2 123. THE DOCTRINE OF SCOTUS ERIGEN V. 539
Arminianisin, as developed in the Reformed church of Holland and among the Wesleyan Methodists, and held extensively in the Church of England, is an evangelical counterpart of Semi-Pelagianism, and differs from Lutheranism by teaching a conditional election and freedom of the will suilicient to accept as well as to reject the universal offer of saving grace.
§ 123. TJie Doctrine of Scotus Erigena.
A complete cd. of the works of Scotus Erigena by H. J. Floss, 1853, in Migne's " P. L.," Tom. 122. The book De Prasdestinatione in col. 355-440. Comp. the monographs on S. E. by HJORT (1823), STAU-
DENMAIER (1834), TAILLANDIER (1843), ClIRISTLIKB (I860, and
his art. in Herzog2 XIII. 788 sqq.), HERMENS (1861), HUBEK (1861) ; the respective sections in SCHROCKH, NEAXDER, BAUR (on the Trinity), DORNER (on Christology); and in the Histories of Philo sophy by RITTER, ERDMANX, and UEBERWEG. Also REUTER: Gesch. der relit/. Aufkldrung im Mittelalter (1875), I. 51-64 (a discus sion of Erigena's views on the relation of authority and reason).
At the request of Hiucmar, who was very anxious to secure learned aid, but mistook his man, JOHN SCOTUS ERIGEXA wrote a book on Predestination (in 850), and dedicated it to Hincmar and his friend Pardulus, Bishop of Laon. This most remarka ble of Scotch-Irishmen was a profound scholar and philosopher, but so far ahead of his age as to be a wonder and an enigma. He shone and disappeared like a brilliant meteor. We do not know whether he was murdered by his pupils in Malmsbury (if he ever was called to England), or died a natural death in France (which is more likely). He escaped the usual fate of heretics by the transcendental character of his speculations and by the protec tion of Charles the Bald, with whom he was on such familiar terms that he could answer his saucy question at the dinnertable: "What is the difference between a Scot and a sot?" with the quick-witted reply: "The table, your Majesty." His sys tem of thought was an anachronism, and too remote from the spirit of his times to be properly understood and appreciated. He was a Christian Neo-Platonist, a forerunner of Scholasticism and Mysticism and in some respects of 'Spinoza, Schleiermacher,
540 FOURTH PEEIOD. A. D. 590-1049.
and Hegel. With him church authority resolves itself into reason, theology into philosophy, and true philosophy is identi cal with true religion. Philosophy is, so to say, religion un veiled and raised from the cloudy region of popular belief to the clear ether of pure thought.1
From this alpine region of speculation he viewed the problem of predestination and free will. He paid due attention to the Scriptures and the fathers. He often quotes St. Augustin, and calls him, notwithstanding his dissent, "the most acute in quirer and asserter of truth."2 But where church authority contradicts reason, its language must be understood figura tively, and, if necessary, in the opposite sense.3 He charges Gottschalk with the heresy of denying both divine grace and human freedom, since he derived alike the crimes which lead to damnation, and the virtues which lead to eternal life, from a necessary and compulsory predestination. Strictly speaking, there is in God neither before nor after, neither past nor fu ture ;4 and hence neither /ore-knowledge nor /ore-ordination, except in an anthropopathic sense. He rejects a double predesti nation, because it would carry a contradiction into God. There is only one predestination, the predestination of the righteous, and this is identical with foreknowledge.5 For in God knowledge
1 So it was with Hegel. His pious widow told me that her husband often politely declined her request to accompany her to church, with the remark: " Mein liebes Kind, das Denken ist auch Gottesdienst."
2 De Prced., cap. 15, col. 413: "acutissimus veritatis et inquisitor et assertor"
3 /car' avTtfipaciv, e contrario.
4 De Prced, cap. 9 (in Migne, col. 392): "In Deo iicut nulla locorum spacia sunt, ita nulla temporum intervalla." A profound thought, not fully considered by either party in the strife.
5 He thus sums up his discussion at the close (Migne, col. 438) : " Cum om~ nibus orthodoxis fi>lelibus anathematize eos, qui dicunt, duos prcedestinationes esse, aut unam geminam, bipartitam, out duplam. Si enim duce sunt, non est una divina substantia. Si gemina, non est individua. Si bipartita, non est simplex, sed partibus composite. Si dupla est, complicata est. Quod si prohibemur divinam unitatem dicere triplam, qua dementia audet hcereticus earn asserere duplam f Tali igitur monstroso, venenoso, morti/cro dogmate a cordibus nostris radicitus exploso, credamus, unam ceternam prcedestiiiaiionem Dei Domini esse, et non nisi in his, qua sunt, ad ea vero, quce non sunt, nullo modo pertinere.'*