THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
sents separation and theology as the purely practical religious knowledge of the way to God. Having the inviolable formulas of the Church and 3. Three the Aristotelian logic in common, the Types. two methods frequently coincide, in part or whole, in presenting the same doctrine. Doctrinal reconstruction is precluded for both by their presuppositions. Thus adherence to the foundations and problems of Lombard for centuries is self-evident. Original observations and judgments occur but do not dare to brave the ban of church doctrine and practise. More radical in antagonism to the system of Thomas was the work of Occam. The aim of this was to expose the irrationality of dogma and with an unsparing criticism to show on every hand the antitheses to the church tenets as thinkable. It was customary to make excursions in the light of the potentia absolute, how things might have been in the absence of reality; but in the sterile atmosphere of the day those possibilities soon dispersed and the church positivism remained. But historically considered this aspect of the matter was of the utmost significance. When confidence in single church doctrines was once attacked, the criticism of single dogma and doctrines became customary, and finally theology led quite barrenly to the consideration of the ecclesiastical doctrines and ordinances as mere empirical realities. Not without enhancing the natural element in church ordinances, this theology undertook the support of Pelagianism and the externalizing of grace in the institution of penance from an inner relationship of choice. The negative criticism of the materials of tradition and a rationalizing and naturalizing positivism within the limits of its power — these are the principles of nominalism. They are the distinguishing marks of the third type of scholastic theology. Following mainly the outline of Duns Scotus, it is distinguished from his system by the qualities characteristic of the mode of thought of the nominalistic theologians, namely, crassness of criticism, inner contempt of dogma, and the lack of a unified Christian philosophy.
The supreme tendency of the theology of the thirteenth century — to provide the new world in the act of self-realization with a self-consistent philosophy, which should render the kingdoms of the world subject to the pope and all secular 4. Surviving knowledge a pillar to the arch of church Influences, doctrine — was reversed by nominalism. The older theology of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries which was instinctively disinclined to Aristotle prevailed. This right was justified by Duns and Occam, though otherwise than as those old theologians had anticipated. The practical situation which had occasioned the enormous labor of the thirteenth century continued. It is self-evident, then, that in the fourteenth century Thomism on the one hand and Augustinianism on the other took their places beside nominalism. The Thomists desired to enforce the primacy of the Church in learning and life, and became the bitterest foes of the Reformation; the Augustinians, not without being affected by nominalistic criticism, endeavored to rescue the primacy of religion in
life, and became the forerunners of the Reformation. A historical magnitude like scholasticism, lasting four centuries, was not without its permanent influence in philosophy and theology. Not only is this found in Roman Catholicism as already pointed out, but also in the influence of Duns upon Luther in favor of a practical religious doctrinal system setting forth the way of redemption as manifest in revelation. So also the influence of Thomas upon Melanchthon, who allowed philosophy as ancilla theologice to contribute the materials of natural knowledge to dogmatics. In principle, the older Protestant theology adhered to the rejection of scholasticism by the Reformation, and the Enlightenment (q.v.) was incapable of receiving a profound historical appreciation of scholasticism. This change did not occur until the revival of the historical sense by Romanticism (q.v.). From the time of F. C. Baur's great work on the Trinity, Protestant history of dogma has given more unbiased attention to scholasticism, especially after interest was stimulated by Albrecht Ritschl's inquiry into the persistence of scholastic thought within Protestantism. Yet no field presents so many unclaimed problems as the history of scholasticism. (R. Seeberg.)
Bibliography: W. L. G. von Eberstein, Die natiirliche Theologie der Scholastiker, nebst Zusatzen liber die Freiheitslehre und den Begriff der Wahrheit bei denselben, Leipsic, 1803; R. D. Hampden, The Scholastic Philosophy Considered in its Relation to Christian Theology, 2d ed., London, 1837; G. O. Marbach, Lehrbuch der Geschichte der Philosophie, part 2, Leipsic, 1838-41; X. Rousselot, Etudes sur la philosophie dans le moyen age, Paris, 1840- 1842; R. Hasse, Anselm von Canterbury, 2 parts, Leipsic, 1843, Eng. trnnsl., London, 1850; A. Jourdain, Recherches critiques sur I'dge et Vorigine des traductions latines d' Aristole, 2d ed., Paris, 1843; B. Haureau, De laphilosophie scolastique, 2 vols., ib. 1850; idem, Histoire de la philosophie scolastique, ib. 1872-80; idem, Gregoire IX. et la philosophie d'Aristote, ib. 1872; F. Morin, Dictionnaire de philosophie et de theologie scolastiques, 2 vols., ib. 1856; E. Plassmann, Die Schule des heiligen Thomas von Aquino, 5 vols., Minister, 1857-62; H. D. Kohler, Realismus und Nominalismus in ihrem Einflusse auf die dogmatischen Systeme des Mittelalters, Gotha, 1858; W. Kaulich, Geschichte der scholastischen Philosophie, part 1, Von J oh. Scotus Erigena bis Abalard, Prague, 1863; A. Stoeckl, Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters, 3 vols., Mainz, 1864-66; idem. Doctrine philosophique de S. Thomas d'Aquin, Paris, 1893; C. S. Barach, Zur Geschichte des Nominalismus vor Roscellin, Vienna, 1866; L. Figuier, Vies des savants illustres du moyen age, aeec I' appreciation sommaire de leurs travaux, Paris, 1867; F. D. Maurice, Medimval Philosopliy of the First Six Centuries, new ed., London, 1870; M. Schneid, Die scholastische Lehre von Materie und Form, Eichstiitt, 1S73; J. Sehwertschlager, Die erste Entstehung der Organismen nach der Philosophie des Alterthums und des Mittelalters, ib. 1873; J. Bach, Die Dogmengeschichte des Mittelalters vom christologischen Standpunkte, 2 parts, Vienna, 1873-75; A. Ebert, Allgemeine Geschichte der Literatur des Mittelalters im Abendlande, 3 vols., Leipsic, 1874; M. Schneid, Aristoteles in der Scholastik. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Philosophie im Mittelalter, Halle, 1875; J. H. Loewe, Der Kampf zwischen dem Realismus und Nominalismus im Mittelalter, Prague, 1870; C. Werner, Der Entwicl.lungsgang der mittelalterlichen Psychologie von Alcuin bis Albertus Magnus, Vienna, 1876; idem, Die Scholastik des spateren Mittelalters, 4 vols., ib. 1881-S7; idem, Die nominalisirende Psychologie der Scholastik des spateren Mittelalters, ib. 1882; N. Valois, Guillaume d'Auvergne, sa vie et ses ouvrages, Paris, 1SX0; F. X. Pfeifer, Harmonisehe Beziehungen zwischen Scholastik utul modemcr Xatvrvissenschaft, Augsburg, 1SS1; W. J. Townsend, The Great Schoolmen of the Middle Ages, London, 1881; .1. Berington, Literary History of the Middle Ages, ed. W Hazlitt,
S69