II. p. 120.
Thus Jerome refers to the circulation of the tracts of RufHnus against
himself. Et unde oro te librorum tuorum ad me fama pervenit ? Quis eos

406 APPENDIX.
striking illustration of the fact. The occasion of the con
troversy is given by a monk of Britain. It is quickly
propagated in the cities of Africa, in Sicily, Rhodes, and
other islands of the Mediterranean. Orosius, a Spanish
presbyter, is sent by Augustine to Palestine, to Jerome,
to communicate with him on the subject. Pelagius and
Celestius are found pleading their cause successively at
Carthage, at Rome, and at Jerusalem. And throughout
the agitation of the subject, a quick succession of com
munications is kept up between Africa, Gaul, Italy, and
Syria. The messenger was always, I beheve, one ofthe
clergy; and the journeys were not to be accomplished
without dangeri Still there was no break in the chain of
correspondence. The travels of most of the leading men of the Church
of the IVth century, should further be noticed in reference
to this point. Athanasius is found in the West, Hilary of
Poitiers in the East. Augustine perhaps was an exception
after his succession to the see of Hippo. He says of
himself in comparison with others, in writing to his own
people : Illud enim noverit dilectio vestra, nunquam me
absentem fuisse licentiosa libertate, sed necessaria servitute ;
quae saepe sanctos fratres, et collegas meos, etiam labores
transmarinos compulit sustinere ; a quibus me semper non
indevotio mentis, sed minus idonea valetudo corporis ex-
cusavit.y Epist. CXXXVIII. Oper. torn. n. ed. 4to. fol.
198. His authority was sufficiently powerful from his own
seat of government. This spirit of personal exertion de
scended to their successors in the Latin Church of the
middle age. It is surprising with what readiness distant
and perilous journeys were performed by Churchmen of
the Xllth and Xlllth centuries. John of Salisbury de
scribes his own exertions in that way. Siquidem Alpium
Romae ? quis in Italia, quis in Dalmatia disseminavit ? Apolog. adv. Ruffin.
Hieronym. Oper. torn. II. p. 231.
y His health had suffered from his labours as a rhetorician. Confess. IX.
c. 2.

NOTES TO LECTURE I. 407
juga transcendi decies, egressus Angliam : Apuliam secundo
peragravi. Dominorum et amicorum negotia in Ecclesia
Romana saepius gessi : et emergentibus variis causis non
modo Angham, sed et Gallias multoties circumivi.2

NOTE F. p. 23.
Sulpicius Severus speaks of the number of nobles who
were in the monastery of St. Martin, near Tours.
Mollior ibi habitus pro crimine erat ; quod eo magis sit
mirum necesse est, quod multi inter eos nobiles habe-
bantur, qui longe aliter educati, ad hanc se humilitatem et
patientiam coegerant: pluresque ex his postea episcopos
vidimus.3, St. Martin himself had served as a soldier in his youth.
The old aristocratic classes, at the period of the Vth
century, were so reduced in numbers and influence and
character, that there was no counterbalancing power against
the Clergy. Whoever indeed of those classes possessed
any energy or ambition, found his only sphere of action in
the offices of ecclesiastical government. Prefects of pro
vinces, military commanders, men of landed property,
literary men, men of the world, some of these but newly
converted, became bishops. Concessions were even made
to their philosophical opinions, where it was desired to
obtain the support of a man of talent and reputation. The
case of Synesius is a striking illustration of this. He had
his objections even on the article of the Resurrection.
And he declines undertaking the office of a Bishop, un
less he may be permitted to retain his philosophical
scruples. He will concur in the public services of Chris
tianity, provided he may philosophize according to his
own taste. The people of PtolAnais had elected him for
their bishop. He candidly states his sentiments on the
subject. He refuses to put away his wife, or to live with
* Melalogic. lib. III. p. 838. " Fit. B. Mart. c. 10.

408 APPENDIX.
her in secresy, on the ground that it would be an offence
against piety and morality. 'Epol roiyapovv, o re Oebg, b re
vopog, rj re tepd Qeu<j>iXov xatP> yvva'tKa iiriSiSwKE. irpoayopevw
roivvv airaai, Kal paprvpopai, oog eyw ravrrfg o'vre dXXorpiujaopai
KaBairah], ovre wg potxps avrfj Xddpa avveaopai. rb pev yap iJKiara
evaefieg, rb Se ifKiara vopipov' dXXd fiovXriaopai re Kal e'vZppai
av%va poi irdvv Kal -^prjard yeviadai iraiSia. He mentions also
his fondness for sports, and his aversion to the details of
an official situation ; pathetically lamenting over his loved
dogs and his bow, which he would be forced to relinquish.
'Eirei Kal <j>iXoiraiypwv Srv, og ye iraiSoQev alriav eaypv bwXopaveiv
re Kal iwiropaveiv icipa rov Siovrog, dviaaopai pev' ri yqip Kal iradto,
rag rjriXrdrag icvvag ddifpovg bpuiv, Kal rd rbi,a BpiirrfSiarara'
Kaprripifaoj Si, dv eirirdrrrf Beog' Kal piaoippovrig Siv, oSvvifaopai
pev, dvi^opai Se, SiKtSiwv, Kal irpaypdroiv, Xeirovpyiav riva ravrrfv,
el Kal flapelav, EKiripTrXdg ™ 0£<j>' Svypara Se ovk eirrfXvyaaopai,
ovSe araaidati poi icpog rrjv yXtSrrav if yvtliprf. Willing however
as he is to make some sacrifices, he resolutely refuses,
we find, any compromise of his opinions. On this point
he explicitly says: XaXewov iariv, El pr) Kal Xiav aSvvarov, eig
tpv-^rfv rh Si iiriarrfprjg Eig dicuSeic]iv iXBovra Soypara aaXEvdrjvai.
olaOa S' on 7ro\Ad ipiXoaoipia roig OpvXXovpivoig rovroig avrtSiardr-
rErai Soypaaiv. apiXei rrjv i\iv^riv ovk dijtwenu irore auiparog
varepoyevfj vopi^Eiv'. rov Koapov ov <j>rjaii> Kal roXXa pipr) avvSiacjrdEi-
peadai' rr)v KaQtvpiXrfpevrfv dvdaraaiv lepov n Kal airopprfrov rjyrjpai,
Kal 7roXXov Sew rdig rod irXriOovg viroXr'i^eaiv bpoXoyrjaai. vovg pev
ovv (ptXoaotpog iiroirrrfg wv rdXrfdovg, avy^wpei rfj X|°£1? T0V 4>ev^t~
adai. avaXoyov yap ean (jruig wpbg dXr'fdeiav, Kal oppa irpbg Xrfprfv.
Kal 6(pi)aXpog Eig KaKov dv awoXavaEtev aVXijorou (frwrog. r) roig
6(j)daXptwat ro aKorog ixpEXipwrepov, raur-g Kal rb \pEvSog oiptXog
ilvai ridEpat Sr'ipo)' Kal fiXafiepbv rijv dXifBeiav roig ovk la-)(yovai
ivareviaai wpog rr/v rwv bvrtbv ivapyeiav. el ravra Kal ol rrjg KaB'
i/pag tepwavvrjg avyywpovaiv ipol vopoi, Svvaiprfv dv iepda&ai, ra
pev oikoi <j>iXoao<j>urv, rd Se t£w (j>iXopvBu>V el pf/ StSdaKOJv, dXX' ovSe
piv rot peraSiSdaKuv, piveiv Se eihv iirl rrjg irpoXrfxpevjg, el Si cpaaiv

NOTES TO LECTURE I. 409
ovrw Stiv Kal Kiveladai, Kal SrjXov elvai rov lepia raig S6'£,aig, ovk dv
tyBavoipi ipavepbv epavrbv dnaai KaBiarag' Srjpoj yap Si) Kal (j>iXo-
aocjrlif, ri irpog aXXrfXa ; rriv piv dXriBeiav rwv Qe'iuiv dnopprfrov
Eivai SeV to Se irXrjBog erepag e^ewg Seirai.b Notwithstanding
this avowal, he became afterwards Bishop of the new
Cyrene, or Ptolemais.
We may observe the mixture of heathenism and Chris
tianity, of seriousness and frivolity, which appears in some
of the bishops of this period. Their civil stations, or their
talents, carried them to the post of dignity in the great
Christian society forming around them ; but they were
still, in their pursuits and manners, the representatives of
a degenerate Greek or Roman civilization. Sidonius Apol-
linaris, Bishop of Auvergne A. D. 471, is a favourable spe
cimen of the superior clergy of that day. Succeeding to
a line of progenitors who had held high*offices in the Em
pire, and son-in-law to the Emperor Avitus,c himself a pre
fect and patrician, he was elected to the episcopal dignity,
before he even belonged to the clerical order. His ele
vation however to the spiritual charge made no alteration
in the man. He pursued his favourite pastimes, his
poetical pleasantries, and his social diversions, with the same
good-humour and enjoyment as before. He has given in
deed, in one of his epistles, an amusing account how the
interval in a long religious ceremony at the tomb of
St. Justus, was employed by himself and other ecclesi
astics, in lively conversation and in various games, among
which was that of the ball, (sphmrce,) in which he took
the lead.4
Of the sort of person required for a bishop in the West
ern Church, Sidonius gives an excellent idea in another
epistle, where he describes his selection of a person to
that office for the people of Bourges, who had placed
the appointment in his hands. The following passage of
b Synesii ad Fratrem. Ep. CV. p. 386. ed. 8vo. Paris 1605.
0 Cui pater, sdcer, avus, proavus, praefecturis urbanis, praetorianisque,
magisteriis palatinis, militaribusque, micuerunt. Sidonii Epist. III. p. 7.
d See his Epistle to Eriphius. Sidonii Oper. lib. V. p. 148.

410 APPENDIX.
the speech, which he reports to a friend as delivered by
him on the occasion, shews particularly that it was a man
ofthe world that was wanted. — Si quempiam nominavero
monachorum, quamvis ilium Paulis, Antoniis, Hilarionibus,
Macariis, conferendum, sectatae anachoreseos presrogativa
comitetur, aures ilico meas incondito tumultu circumstre-
pitas ignobilium pumilionum murmur everberat conque-
rentium: Hie, qui nominatur, inquiunt, non episcopi, sed
potius abbatis complet officium ; et intercedere magis pro
animabus apud ccelestem, quam pro corporibus apud ter-
renum judicem potest. Ad Perpetuum, p. 191.
NOTE G. p. 24.
Jam turn pium adolescentis animum offendebat mundus,
qui ea tempestate Christianos ethnicis habebat admixtos.
Unde fieri necessum erat, ut qui Christum profitebantur,
plerique titulo magis quam vita essent Christiani : et vere
piis mentibus, pie vivendi votum adesset verius quam facul-
tas  ad haec clericorum et episcoporum statum, quod
hos quoque volentes, nolentes, honos, opes, et negotia
mundi, involverent, ac transversos raperent, gravissimis
periculis obnoxium esse. Et multorum vita displicebat,
jam turn prisca ilia pietate sacerdotum ad tyrannidem ac
lastum degenerante. Hieronym. Vita per Erasm.
Et nunc, cum maxime discordiis episcoporum turbari aut
misceri omnia cernerentur, cunctaque per eos odio, aut
gratia, metu, inconstantia, invidia, factione, libidine, ava-
ritia, adrogantia, desidia, essent depravata : postremo plures
adversum paucos bene consulentes, insanis consiliis et per-
tinacibus studiis certabant : inter hasc plebs Dei, et optimus
quisque probro atque ludibrio habebatur. Sulpic. Sever.
Hist. Sacr. II. c. 41. ed. Clerici, 1709.
The bishops originally received the * whole revenue of
the diocese, and dispensed a maintenance from it to the
presbyters ; — a circumstance, which kept the inferior clergy
in a state of great dependence on the superior; render
ing their subsistence and comfort extremely precarious,

NOTES TO LECTURE I. 411
whilst it exposed them to suffer from the personal avarice
and luxurious expenditure of the bishop to whom they
happened to be subject. They could not quit the place
where they had been once appointed, and were completely
at the bishop's disposal. Council of Orleans, A.D. 511.
c. 14, 15. Council ofValentia in 524. c. 6.
The Abbot of Cluny, being requested to intercede in ob
taining a prebend for Astralabius, the son of Abelard,
replies: Astralabio vestro vestrique causa nostro, mox ut
facultas data fuerit, in aliqua nobilium ecclesiarum prae-
bendam libens acquirere laborabo. Res tamen difficilis
est: quia, ut saepe probavi, ad dandas in ecclesiis suis
praebendas, variis objectis occasionibus, valde se difficiles
praebere episcopi solent. Abcelardi Oper. p. 345.
NOTE H. p. 27.
In rhetorica tamen sese studiosius exercuit, degustatis
omnibus, sed his praecipue quae propius ad earn conferant
facultatem, historia, cosmographia, et antiquitatis notitia:
partim quod intelligeret apud Latinos ad id usque temporis
pene infantem esse theologiam, et ob hanc causam per-
multos a divinorum voluminum abhorrere lectione ; sperans
futurum, ut plures sacris literis delectarentur, si quis theo-
logiae majestatem, dignitate sermonis aequasset : partim ut
esset aliquando quod ethnicis objici posset, Christianos ut
infantes et elingues despicientibus. Hieronym. Vit. per
Erasm.
Jerome has sketched the character of some of the
Latin writers in the following passage : Tertullianus cre-
ber est in sententiis, sed difficilis in loquendo* Beatus
Cyprianus instar fontis purissimi, dulcis incedit et placi-
dus ; et cum totus sit in exercitatione virtutum, oceupatus
persecutionum angustiis, de scripturis divinis nequaquam
disseruit. Inclyto Victorinus martyrio coronatus, quod
intelligit, eloqui non potest. Lactantius quasi quidam flu-
vius eloquentiae Tullianae, utinam tam nostra confirmare
potuisset, quam facile aliena destruxit. Arnobius inae-

412 APPENDIX.
qualis et nimius, et absque operis sui partitione confusus.
Sanctus Hilarius Gallicano cothurno attollitur, et a lec-
tione simpliciorum fratrum procul est. Taceo de caeteris,
vel defunctis, vel etiam adhuc viventibus, super quibus in
utramque partem post nos alii judicabunt. Ad PauUnum
Oper. torn. I. p. 104.
NOTE I. p. 28.
In the West the monastic spirit was strongly counter
acted by social needs ; — by the necessity of combination
in order to mutual aid and protection. Monachism there
was in its institution essentially social. Not so in the
East, where it originated in an enervated state of society,
and acted as a relief to the more energetic spirits, from
the monotony and languor of ordinary life. Accordingly,
when the Latin world approached more nearly to that con
dition, in which the Eastern portion of the Empire was
in the IVth century ; — when civilization, that is, having
reached a certain point, began to degenerate in the West,
as in the Vlth and Vllth centuries; — the monachism of
the West began to resemble more closely that ofthe East.
It was then adopted more as a resource from society ;
though still the social character originally impressed on it,
continued to modify it there.
The first impulse to monachism in the West appears to
have been occasioned, by the residence of Athanasius at
Rome, with two of the Egyptian monks in his train, and
by the publication of his Life of St. Antony. The popu
larity of this romantic piece of biography may give us a
fair idea of that state of religion, in which such puerilities
of narration could pass for the adventures of saintly chi
valry, or could be employed as stimulants to religious
action. Jerome's imagination readily caught the spirit of
this work, and diffused it in his own lives of Paul, Hila-
rion, and Malchus, so beautifully executed after the Atha-
nasian model. He was surrounded at Rome by a number
of matrons of noble rank, who waited on his teaching with

NOTES TO LECTURE I. 413
devout and fond attention. Marcella, one of these, was
the first to make the profession of a monastic life at Rome.
The example was followed by Paula, who founded the
monastery for men at Bethlehem, over which Jerome pre
sided; and three others at the same place for women.B
A monastery existed at Milan under Ambrose. See Hie
ronym. Vit. per Erasm. — Athanasii Vit. p. 36. Oper. torn. I.
Paris, 1698. — Augustin. Conf. VIII. c. 6.
NOTE J. p. 29.
Votorum nulla vincula, nisi quae sunt cujusque pure
Christiani. Denique si quem forte sui instituti poenitentia
cepisset, tota demum poena erat inconstantiae nota. Cujus
rei si quis fidem requirat, legat Hilarionis vitam : legat in-
stitutionem monachi ad Rusticum, et item ad Paulinum :
legat in epistola cujus initium: Audi filia: descriptum
triplex apud iEgyptios monachorum genus. Quin inter
alia prasstabat et haec commoda illud vitae genus. Hujus
praetextu honestius licebat ad affinium et cognatorum vin-
culis temet excutere, gravi nimirum onere ei cui nihil
dulcius ocio studiorum. Etenim qui monachum erant pro-
fessi, a publicis functionibus, a muniis et officiis imperialis
aulas, prorsus habebantur excusati. Postremo minus pate-
bant episcoporum quorundam jam turn insolentium tyran-
nidi. Jam hie titulus, nee a functione clericatus quicquam
remorabatur: et ex nullo ordine saepius deligebantur epi
scopi. Nee aliud quicquam erat tunc monachi professio,
quam priscae liberaeque vitae meditatio, ac pure Christianae.
Hieronym. Vit. per Erasm.
Gregory Nazianzen thus describes the life ofthe Egyp
tian solitaries : Tote yap iepdig Kal Beioig twv Kar "Aiyvirrov
b Jerome prettily describes his loved retreat : In Christi ergo villa, ut
supra diximus, tota rusticitas est. Extra psalmos, silentium est. Quo-
cunque te verteris, arator stivam tenens, alleluia decantat. Sudans messor,
psalmis se avocat, et curva attondens falce vinitor, aliquid Davidicum canit.
Haec sunt in provincia carmina ; ha?, ut vulgo dicitur, amatoriae cantiones.
Ad Marcellam. Oper. torn. I. p. 130.

414 APPENDIX.
(ppoVTiaTripwig (pepwv eavrbv SiSwaiv' oi Koapov j(wpi£oVTEg eavrovg,
Kal rrjv epr\pov daira'Copevoi, C,wai 6e<5 irdvrwv pdXXov twv arpedro-
pivwv iv awpari' ot pev tov irdvrti povaSiKov re Kal apiKrov SiaBXovv-
TEg (iiov, Eavroig povoig irpoaXaXovvreg Kal tw dew, Kal rovro pbvov
Koapov elSoreg, 'baov iv rij ip-rjpia yvwpi^ovaiv. ol Se vopov dydirrjg rrj
Koivwviq. arepyovreg, ipripiKoi re bpov Kal piydSeg, rolg pev aXXotg
reBvrjKoreg dvBpwiroig Kal irpdypaaiv, baa iv peaoj irepi(j>iperai
arpo/iovvrd re Kal arpofiovpeva, Kal irait,ovra ifpdg roig dy^iarpocpoig
perajioXdig, dXXr)Xoig Se Koapog ovreg, Kal rrj irapaOiaei rr)v dperrfv
Bifyovreg. Orat. XXI. p. 384. ed. Paris, 1609.
NOTE K. p. 35.
The monasteries of Lerins and St. Victor, and the city
of Marseilles, were the great nurses of freedom of thought
at the period of the Pelagian controversy. It was in this
part of Gaul, as is well known, that Semi-Pelagianism
took its rise ; where, at least, from the influence of a more
cultivated and liberal taste, a reaction took place, after the
sentence of Augustine had been adopted in all its hardness
by the church. It is curious, that the same portion of the
Gallic Church should have supplied the antagonist-state
ments to the extreme views of Augustine, which, in the
IXth century, sent forth the champions of his authority on
the question of Predestination. But we may observe that,
in both cases, the Southern Gauls advocated a freedom of
individual opinion against the arbitrary dictate of mere
authority. In the case of Semi-Pelagianism, Augustine's
decisions were not yet become a rule of faith ; and the
effort was to resist the imposition of them on the reason
of individuals. In the Predestinarian controversy, the op
position was to the Northern Church of Gaul, which had
crushed with the hand of power an individual of their
own body, on account of his having freely expressed his
opinions in regard to the views of Augustine. Augustine
indeed was now become an established authority of the

NOTES TO LECTURE I. 415
Church ; so that the vindicators of the right of reason ap
peared, accidentally, as the assertors also of the principle of
authority.
NOTE L. p. 35.
John Scotus Erigena is one of the most remarkable per
sons in the history of the middle age. He was quite the
meteor of the IXth century; as no one of his contempora
ries appears to have approached him in the depth of his
learning, or the acuteness of his philosophy. Nor has any
one had greater influence by his writings ; however he
may have been cried down by some of his own times,
who either envied his reputation, or were startled by the
strangeness of his theories. When his name had survived
that opposition, it was embalmed in honourable memory
as that of a Christian philosopher ; and the Church shewed
a disposition to claim him for its own.1 He gave the
great impulse to that method of Translations, to which
the Latin literature was entirely indebted for what it
possessed in the Greek philosophy, by his translations
ofthe works attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite, and
the scholia of the philosopher Maximus. Two original
works of his are extant; one a short tract on Predes
tination, (that referred to in the Lecture,) and a con
siderable treatise, intitled liepl tpvaewv pepiapov, founded
chiefly on the writings of the Pseudo-Dionysius. We find
also a work on the Eucharist by him, alluded to by other
writers f and he is spoken of as the " patriarch '' of the
f Arnoldus Wion de eo in Ligno Vitae honorifice meminit : notatque in
Martyrologio Romano quod excudebatur anno 1580, ei locum et decus suum
integrum constitisse, a quo tamen sequentes editiones martyrologii eum
penitus detraxerunt. Eo fato mihi natus fuisse Joannes videtur, ut hominum
de se judicia semper alternantia subiret. Anastasius Bibliothecarius virum
per omnia sanctum pradicat ; alii ut mendacem, ineptum, dementem, hae-
reticum differunt. Testimonia de Joan. Scot. Erig. De Divjs. Natur. ed.
Gale Oxon. — Baronius speaks of him by the terms sancta anima.
Particularly by Berenger, in the following Epistle to Lanfranc.
Pervenit ad me, Prater Lanfrance, quiddam auditum ab Ingelranno Car-
notensi : in quo dissimulare non debui ammonere dilectionem tuam. Id

416 APPENDIX.
controvertists on that subject ; but doubts have been enter
tained whether he actually wrote any treatise on it.
The treatise on the " Division of Natures" is an ex
tremely curious monument of his peculiar genius, and of
the times when it was composed. It is perhaps the most
scientific development of the system of Pantheism which
has ever appeared. It regularly deduces all existence from
the reality of the Divine Being — the only Nature, accord
ing to him, that has any proper objective reality. Viewed
as a whole, it illustrates the vast, but delusive power of
the ancient metaphysics as an instrument of speculation:
the ingenuity and subtilty with which the thread of con
nexion is carried through the series of phenomena, giving
the plausibility of a real Divine Philosophy. The dryness
ofthe abstract disquisitions pursued in the work, requires
no ordinary patience of attention to go through its details.
But it is not unworthy of that attention, on the part of
those who would fully study the history of the human
mind, or the state of opinion in the Church of the IXth
century. It is composed in the form of a dialogue between
the Master and the Disciple ; the proper dialectical method
of philosophizing.
His great learning, particularly his knowledge of lan
guages, the Greek, the Hebrew, and the Arabic, appears
to have been acquired by travels. Ireland was in high
repute in his time for its learned men. But he was not
satisfied to learn there only, but visited every place, and
made inquiries of every one, where information might be
autem est, displicere tibi, imo haereticas habuisse, sententias JoannisScoti de
Sacramento Altaris, in quibus dissentit a suscepto tuo Paschasio. Hac ergo
in re si ita est, Frater, indignum fecisti ingenio quod tibi Deus non asper-
nahile contulit, praeproperam sequendo sententiam. Nondum enim ideo
sategisti in divina Scriptura cum tuis diligentioribus. Et nunc ergo, Frater,
quantumlibet rudis in ilia Scriptura, vellem tantum audire de eo, si oppor-
tunum mihi fieret, adhibitis quibus velles vel judicibus congruis vel audito-
ribus : quod quamdiu non sit, non aspernanter aspicias quod dico, si haere-
ticum habeas Joannem, cujus sententias de Eucharistia probamus, habendus
tibi est haereticus Ambrosius, Hieronymus, Augustinus, ut de caeteris taceam.
Bulai Hist. Acad. Par. torn. I. pp. 410. 507.

NOTES TO LECTURE I. 417
obtained respecting works of philosophy. He is said to
have commented on both Plato and Aristotle. For his
interpretation of Aristotle, indeed, he has the express
praise of Roger Bacon.
William of Malmesbury has transmitted one or two
interesting particulars respecting this distinguished man.
He is described as a person of diminutive stature, and of
a lively, facetious disposition; living in great familiarity
with Charles the Bald. This last fact is shewn by the
following anecdotes.
Assederat ad mensam contra regem ad aliam tabulae
partem : procedentibus poculis consumtisque ferculis, Carolus
fronte hilariori, post quasdam alia, cum vidisset Joarinem
quiddam fecisse, quod Gallicanam comitatem offenderet,
urbane increpuit, et dixit : " quid distat inter Sottum et
" Scottum ? " Retulit ille solenne convitium in auctorem,
et respondit : " tabula tantum." Interrogaverat rex de mo-
rum differenti studio : responderat Joannes de loci distante
spatio. Nee vero rex commotus est ; quod, miraculo sci-
entiae ipsius captus, adversus Magistrum nee dicto insur-
gere vellet; sic eum usitate vocabat. — Item cum rege
convivante minister patinam obtulisset, quae duos pisces
praegrandes, adjecto uno minusculo, contineret, dedit ille
Magistro, ut accumbentibus duobus juxta se clericis de-
partiretur. Erant illi giganteae molis ; ipse perexilis cor
poris. Turn qui semper aliquid honesti inveniebat ut
laetitiam convivantiura excitaret, retentis sibi duobus, unum
minorem duobus distribuit. Arguenti iniquitatem parti
tions regi, " imo," inquit, " benefeci et aeque ; nam hie
" est unus parvus," de se dicens, et duos grandes pisces
tangens ; itemque ad eos conversus, " hie sunt duo magni
" clerici immensi, et unus exiguus," piscem nihilominus
tangens. Willem. Malmesb. in lib. v. De Pontific. Jo.
Scot. Erig. De Divis. Nat. ed. Gale, fol. Oxon. 1681.

418 APPENDIX.
NOTE M. p. 35.
The case of Gotteschalc exhibits a most gross instance
of persecution. He was a monk of the order of St. Bene
dict, and of the convent of Orbais, devoted to learning and
religious exercises, and especially studious of the writings
of Augustine. He was not ordained until his fortieth year ;
and afterwards went on a pilgrimage to the shrines of the
Apostles Peter and Paul. On his return he visited the
house of a Count Everard, in Piedmont, where he met other
religious persons, who were hospitably entertained by the
Count according to the custom of the times. Among
these was Nothingus, Bishop of Verona. In a conver
sation with him, Gotteschalc entered on the question of
the Divine Predestination ; and contended that, according
to the doctrine of Augustine, there was a twofold predes
tination — a predestination to life, and a predestination to
death. This conversation was subsequently communi
cated to Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims, the metropolitan
to whose authority Gotteschalc was subject. His doc
trine was condemned as heretical. According to the rule
of St. Benedict, he was sentenced to be scourged ; and
by a formal decree of a Council imprisoned, and bound
to perpetual silence. Durissimis verberibus te castigari,
et secundum ecclesiasticas regulas ergastulo recludi, auc-
toritate episcopali decernimus ; et ut de caetero doctri-
nale tibi officium usurpare non praesumas, perpetuum si-
lentium ori tuo virtute asterni verbi imponimus : are the
words of the sentence against him. He was mercilessly
beaten, according to this sentence ; and in that exhausted
state, almost expiring, he was forced to throw into the
fire a defence of his doctrine, which he had prepared to
present in the next Council. The rigour of the imprison
ment was extended to the long period of twenty years.
But his mind was not to be subdued by these acts of
violence ; and he died in his prison, in the monastery of
Hautvilliers, a martyr to his opinions. The Church of
Lyons indeed did itself honour by its remonstrances against

NOTES TO LECTURE I. 419
the persecution of the unhappy monk ; but it had no power
to check them against the will of the imperious Hincmar.h
NOTE N. p. 37.
Of the general restlessness of the public mind about
this period, we may form a fair estimate from the extent
of Abelard's popularity, amidst all the objections and
charges brought against him. The fact is thus noticed
by himself : Accidit autem mihi ut ad ipsum fidei nostras
fundamentum humanae rationis similitudinibus disseren-
dum primo me applicarem, et quendam theologias tracta-
tum de Unitate et Trinitate Divina, scholaribus nostris
componerem, qui humanas et philosophicas rationes requi-
rebant, et plus quae intelligi quam quas dici possent ef-
flagitabant : dicentes quidem verborum superfluam esse
prolationem, quam intelligentia non sequeretur, nee credi
posse aliquid nisi primitus intellectum, et ridiculosum esse
aliquem aliis praadicare, quod nee ipse, nee illi quos doce-
ret, intellectu capere possent : Domino ipso arguente quod
casci essent duces caecorum. Quem quidem tractatum cum
vidissent et legissent plurimi, ccepit in commune omnibus
plurimum placere, quod in eo pariter omnibus satisfieri
super hoc quaestionibus videbatur. Et quoniam quaestiones
istas prse omnibus difficiles videbantur, quanto major ex-
stiterat gravitas, tanto solutionis earum censebatur major
subtilitas. Unde asmuli mei vehementer accensi Conci
lium contra me congregaverunt,1 &c. The fact is further
shewn in the following observations, which occur in a
letter of consolation addressed to Abelard himself : Roma
suos tibi docendos transmittebat alumnos : et quas olim
omnium artium scientiam auditoribus solebat infundere,
sapientiorem te se sapiente transmissis scholaribus mon-
strabat. Nulla terrarum, nulla montium cacumina, nulla
concava vallium, nulla via, difficili licet obsita periculo, et
h Vindie. Prcedest. et Grat. Histor. et Chronic. Synops. in Collection of
Tracts of the IXth century, on Grace and Predestination, by Mauguin.
' Abalardi Opera, p. 20. 4to. Paris, 1616.
E E2

420 APPENDIX.
latrone, quo minus ad te properarent, retinebat. Anglorum
turbam juvenum, mare interjacens, et undarum procella
terribilis, non terrebat; sed omni periculo contempto, au-
dito tuo nomine, ad te confluebat. Remota Britannia sua
animalia erudienda destinabat. Andegavenses, eorum edo-
mita feritate, tibi famulabantur in suis. Pictavi, Vvas-
cones, et Hiberi ; Normania, Flandria, Theutonicus, et
Suevus, tuum calere ingenium, laudare, et praedicare assi-
due studebat. Praeterea cunctos Parisiorum civitatem habi-
tantes, et intra Galliarum proximas et remotissimas partes,
qui sic a te doceri sitiebant, ac si nihil disciplinas non
apud te inveniri potuisset. Ingenii claritate, et suavitate
eloquii, et linguae absolutions facilitate, nee non et scien-
tiae subtilitate permoti, quasi ad limpidissimum philoso
phies fontem iter accelerabant.k
It was evidently the support which Abelard obtained
from influential persons in the Church, that saved him from
the extreme violence of persecution. Securus est tamen,
observes Bernard, quoniam Cardinales, et Clericos curiae, se
discipulos habuisse gloriatur, et eos in defensione praeteriti
et prassentis erroris adsumit, a quibus judicari timere debuit,
et damnari.1
The Pope Celestine II. had been a pupil of Abelard.
Bernard addresses an Epistle to him, intimating that af
fection for the man ought not to extend to affection for his
errors. m
NOTE O. p. 37.
It was objected to Abelard, that there was no occasion
for such reasonings as his at that particular time, since
heretics were in a great measure repressed. He points
out accordingly, that there was no lack of heresy to call
the attention of theologians even then ; indicating, in fact,
the rebellion which the system of the Church, at once
k Fulcon. Prior. Ep. ad Abcelard. Oper. p. 218.
1 Bernard. Ep. XIV. p. 299. Abaelardi Oper. .
m Ep. XIII. p. 297. Abaelardi Opera.

NOTES TO LECTURE I. 421
intolerant and speculative, had produced among both think
ing men and enthusiasts.
Nullos in tantam olim insaniam prorupisse haereticos
quisquam audierit, quanta nonnulli contemporaneorum nos-
trorum debacchati sunt : Tanquelmus quidam laicus nuper
in Flandria, Petrus Presbyter nuper in Provincia, ut ex
multis aliquos in medium producamus. Quorum quidem
alter, Tanquelmus scilicet, in tantam se erexerat dementiam,
ut se Dei filium vocitari atque decantari, et a seducto po
pulo, ut dicitur, templum asdificari sibi faceret. Alter vero
ita fera omnem divinorum, sacrorum, et ecclesiasticas doc-
trinae institutionem enervarat, ut multos rebaptizari co-
geret; et venerabile Dominicas signum crucis removendum
penitus censeret, atque altaris; sacramentum nullatenus
celebrandum esse amplius astrueret. Sed nee magistros
divinorum librorum, qui nunc maxime circa nos pestilen-
tise cathedras tenent, praetereundos arbitramur, quorum
unus in Francia, alter in Burgundia, tertius in pago Ande-
gavensi, quartus in Bituricensi, multa Catholicas fidei, vel
Sanctis doctrinis adversa, non solum tenent, verum etiam
docent.n He proceeds then to state the several wild speculations on
the Trinity and the Incarnation started by these individuals.
Irregular but strong efforts were made at this period
towards a reform of the Church, as we may see from the
following passage; in which no doubt a colouring has been
given to the circumstances, by the orthodox view of them,
and in order to prepare the scene for the introduction of
the Saint who works the transformation.
In partibus Tolosanis Henricus quidam olim monachus,
tunc apostata vilis, pessimae vitas, perniciosas doctrinae,
verbis persuasilibus gentis illius occupaverat levitatem, et
ut praedixit Apostolus de quibusdam, in hypocrisi loquens
mendacium, fictis verbis de eis negociabatur. Erat autem
hostis ecclesiae manifestus, irreverenter ecclesiasticis dero-
gans sacramentis pariter et ministris. Nee mediocriter in
n Abeelardi Introduct. ad Theolog. lib. II. Opera, p. 1066.

422 APPENDIX.
ea jam malignitate processerat. Sic enim de eo scribens
pater venerabilis ad principem Tolosanum, inter caetera
ait : " Passim inveniebantur jam ecclesiae sine plebibus,
" plebes sine sacerdotibus, sacerdotes sine debita reverentia,
" sine Christo denique Christiani ; parvulis Christianorum
" Christi vita intercludebatur, dum baptismi gratia nega-
" batur. Ridebantur orationes oblationesque pro mortuis,
" sanctorum invocationes, sacerdotum excommunicationes,
" fidelium peregrinationes, basilicarum aediticationes, dierum
" solennium vacationes, chrismatis et olei consecrationes, et
" omnes denique institutiones ecclesiasticas spernebantur."
Hac necessitate vir sanctus iter arripuit, ab ecclesiae re-
gionis illius saepius jam ante rogatus, et tunc demum a
reverendissimo Alberico Hostiensi Episcopo, et legato se-
dis Apostolicas, persuasus, pariter et deductus. Veniens
autem cum incredibili denotatione susceptus est a populo
terras, ac si de ccelo angelus advenisset. Nee moram facere
potuit apud eos, quod irruentium turbas reprimere nemo
posset, tanta erat frequentia diebus ac notibus adven-
tantium, benedictionem expectantium, flagitantium opem.
Praedicavit tamen in civitate Tolosa per aliquot dies, et
in casteris locis, quas miser ille frequentasset amplius, et
gravius infecisset, multos in fide simplices instruens, nu-
tantes roborans, errantes revocans, subversos reparans,
subversores et obstinatos auctoritate sua premens et op-
primens, ut non dico resistere, sed ne assistere quidem et
apparere prassumerent. Caeterum etsi tunc fugit hasreticus
ille et latuit, ita tamen impeditas sunt vias ejus et semitas
circumseptas, ut vix alicubi postea tutus, tandem captus
et catenatus Episcopo traderetur. In quo itinere plurimis
etiam signis in servo suo glorificatus est Deus, aliorum
corda ab erroribus impiis revocans, aliorum corpora a lan-
guoribus variis sanans.
Est locus in regione eadem, Sarlatum nomen est illi, ubi
sermone complete, plurimos ad benedicendum panes, sicut
ubique fiebat, Dei famulo offerebant. Quos ille elevata
manu, et signo crucis edito, in Dei nomine benedicens •

NOTES TO LECTURE I. 423
" In hoc," inquit, " scietis vera esse quas a nobis, falsa quas
" ab hasreticis suadentur ; si infirmi vestri, gustatis pani-
" bus istis, adepti fuerint sospitatem." Timens autem
venerabilis Episcopus Carnotensium magnus ille Gaufri-
dus, siquidem prassens erat et proximus viro Dei ; " si
" bona," inquit, " fide sumpserint, sanabuntur." Cui pater
sanctus de Domini virtute nil hassitans ; " non hoc ego
" dixerim," ait, " sed vere qui gustaverint sanabuntur : ut
" proinde veros nos et veraces Dei nuncios esse cognos-
" cant." Tam ingens multitudo languentium, gustato
eodem pane, convaluit, ut per totam provinciam verbum
hoc divulgaretur, et vir sanctus per vicina loca regrediens,
ob concursus intolerabiles declinaverit, et timuefit illo ire.
Vit. S. Bernardi, lib. III. c. 5.
NOTE P. p. 39.
Non ideo Romam pergere volui, quod majores quasstus,
majorque mihi dignitas, ab amicis, qui hoc suadebant, pro-
mittebatur ; quamquam et ista ducebant animum tunc
meum : sed ilia erat causa maxima et pasne sola, quod au-
diebam, quietius ibi studere adolescentes, et ordinatiore
disciplinae coercitione sedari, ne in ejus scholam, quo ma-
gistro non utuntur, passim et proterve irruant; nee eos
admitti omnino, nisi ille permiserit. Contra apud Cartha-
ginienses fosda est et intemperans licentia scholasticorum.
Irrumpunt impudenter, et prope furiosa fronte perturbant
ordinem, quem quisque discipulis ad proficiendum insti-
tuerit. Multa injuriosa faciunt, et mira habetudine, et
punienda legibus, nisi consuetudo patrona sit."
Sedulo ergo agere cceperam, propter quod veneram ut
docerem Romas artem rhetoricam, et prius domi congre-
gare aliquos, quibus et per quos innotescere cceperam ; et
ecce cognosco alia Romas fieri, quas non patiebar in Africa.
Nam revera illas eversiones a perditis adolescentibus ibi
non fieri, manifestatum est mihi. Sed subito, inquiunt, ne
mercedem magistro reddant, conspirant multi adolescentes,
° Augv.st'm. Confess, lib. V. c. 8.

424 APPENDIX.
et transferunt se ad alium, desertores fidei, et quibus, pras
pecuniae caritate, justitias vilis est.p
The violent disturbances which sometimes occurred
among the students, prove the imperfect state of the dis
cipline of the Universities of the middle age. The alarm
produced by a tumult at Oxford in the Xlllth century, when
the brother of the Pope's Legate was killed by a bowshot,
diminished the numbers of the University from 30,000 to
6000.q In the election to professorships, there was often
the utmost contention of party-feeling. At Paris, for in
stance, the original custom had been for the different
nations, (the students being distributed according to the
nations to which they belonged,) to elect a reader in
ethics, who held the office for two years. Launoy states
the reason for the alteration of the custom to have been,
the outrages committed at such elections. Sed propter
insolentias, perpetrataque in hujusmodi electione homici-
dia, cessavit talis lectio ; et, novo condito statuto, quilibet
Artium Regens specialem suis scholasticis facit ethicorum
lectionem, a quibus in fine cursus moderata pro labore suo
recipit stipendia.1
Yet, with all these irregularities, a strict obedience to
the word of a spiritual superior was both inculcated and
enforced. By the rule of St. Benedict, no difficulty, or
even impossibility, enjoined on any member of the frater
nity by the superior, was to be declined. He might humbly
and patiently represent the state of the case to the su
perior, without offering resistance or contradiction. But
if the prior still persisted in his order, the disciple was to
feel convinced that it must be so, and with trust in the
Divine assistance, must obey. His personal existence
was to be merged in that of the community. He was
neither to give, nor receive any thing, without the order
p Augustin. Confess, lib. V, c. 12.
q Pegge's Life of Bishop Grossetete, p. 85. — Henry's History of Great
Britain, vol. IV. p. 478.
* Goulet. Parisiens. Theolog. in Launoii de Varia Aristotelis Fortuna, c. 10.
Par. 1662.

NOTES TO LECTURE I. 425
of the superior, to whom he was to consider both his body
and his will as entirely subject.8
Such rules as these, it was found practicable to enforce.
There are many instances of their having been obeyed to
the very letter of the injunction. John Duns Scotus pre
sents a striking instance of the imperative force of such
obligations. In the year 1308 he was lecturing at Paris.
He had retired to some fields out of the town with his dis
ciples, for the sake of recreation. Letters are brought to
him there from the Minister General of the Order of St.
Francis, to which he belonged, — obedientiales literal, as his
biographer expresses it, — desiring him to transfer himself
to Cologne. Immediately, with a blind and prompt obe
dience, cceca et prompta obedientia, bidding farewell to
those present, he proceeds straight-forward on his way to
Cologne, without returning home to collect his books and
writings, or salute the brothers. Those that were present,
asked him, why he did not go to the Convent to bid fare
well to the brothers. His answer, adds the biographer, was
worthy of the man. " The Father- General orders to go to
" Cologne, not into the Convent to salute the brothers." '
NOTE Q. p. 39.
Jerome gives a satirical description of some of the
Clergy of his time.
Sunt alii, (de mei ordinis hominibus loquor,) qui ideo
presbyterium et diaconatum ambiunt, ut mulieres licentius
videant. Omnis his cura de vestibus, si bene oleant : si
pes laxa pelle non folleat. Crines calamistri vestigio ro^
tantur : digiti de annulis radiant : et ne plantas humidior
via spargat, vix imprimunt summa vestigia. Tales cum
videris, sponsos magis existimato, quam clericos. Ep. ad
Eustoch. Opera, torn. i. p. 144.
Sulpicius Severus speaks in the following terms of re
probation. s Reg. S. Bened. c. 68, c 33.
' J. Duns Scoti Vita a Luca Waddingo. p. 11. Scoti Opera.

426 APPENDIX.
Et nunc, cum maxime discordiis Episcoporum turbari
aut misceri omnia cernerentur, cunctaque per eos, odio,
aut gratia, metu, inconstantia, invidia, factione, libidine,
avaritia, adrogantia, desidia, essent depravata: postremo
plures adversum paucos bene consulentes, insanis consiliis,
et pertinacibus studiis, certabant: inter hasc plebs Dei, et
optimus quisque, probro atque ludibrio habebatur. Hist.
Sacr. lib. II. c. 51.
A little later, Sidonius Apollinaris, in giving an account
of the character and occupations of a country-gentleman
of his time, seems to have had a design of throwing censure
on some members of his own profession by the contrast.
The description in itself is beautifully executed, though
not without marks of the affectation of the writer. The
concluding remarks give the application : Qua industria
viri ac temperantia inspecta, ad reliquorum quoque censui
pertinere informationem ; si vel summo tenus vita ceteris
talis publicaretur. Ad quam sequendam, praeter habitum,
quo interim prassenti sasculo imponitur, omnes nostras pro-
fessionis homines, utilissime incitarentur. Quia, quod pace
ordinis mei dixerim, si tantum bona singula in singulis
erunt, plus ego admiror sacerdotalem virum, quam sacer-
dotem.u Indeed in other passages he has not scrupled to cha
racterize some individuals by still more express deline
ation. For instance, in the following account of three
competitors for a vacant see.
Quae quidem triumviratus accenderat competitorum :
quorum hie antiquam natalium prasrogativam, reliqua des-
titutus morum dote, ructabat : hie per fragores parasiticos,
culinarum suffragio comparatos, Apicianis plausibus inge-
rebatur: hie apice votivo si potiretur, tacita pactione pro-
miserat ecclesiastica plausoribus suis prasdas prasdia fore.x
The corruption was only aggravated by the state of
confusion and ignorance which ensued in the following
" Sidon. Apollin. Oper. lib. IV. Ep. IX.
* Lib. IV. Ep. XXV. p. 125. ed. Sirmond.

NOTES TO LECTURE I. 427
centuries. In the Xlth and Xllth centuries, it appears to
have reached its height, as is evidenced by numerous tes-
timonies^ Among these, I may select the following from
Abelard, a contemporary witness, and in himself, in great
measure, a type of the times in which he lived. — Quid
dicturi sunt quidam moderni sacerdotes in die judicii, qui
ordinem sacerdotalem susceperunt, sed inordinate vivere
non erubescunt? Quidam vero in conviviis et potationibus
cum vulgo prorsus indocto, pravis moribus corrupto, tota
die sedent, fabulantur, et quae dicenda non sunt turpiter
operantur. Lanis gregis Dominici superbe vestiuntur, lacte
pascuntur, et oves fame et penuria verbi Dei moriuntur.
Transeunt festa, transit integer annus, quod nee unum ver
bum de ore ipsorum egreditur, quo plebs sibi commissa
erudiatur, de malo corrigatur, ad bonum revocetur, et in
bono confirmetur. Cotidie tamen se Deo prasstare obse-
quium arbitrantes ; verba divinas laudis jubilant, immo
sibilant, et audientes, et intendentes sono vocis, gestu cor
poris scandalisant, non asdificant. . . . Sunt autem quidam
prasdicatores, qui sicut zizania in agro Domini a Diabolo
sunt seminati, qui totum mundum cum suis philacteriis
peragrant, et indoctum vulgus et peccatis oneratum, ver
bis mendacibus beatificant, dicentes, " Pax pax, cum non
" sit pax." y
Erat autem Abbatia ilia nostra, ad quam me contuleram,
secularis admodum vitas atque turpissimas. Cujus Abbas
ipse, quo caeteris praslatione major, tanto vita deterior atque
infamia notior erat. Quorum quidem intolerabiles spur-
citias, ego frequenter atque vehementer, modo privatim,
modo publice, redarguens, omnibus me supra modum one-
rosum atque odiosum effeci z . . . Me de alieno eductum
monasterio ad proprium remisit ; ubi fere quotquot erant
olim jam ut supra memini, infestos habebam; cum eorum
vitae turpitudo et impudens conversatio me suspectum
penitus haberent, quem arguentem graviter sustinerent.3
y Abailardi Oper. p. 364. z Ibid. p. 19.
a Ibid. p. 25. See also John of Salisbury, Melalogicus, I. c. 4.

428 APPENDIX.
NOTE R. p. 41.
Launoy, in his treatise entitled De Varia
Fortuna in Academia Parisiensi, has given a collection of
citations from different authors who have reprobated the
Scholastic method of theology. He gives Luther's de
finition of Scholasticism : Scholastica Theologia est ea,
quas a Parisiorum Sorbona, mixtione quadam ex divinis
eloquiis, et Philosophicis rationibus, tanquam ex Centau-
rorum genere biformis disciplina, conflata est ; and, on the
other hand, that of Hangest, a theologian of Paris : Scho
lastica Theologia est divinarum Scripturarum peritia,
recepto quem Ecclesia approbat sensu, non spretis ortho-
doxorum Doctorum interpretationibus et censuris, ac inter-
dum aliarum disciplinarum non contempto suffragio.b
Speaking of Abelard to the Pope Innocent, Bernard of
Clairvaux says : Habemus in Francia novum de veteri/
magistro theologum, qui ab ineunte astate sua in arte dia
betica lusit, et nunc in Scripturis Sanctis insanit. Olim
damnata et sopita dogmata, tam sua videlicet quam aliena,
suscitare conatus, insuper et nova addit. Qui dum om
nium quae sunt in ccelo sursum, et quae in terra deorsum,
nihil praeter solum nescio quid nescire dignatur, ponit in
coelum os suum, et scrutatur alta Dei, rediensque ad nos
refert verba ineffabilia, quae non licet homini loqui. Et
dum paratus est de omnibus reddere rationem, etiam quae
sunt supra rationem, et contra rationem prassumit, et
contra fidem. Quid enim magis contra rationem, quam
ratione rationem conari transcendere ? Et quid magis con
tra fidem, quam credere nolle quicquid non possit ratione
attingere ? c
NOTE S. p. 41.
Illius sententias ventilatas sunt a concilio Romano quod
Alexander III. habuit. . . . Hasc altercatio ad plures annos
bCap. 12. 8vo. Paris, 1662.
' Bernardi Abbat. ad Innoc. Ep. XI, p. 277. Abaelardi Oper.

NOTES TO LECTURE I. 429
duravit. ... Id demum consecuti sunt, ut ex Sententiis
Lombardi postea fieret indiculus nonnullarum quas minime
docerentur. Has ad calcem Sententiarum designantur hoc
modo: Articuli in quibus Magister Sententiarum com-
muniter non tenetur.d
Sub illud tempus Lutetias fuit e Sancti Victoris casnobio,
Galterus prior, qui Petrum Abaslardum, Petrum Lombar-
dum, Petrum Pictavinum, et Gilbertum Porretanum, hasre-
seos insimulaverit, quod Trinitatis, et Divinae Incarnationis,
mysteria, spiritu censerent Aristotelico.e
NOTE T. p. 41.
Ad annum 1231, Gregorius IX. provinciale Concilium,
quo proscribuntur Aristotelis opera, his verbis tenrperavit.
..." Ad haec jubemus, ut Magistri Artium unam lec-
" tionem de Prisciano, et unam post aliam, ordinarie sem-
" per legant : et libris illis naturalibus, qui in Concilio
" provinciali ex certa scientia prohibiti fuere Parisiis, non
" utantur ; quousque examinati fuerint, et ab omni erro-
" rum suspicione purgati. Magistri vero, et scholares
" theologias, in facultate quam profitentur se studeant
" laudabiliter exercere : nee Philosophos se ostentent ; sed
" satagant fieri Theodidacti: nee loquantur in lingua po-
" puli, linguam Hebraeam cum Asotica confundentes : sed
" de illis tantum in scholis questionibus disputent, quae
" per libros theologicos, et Sanctorum Patrum tractatus,
" valeant terminari."f
NOTE U. p. 41.
Albert and Aquinas have been thought to have been
excepted from this general regulation. But there is no
reason for such a supposition. They were probably pro
tected under the shelter of the Dominican Order to which
they belonged, and which the successive Popes were
disposed to favour, as a support to their own influence, in
d Launoii de Var. Aristot. Forlun. p. 71. e Ibid. p. 69.
' Rigord. in Vita Philip. August. Launoii de Var. Aristot. Fortun. c. 6.

430 APPENDIX.
those factious times, when the interests of the Italian states
were distracted between the civil and ecclesiastical powers.
But the true account of the case, in regard to Albert and
Aquinas, appears to be, that, until their writings appeared,
the proper philosophy of Aristotle, in physics and meta
physics, was not understood. These portions of his phi
losophy were known only under the disguise which they had
worn in the commentaries of the Arabians, and in their
amalgamation with the mysticism of the New-Platonic
School. Aquinas, indeed, particularly opposed himself to
the Averroism of his times : — the doctrines of the cele
brated Ebn Roshd, or Averroes, of Cordoba,g having
then obtained a considerable popularity among the spe
culating theologians of the Schools, in the want of more
immediate communication with works of Greek philo
sophy.
NOTE V. p. 43.
This may be sufficiently seen from the following pas
sages. Hoc primum vestram sanctitatem monens et postulans,
ut doctrinam beatissimi Patris Augustini absque ilia du-
bitatione undequaque doctissimi, sanctarum Scripturarum
auctoritati in omnibus concordissimam ; quippe nullus Doc-
torum abstrusa earum scrupulosius rimatus, diligentius ex-
quisierit, verius invenerit, veracius protulerit, luculentius
enodaverit, fidelius tenuerit, robustius defenderit, effusius
deseminaverit ; vestri Pontificatus tempore, commento quo-
dam impugnari non permittatis. Epist. Prudentii ad
Hincmar. Remens. et Pardulum Laudunens. Episcop.
A. D. 849. p. ll.h„'
Relictis sacris authoritatibus ad dialecticam confugium
facis. Et quidem de mysterio fidei auditurus, ac respon-
surus quas ad rem debeunt pertinere, mallem audire ac
6 He flourished in the Xllth century.
h In the collection of writers on Grace and Predestination of the Xlth
century, by Mauguin, 2 vols. 4lo. Paris.

NOTES TO LECTURE I. 431
respondere sacras authoritates, quam dialecticas rationes.
Verum contra hasc quoque nostri erit studii respondere, ne
ipsius artis inopia me putes in hac tibi parte deesse : for-
tasse jactantia quibusdam videbitur, et ostentationi magis
quam necessitati deputabitur. Sed testis mihi Deus est,
et conscientia mea, quia in tractatu divinarum literarum,
nee proponere, nee ad propositas respondere cuperem dia
lecticas quasstiones vel earum solutiones. Etsi quando
materia disputandi talis est, ut hujus artis regulis valeat
enucleatius explicari, in quantum possem per asquipollen-
tias propositionum tego artem, ne videar magis arte, quam
veritate, sanctorumque Patrum authoritate, confidere. Lan
franc. De Corp. et Sang. Dom. c. 7. p. 236.
Even Erigena is obliged to speak with the greatest
deference of Augustine. Augustinus piissimus doctrines
pater, pulcherrimum exemplar eloquentias, acutissimus ve
ritatis inquisitor, studiosissimus liberalium artium magister,
providentissimus animorum excitator, humillimus persuasor.
De Prwdest. c. 18.
NOTE W. p. 47.
Anselm, speaking of his own work, says : Quam ergo
saspe tractans nihil potui invenire me in ea dixisse, quod
non Catholicorum patrum, et maxime Beati Augustini,
scriptis cohasreat. Quapropter si cui videbitur, quod in
eodem opusculo aliquid protulerim, quod aut minus novum
sit, aut a veritate dissentiat; rogo ne statim me aut ut
praesumptorem novitatum, aut falsitatis assertorem excla-
met: Sed prius libros Beati Augustini de Trinitate dili-
genter perspiciat, deinde secundum eos opusculum meum
dijudicet. Prwfatio in Monolog.
So more expressly Peter Lombard says: Ecce tribus
illustrium virorum testimoniis, scilicet, Augustini, Hilarii,
atque Ambrosii, in eodem concurrentibus revelatione Spi
ritus Sancti in eis loquentis, pie credere volentibus osten-
ditur, &c. Lib. Sentent. I. Dist. 19.

432 APPENDIX.
LECTURE II.
NOTE A. p. 57.
JTJLN ore rJKpa^e rd ifpirEpa, Kal KaXwg elxev' rfvUa to piv
irepirrbv rovro Kal KareyXwrnapivov rfjg BeoXoyiag Kal evreyyav,
ovSi irdpoSov e'i-)(ev tie rag Beiag avXag' aXXa ravrov i\v, iprfipoig re
rrai^eiv rrjv b\piv KXeirrovaatg to) ra-^ei rrjg peraBiaewg, r) Karop-
¦%Eia8ai twv Bearwv, iravroioig koi dvSpoyvvoig Xvyiapaai, Kal izepl
Beov Xiyeiv ri Kal dmveiv Kaivorepov Kal irepiepyov' to Se airXovv re
Kal evyeveg rov Xoyov evaefieia evopi^ero. d(j> ov Si Sterol, Kal
Tlvppwveg, Kal ij dvriBerog yXwaaa wairep n voaqpa Seivov Kal
KaKorfdeg rdig eKKXnaiaig ifpwv eiaetydapw, Kal if ifKvapia iralSevaig
eSo£,e, Kal b (prjai irepl 'ABrjvaiwv il pifSXog twv HpdE,ewv, eig ovSev
dXXo evKaipovpev, i) XiyEiv ti Kal aKoveiv KaivorEpov. Greg. Naz.
Orat. XXI.
Aidirrvi poi rag ivaraaeig, Kal rag dvnBiaeig, rrjv viav evae-
fieiav, Kal rrfv fjiKpoXoyov aoipiav' Kal Siairrve irXeov, rj rd twv
dpa-jQ/iwv vijpara, pviag pev Kparovvra, a<prj!;l Se prjyvvpeva,
ovirw Xiyw SaKrvXotg, ovSi a\\&> nvi twv flapvrepwv awpdrwv.
ev SiSaaKE ([>opE~ta6ai pbvov, to Xueiv rrfv irianv ev roig aodiiapaaiv'
ov Seivov ijrrriBrjvai Xoyw, ov yap ndvrwv b Xuyog' Seivov Se
(¦qpiwBfjvai Beorrfra, irdvrwv yap ?/ £\7rt£. Orat. XXIII.
NOTE B. p. 57.
With all his objections to subtilties in theology, Gre
gory Nazianzen still shews a disposition to encourage
speculative questions, where they are proposed by the
orthodox. In Oration XLV. Gregory praises Evagrius the
monk, for having sent some speculations and questions on
the subject of the Trinity to him for solution. He as
sumes there the propriety of laying down a definition of
the Deity, and proceeding from that to the demonstra
tions : — '0 roivvv iarl debg, irporepov vizooTrfaopeBa' Kal elB'
o'urwg iirl rag diroSei^eig aKpifiwg rfiopev. He professes also

NOTES TO LECTURE II. 433
not to rest the proof of his point on mere undemonstrated
faith, but on exact argument ; — Ov iriarewg avairoSeiKrov
(jravraaiav airopia rrjg airoSei^Ewg dXoywg irpdiaxopevog, ovSe p'vBwv
iraXatwv paprvpiaig to oaBpbv rrjg irEiroiBrfaewg eavrov koXvitteiv
ireipbipevog, dXXa £rfrr)aEwg aKpif3ovg KaravorfaEi, Kal Xoyiapwv
opdoTrfTi, rriv tov Bewpifparog irlarwatv eig rovprpaveg irporidipevog.

NOTE C. p. 59.
Thus too, among the qualifications for the office of a
bishop enumerated in the Epistle to Titus, is this : that he
should be able to " convince the gainsayers," rovg dvn-
Xiyovrag eXiy^eiv : an expression being also used here,
drawn from the art of the logician.
The use of the word tpwraw may be contrasted with alrew
in John Xvi. 23. Kat iv eKeivrj ry ifpepq. epi ovk IpWTrfaere
bvSiv. dprfv, dprjv, Xt'yw vpiv on baa dv aXrrjarfre rov nrarepa
lv to> ovopari pov, Swaei vpiv. Also in V. 26. 'Ev eKelvn rrj
ypepf ev tw ovopari pov airr'iaeaBe' Kal ov Xiyw vpiv, on iyw
'ipwrrjaw rbv iraripa irepl vpwv. The one expression seems
properly to denote asking for information or argument;
the other, that a favour may be obtained. Other citations
occur to the same purport ; with the appositeness of which
we shall not so readily concur : as Jerome's appeal to the
opening of the book of Proverbs, which speaks of the
understanding of " discourses' and artifices of words,
" parables, and obscure discourse, sayings and enigmas;"
as descriptive of the office of dialecticians and philoso
phers.1 Nor shall we be disposed to sanction an inter
pretation attributed to Augustine, of our Lord's direction :
" ask, and it shall be given you ; seek, and ye shall find ;
" knock, and it shall be opened unto you," in the follow
ing manner : " ask by praying ; seek by disputing ; knock
" by asking, that is, by interrogating : — petite orando ;
i Hieronym. Op. torn. I. p. 326. Ep. adv. Mag. Orat. Rom.
F F

434 APPENDIX.
" quaerite disputando; pulsate rogando, id est, interro-
" gando." k
NOTE D. p. 60.
Clemens Alexandrin., Stromat. lib. I. referred to in
Petavii Dogm. Theol. Prolegomena, c. 4. p. 13.
Ipsum quippe Dei filium, quem nos Verbum dicimus,
Grasci \6yov appellant, hoc est, divinas mentis conceptum,
seu Dei sapientiam vel rationem. Unde et Augustinus
in libro quasstionum octoginta trium, capite quadragesimo
quarto : " In principio," inquit, " erat Verbum, quod
" Greece Aoyoc dicitur." Idem in libro contra quinque
hasreses : " In principio erat Verbum. Melius Grasci
" Xoyog dicunt: Adyoc quippe Verbum significat et ratio-
" nem." Et Hieronymus ad Paulinum de divinis scrip-
turis. " In principio erat Verbum : Xoyog Graece multa
" significat. Nam et verbum est, et ratio, et supputatio,
" et causa uniuscujusque rei, per quam sunt singula,
" quae subsistunt. Quae universa recte intelligimus in
" Christo." Cum ergo Verbum Patris Dominus Jesus
Christus Xdyoc Graece dicatur, sicut et aoipia Patris appel
late : plurimum ad eum pertinere videtur ea scientia,
quas nomine quoque illi sit conjuncta, et per derivationem
quandam a Adyoc Logica sit appellata : et sicut a Christo
Christiani, ita a Adyoe Logica proprie dici videatur. Cujus
etiam amatores tanto verius appellantur philosophi, quanto
veriores sint illius sophias superioris amatores. Quas pro-
fecto summi Patris summa sophia, cum nostram indueret
naturam, ut nos veras sapientias illustraret lumine, et nos
ab amore mundi in amorem converteret sui, profecto nos
pariter Christianos, et veros effecit philosophos. Qui cum
illam sapientias virtutem discipulis promitteret, qua refel-
lere possent contradicentium disputationes, dicens ; " Ego
" enim dabo vobis os et sapientiam, cui non poterunt
" resistere adversarii vestri ;" profecto post amorem sui,
k Abtelardi Epist. IV, p. 240. Opera, citing Augustin. de Misericordia. 1
have not however been able to find any such passage in Augustine.

NOTES TO LECTURE II. 435
unde veri dicendi sunt philosophi, patenter et illam ratio-
num armaturam eis pollicetur, qua in disputando summi
efficiantur logici  Quis denique ipsum etiam Dominum
Jesum Christum crebris disputationibus Judasos ignoret
convicisse, et tam scripto quam ratione calumnias eorum
repressisse : non solum potentia miraculorum, verum virtute
verborum fidem plurimum astruxisse ? Cur non solis usus
est miraculis, ut hasc faceret, quibus maxime Judasi, qui
signa petunt, commoverentur : nisi quia proprio nos ex-
emplo instruere decrevit, qualiter et eos, qui sapientiam
quaerunt, rationibus ad fidem pertraheremus ? Abcelardi
Ep. IV. Oper. p. 241 and 328.
NOTE E. p. 60.
Nihil ergo theologum impedire potest, quo minus sin-
cerae ac germanae philosophiae, et dialecticas, prassidiis,
munitiorem et ornatiorem habeat divinam scientiam. Sed
nee ipiariKriv illam et aocpiariKrfv funditus aspernabitur: non
ut ea sic utatur, quomodo haeretici ac reliqui hostes eccle
siae, ad oppugnandam veritatem; sed ad propugnandam
potius ; et ad illorum perplexos nodos, ac laqueos ejusdem
unde implicati sunt, artis ope solvendos. Petavii Dogmata
Theol. Prolegomena, c. 4. p. 1 4.
Petau, in confirmation of the above, cites the following
passage of Damascenus.
LTae ydp re-vyirrfg Seirai Kal nvwv opydvwv irpog rrfv twv diro-
reXovpivwv KaraaKevr'fv. irpiirei Si Kal rrj (3aatXiSi dfipaig nalv
virrfpETEiaBai. Xdjiwpev roivvv rovg SobXovg rrjg dXrfBeiag Xoyovg,
Kal rrjv KaKwg avrwv rvpavvrjaaaav daifieiav dwwawpeBa' Kal pr)
rw KaXw KaKwg xPV™pe8a' pr/ irpbg lt,airarr\v twv airXovaripwv
rrfv riyvrfV twv Xoywv pETay^EipiawpeBa' dXXd ei Kal pn Seirai
iroidXwv aoipiapbrwv if dXrfBeia, irpog y£ rrjv twv Kamp&xwv, mi
rrjg \pevSwvvpov y»w£W£ dvarpoirr)v rovroig diroxp-nawpeBa.
Damasc. Dialectic, c. 1.
To the same purport may be adduced what the Scho
lastics say of the mendacium officiosum. See Thomas Aqui
nas, Summa Theol. Secunda Secundw, qu. ex. art. 2 et 4.
F F 2

436 APPENDIX.
The question respecting the mendacium officiosum was
touched in a correspondence between Jerome and Augus
tine.
NOTE F. p. 61.
Xptarbv Si ifyvorfKaaiV ov n al Oeiai Xiyovai ypaipal ^rjrovvreg,
dXX' oiroiov axfipa avXXoyiapov eig rrjv rrjg dBeOTrjrog EVpeBrj
avaraaiv, (jriXoirovwg daKouvTEg' car avroig irporeivn rig p-rrrov
ypaibfjc BeiKrjg, i£,erdt,ovai irorepov avvifppevov rj SieCevypivov
Svvarai iroirjaai axvpa avXXoyiapov. KaraXiirovreg Si rag dyiag
rov Beov ypaipdg, yewperpiav iwirrjSevovaiV wg av ek rrjg yrjg bvreg
Kal 'ek rrjg yrjg XaXot5iT£e> Kal tov dvwBev ipxbpEVOv dyvoovvreg.
'EvKXeiSrfg yovv irapd naiv avrwv (j>tXoir6vwg yEwpErpEirai' 'Api-
aroriXrfg Se Kal QEotypaarog Bavpai^ovrai' VaXrjvog yap "lawg iiro
nvwv Kal upoaKWEirai. ot Si rdig twv diriarwv rexvaig eig rrjv
rrjg alpiaewg avrwv yvwprfv diroxpwpEvoi, Kal rrj twv dBiwv iravovp-
yiq, rrfv airXrjv twv Be'iwv ypaipwv irianv Kair-qXevovreg, K. r. X.
Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. lib. V. c. 28. p. 160. ed. Amstaelod.
1695.
NOTE G. p. 61.
Thus Tertullian : Miserum Aristotelem, qui illis dialec-
ticam instituit, artificem struendi, et destruendi, versipel-
lem in sententiis, coactam in conjecturis, duram in argu
ments, operariam contentionum, molestam etiam sibi ipsi,
omnia retractantem, ne quid omnino tractaverit. Hinc
illas fabulas. . . - Quid ergo Athenis et Hierosolymis ? quid
Academias et Ecclesiae? quid haereticis et Christianis?
Nostra institutio de porticu Solomonis est, qui et ipse
tradiderat, Dominum in simplicitate cordis esse quasren-
dum. Viderint, qui Stoicum, et Platonicum, et Dialec-
ticum Christianismum protulerunt. Nobis curiositate opus
non est post Christum Jesum, nee inquisitione post Evan
gelium. Tertull. De Prcesc. Hair. c. 7. p. 205.
The commentator on this passage of Tertullian refers to
Gregorius Bceticus Episcop. Elliberitan., who lived in
the minority of Valentinian III, during the government

NOTES TO LECTURE II. 437
of Placidia, and who was an opposer of Arianism, com
plaining of Aristotelis artificiosa argumenta: and again,
ubi nunc sunt ilia impia vestra sophismata quae Aristotelis
episcopi vestri magisterio didicistis. Ibid. p. 204.
Ambrose, alluding to the Arians, says: Omnem enim
vim venenorum suorum in dialectica disputations constitu-
unt; quas philosophorum sententia definitur, non adstru-
endi vim habere, sed destruendi. Sed non in dialectica
complacuit Deo salvum facere populum suum. Regnum
enim Dei in simplicitate fidei est, non in contentione ser-
monis. Ambros. De Fide, I. c. 5. Opera, torn. n. col. 451.
Paris, 1690.
Odiosum me mundo reddidit Logica. Aiunt enim per-
versi prasvertentes, quorum sapientia est in perditione, me
in Logica prasstantissimum esse, sed in Paulo non medio-
criter claudicare ; cumque ingenii prasdicent aciem, Chris
tianas fidei subtrahunt puritatem: quia, ut mihi videtur,
opinione potius traducuntur ad judicium, quam experien-
tias magistratu. Nolo sic esse Philosophus, ut recalcitrem
Paulo ; non sic esse Aristoteles, ut secludar a Christo.
Abcelardi Ep. p. 308. Opera.
NOTE H. p. 62.
Philosophi autem qui vocantur, si qua forte vera et fidei
nostras accommoda dixerunt, maxime Platonici, non solum
formidanda non sunt, sed ab eis tanquam injustis posses-
soribus, in usum nostrum vindicanda. Augustin. De Doctr.
Ch. lib. II. fol. 14.
Sed ideo cum Platonicis magis placuit hanc causam
agere, quia eorum sunt literas notiores. Nam et Grasci,
quorum lingua in gentibus praseminet, eas magna prasdi-
catione celebrarunt: et Latini permoti earum, vel excel-
lentia, vel gloria, vel gratia, ipsas libentius didicerunt;
atque in nostrum eloquium transferendo, nobiliores clario-
resque fecerunt. De Civ. Dei, lib. VIII. c. 10.
Eligimus autem Platonicos omnium philosophorum merito

438 APPENDIX.
nobilissimos, propterea, quia sicut sapere potuerunt, &c.
De Civ. Dei. lib. X. c. 1.
Ubi autem commemoravi, legisse me quosdam libros
Platonicorum, quos Victorinus, quondam rhetor urbis Romas,
quem Christianum defunctum esse audieram, in Latinam
linguam transtulisset, gratulatus est mihi, quod non in
aliorum philosophorum scripta incidissem, plena fallaci-
arum et deceptionum secundum elementa hujus mundi :
in istis autem omnibus modis insinuari Deum et ejus Ver
bum. Confess, lib. VIII. c. 2.
Profecto Theologi veteres omnes, qui et sacrosanctae
fidei jecerunt fundamenta, et Ecclesiam alte extruxerunt,
Divus Dionysius, Justinus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Ori-
genes, Cyrillus, Basilius, Eusebius, Theodoretus, Arnobius,
Lactantius, Augustinus, Ambrosius, alii plerique omnes,
quia scirent paucis mutatis Platonicos facile Christianos
fieri posse, (Augustini verbis utor,) Platonem, ejusque sec-
tatores hosce philosophos reliquis omnibus antetulerunt,
Aristotelem non nisi cum infamia nominarunt : quadrin-
gentis vero abhinc circiter annis, Scholastici theologi in
contrarium sunt annixi, Aristotelicis impietatibus pro fidei
fundamentis sunt usi. Excusatos eos habemus, quod Gras-
cas literas nescirent, illos cognoscere non potuerunt. Non
vero eos excusamus, quod impietati pietatem adstruere
sint conati. Fr. Patricii Ep. ad Gregor. XIV. Launoii
De Var. Aristot. Fortuna, p. 170.

NOTE I. p. 63.
We may see, from the following passage of John of
Salisbury,' what was the original method of a Schola Gram
matical. Sequebatur hunc morem Bernardus Carnotensis, exun-
dantissimus modernis temporibus fons literarum in Gal
lia; et in authorum lectione quid simplex esset, et ad
imaginem regulas positum, ostendebat; figuras graroma-
ticas, colores rhetoricos, cavillationes sophismatum, et qua

NOTES TO LECTURE II. 439
parte sui propositas lectionis articulus respiciebat alias
disciplinas, proponebat in medio ; ita tamen, ut non in
singulis universa doceret, sed pro capacitate audientium,
dispensaret eis in tempore doctrinae mensuram. Et quia
splendor orationis, aut a proprietate est, id est, cum adjec-
tivum aut verbum substantivo eleganter adjungitur, aut a
translatione, id est, ubi sermo ex causa probabili, ad alie-
nam traducitur significationem, haec sumpta occasione,
inculcabat mentibus auditorum. Et quoniam memoria exer-
citio firmatur, ingeniumque acuitur ad imitandum ea quas
audiebant, alios admonitionibus, alios flagellis et pcenis
urgebat. Cogebantur exsolvere singuli die sequenti ali
quid eorum, quas prascedenti audierant ; alii plus, alii mi
nus ; erat enim apud eos prascedentis discipulus sequens
dies. Vespertinum exercitium, quod declinatio dicebatur,
tanta copiositate grammaticas refertum erat, ut, siquis in
eo per annum integrum versaretur, rationem loquendi et
scribendi, si non esset hebetior, haberet ad manum, et
significationem sermonum, qui in communi usu versantur,
ignorare non posset. Sed quia nee scholam, nee diem
aliquem, decet esse religionis expertem," ea proponebatur
materia, quae fidem asdificaret, et mores, et unde, qui
convenerant, quasi collatione quadam, animarentur ad
bonum. Novissimus autem hujus declinationis, immo
philosophicas collationis, articulus, pietatis vestigia pras-
ferebat: et animas defunctorum commendabat, devota ob-
latione psalmi, qui in posnitentialibus sextus est, et in
oratione dominica, Redemptori suo. Quibus autem indice-
bantur praeexercitamina puerorum, in prosis aut poematibus
imitandis, poetas aut oratores proponebat, et eorum jube-
bat vestigia imitari, ostendens juncturas dictionum, et ele
gantes sermonum clausulas. Si quis autem ad splendorem
sui operis, alienum pannum assuerat, deprehensum redar-
guebat furtum : sed poenam saepissime non infligebat. Sic
vero redargutum, si hoc tamen meruerat inepta positio, ad
exprimendam auctorum imaginem, modesta indulgentia
conscendere jubet, faciebatque, ut qui majores imitabatur,

440 APPENDIX.
fieret posteris imitandus. Id quoque inter prima rudi-
menta docebat, et infigebat animis, quas in ceconomia vir
tus ; quas in decore rerum, quas in verbis laudanda sunt ;
ubi tenuitas, et quasi macies sermonis, ubi copia probabi-
lis, ubi excedens, ubi omnium modus. Historias, poemata,
percurrenda monebat, diligenter quidem, et qui velut nul
lis calcaribus urgebantur ad fugam : et ex singulis, aliquid
reconditum in memoria, diurnum debitum, diligenti in-
stantia exigebat. Superflua tamen fugienda dicebat ; et ea
sufficere quas a claris authoribus scripta sunt. . . . Et quia
in toto prasexercitamine erudiendorum, nihil utilius est,
quam ei, quod fieri ex arte oportet, assuescere, prosas et
poemata quotidie scriptitabant, et se mutuis exercebant
collationibus. Metalogicus, lib. I. c. 24.
NOTE J. p. 63.
Sed cum artium multa sint genera, ingenio philoso-
phantis animi primas omnium liberales occurrunt. Has
quidem omnes, aut Trivii, aut Quadrivii, ratione claudun-
tur : et tantam dicunt obtinuisse efficaciam apud majores,
qui eis diligenter institerant, ut omnem aperirenf lectionem,
ad omnia intellectum erigerent, et omnium quaestionum
quas probari possunt, difficultatem sufficerent. Neque enim
doctore egebant in aperiendis libris, aut quaestionibus dis-
solvendis, hi, quibus aut ratio Trivii, omnium sermonum, aut
Quadrivii lex, totius naturae, secreta exponebat. Joann.
Saresberiens. Metalog. lib. I.e. 12. p. 758.
The .'transition of this course of study into one vague,
superficial, logical philosophy is thus noticed by the same
author. Poetae, historiographi, habebantur infames ; et si quis
incumbebat laboribus antiquorum, notabatur ; et non modo
asello Arcadias tardior, sed obtusior plumbo, vel lapide,
omnibus erat in risum. . . . Fiebant ergo summi repente
philosophi : nam qui illiteratus accesserat, fere non mora-
batur in scholis ulterius, quam eo curriculo temporis, quo
avium pulli plumescunt. Itaque recentes magistri e scholis,

NOTES TO LECTURE II. 441
et pulli volucrum e nidis, sicut pari tempore morabantur,
sic pariter avolabant. . . . Ecce nova fiebant omnia : in-
novabatur grammatica ; immutabatur dialectica ; contem-
riebatur rhetorica : et novas totius quadrivii vias, evacuatis
priorum regulis, de ipsis philosophiae adytis proferebant.
Solam convenientiam, sive rationem loquebantur; argu-
nientum sonabat in ore omnium ; et asinum nominare, vel
hominem, aut aliquid operum naturae, instar criminis erat,
aut ineptum nimis, aut rude, et a philosdpho alienum : im
possibile credebatur, convenienter, et ad rationis normam,
quicquam dicere, aut facere, nisi convenientis et rationis
mentio, expressim esset inserta. Sed nee argumentum
fieri licitum, nisi prasmisso nomine argumenti. Ex arte, et
de arte, agere, idem erat. Metalogicus, lib. I. c. 3.
NOTE K. p. 66.
Sidonius Apollinaris, alluding to the studies of his youth,
makes no mention but of the Categories of Aristotle. Oper.
lib. IV. Ep. I. p. 85.
The Topics, among other treatises of Aristotle, though
existing in Latin Translation, had fallen into disuse at the
time of John of Salisbury. He observes : Cum itaque tam
evidens sit utilitas Topicorum, miror quare cum aliis a
majoribus tamdiu intermissus sit Aristotelis liber, ut om-
nino, aut fere, in desuetudinem abierit ; quando aetate nos
tra, diligentis ingenii pulsante studio, quasi a morte, vel a
somno, excitatus est, ut revocaret errantes, et viam veritatis
quasrentibus aperiret. Metalogicus, lib. III. c. 5. p. 859.
He speaks with great contempt of the logicians in
general of his day ; describing, how they wasted the time
of learners in the merely elementary part of logic, as on
the explanation of the Categories and the Introduction of
Porphyry. He quotes a remark of a professor of logic in
his time, who used to ridicule the prevailing practice of
commenting on these works ; but still was obliged to con
form to it, observing, that his school would be deserted,
were he to teach logic with the requisite simplicity of

442 APPENDIX.
address and ease. Deridebat eos noster ille Anglus
Peripateticus Adam, cujus vestigia sequuntur multi, sed
pauci praspediente invidia profitentur : dicebatque, se aut
nullum aut auditores paucissimos habiturum, si ea simpli-
citate sermonum et facilitate sententiarum dialecticam tra-
deret, qua ipsam doceri expediret. Habui enim hominem
familiarem assiduitate colloquii, et communicatione libro
rum, et quotidiano fere exercitio super emergentibus arti-
culis conferendi. * Sed nee una die discipulus ejus fui ; ei
tamen habeo gratias, quod eo docente plura cognovi, plura
ipsius, quoniam aliud ratione consulta praselegeram, ipso
arbitro reprobavi. Metalogicus, lib. III. c. 3. c. 5.
Yet at this very period Logic was the ascendant science,
so much that no educated person would allow himself
ignorant of it: — Omnes enim se esse logicos gloriantur,
non modo qui scientiam aliquibus superaverunt blanditiis,
sed et illi qui earn nondum salutaverunt a limine. Meta
logicus, lib. II. p. 787.
And what is still more surprising in such real ignorance
of the philosopher's own writings, Aristotle was professed
by all ; as the same author observes : siquidem omnes Ari-
stotelem profitentur. Metalogicus, II. c. 19. Sicut enim
urbs Romam, Maronem Poeta exprimit, sic et Philosophi
nomen circa Aristotelem, utentium placito, contractum est.
Policraticus, lib. VII. c. 6. p. 424. Metalog. III. c. 7.
The objection then to Aristotle, indicated by the papal
decrees in the course of the Xllth and Xlllth centuries,
must be understood as referring to the physical and meta
physical treatises.1 The words of the papal prohibition,
lDu Boulay, Hist. Acad. Par. torn. III. p. 82. — These restrictions how
ever were afterwards relaxed, as Launoy distinctly shews. Anno 1366,
Cardinales duo cum ex auctoritate Urbani V. Parisiensem Academiam re-
formarunt, Aristotelis libros paullo humanius adhuc tractavere. ... In hac
fortuna jam turn primum norninantur Aristotelis opera, quae legi permittun-
tur, immo ut legantur, de iisque interrogati scholares in examine publico
respondeant, statuitur. Quae vero non recensentur opera, ab Academiae scho
lis adhuc excludi non immerito creduntur. Sunt autem in eorum numero,
quae de physico auditu inscribuntur. Ceterum quin Cardinales refor'mationis

NOTES TO LECTURE II. 443
are: Non legantur libri Aristotelis de metaphysica et de
naturali philosophia, nee sumraas de iisdem, aut de doctrina
magistri David de Dinant aut Amalrici haeretici, aut Mau-
ricii Hispani. There had been a great deal of speculation
in the Church on physical questions, particularly relatively
to the nature of the soul. John of Salisbury says, he had
heard many discoursing on physics aliter quam fides ha-
beat. Then the introduction of the Arabian philosophy,
founded as it was on expositions of Aristotle, at the same
time perverting his sense, aggravated the theological dread
of his writings. A distinction appears to have been drawn
between Aristotelizing, as it was called, and expounding
Aristotle. Nullo pacto, says Thomas Campanella, speak
ing particularly of Thomas Aquinas, putandus est Aristo-
telizasse, sed tantum Aristotelem exposuisse, ut occurreret
maris per Aristotelem illatis, et crederem cum licentia
Pontificis.m This difference partly accounts for the greater
authority of Aquinas's writings in comparison with Albert's.
Albert's exposition of Aristotle is original disquisition
on the several chapters, which he follows step by step.
Aquinas, on the other hand, ^expounds the text of Aristotle
by a running commentary.
NOTE L. p. 69.
The Arabian philosophers appear to have been made
known to the Christian world principally through the
labours of learned Jews, who subsisted eminently at that
time as a neutral element of communication between the
hujus auctores superioribus statutis derogaverint, negari non potest. Nam
in provinciali Concilio cavetur, ne quis eos libellos qui docebant Metaphysi-
cam, de cetero legere et scribere prmsumeret, vel quocumque modo habere.
Inter decreta legati, qui sub Innocentio III. Parisiensem Academiam rede-
git meliorem in statum, prsecipitur, ut legantur Aristotelis libri de Dialec
tica tam veteri quam nova, sed ut non legantur libri de Metaphysica, et de
Naturali Philosophia. Hi vero Cardinales jubent ut liber Metaphysicae, et
alia quaedam opera, qua? ad Naturalem Philosophiam pertinent, legantur. Sed
in hoc facto ex antiquis Patribus, quos sequerentur, nullos, aut paucos ha-
buerunt. Launoii De Var. Aristot. Fortuna, c. 9.
m Launoii De Var. Aristot. Fortuna, *. 7.

444 APPENDIX.
dissevered masses of mankind. Those habits of trade to
which their insulated situation in the midst of human so
ciety has ever reduced them, their knowledge of medical
science, for which they were particularly distinguished, and
their consequent acquaintance with the Arabic, the Greek,
and the Latin, — the sacred and the universal languages of
the Mahometan and the Christian worlds, — were the cir
cumstances which enabled them to act this part in the
history of literature. Several of them indeed were them
selves conspicuous as learned men ; as is evident from the
well-known instance of Moses Ben Maimon, or Maimoni-
des, in the Xllth century; and some wrote commentaries
on Aristotle.1'
We find the names of some Christians mentioned as
translators of Aristotle, as Constantine the African in the
Xlth century, and Michael Scot in the commencement of
the Xlllth; and several others of less note. But these
probably were indebted to the assistance of Jews even in
the performance of their task ; as the business of trans
lating was in itself a profession.0
The circuitous course by which the Aristotelic Philo
sophy was brought back to the Christian Church of the
West, is an extremely curious fact. By the occupation of
Constantinople during the first half of the Xlllth century,
and the subsistence of a Latin kingdom in the Holy Land
during the Xllth and Xlllth centuries, Latin colonies were
planted in the Eastern Empire : and on the other hand,
by the conquests of the Arabians in Africa and Spain, an
Oriental people were settled in the extreme West. Both
these events, by promoting general intercourse, greatly
facilitated the advance of literature, and in particular the
" Hinc est, quod pauci veri Judaei, hoc est qui non in parte aliqua credu-
litatis Saraceni sunt, aut Aristotelicis consentientes erroribus, in terra Sara-
cenorum inveniantur, de his qui inter philosophos commorantur. Tract, de
Legibus, by William of Auvergne, Bishop of Paris from 1228 to 1248.
Oper. torn. I. p. 25.
° Michael Scotus, ignarus quidem et verborum et rerum, fere omnia quae
sub nomine ejus prodierunt, ab Andrea quodam Judaeo mutuatus est. Roger
Bacon, Opus. Maj. Preefal. Jebb.

NOTES TO LECTURE II. 445
circulation of the Greek Philosophy. And the same cause
acted in restoring the philosophy of Aristotle, which had
originally recommended it to Christians ; the spirit of theo
logical speculation. The Nestorians, flying from persecution
into Persia and Mesopotamia, cherished, in those countries,
that fondness for philosophy, for which they had before been
distinguished. The Greek philosophy had been favourably
received iu Persia from the time of Chosroes, with whom
the last philosophers of the schools of Athens obtained a
refuge. It happened that some fugitive Princes of the
Abassid line, driven from their home by the rival family
of the Ommiades, found a resource in their exile in at
tendance on the lessons of these philosophical Christians.
In their subsequent accession to the throne of Mahomet,
they carried with them to the seat of Arabian empire, the
taste for those studies which had relieved and ennobled
their days of exile. The Ommiades, driven in their turn
from the throne of the East, and escaping at last to the
shores of Andalusia, as Caliphs of the Western empire of
the Saracens, propagated in Spain that literature which had
now taken root in the parent country. A constant commu
nication appears to have taken place between the Eastern
and Western Arabians : — the philosopher of Cordoba tra
velling to Bagdad in quest of science ; as the learned Latin
would resort to Paris, and the most celebrated schools of
different countries. Thus may be accounted for, the large
infusion of Oriental philosophy into the science of the
Christians of the West. The Arabians both of Spain and
of the East cultivated with ardour an acquaintance with
the Aristotelic philosophy; nearly on the same principle
which rendered that philosophy popular in the Latin
schools ; — its subservience as a method of abstract specu
lation, under the restrictions of a despotic authority in
matters of religious belief. But their study of mathe
matics and medicine led them also to attend, no less to the
physical treatises of Aristotle, than to the logical. And
thus, when their commentaries became accessible to the

446 APPENDIX.
Latins, a larger field of Aristotelic science was laid open
to the latter. We see the effect in the wider range which
scholasticism assumed from this period.
The question has been debated whether the revival of
philosophy in the West was owing chiefly to the Arabian
translations, or translations made immediately from the
Greek.5 But the decision of the question is of little
consequence. It is evident, I think, that both channels of
communication contributed to produce the result. While
Christians resorted to Cordoba or Toledo, to imbibe the
mysterious wisdom of the Arabian Doctors ; active mea
sures were on the other hand taken for restoring the study
of Greek in the Latin schools. Philip Augustus estab
lished at Paris the Constantinopolitan college for the edu
cation of Greek youth : and Latin missionaries were sent
by Innocent III. in concert with the Count Baldwin, to
Constantinople.0- The immediate object of these proceed
ings was, to promote a reconciliation of the Greek and
Latin churches. But they must have tended at the same
time, to encourage the knowledge of the Greek language
in the West. When we speak of the knowledge of Greek,
we must understand a more general knowledge among the
learned. For a partial acquaintance withj the language
had always subsisted. There were Greek monasteries in
Calabria; and in the South of France, at Aries and at Mar
seilles, there were a sufficient number of Greek traders to
be the occasion of peculiar charters : there was also a
Greek monastery at Auriol near Marseilles.1
p The French Academy of Inscriptions recently proposed a prize for a
discussion of the questions bearing on this point : and the composition of M.
Jourdain, which obtained the prize, has been published under the title of
Recherches Critiques sur l'age et l'origine des Traductions Latines d'Aris-
tote, &c. The author did not live to complete the publication ; and the
worlt appears in an unfinished state, more as a collection of materials for
the subject than as a. regular dissertation. But it brings together much
valuable information, the fruits of great learning and research, on the state of
literature in the middle ages.
q Jourdain, Recherches, &c. p. 51 — 53. r Ibid.

NOTES TO LECTURE II. 447
NOTE M. p. 69.
Du Boulay, having cited Bede's observation on Levitic.
c. 7. Humana doctrina, grammatica, aut rhetorica, aut
dialectica, ex quibus, in his quas de fide sentienda sunt,
nihil accipiendum ; — to shew, how averse theologians were,
at one time, to the application of the sciences to matters of
faith, adds, respecting the philosophy of Aristotle: Irao
nee in scholis liberalium artium admittebatur ; cujus loco
Lutetias olim S. Augustini dialecticam praslectam videmus^
ut Odonis Cluniacensis exemplo clarum fit ; qui circa
annum 900, apud Remigium Antissiodorensem, qui tunc e
Remensi Schola Parisios reversus docebat, " dialecticam
" S. Augustini Deodato filio suo missam perlegit;" ut
legitur in ejus vita. At hoc seculo, [XI0] occasione pras-
sertim Berengarianarum disputationum, cceperunt curiosi,
et maxime illi qui ei favebant, aut favere vtdebantur, Ari
stotelis dialecticam in scholas inducere. Bulasi Hist. Acad.
Paris, torn. i. p. 349.
NOTE N. p. 70:
Audio, quod tamen absque dubietate credere non possum,
quia Roscelinus clericus dicit in Deo tres personas esse
tres res ab invicem separatas ; sicut sunt tres angeli ; ita
tamen, ut una sit voluntas et potestas: aut Patrem, et
Spiritum Sanctum, esse incarnatum ; et tres Deos vere dici
posse, si usus admitteret. In qua sententia asserit, vene-
rabilis memoriae Archiepiscopum Lanfrancum fuisse, et me
esse. Anselm. Ep. ad Fulconem Episcop. Belluacens.
Cum adhuc in Becci monasterio essem Abbas, pras-
sumpta est a quodam clerico in Francia talis assertio : Si in
Deo, inquit, tres personas sunt, una tantum res; et non
sunt tres res unaquasque per se separatim, sicut tres an
geli, aut tres animae ; ita tamen, ut potentia et voluntate
omnino sint idem ; ergo, Pater, et Spiritus Sanctus, cum
Filio est Qincarnatus. Quod cum ad me perlatum esset,
incepi contra hunc errorem quandam epistolam ; quam

448 APPENDIX.
parte quadam edita, perficere contempsi; credens non ea
opus esse, quoniam et ille, contra quem fiebat, in Concilio
a venerabili Remensi Archiepiscopo Reynaldo collecto,8
errorem suum abjuraverat. Anselm. De Incarn. Verbi,
p. 34.
Hie contra egregium ilium prasconem Christi, Robertum
Arbrosello, contumacem ausus est epistolam confingere;
et contra ilium magnificum ecclesiae doctorem, Anselmum
Cantuarensem Archiepiscopum, adeo per contumelias ex-
arsit, ut, ad regis Anglici imperium, ab Anglia turpiter
impudens ejus contumacia sit ejecta, et vix turn cum vita
evaserit  Hie, sicut pseudo-dialecticus, ita et pseudo-
christianus ; cum in dialectica sua nullam rem partes habere
aestimat, ita divinam paginam impudenter pervertit, ut, eo
loco quo dicitur Dominus partem piscis assi comedisse,
partem hujus vocis, quae est piscis assi, non partem rei,
intelligere cogatur. Ep. ad G. Parisiens. Episcop. Abae
lardi Oper. p. 354.'
I have given these several extracts, in order to shew
the manner in which the theory of Nominalism was stated
by its opponents. The misrepresentation is evident: the
same style which infects all controversial statements in
questions of theology, is here instanced in a question of
philosophy. Opponents draw their consequences and con
clusions, and impute these to the maintainers of the point
which they would impugn. This creates the difficulty in
forming our views of the different shades of opinion on
this abstract question. The truth can never be fairly stated
where such principles actuate the controversialist, as the
fear, by an admission on one point, of producing a difficulty
in some other: as when, for instance, Anselm argues that
if Nominalism were true, Sabellianism must be true."
* Council of Soissons, A.D. 1089.
t Wrongly attributed to Abelard j since Abelard was a disciple of Rosce
lin, and adopted Roscelin's theory, under a modification.
" Sed haec ratio si vera est et rata, vera est haeresis Sabellii. De Incarn.
Verbi, c. in. p. 36.

I I

NOTES TO LECTURE II. 449
The absurdity of such an argument indeed is evidenced,
in the opposite view taken by another arguer on the same
side, or even by the same arguer, when he has a different
object before him : as when we find a disciple of Nominal
ism characterized also as a tritheist, or as an Arian.
The reputed origin of the dispute is carried still further
back, from Roscelin, to John, surnamed the Sophist, a
popular teacher of the Xlth century, who, according to
Du Boullay, sophisticam vocalem esse disseruit; and to
the controversy between Lanfranc and Berenger.x The
Realism of Anselm was objected to also by another dis
putant, supposed to be a monk, by name, Gaunilo; who
ably argues against him on that point in a short tract en
titled " Liber pro Insipiente,*' published in the works of
Anselm : and whose objections, as both modestly and
shrewdly urged, Anselm has carefully discussed. The
question probably had always existed from the time that
Logic began to be the leading study of the Schools ; as we
may see from the reference to it in the " Introduction " of
Porphyry ; and only attracted more general notice, when
heretical disputation employed the distinction of Nominalist
and Realist, as an instrument for maintaining opinions in
Theology.
NOTE O. p. 72.
The fullest account that we have of the different shades
of opinion classed Under the extremes of Nominalism and
Realism is given by John of Salisbury. Metalogicus, lib.
II. c. 17. From what he has stated, the question was
evidently regarded entirely in a logical point of view, and,
by no means, in its actual philosophical importance, as a
speculation concerning the grounds of human knowledge.
Ockam himself appears rather to have had for his design
to spiritualize philosophy; by removing the supposition of
an objective reality belonging to general notions, or uni
versals, to lead the mind to the alternative of regarding
- Bultei Hist. Acad. Paris, torn. I. p. 443.
G G

450 APPENDIX.
all truth, as derived by immediate communication from the
Deity.
NOTE P. p. 73.
Tovtwv Se, ol biriaBev rfKoXovBovv eKaKOvovreg twv Xeyopevwv, to
piv iroXv ffvoi ecpaivovro, ovg ayei t's eKarepwv iroXewv b HpwTa-
yopag, Si wv SiE^ipxETai, KifXwv rrf §wvr), HairEp 'Op<j>evg' oi Se, Kara
rrjv <j>wvfiv 'iirovrai KeKrfXifpivoi. Plato. Protagoras, Opera,
torn. III. p. 96. ed. Bipont.
We have only to read the history of Abelard, to see the
parallel of the ancient Sophist in the Schoolman of the
middle age. His proposing on one occasion to give a theo
logical disputation on any obscure passage of Scripture/
reminds us of the offer of the Greek Sophist to extemporize
on any given subject. His rivals in vain endeavoured to
silence him. His scholars, as he triumphantly declares
under all his persecutions, still adhered to him, wherever
he went : at Laon, at Paris, at his cell at the Abbey of
St. Denys, at his oratory in the wilderness, they still flocked
around him in increasing numbers. The scene at the last
place gives us a picture of the manners of the times. His
disciples formed a sort of encampment around him in the
open country, and continued to wait on his teaching amidst
great personal discomfort.
NOTE Q. p. 74.
In the year 1339 the University of Paris condemned
the logic of Ockam, and interdicted the use of it as a book
of instruction. Bulwi Hist. Acad. Paris, torn. IV. p. 257.
Degerando, Hist. Comparie des Systemes de Philosophic,
torn. IV. p. 597.
The great interest which the Carlovingian princes had
taken in the school of Paris laid effectually the ground
work of its future preeminence in the literary and theolo
gical world. Soon after its institution, what was originally
only the "school ofthe palace" became the chief domicile
Epistolm, Opera, p. 8.

NOTES TO LECTURE II. 451
ofthe science of the middle ages; so that instead ofthe
" school of the palace," the familiar expression then was,
as Du Boullay remarks, the " palace of the school." No
theologian regarded his education complete, unless he had
heard the distinguished lecturers at Paris. The Theolo
gical influence of the University may be seen in the anxious
superintendence of successive Popes over the course of
education pursued there ; and in a particular instance, when
Innocent III. wrote to the University, requesting they
would send persons to Constantinople for the purpose of
converting the Greeks to the Latin faith.2
NOTE R. p. 74.
The Nominalism of Ockam corresponds very closely with
what is now designated by Conceptualism. He was far
from thinking, that the terms expressing general notions
were merely flatus vocis, as Nominalism is represented by
Anselm. a M. Degerando, in his Histoire Comparee des
Systemes de Philosophie, chap. 27, has given a succinct
and excellent view of his doctrine on this point, in contrast
with that of Duns Scotus. He remarks particularly the
philosophical character which the dispute had assumed in
the XlVth century. — Cependant, cette discussion avait un
avantage marque sur la controverse qui s'etait elevee du
temps de Roscelin ; alors on n'avait guere employe que
des armes theologiques ; maintenant du moins on discutait
avec des principes rationnels une question philosophique.
Tom. IV. p. 580. . NOTE S. p. 77.
The following passage of Aristotle's Metaphysics gives
z Magistris et scholaribus Parisiensibus. . . . supplicavit (Balduinus) ut vos
inducere ac monere apostolicis litteris dignaremur, quatenus in Graeciam
accedentes, ibi studeretis litterarum studium reformare, unde noscitur ex
ordium habuisse. . . . Universitatem vestram rogamus, &c. Letter of Inno
cent, dated June 1205, to the University of Paris. Jourdain, Recherches, &c.
p. 52.
a De Incarn. Verbi, c. 11. p. 36. a g 2

452 APPENDIX.
the exact idea of what Christian Theology became in the
hands ofthe Schoolmen.
'JOiiteI S' ian ng iiriarriprf rov bvrog, r) ov Kal x<aPlcrT0Vt *• r> ^,
7rept to xwPlrrTbv apa ov Kal aKivrfrov, iripa rovrwv apirorepwv twv
iiriarrfpwv eari ng, e'lirep vwdpxei Tig ovaia roiavrrf' Xiyw Se
Xwpiarrf Kal aKivrfrog. oirep ireipaaopeBa SeiKVwaC Kal eiirep earl
Tig roiavrrf tpvaig ev roig ovaiv, evravB' dv Ein irov Kal to BeioV Kal
avrn dv e'ttf irpwrr] Kal Kvpiwrarrf dpxji. SrjXov roivvv on rpia yevn
twv Bewpr\TiKwv eiriarrffiwv ean, (pvaiKr), paBrfpariKi), BeoXoyiKrf
piXnarov pev ovv to twv BewprfTiKwv kirioTrfpwv yivog' rovrwv S'
avrwv if reXEvraia XEX&Eiaa' irEpl to ripiwTEpov yap 'ion twv bvrwv'
JoeXtIwv Si Kal ^st'pwj/ eKaarrf Xeyerai Kara to oiKeiov eiriarrfrov.
Metaphys. lib. XIII. cap. 7. p. 988. Duval.
Accordingly its scientific nature is thus set forth by
Aquinas :
Licet in scientiis philosophicis alia sit speculativa, et
alia practica, sacra tamen doctrina comprehendit sub se
utramque ; sicut et Deus eadem scientia se cognoscit, et
ea quas facit. Magis tamen est speculativa quam practica :
quia principalius agit de rebus divinis, quam de actibus
humanis, de quibus agit, secundum quod per eos ordi-
natur homo ad perfeetam Dei cognitionem, in qua aeterna
beatitudo consistit. Summa Theol. Prima Pars, qu. i.
art. 4.
Hasc scientia accipere potest aliquid a philosophicis
disciplinis, non quod ex necessitate eis indigeat, sed ad
majorem manifestationem eorum, quas in hac scientia tra-
duntur. Non enim accipit sua principia ab aliis scientiis
sed immediate a Deo per revelationem. 'Et ideo non accipit
ab aliis scientiis tanquam a superioribus, sed utitur eis
tanquam inferioribus et ancillis : sicut architectonicas utun-
tur subministrantibus, ut civilis militari. Et hoc ipsum
quod sic utitur eis, non est propter defectum, vel insuffi-
cientiam ejus, sed propter defectum intellectus nostri :
qui ex his, quas per naturalem rationem (ex qua procedunt
alias scientias) cognoscuntur, facilius manu ducitur in ea,

NOTES TO LECTURE II. 453
quae sunt supra rationem, quas in hac scientia traduntur.
Ibid. art. 5.
Sacra autem doctrina propriissime determinat de Deo,
secundum quod est altissima causa : quia non solum quan
tum ad illud quod est per creaturas cognoscibile (quod
philosophi cognoverunt, ut dicitur Rom. i. " quod notum
" est Dei, manifestum est illis ;") sed etiam quantum ad id,
quod notum est sibi soli de seipso, et aliis per revelationem
communicatum. Unde sacra doctrina maxime dicitur
sapientia. Ibid. art. 6.
Omnia autem pertractantur in sacra doctrina, sub ratione
Dei, vel quia sunt ipse Deus: vel quia habent ordinem ad
Deum, ut ad principium et finem : unde sequitur, quod Deus
vere sit subjectum hujus scientias. Ibid. art. 7.
Utitur tamen sacra doctrina etiam ratione humana, non
quidem ad probandum fidem : (quia per hoc tolleretur meri-
tum fidei ;) sed ad manifestandum aliqua alia, quae traduntur
in hac doctrina . . . . Et inde est, quod etiam auctoritatibus
philosophorum sacra doctrina utitur, ubi per rationem
naturalem veritatem cognoscere potuerunt : sicut Paulus
Actuum 17, inducit verbum Arati, dicens ; " sicut et quidam
" poetarum vestrorum dixerunt, ' genus Dei sumus.' " Sed
tamen sacra doctrina hujusmodi auctoritatibus utitur, quasi
extraneis argumentis et probabilibus : auctoritatibus autem
canonicae scriptures utitur proprie et ex necessitate ar
guendo : auctoritatibus autem aliorum doctorum Ecclesiae,
quasi argumentando ex propriis, sed probabiliter. Innititur
enim fides nostra revelationi Apostolis et Prophetis factas,
qui canonices librps scripserunt, non autem revelationi si
qua fuit aliis doctoribus facta, ibid. art. 8.
NOTE T. p. 82.
It is worth while to compare the reception of the Platonic
theory of Ideas by two different philosophers of the Schools
 the one a Platonist, the other an Aristotelian.
Ideas quoque, id est, species vel formas, in quibus rerum

454 APPENDIX.
omnium faciendarum, priusquam essent, immutabiles ra
tiones conditas sunt, solent vocari ; de quibus latius in
processu operis dicemus, testimoniisque sanctorum Patrum
roborabimus : et nee inymerito sic * appellantur ; quoniam
Pater, hoc est, principium omnium, in Verbo suo, unigenito
videlicet Filio, omnium rerum rationes, quas faciendas
esse voluit, prius quam in genera, et species, numerosque,
atque differentias, casteraque, quas in condita creatura, aut
considerari possunt, et considerantur, aut considerari non
possunt, pras sui altitudinem, et non considerantur, et ta
men sunt, prasformavit. Erigen, DeDivis. Natur. II. p. 48.
Ad id quod objicitur de positione Platonis : dicendum ;
quod non talis fuit positio Platonis quam improbat Aristo-
teles. Sed Plato posuit formas quae sunt ante rem : et
principia rei in seipsis existere : et in ipsis sigillari res
sicut ad sigillum: nee posuit eas in mente divina, sed in
seipsis. Et hoc modo improbat Aristoteles earn. Et forte
Plato dixit verum. Necesse est enim principia esse prius
natura : et prius esse principia quam principiata. Unde si
formae sunt rerum principia, et esse formati ; et sunt, et
principia sunt, ante formata. Et si quaeritur ubi sint:
quaestio Porphyrii est : qui ita quaerit de universalibus et
primis principiis. Pro certo in suis principiis sunt : quae
sunt lumina et influentias primes causas in intelligentias et
intelligentiarum orbes ; et orbium in elementa, et elemen-
torum in virtutes formativas seminum et generatorum. Sic
enim ex mente divina formas sive ideas prodeunt in ideata
sive formata. Et ideo dixit Plato quod procedunt sicut ex
quodam sigillo. Et hoc non negat Aristoteles : sed negat
quod formae sunt ante rem per seipsas, et secundum seip-
sas separatim existentes. Albert, Mag. in Sent. Tr. XIII.
qu. lv. fol. 124.
NOTE U. p. 85.
Discat primo psalterium ; his se canticis avocet ; et in
proverbiis Solomonis erudiatur ad vitam. In Ecclesiaste
consuescat, quas mundi sunt, calcare. In Job virtutis et

NOTES TO LECTURE II. 455
patientiae exempla sectetur. Ad Evangelia transeat, nun-
quam ea depositura de manibus. Apostolorum Acta et
Epistolas tota cordis imbibat voluntate. Cumque pectoris
sui cellarium his opibus locupletaverit, inandet memoriae
Prophetas ; Pentateuchum, et Regum, et Paralipomenon
libros, Esdras quoque et Hester volumina. Ad ultimura
sine periculo discat Canticum Canticorum ; ne si in exordio
legerit, sub carnalibus verbis spiritualium nuptiarum epitha-
lamium non intelligens vulneretur. Hieronym. Ep. ad
Lcetam, Opera, torn. I. p. 57.
The whole epistle, though breathing an intense fanatical
spirit, is an interesting document for the history of the
times. It has its excellences too as a composition. Several
of the passages are beautifully executed, exemplifying in
their style that melodious rhythm in which Jerome delights,
and which is quite peculiar to him. Take, for instance, the
conclusion : Ipse si Paulam miseris, et magistrum, et
nutricium, spondeo. Gestabo humeris ; balbutientia senex
verba formabo ; multo gloriosior mundi philosopho, qui
non regem Macedonum Babylonio periturum veneno, sed
ancillam et sponsam Christi erudiam, regnis ccelestibus
offerendam. Aquinas was employed in expounding the Canticles
almost with his dying breath, at the request of the monks of
the Convent where he lay ill.
NOTE V. p. 86.
Fiunt itaque in puerilibus Academici senes ; omnem dic-
torum, aut scriptorum excutiunt syllabam, imo et literam ;
dubitantes et omnia, quasrentes semper, sed nunquam ad
scientiam pervenientes : et tandem convertuntur ad vani-
loquium, ac nescentes quid loquantur, aut de quibus
asserant, errores condunt novos, et antiquorum aut nesciunt
aut dedignantur sententias imitari. Compilant omnium
opiniones, et ea quae etiam a vilissimis dicta vel scripta
sunt, ab inopia judicii, scribunt et referunt: proponunt
enim omnia, quia nesciunt prasferre meliora. Tanta est

456 APPENDIX.
opinionum, oppositionumque congeries, ut vix suo nota
esse possit authori. Accidit hoc Didymo, quo nemo plura
scripsit, ut, cum historias cuidam tanquam vanas repugnaret,
ipsius proferretur liber, qui earn continebat. Sed nunc
multos invenies Didymos, quorum pieni, imo referti sunt
commentarii, hujusmodi Logicorum impedimentis. Recte
autem dicuntur oppositiones, quia melioribus studiis oppo-
nuntur : obstant enim profectui. Metalogicus, lib. II. c. 7.
Such is the sarcastic complaint of John of Salisbury in
the Xllth century. The subsequent state of Scholasticism
was only a continued aggravation of this erroneous method.
Indocta putant omnia, says Erasmus of the later writers,
nisi centies inculcaris philosophum. Actum putant de
Christiana religione, si quis Aristotelis decreta rejecerit."

NOTE W. p. 89.
The different applications of the Scriptures have been
thus deduced by the Scholastic writers.
Auctor sacras scripturas est Deus, in cujus potestate est,
ut non solum voces ad significandum accommodet (quod
etiam homo facere potest) sed etiam res ipsas. Et ideo,
cum in omnibus scientiis voces significent, hoc habet pro
prium ista scientia, quod ipsae res significatas per voces,
etiam significant aliquid. Ilia ergo prima significatio qua
voces significant res, pertinent ad primum sensum, qui est
sensus historicus, vel literalis. Ilia vero significatio, qua
res significatas per voces, iterum res alias significant, dicitur
sensus spiritualis, propter quod sensus spiritualis super
literalem fundatur, et eum supponit. Hie autem sensus
trifariam dividitur. Sicut enim dicit Apostolus ad He-
brasos vii. " lex vetus figura est novas legis :" et ipsa nova
lex, ut dicit Dionysius in Ecclesiastica Hierarchia, est
figura futurae glorias. In nova etiam lege ea quae in capite
sunt gesta, sunt signa eorem quas nos agere debemus.
Secundum ergo quod ea sunt veteris legis, significant ea
b Hieronym. Ep: ad. Alesiph. Erasmi Scholia, p. 258.

'NOTES TO LECTURE III. 457
quae sunt novas legis, sensus est allegoricus. Secundum
vero quod ea quas in! Christo sunt facta, vel in his quae
Christum significant, sunt signa eorum quas nos agere de-
bemus, est sensus moralis ; prout vero significant ea quas
sunt in aeterna gloria, est sensus anagogicus. Aquinas,
Summa Theol. Prima Pars, qu- 1. art. 10.

LECTURE III.
NOTE A. p. 104.
L HE residence of Athanasius at Rome for so considerable
a portion of time, is a very important point in ecclesias
tical history. Who can say, how much the orthodoxy of
the Western Church may be attributable to that circum
stance ? So restless a spirit, we may be sure, was not
unoccupied in the sacred cause during the interval. And
yet respecting any actions performed by him at that time,
there is a profound silence. Qui tantum otii nactus, (says
the biography,) quid gesserit, edideritve, altum ubique
silentium. But this silence is an extremely expressive
one. According indeed to his own account it was not an
indolent one. " Applying myself wholly to the Church,"
he says, " for of this only had I any thought, I enjoyed
" leisure for the councils : Kal rrj eKKXifaia Ta Kar ipavrbv
" wapadepevog, rovrov yap povov poi (jrpovrlg r)v, EaxbXa.£ov
" rale o-vvd'£,Eat" c To a person, whose heart and eye
were alive to all that was passing in the Church at that
time, this leisure devoted to the councils must have been
a period full of reflection and instruction. To watch the
different leanings of controversy, the conflicts of private
and party feeling, the intrigues of ecclesiastical diplo
macy, the shifts of subtile argumentation, which were dis
played on the theatre of the public councils, was an effort
c Athanas. Oper. torn. I. p. 297.

458 APPENDIX.
of attention not unworthy of the powers of Athanasius ;
nor could it be unproductive of results as to the future
decision of theological questions.
I do not observe it expressly said any where, that he
employed himself in learning the Latin language, though
Gibbon has so stated it. But I conceive the fact of his
learning the theological language of the Latin Church,
is borne out, by what Gregory Nazianzen has said of his
tact in reconciling the dissensions produced by a difference
of terms between the Greeks and Latins. Having touched
on the verbal variations which occasioned so much discord
in the doctrines of theologians, Gregory adds, concerning
Athanasius : Tavr ovv bpwv Kal aKOvwv b paKapiog eKeivog,
Kal wg dXrjBwg dvBpwirog rov Beov, Kal piyag twv \j/vx<vv o'iko-
vopog, ovk oJifBrf SeXv irapiSeiv rr)v broirov ovrw Kal dXoyov tov
Xoyov Kararopriv, to Se irap eavrov (pdppaKOv, iwayei rw qp-
pwarrfpan. irwg ovv tovto iroiei ; irpoaKaXeadpevog dpiporepa
rd piprf, obrwal irpq.wg Kal (jriXavBpwwwg, Kal rov vovv twv
Xeyopivwv aKpifiwg e^erdaag, eireiSri avp<ppovovvrag evpe, Kal
ovSiv SiEarwrag Kara rov Xoyov, rd bvbfiara avyxwprjaag avvSei
roig irpaypaai. Orat. XXI. p. 396.
Some light is reflected on the character of Athanasius,
from the description of the Egyptian monks, Ammonius
and Isidorus, who accompanied him to Rome. The au
stere taste of Ammonius would not suffer him to look at
the memorials of the greatness of the city in her classic
times ; but the only attractions for him at Rome were
the shrines of Peter and Paul. So resolute too was he
against all worldly honour, even connected with spiritual
duties, that when on some occasion the episcopal dignity
would have been forced on him, he not only fled away,
but in order to disable himself for the office, (no maimed
person being admissible to the priesthood,) cut off one of
his ears. The other, Isidorus, it is added, was no less
conspicuous for piety and abdication of the changeable
things of the world.d
ci Vila S. Athanasii, p. 36. Opera, Paris, 1698.

NOTES TO LECTURE III. 459
NOTE B. p. 106.
Dehinc post aliquot annos, cum Hincmarus in Ecclesia
Remensi vetustissimum et receptissimum hymni ecclesi-
astici hunc versiculum ; " Te Trina Deitas Unaque pos-
" cimus :" cantari vetuisset ; ipse Ratramnus volumine
non modicas quantitatis ad Hildegarium Meldensem Episco-
pum edito, ex libris S. S. Hilarii et Augustini de Trinitate
veterem Ecclesiae traditionem confirmavit. Mauguin. Dis
sert. Hist. c. 17, cited in an edition of Ratramn's treatise on
the Body and Blood of the Lord, p. 18.e
Religiosi S. Benedicti diu multumque reluctati sunt huic
immutationi. Ibid. p. 29.
NOTE C. p. 108.
I give the following passage as an illustration of this
mode of philosophizing carried to its natural extreme.
Tanta enim, divines virtutis excellentia, in futura vita
omnibus qui contemplatione ipsius digni futuri sunt, ma-
nifestabit, ut nihil aliud praster earn, sive in corporibus,
sive in intellectibus, eis eluceat. Erit enim Deus " omnia
" in omnibus :" ac si aperte Scriptura diceret ; solus Deus
apparebit in omnibus. Hinc ait sanctus Job : " et in
" carne mea videbo Deum." Ac si dixisset; in hac carne
mea quas multis tentationibus affligitur, tanta gloria futura
erit, ut quemadmodum nunc nihil in ea apparet, nisi mors
et corruptio : ita in futura vita nihil mihi apparebit, nisi
solus Deus, qui vere vita est, et immortalitas, et incor-
ruptio. Ac si de sui corporis felicitate talem gloriam pro-
misit, quid de sui spiritus dignitate existimandum est?
prassertim cum, ut ait Magnus Gregorius, Theologus, cor
pora Sanctorum in rationem, ratio in intellectum, intel-
lectus in Deum ; ac per hoc tota illorum natura in ipsum
Deum mutabitur. Joan. Scot. Erigen. de Divis. Natur.
lib. I.e. 11. p. 5.
» Bertram, or Ratram, concerning the Body and Blood of the Lord, in
Latin, with a new English translation, 8vo. London, 1688.

460 APPENDIX.
NOTE D. p. 110.
Sicut dicit enim Anselmus ; processio personarum est
ante processionem creaturarum, sicut causa ante effectum,
et sicut aeternum ante temporale, et sicut exemplar, ante
exemplatum. Albert. Mag. in lib. Sent. Tract. VII. fol. 68.
Hoc expresse vult Dionysius in libro de divinis nomi-
nibus, cap. 4. tractans illud Apostoli Eph. iii. " Hujus
" rei gratia, flecto genua mea ad Deum Patrem : ex quo
" omnis patemitas in ccelo et in terra noniinatur." Dicit
enim : quod ex hoc accipiatur, quod omnis patemitas et
omnis filiatio, ex qua, et deorum parentes, et deorum filii
sunt, sive in ccelo, sive in terra, est ex patriarchia et fili-
archia omnibus proposita. Hoc expresse probatur per illud
Esaiae Ixvi. " si ego aliis generationem tribuo, ipse sterilis
" ero : dicit Dominus." Ibid. qu. xxx. fol. 69.
NOTE E. p. 111.
'EireiSrj roiwv ov yvpvrj rr)i ibvxi) £wpev, dXX' &airep vko
napairerdapan tw aapKiw KaXvirropivrf rfpwv 4njxff, vovv pev
bpwvra Kal yvwariKOv. . . . d'vXwg irpoaeXBwfiev Trj dXrfBeiq..
Damasceni Dialectica, c. 1 .
Among the doubts proposed by Albert on the question ;
Utrum Deus cognoscibilis sit, secundum quod est unus
Deus in tribus personis, is this : Et videtur quod sic.
Rom. primo capite ; " Invisibilia Dei per ea quas facta intel-
" lectu conspiciuntur." Ibi glosa : invisibilia dicit, propter
Patrem : sempiterna virtus, propter Filium, divinitas, prop
ter Spiritum Sanctum : ergo ductu rationis philosophi cog-
noverunt Deum unum in tribus personis. Summa, Tract.
III. qu. xiii. fol. 12.
NOTE F. p. 117.
Aquinas, discussing the question ; Utrum processio sit
in divinis ; and first, according to his usual plan, adducing
objections, and in opposition to these the text of John viii.

NOTES TO LECTURE III. 461
" Ego ex Deo processi," adds, in his Conclusion on the
point. Respondeo dicendum ; quod divina scriptura in rebus
divinis, nominibus ad processionem pertinentibus utitur.
Hanc autem processionem diversi diversimode acceperunt.
Quidam enim acceperunt hanc processionem, secundum
quod effectus procedit a causa. Et sic accepit Arius, di-
cens, Filium procedere a Patre, sicut primam ejus creatu-
ram ; et Spiritum Sanctum procedere a Patre et Filio, sicut
creaturam utriusque. Et secundum hoc, neque Filius, ne
que Spiritus Sanctus, esset verus Deus ; quod est contra id
quod dicitur de Filio, 1 Joan. ult. " ut simus in vero Filio
" ejus. Hie est verus Deus." Et de Spiritu Sancto di
citur, 1 Cor. vi. " nescitis quia membra vestra templum
" sunt Spiritus Sancti." Templum autem habere, solius
Dei est. Alii vero hanc processionem acceperunt, secun
dum quod causa dicitur procedere in effectum, in quantum
vel movet ipsum, vel similitudinem suam ipsi imprimit.
Et sic accepit Sabellius, dicens ipsum Deum Patrem Filium
dici, secundum quod carnem assumpsit ex Virgine : et
eumdem dicit Spiritum Sanctum, secundum quod creatu
ram rationalem sanctificat, et ad vitam movet. Huic au
tem acceptioni repugnant verba Domini de se dicentis,
Joan. v. " non potest Filius a se facere quicquam ;" et
multa alia, per quas ostenditur quod non est ipse Pater qui
Filius. Si quis autem diligenter consideret, uterque acce
pit processionem, secundum quod est ad aliquid extra ;
unde neuter posuit processionem in ipso Deo.
Sed cum omnis processio sit secundum aliquam actio
nem : sicut, secundum actionem quas tendit in exteriorem
materiam, est aliqua processio ad extra: ita,' secundum
actionem quae manet in ipso agente, attenditur processio
quasdam ad intra. Et hoc maxime patet in intellectu,
cujus actio, scilicet intelligere, manet in intelligente. Qui-
cunque autem intelligit, ex hoc ipso quod intelligit, proce
dit aliquid intra ipsum ; quod est conceptio rei intellectas
ex vi intellectiva proveniens, et ex ejus notitia procedens.

462 APPENDIX.
Quam quidem conceptionem vox significat ; et dicitur
verbum cordis significatum verbo vocis. Cum autem
Deus sit super omnia, ea quas in Deo dicuntur, non sunt
intelligenda secundum modum infimarum creaturarum, quae
sunt corpora ; sed secundum similitudinem supremarum
creaturarum, quas sunt intellectuales substantias; a quibus
etiam similitudo accepta deficit a reprassentatione divino
rum. Non ergo accipienda est processio, secundum quod
est in corporalibus, vel per motum localem, vel per actionem
alicujus causas in exteriorem effectum, ut calor a celefa-
ciente in calefactum : sed secundum emanationem intelligi-
bilem, utpote verbi intelligibilis a dicente, quod manet in
ipso. Et sic fides catholica processionem ponit in divinis.
$umma Theol. Prima Pars, qu. xxvii. art. 1.
On the application of the terms Generation, Son, Spirit,
the following passages are explicit.
Sic igitur processio Verbi in divinis habet rationem ge-
nerationis : procedit enim per modum intelligibilis actionis,
quae est operatio vitas ; et a principio conjuncto, ut supra
jam dictum est : et secundum rationem similitudinis ; quia
conceptio intellectus est similitudo rei intellectae ; et in
eadem natura ; quia in Deo idem est intelligere et esse, ut
supra ostensum est. Unde processio Verbi in divinis di
citur generatio, et ipsum Verbum procedens dicitur Filius.
Ibid. art. 2.
Secundum autem operationem voluntatis invenitur in
nobis quaedam alia processio, scilicet processio amoris, se
cundum quam amatum est in amante, sicut per concep
tionem verbi, res intellecta est in intelligente. Unde et
praeter processionem Verbi ponitur alia processio in divi
nis, quae est processio amoris. Ibid. art. 3.
Processio igitur quas attenditur secundum rationem in
tellectus, est secundum rationem similitudinis; et.in tantum
potest habere rationem generationis, quia omne gene-
rans generat sibi simile. Processio autem quae attenditur
secundum rationem voluntatis, non consideratur secundum
rationem similitudinis ; sed magis secundum rationem

NOTES TO LECTURE III. 463
impellentis et moventis in aliquid. Et ideo quod procedit in
divinis per modum amoris, non procedit ut genitum, vel
ut filius ; sed magis procedit ut spiritus. . . . Et quia in
creaturis communicatio natures non est nisi per genera-
tionem ; processio in divinis non habet proprium vel spe-
ciale nomen nisi generationis. Unde processio, quas non
est generatio, remansit sine speciali nomine : sed potest
nominari spiratio, quia est processio Spiritus. Ibid. art. 4.
Abundant passages might be adduced to the same pur
port from other Scholastic writers. In some, the analogy
on which the reasoning proceeds, is carried to the most
offensive excess. We find indeed the same language
adopted by the Church of Rome after the Council of Trent,
in the authoritative document entitled, Catechismus ad
Parochos ; which clearly recognizes this philosophy of the
subject as a sound theological view of it.
Oret tamen assidue, ac precetur Deum, et Patrem, qui
universa ex nihilo condidit, disponitque omnia suaviter,
qui dedit nobis potestatem filios Dei fieri, qui Trinitatis
mysterium humanae menti patefecit : oret, inquam, sine
intermissione, qui divino beneficio hasc credit, ut, ali
quando in aeterna tabernacula receptus, dignus sit qui
videat, quas tanta sit Dei Patris fecunditas, ut se ipsum
intuens, atque intelligens, parem et asqualem sibi Filium
gignat ; quove modo duorum idem plane et par charitatis
amor, qui Spiritus Sanctus est, a Patre et Filio procedens,
genitorem, et genitum, asterno, atque indissolubili vinculo
inter se connectat ; atque ita divinas Trinitatis una sit es
sentia, et trium personarum perfecta distinctio. Catechis
mus ex Decret. Concil. Trident, ad Paroch. Romas, 1761.
p. 18. quarto ed.
Yet with all this ratiocination on the subject, Aquinas,
it must be observed, expressly denies, as also Albert and
other scholastics do, that human reasonings can attain
to so high a mystery. In Question xxxn. art. 1, of the
First Part of his Summa, he discusses the point, whether
a knowledge of the Trinity could be ascertained by the

464 APPENDIX.
light of reason. He there states the value of reasonings on
the subject to be relative to those who already believe;
and that the speculation proceeds on the assumption that
the doctrine is authoritatively established. We see here
the scholastic principle, the combination, that is, of reason
and authority, (as I have pointed out in the preceding Lec
tures,) consistently supported. Reason is to be exercised
boldly in theological truth ; only with this reserve, that it
is subordinate to authority. Though by its adventurous
excursions it may supersede the simple statements of re
vealed truth, in pretension it is only the minister of the
divine word. We see also in this admission an evidence
of the origin of the logical theology, in the disputes agi
tated between the heretic and the orthodox, — between
parties, both acknowledging the inspiration of the Scrip
tures, but each anxious either to impose his own creed on
the other, or to resist the imposition on himself of the
creed of another. It was Reason maintaining is prero
gative, both under authority and against authority.
Thus Reason was in effect made supreme over the re
vealed truth. Hence too the distinction of a philosophical
and a popular belief, became a recognized principle among
theologians. I find this principle expressly sanctioned by
an eloquent modern philosopher, in reference too to tht.
very point which is the subject of the present note.
Mystere est un mot qui appartient non a la langue de la
philosophie, mais a celle de la religion. Le mysticisme
est la forme necessaire de toute religion, en tant que re
hgion ; mais sous cette forme sont des idees qui peuvent
etre abordees et comprises en elles-memes. Et, Mes
sieurs, je ne fais que repeter ce qu'ont dit bien avant
moi les plus grands docteurs de l'eglise, saint Thomas,
saint Anselme de Cantorbery, et Bossuet lui-merne au dix-
septi^me siecle, a la fin de YHistoire universale. . Les
grands hommes ont tente une explication des mysteres,
entre autres du mystere de la tres sainte Trinite ; done ce
mystere, tout saint et sacre qu'il etait a leurs propres

NOTES TO LECTURE III. 465
yeux, contenait des idees qu'il etait possible de degager
de leur forme. La forme symbolique et mystique est in-
herente a la religion ; elle est, dans le eas qui nous occupe,
empruntee aux relations humaines les plus intimes et les
plus touchantes. Mais, encore une fois, si la forme est
sainte, les idees qui sont dessous le sont aussi, et ce sont
ces idees que la philosophie degage, et quelle considere
en elles-memes. Cousin, Introduction d VHistoire de Philo-
, 5e. Lecon, p. 19. Paris, 1828.

NOTE G. p. 117.
Amplius autem plurimi antiquorum Philosophorum po-
suerunt amorem Dei originate principium quorumcunque ;
Amor autem a voluntate minime separatur. Recitat si-
quidem Philosophus, 1. Metaph., Hesiodum et Parmeni-
dem, dicentes, amorem Deorum providentem omnibus esse
principium generationis universi : qui amor omnia condidit :
quem necesse est esse in entibus, et esse causam quae res
ipsas moveat et congreget. Bradwardin. De Cans. Dei,
lib. I. c. 9. p. 192.
It may be perceived, from the following passage of
Albert, that the notions of the Timasus were accommo
dated by the scholastics to their theological system ; though
the necessity of maintaining the supremacy of Revelation,
required from them a disclaimer of the authority of Plato, as
original on the sacred subject to which they applied it.
Adhuc Plato in ultima parte Tymasi de thugatero, hoc
est, paterno intellectu, loquitur, et Filio logon, et matri-
cula : Patrem ergo et Filium cognovit. Et quia Pater et
Filius non nectuntur sine amore in Patre et Filio : nexum
cognovit utriusque : qui est Spiritus Sanctus : ergo et alii
cognoverunt. Ad aliud dicendum : quod Plato Patrem intellectum cre-
antem nominat : Filium autem mundum. Quem mundum
vocavit : eo quod a mundissimo exemplari exivit, arte
sc. Creatoris. Quem archetypum mundum dixit: matri-
culam autem vocavit materiam. Unde constat quod de
H H

466 APPENDIX.
appropriatis, et non de propriis, loquitur: et ad produc-
tionem rerum hoc refert, et 'non ad processionem persona-
rum. Albert. Mag. Summa, qu. xiii. Tract. III. fol. 13.
NOTE H. p. 122.
Materialism may be regarded as generally the doctrine
of the primitive Church. It accorded more with the po
pular view of future punishments which was originally
held : and it reserved to God himself more exclusively the
prerogative of spirituality. It was the creed of an unphi
losophical piety, vaguely and loosely conceived ; not an
ingenious theory, such as that which a false modern phi
losophy has devised. Were the material nature of the
soul denied, the infidel might argue against the possibi
lity of its undergoing those sufferings for sin which Chris
tianity denounces. Or man might be tempted to lift up
himself with pride, as little less than the Divine Being.
Thus Tertullian says : Nihil enim si non corpus. De
Anim. c. 7. n. 96. Omne quod est, corpus est sui generis ;
nihil est incorporale, nisi quod non est. De Carne Christi.
Ut concedam interim esse aliquid incorporale, de sub-
stantiis duntaxat; quum ipsa substantia corpus sit rei
cujusque. Adv. - Hermogen. c. 35. He even does not scru
ple to apply the word corpus to the nature of God. Quis
enim negabit Deum corpus esse, etsi Deus spiritus est ?
Spiritus enim corpus sui generis in sua effigie. Adv.
Prax. c. 7. — Jerome, alluding to the different opinions
concerning the nature of the soul, speaks of its propaga
tion in a manner analogous to the body, as the prevailing
tenet in the West. — Utrum lapsa de ccelo sit, ut Pytha
goras philosophus, omnesque Platonici, et Origenes, putant,
anima; an a propria Dei substantia, ut Stoici, Mani-
chasus, et Hispanias Prisciliani hasreses, suspicantur; an
in thesauro habeantur Dei olim conditas, ut quidam eccle-
siastici stulta persuasione confidunt ; an quotidie a Deo
fiant, et mittantur in corpora, secundum illud quod in
evangelio scriptum est, " Pater meus usque modo operatur,

NOTES TO LECTURE III. 467
" et ego operor ;" an certe ex traduce, ut Tertullianus,
Apollinaris, et maxima pars Occidentalium autumant, ut,
quomodo corpus ex corpore, sic anima nascatur ex anima,
et simili cum brutis animantibus conditione subsistant.
Hieronym. Marcellino et Anapsychiw^
Citations might be made from other writers to the same
purport. At length, about the commencement of the Vth
century, the Pelagian discussions, and in particular the po
sitive statement of the materiality of the soul by Faustus,
bishop of Riez, attracted the attention of philosophical
Christians to the point. The arguments of Faustus were
answered in a treatise by Mamertus Claudianus, a priest
of Vienne, and the most eminent philosopher of that day
in Gaul. About the same time the Greek philosopher Ne-
mesius, Bishop of Emesa, argued the incorruptible vitality
of the soul, in a work " On the Nature of Man." Then
also we find Augustine discussing the subject. His Ma-
nichean prejudices having leaned entirely on the side of
Materialism, when he became a catholic Christian, he was
naturally led to assert an opposite theory. In his dialogue,
De Quantitate Animce, he derives the origin of the soul
from God, and affirms its simplicity and immateriality.
So again in an epistle to Jerome, he says : Incorpoream
quoque esse animam, etsi difficile tardioribus persuaderi
potest, mihi tamen fateor esse persuasum.e Platonism
was now the received philosophy of the Church : and the
necessity of arguing against the preexistence of the soul
was not so imperatively felt. Nemesius indeed expressly
teaches its preexistence. There seems therefore to have
been no objection to admitting the principles, from which
Plato drew his conclusions of the natural immortality of
the soul. Still speculation did not rest on the subject : as
we may perceive from the remarks of John of Salisbury. —
At physici, dum naturae nimium autoritatis tribuunt, in
autorem naturas, adversando fidei, plerumque impingunt.
d Ep. XXVII. torn. II. August. Opera.
' Augustini Opera, torn. II. fol. 30.
H H 2

468 APPENDIX.
Non enim omnes erroris arguo; licet plurimos audierim,
de anima, de virtutibus et operibus ejus, de augmento
corporis et diminutione, de resurrectione ejusdem, de
creatione rerum, aliter quam fides habeat, disputantes.
Policraticus, lib. II. p. 147.
NOTE I. p. 123.
Sed dicent forsitan: flatus utique ille non erat de sub
stantia humana, et tamen quasi suam ilium emittebat.
Quapropter docetur per hujusmodi Spiritus Sancti datio-
nem : quia cum dat Filius Spiritum Sanctum, dat et mittit
suum spiritum ; sed non de suas divinitatis essentia. Di
cant igitur, si qui hasc opinantur: quia, sicut flatus non
est humana natura cum emittitur ab homine, ita Spiritus
Sanctus non est divina substantia, cum datur vel mittitur
a Deo Filio ; quod nullus confitetur Christianus. Dicant
etiam cum audiunt : " Verbo Domini coeli firmati sunt, et
" spiritu oris ejus omnis virtus eorum :" si ibi non ne-
gant intelligendum per spiritum oris Domini, Spiritum
Sanctum, non ilium esse de essentia Domini, cujus oris
spiritus dicitur: quia spiritus qui ex ore solet hominum
procedere, non est de substantia illius de cujus ore proce
dit, &c. Anselm. De Process. Spir. S. p. 130. Oper.
torn. III. ed. 1612. NOTE J. p. 126.
Gregory Nazianzen, having spoken of the Nature of the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, corrects himself with the
observation ; that " one should rightly say usia, essence,
" rather than Nature." Orat. XLV. p. 717.
Aquinas gives, as a reason for saying unius essentia;
rather than unius naturw, that things agreeing in any act,
for instance, all heating things, may be said to be of one
Nature, but things cannot be said to be of one Essence,
unless they have unum esse, one Being. S. Theol. Prima
Pars, qu. xxxix. art. 2.
On the same principle substantia was a still more apt

NOTES TO LECTURE III. 469
expression than essentia; particularly as substantia was
the logical term of the Latins for the obaia of the Cate
gories. NOTE K. p. 126.
This may be seen in the following instances: — Idque
quo facilius intelligas ex teipso ante recognosce, ut ex
imagine et similitudine Dei, quam habeas et tu in temet-
ipso rationem, qui es animal rationale, a rationali scilicet
artifice non tantum factus, sed etiam ex substantia ipsius
animatus. Tertullian. adv. Prax. p. 503. Paris. 1675.
Quasi non sic quoque unus sit omnia, dum ex uno om
nia, per substantias scilicet unitatem. Ibid. c. 2. p. 501.
Suscepturus etiam ipsas substantias hominis carnem et
animam. Ibid. c. 16. p. 509.
Quascunque ergo substantia sermonis fuit, illam dico
personam, et illi nomen filii vindico. Ibid. c. 7. p. 504.
Quapropter tres substantias sunt. Hilar. De Trin. IV.
c. 13, and August. De Trin. VII.
Hoc vero utcunque simile est, quia et veteres qui La-
tine locuti sunt, antequam haberent ista nomina, quce non
diu est quod in usum venerunt, id est, essentiam vel sub-
stantiam, pro his naturam dicebant. August. De Trin.
lib. VII. fol. 114. col. 1. Also lib. V. fol. 106. col. 3.
Nomen substantias (cui respondet in Grasco nomen hy
postasis) communiter accipitur apud nos pro essentia.
Aquin. Summa Theol. Prima Pars, qu. xxix. art. 3.
Confirma, Domine, famulos tuos quos ex aqua et Spi-
ritu Sancto propitius redemisti, ut veterem hominem cum
suis actionibus deponentes, in ipsius conversatione viva-
mus, ad cujus substantiam per hasc Paschalia mysteria
transtulisti. Extract from an ancient Gallic Missal.1
So in the Athanasian Creed, in the sentence, " God of
" the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds :
f Cited in an edition of Ratramn, on the Body and Blood of the Lord,
8vo. London, 1688. p. 479. It was the prayer, it is there observed, made in
the name of the new-baptized persons on the Friday in Easter week.

470 APPENDIX.
" and man of the substance of his mother, born in the
" world," substance is clearly used in two different senses ;
first to denote the essence of God, next to denote the fleshly
nature of the mother of Jesus Christ.
NOTE L. p. 128.
Synodi (Nicasnas) sensum Marcellus Ancyranus non per-
cepisse fertur ; sed, errore Sabelliano, consubstantiale sic
defendisse, ut personarum Trinitatem tolleret. Verum
auctor dissertationis ad Sabellii gregales, quae extat inter
opera Athanasii, admonet earn esse vim nominis, bpoovawv,
consubstantialis, ut multorum secundum substantiam con
sortium efferat ; et idcirco Sabellianos ei subrogasse, rd
povoovawv, quod unius substantias, significat. Particula
bpov, una, simul, inquit Epiphanius, Hcer. LXIX. c. 70,
ovx'eva, dXXd Svo a-rffiaivei riXeia. Damasc. Dialectica, c. 41.
p. 44, note, Le Quien.
NOTE M. p. 129.
Otov ev riXioig rpialv exopivoig dXXrjXwv, Kal dSiaardroig ovat,
fiia rov (jiwrog avyKpaaig te Kal avvd(f>eia, is a comparison of
Gregory Nazianzen, in Orat. XXXVII, introduced by
Damascenus, De Fid. Orthod. I. p. 140.
Videamus tamen, an in rebus creatis, quae et loci et
temporis, et compositionis partium, legi subjacent, inve-
niri possit aliquatenus, hoc quod negat in Deo. Ponamus
fontem, de quo nascatur et fluat rivus, qui postea colliga-
tur in lacum, &c. Anselm. De Incarn. Verb. c. 7. p. 40,
also De Process. Spirit, p. 132.
Exivit autem ex Patre, ut radius ex sole, ut rivus ex
fonte, ut frutex ex semine. Tertull. ade. Prax. lib. XXI.
also Hilar. Ex Oper. Histor. Frag. II. p. 646.
Tertullian uses the expressions ; Trinitas per consertos
et connexos gradus a Patre decurrens — nee frutex a ra-
dice, nee fluvius a fonte, nee radius a sole, discernitur —
fons et fluvius duas species sunt, sed indivisae.
Prax.

NOTES TO LECTURE III. 471
NOTE N. p. 129.
Quasrunt autem quomodo in Deo, una penitus perma-
nente substantia vel essentia aliqua, ibi proprietatum sit
diversitas, secundum quas Trinitas personarum constat:
vel quomodo potest esse, ut cum unaquasque ibi persona
sit Deus, nee tamen una persona sit alia, non etiam plures
Dii, sicut et plures personas sint dicendi. Aut quas sit
denique generatio Filii de Patre vel processio Spiritus ab
utroque. Quod quidem ut diligentius fiat, praemittendum
est, quot modis, Idem, et quot modis Diversum, accipiatur.
Tribus autem modis utrumque et fortasse pluribus dici
solet. Idem namque similitudine, idem essentialiter sine
numero, idem proprietate dicimus, &c. . . . Tribus etiam
modis solet diversum sumi ; essentialiter scilicet, numero,
proprietate, seu diffinitione. Diversa namque essentialiter
dicimus, si eadem essentia quae est hoc, non sit illud; et
si homo est, nullius essentia tanquam pars includatur, ut
manus et homo. Tunc vero etiam numero sunt diversa,
cum ita tota quantitate suae essentias sunt discreta, ut in
computatione sibi queant admisceri, cum videlicet dicitur
unus, duo, tres, &c. . . . Proprietate vero seu diffinitione
diversa sunt, quae licet habeant de se prasdicari, cum es
sentialiter idem sunt, secundum proprios tamen status,
aliud est hujus proprium, et aliud illius, et singula propriis
diffinitionibus et in sensu diversis sunt terminanda. Abce-
lardi Introd. ad Theol. lib. II. p. 1076.
NOTE O. p. 130.
The theological vocabulary of the Latins appears not to
have been settled before the writings of Augustine. In
Tertullian great laxity of expression is observable. Even
in Hilary, the immediate precursor of Ambrose and Au
gustine in the Arian controversy, the terms are not used
with that precision which the captiousness of heresy after
wards enforced. Thus Hilary does not scruple to speak
of tres substantia, or to use person in the sense of nature ;

47.2 APPENDIX.
and in general to conform himself more to the phraseology
of the Greek theologians, than the Latins after him could
venture to do. It was the object of Hilary, to mediate
between the Christian of the East and the West, and he
adopted accordingly a phraseology that might conciliate
both parties.
The work, De Synodis, of Hilary, is a curious illus
tration of the unsettled state of religious opinion in the
times when it was composed. It is throughout a con
ciliatory document— a rhetorical address to his episcopal
brethren of the West, to induce them to acquiesce in the
decisions of the several councils, by shewing how little in
reality the differences were. The attempt indeed is carried
so far as to amount to a compromise of opinions.
NOTE P. p. 131.
The distinction rested principally on the coincidence of
the notions of "having" and "being," in their application
to the Deity. Thus Anselm observes.
Videndum igitur quomodo intelligendum sit, quando ilia
natura, quas est ipsa justitia, dicitur justa. Quoniam enim
homo non potest esse justitia, justitiam autem habere pot
est. Non enim intelligitur Justus homo, existens justitia,
sed habens justitiam. Quoniam igitur summa natura non
proprie dicitur justa, quia habet justitiam, sed existit jus
titia : cum dicitur justa, proprie intelligitur existens jus
titia, non autem habens justitiam ; quare si cum dicitur
existens justitia, non dicitur qualis est, sed quid est; con-
sequitur, ut cum dicitur justa, non dicatur qualis sit, sed
quid sit, &c. Monologium XV. p. 6. Oper.
Distinctio autem in divinis non fit nisi per relationes
originis. Relatio autem in divinis non est sicut accidens
inhasrens subjecto, sed est ipsa divina essentia : unde est
subsistens, sicut essentia divina subsistit. Sicut ergo dei
tas est Deus : ita patemitas divina est Deus Pater, qui
est persona divina. Persona igitur divina significat rela-
tionem ut subsistentem ; et hoc est significare relationem

NOTES TO LECTURE III. 473
per modum substantias, quas est hypostasis subsistens in
natura divina; licet, subsistens in natura divina, non sit
aliud quam natura divina. Aquin. Summa Theol. Prima
Pars, qu. xxix. art. 4.
NOTE Q. p. 133.
Sed quia nostra loquendi consuetudo jam obtinuit, ut
hoc intelligatur, cum dicimus substantiam ; non audemus
dicere, unam essentiam, tres substantias, sed unam es-
sentiam vel substantiam, tres autem personas : quemad
modum multi Latini ista tractantes, et digni authoritate
dixerunt; cum alium modum aptiorem non invenirent,
quo enuntiarent verbis quod sine verbis intelligebant . .
. . .Tamen cum quaeritur quid tres, magna prorsus ino-
pia humanum laborat eloquium. Dictum est tamen tres
personas, non ut illud diceretur, sed ne taceretur ....
Aut quoniam propter ineffabilem conjunctionem, hasc tria
simul unus Deus, cur non etiam una persona, ut ita non
possimus dicere tres personas. ... An quia Scriptura non
dicit tres Deos ? Sed nee tres personas alicubi Scrip-
turam commemorare invenimus. An quia nee tres nee
unam personam Scriptura dicit hasc tria, legimus enim
personam Domini, non personam Dominum, propterea
licuit loquendi et disputandi necessitate tres personas
dicere, non quia Scriptura dicit, sed quia Scriptura non
contradicit. . . . Quid igitur restat, nisi ut fateamur lo
quendi necessitate partita hasc vocabula, cum opus esset
copiosa disputatione adversum insidias vel errores haereti-
corum. Cum enim conaretur humana inopia loquendo
proferre ad hominum sensus, quod in secretario mentis pro
captu tenet, de Domino Deo creatore suo, sive per piam
fidem, sive per qualemcunque intelligentiam, timuit dicere
tres essentias, ne intelligeretur in ilia summa asqualitate
ulla diversitas. Rursus non esse tria quaedam non poterat
dicere ; quod Sabellius quia dixit, in hasresim lapsus est. .
. . . Aut si jam placet propter disputandi necessitatem,
etiam exceptis nominibus relativis, pluralem numerum ad^

474 APPENDIX.
mittere, ut uno nomine respondeatur, cum quasritur, quid
tria, et dicere tres substantias, sive tres personas, nullas
moles aut intervalla cogitentur, nulla distantia quantulas-
cunque dissimilitudinis, ut ibi intelligatur aliud alio, vel
paulo minus, quocunque modo minus esse aliud alio potest,
ut neque personarum sit confusio, nee talis distinctio qua sit
impar aliquid. . . . Ideoque dici tres personas vel tres sub
stantias, non ut aliqua intelligatur diversitas essentias, sed
ut vel uno aliquo vocabulo responderi possit, cum dicitur,
quid tres, vel quid tria. Augustin. De Trin. lib. V. fol. 106.
VII. fol. 113, 114. VIII. fol. 114.
Ecce patet omni homini expedire, ut credat in quandam
ineffabilem trinam Unitatem et unam Trinitatem. Unam
quidem et Unitatem, propter unam essentiam ; trinam
vero et Trinitatem, propter tres, nescio quid : licet enim
possim dicere Trinitatem, propter Patrem, et Filium, et
utriusque Spiritum, qui sunt tres ; non tamen possum
proferre uno nomine, propter quid tres, velut si dicerem
propter tres personas ; sicut si dicerem unitatem propter
unam substantiam. Non enim putandae sunt tres personas:
quia omnes plures personas sic subsistunt separatim ab
invicem, ut tot necesse sit esse substantias, quot sunt
personae : quod in pluribus hominibus, qui, quot personas, tot
individuae sunt substantiae, eognoscitur. Quare in summa
essentia, sicut non sunt plures substantias, ita nee plures
personas. Si quis itaque inde velit alicui loqui, quid tres ;
dicet esse Patrem, et Filium, et utriusque Spiritum ; nisi
forte, indigentia nominis proprie convenientis coactus, ele-
gerit aliquid de illis nominibus, quae pluraliter in summa
essentia dici non possint, ad designandum id quod congruo
nomine dici non potest ; ut si dicat, illam admirabilem
Trinitatem esse unam essentiam vel naturam, et tres per
sonas sive substantias. Anselm. Monologium, c. 76. Oper.
p. 22. Unum enim sunt illi tres, id est, essentia divina. Unde
Veritas ait : " Ego et Pater unum sumus." Veruntamen
cum quasritur, quid tres, vel quid tria ; non de essentia

NOTES TO LECTURE III. 475
quaeritur, nee ibi quid ad essentiam refertur. Sed cum
fides Catholica tres esse profiteretur, sicut Joannes in epi-
stola canonica ait : " Tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent
" de ccelo :" quasrebatur quid illi tres essent, i. e., an es
sent tres res, et quas tres res, et quo nomine illas tres res
significarentur. Et ideo loquendi necessitate inventum est
hoc nomen persona ad respondendum, et dictum est tres
personas. Lombard, lib. I. dist. 25. p. 73.
Unde quibusdam visum est quod hoc nomen, persona,
simpliciter ex virtute vocabuli, essentiam significet in di
vinis, sicut hoc nomen, Deus, et hoc nomen, sapiens ; sed
propter instantiam hasreticorum est accommodatum ex or-
dinatione Concilii, ut possit poni pro relativis. . . . Sed
hasc non videtur sufficiens ratio : quia si hoc nomen, per
sona, ex vi suae significationis, non habet quod significet,
nisi essentiam in divinis, ex hoc quod dictum est tres per
sonas, non fuisset hasreticorum quietata calumnia, sed ma
joris calumnias data esset eis occasio. . . . Et secundum hoc
etiam dici potest, quod hasc significatio hujus nominis (per
sona) non erat percepta ante hasreticorum calumniam :
unde non erat in usu hoc nomen, persona, nisi sicut unum
aliorum absolutorum : sed postmodum accommodatum est
hoc nomen, persona, ad standum pro relativo, ex congru-
entia suae significationis : ut scilicet hoc quod stat pro re
lativo, non solum habeat ex usu, (ut prima opinio docebat,)
sed etiam ex significatione sua. Aquinas, Summa Theolog.
Prima Pars, qu. xxix. art. 4.
NOTE R. p. 134.
Ad primum ergo dicendum; quod ad exprimendam ve-
ritatem essentiae et personas, sancti doctores aliquando ex
presses locuti sunt, quam proprietas locutionis patiatur ;
Unde hujusmodi locutiones non sunt extendendae, sed ex-
ponendas ; &c. Aquinas Summa Theol. Prima Pars, qu.
xxxix. art. 5.

476 APPENDIX.
NOTE S. p. 135.
Complures antiquorum, ut jam supra demonstravi, gene-
ratim loquentes, naturam docuerunt communem sic esse,
ut est quaslibet species individuis communicata pluribus;
immo obaiav nihil aliud esse, quam speciem ultimam.
Hinc autem consectarium h°c esse sane irapdSo^ov ostendi-
mus, uti plures homines numero, unam et eandem habeant
essentiam, ideoque ne homines quidem plurativo numero
dici debeant, sed unus homo. Quod etsi perabsurdum
videtur, et abhorrens a consuetudine communi ; multi Pioc
tamen asseverare non dubitant. Petav. Dogmata Theol. de
Trin. VI. c. 9. Curcellasi Oper. Amst. 1775. p. 883.
NOTE T. p. 137.
Oportet autem in his quas de Trinitate loquimur, duos
errores oppositos cavere, temperate inter utrumque proce-
dentes : sc. errorem Arii, qui posuit cum trinitate persona-
rum trinitatem substantiarum, et errorem Sabellii, qui
posuit cum unitate essentias unitatem personas. Ad evitan-
dem igitur errorem Arii, vitare debemus in divinis nomen
diversitatis et differentias, ne tollatur unitas essentias.
Possumus autem uti nomine distinctionis, propter opposi-
tionem relativam. Unde sicubi in aliqua Scriptura authen-
tica diversitas, vel differentia personarum invenitur, sumitur
diversitas vel differentia, pro distinctione. Ne autem
tollatur simplicitas divinas essentias, vitandum est nomen
separationis et divisionis, quae est totius in partes. Ne au
tem tollatur asqualitas, vitandum est nomen disparitatis. Ne
vero tollatur similitudo, vitandum est nomen alieni et discre-
pantis. . . Ad vitandum vero errorem Sabellii, vitare debemus
singularitatem, ne tollatur communicabilitas essentias divi
nas. . . Debemus etiam vitare nomen unici, ne tollatur nu-
merus personarum. . . Vitandum est etiam nomen solitarii,
ne tollatur consortium trium personarum. Aquinas, Summa
Theol. Prima Pars, qu. xxxi. art. 2.

NOTES TO LECTURE III. 477
NOTE U. p. 138.
Vincent of Lerins gives the following account of the
opinion of Apollinarius, or Apollinaris.
Apollinaris vero in unitate quidem Trinitatis quasi con-
sentire se jactitat : et hoc ipsum non plena fidei sanitate ;
sed in Domini incarnatione aperta professione blasphemat.
Dicit enim in ipsa Salvatoris nostri carne, aut animam hu-
manam penitus non fuisse,.aut certe talem fuisse, cui mens
et ratio non esset. Sed et ipsam Domini carnem non de
sanctas virginis Mariae carne susceptam, sed de ccelo in
virginem descendisse dicebat ; eamque, nutabundus semper
et dubius, modo coasternam Deo Verbo, modo de Verbi
divinitate factam prasdicabat. Nolebat enim in Christo
esse duas substantias, unam divinam, alteram humanam,
unam ex patre, alteram ex matre : sed ipsam Verbi natu
ram putabat esse discissam ; quasi aliud ejus permaneret
in Deo, aliud vero versum fuisset in carnem : at cum Veritas
dicat ex duabus substantiis unum esse Christum, ille, contra-
rius veritati, ex una Christi divinitate duas adserat factas
esse substantias. Commonitorium, ed. Baluz. p. 333.
The fear of assigning a quaternity instead of a trinity,
seems to have actuated other Christians also in their reason
ings on the subject ; and to have made the orthodox careful
of protecting their doctrines on that point. A passage of
Ambrose will shew this.
Nee timeo ne tetrada videar inducere : nos enim vere
solam, qui hoc adserimus, colimus Trinitatem. Non enim
Christum divido, cum carnis ejus divinitatisque distinguo
substantiam : sed unum Christum cum Patre et Spiritu
Dei praedico, et illos magis, qui carnem Christi unius cum
divinitate ejus dicunt esse substantias, tetrada inducere
demonstrabo. Non enim quod ejusdem substantias est,
unus, sed unum est ; nam utique Filium ejusdem cum
Patre substantias confitentes in tractatu concilii Nicasni, non
unam personam, sed unam divinitatem, in Patre et Filio
crediderunt.

478 APPENDIX.
Ergo cum dicunt ejusdem carnem, cujus et Filius Dei
erat, fuisse substantias ; ipsi, quod nobis objiciunt, ineptiis
vana? adsertionis incurrunt, ut dividant Christum. Itaque
quartum increatum, quod adoremus, inducunt, cum sola in-
creata sit divinitas Trinitatis. Ambros. de Incarn. c. VII.
Oper. torn. II. p. 721.
NOTE V. p. 140.
The illustration from the union of body and soul, to the
union of God and man in Christ, appears in Augustine's
writings ; and probably was adopted from him into the
Athanasian Creed. To take it in its proper force, it must
be viewed by the light of the theory already alluded to ;
which assumed the distinct formation of the soul and its
infusion into the body. For in this point of view, it cor
responds with the doctrine of the separate Divine nature,
associated with the separate humanity, in the person of
Christ. Those who acknowledged the former assumed
fact, might consistently admit the latter. To those, on
the other hand, who have no such theory on the nature of
the soul, the illustration applies only in the most loose and
general acceptation ; as representing a case of our believing
in a mysterious combination of powers, to induce us to be
lieve another like inexplicable union. Strictly to speak,
however, the analogy, as it is stated, is entirely hypothetical,
and is calculated to pervert our notion of Christ.
NOTE W. p. 140.
The following passage of Anselm, bearing on the same
point, is a most striking instance of the manner, in which
the Christian doctrines have been made completely to de
pend on a certain school-system. According to Anselm,
it appears, that unless the abstract man was a reality, the
Incarnation could not be true.
Cumque omnes, ut cautissime ad sacrae paginas quasstiones
accedant, sunt commonendi, illi utique nostri temporis
dialectici (immo dialecticae hasretici, qui quidem non nisi

NOTES TO LECTURE III. 479
flatum vocis putant esse universales substantias, et qui colo-
rem non aliud queunt intelligere nisi corpus, nee sapientiam
hominis aliud quam animam,) prorsus a spiritualium quae-
stionum disputatione sunt exsufflandi. In eorum quippe
animabus ratio, quas princeps et judex omnium debet esse,
quas sunt in homine, sic est imaginationibus corporalibus
obvoluta, ut ex eis se non possit evolvere : nee ab ipsis
ea, quas sola et pura ipsa contemplari debet, valeat discer-
nere. Qui enim nondum intelligit, quomodo plures homines
in specie sint unus homo ; qualiter in ilia secretissima et
altissima natura comprehendet, quomodo plures personas,
quarum singula quasque est perfectus Deus, sint unus Deus.
Et cujus mens obscurata est ad discernendum inter equum
suum et colorem ejus, qualiter discernet inter unum Deum
et plures relationes ejus. Denique qui non potest intel
ligere aliquid esse hominem nisi individuum ; nullatenus
intelliget hominem, nisi humanam personam. Omnis enim
individuus homo persona est. Quomodo ergo iste intelliget
hominem assumptum esse a Verbo, non personam, id est,
aliam naturam, non aliam personam, esse assumptam. An-
i. De Incarn- c. II. p. 35.

NOTE X. p. 141.
The logical difficulty in regard to the theory of the Incar
nation was the reverse of that in regard to the Trinitarian.
In the general theory of the Trinity, the common nature
or idea was the given point : and the problem was, how to
deduce from that, the distinctions of Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit. In the theory of the Incarnation, certain distinc
tions in Christ were the data ; and the problem was, to find
a common idea in which they should agree. As concerning
the Trinity, some erred in arriving at conclusions at variance
with their data, by making too great a difference between
the persons of the Trinity ; or destroyed the distinctions
by a too rigid deduction of the exclusive notion of Divinity
to the particular facts :— so in solving the question of the
Incarnation, some left the difficulty unexplained, by making

480 APPENDIX.
that common notion in which the different characteristics of
Christ should agree, a compounded and imperfectly-united
nature ; whilst others overthrew the original assumption
of certain distinctions, by confounding them in one indis
tinct idea. The doctrine of the " hypostatical union " was
the expedient which met the difficulty most satisfactorily;
giving at least that solution of the case, which a logical
theology demanded.
NOTE Y. p. 144.
Ad hoc autem quod nos reprehendunt, in symbolo illo,
quod pariter nos et illi suscipimus et tenemus, addidisse
Spiritum Sanctum a Filio procedere : et quasrunt, cur hoc
factum sit ; et quare hoc prius eorum Ecclesias monstratum
non est: ut communiter consideraretur, et communi con
sensu adderetur, quod addendum erat. Ad hoc, inquam,
responsum sufficiens habemus. Nam si quasritur cur fac
tum sit; dicimus, quia necesse erat propter quosdam mi
nus intelligentes, qui non animadvertebant in illis, quas
universa credit Ecclesia, contineri, et ex his sequi, Spiri
tum Sanctum de Filio procedere : ne forte hoc credere du-
bitarent. Quod quam necessarium fuerit, per illos qui hoc
negant, quia in illo Symbolo positum non est, cognosci-
mus. Quoniam igitur et necessitas cogebat, et nulla ratio
prohibebat ; et vera fides hoc admittebat ; fiducialiter as-
seruit Latinitas, quod credendum et confitendum esse cog-
noscebat. Scimus enim quod non omnia quas credere et
confiteri debemus, ibi dicta sunt ; nee illi ; qui symbolum
illud dictavere, voluerunt, fidem Christianam esse conten-
tam ea tantummodo credere et confiteri, quas ibi posue-
runt: ut alia taceam ; non ibi dicitur Dominus ad infernum
descendisse, quod tamen pariter et nos et Grasci credimus.
Si autem dicunt nullo modo debuisse corrumpi symbolum
tanta auctoritate firmatum : nos non judicamus esse cor-
ruptionem, ubi nihil addidimus, quod his quas ibi dicta
sunt adversetur. Et quamvis defendere possemus hanc
adjectionem non esse corruptionem, si quis tamen hoc

NOTES TO LECTURE III. 481
contentiose voluerit asserere : respondemus, nos illud non
corrupisse, sed aliud novum edidisse : illud secundum pro-
prietatem Grasci dictaminis translatum, cum illis integrum
servamus et veneramur. Illud autem, quo frequentius in
populi audientia utimur, Latino more dictatum, cum addi-
tamento supradicto edidimus. Quod autem quaeritur, quare
hoc Graecorum ecclesias consensu factum non est : respon
demus ; quia et nimis erat difficile Latinis, eorum episcopos
ad consulendum de hac re colligere ; nee erat necesse.
Unde non dubitabant in hoc quasstionem adducere. Quae
est enim ecclesia, quae vel per amplitudinem unius regni
dilatatur, cui non liceat aliquid secundum rectam fidem
constituere, quod in conventu populi utiliter legatur aut
cantetur. Quanto ergo magis licuit Latinis hoc constanter
proferre, in quo omnes gentes, et omnia regna, quae Latinis
utuntur Uteris, pariter concordant. Anselm. de Process.
Spir. S. Oper. t. III. p. 134.
NOTE Z. p. 145.
Relationes autem personas distinguere non possunt, nisi
secundum quod sunt oppositas : quod ex hoc patet ; quia
Pater habet duas relationes, quarum una refertur ad Fi
lium, et alia ad Spiritum Sanctum : quae tamen, quia non
sunt oppositas, non constituunt duas personas, sed ad unam
tantum personam Patris pertinent. Si autem in Filio, et
Spiritu 'Sancto, non esset invenire nisi duas relationes,
quibus uterque refertur at Patrem ; illae relationes non essent
ad invicem oppositas ; sicut neque duas relationes, quibus
Pater refertur ad illos. Unde, sicut persona Patris est una;
ita sequeretur, quod persona Filii et Spiritus Sancti esset
una, habens duas relationes oppositas duabus relationibus
Patris. Hoc autem est hasreticum ; cum tollat fidem Trini
tatis. Oportet ergo, quod Filius et Spiritus Sanctus ad
invicem referantur oppositis relationibus, &c. . . . Si ergo
ab una persona Patris procedunt duas personas, scilicet
Filius et Spiritus Sanctus; oportet esse aliquem ordinem
eorum ad invicem : nee potest aliquis ordo alius assignari,
i i

482 APPENDIX.
nisi ordo naturae, quo alius est ex alio. Non est igitur
possibile dicere, quod Filius et Spiritus Sanctus sic proce-
dant a Patre, quod neuter eorum procedat ab alio ; nisi
quis poneret in eis materialem distinctionem ; quod est
impossibile. Aquinas, Summa Theol. Prima Pars, qu.
xxxvi. art. 2.

LECTURE IV.
NOTE A. p. 157.
OCIAS itaque domine beatissime, et plenissima charitate
venerabilis, non desperare nos, immo sperare vehementer,
quod Dominus et Deus noster per authoritatem personae
quam geris, quam, non carni, sed spiritui tuo impositam
esse confidimus, multas carnales felicitates et asgritudines,
quas Aphricana Ecclesia in multis patitur, in paucis gemit,
consiliorum gravitate et tua possit sanare  Com-
messationes enim et ebrietates, ita concessas et licitas pu-
tantur, ut in honorem etiam beatissimorum martyrum, non
solum per dies solennes, quod ipsum quis non lugendum
videat, qui hasc non carnis oculis inspicit, sed etiam quoti
die celebrentur  Sed feramus hasc in luxu et labe
domestica, et eorum conviviorum quae privatis parietibus
continentur, accipiamusque cum eis corpus Christi, cum
quibus panem edere prohibemur, saltern de sanctorum cor-
porum sepulchris, saltern de locis sacrorum, de domibus
orationum, tantum dedecus arceatur  Sed tanta
pestilentia est hujus mali, ut sanari prorsus, quantum mihi
videtur, nisi concilii authoritate non possit. . . . De con-
tentione autem et dolo quid me attinet dicere, quoniam
ista vitia non in plebe, sed in nostro numero graviora
sunt? Augustinus Aurelio, Ep. 64. Aug. Oper. torn. II.
fol. 94.

NOTES TO LECTURE IV. 483
NOTE B. p. 158.
Augustine appears constantly to have treated Jerome
with the deference due to an elder brother in the Church.
He shewed his judiciousness in the management of Jerome's
haughty and enthusiastic temper, so as to apply the learning
and polemical talent and established authority of the holy
recluse of Bethlehem, to the effectual maintenance of his
own ascendancy in the ecclesiastical world. Jerome was a
man calculated to establish a principle, to give a tone to
opinion and feeling ; but not to perpetuate a personal influ
ence. Augustine, on the contrary, was formed for guiding
the conduct of other men after his own example ; but he
wanted the power to give an intense interest tp an abstract
question, by throwing over it a warm colouring, or merging
it in solemn shadow. All his writings shew the man of
business; the energy which they display is that of one
earnest in proving and carrying his point, and not such as
to interest the mere reader, like those of Jerome, by the
intrinsic force of the composition.
The personal influence accordingly of Jerome sank with
him at his death; whilst that of Augustine survived his
own existence, and permanently controlled the fortunes of
the Church. Augustine at the same time reaped the fruits
of Jerome's ardent exertions ; which served, by conciliating
devotion to the doctrines themselves which he taught, to
support his personal authority.
These observations on the contrast of these two great
men ofthe Church are illustrated in the case ofthe Pela
gian controversies. Augustine takes no decisive measures
in the emergency, until he has consulted Jerome on the
philosophy of the question. He sends him an epistle by
Orosius, inquiring what opinion should be held on the
nature of the soul. Quassto de anima, he says in writing to
him, multos movet, in quibus et me esse confiteor.? He
then proceeds to state his own views and difficulties on
" Epist. XXVIII. Augustin. Opera, torn. II. fol. 30.
i i 2

484 APPENDIX.
the subject, and he requests Jerome to instruct him what
he is to hold and teach respecting it. Misisti ad me dis-
cipulos, ut ea doceam, quas nondum ipse didici. Doce ergo
quod doceam. Nam ut doceam multi a me flagitant, eisque
me, sicut alia multa, et hoc ignorare confiteor. .... Quid
si ideo adhuc ista nescimus, et ea neque orando, neque
Iegendo, neque cogitando et ratiocinando, invenire potuimus,
ut probemur, non solum indoctos quanta charitate doceamus,
verum a doctis etiam quanta humilitate discamus ? Doce
ergo, quasso, quod doceam ; doce quod teneam, &c.b — In
the same epistle Augustine complains of the distance which
separated him from Jerome, and which necessarily made
the intervals long between their several communications.
Nihil equidem molestius fero in omnibus angustiis meis
quas patior in difficillimis quasstionibus, quam in tam
longinqua tuas charitatis absentia, ut vix possim meas dare,
vel recipere literas tuas, per intervalla, non dierum, non
mensium, sed aliquot annorum : cum, si fieri posset, quotidie
praesentem te habere vellem, cum quo loquerer quicquid
vellem. What an idea is given us of the steadiness and uniformity
of purpose with which the operations of the Latin Church
leaders were carried on, when we read the letters that
passed between these two, and notice the keen and patient
interest sustained on questions of speculative theology over
such spaces of time !
NOTE C. p. 158.
Mihi enim omnis occasio gratissima est, per quam scribo
vestras reverentias, testem invocans Deum, quod si posset
fieri, assumptis alis columbae, vestris amplexibus impli-
carer : semper quidem pro merito virtutum vestrorum, sed
nunc maxime quia cooperatoribus et authoribus vobis has-
resis Celestina jugulata est: quas ita infecit corda mul-
torum, ut cum superatos damnatosque esse se sentiunt,
tamen venena mentium non omittant, et quod solum pos-
i> Epist. XXVIII. Augustin. Opera, torn. II. fol. 30.

NOTES TO LECTURE IV. 485
sint, nos oderint, per quos putant se libertatem docendas
hasreseos perdidisse. Hieronymus Augustino et Alipio.1
Sanctas memoriae Bonifacius, cum esset doctissimus, ad-
versus libros tamen Pelagianorum, beati Augustini responsa
poscebat. Prosper, adv. Collat. c. 41.k

NOTE D. p. 159.
The character of invariableness claimed for the Church
of Rome, rs not a little affected by the account of the pro
ceedings in the case of Pelagianism. Not only was Pela
gius not condemned by John, Bishop of Jerusalem, and
afterwards declared orthodox at the Synod of Diospolis
(the ancient Lydda) in Palestine, in the year 415, but pro
tected in some measure by the Roman Pontiff also, Inno
cent I. : as is evident from the allusion contained in the
following passage of an epistle from the Fathers of a Council
held at Carthage, A.D. 416. Si ergo Pelagius episcopalibus
gestis quas in oriente eonfecta dicuntur, et tuas venerationi
juste fuerit absolutus, error tamen ipse, et impietas,
quae tam multos assertores habet, per diversa dispersos,
etiam authoritate apostolicas sedis anathematizanda est.1
.... Quascunque autem alia ab eis objiciuntur, non
dubitamus venerationem tuam, cum gesta episcopalia per-
spexerit, quas in Oriente in eadem causa confectas dicuntur,
id judicaturam, unde omnes in Dei misericordia gaudea-
mus  Audivimus enim esse in urbe Roma, ubi ille
diu vixit, nonnullos, qui diversis causis ei faveant, quidam
scilicet qui vos talia persuasisse perhibent : plures vero qui
eum talia sentire non credunt; prassertim, quia in Oriente
ubi degit, gesta ecclesiastica facta esse jactantur, quibus
putatur esse purgatus  Aut ergo a tua veneratione
acciendus est Romam, et diligenter interrogandus, quam
¦ Ep. XXIV. Augustin. Oper. torn. II. fol. 28.
k Vessii. Hist. Pelag. lib. I. c. 29.
1 Ep. XC. Opera Augustin. tom.^II. fol. 125.

486 APPENDIX.
dicat gratiam. .... Aut hoc ipsum cum eo per literas agen
dum,™ &c.
They affect not to believe that Pelagius had been actually
acquitted at Rome ; and point out, without much reserve,
the course which they require the Pontiff to pursue in the
matter. This address was supported by a similar one from an
other African Council held in the same year at Millevi;
and by a letter of several African bishops, among whom
was Augustine. Innocent replies to these communications,
but in a style which leaves it very ambiguous what his
real design is. The style indeed of his three letters re
sembles that of Cromwell in some of his state papers —
full of wordy clauses which appear to say a great deal, but
in reality say nothing at all. And yet Augustine, having
occasion to make use of the authority of Innocent, speaks
of these letters in terms of approbation. — Ad omnia nobis
rescripsit eodem modo, quo fas erat, atque oportebat Apo-
stolicas sedis antistitem."
Innocent lived but two months after these replies, leaving
the prosecution of the cause between the African Prelates
and the Pelagians to his successor Zosimus in the year
417, But the same vacillation of purpose appears also in
Zosimus. He was at first disposed to favour Celestius,
and on examination received him into the communion of
the Church. But the Africans were on the alert to secure
on their side the popular sanction of the Apostolic See.
In 418 another Council was held at Carthage, and appli
cation was made to the Emperor Honorius to obtain sup
port to their cause by the force of civil edicts. Zosimus
could not resist these importunities ; and finding that there
were no means of protecting Celestius, or hopes of restor
ing him to the Church, at length yielded the point, and
m Ep. XCV. Augustin. Opera, torn. II. fol. 129.
" Augustinus et Alipius Bonifacio, Ep. CVI. Opera, torn. II. fol. 144. It
has been denied that these letters were written by Innocent. Vossii. Hist.
Feteg. lib. I. c.27.

NOTES TO LECTURE IV. 487
wrote to the Mrican bishops, declaring his condemnation of
the Pelagians.
The Pelagians, though vanquished by these proceedings,
took advantage of this hesitation on the part of the Roman
See to pronounce against them, to proclaim the opinions of
the Roman Clergy as favourable to their doctrines, as ap
pears from the following passage.
Quinetiam Romanos Clericos arguunt, scribentes eos
jussionis timore perculsos, non erubuisse prasvaricationis
crimen admittere, ut, contra priorem sententiam qua gestis
catholico dogmati affuerant, postea pronunciarent malam
hominum esse naturam : imo Pelagiani spe falsa putave-
runt, novum et execrabile dogma Pelagianum vel Celestianum
persuaderi quorundam Romanorum catholicis mentibus
posse, quoniam ilia ingenia quamvis nefando errore per
versa, non tamen contemptibilia, cum studiose corrigenda
potius quam facile damnanda viderentur, alioquin lenius,
quam severior postulabat ecclesias disciplina, tractata
sunt. Tot enim et tantis inter apostolicam sedem et
Aphros episcopos currentibus et recurrentibus scriptis ec-
clesiasticis, et gestis, de hac causa, apud illam sedem,
* Celestio prassente et respondente confectis, quasnam tandem
epistola venerandas memorias papas Zosimi, quas interlo-
cutio reperitur, ubi prasceperit credi oportere, sine ullo
vitio peccati originalis hominem nasci: nusquam prorsus
hoc dixit, nusquam omnino conscripsit. Contra duas Ep.
Pelag. ad Bonifac.0 The orthodox, we find, had to la
bour to palliate the conduct of Rome. The sequel of this
passage further illustrates the part taken by the African
Clergy in stimulating Innocent to act against Pelagius and
Celestius, and the anxiety of Augustine to remove the
appearance of reluctance and hesitation on the part of the
Pope. In noticing the exertions of the African Clergy in these
controversies, we must not forget that Jerome was also a
principal instrument in carrying the orthodox decision.
0 Augustin. Opera, torn. VII. p. 287.

488 APPENDIX.
He not only wrote strenuously and vehemently on the sub
ject; but by his presence in Palestine, at the critical
moment when all seemed favourable to Pelagius, he excited
a reaction against the heresy, even amidst its apparent
triumph.
NOTE E. p. 159.
The prevalence of the infection of Pelagianism is evi
dent from the fact that eighteen bishops of Italy refused
to subscribe the condemnation of Pelagius, and in con
sequence of their refusal were deprived of their sees, and
exiled to the East. q Even in Africa, the seat itself of
opposition to Pelagianism, the heretical cause was not
without its advocates. This may be seen from the re
script of Honorius to Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage ; where
it is said: Prascipue tamen ad quorundam episcoporum
pertinaciam corrigendam, qui pravas eorum disputationes,
vel tacito consensu astruunt, vel publica oppugnatione non
destruunt,i &c.
NOTE F. p. 162.
Quas enim potest alia major esse temeritas, quam Dei
sibi, non dico similitudinem, sed asqualitatem vendicare :
et brevi sententia, omnium hasreticorum venena complecti,
quas de philosophorum, ex maxime Pythagoras, et Zenonis
principis Stoicorum, fonte manarunt? Illi enim quas Grasci
appellant ivaBn, nos perturbationes possumus dicere, asgri-
tudinem videlicet et gaudium, spem et metum, quorum
duo prassentia, duo futura sunt, asserunt extirpari posse
de mentibus, et nullam fibram radicemque vitiorum, in
homine omnino residere, meditatione et assidua exercita-
tione virtutum. . . . Pudeat ergo eos principum et sociorum
p See M. Guizot, Histoire de la Civiliz. Francaise, 5e. Lecon, p. 208.
Paris. 1829. This Lecture of M. Guizot gives, in the shortest compass, the
most perspicuous philosophical view of the Pelagian Question that has ever
appeared. q Salviani Opera, Appendix, p. 448.

NOTES TO LECTURE IV. 489
suorum, qui aiunt, posse hominem sine peccato esse si
velit, quod Grasci dicunt dvapaprrfrov. Et quia hoc eccle-
siarum per Orientem aures ferre non possunt ; simulant se
sine peccato quidam dicere, sed dvapaprrfrov dicere non
audere : quasi aliud sit, sine peccato, aliud, dvapaprrfrov,
et non Graecum sermonem, qui apud illos compositus est,
duobus verbis sermo Latinus expresserit. Si absque peccato
dicis, et dvapaprrfrov dicere te diffiteris, damna eos ergo
qui dvapaprrfrov prasdicant. Sed non facis. Hieronymus ad
Ctesiph. Opera, torn. II. p. 251.
NOTE G. p. 175.
Respondeo dicendum; quod, cum supra ostensum sit,
quod Deus sciat omnia, non solum quas acta sunt, sed
etiam quas sunt in potentia sua, vel creaturas ; horum au
tem quaedam sint contingentia nobis futura ; sequitur quod
Deus contingentia futura cognoscat. Ad cujus evidentiam
considerandum est, quod contingens aliquod dupliciter
potest considerari. Uno modo in seipso, secundum quod
jam in actu est ; et sic consideratur, non ut futurum, sed ut
praesens ; neque ad utrumlibet contingens, sed ut determi-
natum ad unum ; et propter hoc, sic infallibiliter subdi
potest certas cognitioni, utpote sensus visui : sicut cum
video Socratem sedere. Alio modo potest considerari con
tingens, ut est sua in causa. Et sic consideratur ut futu
rum, et ut contingens nondum determinatum ad unum ;
quia causa contingens se habet ad opposita : et sic con
tingens non subditur per certitudinem alicui cognitioni.
Unde quicunque cognoscit effectum contingentem in causa
sua tantum, non habet de eo nisi conjecturalem scientiam.
Deus autem cognoscit omnia contingentia, non solum
prout sunt in suis causis, sed etiam prout unumquodque
eorum est actu in seipso. Et licet contingentia fiant in
actu successive, non tamen Deus successive cognoscit con
tingentia, prout sunt in suo esse, sicut nos, sed simul;
quia sua cognitio mensuratur asternitate, sicut etiam suum
esse. ^Eternitas autem tota simul existens ambit totum

490 APPENDIX.
tempus, ut supra dictum est. Unde omnia, quae sunt in
tempore, sunt Deo ab asterno prassentia, non solum ea ra
tione, qua habet rationes rerum apud se prassentes, ut
quidam dicunt ; sed quia ejus intuitus fertur ab asterno
supra omnia, prout sunt in sua prassentialitate. Unde
manifestum est, quod contingentia et infallibiliter a Deo
cognoscuntur, in quantum subduntur divino conspectui,
secundum suam prassentialitatem : et tamen sunt futura
contingentia, suis causis proximis comparata. Aquinas,
Summa Theol. Prima Pars, qu. xiv. art. 12.
NOTE H. p. 175.
Respondeo dicendum, quod necessarium dicitur aliquid
dupliciter, scilicet absolute, et ex suppositione. Necessa
rium absolute judicatur aliquid ex habitudine terminorum ;
utpote quia prasdicatum est in diffinitione subjecti, sicut
necessarium est hominem esse animal : vel quia subjectum
est de ratione praedicati ; sicut est necessarium numerum
esse parem vel imparem : sic autem non est necessarium
Socratem sedere ; unde non est necessarium absolute ; sed
potest dici necessarium ex suppositione : supposito enim
quod sedeat, necesse est eum sedere, dum sedet. Aquinas,
Summa Theol. Prima Pars, qu. xix. art. 3.
This distinction is laid down with precision by Ari
stotle, so that his followers in the Schools could not well
misapprehend the theory of the subject, whilst they prac
tically offended against it. The distinction is, still more
clearly stated by a writer in the Xlth century, the monk
Gaunilo, in his observations, to which I before referred,1
on the argument of Anselm's Monologium. It may be
interesting to see how he develops his view, so far at least
as the obscurity of his Latin will permit his sense ,to ap
pear. Anselm's argument, in his Monologium, is an an
ticipation of the Cogito, ergo sum, of Descartes. It rests
the proof of the existence of the Deity on the existence of
the ideas of supreme goodness and greatness in the mind
r Page 449.

NOTES TO LECTURE IV. 491
of man. He argues, that unless these ideas existed in re
as well as in intellectu, there would be a contradiction;
for in such a case they would not be the ideas of supreme
goodness and greatness ; since it is greater and better to
exist in re and in intellectu, than in the intellect alone. The
treatise in itself, as a whole, is an admirable specimen of
scholastic reasoning. As an ingenious deduction of the
speculative reasons (rationes) conceived to be involved in
the doctrine of the Trinity, it stands unrivalled : though
the style is extremely rough and obscure. The objection
of Gaunilo is as follows :
Prius enim certum mihi necesse est, fiat revera, esse
alicubi majus ipsum, et tamen deinde ex eo quod majus
est omnibus, in seipso quoque subsistere non erit ambi-
guum. Exempli gratia : Aiunt quidam alicubi Oceani esse
insulam, quam ex difficultate, vel potius ex impossibilitate
inveniendi, quod non est, cognominant aliqui perditam :
quamque fabulantur, multo amplius quam de fortunatis in-
sulis fertur, divitiarum deliciarumque omnium inasstimabili
ubertate pollere, nulloque possessore aut habitatore : uni-
versis aliis, quas incolunt homines, terris, possidendorum
redundantia, usquequaque prasstare. Hoc ita esse dicat
mihi quispiam : et ego facile dictum, in quo nihil est diffi-
cultatis, intelligam. Ac si tunc velit, consequenter adjun-
gat, ac dicat: non potes ultra dubitare insulam illam,
omnibus terris prasstantiorem, vere esse alicubi in re, quam
in intellectu tuo non ambigis esse ; et quia prasstantius est
non in intellectu solo, sed etiam esse in re. Ideo sic earn
necesse est, quia nisi fuerit, quascunque alia, in re, est
terra prasstantior, ilia erit ac si ipsa jam a te prasstantior
et intellecta prasstantior non erit. Si, inquam, per hoc ille
mihi velit astruere, de insula ilia, quod vere sit, ambigen-
dum ultra non esse ; aut jocari ipsum credam ; aut nescio
quem stultiorem debeam reputare ; utrum me, si ei conce-
dam; an ilium, si se putet aliqua certitudine insulae illius
essentiam astruxisse; nisi prius ipsam prasstantiam ejus
solummodo, sicut rem vere atque indubie existentem, nee

492 APPENDIX.
ullatenus, sicut falsum aut incertum aliquid in intellectu, in
eo esse, docuerit. Liber pro Insipiente. Anselmi Opera, torn.
III. p. 30.
NOTE I. p. 178.
It may be sufficient to refer to the following passage of
Calvin, to see how he differs from Aquinas on the same
point. De modo quo Deus hominem in vitium tradit, minime
necessarium hoc loco texere longam quasstionem. Certum
quidem est, non sinendo tantum et connivendo, ilium per-
mittere homines prolabi: sed justo judicio sic ordinare, ut
turn a propria concupiscentia, turn a Diabolo in ejusmodi
rabiem agantur et ferantur. Ideo Tradendi voce utitur,
ex perpetuo Scripturse more : quam vocem nimis violenter
torquent, qui sola Dei permissione in peccatum agi nos
putant. Nam ut minister iras Dei est Satan, et quasi car-
nifex: ita non dissimulatione, sed mandate judicis in nos
armatur. Neque tamen ideo aut crudelis Deus, aut nos
innoxii ; quando aperte ostendit Paulus, nos non aliter ad-
dici in ejus potestatem, quam si tali poena digni simus.
Tantum id excipiamus, peccati causam a Deo non prove-
nire : cujus radices in peccatore ipso perpetuo resident.
Illud enim verum esse oportet ; Perditio tua Israel : in me
tantummodo auxilium tuum. Calvin, in Ep. Pauli ad
Rom. c. 1 . v. 24. Genevas, 1600.
NOTE J. p. 180.
Respondeo dicendum, quod Deus aliquos reprobat. Dic
tum enim est supra, quod prasdestinatio est pars provi-
dentias. Ad providentiam autem pertinet permittere
aliquem defectum in rebus quae providentias subduntur,
ut supra dictum est. Unde cum per divinam providentiam
homines in vitam asternam ordinantur, pertinet etiam ad
divinam providentiam, ut permittat aliquos" ab isto fine de-
ficere. Et hoc dicitur reprobare. Sic igitur, sicut prasdes
tinatio est pars providentias, respectu eorum qui divinitus
ordinantur in asternam salutem, ita reprobatio est pars pro-

NOTES TO LECTURE IV. 493
videntias, respectu illorum qui ab hoc fine decidunt. Unde
reprobatio non nominat prasscientiam tantum, sed aliquid
addit secundum rationem, sicut et providentia, ut etiam
supra dictum est. Sicut enim praedestinatio includit volun-
tatem conferendi gratiam et gloriam, ita reprobatio includit
voluntatem permittendi aliquem cadere in culpam, et infe-
rendi damnationis poenam pro culpa. Aquinas, Summa
Theol. Prima Pars, qu. xxiii. art. 3.
Aquinas also shews a like objection to that observable
in our 17th Article, against sanctioning the notion that
any one should suppose himself reprobated by God. Thus
he observes : Etiam si aliquibus ex speciali privilegio sua
praedestinatio revelatur, non tamen convenit ut reveletur
omnibus: quia sic illi, qui non sunt praedestinati, despera-
rent, et securitas in praedestinatis negligentiam pareret.s
He appeals indeed to the same tests of the presence of
Divine Grace in the heart, which our Article employs in
speaking of predestination. Hoc modo aliquis cognoscere
potest se habere gratiam, in quantum scilicet percipit se
delectari in Deo, et contemnere res mundanas ; et in
quantum homo non est conscius sibi alicujus peccati mor-
talis .... ille qui accipit gratiam, per quandam experi-
entiam dulcedinis novit, quam non experitur ille qui non
accipit.'
NOTE K. p. 181.
Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus nominally divided
the Schools into two parties; the former as the strictest
interpreter, the latter as the more moderate expositor of
Augustine's doctrines on the subject of Divine Agency.
The factious spirit which reigned in the political world,
extended itself to the monastic orders and the Schools ;
and it is no wonder that in such times, we find classes of
theological partisans designated as Thomists, and Scotists,
and Ockamists. Then the Dominicans and Franciscans,
' Summa Theol. Prima Pars, qu. XXIII. art. I.
' Ibid. Prima Secundae, qu. cxn. art. 5.

494 'APPENDIX.
as rival professions, supporting the peculiar opinions of
their own member, perpetuated the distinction between
Thomist and Scotist. Fresh employment, of that kind
which particularly suited the scholastic genius, was thus
supplied to the Schools of a succeeding age ; that of re
conciling the respective tenets of the leading doctors, and
shewing their fundamental concord. This was only to act
over the part which Boethius, and others who preluded to
the scholastic philosophy, had originally acted, in forming
an eclectic system out of the theories of Plato and Aristotle.
Among the merits accordingly of the once celebrated Picus
Mirandula, it is mentioned, that he was employed in esta
blishing an agreement between Aquinas and Duns Scotus,
when his premature death deprived the schools of this and
other labours on which he was engaged."
NOTE L. p. 181.
Prasterea, si Deus aliquem hominem reprobat, oportet
quod sic se habeat reprobatio ad reprobatos, sicut prae
destinatio ad prasdestinatos. Sed praedestinatio est causa
salutis prasdestinatorum. Ergo reprobatio erit causa perdi-
tionis reproborum. Hoc autem est falsum. Dicitur enim
Oseas 13. Perditio tua ex te Israel, tantummodo ex me
auxilium tuum. Non ergo Deus aliquem reprobat.
.... Ad secundum dicendum quod aliter se habet
reprobatio in causando quam praedestinatio. Nam praedes
tinatio est causa, et ejus quod expectatur in futura vita a
prasdestinatis, scilicet glorias ; et ejus quod percipitur in
prassenti, scilicet gratias. Reprobatio vero non est causa
ejus quod est in prassenti, scilicet culpae, sed est causa
derelictionis a Deo. Est tamen causa ejus quod redditur in
u Inter Thomam et Scotum, qui jam diu conflictaverant, si non pacem in
universum, in multis tamen impetrasset inducias, quando in eorum pluribus
controversiis, si quispiam dissidentia verba rimetur attentius, et exactius
libret, scrupulosiusque vestigans, cutem deserens, introrsum ad imas latebras,
profundaque penetralia mente pervadat, unionem sensuum indisseparatis
pugnantibusque verbis citra ambiguitatem comperiet. Pic. Mirandul. Vila,
Oper. ed. 1496.

NOTES TO LECTURE IV. 495
futuro, scilicet pcenas astemas. Sed culpa provenit ex libero
arbitrio ejus qui reprobatur et a gratia deseritur. Et se
cundum hoc verificatur dictum prophetas, scilicet, Perditio
tua, Israel, ex te. Aquinas, Summa Theol. Prima Pars,
qu. xxiii. art. 3.
Of course as speaking on a subject extending over so
large a range of volumes as those of the Schoolmen, I
must be understood to speak with some reserve. Still I
cannot but think that the assertion made in the Lecture
will be verified by more extensive research. The predes
tination of punishment will be found to be the prevailing
character assigned to the term Reprobation. But punish
ment was viewed in the Scholastic system, according to
the Platonic and Aristotelic notion of it, as a good to those
to whom it was dispensed, as a purifying and healing of the
distempers of the soul. The scholastic distinction between
poena and culpa should be particularly noticed in reference
to the question of Reprobation. The Schoolmen would not
admit a predestination of guilt, for this would have argued
the presence of evil in the Divine Mind. For it should be
observed, that the will of God was considered identical
with his being and his intelligence ; and that predestination
accordingly was fundamentally coincident with the doctrine
of Ideas. It was the application of this doctrine to moral
subjects. I have alluded in the Lecture to the argument of
Erigena, according to which the predestination of evil was
impossible, since there were no such Ideas as those of evil
in the Divine Mind. It may be seen from the following
passage, how the rationalized doctrine of predestination was
connected with the Idealism of Plato.
Causae itaque primordiales sunt (quod et in prasceden-
tibus dixeram, quas Grasci ideas vocant, hoc est species vel
formas) astemas et incommutabiles rationes, sed in quas
et in quibus visibilis et invisibilis mundus formatur et re-
gitur ; ideoque a Grascorum sapientibus irpwrorvira appellari
meruerunt, hoc est principalia exempla, quae Pater in Filio
fecit, et per Spiritum Sanctum in effectus suos dividit atque

493 APPENDIX.
multiplicat ; irpoopiapara quoque vocant, id est, prasdesti-
nationes, in ipsis enim quascunque divina prudentia et fiunt
et facta sunt et futura, sunt simul et semel incommutabiliter
prasdestinata. Nihil enim naturaliter in creatura visibili et
invisibili oritur, praster quod in eis ante omnia tempora et
loca prasdifinitum et prasordinatum est ; item a philosophis
deia BEkiipara, id est, divinas voluntates nominari solent;
quoniam omnia quascunque voluit dominus facere, in ipsis
primordialiter et causaliter fecit, &c.x Joan. Scot. Erigen. de
Div. Natur. lib. II. p. 94.
Though the later schoolmen might not go to the full
length of this language, the same views in a great measure
seem constantly before them in their disquisition on the
subject. They would not admit that evil had any positive
existence : they speak of it as a defect from good, as an
absence of what constitutes the perfection of any nature.
The real meaning again of the term Divine Will, as ap
plied to the subject of predestination, is not commonly
apprehended. In speculating on the course of the Divine
dispensations, and finding themselves at a loss to give a
satisfactory solution of the differences observed in the
conduct and fortunes of different individuals, scholastic
reasoners were forced to retire on the ground from which
they set out, and to confess that they could discover no
cause of these differences but the simple Will of God.
The expression therefore is not to be taken as any positive
account of the case, but as an admission of ignorance of
any proper reason, and a denial of any of the reasons that
were alleged; as the foreknowledge, for instance, of the
merits of individuals. Voluit igitur Deus, says Aquinas,
in hominibus, quantum ad aliquos quos prasdestinat, suam
reprassentare bonitatem, per modum misericordias par-
cendo ; et quantum ad aliquos, quos reprobat, per modum
justitije, puniendo. Et hasc est ratio quare Deus quosdam
eligit, et quosdam reprobat  Sed quare hos elegit in
% He ascribes the rise of the predestinarian controversy of his time to the
neglect of literature, and particularly to ignorance of the Greek language.

NOTES TO LECTURE IV. 497
gloriam, et illos reprobavit, non habet rationem, nisi divinam
voluntatem.y
NOTE M. p. 182.
Respondeo dicendum ; quod praedestinatio secundum ra
tionem prassupponit electionem, et electio dilectionem.
Cujus ratio est : quia praedestinatio, (ut dictum est,) est
pars providentias. Providentia autem, sicut et prudentia,
est ratio in intellectu existens, prasceptiva ordinationis
aliquorum in finem, ut supra dictum est. Non autem
prascipitur aliquid ordinandum in finem, nisi prasexistente
voluntate finis. Unde prasdestinatio aliquorum in salutem
asternam, prassupponit secundum rationem, quod Deus
illorum velit salutem : ad quod pertinet electio et dilectio :
dilectio quidem, in quantum vult eis hoc bonum salutis
astemas : nam diligere est velle alicui bonum, ut supra
dictum est: electio autem, in quantum hoc bonum aliquibus
pras aliis vult, cum quosdam reprobet, ut supra dictum est.
Electio tamen et dilectio aliter ordinantur in nobis et in Deo :
eo quod in nobis voluntas diligendo non causat bonum, sed
ex bono prasexistente incitamur ad diligendum. Et ideo eli-
gimus aliquem, quem diligamus. Et sic electio dilectionem^
prascedit in nobis. In Deo autem est e converso. Nam
voluntas ejus, qua vult bonum alicui diligendo, est causa
quod ilium bonum ab eo pras aliis habeatur. Et sic patet,
quod dilectio prassupponitur electioni secundum rationem,
et electio praedestinationi. Unde omnes prasdestinati sunt
•electi et dilecti. Aquinas, Summa Theol. Prima Pars,
qu. xxiii. art. 4.
NOTE N. p. 182.
Tu autem nos Manichasos vocas, cur legi Evangelium
praeferentes, in ilia umbram, in hoc veritatem esse dica-
mus. Hieronym. adv. Pelag. lib. I. Oper. torn. II. p. 274.
His morbis inter se contrariis, Manichasi Pelagianique
confligunt, dissimili voluntate, simili vanitate, separati opin-
Theol. Prima Pars, qu. xxiii. art. 5.
K K

498 APPENDIX.
ione diversa, sed propinqui mente perversa. Jam vero
gratiam Christi simul oppugnant, baptismum ejus simul
evacuant, carnem ejus simul exhonorant ; sed etiam hasc
modis causisque diversis. Nam Manichasi meritis natures
bonae, Pelagiani autem meritis voluntatis bonas, perhibent
divinitus subveniri. Illi dicunt ; debet hoc virtutibus ser-
membrorum suorum : Isti dicunt ; debet hoc virtutibus ser
vorum suorum. Utrisque ergo merces non imputatur se
cundum gratiam, sed secundum debitum, &c. Contr. duas
Epist. Pelag. ad Bonif. Augustin. Oper. torn. VII. fol.
286. Les premiers de cette Societe, qui parurent en France,
sont ces quatorze personhes de la noblesse, et du clerge
d'Orleans, contre lesquels le roi Robert assembla une
espece de Concile, en I'annee 1022, et qu'il fit bruler vifs
sous pretexte de Manicheisme. Beausobre, Hist, de Ma-
nich. torn. I. pref. p. 4.
NOTE O. p. 186.
Grace, no less than Predestination, is spoken of in the
language of the Schools as that by which a man is " or-
" dained" or " set in order" to eternal life. For, in dis
cussing the question, " whether any one may be blotted out
" of the book of life," Aquinas decides, that the ordination
of predestination "never fails;" whereas that of grace,
though in itself a title to eternal life, may fail, through
mortal sin. And the reason assigned is, that the pre
destined have eternal life in itself; the ordination of grace"
alone is to eternal life, not in itself, but in its cause.
Est enim liber vitas conscriptio ordinatorum in vitam
asternam. Ad quam ordinatur aliquis ex duobus; scilicet
ex prasdestinatione divina; et haec ordinatio nunquam de
ficit : et ex gratia. Quicunque enim gratiam habet, ex
hoc ipso dignus est vita astema. Et hasc ordinatio deficit
interdum : quia aliqui ordinati sunt ex gratia habita, ad
habendam vitam asternam, a qua tamen deficiunt per pec
catum mortale. Illi igitur qui sunt ordinati ad habendum

NOTES TO LECTURE IV. 499
vitam asternam ex prasdestinatione divina, sunt simpliciter
scripti in libro vitas ; quia sunt ibi scripti ut habituri vitam
asternam in seipsa ; et isti nunquam delentur de libro
vitas. Sed illi qui sunt ordinati ad habendum vitam aster
nam, non ex prasdestinatione divina, sed solum ex gratia,
dicuntur esse scripti in libro vitae, non simpliciter, sed
secundum quid : quia sunt ibi scripti, ut habituri vitam
asternam, non in seipsa, sed in sua causa. Et tales pos
sunt deleri de libro vitae, ut dilectio non referatur ad noti-
tiam Dei, quasi Deus aliquid praesciat, postea neseiat,
sed ad rem scitam : quia scilicet Deus scit aliquem prius
ordinari in vitam asternam, et postea non ordinari, cum
deficit a gratia. Aquinas, Prima Pars, qu. xxiv. art 3.
The general designation of the Divine Agency under the
notion of Grace, was a modification of abstract doctrine,
sanctioned by Scholasticism not without good reason. It
was a softening of the hard outlines of the theory of Pre
destination. By fixing the thoughts on the Divine good
ness, amidst the survey of the inflexible appointments of
Providence, it presented a view of God, touching to the
heart, and awakening pleasurable emotions. It preserved
the supremacy and constancy of the Divine Will, whilst it
exhibited that supremacy and constancy as the working of
a law of gentleness and love.
NOTE P. p. 189.
Sed contra; Lux ponit aliquid in illuminate. Sed gra
tia est quasdam lux animas : unde Augustinus dicit in libro
de Natura et Gratia : prasvaricatorem legis divinas lux de-
serit veritatis, qua desertus utique fit cascus: ergo gratia
ponit aliquid in anima.
Sed quantum ad primum est differentia attendenda circa
gratiam Dei et gratiam hominis : quia enim bonum crea
turas provenit ex voluntate divina, ideo ex dilectione Dei
qua vult creaturas bonum, profluit aliquod bonum in crea-
tura. Ad secundum dicendum, quod Deus est vita animas per
k k 2

500 APPENDIX.
modum causas efficientis : sed anima est vita corporis per
modum causas formalis. Inter formam autem et materiam
non cadit aliquod medium, quia forma per seipsam in-
format materiam vel subjectum. Sed agens informat sub-
jectum, non per suam substantiam, sed per formam quam
causat in materia. Aquinas, Summa Theol. Prima Se-
cundoe, qu. ex. art. L
Manifestum est autem quod gratia gratum faciens hoc
modo comparatur ad beati tudinem, sicut ratio seminalis in
natura ad effectum naturalem. Ibid. qu. lxh. art. 2.
NOTE Q. p. 190.
Respondeo dicendum ; quod sicut gratia dividitur in
operantem et cooperantem, secundum diversos effectus :
ita etiam in prasvenientem et subsequentem, et qualiter-
cunque gratia accipiatur. Sunt autem quinque effectus
gratias in nobis, quorum primus est ut anima sanetur:
secundus, ut bonum velit : tertius est, ut bonum quod
vult, efficaciter operetur : quartus est, ut in bono perse-
veret : quintus est, ut ad gloriam perveniat. Et ideo
gratia secundum quod causat in nobis primum effectum,
vocatur prasveniens respectu secundi effectus : et prout
causat in nobis secundum, vocatur subsequens respectu primi
effectus. Et sicut unus effectus est posterior uno effectu,
et prior alio: ita gratia potest dici prasveniens et subse
quens secundum eundem effectum, respectu diversorum.
Et hoc est quod Augustinus dicet in libro de Natura et
Gratia : " Prasvenit ut sanemur ; subsequitur ut sanati
" vegetemur ; prasvenit ut vocemur ; subsequitur ut glo-
"rificemur." Aquinas, Summa Theol. Prima Secundw,
qu. cxi. art. 3.

NOTES TO LECTURE V. 501
LECTURE V.
NOTE A. p. 229.
A.QUINAS, shewing that sin was not a total privation of
our nature, whence would follow the Stoical paradox that
" all sins were equal," observes : Hujusmodi autem pri-
vationes recipiunt magis et minus ex parte ejus quod
remanet de habitu contrario ; multum enim refert ad aegri-
tudinem vel turpitudinem, utrum plus vel minus a debita
commensuratione humorum vel membrorum recedatur. Et
similiter dicendum est de vitiis et peccatis ; sic enim in eis
privatur debita commensuratio rationis, ut non totaliter
ordo rationis tollatur ; alioquin malum si sit integrum,
destruit seipsum, ut dicitur in quartuor Ethic. : non enim
posset remanere substantia actus vel affectio agentis, nisi
aliquid remaneret de ordine rationis. Et ideo multum in
terest ad gravitatem peccati, utrum plus vel minus recedatur
a rectitudine rationis. Summa Theol. Prima Secundce,
qu. lxxiii. art. 2. Quia tamen natura humana per peccatum
non est totaliter corrupta, ut scilicet toto bono naturas
privetur, &c. Ibid. qu. cix. art. 2.
The reference made in this passage is to the observ
ation of Aristotle, that "vice destroys itself; 'and if it be
" total, becomes intolerable : to yap kukov Kal avrd drroXXvai,
" k$v bXoKXripov xi, dtyoprfTOV yiverai. z
The expressions again, " total corruption," or " wholly
" corrupt," as applied to human nature, evidently derive
their character from the logical notion which the Scholas
tics intended by them. The whole of human nature is, the
whole extent of signification of the term human nature.
It means that every thing included under that term is also
included under the term corrupt. It is misconceived, when
it is understood to denote the several physical and moral
constituents, which, taken together, make up the com
plex idea of human nature. The mistake here is that of
1 Aristot. Ethic. IV. c. 5.

502 APPENDIX.
supposing, that what is true of all the kinds or varieties
found in a certain class of objects, is, on the other hand,
true, only in regard to all the parts of which any in
dividual of the class is composed. Anselm sufficiently
shews this, when, in a chapter of his treatise on Original
Sin, inquiring in what manner human nature is corrupt,
he observes : Quoniam autem personaliter peccaverunt,
cum originaliter fortes et incorrupti haberent potestatem
semper servandi sine difficultate justitiam, totum quod
erant infirmatum et corruptum est. Corpus quidem, quia
tale post peccatum fuit, qualia sunt brutorum animalium
corruptione et carnalibus appetitibus subjacentia : anima
vero, quia, ex corruptione corporis et ejusdem appetitibus,
atque ex indigentia bonorum quas perdidit, carnalibus af-
fectibus infecta, et quia tota natura humana in illis erat,
et extra illos nihil erat, tota infirmata et corrupta est. . . .
Nee impotentia excusat earn in ipsis infantibus : quia in
illis non solvit quod debet: quoniam ipsa sibi fecit earn,
deserendo justitiam in primis hominibus in quibus tota
erat: et semper debitrix est habere potestatem, quam ad
servandam semper justitiam accepit : hoc esse videri potest
in infantibus originale peccatum.3
Clearly Anselm is speaking of the abstract being Human
Nature, the logical universal ; which, he contends, is cor
rupt in all born of Adam, because the whole being was
corrupted in the first sinner, and is the same in all who
participate of it. But since the Scholastic philosophy has
been out of fashion, this is a notion by no means familiar
to the minds of men ; and the expression, " totally cor-
" rupt," has been very naturally taken in its most obvious
sense, as denoting all that is in any one individual man.
It is time indeedjhat we should study that philosophy, to
our contempt and ignorance of which, we may ascribe so
much aberration of theological opinion. We have indeed
more than enough of the Scholastic spirit among us, but
we want the Scholastic depth of thought. We treat the
* De Concep. Virg. et Pec. Orig. c. 2. Opera, torn. III. p. 96.

NOTES TO LECTURE V. 503
conclusions ofthe Schoolmen, as superficially, as they treated
the Greek philosophy, which they implicitly adopted. We
take their terms and reason from them, without acquainting
ourselves with the principles on which they are founded.
For instance, I have seen it somewhere argued, that man
is naturally in a state of utter reprobation; because the
Scripture says, that " the carnal mind is enmity against
" God." For, it was urged, had the expression been
" enemy," and not " enmity," then the possibility of re
conciliation might be conceivable; but "enmity" could
never be reconciled. Could the Platonist or the Scholas
tic, I would ask, insist more on the importance of abstract
ideas, than is insisted on by such an argument ? We find
here an endeavour to establish the impossibility of a fact
concerning human nature, from a consideration of the
nature of a contradiction : or in other words, logical truth
is transformed into physical.
NOTE B. p. 233.
Est peccatum a natura, ut dixi ; et est peccatum a per
sona. Itaque quod est a persona, potest dici personale:
quod autem a natura, naturale, quod dicitur originale : et
sicut personale transit ad naturam ; ita naturale ad perso
nam : hoc modo. Quod Adam comedebat, hoc natura
exigebat, quia ut haec exigeret sic creata erat. Quod vero
de ligno vetito comedit, non hasc voluntas naturalis, sed
personalis Adas propria fecit: quod tamen egit persona,
non fecit sine natura- Persona enim erat quod dicebatur
Adam: natura quod homo. Fecit igitur persona pecca-
tricem naturam : quia ubi Adam peccavit, homo peccavit.
Siquidem non quia homo erat, ut vetitum prassumeret im-
pulsus est : sed propria voluntate, quam non exegit natura,
sed persona concepit, attractus est. Similiter fit in infan
tibus e converso. Nempe quod in illis non est justitia,
quam debent habere, knon hoc fecit illorum voluntas per
sonalis, sicut in Adam; sed egestas naturalis, quam ipsa
natura accepit ab Adam. In Adam namque, extra quem

504 APPENDIX.
de ilia nihil erat, est nudata justitia quam habebat : et ea
semper nisi adjuta careret : hac ratione : quia natura sub-
sistit in personis, et personas non sunt sine natura, fecit
natura personas infantium peccatrices. Sic spoliavit per
sona naturam bono justifies in Adam ; et natura egens
facta, omnes personas quas ipsa' de se procreat, eadem
egestate peccatrices et injustas facit. Hoc modo transit
peccatum Adas personale in omnes, qui de illo naturaliter
propagantur, et est in illis originale sive naturale. Anselm.
De Concep. Virg. et Pec. Orig. c. 22. p 103.
The same idea is further illustrated by the following
passage of Aquinas.
Unde etiam posito, quod anima rationalis traduceretur,
ex hoc ipso quod infectio animas prolis non esset in ejus
voluntate, amitteret rationem culpas obligantis ad poenam :
quia ut Philosophus dicit in tertia Ethicorum, nullus im-
properabit casco nato, sed magis miserebitur. Et ideo alia
via procedendum est, dicendo, quod omnes homines qui
nascuntur ex Adam, possunt considerari ut unus homo, in
quantum conveniunt in natura quam a primo parente acci
piunt ; secundum quod in civilibus omnes homines qui sunt
unius communitatis, reputantur quasi unum corpus, et tota
communitas quasi unus homo : sicut etiam Porphyrius
dicit, quod participatione speciei plures homines sunt unus
homo. Sic igitur multi homines ex Adam derivati sunt,
tanquam multa membra unius corporis, actus autem unius
membri corporalis, puta manus, non est voluntarius volun
tate ipsius manus, sed voluntate animas quas primo movet
membrum. Unde homicidium quod manus committit, non
imputaretur manui ad peccatum, si consideraretur manus
secundum se, ut divisa a corpore ; sed imputatur ei in
quantum est aliquid hominis, quod movetur a primo prin
cipio rootivo hominis. Sic igitur inordinatio, quae est in
isto homine ex Adam generate, non est voluntaria volun
tate ipsius, sed voluntate primi parentis, qui movet mo-
tione generationis omnes qui ex ejus origine derivantur,
sicut voluntas animas movet omnia membra ad actum.

NOTES TO LECTURE V. 505
Unde peccatum quod sic a primo parente in posteros de
rivator dicitur originale: sicut peccatum quod ab anima
derivatur ad membra corporis, dicitur actuale. Et sicut
peccatum actuale quod per membrum aliquod committitur,
non est peccatum illius membri, nisi in quantum illud
membrum est aliquid ipsius hominis, propter quod vocatur
peccatum humanum : ita peccatam originale non est pecca
tum hujus personas, nisi in quantum hasc persona recipit
naturam a primo parente, unde et vocatur peccatum natures:
secundum illud Ephes. 2. Eramus- autem filii iras. Aquinas,
Summa Theol. Prima Secundat, qu. lxxxi. art. 1.

NOTE C. p.
Octavum in hasc causa Concilium cecumenicum erat,
quod anno ccccxxxi habitum est. Quamquam enim propter
Pelagianos convocatum non fuit ; tamen Pelagianis Nes-
torium damnare refugientibus, atque adeo ilium etiam ju-
vantibus, Patres occasione ea uti voluerunt, ad Pelagii
asseclas una cum Nestorio damnandos. Hasc ita esse,
ipsius Concilii actis comprobatur. . . . Quod vero ex actis
synodicis hactenus ostendimus, idem variorum etiam scrip-
torum auctoritate demonstrator. Prosper in Chronicis :
" Congregata apud Ephesum plus ducentorum synodo sa-
" cerdotum, Nestorius cum hasresi nominis sui, et cum
" multis Pelagianis, qui cognatum sibi juvabant dogma,
" damnatur." Et adversus Collatorem : " Per hunc virum
" (Caslestinum) etiam Orientales ecclesias gemina peste
" purgatas sunt ; quando Cyrillo, Alexandrinas urbis an-
" tistiti, gloriosissimo fidei Catholicas defensori, ad exe-
" crandam Nestorii impietatem, apostolico auxiliatus est
" gladio : quo etiam Pelagiani, dum cognatis confederan-
" tur erroribus, iterum prosternerentur." Hasc causa est,
cur idem Prosper unum utriusque hasreseos scripserit epi-
taphium, quod prasmittitur carmini, rrepl dxaplarwv. Etiam
Gregorius M., lib. V. epist. 14, Pelagium ea synodo dam-
natum testatur. Item Photius, pvpwfiijiXov, cap. 53. 'Ava-
BepariaBr) avrn if twv XleXayiaviarwv a'lpeaig Kal ev rrj 'E(j>eaiwv
ayia awSSw. Voss. Hist. Pelag. lib. I. c. 47.

506 APPENDIX.
NOTE D. p. 235.
Si aliquis diligenter attendat, impossibile est, quod ali
qua peccata proximorum parentum, vel etiam primi paren
tis, prater primum, per originem traducantur. Cujus ratio
est, quia homo generat sibi idem in specie, non autem
secundum individuum. Et ideo ea quae directe pertinent ad
individuum (sicut personales actus, et quas ad eos perti
nent) non traducunt a parentibus in filios : non enim gram-
maticus traducit in filium scientiam grammaticae, quam
proprio studio acquisivit. Sed ea quas pertinent ad natu
ram speciei, traducuntur a parentibus in filios : non enim
grammaticus traducit in filium scientiam grammaticae,
quam proprio studio acquisivit. Sed ea quae pertinent ad
naturam speciei traducuntur a parentibus in filios, nisi sit
defectus naturae ; sicut oculatus generat oculatum nisi na
tura deficiat : et si natura sit fortis, etiam aliqua accidentia
individualia propagantur in filios, pertinentia ad dispositio-
nem naturae ; sicut velocitas corporis, bonitas ingenii, et
alia hujusmodi : nullo autem modo ea quas sunt pure per
sonalia, ut dictum est. Sicut autem ad personam pertinet
aliquid secundum seipsam, et aliquid ex dono gratiae : ita
etiam ad naturam potest aliquid pertinere secundum seip
sam ; scilicet quod causatur ex principiis ejus ; et aliquid
ex dono gratias : et hoc modo justitia originalis, (sicut in
Primo dictum est,) erat quoddam donum gratias toti hu
manae naturae divinitus collatum in primo parente; quod
quidem primus homo amisit per primum peccatum. Unde
sicut ilia originalis justitia traducta fuisset in posteros simul
cum natura, ita etiam inordinatio opposita. Sed alia pec
cata actualia, vel primi parentis, vel aliorum, non corrum-
punt naturam, quantum ad id quod natures est, sed solum
quantum ad id quod personas est ; id est, secundum proni-
tatem ad actum : unde alia peccata non traducuntur.
Aquinas, Summa Theol. Prima Secundee, qu. lxxxi. art. 2.
NOTE E. p. 240.
Respondeo, dicendum ; quod necessitas dicitur multi-
pliciter. . . . Ex agente autem hoc alicui convenit, sicut

NOTES TO LECTURE V. 507
cum aliquis cogitur ab aliquo agente, ita quod non possit
contrarium agere : et hasc vocatur necessitas coactionis.
Hasc igitur coactionis necessitas omnino repugnat volun-
tati. Nam hoc dicimus esse violentum, quod est contra
inclinationem rei. Ipse autem motus voluntatis est incli-
natio quaedam in aliquid. Et ideo sicut dicitur aliquid
naturale, quia est secundum inclinationem naturae : ita dici
tur aliquid voluntarium, quia est secundum inclinationem
voluntatis. Sicut ergo impossibile est, quod aliquid simul
sit violentum et naturale ; ita impossibile est, quod aliquid
simpliciter sit coactum, sive violentum, et necessarium.
Necessitas autem finis non repugnat voluntati, quando ad
finem non potest perveniri nisi uno modo : sicut ex volun-
tate transeundi mare, fit necessitas in voluntate ut velit
navem. Similiter etiam nee necessitas naturalis repugnat
voluntati: quinimo necesse est quod, sicut intellectus ex
necessitate inhasret primis principiis, ita voluntas ex ne
cessitate inhasreat ultimo fini, qui est beatitude Finis
enim se habet in operativis, sicut principium in specula-
avis; ut dicitur in 2. Physic. Oportet enim quod illud
quod naturaliter alicui convenit et immobiliter, sit funda-
mentum et principium omnium aliorum : quia natura rei
est primum in unoquoque, et omnis motus procedit ab ali
quo immobili. Aquinas, Summa Theol. Prima Pars, qu.
lxxxii. art. 1. See also Voss. Hist. Pelag. lib. VII. par. 1.
p. 701.
NOTE F. p. 248.
The difficulty on the subject of Merit is, in applying the
term to any relation between God and man : because we
closely connect the two ideas of serving God and moral
excellence. Still it is possible in theory to detach these
ideas from each other, and to view man in his service to
God, under the simple analogy of man earning a recom
pense from his fellow-man. And this is what the Schools
have done, in their various speculations on the subject of
Merit. Even however under this point of view, Aquinas

508 APPENDIX.
points out that no one can' serve God, or have any merit
with God, unless by the gift of God. Dissimiliter, he says,
se habet in Deo et in homine : nam homo omnem virtutem
benefaciendi habet a Deo, non autem ab homine : et ideo
a Deo non potest homo aliquid mereri, nisi per donum
ejus ; quod Apostolus signanter exprimit, dicens : " Quis
" prior dedit ei, et retribuetur illi ?" Sed ab homine potest
quis mereri antequam ab eo acceperit, per id quod accepit
a Deo. Summa Theol. Prima Secundce, qu. cxiv. art. 2.
On the use of the terms Condignity and Congruity, the
following passages of Aquinas illustrate the observations
made in the Lecture.
Respondeo, dicendum, quod opus meritorium hominis
dupliciter considerari potest. Uno modo secundum quod
procedit ex libero arbitrio. Alio modo secundum quod
procedit ex gratia Spiritus Sancti. Si consideretur secun
dum substantiam operis, et secundum quod procedit ex
libero arbitrio : sic non potest ibi esse condignitas, propter
maximam inasqualitatem : sed est ibi congruitas, propter
quandam asqualitatem proportionis. Videtur enim con-
gruum, ut homini operanti secundum suam virtutem, Deus
recompenset, secundum excellentiam suae virtutis. Si autem
loquamur de opere meritorio, secundum quod procedit
ex gratia Spiritus Sancti : sic est meritorium vitas asternas,
ex condigno. Sic enim valor meriti attenditur secundum
virtutem Spiritus Sancti moventis nos in vitam asternam ;
secundum illud Joan. iv. " Fiet in eo fons aquas salientis in
" vitam asternam." Attenditur etiam pretium operis secun
dum dignitatem gratiae ; per quam homo, consors factus
divinas naturae, adoptatur in filium Dei, cui debetur hasre-
ditas ex ipso jure adoptionis ; secundum illud Rom. viii.
Si filii, et hasredes. Summa Theol. Prima Secundce, qu.
cxiv. art. 3.
Opus nostrum habet rationem meriti ex duobus. Primo
quidem ex vi motionis divinas ; et sic meretur aliquis ex
condigno. Alio modo habet rationem meriti, secundum
quod procedit ex libero arbitrio; in quantum voluntarie

NOTES TO LECTURE V. 509
aliquid facimus ; et ex hac parte est meritum congrui :
quia congruum est, ut dum homo bene utitur sua virtute,
Deus secundum superexcellentem virtutem excellentius
operetur. Ex quo patet, quod merito condigni nullus potest
mereri alteri primam gratiam, nisi solus Christus. . . . Sed
merito congrui potest aliquis alteri mereri primam gratiam.
Quia enim homo in gratia constitutus implet Dei volunta-
tem, congruum est secundum amicitiae proportionem, ut
Deus impleat hominis voluntatem in salvatione alterius. . . .
Impetratio orationis innititur misericordias, meritum autem
condigni innititur justitiae : et in eo multa orando impetrat
homo ex divina misericordia, quas tamen non meretur se
cundum justitiam. Ibid. art. 6.
NOTE G. p. 250.
Hunc honorem debitum, qui Deo non reddit, aufert Deo
quod suum est ; et Deum exhonorat : et hoc est peccare.
Quamdiu autem non solvit quod rapuit manet in culpa ;
nee sufficit solummodo reddere quod ablatum est ; sed pro
contumelia illata plus habet reddere quam abstulit. Sicut
enim qui lasdit salutem alterius, non sufficit, si salutem re-
stituit, nisi pro illata doloris injuria recompenset aliquid :
ita qui honorem alicujus violat, non sufficit honorem red
dere, si non secundum exhonorationis factam molestiam,
aliquid quod placet illi quem exhonoravit restauret. Hoc
quoque attendendum, quod cum aliquis quod injuste abstulit,
solvit, hoc debet dare, quod ab illo non posset exigi, si
alienum non rapuisset. Sic ergo debet omnis, qui peccat,
honorem quem rapit, Deo solvere; et hoc est satisfactio,
quam omnis peccator debet Deo facere, &c. Anselm. Cur
Deus Homo, lib. I. c. 2. p. 46.
Satisfactio est redditio voluntaria equivalentis alias in-
debiti. Primum scilicet redditio patet; quia non estabsoluta
datio. Nam hoc quod est satis, dicit commensurationem
ad aliquid prascedens correspondentem. Quod dicitur vo
luntaria patet ; quia si esset involuntaria, non esset satis
factio, sed satispassio : et hoc modo ille, a quo exigitur in

510 APPENDIX.
inferno poena debita culpae commissae, satis patitur et non
satisfacit, &c. Joan. Duns Scot, in lib. sentent. IV. qu. xv.
fol. 80.
Conjungitur autem Deo homo per voluntatem : unde ma
cula peccati ab homine tolli non potest, nisi voluntas ho
minis ordinem divinas justitias acceptet : ut scilicet vel ipse
sibi pcenam spontaneus assumat in recompensationem cul
pae praeteritae, vel etiam a Deo illatam patienter sustineat.
Utroque enim modo poena rationem satisfactionis habet.
Poena autem satisfactoria diminuit aliquid de ratione pcenas :
est enim de ratione posnas, quod sit contra voluntatem ;
poena autem satisfactoria, etsi secundum absolutam consi-
derationem sit contra voluntatem, &c. Aquinas, Summa
Theol. Tertia Pars, qu. lxxxvi. art. 4.
NOTE H. p. 251.
Actus enim peccati facit hominem reum pcenas, in quan
tum transgreditur ordinem divinae justitias : ad quem non
redit nisi per quandam recompensationem pcenas quas ad
aequalitatem justitias reducit : ut scilicet qui plus voluntati
suae indulsit quam debuit, contra mandatum Dei agens,
secundum ordinem divinae justitiae aliquid contra illud quod
vellet, spontaneus vel invitus patiatur, quod etiam in injuriis
hominibus factis observatur, ut per recompensationem pcenas,
reintegretur aequalitas justitiae. Aquinas, Summa Theol.
Prima Secundce, qu. lxxxvii. art. 6.
Consequitur peccatum mortale reatus alicujus posnas,
quia inordinatio culpas non reducitur ad ordinem justitiae
nisi per poenam. Justum est enim, ut qui voluntati suas
plus indulsit quam debuit, contra voluntatem suam aliquid
patiatur : sic enim erit asqualitas. Unde Apocal. xviii. di
citur : " Quantum glorificavit se, et in deliciis fuit, tantum
" date illi tormentum et luctum." Aquinas, Summa Theol.
Tertia Pars, qu. lxxxvi. art. 4.

NOTES TO LECTURE VI. 511
LECTURE VI.
NOTE A- p. 277.
iHUS Thomas a Kempis, expressing the natural con
summation of the theological morality.
Valde bonum est in obedientia stare, sub praslato vivere,
et sui juris non esse. Multo tutius est in subjectione
vivere, quam in praelatura. . . .Curre hue vel illuc: nusquam
invenies quietem, nisi in humili subjectione sub praslati
regimine. . . . Quis est ita sapiens qui omnia jplene scire
possit ? Ergo noli nimis in sensu tuo confidere ; sed velis
etiam aliorum sensum audire. Si bonum est tuum sentire,
et hoc ipsum propter Deum dimittis, et alius sentire se-
queris, magis exinde proficies. De Imit. Christi, lib. I.
c. 9. We may regard the monastic institutions, when brought
to their perfection of organization, as an attempt to realize
the principle of a theocracy, in the human government
of a particular society. The wonderful effect under the
Divine government is, that the Will of God is the law
of the world of free agents ; each of whom has his own
distinct will acting by its proper laws, whilst yet the
sovereign Will is accomplished throughout, and all are as
instruments in the Divine hand to work the Divine pur
poses. In order to effect the same object by mere human
government, it was necessary to neutralize the refractory
power of the will in the subject, and antecedently to re
duce the human agent to the condition of the mere instru
ment. Thence the principle of Obedience so incessantly
and strongly inculcated in the rules ofthe monastic orders:
— an obedience carried to the minutest points ; so far that
an immediate attention to the word of the superior was
required, however the individual addressed might be en
gaged at the moment. If he should happen to be writing,
he must leave the very stroke unfinished, and instantly

512 APPENDIX.
proceed on the errand to which he was summoned. An
inspection of the rules of the different orders will furnish
ample evidence of the truth of these statements.
The system was carried to its perfection by the Jesuits.
A member of that society might be at Rome at one mo
ment, quite unconscious of any scheme in which he was
to take a part, and the next moment be proceeding on his
way to China or Paraguay. I have already mentioned an
instance of the kind among the Franciscans, in the case
of John Duns Scotus. a The amazing power obtained
to the governors of societies so constituted may easily be
supposed. The wonder indeed which so greatly perplexes us in
the Divine government — the circumstance of a regular
direction of results, by means intrinsically variable, and
apparently uncontrollable, — vanishes in the survey of the
artificial human system. We see the mechanism by which
the result is effected. The subject of the human institu
tion has been trained by unnatural discipline, not to feel
his own proper responsibility as a moral agent. And a
person brought to such a state is of course prepared to
execute any purpose, however mischievous in itself, be
cause it is commanded by an external authority. Under
such a system, crimes may be perpetrated without remorse,
and crimes too of an atrocity that would make the heart
shrink from them, were it not steeled against its own
intercession. The only wonder is, that men have been
brought to this state of submission ; that an artificial system
has so completely mastered their moral principles. The
consummate art of the framers of the institutions has been
shewn in their success in thus modifying the characters
of men, and bringing them under the perfect command of a
sovereign intellect. Let the principle, however, be once
established, that the will of another is the supreme law of
conduct, and then the like effects will be produced, to what
we find under the stern dominion of fatalism among Ma-
¦ Page 425.

NOTES TO LECTURE Vi. 513
hometans. The subject-votary concentrates his whole
energy and interest on the one false principle on which his
character has been formed ; and he proceeds to the work
enjoined on him, with a fanatical self-devotion, that resem
bles motion produced by impact rather than the operation
of a moral being. Moral force, in fact, is converted into
physical; and morality is extinguished; all check being
given to the exercise of moral judgment and discretion.
The same consequences in kind follow from taking the
will of God as the sole practical guide of conduct ; or,
which is the same thing, making religion the substitute
for morality. For the error is the same ; that of acting on
one abstract principle, instead of attending to the several
internal laws of our nature, the whole law of God written
on the heart, by which He instructs us how to do his will.
The principle here takes a noble and sublime form: for
who can argue abstractedly against the propriety of fol
lowing the Divine will? But, from its abstract excellence,
it is the more likely to lead to romantic aberrations in con
duct. In the true practical view of the will of God, the
term is only a general expression for the various particular
instances, in which God informs and admonishes us, what
is our duty and interest in conduct, whether by the laajp
of our nature, or those of his revealed word. To argue re
specting the will of God, as if we had any positive notion
of what it is in God, can lead- to no practical truth : for it
is to argue from a mere hypothesis. Such a proceeding
indeed is found necessarily to involve us in paradox. For
thus Ockam affirms, that if God should so will, what is
now held to be vice might become virtue. This statement
was probably made by him and other scholastics, merely
with a design of maintaining the principle itself as specu
latively true ; whatever consequence might be deduced
from it; and without any view of establishing the conse
quence as absolutely true. There is a passage of Anselm
which inculcates this interpretation of the doctrine; and
which is important to be attended to, in forming an esti-
l L

514 APPENDIX.
mate of its real import, that we may not judge the main
tainers of it too hardly.
Quod autem dicitur, quia quod vult justum est, et quod
non vult, justum non est, non ita intelligendum est, ut si
Deus velit quodlibet inconveniens, justum sit, quia ipse
vult. Non enim sequitur, si Deus vult mentiri, justum
esse mentiri ; sed potius Deum ilium non esse. Nam ne-
quaquam potest velle mentiri voluntas, nisi in qua cor
rupta est Veritas, immo quas deserendo veritatem corrupta
est. Cum ergo dicitur, si Deus vult mentiri, non est aliud,
quam si Deus est talis naturae, quas velit mentiri : et id-
circo non sequitur justum esse mendacium : nisi ita intel
ligatur, sicut cum de duobus impossibilibus dicimus : si
hoc est, illud est : quia nee hoc, nee illud est : ut si quis
dicat : si aqua est sicca, et ignis est humidus : neutrum
enim verum est. Itaque de illis tantum est verum dicere;
si Deus hoc vult, justum est; quae Deum velle non est in
conveniens. Si enim vult Deus ut pluat, justum est ut
pluat : et si vult ut aliquis homo occidatur, justum est ut
occidatur. Cur Deus Homo, lib. I. c. 12. p. 47.
The real objection however to the introduction of such
a speculation into ethics is, that it is unphilosophical ; over
looking clear facts of our moral nature, and suggesting,
instead of rules founded on these facts, an abstract notion,
which has no existence independently of them.
NOTE B. p. 284.
Principaliter quidem ad vitam contemplativam pertinet
contemplatio divinas veritatis : quia hujusmodi contempla
tio est finis totius humanae vitas. Unde Augustinus dicit
in 1. de Trinitate, quod contemplatio Dei promittitur nobis,
ut actionum omnium finis atque asterna perfectio gaudio-
rum. Quae quidem in futura vita erit perfecta, quando
videbimus eum facie ad faciem ; unde et perfecte beatos
faciet. Nunc autem contemplatio divinas veritatis competit
nobis imperfecte, videlicet per speculum et in asnigmate.
Unde per earn fit nobis quaedam inchoatio beatitudinis,

NOTES TO LECTURE VI. 515
quas hie incipit ut in futuro continuetur. Unde et Philo-
sophus in 10. Ethic, in contemplatione optimi intelligibilis
ponit ultimam felicitatem hominis. Aquinas, Summa Theol.
Secunda Secundce, qu. clxxx. art. 4.
Secundum se quidem manifestum est quod vita contem-
plativa diuturna est dupliciter. Uno modo, eo quod ver-
satur circa incorruptibilia et immobilia. Alio modo, quia
non habet contrarietatem. Delectationi" enim quas est in
considerando, nihil est contrarium, ut dicitur in 1. Topic.
Sed quoad nos etiam vita contemplativa diuturna est : turn
quia competit nobis secundum actionem incorruptibilis partis
animas, scilicet secundum intellectum ; unde potest post hanc
vitam durare : alio modo, quia in operibus contemplativae
corporaliter non laboramus. Unde magis in hujusmodi
operibus continue persistere possumus : sicut Philosophus
dicit in 10. Ethicorum. Ibid. art. 8.
Dicendum est ergo quod vita contemplativa simpliciter
melior est quam activa ; quod Philosophus in 10. Ethic.
probat octo rationibus ; &c. Ibid. qu. clxxxii. art. 1.
NOTE C. p. 289.
The passage which is commonly referred to by the
Schoolmen, occurs in the Eudemian Ethics. The philo
sopher is endeavouring to account for the phenomenon, that
fortune often appears in the world triumphant over vir
tue and reason: and he closes his discussion in the fol
lowing manner. " The object of inquiry is," he says,
"what is the the principle of motion in the soul. It is
" plain then that as God is in the universe, so every thing
"is in Him ; for the divinity within us in a manner
"moves ail things. But the principle of reason is not
"reason, but something superior. What then can one
" say is superior even to science, but God? for virtue is an
" instrument of the intellect. On this account also the
" ancients said : they are called fortunate, who have an im-
" pulse to succeed, being themselves without reason ; and
" willing is not expedient for them ; for they have a prin-
l l 2

516 APPENDIX.
" ciple of a nature superior to intellect and will. But there
" are some that have reason, and not this : and there are
" enthusiasms ; but these have not the power of this : for
" as being unreasonable they fail  It is evident then that
" there are two kinds of good fortune : one, divine ; whence
" also the fortunate seems to succeed through God : this
" is the character that is apt to do right through impulse :
"the other one who does right against impulse."" We
see plainly in this passage of the philosopher a warrant
for the notion of divinely- inspired Virtue, as of a principle
with which the reason itself of man had no proper concern ;
but animating the agent by an instinctive efficacy, and pro
moting his success in a way beyond his own consciousness
or intentions.
These divine instincts, regarded in their effects on the
human subject, assumed in Scholastic phraseology the
forms of good Dispositions, Preparations, Conversion of
heart. They were termed Dispositions, so far as the
agent was thereby fitly disposed for the operation of grace;
since the matter on which any power has to act, must be
of a suitable nature in order to that action. Preparation
expressed the previous operation of the Spirit, rendering the
agent susceptible of divine impressions, both at the com
mencement of his Christian life, and for his habitual pro
gress in that life." Conversion denoted the efficacy of
the Spirit in producing the change of the soul towards God,
the proper end of its being, by a series of effects adjusted
successively to that end. These terms are all different
views of the process of that energy which is working in
the soul and bringing it to God — parts of the history of
that alteration which it undergoes in putting off the form of
the sinful Adam, and putting on the glorious form of the
sons of God.
b Aristot. Eth. Eudem. lib. VII. >;. 14. torn. II. p. 289. Du Val.
c Aquin. Summa Theol. Prima Secunda qu. cix. art. 6. qu. xlii. art. 2.

NOTES TO LECTURE VII. 517

LECTURE VII.
NOTE A. p. 311.
1 HAVE before spoken of the refined materialism, which,
particularly in regard to the nature of the soul, was the
early and general tenet of theologians. In the IXth cen
tury controversy revived on the nature of the soul as on
other subjects. Ratramn of Corbey was employed in writ
ing a book De Anima, at the instance of Odo, Bishop of
Beauvais, in reply to the fanciful theory, drawn probably
from the New-Platonists, of a monk of the same convent,
who maintained that all men had but one and the same
soul. Another evidence of the sort of physical speculation
which was afloat at this period is, that the same writer is
said to have been engaged in an inquiry concerning the
fabled race of the Cynocephali, " whether they be truly
" men of Adam's seed, or brute creatures."
Are we not disposed even in these days to rest too much
on the natural or metaphysical arguments for a future
state, and to imagine that the Christian Faith is compro
mised by a denial of the immateriality of the soul ? I by
no means intend to deny its immateriality. The soul is
undoubtedly immaterial in this sense ; that it is only to
confound distinct phenomena, to identify the facts of con
sciousness with those of external observation, as Priestley
has done, in his attempt to establish the material nature of
the soul. The two classes of facts are clearly distinct and
different, and they ought therefore, in philosophical accu
racy, to be distinguished by different names. But we go
beyond the basis of tlje facts, when we assume, in our ab
stract arguments for the natural immortality of the soul,
its separate existence apart from the body. There is no
observation which shews that the living powers, (to use
d Ratramn's Treatise on the Body and Blood of the Lord, in Latin and
English, 8vo, 1688.

518 APPENDIX.
the phrase of Butler,) the powers of thought, and will, and
action, exist otherwise than in connexion with a bodily
system. However little the bodily system may be called
into action during the exertion of these living powers,
however it may in some instances be an obstruction to
their energy, and however actively they may energize in
the very moment of the decay of this system, still it is
always in connexion with the bodily system that the living
powers are displayed : and we are not authorized therefore
speculatively to conclude their future existence, independ
ently of their union with such a system. But what mat
ters this to the Christian, who is fully assured, that, because
Christ lives, he shall live also ; that, " as by man came
" death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead."
I would say, in the words of Nemesius, 'Hpiv Si dpKei irpbg
dirdSet£,iv rrjg dBavaaiag avrrjg, if twv Beiwv Xoylwv SiSaaKaXia,
to iriarbv dip' eavrrjg kyovaa, Sid to Beorrvevarov elvai.e If
we sincerely rely on the clear evidence given of Christ
raised from the dead, as a certain fact in the course of
Divine Providence, and believe the connexion of our own
immortality with that fact, we may surely regard all merely
philosophical inquiries on the subject, as fair matter of dis
putation, without offence, and without any fear whatever
for the stability of the real Christian doctrine of the Resur
rection of the dead.
NOTE B. p. 313.
Sacrificium ergo visibile invisibilis sacrificii Sacramentum,
i. e. sacrum signum est. Augustin. De Civ. Dei, lib. X. c. 5.
Sacramentum est sacras rei signum. Dicitur tamen sa
cramentum etiam sacrum secretum, sicut sacramentum
divinitatis: ut sacramentum sit sacrum signans: sed nunc
agitur de sacramento secundum quod est signum. Item
sacramentum est ivisibilis gratias visibilis forma. Lombard.
Sent. lib. IV. dist. 1.
" I remember there be many definitions of a sacrament
' De Natura Hominis, c. 2. p. 93. ed. 8vo. Oxon. 1671.

NOTES TO LECTURE VII. 519
" in Austin : but I will take that which is most fit to this
"present purpose. A sacrament is a visible sign of in-
" visible grace." Ridley s Disput. at Oxford. Foxes Eccl.
Hist. vol. II. p. 1619.
NOTE C. p. 314.
Sicut in vita naturali primum est generatio : deinde se
quitur nutritio, et roboratio, et sanitatis perditas reparatio :
et haec quatuor pertinent ad quamlibet personam singula-
rem; praeter hasc autem requiritur aliquid pertinens ad
communitatem, quo aliquis constituatur in gradu necessario
ad aliquem actum necessarium communitati : et ita spiri-
tualiter ad completam perfectionem extensive opus esse
adjutorium aliquod pertinens ad generationem spiritualem:
et 2d0 aliquid pertinens ad nutritionem, 3° pertinens
ad roborationem: 4° ad separationem post lapsum : praeter
haec autem, 5° requiritur aliquid esse quo exiens finaliter
prasparetur : quia vita ista spiritualis quaedam via est
ordinans, ut bene vivens in ea, de ipsa sine impedi-
mento transeat ad aliam pro quas praspatur. Hasc ergo
quinque requirantur tanquam adjutoria necessaria per
sonas cuicunque pro se. Ad bonum autem communi-
tatis observantis istam legem, requiritur et multiplicatio
carnalis : quia ista praesupponitur bono spirituali : sicut
natura gratias : et multiplicatio spiritualis aliquorum in
ista lege. Sic ergo congruum fuit septem adjutoria
conferri observatoribus legis evangelicas, in quibus esset
perfectio, non tantum intensiva, sed etiam extensiva, et
sufficiens ad omnia necessaria pro observantia hujus legis.
Hasc autem sunt, ut dicit magister in litera ; baptismus
pertinens ad generationem spiritualem: eucharistia neces
saria ad nutritionem: confirmatio ad roborationem: poe
nitentia ad lapsi reparationem : extrema unctio ad finalem
praeparationem : matrimonium ad multiplicationem in esse
naturae vel carnali : et ordo ad multiplicationem in esse
gratiae vel spirituali. Jo. Duns Scot, in Lib. Sent. IV.

520 APPENDIX.
dist. 2. qu. 1. Also Aquinas, Summa Theol. Tertia Pars,
qu. lxv. art. 1.
Ibi autem debet medicinale remedium homini adhiberi,
ubi patitur morbum. Et ideo conveniens fuit, ut Deus
per quaedam corporalia signa homini spiritualem medicinam
adhiberet. Aquinas, Summa Theol. Tertia Pars. qu. lxi.
art. 1.
The term Salvation has evidently been founded on this
analogy, so much insisted on by thq Scholastic writers,
and indeed suggested by Scripture, between the state of
the soul under sin, and that of the body under disease.
It has now however almost lost its original sense, and is
commonly understood as if it denoted some particular
object, or state, out of the soul itself. But the original
meaning seems more consistent with the tenour and spirit of
Christianity; which leaves the nature of our future hap
piness in the most indistinct form, and directs the believer
to look for the kingdom of God within himself.
NOTE D. p. 315.
Aquinas having adduced the opinion of some who as
serted that the sacraments operated by virtue of the Will
of God, annexing certain benefits to the use of them, in a
manner analogous to the beneficence of a king who should
promise to give an hundred pounds to any one presenting
a leaden penny, objects to this doctrine as reducing the
sacraments to mere signs, and thus states his own view of
the subject.
Et ideo aliter dicendum, quod duplex est causa agens,
principalis et instrumentalis. Principalis quidem operatur
per virtutem suae formas, cui assimilatur effectus ; sicut
ignis suo calore calefacit. Et hoc modo nihil potest cau-
sare gratiam, nisi Deus. . . . Causa vero instrumentalis non
agit per virtutem suas formae, sed solum per motum quo
movetur a principali agente : unde effectus non assimilatur
securi, sed arti quas est in mente artificis. Et hoc modo

NOTES TO LECTURE VII. 521
sacramenta novas legis gratiam causant. . . . Ad secundum
dicendum, quod instrumentum habet duas actiones : unam
instrumentalem, secundum quam operatur non in virtute
propria, sed in virtute principalis agentis: aliam autem
habet actionem propriam, quas competit sibi secundum
propriam formam: sicut securi competit scindere ratione
suae acuitatis, facere autem lectum, in quantum est instru
mentum artis. Non autem perficit instrumentalem ac
tionem, nisi exercendo actionem propriam : scindendo enim
facit lectum. Et similiter sacramenta corporalia, per pro
priam operationem, quam exercent circa corpus quod
tangunt, efficiunt operationem instrumentalem ex virtute
divina circa animam : sicut aqua baptismi, abluendo corpus
secundum propriam virtutem, abluit animam, in quantum
est instrumentum virtutis divinas : nam ex anima et corpore
unum fit. Et hoc est quod Augustinus dicit ; quod corpus
tangit, et cor abluit. Aquinas, Summa Theol. Tertia Pars,
qu. lxii. art. 1. NOTE E. p. 316.
" The occasion of his writing, was news out of Germany,
" (as I guess from New Corbey, which had much corre-
" spondence with this Corbey' in France, of which it was
" a colony,) that some in those parts held strange opinions
" touching our Saviour's birth, as though he came not out
" of his mother's womb into the world, the same way with
" other men. In opposition to that doctrine, Ratramnus
" asserts, that Christ was born as other men, and his Virgin
" mother bare Him, as other women bring forth, to use
" Tertullian's words, patefacti corporis lege. Those whose
" opinions he confutes, were, perhaps, some of those no-
" vices, for whose use Paschasius had written his book of
" the Sacrament, and who had not only imbibed his doc-
" trine touching the carnal, presence of Christ therein, but
" might have also heard the manner of our Saviour's birth
" without opening his mother's womb, alleged to solve
" an objection against it : for our adversaries of the Church

522 APPENDIX.
" of Rome now say, that it is no more impossible for one
" body to be in two places, than for two bodies to be in
" one ; which they conceive must have happened in our
" Saviour's birth, as also in his resurrection, and coming
" in to his disciples, the doors being shut. This might
" provoke Paschasius to write against our Author, as well
" as zeal for the blessed Virgin's integrity." Editor of
Ratramn, p. 14. 8vo. London, 1688.
NOTE F. p. 317.
Ex quibus Domini verbis ortas sunt duas haereses anti
quis temporibus. Et in hoc quidem consenserunt omnes,
quod panis et vinum in veram filii hominis carnem, verum-
que ejus sanguinem converterentur. Sed quis esset iste
filius hominis, non omnes eamdem sententiam tenuerunt.
Quidam arbitrati sunt, hunc oportere intelligi, quemlibet
hominem sive justum sive peccatorem, in cujus carnem
ac sanguinem conversa terrena substantia sumeretur in
remissionem peccatorum. Alii arbitrati sunt, non hunc
esse de turba quemlibet hominem, sed virum justum, sanc-
tificatum, a communi hominum vita per suas vitas celsitu-
dinem segregatum, qui templum Dei esset, qui divinam in
se habitationem verissime possideret. In hujus carnem
ac sanguinem commutari posse panem vinumque altaris,
hasretica pertinacia delirabant. Factum est hoc paucis
annis post obitum beati Augustini, tempore Caelestini Papas,
et Cyrilli Alexandrini Episcopi, quibus prascipientibus,
atque annitentibus, indicta ac celebrata est, Synodus
Ephesina, una de quatuor quas beatus Gregorius in Epi-
stola ad Patriarchas fatetur se ita suscipere, complecti, et
venerari, quemadmodum quatuor Evangelia Domini nostri
Jesu Christi. In qua synodo damnatas sunt utrasque supe-
rius comprehensas lethales pestes, roborata est fides, qua
credimus panem converti in earn carnem quae in cruce
pependit, vinumque in eum sanguinem, qui de pendentis
in cruce latere emanavit. Denique ducenti qui eidem con-
cilio interfuere Episcopi, inter castera de hoc Sacramento

NOTES TO LECTURE VII. 523
sic scripserunt; et Nestorio Episcopo quasi haereticorum
capiti transmiserunt. "Ad benedictiones," inquiunt, "mys-
"ticas accedimus, et sanctificamur, participes sancti cor
poris, et pretiosi Sanguinis Christi omnium nostrum
" Redemptoris, effecti : non ut communem carnem percipi-
"entes, quod absit, nee ut viri sanctificati et verbo con-
"juncti secundum dignitatis unitatem, aut sicut divinam
"possidentis habitationem, sed vere vivificatricem, et ip-
" sius verbi propriam factam. Vita enim naturaliter ut
" Deus existens, quia proprias carni unitus est, vivificatri-
" cem earn esse professus est. Et ideo quamvis dicat ad
" nos ; Amen, amen, dico vobis, nisi manducaveritis car-
" nem filii hominis, et biberitis ejus sanguinem ; non tamen
" earn, ut hominis unius ex nobis, existimare debemus :
" (quomodo enim juxta naturam suam vivificatrix esse
" caro hominis poterit 1) sed ut vere propriam ejus fac-
" tam, qui propter nos filius hominis, et factus est, et vo-
" catus." Et circa finem concilii : " Si quis non confitetur
" carnem Domini vivificatricem esse, et propriam ipsius
" Verbi Dei Patris, sed velut alterius praeter ipsum con-
"juncti eidem per dignitatem, aut quasi divinam haben-
" tis habitationem, ac non potius vivificatricem esse, quia
" facta est propria Verbi vivificare valentis, anathema sit."
Quid manifestius audire desideras, si studiosum novas con-
tentionis animum studio antiquae pacis omittas? Non est,
ut sancta synodus definit, hasc caro alicujus de vulgo ho
minis, non justi et sanctificati hominis, sed potius cui ipse
unitus, id est, incarnates est Dei et hominis, &c. Lan
franc, Lib De Corp. et Sang. Domini, c. xvii. pp. 242, 243.
NOTE G. p. 320.
See the Letter of Berenger to Lanfranc, p. 415, note :
in which it appears that Berenger maintained, that the
authorities of Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine, were on
his side. Augustine indeed uses expressions which mili
tate with the notion of any actual change in the sacred
elements, as the following : Nonne semel immolatus est

524 APPENDIX.
Christus in seipso, et tamen in sacramento non solum per
omnes paschas solennitates, sed omni die populis immola-
tur : nee utique mentitur qui interrogatus eum responderit
immolari. Si enim sacramenta quandam similitudinem
earum rerum, quarum sacramenta sunt, non haberent, om-
nino sacramenta non essent. Ex hac autem sirnilitudine
plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt. Sicut
ergo secundum quendam modum, sacramentum corporis
Christi, corpus Christi est, sacramentum sanguinis Christi,
sanguis Christi est, ita sacramentum fidei, fides est.f The
controversial tract of Lanfranc against Berenger, is no
favourable specimen of the polemical talents of Lanfranc ;
nor can we form from it any just notion of the sacra
mental doctrine of Berenger. He is very inferior to An
selm in strength and acuteness of reasoning, resembling
rather the unscientific controvertists of the IXth cen
tury ; vehement like them too, in calling for authorities
on the point in dispute, and declaiming against the in
troduction of dialectical subtilties into theology, though
not scrupling to employ them in support of what he conceives
the orthodox doctrine. It was a natural misconception, if
not a trick of controversy, to charge the opponents of a
doctrine of the corporal presence with reducing the Sacra
ment to a merely commemorative sign. Nothing can be
concluded therefore against Berenger on this head, from the
antagonist representations of Lanfranc.
It is plain, from the following passages of Ratramn, that
he maintained a Real Presence in the Eucharist; whilst
he directly opposes the doctrine of a substantial presence
in the consecrated elements.
At ille panis qui per sacerdotis ministerium Christi cor
pus conficitur, aliud exterius humanis sensibus ostendit, et
aliud interius fidelium mentibus clamat. Exterius quidem
panis, quod ante fuerat, forma prastenditur, color ostendi-
tur, sapor accipitur : est interius longe aliud multo pre-
tiosius, multoque excellentius, intimatur ; quia cceleste,
f Auguslinus Bonifacio, Ep. XXIII. Opera, torn. II. fol. 28.

NOTES TO LECTURE VII. 525
quia divinum, id est, Christi corpus, ostenditur ; quod non
sensibus carnis, sed anion fidelis contuitu, vel aspicitur,
vel comeditur. Vinum quoque quod sacerdotali consecra-
tione Christi sanguinis efficitur sacramentum, aliud super-
ficie tenus ostendit, aliud interius ostendit. Quid enim
aliud in superficie quam substantia vini conspicitur.
Gusta, vinum sapit : odora, vinum redolet : inspice, vinj
color intuetur. At interius si consideres, jam non liquor
vini, sed liquor sanguinis Christi, credentium mentibus, et
sapit dum gustatur, et agnoscitur dum conspicitur, et pro-
batur dum odoratur. Hasc ita esse, dum nemo potest ab-
negare, claret quia panis ille vinumque figurate Christi
corpus et sanguis existit. Non enim secundum quod vide
tur, vel carnis species in illo pane eognoscitur, vel in illo
vino cruoris unda monstratur, cum tamen, post mysticam
consecrationem, nee panis jam dicitur nee vinum, sed
Christi corpus et sanguis. Bertram, or Ratram, on the
Body and Blood of the Lord, in Latin and English, c. 9,
10. 8vo. 1688.
Si ergo nihil est permutatum, non est aliud quam ante
fuit. Est autem aliud, quoniam panis corpus, et vinum
sanguis Christi, facta sunt. . . . Et si nihil permutationis
pertuierunt, nihil aliud existunt, quam quod prius fuere. .
. . Corporaliter namque nihil in eis cernitur esse permu
tatum. ... At quia confitentur et corpus et sanguinem Dei
esse, nee hoc esse potuisse nisi facta in melius commuta-
tione, neque ista commutatio corporaliter, sed spiritualiter,
facta sit; necesse est jam ut figurate facta esse dicatur;
quoniam sub velamento corporei panis, corporeique vini,
spirituale corpus Christi, spiritualisque sanguis existit. . . .
Hinc etiam et Sacramenta vocitantur, quia tegumento cor-
poralium rerum, virtus divina secretam salutem accipientium
fideliter dispensat. ... At nunc sanguis Christi quem cre-
dentes ebibunt, et corpus quod comedunt, aliud sunt in
specie, et aliud in significatione : aliud quod pascunt cor
pus esca corporea, et aliud quod saginant mentes astemas
vitas substantia. . . . Exterius igitur quod apparet, non est

526 APPENDIX.
ipsa res, sed imago rei : mente vero quod sentitur et intel
ligitur, Veritas rei. Ibid. c. 13, 14, 15, 16. 48. 69. 77.
NOTE H. p. 320.
Ridley, in a conversation in the Tower recorded by Foxe,
thus speaks of Ratramn, or Bertram, as he calls him.
" Sir," said I, " it is certain that other before these have
" written of this matter, not by the way only and obiter,
" as doth for the most part all the old writers, but even
" ex professo, and their whole books intreat of it alone, as
" Bertram." " Bertram," said the secretary : " what man
" was he, and when was he, and how do ye know?" &c,
with many questions. " Sir," quoth I, " I have read his
" book : he proponeth the same which is now in contro-
" versy, and answereth so directly, that no man may doubt
" but that he affirmeth that the substance of bread re-
" maineth still in the Sacrament : and he wrote unto
" Carolus Magnus." " Marry," quoth he, " mark ; for there
" is a matter." " He wrote," quoth he, " ad Henricum,
" and not ad Carolum: for no author makes any such
" mention of Bertramus." " Yes," quoth I, " Trithemius
" in Catalogo Elustrium Scriptorum speaketh of him.
" Trithemius was but of late time : but he speaketh,"
quoth I, " of them that were of antiquity. Here, after
" much talk of Bertram," &c. Foxes Eccl. Hist. vol. II.
p. 1590.
Again in his Disputation at Oxford, Ridley, appealing
to the authorities of Cyprian, Augustine, Hilary, and
others, as conformable to his view of the Eucharist, to shew
that he held it to be more than a mere sign, concludes
with that of Ratramn: "Finally with Bertram," he says,
" (which was the last of all these,) I confess that Christ's
" body is in the Sacrament in this respect, namely (as he
"writeth) because there is in it the Spirit of Christ; that
" is, the power of the Word of God, which not only
" feedeth the soul, but also cleanseth it. Out of these I
" suppose it may clearly appear unto all men, how far we

NOTES TO LECTURE VII. 527
" are from that opinion, whereof some go about falsely to
" slander us to the world, saying, we teach that the godly
" and faithful should receive nothing else at the Lord's
" table, but a figure ofthe body of Christ." Ibid. p. 1609.
" I have also for the proof of that I have spoken, what-
" soever Bertram, a man learned, of sound and upright
" judgment, and ever counted a Catholic for these seven
" hundred years until this our age, hath written. His
" treatise, whosoever shall read and weigh, considering the
" time of the writer, his learning, godliness of life, the
" allegations of the ancient fathers, and his manifold and
" most grounded arguments, I cannot doubtless but much
" marvel, if he have any fear of God at all, how he can with
" good conscience speak against him in this matter of the
" Sacrament. This Bertram was the first that pulled me
" by the ear, and that first brought me from that common
" error of the Romish Church, and caused me to search
" more diligently and exactly, both the Scriptores and the
" writings of the old ecclesiastical fathers in this matter.
" And this I protest before the face of God, who knoweth
" I lie not in the things I now speak."5 Ibid. p. 1610.
NOTE E. p. 322.
Respondeo dicendum, quod (sicut dictum est) sacra
mentum operatur ad gratiam causandum per modum in-
strumenti. Est autem duplex instrumentum ; unum quidem
separatum, ut baculus ; aliud autem conjunctum, ut manus.
Per instrumentum autem conjunctum movetur instrumentum
separatum, sicut baculus per manum. Principalis autem causa
efficiens gratias est ipse Deus, ad quem comparatur hu-
manitas Christi, sicut instrumentum conjunctum; sacra
mentum autem sicut instrumentum separatum. Et ideo
oportet quod virtus salutifera a divinitate Christi, per ejus
humanitatem in ipsa Sacramenta derivetur. Aquinas,
Summa Theol. Tertia Pars, qu. lxii. art. 5.
e It is strange that this treatise of Ratramn, which had such influence on
our Reformers, should not be more familiarly known. It ought to be re
published.

528 APPENDIX.
NOTE F. p. 323.
Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod instrumentum inani-
matum non habet aliquam intentionem respectu effectus:
sed loco intentionis est motus quo movetur a principali
agente. Sed instrumentum animatum, sicut est minister,
non solum movetur, sed etiam quodammodo movet seip-
sum, in quantum sua voluntate movet membra ad operan-
dum. Et ideo requiritur ejus intentio, qua se subjiciat
principali agenti, ut scilicet intendat facere quod facit
Christus et Ecclesia.
Ad , secundum dicendum, quod circa hoc est duplex
opinio. Quidam enim dicunt, quod requiritur mentalis
intentio in ministro, quas si desit, non perficitur sacra
mentum : sed hunc defectum in pueris, qui non habent
intentionem accedendi ad sacramentum, supplet Christus,
qui interius baptizat: in adultis autem qui intendunt
sacramentum suscipere, supplet ilium defectum fides et
devotio. Sed hoc satis posset dici quantum ad ultimum
effectum, qui est res et sacramentum ; scilicet quantum ad
characterem, non videtur quod per devotionem acceden-
tis posset suppleri : quia character nunquam imprimitur
nisi per sacramentum. Et ideo alii melius dicunt, quod
minister sacramenti agit in persona totius Ecclesiae, cujus
est minister. In verbis autem quae profert, exprimitur
intentio Ecclesiae, quae sufficit ad perfectionem sacramenti,
nisi contrarium exterius exprimatur, ex parte ministri, vel
recipientis sacramentum.
Ad tertium dicendum, quod licet ille qui aliud cogitat,
non habeat actualem intentionem, habet tamen habitua-
lem, quas sufficit ad perfectionem sacramenti : puta, cum
sacerdos accedens ad baptizandum, intendit facere circa
baptizandum quod facit Ecclesia. Unde si postea in ipso
excertio actus, cogitatio ejus ad alia rapiatur, ex virtute
primae intentionis perficitur sacramentum : quamvis stu-
diose curare debeat sacramenti minister, ut etiam actualem
intentionem adhibeat. Sed hoc non est totaliter positum

NOTES TO LECTURE VII. 529
in hominis potestate; quia praeter intentionem, cum homo
vult multum intendere, incipit alia cogitare, secundum
illud Psal. xxxix. Cor meum dereliquit me. Aquinas,
Summa Theol. Tertia Pars, qu. lxiv. art. 8.
The word " Intention," as introduced into the doctrine
of the Sacraments, it should further be observed, is the
completion of the theory of causation in that subject.
We have the efficient cause in Christ himself communi
cating his virtue to the sacrament, — the material cause in
the emblems employed, — the formal cause in the words
uttered, — and lastly, the final cause determining the parti
cular effect, in the intention of the officiating minister.
The intention is strictly the ov eVoca of Aristotle. Un
less this were assigned, no reason would be given for
the particular effect ; and it must be regarded there
fore as casual — must be placed among those effects which,
as not knowing their reason, we ascribe to chance. Sed
contra est, says Aquinas in the article quoted above, quod
ea quas sunt praeter intentionem, sunt casualia : quod non
est dicendum de operatione sacramentorum. Ergo sacra
menta requirunt intentionem ministri.

NOTE G. p.
Illud tamen quod est sacramenti effectus, non impetra-
tor oratione Ecclesias vel ministri, sed ex merito passionis
Christi, cujus virtus operatur in Sacramentis : ut dictum
est. Unde effectus sacramenti non datur melior per me-
liorem ministrum : aliquid tamen annexum impetrari po
test recipienti Sacramentum, per devotionem ministri. Nee
tamen minister illud operatur, sed impetrat dperandum a
Deo. Aquinas, Summa Theol. Tertia Pars, qu. lxiv. art. 1.
Respondeo dicendum, quod, sicut dictum est, ministri
Ecclesias instrumentaliter operantur in sacramentis, eo
quod quodammodo eadem est ratio ministri et instrumenti.
Sicut autem supra dictum est, instrumentum non agit se
cundum propriam formam aut virtutem, sed secundum
virtutem ejus a quo movetur. Et iedo accidit instrumento,
M M

530 APPENDIX.
in quantum est instrumentum, qualemcunque formam vel
virtutem habeat, praeter id quod exigitur ad rationem in-
strumenti : sicut quod corpus medici (quod est instrumen
tum animae habentis artem) sit sanum vel infirmum : et
sicut quod fistula per quam transit aqua, sit argentea vel
plumbea. Unde ministri Ecclesias possunt sacramenta
conferre, etiam si sint mali. Ibid. art. 5.
Potest autem aliquis operari per instrumentum carens
vita, et a se separatum, quantum ad corporis unionem,
dummodo sit conjunctum per quandam motionem: aliter
enim operator artifex per manum, et aliter per securim.
Sic igitur Christus operator in sacramentis, et per bonos
tanquam per membra viventia, et per malos tanquam per
instrumenta carentia vita. Ibid.
Respondeo dicendum, quod, sicut supra dictum est, quia
minister in sacramentis instrumentaliter operator, non agit
in virtute propria, sed in virtute Christi. Sicut autem per
tinet ad propriam virtutem hominis charitas, ita et fides :
unde sicut non requiritur ad perfectionem sacramenti, quod
minister sit in charitate, sed possunt etiam peccatores sa
cramenta conferre, ut supra dictum est, ita non requiritur
ad perfectionem sacramenti fides ejus ; sed infidelis potest
verum sacramentum prasbere, dummodo castera adsint, quas
sunt de necessitate sacramenti. Ibid. art. 9.
Respondeo dicendum, quod intentio ministri potest per-
verti dupliciter. Uno modo respectu ipsius sacramenti :
puta cum aliquis non intendit sacramentum conferre, sed
derisorie aliquid agere. Et talis perversitas tollit veritatem
sacramenti, prascipue quando suam intentionem exterius
manifestat. Alio modo potest perverti intentio ministri
quantum ad id quod sequitur sacramentum : puta, si sa-
cerdos intendat aliquam faeminam baptizare ut abutatur
ea ; vel si intendat conficere corpus Christi, ut eo ad ve-
neflcia utatur. Et quia prius non dependet a posteriori,
inde est, quod talis intentionis perversitas veritatem sacra
menti non tollit, sed ipse minister ex tali intentione graviter
peccat. Ibid. art. 10.

NOTES TO LECTURE VII. 531
NOTE H. p. 325.
Regeneratio spiritualis, quae fit per baptismum, est quo-
dammodo similis nativitati carnali, quantum ad hoc, quod
sicut pueri in maternis uteris constituti, non per seipsos
nutrimentum accipiunt, sed ex nutrimento matris susten-
tantur : ita etiam pueri nondum habentes usum rationis,
quasi in utero matris Ecclesias constituti, non per seipsos,
sed per actum Ecclesias salutem suscipiunt. . . . Sicut Au-
gustinos scribens Bonifacio dicit, in Ecclesia Salvatoris
parvuli per alios credunt, sicut ex aliis quae in baptismo
remittuntur peccata traxerunt. Nee impeditur eorum sa-
lus, si parentes sint infideles: quia, sicut Augustinus
dicit, eidem Bonifacio scribens, offeruntur parvuli ad perci-
piendam spiritualem gratiam, non tam ab eis, quorum
gestantur manibus (quamvis et ab ipsis si et ipsi boni fide-
les sunt) quam ab universa societate sanctorum atque fide
lium, &c. Aquinas, Summa Tlieol. Tertia Pars, qu. LXvm.
art. 9. NOTE I. p. 326.
Cyprianus autem nullo modo sacramentum conferre has-
reticos posse credebat : sed in hoc ejus sententia non tene-
tur. Unde Augustinus dicit: Martyrem Cyprianum, qui
apud hasreticos, vel schismaticos, datum baptisma nolebat
cognoscere, tanta merita usque ad triumphum martyrii
secuta sunt, ut charitatis qua excellebat luce, obumbratio
ilia figuraretur, et si quid purgandum erat, passionis falce
tolleretur. Aquinas, Summa Theol. Tertia Pars, qu. LXv.
art. 9.
Et nunc quoque cum in unum convenissemus, tam pro-
vincias Africas quam Numidias Episcopi numero septuaginta
et unus, hoc idem denuo sententia nostra firmavimus, sta-
tuentes unum baptisma esse quod sit in Ecclesia Catholica
constitutum, ac per hoc non rebaptizari, sed baptizari a
nobis. Quicunque ergo ab adultera et profana aqua veni-
unt, abluendi sunt et sanctificandi salutaris aquas veritate.
. Apud nos autem non nova aut repentina res est, ut
M M 2

532 APPENDIX.
baptizandos censeamus eos qui ab hasreticis ad Ecclesiam
veniunt, &c. Cyprianus Jubiano, Ep. LXXIII. Opera,
p. 198.
Augustine labours to remove the unfavourable impres
sion, that the authority of so eminent a person as Cyprian,
a martyr of the Church, is against his own doctrine ; some
times by insinuating a doubt as to the genuineness of his
epistles ; sometimes admitting the fact of Cyprian's dis
sent, and artfully palliating it as a pardonable error in so
great a saint.
NOTE I. p. 331.
" It (the word Species) is a term wherewith the lawyers
" are well acquainted, and signifieth all that the ancient
" Latin writers include in the notion of fruges, wine, oil,
" corn, pulse, &c. And the glossary at the end of the
" Theodosian Code, published by Gothofred, extends its
" signification to all necessaries of life, tributes, public
" stores of provisions, and not only for the belly, but the
" back also ; with clothes, and household stuff, jewels, as
" also materials for building, timber and iron, passing by
" that name in both the Theodosian and Justinian Codes,
" in the writers of the Imperial History, Vegetius, Cas-
" siodorus, &c. In the Theodosian Code there are many
" laws concerning the public Speciesf requiring them to
" be brought in kind, and not a composition for them in
" money, particularly that the Species of Wine h be paid
" in kind. There are laws to compel all farmers to furnish
" their proportions of all Species, to oblige men and ships
" and waggons for the carriage of them to Rome and
" other places, laws also directing the mixing the sweet
" and fresh with the Species decayed and corrupted by
" long lying in public granaries and cellars. Cassiodorus
" in his Epistles, issues out orders for the providing of the

s Tributa in ipsis Specibus inferri. Non sunt pretia specierum, sed ipsa;
qua? postulantur Species inferendae. Codex Theodos. lib. XI. tit. 2. leg. 4.
h Speciem Vini. Ibid. Leg. IL

NOTES TO LECTURE VII. 533,
" Species of bacon, wheat, cheese, wine, and iron.1 And
" the law-notion of the term, I conceive, took its rise from
" the great variety of necessaries of several sorts and kinds
" that are requisite for the subsistence of armies or great
" cities, or else from the variety of such provisions paid in
" the nature of rents or tribute."
" Now as the word Sacrament is generally acknow-
" ledged to be a term borrowed from the Roman military
" laws, so probably was the word Species; and as corn
" and wine, and other stores for the public use, either of
" the prince, the city, or army, go by that name, espe-
" cially what came in by way of pension or tribute, so it
" is not unlikely that the oblations of the faithful, brought
" to the altar as a tribute to God for the use of his holy
" table, consisting of bread and wine, the two main sup-
" ports of life, might in allusion thereunto be called Species
" by Ecclesiastic writers." Ratramn on the Body and
Blood of the Lord, Appendix by the Editor, pp. 433—435.
London, 1688. NOTE J. p. 333.
Leotheric, Archbishop of Sens, was a disciple at Rheims,
of the celebrated Gerbert, whose name stands almost alone
in the annals of philosophy in the Xth century, and whose
merits, under the patronage of the Emperor Otho III.
afterwards exalted hira to the papal throne. Leotheric died
in 1032. His doubts, de veritate corporis et sanguinis
Domini, appear to have attracted notice about 1004. See
Du Boullay, Hist. Acad. Paris, torn. I. pp. 354, 402. He
submitted however to correction, and we hear nothing more
of any agitation of the subject from him.
Berenger appears to have been supported by numerous
partisans. Lanfranc complains of his popularity as obtained
' Speciem laridi, lib. II. Ep. XII. Tritici speciem. lib. III. Ep. XLI.
Vini, tritici, panici speciem, lib. XII. Ep. XXVI. Vini, olei, vel tritici
species, lib. XII. Ep. XXIII. Casei ei vini Palmatiani species, lib. XII.
Ep. XII. De ferro, lib. III. Ep. XXV. Con venit itaque hanc speciem
diligent! indagatione rimari.

534 APPENDIX.
by improper means. Hoc garriunt, he says, discipuli atque
sequaces tui, subversores quidem aliorum, et ipsi auro et
argento, casteraque pecunia tua, a te subversi, errantes, et
alios in errorem mittentes. Lanfranc. De Corp. et Sang.
Dom. c. 20. Oper. p. 247.

NOTE K. p.
Respondeo dicendum, quod sacramenta (sicut dictum est)
adhibentur ad hominum sanctificationem; sicut quasdam
signa. Tripliciter ergo considerari possunt : et quolibet
modo congruit eis quod verba rebus sensibilibus adjungantur.
Primo enim possunt considerari ex parte causae sanctifi-
cantis, quas est verbum incarnatum : cui sacramentum quo-
dammodo conformatur, in hoc quod rei sensibili verbum
adhibetur, sicut, in mysterio Incamationis, carni sensibili
est verbum Dei unitum, &c. Aquinas, Summa Theol. Tertia
Pars, qu. lx. art. 5.
Sed contra est, quod Ambrosius dicet in libro de sacra
mentis. Si tanta est vis in sermone Domini Jesu, ut inci-
perent esse quas non erant, quanto magis operatorius est,
ut sint quae erant, et in aliud commutentur? Et sic quod
erat panis ante consecrationem, jam corpus Christi est post
consecrationem : quia sermo Christi in aliud creaturam
mutat. Respondeo dicendum, quod quidam dixerunt nullam
virtutem creatam esse, nee in praedictis verbis ad transub-
stantiationem faciendam ; nee etiam in aliis sacramento-
rum formis, vel etiam in ipsis sacramentis, ad inducendos
sacramentorum effectus. Quod (sicut supra habitum est)
et dictis sanctorum repugnat, et derogat dignitati sacra
mentorum novas legis. Unde cum hoc sacramentum sit
pras casteris dignius, sicut supra dictum est, consequens est,
quod in verbis formalibus hujus sacramenti sit quaedam
virtus creata, ad conversionem hujus sacramenti facien
dam ; instrumentalis tamen, sicut et in aliis sacramentis,
sicut supra dictum est. Cum enim hasc verba ex persona
Christi proferantur ex ejus mandate, consequuntur virtutem

NOTES TO LECTURE VII. 535
instrumentalem a Christo; sicut et castera ejus facta vel
dicta habent instrumentaliter salutiferam virtutem, ut supra
dictum est. Ibid. qu. lxxviii. art. 4.
Et ideo alifer dicendum est, quod sicut praedictum est,
hasc locutio habet virtutem factivam conversionis panis in
corpus Christi ; et ideo comparator ad alias locutiones, quae
habent solum vim significativam, et non factivam, sicut
comparatur conceptio intellectus practici, quae est factiva rei,
conceptioni intellectus nostri speculativi, quas est accepta
a rebus : nam voces sunt signa intellectuum, secundum
Philosophum. Et ideo sicut conceptio intellectus practici
non prassupponit rem conceptam, sed facit earn ; ita Veritas
hujus locutionis non prassupponit rem significatam, sed
facit earn ; sic enim se habet verbum Dei ad res factas per
verbum. Ibid, art 5.
We may see from this last passage particularly the con
nexion of Transubstantiation with the scholastic theory of
the Trinity. The Word of God is the Divine conception
expressed, and by its utterance, carrying creative efficacy :
so also the words of consecration are the divine conception
going forth actively, and bringing down Christ with trans
forming power to the creatures of bread and wine.
It followed from this doctrine, that all who participate
of the consecrated elements, whatever may be their dispo
sition of mind, participate of Christ. Aquinas accordingly
is forced to admit, that even if the consecrated host should
be eaten by mice or dogs, the substance of Christ still does
not cease to be under the species, so long as the species
remain.k To obviate this inconvenience, a distinction was
drawn between receiving the body of Christ in essence, or
merely sacramentally, and receiving it spiritually, or with
salutary efficacy. Thus Lanfranc says : Est quidem etiam
peccatoribus, et indigne sumentibus, vera Christi caro,
verusque sanguis, sed essentia, non salubri efficientia.1
The same doctrine is expressed under the technical
k Summa Theol. Tertia Pars, qu. lxxx. art. 3.
1 De Corp. et Sang. Dom. c. 20. Oper. p. 248.

536 APPENDIX.
terms opus operatum and opus operantis : the former being
the spiritual power or grace attached to the visible sign;
the latter, the part which, either the minister, or the recipient
acts, and on which the application of the grace, the opus
operatum, depends. The materialism involved in the specu
lation should not pass unnoticed. The effect of the sacraT
ment takes place, unless the recipient opposes an obstacle
[obicem] ; in which case the sacred instrument, from the
want of a proper matter to act on, is obstructed in its opera
tion.
NOTE L. p. 339.
Aquinas labours hard to reconcile these miraculous ap
pearances with the doctrine of Transubstantiation. He
has a question on the point; " Whether when in this
" sacrament there appears miraculously flesh, or a child, the
" body of Christ be truly there." The appearance, he says,
may sometimes be explained by the change taking place
in the eye of the individual who beholds it, whilst by others
or by the same person at another time, only the species of
bread is seen. And yet there is no deception, he adds;
because the effect is divinely produced, in order to the
representation of the truth : quoting Augustine to the
purport that, " when a fiction refers to some signification,
" it is not a falsehood, but a figure of the truth." But he
admits that there are instances also ofthe miraculous change
being external, in the sacrament itself: and rejecting the
speculation which explained it as an appearance of Christ
under the proper species, on account of other difficulties
involved in such an account of the phenomenon, he con
cludes that the change takes place in some of the accidents ;
in the colour, for instance, or figure, of the consecrated
bread, whilst the dimensions continue the same. Neither
is there deception, he contends, in this case ; because
the miraculous apparition is for the purpose of shewing,
that the body and blood of Christ are truly under the
sacrament.™ m Summ,a Theol. Tertia Pars, qu. lxxvi. art. 8.

NOTES TO LECTURE VII. 537
NOTE M. p. 341.
The philosophy of Descartes naturally drew the atten
tion of theologians to the scholastic theory of Transub
stantiation, from his division of substance into the two
great classes of thinking and extended substances. It
was evident that the supposed sole existence of the acci
dents of bread and wine after consecration, could no longer
he maintained, if such a philosophy were admitted. If the
dimensions of the sacred elements still remained, as the
scholastics taught; then, according to Descartes, the sub
stance of bread and wine would be there. Descartes ac
cordingly being attacked on this ground, was driven into
explanations, at any rate, no less subtile than those of the
Schools, to defend the orthodoxy of his philosophy. He
urged, that the superficies of the bread and wine presented
to the senses, were not the proper substances of them ;
but that their substances were, the superficial boundaries
between the several internal particles of which they were
composed, and other bodies occupying their interstices.
The change therefore might take place in these internal
boundaries, and consequently a different substance be pro
duced ; whilst the external visible superficies remained the
same. Various other refinements were devised by his
followers, to maintain their consistency with the council of
Trent. A mass of angry controversy was excited on the
subject. The character of the whole dispute illustrates the
vital importance of the scholastic philosophy to the peculiar
doctrines of the Church of Rome. See Brucker. Hist. Crit.
Philos. torn. IV. p. 584. NOTE N. p. 343.
Every one knows what volumes of casuistry the doc
trines of Penance, Auricular Confession, Absolution, have
given occasion to. We have only to look into the forms of
self-examination contained in some modern devotional works
by writers of the Church of Rome, to see the perplexities

538 APPENDIX.
thrown into the way of the conscientious and sensitive
mind, by this minute philosophy of divine things. What
difficulties indeed must have been produced in connexion
with the sacramental doctrine of Intention, by such a case
as that mentioned in the Life of Esprit Flechier, the French
bishop ; of a vicar of Paris, who confessed on his death-bed,
that he had for many years administered the sacramental
rites under a positive secret will of being in sport?

LECTURE VIII.
NOTE A. p. 352.
1 REFER to the following passages, to shew the difficulty
which the distinction between what is necessary and what
is not necessary to be believed, in order to salvation, has
occasioned. " The Scriptures and the Creed are not two different
" rules of faith, but one and the same rule, dilated in the
" Scripture and contracted in the Creed ; the end of the
" Creed being to contain all fundamental points of faith,
"or a summary of all things necessary to salvation, to be
" believed necessitate medii; but in what particular writings
" all these fundamental points are contained, is no particular
" fundamental article itself, nor contained in the Creed, nor
" could be contained in it; since it is apparent out of the
" Scripture itself, that the Creed was made and deposited
" with the Church as a rule of Faith, before the canon of
" the New Testament was fully perfected." Schism Guarded,
BramhalTs Works, p. 402.
" And although the distinction be commonly received,
" of necessity of the means, and of the command, as im-
" porting a different kind of necessity ; yet in the sense I
" here take necessity in, the members of that division do
" to me seem coincident: for I cannot see any reason to

NOTES TO LECTURE VIII. 539
" believe that God should make the belief of any thing
" necessary, by an absolute command, but what hath an
" immediate tendency by way of means, for the attainment
" of this end, (eternal welfare and happiness of mankind :)
" for otherwise, that which is called the necessity of
" precept falls under the former degree of necessity, viz.
" that which is to be believed on the general account of
" Divine Revelation. .... Whatever therefore is neces-
" sary to a spiritual life, is necessary absolutely to salva-
" tion, and no more ; but what, and how much that is,
" must be gathered by every one as to himself from Scrip-
" ture, but it is impossible to be defined by others as to
" all persons. But in all, Faith towards God and in our
" Lord Jesus Christ, and repentance from dead works, are
" absolutely and indispensably necessary to salvation, which
" imply in them both an universal readiness of mind to
" believe and obey God in all things  But this con-
" troversy never need break Christian Societies in that
" sense, but the great difficulty lies in the other part of
" it, which is most commonly strangely confounded with
" the former, viz. What things are necessary to be owned,
" in order to Church Societies or Ecclesiastical Com-
" munion ? . . . . Only I add here, when I speak of the
" necessary conditions of ecclesiastical communion, I speak
" of such things which must be owned as necessary articles
" of Faith, not of any other agreements for the Church's
" peace. I deny not, therefore, but that in case of great
" divisions in the Christian world, and any national Church's
," reforming itself, that Church may declare its sense of
" those abuses in articles of religion, and require of men
" a subscription to them : but then we are to consider, that
" there is a great deal of difference between the owning
" some propositions in order to peace, and the believing
" of them as necessary articles of faith. And this is clearly
" the state of the difference between the Church of Rome
" and the Church of England  So the late learned
" Lord Primate of Ireland often expresseth the sense of

540 APPENDIX.
" the Church of England as to her XXXIX Articles. ....
" By which we see, what a vast difference there is between;
" those things which are required by the Church of England
" in order to peace, and those which are imposed by the
" Church of Rome as part of that Faith, eostra quam non
" est solus, without belief of which there is no salva-
" tion." Stillingfleet, vol. IV. Rational Account, &c. 1709;
p. 51—54. NOTE B. p. 363.
An excellent illustration of the delusive force of abstract
terms may be seen in Burke's Letters on a Regicide Peace.
" That hostile power, to the period of the fourth week in
" that month, has been ever called and considered as an
" usurpation. In that week, for the first time, it changed
" its name of an usurped power, and took the simple name
" of France. . . . This shifting of persons could not be done
" without the hocus-pocus of abstraction  Blessings
" on his soul that first invented sleep, said Sancho Pancha
" the wise ! All those blessings, and ten thousand times
" more, on him who found out abstraction, personification,
" and impersonals. In certain cases, they are the first of
" all soporifics. Terribly alarmed we should be, if things
" were proposed to us in the concrete, &c. . . . But plain
" truth would here be shocking and absurd; therefore
" comes in abstraction and personification. ' Make your
" ' peace with France.' That word France sounds quite
" as well as any other ; and it conveys no idea but that of
" a very pleasant country, and very hospitable inhabitants.
" Nothing absurd and shocking in amity and good corre-
" spondence with France, &c." Burke's Works, vol. IX.
p. 10.
Many an ingenious theological theory has been raised in
like manner on the mere sense of an abstract term; for
instance, the doctrine of Imputation, which could have no
existence but for the analytical power of language.

NOTES TO LECTURE VIII. 541
NOTE C. p. 369.
Multa enim latebant in scripturis, et cum prascisi essent
hasretici, quasstionibus agitaverunt ecclesiam Dei.. Aperta
sunt quae latebant, et intellecta est voluntas Dei. . . . Ergo
multi qui optime poterant scripturas dignoscere et pertrac-
tare, latebant in populo Dei, nee asserebant solutionem
quasstionum difficilium, cum calumniator nullus instaret.
Numquid enim perfecte de Trinitate tractatum est, ante-
quam oblatrarent Ariani ? Numquid perfecte de poenitentia
tractatum est, antequam obsisterent Novatiani. Sic non
perfecte de baptismate tractatum est, antequam contradi-
cerent foras positi rebaptizatores : nee de ipsa unitate
Christi enucleate dicta erant quae dicta sunt, nisi postea-
quam separatio ilia urgere cospit fratres infirmos ; ut jam
illi, qui noverant hasc tractare atque dissolvere, ne perirent
infirmi, sollicitati quasstionibus impiorum, sermonibus et
disputationibus suis, obscura legis in publicum deducerent.
Augustin. in Psalm. 54. NOTE D. p. 370.
Even Vincent of Lerins, the very advocate of the un-
changeableness of church-doctrines, is obliged to allow the
gradual accumulation of dogmas. It is easy to say, as he
does, that these successive decisions are only explanations
of the same truths originally propounded. So they may
be in theory, and such may be the historical origin of
them. But what are they in fact? As successively en
forced by the authority of the Church, with the same stress,
and on the same footing of divine truth, as the original
points which they are intended to explain, they become in
reality new truths of religion. His argument proceeds on
a false analogy, presupposed between personal identity
and generic unity or sameness. He supposes it possible
for doctrines to go on expanding and growing, whilst the
same being continues to subsist in them, as the- human
being continues the same in the progress from infancy to

542 APPENDIX.
maturity. Now there is no similarity between the two
cases. The sameness of the human being at different periods
of life, is strictly a numerical unity : the one being continues
under successive modifications. But where is the evidence
of the one truth subsisting d priori, and gradually adding
to itself? The variation of doctrines is what is evident
here ; and the only unity that can be affirmed, is a logical
one, — one of consonance or agreement. In one case we
should say, a real unity consists with great variations; in
the other case, that great variations are not inconsistent
with a general unity. But even were the analogy admitted,
it would be against his purpose; for surely it would not
declare much in favour of the unity of doctrine, to admit as
great a change in it as we see in the successive states of
human life. It may be seen from the following passage
how he proposes the point.
Sed forsitan dicit aliquis: Nullus ne ergo in ecclesia
Christi profectus habebitur religionis ? Habeatur plane et
maximus. Nam quis est ille tam invidus hominibus, tam
exosus Deo, qui istud prohibere conetur? Sed ita tamen
ut vere profectus sit ille fidei, non permutatio. Siquidem
ad profectum pertinet, ut in seipsam unaquasque res am-
plificetur ; ad permutationem vero, ut aliquid ex alio in
aliud transvertatur. Crescat igitur oportet, et multum
vehementerque proficiat, tam singulorum quam omnium,
tam unius hominis, quam totius ecclesiae, astatum ac secu-
lorum, gradibus, intelligentia, scientia, sapientia ; sed in
suo duntaxat genere, in eodem scilicet dogmate, eodem
sensu, eademque sententia. Imitetur animarum religio
rationem corporum : quas licet annorum processu numeros
suos evolvant et explicent, eadem tamen quae erant per
manent. Multum interest inter pueritias florem et senec-
tutis maturitatem ; sed iidem tamen ipsi fiunt senes, qui
adolescentes; ut quamvis unius ejusdemque hominis sta
tus habitusque mutetur, una tamen nihilominus eademque
natura, una eademque persona sit, &c. Commonitorium,
p. 350.

NOTES TO LECTURE VIII. 543
Evidently his notion is drawn from the ancient physical
philosophy of Transmutation ; which, by the aid of Realism,
he is applying to a logical subject, and arguing from it, a
sameness under all the various developments which the
form of doctrine may assume.

NOTE E. p. 370.
It is curious to observe here the manner in which free
dom was secured, by the very advocate of Church-autho
rity, for any new speculations on the doctrines already
established. His own conclusions might extravagate ever
so widely from the given dogma, the point of outset ; but
they were not therefore to be reprobated as heretical, since
the Church had not pronounced against the conclusion.
The same principle is ingeniously stated by Erigena, in the
form of a just theory of Authority. The passage indeed is
interesting in respect to the whole subject of these Lec
tures ; as it throws light on the origin of Scholasticism, and
confirms what has been already pointed out respecting its
fundamental character.
D. Admodum urges me talia rationabiliter fieri ; sed auc-
toritate sanctorum patrum aliquod munimen ad hoc robo-
randa velim inseras. M. Non ignoras, ut opinor, majoris
dignitatis esse, quod prius est natura, quam quod prius est,
tempore. D. Hoc pasne omnibus notum est. M. Ratio
nem priorem esse natura, auctoritatem vero tempore, didi-
cimus, Quamvis enim natura simul cum tempore creata
sit ; non tamen ab initio temporis atque naturae cospit esse
auctoritas. Ratio vero cum natura ac tempore ex rerum
principio orta est. D. Et hoc ipsa ratio edocet. Aucto
ritas siquidem ex vera ratione processit, ratio vero nequa^
quam ex auctoritate. Omnis autem auctoritas quae vera
ratione non approbatur, infirma videtur esse. Vera autem
ratio, quum virtutibus suis rata atque immutablis munitur,
nullius auctoritatis adstipulatione roborari indiget. Nil
enim aliud videtur mihi esse vera auctoritas, nisi rationis

544 APPENDIX.
virtute cooperta Veritas, et a sacris patribus ad posteritatis
utilitatem literis commendata. Sed forte tibi aliter videtur.
M. Nullo modo. Ideoque prius ratione utendum est in his
quae nunc instant, ac deinde auctoritate. Joan. Scot. Erigen.
De Div. Nat. I. c. 70, 71. p. 39.
NOTE F. p. 376.
Non peregrina loquor, neque ignorata scribo. Audivi
ac vidi vitia prossentium, non laicorum, sed episcoporum.
Nam absque episcopo Eleusio, et paucis cum eo, ex majori
parte, Asianas decern provincias, intra quas consisto, vere
Deum nesciunt. Atque utinam penitus nescirent; cum
procliviori enim venia ignorarent quam obtrectarent. Hilar.
De Synod, p. 498.
Item, quando Arrianorum venenum, non jam portiun-
culam quandam, sed pasne orbem totum contaminaverat,
adeo ut prope cunctis Latini sermonis episcopis, partim
vi, partim fraude, deceptis, caligo quasdam mentibus offun-
deretur, quidnam potissimum in tanta rerum confusione
sequendum foret, &c. Vincent. Lirinens. Commonit. p. 319.
ed. Baluz. NOTE G. p. 376.
The extent ofthe popularity of Pelagianism at its rise,
appears from what has been already observed in regard to
this point." In the XlVth century Bradwardine, surnamed
the Profound Doctor, felt himself roused to vindicate " the
" cause of God" by the Pelagianism of the times, com
plaining that the whole world was gone after Pelagius.
NOTE H. p. 379.
The Apostles' Creed states nothing but faets. The
transition is immense from this to the scholastic specula
tions involved in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. Both
these last indeed are logical definitions of the high subject
of which they treat, differing from each other only in
point of comprehensiveness and exactness. A definition in
" Page 485—488.

NOTES TO LECTURE VIII. 545
speculative theology would necessarily be imperfect, so long
as disputation was actively proceeding on the matter de
fined. New ideas would be continually introduced into
the discussion, and a term or a description that seemed
before sufficiently exclusive of notions foreign to the sub
ject, would require to be further fenced round with new
limitations. Thus the term Consubstantial, which at one
time was heterodox, when the tendency was to " confound
" the persons " of the Trinity, would become necessary, and
consequently orthodox, when the tendency was the other
way, " to divide the substance." It was a requisite limi
tation in the Nicene Creed, of the assertion previously
made concerning Christ's derivation from the Father ; since
that assertion taken in itself might include also the Gnostic
and Arian notions. The addition of the term in this place,
applied the restriction just where it was wanted, an^7
brought the terms of the proposed definition more imme
diately on the point to be defined. Thus Hilary, in
explaining the term, recommends the cautious mode of
applying it; by not setting out, that is, with declaring one
substance, but adding it, after having first stated the relations
of the Father and the Son."
The more we examine into the Trinitarian Controversies,
the more will this form of definition evidence itself to our
view in these two Creeds. We shall find the idea of the
Divine Being gradually expanded in each ; whilst at the
same time a more restricted and exclusive set of charac
teristics are successively brought before us ; each of which
has been ground won from the heretic by hard-fought
debate. The copious particularity of the Athanasian Creed
still more illustrates the logical nature of the formularies.
There we have the terms of a definition strongly put in
contrast with each other, so that each in succession may
limit that which precedes. Does a preceding term taken
in itself include in its meaning any of the theories which
the Church has rejected : — immediately a term is subjoined,
0 De Synodis, Oper. p. 501.
N N

546 APPENDIX.
which corrects the statement by narrowing the extent of
the former : as is evident in the instance " neither made,
" nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding?" Where the
terms involve numerical statements, an air of contradiction
is given to this series of limitations of which the Creed
will be found to be made up. But this arises, as I have
before stated, from the positive notions which we attach
to the numbers, instead of regarding them as negative ; and
generally indeed from not taking them in their acquired
controversial sense. The paradoxical mode, in which the
several terms are strung together, was probably further
designed by the composer of the Creed, to combine with
the logical exposition a rhetorical effect, — to render the
formulary more energetic and more easy to be remembered,
or perhaps more adapted to the alternations of choral
chaunting, and imitative of the repetitions of Hebrew poetry.
The reason indeed of those clauses, in which the contra
diction appears most explicit, is fhe same as that of the
others. Definition is what the author is engaged in.
Thus, having affirmed the essential attributes of omni
potence, immensity, and eternity of each of the Persons,
he is careful afterwards to exclude the notion of distinctness,
from that of distribution, which his first declaration had
asserted. NOTE I. p. 386.
It is enough to refer to the reception which the Carte
sian philosophy experienced at Rome, where a decree was
passed immediately on its appearance, that no one of any
degree or condition should presume either to print, or read,
or keep in his possession, any of the works of Descartes ; —
or to the clamour raised against the Copernican theory of
the universe, and the various shifts to which mathema
ticians were consequently driven, to evade the threats of
the Vatican; — or lastly, to the well-known persecutions
of Galileo. See Brucker, Hist. Crit. Phil. torn. V. pp. 284,
628, 637.

NOTES TO LECTURE VIII. 547

NOTE J. p. 387.
The manner in which the words of texts of Scripture
were used in sermons, is illustrated in the following account
given by Foxe, in his life of Latimer.
"Amongst these, there was an Augustine Friar, who
took occasion, upon certain sermons that Master Lati
mer made about Christmas 1529, as well in the Church
of St. Edward, as also in St. Augustine's, within the
University in Cambridge, to inveigh against him; for
that Master Latimer in the said sermons (alluding to
the common usage of the season) gave the people cer
tain cards out of the fifth, sixth, and seventh chapters of
St. Matthew, whereupon they might not only then, but
always else occupy their time. . . . This was upon the
Sunday before the Christmas-day ; on which day, coming
to the church, and causing the bell to be tolled to a
sermon, he entered into the pulpit, taking for his text
the words of the Gospel aforesaid read in the church
that day, Tu quis es ? in delivering the which cards (as
is aforesaid) he made the heart to be triumph ; exhorting
and inviting all men thereby to serve the Lord with inward
heart and true affection, and not with outward cere
monies : adding moreover to the praise of that triumph,
that though it were never so small, yet it would make
by the best court card in the bunch, yea though it were
the king of clubs, &c. , meaning thereby, how the Lord
would be worshipped and served in simplicity of the
heart and verity, &c. It would ask a long discourse to
declare, what a stir there was in Cambridge upon this
preaching of Master Latimer. . . . First came out the
prior of the Black Friars, called Bucknham, otherwise
surnamed Domine Labia ; who, thinking to make a great
hand against Master Latimer, about the same time of
Christmas, when Master Latimer brought forth his cards,
to deface belike the doings of the other, brought out

548 APPENDIX.
" his Christmas dice, casting them to his audience cinque
" and quater : meaning by the cinque five places in the
" New Testament, and the four Doctors by the quater : by
" which his cinque quater he would prove that it was not
" expedient the Scriptures to be in English," &c. Foxis
Eccl. Hist. vol. II. p. 1903.

THE END.

li. CLAY, PRINTER, BREAD-STREET-HILL-

I I I I I I I ' Vf
3 9002 00595 1299 gS

: