PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE i [A MSU Is An Affirmative ActiorVEqual Opportunity Institution REBDRHED SCHOLASTICISM.IN MEDIEVAL PERSPECTIVE: THOMAS AQUINRS AND FRANCOIS TURRETTINI ON THE INCARNWTION BY Stephen Robert Spencer A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Interdisciplinary Doctoral Program College of Arts and Letters 1988 ABSTRACT WWCISHINHEIEVALW: mmmmlsmmmmmm BY Stephen Robert Spencer The sixteenth and seventeenth century successors of the Protestant Reformers are widely regarded as having defected from the distinctives of the Reformation by returning to the scholastic method. This study investigates the question of scholasticism in Reformed Protestantism by an inquiry into the medieval origin of scholasticism and its relationship to Renaissance humanism and the Protestant Reformers. It then selects a representative of medieval scholasticism (Thomas Aquinas) and of Reformed scholasticism (Francois Turrettini), analyzing their treatment of the Incarnation in the context of the major work of each man (Sunma Theologiae and Institutio ’Iheologiae Elencticae, reapectively) . The study concludes that the consensus view of Reformed scholasticism inaccurately portrays the origin and nature of the scholastic method, which developed for pedagogical reasons. In addition: it too closely identifies scholasticism with Thomism. Renaissance humanism, while often ardently opposed to scholasticism, also was capable of cooperation and coexistence with it. Individuals could exemplify traits from both. The Reformers cannot be characterized simply as humanistic opponents of scholasticism. Instead, they selectively borrowed from both traditions and sometimes rejected both, depending upon the topic. Though both Thomas and Turrettini clearly are scholastics, they write quite different versions of scholastic theology. Thomas is analytical. seeking a deeper understanding of an already established doctrine and doing little exegetical study. Turrettini, in contrast, is polemical, not analytical, but engaged in extensive exegetical argumentation. Neither fits the stereotype of scholasticism in that they set the Incarnation in a redemptive (not a metaphysical) context and caution against over-confidence in human reasoning. The study concludes that discussions of Reformed scholasticism must place it more accurately in the perspective of medieval scholasticism, recognizing diversity among its representatives, before attempting the complex task of assessing the strengths and weaknesses of particular works in light of their Specific purpose and method. I would like to thank the members of my committee, Dr. W. Fred Graham, Dr. Richard Sullivan, and Dr. Harold Walsh, for making my doctoral studies such a profitable and enjoyable experience. Their contribution in courses and their counsel has been of great value and is deeply appreciated. Dr. Thomas Ryba, as my external reader, carefully read the dissertation and contributed a number of helpful comments. James M. Grier, Victor M. Matthews, and Albert G. Crawford, my former professors and current colleagues, first introduced me to the history of ideas and have enriched me in a multitude of ways, both academically and personally. I am greatly in debt to them. As Academic Dean of the Grand Rapids Baptist Seminary, Jim graciously relieved me of some responsibilities at crucial periods of my studies. Philip West has encouraged and assisted me throughout more than a decade of fellowship in academia. His friendship is a precious treasure. My parents, James and Lorna Rae Spencer have endured the endless saga of a son who has been a professional student, with constant encouragement and support. Cyndie Walstra, besides sharing a common devotion to the Boston Celtics, has generously contributed her skills and patience in typing more pages of my handwriting than she cares to remember. I'm grateful for her willingness to meet impossible deadlines for my sake. Those who finally complete graduate studies realize the genuineness of the thanks to the spouses whose endurance and sacrificial spirit is iv so essential to such a task. Gaylynn's labor and support has been remarkable and has made all of this possible. I cherish her companionship in life . TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. The Problem of Scholasticism . . . . . . . . II. Medieval Scholasticism . . . . ............... The Growth of the Schools . . . . . . ......... . Rediscovery of Classical Literature . . . . . . . . . . . Lectio .......... . . . . . . . . ...... . . Disputatio . . . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . . Summae . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Quaestio ..... . . . . ...... . . ..... . . . Anselm of Laon ..... . . . ........... . . . Boethius ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anselm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . Abelard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... Peter Lombard . ............. . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. Humanism, Scholasticism, and the Protestant Reformation . . . Humanism and Scholasticism ...... . . ..... . . . Humanism and the Reformation . . . . . ....... . . . Luther, Humanism, and Scholasticism . . . . . . ..... Calvin, Humanism, and Scholasticism ...... . . . . . Conclusion . . . ..................... IV. Thomas on the Incarnation . . . . .............. The Purpose of the Treatise on the Incarnation . . . . . . Structure ............. . .......... Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . Content . . . . . . . . .............. . . . Sources . . . . ................... . The Propriety and Rationale of the Incarnation . . . . . The Kind of Union in the Incarnation ........... The Incarnation on the Part of the Person Assuming . . . . The Incarnation on the Part of the Nature Assumed . . . . The Grace of the Incarnate Christ ....... . . . . . vi 18 18 20 21 23 27 28 30 33 39 52 58 65 68 73 76 81 96 98 98 100 101 104 106 110 119 128 135 146 Knowledge in the Incarnate Christ ........ . . . . The Infirmities of Christ ................ Conclusion .......... . ...... . . . . . . . V. Turrettini on the Incarnation ................ The Nature of the Institutio . . .......... . . . The Structure of the Institutio .......... . . . Locus Thirteen: De Persona et Statu Christi ....... The Advent and Identity of the Messiah . . . . . . . . . . The Necessity of the Incarnation . . . . ......... The Nature and Mode of the Incarnational Union and Its Effects .................... The States of Christ ...... . ......... . . . Conclusion . . . . . ......... . . ..... . . . VI. Conclusion . ...... . . . . .............. Thomas and Turrettini on the Incarnation ......... Similarities ....................... Contrasts ..................... . . . Scholasticism . . . . . ........ . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX C O O O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O ........ O BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................... vii 152 161 173 176 176 181 188 191 194 201 230 247 250 252 259 260 261 Chapter One The Problemnof Reformed Scholasticism . . . . . . I "Ex1ste-t-1l position plus incomfortable que celle des epigones? D'une part les historiens deplorent leur absence d'originalite, d'autre \ part 113 crient a la trahison a la moindre difference d'aves le modele!"1 While Olivier Fatio may overstate the case, he nonetheless dramatizes the dilemma of the successors of intellectual pioneers. The successors of John Calvin have borne their share of this criticism. In particular the second criticism (the charge of unfaithfulness) has dominated for some time now, first appearing in the early seventeenth century.2 More recently, in the past three decades, numerous studies have argued the case for the discontinuity between later Reformed theology and John Calvin. The exact charges have varied somewhat. Most common has been the thesis that predestination assumed a central role in the developing Reformed tradition. Hans-Emil weber, Otto Grunlder, , lOlivier Fatio, Methode et Théologie: Lambert Daneau et les debuts de la scolastique réformée (Geneve: Librairie Droz, 1976)’ix. 2See Richard A. Muller, "Predestination and Christology in Sixteenth Century Reformed Theology" (Ph.D. dissertation, Duke university, 1976) pp. 20-42: idem, Post-Reformation Reformed Dggmatics, V01. 1: Prolegomena (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987) pp. 13-40, 53-97: Timothy R. Phillips, "Francis Turretin's Idea of Theology and Its Bearing Upon His Doctrine of Scripture" (Ph.D. dissertation, Vanderbilt University, 1986) pp. 17-59. For a similar summary of the Lutheran debates, see Robert P. Scharlemann, Thomas Aquinas and John Gerhard (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1964) pp. 14-18. 1 2 Ernst Bizer, walter Kickel, Brian Armstrong, Johannes Dantine, and Basil Hall argue that the successors moved the discussion of the doctrine of predestination from the salvific effects of Christ's works in the believer to the nature and works of God, thus giving the doctrine a metaphysical cast.3 This replaced the soteric-Christological emphasis which Calvin had given predestination, particularly in the final edition of his Institutes. Such a move is said to indicate the rationalistic, even deductive method employed by the later Calvinists.4 Others focus on this method itself and emphasize the stress upon reason and philosophy (particularly Aristotle) as a movement away from Calvin‘s humanistic, Biblically oriented theology.5 In their judgment, the problem of discontinuity manifests itself most prominently at this point rather than in the doctrine of predestination. These two viewpoints are not antithetical, of course, but merely divergent evaluations of cause and effect. Both groups agree in describing Calvin's successors as "scholastic" because of this speculative, 3Hans-Emil weber, Reformation, Orthodoxie und Rationalismus (Gutersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1951) pp. 98-99: Otto Grundler, "Thomism and Calvinism in the Theology of Girolamo Zanchi (1516—1590)" (Th.D. dissertation, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1961) pp. 22-23,122: Ernst Bizer, Fruhorthodoxie und Rationalismus (Zurich: EVZ-Verlag, 1963) pp. 6-15,60—63: Walter Kickel, Vernunft und Offenbarung bei Theodor Beza (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967) pp. 280-283; Brian Armstrong, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969) pp. 136-137: Johannes Dantine, "Les Tabelles sur la, doctrine de la predestination par Theodore de Beze," Revue de Theolggie et de Philosophie 16(1976)375-377; Basil Hall, "Calvin Against the Calvinists“ in 55hn Calvin, ed. G.E. Duffield (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1966) pp. 25-30. 4See, e.g., Armstrong, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy, p. 136. SJack Rogers and Donald McKim, The Authority and the Interpretation of the Bible (New York: Harper and Row, 1979) pp. 185-187. 3 metaphysical interest in the nature of God and the eternal decree and because of the rationalistic, philOSOphical cast which dominates their theologies. The term indicates what these scholars perceive as the return, in method and content, to the theology of the medieval Roman Catholic scholastics (most notably Thomas Aquinas) by Peter Martyr Vermigli, Jerome Zanchi, and Theodore Beza.6 John Bray and John Patrick Donnally have suggested a more cautious, nuanced evaluation of the sixteenth century successors to Calvin. Rather than regarding them as full—fledged scholastics who have rather thoroughly revised Calvinism, Bray and Donnelly describe Vermigli and Beza as transitional figures. While maintaining substantial continuity with John Calvin, they nonetheless paved the way for the later, fully scholastic theologians of the seventeenth century.7 Jill Raitt also has suggested modifications in the prevailing con- ception of late sixteenth century Reformed theology, but seems to press the modifications more emphatically than Bray or Donnelly. WOrking with Beza's eucharistic doctrine, Raitt acknowledges, "Beza's method, it is true, became increasingly scholastic," "but in all of this the method suppported his doctrine more than subverted it."8 By comparing him with 6Robert M. Kingdon, review of Correspondance de Theodore de Beze, V61 4 (1562-1653 [sic]) ed. Henri Meylan, Alain Dufour, and Arnaud Tripet. Bibliotheque d'Humanisme et Renaissance XXX (1968) pp. 386-387; Armstrong, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy, pp. 129-132. 7John S. Bray, Theodore Beza's Doctrine of Predestination (Nieuwkoop: B. DeGraaf, 1975) pp. 21, 119-143: John Patrick Donnelly, Calvinism and Scholasticism in Vermigli's Doctrine of Man and Grace (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1976) pp. 29,64,66-67,194-197,201-202. Elsewhere, Donnelly is less emphatic about the qualified use of "scholastic" for vermigli and Zanchi: see "Italian Influences on the Development of Calvinist Scholasticism," Sixteenth Century Journal 7, 1(Apri1 1976) 81-101. 8Jill Raitt, The Eucharistic Theology of Theodore Beza: Iggelopmentygf Reformed Doctrine (Chambersburg, PA: American Academy of Religion, 1872) p. 71. 4 contemporary Roman Catholic scholastics such as Cajetan, "one sees how far from the scholasticism of his own day Beza was."9 Raitt concludes, "He may be responsible for a Reformed movement in the seventeenth century called today neo-scholasticism, but this may be fairly questioned."10 In this dissatisfaction with the prevailing viewpoint on Reformed scholasticism, Raitt joins the ranks of several scholars who demur from viewing the later Reformed movement as discontinuous with Calvin.ll Olivier Fatio (on Lambert Daneau), Marvin Anderson and Joseph McLelland (on Vermigli), Norman Shepherd (on Zanchi), W. Robert Godfrey (on the Synod of Dort and on Scripture), Richard Muller (on Christology and predestination, revelation and reason), and Ian McPhee (on Beza) all claim that their examinations suggest a significant doctrinal continuity with Calvin and careful preservation of the key Reformation emphases. 9Ibid. lOIbid. llOlivier Fatio, Methode et Théologie, x-xii, pp. 192-193; Marvin Anderson, Peter Martyr: A Reformer in Exile (1542-1562): A Chronology of Biblical Twriting§_in England and Europe (Nieuwkoop: B. DeGraaf, 1975), and "Peter Martyr Vermigli: Protestant Humanist" in Peter Martyr Vermigli and Italian Reform, ed. Joseph C. McLelland (waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1980) pp. 65-84, McLelland, The Visible Wbrds of God: An Exposition of the Sacramental Theologyfof Peter Martyr Vermigli, A. D. 1500-1562 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1957) andf "Peter Martyr Vermigli: Scholastic or Humanist?" in Peter Martyr Vermigli and Italian Reform, ed. Joseph C.McLe11and, pp. 141—151; Shepherd, "Zanchius On Saving Faith," Westminster Theological Journal 26(1973) 31-47: Godfrey, "Tensions Within International Calvinism: The Debate on the Atonement at the Synod of Dort, 1618-1619" (Ph.D dissertation, Stanford University, 1974) pp. 265-269, and "Biblical Authority in the Sixteenth and Seventeeth Centuries: A (Nestion of Transition" in Scripture and Truth, ed. D. A. Carson and JOhn D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983) pp. 225-243: Muller, Christ and the Decree: Christology and Presdestination in_Reformed Theology fromCalvin to Perkins (Studies in Historical Theology 2: Durham: Labyrinth Press, 1986) pp. 7-13, 175-182: and "Duplex cognitio dei in the Theology of Early Reformed Orthodoxy," éfixteenth Century Journal 10, 2(1979) 51-61, and "Perkins' A Golden 5 At the center of this dispute is the question of "scholasticism"-- what it is, what its causes and effects are, and how we should evaluate it. The view of the critics of Protestant scholasticism is represented in Brian Armstrong's widely used12 description: (1) Primarily it will have reference to that theological approach which asserts religious truth on the basis of deductive ratiocination from given assumptions or principles, thus producing a logically coherent and defensible system of belief. Generally this takes the form of syllogistic reasoning. It is an orientation, it seems, invariably based upon an Aristotelian philosophical commitment and so relates to medieval scholasticism. (2) The term will refer to the employment of reason in religious matters, so that reason assumes at least equal standing with faith in theology, thus jettisoning some of the authority of revelation. (3) It will comprehend the sentiment that the scriptural record contains a unified, rationally comprehensible account and thus may be used as a measuring stick to determine one's orthodoxy. (4) It will comprehend a pronounced interest in metaphysical matters, in abstract, speculative thought, particularly with reference to the doctrine of God. The distinctive scholastic Protestant position is made to regt on a speculative formulation of the will of God. In Armstrong's estimation, "this new outlook represents a profound divergence from the humanistically oriented religion of John Calvin and most of the early reformers."l4 Chaine: Predestinarian System or Schematized Ordo.Salutis?", Sixteenth Century Journal 9,1 (1978)769-81, and "Vera Philosophia cum sacra Theologia nusquamgpugnat: Keckermann on Philosophy, Theology, and the Problem of Double Truth," Sixteenth Century Journal 15,3 (1984) 341-354; McPhee, "Conserver or Transformer of Calvin's Theology? A Study of the Origins and Development of Theodore Beza's Thought, 1550-1570" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge, 1979) pp. 352-358; also see Phillips, Francis Turretin's Idea of Theology, pp. 796-809. 12See the use, sometimes with modifications, of Armstrong's list by, e.g., Bray, Theodore Beza's Doctrine of Predestination, pp. 12-17: Donnelly, Calvinism.and Scholasticism pp. 199-201: Rogers and McKim, The_ Authority and Interpretation of the Bible, pp. 185-187. 13Armstrong, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy, 32. 14 Ibid. (3 5mm itself iieolog mica qaestio I m. a. I r n r .42“,th 3151' ~ ”M x, “W M .‘ger ( 'D "I- l I I ‘7,’ - ‘3’. ’ i’ 1., r. ft. is I 3’ . , , . 1» r4- 0) .2.) H u. u I) . U) C) if” ,‘1. I '— . ‘1! H 6 Conversely, those who reject the discontinuity view find the fundamental problem precisely at this point. This position manifests itself in two ways. Some, while apparently granting that some Reformed theologians fit such a description, question its applicability to particular figures, groups, or documents. Alternatively, some scholars question the accuracy of the description itself. Raitt and Bray (concerning Beza) and Donnelly, Anderson, and McLelland (regarding Vermigli) are examples of the first response.15 The second manifestation is diverse. Marvin Anderson can be included here as well when he argues that some recent Vermigli studies have failed "to penetrate beneath the level of description to the fundamental religious and non-speculative roots of Martyr's thought." This failure results in the omission of "a crucial distinction which Martyr himself makes between the form of a discourse and its content."16 Richard Muller seems to agree with the identification of this distinction between the form or method and the content of theology.17 Muller also argues for the Christological orientation of Reformed 18 19 theology's doctrine of predestination and the knowledge of God as 15See Raitt, Eucharistic Theology, p. 71: Bray, Theodore Beza's Doctrine of Predestination, pp. 21, 141-143: Donnelly, Calvinism and ScholasticiSm, pp. 201-202 and "Calvinist Thomism," Victor 7 (1976) 452: Anderson, "Peter Martyr Vermigli: Protestant Humanist," pp. 67-68: McLelland, "Peter Martyr Vermigli: Scholastic or Humanist?", p. 150. 16 "Peter Martyr Vermigli: Protestant Humanist," p. 67. 17Muller, "Predestination and Christology," pp. 39-41. 18Predestination and Christology," pp. 12—20: "Perkins" Golden Chaineln pp. 80-81. 19Muller, "Duplex cognitio dei, pp. 54-61. , f“ 53de 1‘ L4; .‘Es. cc. 3453'; 033133 9 , . .. E a... u .. .1 QAQUV\ I t. ”‘1‘ \n1\‘5 \IHWN ~ n V! 7 well as for its diversity.20 In his judgment, later Calvinism is indeed concerned for piety and praxis.21 Its modifications of the Reformers' thought are legitimate responses to changing circumstances.22 "Far from pursuing a course toward arid intellectualism,"23 these theologians could develop, e.g. a "rich conception" of the meanings of Biblical terms such as "the WOrd of God."24 Joseph McLelland notes "the fallacy of a simple distinction between humanism and scholasticism, assigning blame to the latter,"25 a complaint with which Ian McPhee concurs.26 According to David Steinmetz, some of the recent disagreements about Reformed scholastism seem to be "traceable to the great ambiguity which characterizes the use of certain terms. Scholasticism, for example, is almost never defined."27 Steinmetz seems to suggest that the use of the term as a self-evidently undesirable characteristic 20Muller, "Predestination and Christology," pp. 30-31, 432-435. ZlMuller, "Predestination and Christology," p. 435; and "Perkins' Golden Chaine, pp. 80-81; and "Vera Philosophia," p. 348. 22Muller, "Vera Philosophia," pp. 357-365; "Giving Direction to Theology: The Scholastic Dimension," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 28,2 (June 1985) 183-193 (See his list of "surpris1ng" virtues of scholastic theology, 184-186). 23Muller, "Christ: The Revelation or the Revealer? Brunner and Reformed Orthodoxy on the Doctrine of the Word of God" (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 26, 3 (September 1983) 319. 24Ibid, 318. 25 . McLelland, "Peter Martyr Vermigli: Scholastic or Humanist?", p. 150: see also pp. 143-145. 26 .. McPhee, "Conserver or Transformer?", XV1i—xxv. 27 . . . Steinmetz, "The Theology of Calvin and Calvinism" in Reformation Euro : A Guide to Research, ed. Steven Ozment (St. Louis: Center for Reformation Research, 1982 p. 225. 8 is unwarranted. For instance, "one could argue that a scholastic is a teacher who treats theology by topic and who attempts to be as compre- hensive as possible in the selection of the topics which he treats."28 In fact, "stripped to its bare essentials, scholasticism is school theology. The problem which the scholastic faces and tries to solve is how knowledge can be transmitted from one generation to another, particularly in an environment in which competing visions . . . are 29 Such a task involves the realistic vigorously advocated." recognition that students are unable to master and synthesize all of the primary sources, but instead must use compendia and other textbooks. "In that sense, perhaps, even Calvin was a scholastic. He was interested in constructing a house of learning in the Church which was both Mother and School."30 In addition, Steinmetz states that "medieval scholasticism is not bound to any single philosophy, as the differences between Peter Lombard, Aquinas, Bonaventure, Scotus, and Ockham prove."31 Therefore, the equation of scholastism and Aristotelianism (e.g. in Armstrong's description) is untenable. "While the return to Aristotle marks a difference between Calvin and the later Calvinists, it is certainly not the only difference and it remains to be proven that it is the crucial one."32 ZBIbid. 29Ibid., p. 226. 3°Ibid. 31Ibid., p. 225. 3ZIbid., p. 226. 9 This study intends to focus its contribution at this point of the discussion. It seeks to clarify the meaning of "scholastic" when used to describe Reformed theologians by examining the origin, scope, and character of the school theology of medieval western Europe. A substantial body of scholarship analyzes the develOpment of medieval scholasticism in philosophical, theological, and institutional dimensions, fed recently by the labors of G. R. Evans.33 Unfortunately, the literature on Reformed Scholasticism evidences little interaction with the well-developed research on the earlier, Roman Catholic version. I hope to contribute to the correlation of these two fields of research. The study of medieval scholasticism will also involve probing the significance of the "school theology." Others agree with Steinmetz on this basic, etymological meaning of scholasticism.34 Yet, to say that the method was used in the medieval schools scarcely settles the question. In fact, it merely re-locates it, albeit in a more fundamental, and a more historical, context. There still remains the question as to the details of this method of studying and doing theology. Beyond that lies the crucial question of the legitimacy of the school method. Granted that the medieval masters of theology had pedagogical motives, was the method which they developed appropriate for 33G. R. Evans, Anselm and Talking About God (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978), and Anselm and A New Generation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), and Old Arts and New Theology (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), and The Language and Logic of the Bible V01. 1, The Earlier Middle Ages; V61. 2, The Road to Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge university Press, 1984, 1985). 34Muller, "Giving Direction to Theology," 187: John W. Baldwin, The Scholastic Culture of the Middle Ages, 1000—1300 (Lexington, MA: D. CL Heath and Company, 1971) preface: M. D. Chenu, Toward Understanding St. Thomas, trans. A. M. Landry and D. Hughes (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1964), p. 61. Add 5313 .4 3. .. 1 . . c. .I n: ,.. 8. in. :x Tx .y. .«éxs. an. .3. k. .m. .r. 10 the subject of Christian theology? Are there inherent distortions in any Christian theological scholasticism? Critics of Reformed scholasticism are convinced that there are. This point warrants careful scrutiny. I will then examine the relationship between scholasticism and Renaissance humanism and the relationship of both to Protestant theology, specifically Luther and Calvin. Here again, an ample body of literature exists upon which I can draw, literature which, in this case, has been correlated with the problem of Reformed scholasticism.35 In particular, I have selected two theologians to be studied in greater detail, one from each of the scholastic periods in question. The most original contribution will be the analysis of the scholasticism of Francois Turrettini36 (1623-1687), a pastor and professor in Geneva. He was the grandson of an Italian religious emigre from Lucca where reforming ideas had been advocated by Peter Martyr Vermigli, among others. Both the grandfather (Francesco) and the father (Benedict) had rendered important civic service to Geneva. Benedict also served, with distinction, for many years as a pastor. Francois studied at many of the leading schools of his day (Geneva, Leyden, Utrecht, Paris, Saumur). 35See, e.g., McPhee, "Conserver or Transformer?", xvii-xxv: McLelland, "Peter Martyr Vermigli: Scholastic or Humanist," pp. 143-145: Bray, Theodore Beza's Doctrine of Predestination, pp. 10-12. 36The last name has been variously Anglicized as Turrettine, Turrettin, and Turretin. The latter seems most frequent in recent scholarship. For full biographical information, see Eugene de Budé, V3 de Francois Turrettini, théologien genevois (1623-1687), (Lausanne: Georges Bridel, 1871): Gerrit Keizer, Francois Turrettini, sa Vie et ses Oeuvres et 1e ansensus (Lausanne: Georges Bridel, 1900): John W. Beardslee III, "Theological Development at Geneva under Francis and Jean-Alphonse Turretin (1648-1737)" (Ph.D. dissertation, Yale thuversity, 1956) pp. 1-70: Phillips ("Francis Turretin's Idea of ‘Theology," pp. 60—90) gives a brief summary treatment. 2". o‘. \ a: a: u. . 3 .m T ...... E .I m n; . . Aulb 11 He became pastor of the Italian congregation in 1648 and in 1652 was appointed to teach in the Academy of Geneva. His three-volume Institutio Theologiae Elencticae appeared in 1679, 1682, and 1685, in the closing years of his life, as the mature summary of his teaching. It comprises three-quarters of his gpggg, making it his principal literary legacy.37 The Institutio has been described as representative of "standard" Reformed orthodoxy, coming as it does from the generation 38 which saw the completion of the structure of that orthodoxy. In 1848, The Biblical Reportory and Princeton Review could write that "it has long been admitted that Francis Turrettin was the best expounder of the doctrine of the Reformed Church, as matured into completeness of form in the period following the Synod of Dort."39 Gerrit Keizer, explaining his choice of Turrettini for a dissertation topic at the turn of the century, stated, Turrettini est indubitablement un des plus eminents theologiens du dix-septiéme siecle, et, apres Calvin, 1e plus grand dogmaticien que Geneve ait produit. Ses origines remontent a la Reformation: sa vie coincide avec la periode de la scholastique reformee. Dans toute 1' acception du term il est, pour ainsi dire, 1e produit de 1'esprit des peres de Dordrect. I1 est, lui-meme, un des redacteurs du celebre Consensus. Par le r31e qui'il joue, dans cette circonstance et en sa qualité d' auteur de 1' Institutio Theologica Elenctica, il termine une periode de l'histoire de la thgalogie réformée. En sa qualité de polemiste distingue, il est un type represiatatif des theologiens reformes du dix- septiéme-siecle... 37The 1847 ("corrected") Edinburgh edition is the basis for this study. The unpublished, handwritten translation of George Musgrave Giger of Princeton College, done between 1845 and 1860, also has been used. 38John W. Beardslee, III, "Theological DevelOpment at Geneva under .Francis and Jean-Alphonse Turretin (1648-1737)" (Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, 1956) p. 698. 39The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, 20 (1848) 452. 4QGerrit Keizer, Francois Turrettini, p. 11. 12 Francois Turrettini's significance has not diminished since Keizer wrote: in fact, he may loom even larger on the present theological horizon. Jack Rogers and Donald McKim consider Turrettini to be the 4 "full development of Reformed scholasticism" 1 whose influence was far-reaching because of the wide use of his Institutio as a textbook for the training of ministers (e.g., at Princeton Theological Seminary in the nineteenth century under Archibald Alexander and Charles Hodge42). However, for years the only major study of Turrettini since Keizer's volume in 1900 was John W. Beardslee III's dissertation on the ebb and flow of orthodoxy at Geneva under Francois and his son Jean-Alphonse.43 Beardslee surveys the entirety of the Institutio to compare Francois Turrettini's theology with his son's. Such a scope obviously precludes intensive inquiry on the whole. He gives detailed analysis only of the content and interrelationship of the Turrettini's doctrines of revelation, reason, and philosophy. Keizer's study expands and corrects some of the biographical aspects of de Budd‘s earlier study. He concentrates on Turrettini's role in the origin and composition of the Helvetic Consensus Formula. In addition, he summarizes Turrettini's theology and the Institutio, selecting as examples his treatment of lapsarian and justification disputes for more extended discussion. Recently, the prolegomena of Turrettini have been treated by Muller and, 41The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible, pp. 172-184. 42James W. Alexander, The Life of Archibald Alexander, D.D. (New Ybrk: Charles Scribner, 1854) pp. 367-369: Alexander A. Hodge,The Life of Charles Hodge (London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1881: reprint, New York: Arno Press and the New Ybrk Times, 1969) pp. 323, 324, 391. 43 Beardslee, "Theological Development at Geneva." ~n~.\twu 13 in combination with his doctrine of Scripture, by Phillips.44 These latest efforts follow calls for renewed study of Turrettini in the context of the discussions regarding continuity and discontinuity in the Reformed tradition.45 Francis Landey Patton, one of his admirers, lauded Turrettini as "the Thomas Aquinas of Protestantism."46 Such a designation invites a comparison of the two theologians. Accordingly, this study will focus particularly upon Aquinas, representing the thirteenth century scholastics. The choice is not as obvious as it might seem for Thomas did not enjoy the pre-eminence in his day which we typically attribute 47 to him. His project of finding some middle ground between the radical Aristotelians' policy of a slavish following of the Philosopher, which 44See also Leon McDill Allison, "The Doctrine of Scripture in the Theology of John Calvin and Francis TUrretin" (Th.M. thesis, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1958), and Richard A. Muller, "Scholasticism Protestant and Catholic: Francis Turretin on the Object and Principles of Theology": Church History 55,2(June 1986) 193—205: Earl William Kennedy includes significant comparative studies of Turrettini in "An Historical Analysis of Chrales Hodge's Doctrines of Sin and Particular Grace" (Th.D. dissertation, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1968). 45David Steinmetz, "The Theology of Calvin and Calvinism," p. 225: W. Robert Godfrey, "A Question of Transition," 236, 243; John D. Wbodbridge, Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982) p. 117, 205 n.64. 46Patton, "Theological Encyclopedia" in Biblical and Theological Studies by the Members of the Faculty of Princeton Theological Seminary (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1912) p. 28. 47See Frederic Copleston, Aqginas (Hammondsworth, England: Penguin Books, 1955), p. 243: Anthony Kenny, Aguinas (New Ybrk: Hill and wang, 1980), p. 27: Heiko A. Oberman, "Fourteenth Century Religious Thought: A Premature Profile," Speculum 53 (1978), pp. 80-93, esp. 82-84: Paul Vignaux, Philosophy in the Middle Ages: An Introduction (trans. E. C. Hall: New York: Meridian Books, 1959), pp. 91-92, 129-130, 145: James A. weisheipl, Friar Thomas D'Aquino: His Life, Thought, and Works (Garden City: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1974), pp. 338-339. For an extended discussion of the use and influence of Thomas' Summa, see Leonard Boyle, The Setting of the Summa Theologiae of Saint Thomas (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1982), esp. 23—30. l4 imitated Averroes' example, and on the other hand, the steadfast refusal of the traditional Augustianians such as John Peckham to be open to the burgeoning body of knowledge of classical Greek thought, brought criticism from both sides. The Parisian episcopal condemnations of 1270 and 1277 showed the extent to which the traditionalists opposed any thorough re-modeling of the established intellectual framework.48 Nevertheless, through the years, his acceptance increased. He was canonized in 1326 and recognized as a Doctor of the Church in 1568. Pope Leo XIII's Aeterni Patris restored scholastic thought in general and that of Aquinas in particular. Beginning in Spain in the sixteenth century, Aquinas' Summa Theologiae gradually replaced Peter Lombard's Libri guattuor Sententiarum as the standard textbook for Roman Catholic theologians. Thus, even if Patton's comment bespeaks some ignorance of the thirteenth-century, Thomas is eminently worthy of selection as one of the finest of the medieval scholastics, and, as such, very appropriate for comparison with Turrettini as a leading Reformed scholastic. Regardless of whether Patton's description is accurate and whether Turrettini consciously modeled his thought after the pattern of Aquinas, the comparison merits investigation. The degree of the similarity, if any, will be discussed at length later in the paper. 48See Fernand Van Steenberghen, The Philosophical Movement in the Thirteenth Century (Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1955) and Thdmas Aquinas and Radical Aristotelianism (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic university of America Press, 1980): James A. Weisheipl, O.P., Friar Thomas D'Aquino: His Life, Thought and works (Garden City, New Ybrk: Doubleday and Company, 1974) pp. 272-292: Etienne Gilson, History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages (New York: Random House, 1955) pp. 321-431: John F. Wippel, "The Condemnations of 1270 and 1277 at Paris," Journal of Medieval and Renaissance StUdies 7, 2 (Fall 1977) 169-201. ._. ‘ (I 15 Selecting two men out of the many who labored during the respective periods of scholasticism will give specificity and manageability to the study. Yet additional limitations must be added because of the length and scope of the Summa and the Institutio. Therefore, my comparison will limit itself to the doctrine of the Incarnation in Aquinas and Turrettini. Prolegomena are rightly seen as fundamental in Turrettini (and all Reformed scholastics). This lggp§_elaborates the explicit conceptions, intentions, and method for scholastic theology. An additional way to investigate the nature of scholastic theology is to examine the actual treatment which they give to a theological topic which is not one of the principia, whether cognoscendi (Scripture) or essendi (God).49 The incarnation is an apt selection for such a study for several reasons. Along with the Trinity, it is generally ranked among the mysteries of the Christian faith. As such, it is viewed as exceeding the rational capacity of human beings, and thus knowable only by the divine revelation in Scripture. Yet some Christian theologians have claimed to be able to provide rational demonstrations of these doctrines, perhaps most notably Anselm in De Processione Spiritus Sancti, De Incarnatione Verbi and Cur Deus Homo. Furthermore, these doctrines often evoke a pronounced metaphysical interest, following the precedent set by the fourth and fifth century controversies which gave rise to the Nicene, Constantipolitan, and Chalcedon creeds. Thus these topics present the intriguing and conflicting confessions of rational 49For Turrettini's doctrine of Scripture, see Phillips, "Francis Turretin's Idea of Theology": for Scripture and the doctrine of God, see Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Vols. 2 and 3 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, forthcoming). . Apr . en‘- At a... r. t x, .. ,5 c \i. A Knit 16 inadequacy (on the part of many) and demonstrability (on the part of a prominent few) yet nearly always with significant metaphysical elements. As such, they seem to be fertile territory for an investigation of the nature, method and effects of scholastic theology. Because the Trinity is part of the doctrine of God and because Muller's study of this doctrine in the scholastic Reformed theolgians is forthcoming, I have chosen the incarnation. Heinrich Heppe presents the representative statements on this doctrine (including Turrettini's) in his Reformed Dogmatics.50 More recently, Muller has touched on the incarnation in his Christ and the Decree, although it is not a central concern of that study (which in any case limits itself to the period from Calvin to Perkins). Beardslee 51 summarizes Turrettini's Institutio discussion in his survey. The lack of research on Turrettini is particularly acute on the doctrine of Christology, particularly the incarnation. It seems appropriate to begin to fill that void as a means to the larger goal of studying the Reformed scholasticism against the background of medieval scholasticism in general and Thomas Aquinas in particular. In summary, I hope to contribute toward a more satisfactory description of Reformed scholasticism, first by appropriating the contribution of the extant literature on medieval scholasticism. Then, after presenting the intellectual climate of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in which the Reformed theologians wrote, I will 50Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics: Set Out and Illustrated From the Sources (Foreword by Karl Barth. Rev. and ed. Ernst Bizer. Trans. G. TL Thomson: London: George Allen and Unwin, Ltd., 1950; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978), pp. 410-447, 488-509. 51 Beardslee, "Theological DevelOpment at Geneva," pp. 523-530. l7 compare the doctrine of the incarnation in Thomas Aquinas and Francois Turrettini. Treating Aquinas' thought as one of several versions of medieval scholasticism, I will seek to determine the nature and extent of Turrettini's Reformed scholasticism. Chapter Two Medieval Scholasticism Whether or not the thirteenth century was in fact "the greatest of centuries“ as James J. walsh claimed,"1 it certainly witnessed the flowering of medieval intellectual life. It was not the sudden dawning of a new day after the gloom of the "dark ages" nor was it a brief, evanescent glow before the lamentable interlude of the next two centuries, but the thirteenth century was a remarkably productive period of scholarship. The scene of most of the intellectual contributions was the university.2 Though relatively recent, these institutions existed throughout Christendom. The most famous was located in Paris, but Oxford, Cambridge, Orleans, Bologne, and Padua also boasted major centers of learning. The Growth of the Schools These universities are the schools which are in view when scholaticism is defined as "school theology." However, the origins 1James J. walsh, Thirteenth: The Greatest of Centuries (1952; Reprint, New York: AMS Press, 1970). 2The classic work is Hasting Rashdall, The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages, ed. F. M. Powicke and A. B. Emden, 3 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1936). See also Charles Homer Haskins, TEE Rise of Universities (New YOrk: H. Holt and Company, 1923): Lowrie J. Daly, The Medieval University, 1200-1400 (New Ybrk: Sheed and ward, 1961): and Gordon Leff, Paris and Oxford Universities in the Thirteenth Century (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1968). For a concise sunmary, see Baldwin, The Scholastic Culture of the Middle Ages, 1000-1300. 18 19 of this theology were in earlier types of schools. The monastic and cathedral schools of the eleventh and especially the twelfth century lprovided the context for the development of the new approach to learning.3 Monastic schools played the major role in the preservation of learning. In this, they fulfilled at least a portion of the role that Cassiodorus had envisioned for monks,4 though many monks reflected the influence of St. Benedict of Nursia and Pope Gregory I on the role of learning in monastic life.5 The cathedral schools had been commissioned by Charlemagne and designed by Alcuin, but never existed in the abundance that those men intended.6 Though not present in every episc0pal see, as the edicts had mandated, these schools were the crucial link between the preservationist work of the Carolingian Renaissance and the creative 3David Knowles, The Evolution of Medieval Thought (New Ybrk: Random House Vintage Books, 1962) pp. 76-77, 84-86. For a more detailed discussion of the twelfth-century schools, see Philippe Delhaye, "L'organization scolaire au XIIe siecle," Traditio 5(1947) 211-268. For the theological developments of the period, see Joseph de Ghellinck, _L_e mouvemegt théologique du XIIe siecle, 2nd ed. (Bruges: Editions "de Tempel," 1948). For the history of the development of the scholastic method, see Martin Grabmann, Die Geschicte der Scholastischen Methode, 2 vols. (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1909-1911. Reprint, 1956). 4See E. K. Rand, Founders of the Middle Ages (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1928: Reprint, Dover Publications, 1957) pp. 240-248: Beryl Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Notre Dame: university of Notre Dame Press, 1964) pp. 30-32: M. L. W. Laistner, Thought and Letters in Western Eupope, A.D. 500-900, rev. ed. (Ithaca: Cornell UniverSity Press, 1957) pp. 95-103. 5Laistner, Thought and Letters in western Europe, pp. 93-95: Baldwin describes St. Benedict and Pope Gregory I as "more equivocal" than Cassiodorus regarding monastic education (The Scholastic Culture of the Middle Ages, 36) . 6Laistner, Thought and Letters in Western Europe, pp. 195—204, 207-211: Knowles, The Evolution of Medieval Thought, pp. 71-78. activity '1 run 7211‘“ n Luisa-U l 0.. ,' ‘. iithul. rm bot Lam, an 1’1 Spat 133m: ”'1". ". “.Dt‘: “ ‘31 \ 7 l’i 1%.)! 1.: {)1 h. I V 20 activity of the twelfth century Renaissance.7 Rediscovery of Classical Literature Fundamental to the advances of the twelfth century was the rediscovery of a significant quantity of the writings of classical antiquity. Through the expansion of commercial activity, the contacts with both Syria and Constantinople provided by the Crusades to the Holy Land, and the sustained contact of neighboring settlements (principally in Spain), the Latin west received from the Arabs and the Greeks many documents of classical learning hitherto unknown or unavailable to Christian scholars since the late patristic era.8 In addition, much of the remainder of Artistotle's Organon, his collection of logical and methodological treatises, resurfaced within western Europe. In the logica novum were the Prior Analytics, the Sophistica Elenchi, and the Topics, translated by Boethius (sometimes from an earlier version by Marius Victorinus).9 To this was added the Posterior Analytics, newly translated from Greek by James of Venice. Aristotle's metaphysical and scientific treatises also made their appearance in the area of study (as did several of Plato's dialogues) with far-reaching results. It would take until the next century for 7Knowles describes the "gradual accumulation of clearly (and therefore correctly) written books" as being "of inestimable value when the more comprehensive revival came two centuries later" (The Evolution of Medieval Thought, 76). 8Knowles, The Evolution of Medieval Thought, pp. 186-188; Fernand van Steenberghen, Aristotle in the west: The Origin of Latin Aristo- telianism, trans. L. Johnson (Louvain: E. Nauwelaerts, 1955) pp. 58-66. On the intellectual impact of the Aristotelian corpus, see also Steenberghen, The Philosophical Movement in the Thirteenth Century, pp. 19-55. 9See Henry Chadwick, Boethius: The Consolations of Music, Logic, lTheologyand Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981) pp. 133-141. . ' “of: O vb- 3911'” £1 :0: o ‘A . ' . a m 5.. ‘I-u. ". pk .- “0...; (E- I); ..A- .J.‘ :, ‘U ml; ., d' :- i“J‘.‘ :a \ \ v ‘ .y be ‘ ‘, "F: ‘ N ql' V ‘l *4 ~\ k." \. .‘ .‘ ,- X 1‘ xii." ‘ 21 careful attention to be given to each of these works, but already the new documents spurred reflection and discussion and attracted new readers. The result was the remarkable creativity of the twelfth-century schools, seen most concretely in the development of the universities. Of particular significance, especially for the subject of this paper, was the impact of Aristotle's Organon. The name indicates his own conception of the usefulness of the constituent writings. Logic and the scientific method and the other subjects covered served as instruments for the philosophical tasks. Particularly in light of the new availability of the treatises in which Aristotle applied these tools, the discussion of method stimulated the incorporation of his guidelines in all areas of study, including theology. It became a prime concern that the medieval departments of learning fulfill the philosopher's requirements for a science or discipline. As a result, theological scholarship changed irrevocably.lo Lectio Previously, theological study primarily took the form of commentaries, whether oral or written.11 Termed Lectio, it involved the the running exposition of a document (particularly Scripture).12 10For extended analysis of the influence of the scientific method upon theology, see Evans, Old Arts and New Theology, pp. 27-37 and YVes M. J. Congar, A History of Theology, trans. Hunter Guthrie (Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1968) 99- 85-143, especially 89-91. 11For a thorough discussion, see Smalley, The Study of the Bible: also see Evans, The Language and Logic of the Bible: The Earlier Middle Ages and more briefly, Congar, A History of Theology, pp. 50—68. 12See Smalley, The Study of the Bible, pp. 26-36, 196-213: Evans, The Earlier Middle Ages, pp. 8-10, 51-122: Congar, A History of ”190129! I p. 55. 22 "Lectio is the reading of the text with a commentary, either written in the margin and between the lines for convenient reference or given by a master as he expounded the text to his pupils in a lecture."13 Peculiaritites of grammar or style as well as difficulties of language or history were noted and points of significance were highlighted. Then the meaning of the passage was expounded and the reader passed on to the next portion. This comment was enhanced when possible by reference to the writings of the Fathers. These quotations would enrich the exposition by the quality of the comments themselves, but also by the weight which such auctoritas carried with the intended audience. The running commentary had many merits as a vehicle of teaching on the Bible. In its written form it allowed the individual reader to turn to the margin or the space between the lines of the book he was reading and find a difficult word or a grammatical construction explained, an extract from Gregory or Augustine to clarify a perplexing passige ready selected for him and conveniently placed to hand. Such commentaries or glosses were written by teachers of the Bible throughout Europe, in keeping with the characteristic practice of the 15 other disciplines. Each commentary had its own purpose and tone, "but running through this various and independent effort was steady work on the bread-and-butter task of compiling a complete gloss on the whole 16 Eventually termed the Glossa Ordinaria, it was known earlier simply as the Gloss.17 Bible." 13Evans, The Earlier Middle Ages, p. 8. 14Ibid. , p. 37. 15Smalley, The Study of the Bible, p. 52: Congar, A History of frheology, p. 55. 16Evans, The Earlier Middle Ages, p. 37. 17Smalley, The Study of the Bible, p. 56. A! I. It! 23 The biblical Glossa Ordinaria is a tremendous work. Each book begins with the prologue, or prologues, of St. Jerome together with other prefatory matter. The text is glossed, with yaryingadegrees of thickness, in the margin and between the ines. Though Anselm of Laon was "a central figure in the process of 19 bringing this work together and developing it," the Gloss Ordinaria is "a work of composite and uncertain authorship,"20 with a long line of contributors before Anselm and his school.21 Disputatio "One aspect of Lectio was "the discussion of the questions which arise in the exposition of difficult passages, and which prove to require fuller treatment than can be given in the course of the 22 lecture." Such disputatio, like lectio, had its heritage in the arts of grammar and rhetoric.23 Consequently, the early emphasis was upon points of grammar and logic in the text of Scripture. The emphasis upon logic or dialectics came to be used in a more elaborative way as well. In addition to "tunneling underneath the text" (as Smalley puts it) in an attempt to reconstruct the mind of the author, "dialectic could also be used for building up a new theological structure with the text as a 18Ibid. 19Evans, The Earlier Middle Ages, p. 41. 20Smalley, The Study of the Bible, 56. Evans refers to the "protracted collaborative labor“ involved in its composition (The Earlier Middle Ages, 37). 21See Smalley, The Study of the Bible, pp. 46-66 and the summary of the pre-Anselmian contributors in Evans, The Earlier Middle Ages, p. 38. 22 Evans, The Earlier Middle Agos, p. 8. 23Smalley, The Study of the Bible, pp. 69-72. 24 base."24 Such disputing had a broader range and a greater concern for the conceptual content of a text than the other type. It was, in short, theological in character. Nonetheless, it clearly had the Biblical text as its context. Though the precise details of the development are still unclear, the consensus among scholars is that disputatio was rooted in lectio. While prefacing her comments with the qualification that the relationship between the two activities is "difficult to disentangle," Smalley summarizes the process thusly: We are told that the disputation actually grew up within the framework of the lecture: the text and its glosses presented difficulties which master and pupils discussed at length:... 26 M.-D. Chenu agrees, stating that the disputing of questions "grew spontaneously on the surface of the text, the natural result of the literal and doctrinal difficulties presented by the text."27 In time, however (particularly in the second quarter of the twelfth-century), "these quaestiones multiply in number, in relation to the size of the commentary, and the use of dialectic increases this length. Each pupil enlarges upon his master."28 The result was that "the gasestio element in the commentary tended to grow at the expense of 29 the simple exposition. " Chenu observes that "in the normal course of 24Ibid., p- 72. zsIbid-I pp. 209—210. 261bid., p. 210. 27M.-D. Chenu, Nature, Man, and Society in the Twelfth Century: Essays on New Theological Perspectives in the Latin west, trans. Jerome Taylor and Lester L. Little (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968) p. 291. 28Smalley, The Study of the Bible, p. 73. 29 Ibid. 9V5 in. up ('1. I b’ r ‘3 25 events the 'question' grew further and further away from the text which had produced it in the first place, eventually to become a form unto itself, independent of the lggEio."30 According to Smalley, "the next stage, logically, is a commentary composed altogether of quaestiones, with no explanatory notes at all."31 This increasing concentration upon the quaestiones did not limit itself to the commentary literature, whether with or without explanatory notes. A critical step was taken when the quaestiones were arranged, not according to the textual order, but rather in a logical or systematic pattern. This signaled a fundamental change in orientation in theology. It is true, as Smalley notes, that "when lectures were given on the Sentences, the disputation was organized separately in connection with this book,"32 yet the essential element is that Lombard's Sentences were organized topically in contrast to the canonical pattern of the Biblical commentary. Thus, Chenu gives a more thorough account of the developments in the relationship between disputatio and lectio when he writes that in the twelfth century, this spontaneous development [of disputatio out of lectio] became systematic; i.e., because the curiosity of faith became so widespread and the use of dialectic gave such useful implements, the lector (reader commentator) began to pose questions technically, artificially on eagg proposition or at least on the important points of the text. Consequently, 30Chenu, Nature, Man and Society, p. 295. 31Smalley, The Study of the Bible, pp. 74-75. 32mm. , p. 209. 33Chenu, Nature, Man and Society, pp. 291-292. Yve: he 1 . all: 051 ‘ . 2134' 26 no longer was the question a spontaneous inquiry raised by an obscure point met in the text or in some teaching; it had become a deliberately and methodically applied tec§21que-— even where no difficulty to speak of had been met. Yves Congar summarizes the course of events: So in the last third of the twelfth century an evolution has come about in the teaching and conception of theology. Instead of relying principally on textual commentary, theology now, like any3gther science, consists in research initiated by a "question." The growing importance of the disputation of key topics unavoidably altered the nature of theology and theological education. Controversial or fundamental issues constituted the agenda by the intention and design of the theologians. No longer did they wait until the issue arose in a Biblical passage to address it. This is not to say that the text of Scripture and the task of commenting on it were abandoned. Commenting on Scripture (or at least the Gloss) remained an integral part of theological training. Of the six years which the aspiring theologian in the thirteenth century spent as a "simple auditor," four were taken up by Biblical commentary and the last two by lectures on Lombard's Sentences.36 In addition, the initial responsibility of a bachelor in theology was to funciton as a cursor biblicus.37 Nevertheless, the higher levels of theological education were increasingly devoted to disputations of various kinds. Even bachelors were responsible to take part in certain kinds of disputations. 34Ibidel p. 294. 35Congar, A History of Theology, p. 84. 36 Rashdall, The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages, 1,5».474. 37mm. , p. 475. an: tax E». 27 same; The growing importance of disputatio and questio culminated in the Summae which appeared in increasing numbers in the thirteenth century. Like the sentence literature, particularly Lombard's, this was topical rather than canonical in format. Furthermore, the topics were carefully disputed by the authors, as Lombard had done. However, the Summae represented a development beyond the Sentences or the commentaries on them by giving greater organizational freedom to the author. Individuals who were dissatisfied with the four books of the Sentences could create their own pattern.38 The "system" in the systematization of theology now was up to the theologian (within the limits of orthodox dogma). The corner had been turned, according to Chenu, when "problems and their solutions were no longer immediately associated with some text"39 (Lombard). At that point, "the age of the summa had arrived."40 The connection between the disputatio and the summae is obvious when we recognize that the articles of the latter are actually questions. The very structure of the summae incorporates the gpaestio format.41 38Chenu, Nature, Man and Society, pp. 298-299. 39 Ibid., p. 295. 4OIbid., See also Marcia Colish, "Teaching and Learning Theology in Medieval Paris" in Schools of Thogght in the Christian Tradition, ed. Patrick Henry (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984) pp. 115-116. For a concise summary of the summae including their relationship to the Sentence literature, see the New Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. "Sentences and Summae," by Palemon Glorieux. 41Congar, A History of Theology, p. 84; Baldwin, The Scholastic Culture of the Middle Ages, p. 84. 28 Quaestio The gasestio was "the characteristic act as well as the literary form" of scholastic theology: consequently the growing dominance of the gggestio as the pattern of theology was "the crucial step in the making 42 Therefore it is important for the purposes of this of scholasticism." paper to determine its basic character as well as the rationale and expectations of its development. Gilbert of Poitiers provides a careful definition of a question in his commentary on Boethius' De Trinitate: Ex affirmatione et eius contradictoria negatione questio constat. Non tamen omnis contradictio questio est. Cum enim altera contradictiones pars esse uera, altera uero nulla prorsus habere ueritatis argumenta uidetur...aut cum neutra pars ueritatis et falsitatis argumenta potest habere...tunc contradictio non est questio. Cuius uero utraquaBpars argumenta ueritutis habere videtur, questio est. Congar understands a question to involve "an opposition of 44 It is propositions whereby the mind is placed in a state of doubt." for this reason that Gilbert rejected the Opposition of propositions in which one was obviously true or both obviously false. In those cases, there was no doubt and thus no spur to inquiry. Only when each proposition of a pair "seemed to be true" was there an actual question. In those cases, there is a quest for a resolution, and not only a resolution, but an explanation for the resolution. Quaestio seemed to involve not merely "which proposition is correct?", but also "why is 42Chenu, Nature, Man, and Society, pp. 291-292. 43Gilbert of Poitiers, De Trinitate I, prologue, in The Commen- taries on Boethius, ed., N.M. Haring (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1966) p. 63. 44Congar, A History of Theology, p. 81. Later he gives another version: "A gagestio arises when two contradictory or contrary theses are both supported by arguments and a problem follows which the mind wishes to clarify" (ibid., p. 82). 29 there an apparently true proposition which in fact is not true?" or "why are there two apparently true propositions which also are apparently contradictory?" As Chenu states, questio involves "the search for causes and reasons."45 Questions thus were an attempt to give answers where there were none or to make an answer clear when it was ambiguous or to put to rest doubts or to refute error. They presupposed a dialogue, whether actual or possible, in which challenges or queries or confusions are present. At least two individuals were required and in fact the exchange might range throughout the intellectual world in its selection of conversation partners. In fact, it was not individuals who ultimately concerned the scholastics; rather it was the ideas which individuals espoused. It was the proposal of contradictory ideas which made the disputation significant. Accordingly, it soon did not matter whether an actual individual had proposed a contradictory proposition, only that such a proposition was possible. Similarly, it did not matter whether the theologian actually had met the individual proposing the contradictory thesis (e.g., a Muslim or Greek theologian or an Arab philosopher). The conflict of ideas (whether actual or possible, oral or written, with acquaintances or anonymous scholars) was the essence of the qggestio format and in turn, the essence of the scholastic method. It seems clear that the gpsestio did not have a medieval origin, having been used by patristic authors.46 I have sketched the general pattern of development from a subordinate, occasional aspect of lectio 45Chenu, Nature, Man, and Society, p. 303 468mlley, The Study of the Bible, p. 72: Chenu, Nature, Man, and Society, p. 291. 30 to an independent, programmatic, SOphisticated theological method. Yet, in view of the nature of questio (in its early form) as a spontaneous response to actual difficulties in the text, we should examine some of the key instances of this, particularly those which helped to give this procedure greater prominence. Correcting John of Salisbury's designation of Alberic of Reims as the originator, M.-D. Chenu has concluded that "the masters of Chartres, readers of the auctores, of the Timaeus, of Boethius, of the Bible, were surely the ones who got the new method going."47 Even granting that the school of Chartres existed in the form that Chenu implies, with a number of outstanding teachers (which points have been challenged by R. W. Southern48), there is reason to look elsewhere for the crucial stage or stages. Anselmlof Laon One likely candidate is Anselm of Laon (c. 1050-1117) who with his brother Ralph directed a monastic school in the early twelfth century. Anselm, a student of Anselm of Canterbury and a teacher of Abelard, directed what surely must be classified as one of the most significant schools in the Middle Ages. Beryl Smalley states that "it is at Laon that we find the first concerted effort toward theological systematization. The Summa Theologica traces its formal pedigree back 49 to Laon." David Luscombe notes that, although "from the doctrinal 47Chenu, Nature, Man and Society, pp. 292-293. 48R. w. Southern, "Humanism and the School of Chartres" in Medieval Humanism and Other Essays (New York: Harper and Row, 1970) pp. 61-85. 49Smalley, The Study of the Bible, p. 49. 31 viewpoint the school in general made little progress," yet "in relation to the organization of studies in the twelfth century the school was of 50 very great importance." The school's contributions to theological literature included not only fostering the production of the GlossSI, but also systematic arrangement of theological sentences from the Church Fathers.52 In fact, Congar regards the Sententiae of Anselm as "less a sort of Florilegium or a work constructed along the lines of the §§2§S§E§§.Of Lombard, but a foreshadowing of the great Summae.n53 Congar's grounds for this conclusion underline Anselm's importance for this study. He identifies Anselm's works as "the beginnings of the gagestio procedure, that is of dialectical debate."54 As James weisheipl describes it, the scholastic quaestio disputata seems to have arisen at Laon in the early 12th century from conflicting patristic interpre- tations of Scripture. Authorities pro and contra were disputed, noted insghe margin of the text, and a tentative solution proposed. 50David Luscombe, The School of Peter Abelard: The Influence of Abelard's Thogght in the Early Scholastic Period (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969) p. 173. For a qualified estimate of the existence and character of Anselm's School, see Valerie I. J. Flint, "The School of Laon: A Reconsideration," Recherche de Théologie ancienne et médievale 48 (1976) 89-110. 51Evans, The Earlier Middle Ages, p. 41; Luscombe, The School of Peter Abelard, p. 174. 52Luscombe, The School of Peter Abelard, pp. 173-174: Congar, A History of Theology, 9. 69: Maurice de wulf, History of Medieval Philosophy, Vol 1: From the Beginnings to the End of the Twelfth Centur , trans. Ernest C. Messenger (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, Ltd., 1952) p. 242. wulf identifies the outline as God in Himself: the Trinity: God as Creator: God as Redeemer. 53Congar, A History of Theology, p. 69. 54 Ibid 0 55New Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. "Scholastic Method," by James A. Weisheipl . RH 32 Luscombe agrees, noting that "Anselm and his school were not averse to the introduction of the ggaestio to biblical exegesis or to the reappraisal and the supplementation, when need arose, of patristic 56 tradition." Therefore, he concludes that "it is Anselm, not Abelard, who directed the first "scholastic" school of theology which enjoys a 57 This is so despite the solutions being 58 historical importance." "brief, often incomplete, occasionally omitted." A pattern exists in the various contributions of Anselm and his school. The involvement with the Egoss_indicates, at the least, a concern for the meaning of the text of Scripture, a concern to make the Bible clear to its students.59 The elemental character of many of the comments supports, rather than undermines, this fact, for it then maximizes its audience and serves to introduce the reader to a new enterprise. The accumulation of patristic citations can be seen in the same light. The concern for meaning increases the attractiveness of additional assistance, especially from such an authoritative quarter. The Sententiae and its successors, with the pro and contra arrangement, are an outgrowth of the careful and extensive knowledge of the Fathers' writings. Once the disparities are perceived, a reasonable response to the conflict of such authorities is the attempt at reconciliation. The topical compilation is an easily understood outgrowth of the patristic study. As the attention shifts more and more toward the study of the auctores, the topical grouping would present a 56Luscombe, The School of Peter Abelard, p. 174. 57Ibid. 58wu1f, History of Medieval Philosophy, 1:242. 59 Evans, The Earlier Middle Ages, pp. 42, 45-46. 33 more "internal" format than the Biblical order. Other than the authorial grouping (which had been the first form of SentencesGO), the topical arrangement is perhaps the most obvious alternative. This is particularly the case since the conflicts were doctrinal, and thus topical. While this reconstruction admittedly is hypothetical (and without arguing for an exact order of events), I am suggesting that the various activities do cohere conceptually. Each aspect seems to be a plausible undertaking, even practical, as it were. None seems intrusive or alien to the hermeneutical and theological task. Consequently, if Laon, under the leadership of Anselm and Ralph, does represent the first school characterized by the scholastic method of theology, then this reading of the evidence suggests that the new approach is at least plausible, even defensible. By no means is it obviously a distortion of, or an alien intrusion into, Christian theology. Despite the fundamental place of Laon in the history of scholasticism, there is reason to look back even further. There are earlier individuals whose example was formative for the later developments. Boethius One such individual was Boethius (480-524). As previously mentioned, the writings of this Roman patrician were an important foundation for the twelfth-century developments. The Opuscala Sacra in 6ONew Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. "Sentences and Summae," by Palemon Glorieux. 34 61 particular were significant. They were “established works, appropriate for classroom study and the source of an occasional proof-text."62 Though Gibson makes this observation while explaining the perceived unsuitableness of these writings for the practice of theology by twelfth-century theologians, such a description makes clear their attractiveness for Anselm of Laon. The school has been characterized as more pedagogical than creative63: hence the popularity of Boethius' theological writings. Of course, as Congar has indicated and Gibson has documented, Boethius' impact via his Opuscala Sacra extended beyond Laon.64 Most notable in the twelfth-century were the lengthy commentaries of Thierry of Chartres and his school and those of Gilbert of Poitiers.65 In the next century, Thomas Aquinas also wrote extensively on one treatise, E Trinitate.66 The logical translations and commentaries also exercised a 61Margaret Gibson, "The Opuscala Sacra in the Middle Ages" in Boethius: His Life, Thogght and Influence, ed. Margaret Gibson (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1981) p. 221: Grabmann, Die Geschicte der Scholastischen Methode, 1:163. 62Gibson, "The Opuscala Sacra", p. 221. 63 Evans, The Earlier Middle Ages, p. 221. 64Congar, A History of Theology, p. 69: Gibson, "The Opuscala Sacra," pp. 214-234: See also Chadwick, Boethius, p. 242: Evans, Old Arts and New Theolgy, pp. 211 24—251 3].: 9].: 99-1“): 1231 1997 204—2061 213. 65The Commentaries On Boethius oy Gilbert of Poitiers: Commentaries on Boethius by Thierry of Chartres and His School, ed. Nikolaus M. Haring (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1971). 66Sancti Thomae de Aquino Expositio super Librum Boetii de Trinitate, ed. Bruno Decker (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1959). 35 67 Their discussion of the significant influence upon medieval theology. various facets of the meaning and use of words served to spark an interest in logic, both for its own sake and as an instrument for use with other subject—matter. Along with the other disciplines, the new interest in dialectics was applied to theology as well. Yet in his Opuscala Sacra, Boethius not merely describes a scholastic method suitable for theology, but actually uses it. This is particularly crucial, it seems, as a chapter in the development of scholasticism. The theological tractates are five in number, apparently composed 68 individually. These writings sharply differ in style. Four them (1, 2,3,5) are topical and analytical. The other (De fide catholica) summarizes the Catholic faith by means of a review of the course of God's relationship to humanity, particularly the plan of redemption and 69 the promise of the Messiah. This heilsgeschicte approach to the Christian Faith (save for the opening identification and explanation of the true God) is noteworthy. First it vividly contrasts with the style of the remaining tractates. Second, it is so "unscholastic." It is historical, not topical. It is discursive, not analytical. Its central 67See, e.g., Gibson, "The Opuscala Sacra," p. 221: H. Liebschutz, "western Christian Thought from Boethius to Anselm" in The Cambridge Historygof Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy, ed. A. H. Armstrong (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967) pp. 600, 639; G. R. Evans, Anselm and a New Generation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980) p. 77: Osmund Lewry, "Boethian Logic in the Medieval west" in Boethius, ed. Gibson, pp. 90-134. 68For discussion of the text and circumstances of these tractates, see Chadwick, Boethius, ppl74—222: John Mair, "The Text of the Opuscala Scara" in Boethius, ed. Gibson, pp. 206-213. 69See Boethius, The Theological Tractates, ed., H. F. Stewart, E. K. Rand, and S. J. Tester in Boethius: The Theological Tractates and the Consolation of Philosophy, ed. H. F. Stewart, E. K. Rand, and S. J. Tester (Loeb Classical Library: Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973) pp.2-129. 36 focus is redemptive and the conclusion describes the personal benefits of Christianity. Its style has been termed "free, at times 70 rhapsodical." De fide catholica's uniqueness in the Boethian corpus militated against its acceptance at various points of its history, but the current consensus favors its authenticity.71 The themes are a prime factor contrasting the fourth tractate with the others. As mentioned De fide catholica is an historical summary of God's activity in creation, fall and redemption. Its breadth of scope yet clarity of purpose provided a criterion which accounts for the selectivity of its contents. Probably De fide catholica is the earliest of the tractates and was written by Boethius to crystallize in his own mind what John has taught him in catechesis. It has about it the air of someone trying to get the main points clear in a course of instruction which he has recentlyzassimilated and very much wants to imprint upon his own mind. Chadwick seems correct about the elementary character of the work. It is, as W. Bark has suggested, "a guide for bewildered laymen confused 73 by theological intricacies." At the least, it is suitable for such an audience. Chadwick is unduly hasty in dismissing such a description of a wider audience, stating in resonse to Bark, "if so, Boethius wrote it 74 for himself." That Boethius himself would have profited from such a solidifying, clarification of the chief points of Christianity as an 7OSee Mair, "The Text of the Opuscala Sacra," p. 208 for a brief summary and Chadwick, Boethius, pp. 180-190 for a fuller discussion. 71See Chadwick's summary in n. 7 on p. 302 of his Boethius. 721bid., p. 180. 73William Bark, "Boethius' Fourth Tractate, the So-called De fide catholica," Harvard Theological Review 39(1946)68. 74Chadwick, Boethius, p. 180. 37 historical religion need not mean that this was the sole purpose of composition. There is nothing demeaning or unworthy in such a survey and it surely would have had widescale usefulness in the Church of that (or any) day. Its virtue, rather than its flaw, is the brevity, clarity, and simplicity of its summary. In short, whatever the particulars of the occasion of its writing, the basic character is non-technical historical summarization. This contrasts with the origins of the other treatises, or at least the two which contain some indications of Boethius' reasons for writing them. The fifth treatise (Contra Eutychen et Nestorium) includes as part of its heading the notation that it was addressed to Boethius' "saintly master and reverend father, John the Deacon," perhaps later Pope John 1.75 The opening pages recount how both men were present when a letter from the Eastern bishops to Pope Symmachus was read to a 76 The bishops were attempting to plot a gathering of notables in Rome. course which avoided both the Eutychian and Nestorian heresies and also would be acceptable to the West. The point at issue is described by Boethius: Eutychianos ex duabus naturis Christum consistere confiteri, in duabus negare: catholicos vero utrique dicto fidem praebere, nam et ex duabus eum naturis consistere et in duabus apud verae fidei sectatores aequaliter credi. When Boethius inquired as to the differences between unions of two natures and those in two natures, the immediate response of the gathering was to insist tumultously that there was no difficulty in 7SIbid. , pp. 26-29. 76Chadwick, Boethius, pp. 180-190: Mair, "The Text of the Opuscala Sacra, " p. 208. 77Boethius, The Theological Tractates, p. 72. 38 perceiving the obvious difference. Unable to discern the viewpoint of a certain respected member of the gathering, Boethius afterwards left without an answer to his question. However, he was convinced of the ignorance yet feigned learning of the speakers. Consequently, he continued his reflection until he found what he thought was an answer. This is now explained to John for his evaluation. Similarly, the third tractate (Quomodo Substantiae) is in response to a request (from John?78) for a statement and explanation of "eius quaestiones obscuritatem," in a now lost treatise of Boethius', Hebdomadibus, "how substances are good in virtue of their existence without being substantial goods." Both of these treatises treat single subjects in response to some confusion concerning them. As a result, the works are precise, analytical, detailed, with varying degrees of technicality. They are, in brief, "scholastic." The third tractate even follows the example of mathematics by setting forth a list of preliminary axioms from which the discussion will be developed. Though the first two tractates (De Trinitate and Utrum Pater et Filius) give no indication of the circumstances behind their composition (other than being addressed, respectively, to Boethius' father-in—law Symmachus and John the Deacon), both indicate in their opening lines that they concern questions. The first opens with "investiggtam diutissime quaestionem" while the second begins "Quaero." This clearly marks them out as being analytical investigations of precise topics. Each is involved in its argumentation and closely reasoned. They too are "scholastic . " 78Chadwick, Boethius, p. 203. 39 Boethius thus wrote in two different styles. He did so to accommodate divergent subject-matter and audiences. When appropriate, he could write simply and historically, almost devotionally. On the other hand, he could write intricate analyses of sophisticated topics. The first seem intended for the more general audience of the Church, or at least for the novices in the Church. The latter are for the learned leadership and are called forth by the existence of perplexing doctrinal issues in the Church or the Church's teaching. At least in Boethius' case, the investigations we possess are either elicited by pressing circumstances or requests from others or by a conceptual puzzle inherent in ecclesiastical dogma. Those in the latter category which Boethius addressed are by no means trivial or irrelevant. Rather, they are fundamental, even crucial. They were so important in his estimation that Boethius thought it essential to clarify them in the interest of orthodoxy. Later generations of Christians indeed profited from his 79 terminological precision and conceptual clarity. Thus Boethius' methodological innovations80 had at least plausible bases and had beneficial effects. Here too the origins of scholasticism seem justifiable. Anselm A second individual whose example was formative upon theological (developments in the twelfth-century was Anselm of Bec and Canterbury 79Laistner, Thought and Letters in Western Europe, p. 87. 80Wulf, History of Medieval Philosophy, 1:112: Rand, Founders of the Middle Years, p. 151. 40 (1033-1109). However, his influence did not take the form which we might expect. That is, his writings were not used and copied by multitudes of teachers and students in the immediately succeeding generations. Anselm as an author was not in great demand, as surprising as that seems to us.81 In fact, R. w. Southern suggests that a primary explanation for this neglect was the unsuitableness of Anselm's method for twelfth—century theology: He wrote for a monastic, and not for a sceptical or an academic audience, and his arguments cannot be taken from their context and quoted as definitive. In the Schools this was a hindrance to the growth of his influence: and even in the monasteries of the twelfth-century Anselm's influence was soon overtaken by the growing strength of School theology. Textual commentary, the compilation and arrangement of extracts, and the discussion of their points of difference made no appeal to him....Anselm did not inaugurate or advance a method of study suitable for the schools and capable of being developed methodically by those who came after hig2 He stood aside from the intellectual fashions of his time. This would suggest that perhaps Anselm was not in fact a formative exemplar for scholastism. However, Southern later clarifies the sense in which Anselm "stood aside from the intellectual fashions of his time." All his utterances, whether in Chapter or at table, in formal sermons or in remarks casually elicited, have a quality which reflects the meeting of the Benedictine and scholastic ages. They are a combination of old and new: of old, in the monastic setting and range of monastic topics: of new, in the penetrating analysis, the agriking definitions and the unfamiliar illustrations." 81Evans, Anselm and a New Generation, p. 7. 82R. W. Southern, St. Anselm and His Biographer: A Study of Monastic Life and Thought 1059-c.ll30 (Cambridge: Cambridge University fleas: 1963) pp- 1211 204. 83mm. , p. 217. 41 "The penetrating analysis": here Southern identifies Anselm's principle significance for the development of scholasticism, for this phrase encompasses both of the others. Evans observes that "he is happiest where he can show most plainly how one truth implies another: no techical skill available to him was so helpful in this connection as that of definition."84 The careful definition of terms, however, is but one aspect of Anselm's primary activity of analysis. "His main aim" was "the task of understanding the ideas directly linked to religious 85 86 doctrine." He "unflaggingly" pursued "the rationale of revelation." Of the many sources of Anselm's thought,87 Boethius is most important for this analytical work, especially by his logical writings.88 G. R. Evans' Anselm and a New Generation is devoted to a discussion of this balancing act of Anselm's which Southern has noted. Anselm's combination of old and new accounted for both his influence and for his lack of influence upon subsequent theologians. Anselm's emphasis upon analysis, aided by a careful appropriation of dialectical skills, was new. It meant that his writings focused upon problems, often raised by 84Evans, Anselm and Talking about God, p. 7. See also Lewry, "Boethian Logic in the Medieval west,fip. 100: "Much of Anselm's writing in characterized by the conscious adoption of the technical language of the logician, to avoid the pitfalls of ordinary speech." 85H. Liebeschutz, "Western Christian Thought from Boethius to Anselm" in The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy, ed. A. H. Armstrong, p. 622. 86Jasper Hopkins, A Companion to the Study of St. Anselm (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1972) p. 54. 87 See ibid., pp. 16—37 for a discussion of this. 88Lewry, "Boethian Logic in the Medieval West," p. 100: Evans, Anselm and Talking of God, 6: Hopkins, A Companion to the Study of St. Anselm, pp. 28-30. 42 others.89 For instance, the Monologion and Proslogion were written in response to the entreaties of the monks at Bec. De Incarnatione Verbi was elicited by the heretical teaching of Roscellinus (c.1050-c.1122) and requested by fellow monks. De Conceptu Virginali is a response to the desires of his "brother and most beloved son Boso." De Processione Spiritus Sancti was called for by Pope Urban II as a result of Anselm's remarks to the council of Bari in 1098 and was a response to the Greeks' continued rejection of the filiogge. Likewise De Sacramentis is a "defense of the true doctrine" against the Greek, which was requested of Anselm by Walram, Bishop of Naumberg. This concentration upon controversies culminates in Anselm's use of the ggaestio format.90 De Concordia is overtly structured into three questions. De Incarnatione Verbi makes repeated references to quaestiones as a description of the present undertaking (e.g., at least six times in chapter one alone). It also carries on a running debate with an opponent (Roscellinus) as indicated by phrases such as "perhaps my opponent will say to me" (chapter 6) or "there are some who ask" (chapter 11) or "if my opponent objects" (chapter 13). This is the language of disputatio. Both traits are also present in De Conceptu Virginali. Finally, De Sacramentis addresses a series of questions as well, though not as overtly as De Concordia. All of this was formative upon the twelfth—century developments. 89Evans, Anselm and Talking About God, pp. 196—199. 90See ibid., pp. 195—196. See also HOpkins, A Companion to the Study of St. Anselm, pp. 5-8, where he discusses the develOpment in method between Anselm's earlier and later writings, so that the final ones foreshadow "in a primitive way" Aquinas' Summa Theologiae. 43 On the other hand, Anselm was outside the mainstream in his limited use of auctores, whether Scripture or the Fathers.91 This contrasted sharply with the later penchant for Sentence collections. Perhaps the most fundamental difference was in the conception of theology. When Anselm embarked upon the quest for a solution to a problem, he confidently expected to find one, and indeed one which would be clear and certain and to which all other aspects of the question would be subordinate.92 It was the attainment, more than the quest itself, which gave the most satisfaction to him and which was the value in the undertaking. Moreover, when Anselm encountered a person who held a mistaken opinion instead of this clear and certain answer, he assumed that persuading this person to change his views was relatively easy. Anselm took the optimistic view that if a man who held a mistaken opinion had his error reasonably explained to him, and if he listened to the explaggtion with a receptive mind, he would be cured of his error. In contrast, later thinkers tended to be less optimistic about the tidiness of the intellectual arena. Problems might resist resolution or yield only complex or tentative ones.94 When answers were available, attempts to persuade opponents had no guarantee of success.95 Where Anselm saw orderliness and thus could penetrate to the heart of an issue, subsequent scholars found a proliferation of problems, which 91Hopkins, A Companion to the Study of St. Anselm, p. 8 92Evans, Anselm and a New Generation, p. 172. 93Ibid., viii. 94Ibid., p. 172. gsIbidOI pt 71. 44 could not be reduced to an orderly pattern.96 It seems that Anselm, by his attention to controversies and his careful analysis of them by the powers of dialectics, set a pattern for others. However, having started them on their way, he was unable to convince them of the brevity and simplicity of the journey. They started, as he had suggested, but found the way to be tough going, involved and lengthy, but immensely satisfying in its own right. Anselm was a formative influence in the inauguration of this analytical method for theological problems, but he clearly "stood apart" from his successors in the way they developed the method. While Boethius and Anselm of Canterbury were two significant pioneers of the emergent scholasticism institutionally manifested at Laon, Peter Abelard and Peter Lombard were two of its most prominent twelfth—century successors. In them, and in Abelard particularly, we see represented the development of that mainstream from which St. Anselm stood apart. Abelard Abelard (lO79-ll42), though the subject of widely divergent evaluations by his contemporaries, clearly ranked as a figure of great significance. His conclusions on several important doctrinal issues partly explain his prominence, but perhaps the fundamental reason is his contribution to the development of theological method. Abelard's methods are generally agreed to have proved an inestimable stimulus upon twelfth-century thinking. The powerful advocacy of reason, the development of the gggestio in biblical exegesis, the propagation of techniques for 96mm. , vii-viii . r— - F\ ft in. .hil :& ~ 45 harmonizing concepts, propositions and the documents of the faith by a dialectical hermeneutic, have assured for Abelard an exceptional place of honour in the history of the twelfth- century revival. Few would contest Abelard's right to a "place of honor" among twelfth-century theologians, but there is some question as to the degree of originality with which he can be credited. Just how much of a pioneer was he? was he an inventor or was he a refiner and developer of others' innovations? The debate focuses primarily upon his Sic et Non. It is clear by now that Abelard cannot be credited with beginning the practice of pr_o et contra collections of the teachings of the Fathers. Anselm of Laon, at least, preceded him in this. Moreover, the qgaestio method, in addition to its patristic roots, was used by Boethius and both Anselms before Abelard wrote. Others also had gained competency in dialectics and then applied it to the study of theology. In none of these areas is Abelard an innovator. In addition, Martin Grabmann has suggested some qualification of the credit for the growth of scholasticism which is given to Abelard's Sic et Non: Wir mfissen vielmehr der Sic-et-non-Methode Abalards einen Koeffizienten beigeben, dessen Aktivitat die Ausgestaltung der scholastischen Lehr-und Darstellungsmethode wesentlich beeinflusst hat. Dieser Koeffizient ist die logica nova. Yet, having denied to Abelard the claim to innovation or decisive influence in scholasticism's development, we still must grant him a unique contributory role. 97Luscombe, The School of Peter Abelard, p. 113. 98Grabmann, Die Geschicte der Scholastischen Methode, 2:219—220. 46 True, the method of collecting and arranging passages from the Fathers on Specific topics had been used before, as in the Sentences of Anselm of Laon, but Abelard gave it a pungency and aggide popularity which associate it permanently with his name. Though others had addressed the doctrinal conflict of the authorities, Abelard, in his Sic et Non, introduces the problem of the agreement of authorities into the heart of the theological method andlgéve [sic] it a technical form of great precision. It was no longer merely one of several aspects of theological activity, but the centerpiece, the means by which issues were presented, dialectical skills sharpened, and Christian truth communicated. Quaestio and disputatio thereby strengthened their grip upon theological education. This gives Abelard his place of honor-not the introduction of these methods nor the final, decisive push to ascendancy over alternative modes of theology, but rather a powerful demonstration of them which promoted their adoption by others. Haskins summarizes Abelard's procedure in the Sic et NOn: His method was to take significant topics of theology and ethics and to collect from the Fathers their opinions pro and con, sharpening perhaps the contrast andlBiing careful not to solve the real or seeming contradiction. "Sharpening but not solving": Herein lay the cause for alarm for many church leaders when they read (or at least heard about) this work. Even though Abelard's intention seemed to be to make the task of 102 reconciliation "the cornerstone of his work," Sic et NOn was "not 99Charles Homer Haskins, The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927) pp. 353-354. 100Congar, A History of Theology, p. 72. 101Haskins, The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century, p. 354- 102Luscombe, The School of Peter Abelard, p. 214. 47 well received."103 The reconciliation, to be sure, was not included by Abelard: rather, because the book was intended for students, solutions were to be discerned by them through close analysis of the words and arguments of the citations. There is good reason to be confident of Abelard's orthodox affirmation of the truthfulness of the Church's writings, but he apparently regarded the inclusion of answers in the textbook as pedagogically inappropriate. In the prologue, he explained the principles for handling the conflicting statements.104 First, students must determine whether the statements which appear to contradict the truth come from authentic writings of the Fathers. Second, they should ask whether the statement was later retracted or was fragmentary or questionable or whether, on the other hand,il:was presented as a definitive affirmation. Also, readers should ascertain the exact nature of the obligation involved in the statements, i.e., is one only temporary or limited to a particular group or subject to later modification? Again, identical terms may be used with different meanings. Finally, after careful comparison, if the contradiction still remains, the weightier and better established authority should be given priority. In Abelard's estimation, the effort expended in such detailed study greatly profited the student. The clear realization of the conflict between authorities engaged the mind, raising the questions of which was correct and why. This questioning led to investigation which in turn led to the discovery of truth. "Dubitando quippe ad inquisitionem 103Justo L. Gonzalez, A History of Christian Thought, 2:169. 104See Grabmann, Die Geschichte der Scholastischen Methode, 2:200- 203 for an analysis of the prologue which provides the basis for the present summary. 48 venimus; inquirendo veritatem percipimus."105 Despite the initial opposition, soon most students and teachers had to agree with this, even if they disagreed as to what the truth was which they had found.106 Peter Lombard The last individual to be noted, Peter Lombard (1095-1160), apparently was quite opposite to Abelard in personal and professional character. The Lombard's temperament was conservative and harmonizing, eschewing the "garrulities of the dialecticians," and softening and reconciling the differences and disagreements to a degree that made the "Magister Sentiatiarum" the standard authority for many centuries to come. . Luscombe describes him as "a cautious, sober and apparently dull expositor."108 Not surprisingly, in light of this, his Libri guattuor Sententiarum was scarcely daringly creative. Most analyses agree on its borrowed, conservative character. He imitates and often copies Abelard, Hugh of St. Victor, the Sententiae divinitatis, Alcher of Liege, and many others: he takes his patristic and conciliar texts from Gratian: he makes use of the classifications and certain of the ideas of the 2g_ 105Peter Abailard, Sic et Non: A Critical Edition, ed. Blanche B. Boyer and Richard McKeon (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977) p. 103. 106Gonzalez, A History of Christian Thought, 2:170. 107 Haskins, The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century, p. 357. 108Luscombe, The School of Peter Abelard, p. 262. For more extensive studies of Lombard, see Philippe Delhaye, Pierre Lombard: sa wie, ses oeuvres, et sa morale (Montreal: Institut d'Etudes Médiévales, 1961) and Dictionaire de Theologie Catholiqgg, s.v. "Pierre Lombard" by Joseph de Ghellinck. 49 Fide Orthodoxa of St. John Diagscene...: he is greatly influenced by St. Augustine. He is always timid, always modest, and some of his conclusions are intentionally stated quite vaguely. His humility and modesty are summed up admirably in the rather discouraged words at the end of one distincEiBn, "If anyone can explain this better, I am not envious." Nevertheless, "it is becoming increasingly recognized that Peter Lombard engaged fully in the disputes of his time, particularly 111 In this latter dispute as in concerning the teachings of Gilbert." others, Lombard aligned himself with Bernard of Clairvaux. So strong was the affinity between these two individuals that St. Bernard has been described as the one "who set Peter Lombard on his way as a theologian": Lombard was "St. Bernard's positive contribution to the development of scholastic theology."112 Though Lombard taught at the School of Notre Dame and at the end of his life served as Bishop of Paris, his principal contribution to theology was the Sentences. Despite its borrowings (often at secondhand) and lack of novel treatments of doctrine, this work had real value as a textbook: ...his work forms an excellent systematization inspired by a division of the material into res and siggg: it provides schemes and subjects for lectures, excludes all imprudent curiosity and deals with all the questions at issue without 109Wulf, History of Medieval Philosophy, 1:246. For a discussion of his sources, see Magistri Petri Lombardi Sententiae in IV Libris Distinctae, 3rd ed. (Rome: Collegii S. Bonaventurae Ad Claras Aquas, 1971) Vol. 1, Pt. 1: Prolegomena, pp. 118-122. 110Elizabeth Frances Rogers, Peter Lombard and the Sacramental System (New York: n.p., 1917: Reprint, Merrick, NY: Richwood Publishing Company, 1976) p. 64. 111 Luscombe, The School of Peter Abelard, p.262. 112R.w. Southern, The Making of the Middle Ages (New Haven: Yale lJniversity Press, 1953) p. 262. 50 succeeding in harmonizing completely the divergent authoritifi3 All this explains the astonishing celebrity of the work. Rogers' evaluation is similar: The Middle Ages needed a theological compendium and Peter Lombard gave the best in the period. He had a gift for compilation and system, and for conciseness and clearness. With the exception of a few statements he was rigorously orthodox and his orthodoxy secured the almost immediate success of his work. The impersonal treatment made it suitable for commentary by professor and student, and so made it invaluable as a textbook. The very fact that he had not drawn definite conclusipas encouraged the study of the problems he presented. In particular, Yves Congar singles out Lombard's via media approach as the prime factor in its success.115 There seems, though, to be a hint of criticism in Congar's comment when he there describes Lombard as "graciously conciliating the authorities." Lombard clearly intends to proffer at least tentative resolutions of the various conflicts and he is just as clearly a conservative on most theological issues, but the two are not equivalent nor even essentially related. After all, Abelard too intended reconciliation as the outcome of the analysis of the pro et contra lists of authorities. He certainly tended toward more radical solutions to these difficulties, but he was as committed to the fundamental unity of the doctrinal authorities as was Lombard. It must be admitted, however, that the more conservative cast of the Sentences and the inclusion of resolutions, however tentative, did much to spare 113mm, History of Medieval philosophy, 1:246. For a similar assessment, see New Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. "Peter Lombard," by Ignatius C. Brady. 114Rogers, Peter Lombard and the Sacramental System, pp. 76-77. 115Congar, History of Theology, p. 57. 51 Lombard the degree of criticism which Abelard faced.116 The Sentences differ from Sic et Non in another way as well. Not only has Lombard collected the conflicting statements of the authori- ties, but he has organized them systematically. The sophistication and overtness of this system distinguishes the work from its predecessors. The Sentences are divided into four books: The Trinity, the Creation, the Incarnation and Redemption, and the Sacraments and Eschatology. An even more basic division is its Augustinian distinction of res and signis.117 According to that Father, all doctrine concerns either one or the other. Books one through three treat rps_whi1e book four on the sacraments treat signs. The first three books of rp§_are divided further into those which are loved for their own sake and those which are loved for another's sake. The Triune God occupies the first category and all other substances fall into the second classification.118 However, this structure is not carried out in the details of the work (the sacraments being the only signs). Consequently, the actual structure is somewhat different. Grabmann cites approvingly Aquinas' analysis of the Sentences as emphasizing God as the beginning from which all creation proceeds and the end toward which it tends.119 The 116See, though, the brief summary of the opposition which he did face, in New Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. "Peter Lombard." 117Grabmann, Die Geschichte der Scholastischen Methode, 2:364. See Augustine, Christian InstrucEiOn, trans. John Gavigan in Saint Augustine, Christian Instruction: Admonition and Grace: Christian Combat; Enchiridion, 2nd ed.: Fathers of the Church Vol. 2 (washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1950) pp.'28-29. 118Grabmann, Die Geschichte der Scholastischen Methode, 2:364. 119 Ibid. 52 significance of this structure is mitigated somewhat with the realization that any doctrinal treatment which begins with creation and ends with eschatology (including the Scriptures) can be similarly characterized. History itself goes from beginning to consummation. Nevertheless, such a scope is noticeably absent in Abelard's Sic et NOn, for instance. Aquinas' description, then, is important because it, perhaps indirectly, underscores the conceptual completeness of the Sentences, one of the notable advances of this work. By its thoroughness (more than nine hundred capitula on most of the aspects of Christian theology), the Sentences complete the preparation for the scholasticism of the next century issuing in the many Summae. It addresses disputes, it ranges the authorities on both sides, it attempts clarification and reconciliation, all within an inclusive, logically developed format. None of this seems objectionable. We need not endorse Lombard's particular selection of questions nor the relative space allowed to various parts to recognize the value of the arrangement and method of the Sentences as a whole. conclusion Several observations can be made on the basis of this survey of medieval scholasticism. The distinguishing characteristic is the gppestio, with its emphasis upon disputation and distinction for the purpose of reconciliation. The origins are not medieval, for these practices existed in the patristic period as well. While the medieval theologians surely gave greater prominence to them, the practices themselves were not innovations on their part. The evaluative question regarding medieval scholasticism therefore concerns the propriety of the 53 increased emphasis upon these procedures, not the propriety of the creation of them. The explanation for the development of the reconciliation of questions by disputation and distinction is a complex of several factors.120 The first, and perhaps most surprising, is the practical nature of the scholastic developments. That is, the growth and expansion of the scholastic method was a response to felt needs within theology and theological education. Far from being a theoretically devised or abstractly conceived approach to theology, the increasingly elaborate scholastic procedures were an attempt to obviate certain pressing problems. These problems fall into two categories. One pressing problem was the conflict of authorities on doctrinal matters.121 In an age when the study of any discipline principally consisted of "reading" an authoritative text and providing commentary, authoritative conflict represented a fundamental problem. This was particularly the case in theology where the status of the authorities was enhanced by the conviction of divine sanction for their teachings. The prima facie discrepancies within or between Scripture, the Councils, and the Fathers only increased in number as the quantity of available documents and scholarly activity grew. Whether for scholar or student, such conflicts could not be ignored. Some account had to be given for them in order for theological activity to continue. To avoid the (discrepancies would have been obsurantistic. To declare them only 120Much of Evans, Anselm and a New Generation and especially idem., (Old Arts and New Theology elaborates the factors accounting for the developing scholasticism. 121See Evans, The Earlier Middle Ages, pp. 133-139. Regarding Scriptural paradoxes, see R. W. Southern, "Medieval Humanism" in Medieval Humanism and Other Essays, pp. 47-48. 54 apparent but not actual required investigation and explanation, whether linguistically or conceptually. To opt for one side or the other was a serious step requiring careful deliberation and clear warrant. Each alternative involved close analysis of the texts. Several of these options involved distinctions. The texts themselves created the disputation, as it were. It is difficult to find grounds for criticizing this development. The task of reconciliation forced itself upon the scholars by the nature of the conflicting material. Distinctions of various kinds are obvious means of dissipating the disputes. It seems that the failure to recognize or address the conflicts would be the culpable act, instead of the reverse. This is not to say that the medievals exercised an infallible judgment in the identification, much less the solution, of the particular disputes, but merely to grant the fundamental clarity and honesty of the overall project. In addition to this "internal" problem of the conflict of the authoritative sources of orthodoxy, theologians also faced the "external“ pressure created by the teachings of heterodox movements and non-Christian religions.122 Groups such as the Catharii and the waldensians within and the Jews and Moslems without fostered "the twelfth-century urge to sharpen and point the differences, to make it quite plain to ordinary people where dissidents from the orthodox view" 123 Conversely, the challenge to the truth of were "in error." Christianity on rational and ethical grounds by these groups forced the elaboration of the warrant for Christian dogma. 122See Evans, Old Arts and New Theology, pp. 137-166, especially 141, 151, 166. See also Southern, "Medieval Humanism," pp. 11-12. 123 Evans, Old Arts and New Theology, p. 137. 55 Such a task involved linguistic and conceptual distinctions similar to those used for the purpose of reconciliation. Blunting the accusations of irrationality and immorality required the analysis of the opposition's arguments in order to identify the flaws. It also required the analysis and elaboration of arguments supporting Christian theology. Here too dispute was forced upon theological scholarship. The threat to faith by heresy and false religion demanded a response. To be effective, the response needed rigor and substance which could come only by sophisticated linguistic and conceptual analysis of the arguments pg pruppprrp. Again, there seems to be no grounds for indicting medieval scholars in their development of the disputational academic format in light of this pressing pastoral and missionary situation. Even the conclusion that these other doctrinal systems did not in fact constitute threats to Christians or to Christian theology could only be reached by careful comparison of the teachings. The medieval Church showed no inclination toward such thinking, as many contemporary theologians do, but if it had, it would have required the conciliatory methods of scholastic disputation to substantiate it. A second factor accounting for the growth of scholasticism was the growing maturity of the exegetical skills of the theologians. The twelfth century, in particular, saw a rapid growth in the trivium arts of grammar, rhetoric and dialectic. When this renewed knowledge of language was applied to theological texts, the range of hermeneutical options increased markedly.124 Theologians well-versed in the artes now understood the variety of uses which a given grammatical construction could have. This inevitably lengthened the exegetical task as each 124s... ibid., pp. 57-90, especially 73, 78- 56 alternative was considered. It also brought more views of a passage to light, resulting from the choice and implementation of the various linguistic possibilites. This wealth of competing views to be evaluated and sorted made disputation a valuable method. The process of distinguishing and/or reconciling enabled the theologian to arrive at a conclusion regarding the meaning of the text. Even if a traditional interpretation retained its hold, it had to repel the objections of the many newer views. The maturing process also included dialectics and philOSOphy. These skills led to increased speculatio, that is, "abstract thought, purposeful, investigative thought which is governed by consciously-held principles concerning apprOpriate methods and apposite modes of speech.”125 Though not utterly distinct from the study of the Bible,126 such thought was gaining significance in its own right throughout the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.127 Indebted to Boethius both for definition and model,128 theologians found this method productive of possibilities to be explored and resolutions to be expounded. Such conceptual SOphistication proved useful for disputation. It also placed more emphasis upon quaestiones as topics for conceptual analysis so that even non-disputed points of doctrine became the objects of theological study, perhaps as potentially disputed . 129 issues. 1251bid. , p. 99. 126Ibid0 I p: , 92. 127Ibid., p. 99. See also Colish, "Teaching and Learning Theology in Medieval Paris," p. 109. 128Evans, Old Arts and New Theology, p. 92. 129Chenu, Nature, Man, and Society, p. 294. 57 These factors are summarized by G. R. Evans, who notes that "a complex of influences is at work" in the twelfth century. Upon the foundation laid by the study of the Bible a great structure was going up, as scholars strove to build a solid edifice of academic theology from the mass of materials they had to hand. Into the building went the technical skills they were learning from their study of the liberal arts and ancient philosophy. And into the design went a number of features whicpgoit was hoped, would serve to keep heretical doctrines out 0 When these factors combined in particular cases, they could yield very different results. In the midst of the commonality of the disputational procedures of scholastic theology, there was great variety of conclusions upon individual questions as well as of overall systems. Scholasticism was not monolithic.131 In the twelfth-century, Anselm of Laon, Abelard, and Peter Lombard evidence this. Similarly, Alexander of Hales, Robert Grosseteste, Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas, John Pecham, and John Duns Scotus in the next century demonstrate it. Though they shared many common concerns both of method and content, the scholastics found ample room for diversity. Creativity rather than predictability characterized the leading thinkers of this movement. They could address different topics, quote different authorities, and arrange the material in different configurations with different analyses of the fundamental nature of Christian theology. The results were remarkably pluriform. Summarizing the factors promoting scholastic development and the divergence of implementation, Marcia Colish observes, Apology thus joined with an expanded curriculum of secular arts and sciences and a deeper reading of the Church Fathers to promote a widespread interest in the twelfth century in defining and comparing different modes of knowledge and in situating theological knowledge and theological language in a 130Evans, Old Arts and New Theology, p. 214. 58 broad philosophical context. While agreeing on the need, indigidual thinkers and groups disagreed on how best to meet it. Emaluation I have suggested already that there is no compelling reason to regard these developments as regrettable. Scholastic methods in theology are not essentially deleterious. James Weisheipl's description of the disputation format highlights its virtues: The master's exposition was not simply an exegesis, but an intellectual grappling with real problems examined by the author. To understand a particular problem, words, ideas, and realities had to be clearly defined, distinguished, and examined from all sides. Recognition of a problem meant appreciation of all problems sic et non, i.e., for and against a specific questions. Such questions could arise from the text, conflicting interpretations, doubtful splgtions, or new insights: these gave rise to the disputation. Such procedures strengthened theology's capacity for analysis and reconciliation. They yielded real profit in increased clarity and depth of understanding. As a result, "The strength of this period lay in its power to deal with discordant texts, to seize on distinctions of 134 The disputations meaning, and to clarify confusions of thought." over various questions advanced theological understanding, rather than distracting it. As Southern puts it, "friction is necessary for intellectual progress" in this period, and "theology provided the 131Chenu, Nature, Man, and Society, pp. 289-291. 132Colish, "Teaching and Learning Theology in Medieval Paris," pp. 109-110. 133New Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. "Scholastic Method," by James A- weisheipl. 134Southern, "Medieval Humanism," p. 45. 59 friction necessary for the develOpment of independent thought."135 The gppestio format provided the vehicle for orderly and productive friction, marshalling the new information on theological topics from within and without the Church, and evaluating its relative merits and mutual relationships. The end product of such sorting, the conciliation of disparate sources, quieted doubts, silenced accusations, advanced understanding, and made the intellectual arena more orderly and thus more accessible, particularly to students, but also to scholars. Though the method, and thus the movement associated with it, is commendable ppr pp and could be greatly beneficial, in the hands of the small-minded or the unskilled, it yielded little profit. Petty, irrelevant issues could consume vast amounts of energy. Recognition of this possibility (and of its actualization, particularly in the later Middle Ages) is widespread among scholars. Chenu describes the qppestio as "a scholarly formality that risked taking technique as an end to itself, while losing sight of the real goals in studying the text."136 Similarly, "Scholastics, preferring to dispute subtle questions rather than to comment on the Bible, made dialectics an end in itself, divorced 137 They engaged in "excessive, futile use of dialectics," leading to the decline of scholasticism.138 They even from patristic sources." incurred the wrath of the humanists in the Renaissance because of "an 1351mm, pp. 45. 47. 136Chenu, Nature, Man, and Society, p. 294. 137New Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. "Dialectics in the Middle Ages," by P. Michaeud-Quantin and James A. Weisheipl. 138 Ibid. 60 extreme penchant for subtle questions, principally ripsophismatibus."139 Armand Maurer grants that "the scholastic style degenerated into dullness and pedantry at the end of the Middle Ages," even though it was "one of the most remarkable instruments" which philosophers and theologicans have ever had.140 In an extended "evaluation of theology in the scholastic period," Yves Congar lists three problems with the application of the scholastic method to theology: "The excessive domination of a method too exclusively rational and logical," "the danger of useless subtlety," and "the danger of crystallization into petrified systems."141 Scholastic theology unquestionably presented numerous lamentable examples of the method. Yet these arguably were abuses of the method rather than manifestations of the essential character of the method itself. Moreover, even the most noteworthy practitioners fell short occasionally in the course of a particular work. The defense of scholastic theology in no way requires a canonization of each and every attempt nor of any individual work in its entirety. Nevertheless, when all such qualifications are made, the scholastic method with its emphasis upon the disputation of questions should be regarded as a positive development in the history of theology. This analysis obviously contrasts to Brian Armstrong's widely used characterization of scholasticism in its Protestant form.142 139New Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. "Scholastic Method," by James A. Weisheipl. 140Etienne Gilson, ed. A History of Philosophy, 4 vols. (New York: Random House, 1962), vol. 2: Medieval Philosophy, by Armand Maurer,;L.90. 141 Congar, A History of Theology, pp. 137-143. 142 Armstrong, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy, p. 32. 61 Armstrong's list of "more-or-less identifiable tendencies," cited in chapter one, consisted of the following four points: (1) deductive ratiocination from given assumptions, as the basis for theological assertions which form a logically coherent and defensible system of belief, all of which is invariably based upon an Aristotelian orientation: (2) the use of reason on a par with faith, to the abandonment of revelation in some measure: (3) the sentiment that Scripture contains the materials for a definitive statement of orthodox doctrine: (4) a pronounced interest in metaphysical matters, in abstract, speculative thought, especially concerning God. An examination of medieval scholasticism, of course, is not sufficient by itself to permit an evaluation of Armstrong's description. We must wait for that until we have included Calvin and the Protestant scholastics too. Yet it is appropriate to check the validty of the term ”scholasticism" as a description of some forms of Protestant theology against the medieval forerunner. Several points should be noted regarding Armstrong's first characteristic. The emphasis upon deduction as the means of developing the system was less prominent than he suggests. Obviously dialectics played a major role, but deduction is not equivalent to dialectics. Moreover deduction can refer to the attainment of a conclusion without also referring to the means of proposing a topic. That is, deductions can be made from certain premises without the premises themselves being obtained by deduction. Secondly, "logically coherent and defensible systems" do not need to depend upon deduction. Such a system can be obtained in other ways. There is no necessary connection between them. This characteristic, the only one which Armstrong explicitly 62 connects with medieval scholasticism, is not prevalent in that movement. The scholastic works of the Middle Ages do not as a rule develop their content by deduction alone. Theology rather took its content from questions arising from the text of Scripture, whether directly or indirectly. Certainly some topics were deduced from others, but by no means did the entirety of the work of the medieval schoolmen come by deduction alone. The reference to Aristotle is problematic. Though, to be sure, modern logicians have developed numerous systems of logic, earlier ages had less variety from which to select. Granted that sixteenth-century scholars had Ramist logic available and that patristic thinkers could study Stoic logic, neither was available for the medieval period. Even so, such a description assumes that those two forms were distinct from the methods of the Organon which in fact is only true of certain points (as will be shown later with regard to Ramus). On the content of philosophy, Neo-platonism seems at least as influential upon scholasticism.as Peripateticism, even for Aquinas.143 In short, the Aristotelian characterization is at best trivial and at worst inaccurate. The second trait, that of an undue rationalism likewise is inaccurate. Medieval scholastics attempted to understand their faith, but did not as a rule abandon it. Chenu in fact describes the scholastic objective as intellectus fidei, reminiscent of Augustine and Anselm.144 There may well be flaws in the medieval view of faith and 143See David Burrell, Aquinas: God and Action (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1979) and idem., Knowing the Unknowable §9g_(Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1986). 144Chenu, Nature, Man, and Society, p.-303. 63 reason but the denigration of faith, whether in principle or in practice, does not seem to be among them. This is particularly true of Aquinas 145 Armstrong's third point is awkward. In some ways it reiterates the first point about a "logically coherent and defensible system of belief" which was noted earlier. The novelty of this third characteristic seems to be the reference a criterion for orthodoxy. This too is problematic. If Armstrong is referring to ppy_such criterion, then the description does not single out medieval theology in any significant way. Several ecumenical creeds (which circumscribed the bounds of orthodoxy) antedated the rise of scholasticism, after all. If, on the contrary, he is referring to a complete statement (or even relatively complete) such as would foreclose investigation or creativity, then the charge is false. Medieval scholars enjoyed remarkable freedom of inquiry.146 This was particularly the case before the end of the thirteenth century, but it held true for the later period to a significant degree. Even with the Fourth Lateran Council's determination of the identity of the sacraments and its proclamation of transubstantiation, the 1277 Parisian condemnations concerning certain points of Aristotelianism, and the several bulls specifying the nature of papal authority, to mention some examples, many doctrinal questions remained open for discussion in ways that sixteenth and twentieth century Catholic theologians, e.g., would not experience. The diversity of scholasticism also indicates this freedom. Here too, then, Armstrong misses the mark, if Protestant scholasticism is so designated in terms of the medieval version. 145 66-122. 146 362. VOs, Aquinas, Calvin, and Contemporary Protestant Thought, pp. See, e.g. Haskins, The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century, p. 64 The final element of the description, the penchant for metaphysics, particularly regarding the doctrine of