of private reason,-that its empire was decided. To this combination we owe the precision and the compass of our theological language. No thought was left unexpressed which the captiousness of real or imaginary objection might obtrude on the sacred subject; no authority was passed by without being tasked for its contribution to the exact definition of each point examined.

Our learned author significantly asks, "How did the Church look on these new movements? and how did she secure, in the midst of this war of opinion, the ascendancy of her own doctrines in their chief seat, the Universities?" In glancing at this interesting interrogatory, we are carried, in imagination, to look into the causes which led to the ascendancy of the Latin over the Greek Church. It is well known that the establishment of the Papal power of Rome was in itself among the effects of that ascendancy, the consummation to which it led. The real ground of that power, to adopt the sentiment of a modern writer, lay more deeply than in the temporal advantages which the See of Rome possessed, or in the successful policy of its Bishops. The continuance of the Papal power, amidst its rapid transition through the hands of successive Bishops,-and these, also, often individuals not distinguished by their talents, or their general merits in the ecclesiastical body,-argues the stability and perpetuity of a principle upholding that power, and guarding it against the casualties of personal imbecility and worthlessness. This principle was the predominant influence of the Latin Clergy. The course of events, in the early history of the Church, seemed to be eminently favourable toward the preponderance of the Greeks. Theirs were the churches immediately founded by the Apostles; theirs was the language of the sacred books, and of philosophy; theirs, with a few exceptions, were the Apologies by which Christianity de

* Dr. Hampden.

fended itself against the assaults of the Jew or Pagan in the first centuries. It was their writers who took the lead in systematizing the doctrines of the faith, and allied them with philosophy. It was their Bishops who took the ostensible part in the great Councils of the first four centuries, and the first half of the fifth. In the course of that period, too, occur the names of all the most illustrious Fathers of

the Greek Church,-Justin Martyr, Origen, Eusebius of Cæsarea, Athanasius, Basil, the two Gregories, Chrysostom; men of acute and eloquent genius, as well as of intrepid energy. Still the efforts of the Greeks may all be characterized as eminently literary,-as philosophical defences of the faith, more than practical exertions in its behalf.

Now scan the labours of the Latin Clergy during the same period of time. Every thing that was literary and philosophical in its character was subordinate; and although they do not attempt to boast of an array of splendid writers equal to that which the Greeks exhibit, they had sagacious political leaders, popular advocates of the sacred cause, men of extensive knowledge of the world, combined with a nervous enthusiasm of thought and feeling. For instance: in Tertullian we discover the skill of the rhetorician associated with the obstinate and rude vehemence of the practical enthusiast; in Cyprian, who does not witness, in the placidity of his style, the resoluteness of a sound moral feeling, which ultimately led him to the scaffold; and in Lactantius and Arnobius, more of the persuasive entreaty of an advocate, than philosophical or logical acumen ? Again: where in the Greek Church shall be found a parallel to Augustine,-a man to whom, perhaps, after the great Apostle of the Gentiles, the Christian cause, so far as human ability can support it, owed, for a time, under God, its triumph and strength. He displayed an ardent zeal and sleepless vigilance for the well-being of the Church: he was endowed with vigorous powers of argument,

an easy perception of the force of heretical objections, and a capability of being energetic and pointed in reply he was, in a word, throughout, the Latin Churchman. The Greek was, by education, a sophist, in the proper sense of that term: his business was philosophy. But the Latin Divines of the early centuries were chiefly of the class of orators, or rhetoricians, by profession. The employment of many had been either to defend causes in the courts of judicature, or to instruct others in the arts of pleading and composition. The necessity of the case had imposed this duty upon the Latins; as all proceedings in the courts throughout the Roman empire, and all concerns of business of a public character, were carried on in the Latin language. This was not the case with the Greek.

The practical character of the Latin theologians may be still further illustrated. The management of the people, by imparting to them spiritual counsel and guidance; the instruction of the young; the regulation of monastic institutions; the internal order of the ecclesiastical body itself; the assembly of Councils; constituted the chief employment of the Latin Clergy; and they succeeded, in the course of a hundred and fifty years, in converting all the schools of learning established by the sovereign powers into ecclesiastical societies, and all literature and science into theology; so that, in the eighth and ninth centuries, the face of civil society was changed, and the dull, sleepy monotony of religious or monastic rule pervaded every thing. perpetual annoyance which was experienced by the inroads of surrounding barbarous hordes, while it interrupted literary labour, and checked the progress of what would then be called theological improvement, but increased the dependence of the people upon their clerical guides. Such was the condition of the literature and science of Britain when our national University in Oxford was established. Nay, such was the importance which the Latin Clergy assumed at this period, when

The

philosophy had ceased to be culti vated, and learning had degenerated into a pastime, that Alcuin, an Anglo-Saxon Ecclesiastic, from the School of York, became the associate and counsellor of Charlemagne, the greatest Monarch of the age.

The speedy erection of upwards of one hundred monasteries shortly after this period, furnished additional motives to the cultivation of literature and science, in the increase of scholars and teachers, and in the multiplication of opportunities to acquire knowledge; but chiefly by making books much more common and attainable than they had been at any former time. Every convent shortly became a kind of college, in which various branches of learning were taught and studied. The control of these houses generally devolved on a Cleric who was celebrated for his literary acquirements; and, possessing considerable influence and wealth, could afford powerful incentives to assiduity and zeal. A library, on these accounts, was esteemed absolutely essential to the prosperity of a monastery; and hence the well-known proverb: “A convent without a library, is like a castle without an armoury." Some of the monastic libraries are known not only to have been valuable, but extensive. The abbey of Croyland, which was destroyed by fire about twenty-five years subsequent to the Conquest, had a library of nine hundred volumes, of which three hundred are said to have been very

large. To provide books for the use of the church, and furnishing the library, there was in most monasteries a room, known by the name of scriptorium, or "writingchamber," in which several of the junior Monks were employed in transcribing books; and to which, in some religious houses, immense revenues were appropriated. Matthew Paris relates the account of a noble Norman, who was a great encourager of learning, leaving his own library to that of the abbey of St. Alban's, A. D. 1086; and granting two-thirds of the tithes of Hatfield, and certain tithes in Redbourne, to support the writers in the

scriptorium of the abbey. If the income of the establishment were unable to defray the expenses necessarily incurred in providing books for the library, the Abbot, with the consent of his Chapter, was wont to impose an annual tax on each member of the community for that purpose. The Monks of some monasteries were bitterly reproached for the extravagant sum they expended on their respective libraries.

On the points to which we have adverted above, Professor Huber remarks:

"The progress of events now depended on the path chosen by the Church; and it is our first question, how she looked on the new movements, and secured the ascendancy of her own doctrines in their chief seat, the Universities.

"They must, undoubtedly, have caused her deep anxiety. How her own policy was finally decided, has never yet been cleared up; nor can we undertake that task. Suffice it to rest in the known general result, that she met the new speculative tendency not altogether in hostility. She determined to adopt it for herself; to mould it, as far as possible, to her service; yet to isolate it from Theology, her own peculiar charge. To meet the wants of the age, she established (as at other times) new organs. Dominicans and Franciscans, under her banners, rushing into the arena of speculation, soon made it their own; and though the movement was not quelled, (for active controversy continued between the very champions of the Church,) it was far less dangerous than if it had been wholly independent of her. Much,

it may be said, was lost by this policy; but how much more was at stake! and how much was saved by her! Remember Arnold of Brescia; and, at least, the adroitness of the Church must appear admirable, even if we are too blind to see, that, in spite of her defects, higher principles were at work within her. To save her dogmas, was an urgent necessity; for not saving all the positive elements of the old studies, she cannot be blamed; but for whatever of them survived, the merit is hers.

"But she had also to dread bitter fruit from the practical branches of the new tree of knowledge. In Italy, however, where the rights of Cæsar might have been most dangerous, the danger disappeared with the imperial power itself. The lesser Sovereigns, who cloak

ed their usurpations by claiming the name of Cæsars, were not formidable to her, though, to suppress both old and new freedom, they soon called into play the worst principles of the old Roman despotism.

"Beyond the Alps, the vigorous Germanic Institutions stifled whatever of the Roman jurisprudence would have been hostile to the Church; while, as for that part of it which was called the Canonical Law, she was able to foster it at will

under the nurture of her own cham

pions; the more distinguished and active of whom were the Dominicans. Physical studies were the most unma. nageable. The Physician was a person practically too indispensable, to be under surveillance for his orthodoxy, by Church or by State; nay, nor could he be troubled by them, whether he learned his art from Jew, from Arabian, or from the very spirits of hell. Other applications, however, of Natural Philosophy were severely watched; and such sciences, even to be endured, needed to wear the glittering garb of speculation or mysticism.

"But how stood the Church towards the Universities? And how did she recommend and establish her own interests?

On

"Erroneous views concerning the origin of the Universities have arisen from an erroneous reply to this question. It has been supposed, that all these bodies were primitively independent, and were brought under her guardianship gradually, and by equivocal means. the contrary, most of the continental Universities originated in entire dependence on the Church. Some only were afterwards gradually emancipated; and not entirely till after the Reformation. Her superintendence was undisputed, her interest in retaining it clear; and, for two centuries, her mode of exercising so important a trust is marked by an honourable activity.

"No reference is here made to the Italian Universities, nor to mere isolated cases, such as that of Montpellier; for we might err in supposing them analogous to the others. Those north of the Alps originated from monastic and cathedral Schools; those in Italy, from institutions independent of the Church. For example: Bologna and Salerno, the oldest and most considerable, had not an ecclesiastical origin; at least, there is every reason for so judging, even in the latter case, where we have no positive and complete testimony. The Northern studies were speculative; the

Italian, eminently practical; that is, in the older Universities, such as Bologna, Padua, and Salerno. By the epithet, 'Italian,' then, I may be permitted to denote the non-scholastic Universities, whether or not geographically included in Italy. The Law-Professorships of Bologna were connected with the Imperial Courts; a fact which made it impossible for them to be subject to the Church and Pope; and the age itself forbade the idea of such a thing. They sprang primitively out of their peculiar position, and assumed a corresponding organization; in the one and in the other differing from those beyond the Alps. We cannot now discuss how far they were influenced by the social and intellectual state of Italy, where the Middle Age ceased with Dante, where many elements of ancient civilization were retained, and opportunities for ' objective' culture abounded.

"Yet, it is maintained by many, (as by Meiners,) that the Northern Universities were originally free,-were produced by a voluntary union of Teachers and scholars of the new philosophy, nonecclesiastical men who desired no authorization from the Church. This opinion pleases the fantasy and pride of learning, and ministers to anti-ecclesiastical feelings. Once advanced with some show of research, it is no wonder that it has been repeated as unquestionable fact. Yet all historical evidence leans so directly the other way, that we can only attribute the opinion to confusedness of mind, or to prepossession. The source of the error may be traced in part to an anticatholic, or rather an antichurch, and even antichristian, spirit; while (not to speak of other practical results) it

gives a false tendency to historical research. The opinion has been unduly propped by a few exceptive cases, such as that of the bold, talented, unhappy Abelard, whose history, rightly understood, really proves the contrary; namely, the dependence of the Universities on the Church. In fact, both positive testimony and general probabilities assure us, that the new intellectual impulse sprang up, not only on the domain and under the guidance of the Church, but out of Ecclesiastical Schools."

(Pages 10-15.)

Professor Huber frequently adverts to the Scholastic Divinity of the era in which our national schools of education were instituted; but appears wondrous chary in giving his readers any description of that

scheme: all is avoided with a dexterity as complete as that with which a cat would leap over a fiddle. When these Divines wrote Commentaries on the Scriptures, it was far from being with the view of explaining the real meaning of the word of God, or of illustrating the verities which they contained; but rather of extracting from them certain mystical or allegorical senses, upon which they might establish a variety of captious and subtle questions, as topics of disputation. A great number of such Commentaries were composed, which long ago, and most deservedly, have been consigned to the "tomb of all the Capulets," a prey to the worms and dust. The chief delight and constant occupation of these Aristotelian philosophers was, to write voluminous systems of divinity, comprising a large collection of questions on all subjects; which, lawfully or unlawfully, were gathered together, and discussed with much logical acumen and skill. Some were not only bold, but positively impious; others were ludicrously trifling, and quaint; and not a few-we speak guardedlywere absolutely obscene, as well as profane. With the latter we shall have nothing to do in this place: one or two instances of those which were jejune and childish we may venture to record on our pages; they may be found, among several others, in the "History of the Parisian University," by Bulæus. "Was Christ the same between his death and resurrection, that he was before his death, and after his resurrection?" "Doth the glorified body of Christ stand or sit in heaven?" "Is the body of Christ that is eaten in the sacrament dressed or undressed?" "Were the clothes in which Christ appeared to his disciples, after his resurrection, real, or only apparent?" &c. Verbum sapienti sat.

Oxford, in its early days, was the hot-bed of the Aristotelian scheme, which in the twelfth century had ramified throughout the whole system of revealed truth, diffusing noxious error, evangelical darkness,

and spiritual death. The cross of Christ was rendered of none effect, as Bishop M'Ilvaine justly observes, "First, by making it foolishness to the Greek, and a stumbling-block to the Jew; and then, when men would embrace it, by turning it into an idol, like the brasen serpent of a former age; so that men, retaining the name of Christ upon their lips, and making the sign of the cross upon their foreheads, might be substituting a foundation of wood and stubble for Jesus Christ, and him crucified; their own cross for his; an inward sacrifice, for the one oblation once offered by the Son of God. This has been the grand effort of Satan, to which the errors and heresies of every century of Christianity bear most impressive testimony. It was a circumstance favourable to the covert introduction of great practical error, in regard to the justification of the sinner before God, that for many centuries the

chief points of controversy raised in the Church, while connected, in a very important sense, with whatever related to salvation, were calculated rather to keep the eye of careful guardianship away from the precise question of justification by the excitement they created around others, which seemed to be more immediately endangered. While men thus slept, came the adversary, and found an open field and many a propitious soil into which to sow those prolific seeds of selfrighteous doctrine, which early sprung up in the Platonic soil of the Alexandrian divinity, and after wards ripened so abundantly, during what are most truly called, the dark ages of Christianity."

And dark they were, with a witness, when the work of Peter Lombard, which afterwards constituted the great text-book of the scholastic Theologians, and a class-book at Oxford, and which also gave to that ringleader of error and delusion, the title of "The Master," or, "The Master of the Sentences,' was precisely such an exposition of Christian doctrine as might have been anticipated from that conflict between reason and authority,

which existed in the Latin Church. The work to which we refer is an elaborate compilation of passages, culled from the writings of celebrated Latin Doctors; a page of which we have not been able to read, without being forcibly reminded of that rustling brocade in which we have been told lady-spectres have been accustomed to take their nocturnal walks, when re-visiting the "glimpses of the moon,"-a tissue stiff with antique embroidery, that displays the ingenuity of the artist, who has so curiously wrought the patch-work into a whole. Lombard introduces very little reasoning of his own, only enough to give a kind of consistency and form to his quotations, introducing no references whatever to the sentiments of the heathen philosophers. He appears to be constantly on his guard against even the suspicion of exercising the privilege of thinking for himself, endeavouring to show, that he follows received opinions rather than any speculation of his own. In the "Second Book of the Sentences," the Stagyrite is incidentally referred to, but not in the way of authority. We are of opinion, with the present Regius Divinity-Professor of Oxford, that Peter Lombard wrote in imitation of a treatise of one of the Greek Fathers of the eighth century, entitled, De Fide Orthodoxa, by John, a Monk of Damascus, celebrated in the Iconoclast disputes of his times, or "Damascenus,' as he is usually termed; a writer who sets out with the profession, that he states nothing of his own, but only what the holy and wise had taught. The work had been translated into Latin by the command of Eugenius III., and was regarded with great deference by the Latin Divines, doubtless because it was a true record of opinions already sanctioned by the approbation of the Church. Lombard does not exhibit the logical precision for which Damascenus is distinguished, being more intent on displaying his authorities for the position which he from time to time assumes; while the form of questions, in which the several points of theology are dis