A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

CHAP. XV. (Book 15)

Of the Original of Scholastical Divinity, and of the first Divines of that Faculty who flourished in the Twelfth Century.

THE Manner of treating of the Christian Religion, and of its Mysteries, has not been * 1.1 always uniform in the several Ages of the Church; but has been chang'd at several times, according to the various Occasions, or the different Inclinations of Men. The Apostles contented themselves only to teach with much simplicity the Doctrine they receiv'd from Jesus Christ; to propose it to Believers as the Object of their Faith; and to render it cre∣dible by the Means of Authority, by the Testimony of the Prophets, by our Saviour's Resur∣rection, and by Miracles. They never observ'd the difficult Points that might be form'd from the sacred Mysteries; neither did they take any Pains to make a thorough search into them, nor to discover all the Consequences arising from them, much less to explain them according to the Principles of Philosophy and human Reason. Neither were the holy Fathers, nor Ecclesiastical Writers, who liv'd in the First Ages of the Church, more careful to insist on the Explication of these Mysteries; nor did they make use of Philosophy, but only to extirpate the Errors of the Pa∣gans, relating to their Gods, Idols, and false Worship, which might be easily confuted by the Light of Reason, and the Authority of the Philosophers. As for the Jews, and Primitive Here∣ticks, they only alledg'd to convince them, the Authority of the holy Scriptures, and of Tra∣dition, and the general Belief of all the Churches in the World; and in the Disputes they had with them, they never undertook to give particular Reasons for the several Mysteries, but only to prove, that they ought to be believ'd. It is true indeed, that in Process of time, the Heresies gave occasion more thoroughly to examine the Doctrines, and to fix the Terms that ought to be us'd in explaining them, and to draw Consequences from the Articles of Faith which were formally re∣veal'd; but the Fathers enter'd upon the Discussion of those Points, being only incited by a kind of necessity: Neither were they so bold as to start a great number of new Questions relating to the Mysteries, nor to resolve them according to Philosophical Principles. Upon the whole, as they did not commit to writing any Speculations about Doctrinal Points, but only with respect to the Heretical Opinions; so neither did they compose any particular Theological Treatise con∣cerning the Doctrines of the Christian Religion, of set purpose, but they treated of them when∣ever there was occasion to refure some new Heresy.

Origen was the first who undertook to compile as it were a Body of Divinity, in his Work call'd The Principles: But this new Undertaking did not at all prove successful, insomuch that the Author relying too much upon his own knowledge, and being desirous to accommodate the Doctrines of Christianity to the Maxims of Plato's Philosophy, had the misfortune to fall into many Errors, which have fullied his Memory. But such Inconveniences did not happen to those Divines, who contented themselves only to teach with the simplicity of Catechists, the principal Mysteries of our Religion contain'd in the Apostles Creed, and to prove them by Passages taken out of the holy Scriptures. In the Ages following the great Heresies of the Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians, &c. the Reverend Fathers were oblig'd to treat at large of the Mysteries of the Trinity, and of the In∣carnation; but the holy Scriptures, and Tradition, were the only Principles on which they grounded their Proofs, and they only made use of Argumentations to discover the Sense of the Pas∣sages of Scripture, and of the Ancient Fathers. The same thing was done with respect to other Heresies; and we do not find any other Arguments alledg'd to refute them, nor any other Rules made use of in the Councils to condemn them: But by little and little an over-weaning Curiosity induced Men to start divers new Questions relating to Theological Matters, particularly the My∣steries and other difficult Points of the Christian Religion. Indeed at first the Authority of holy Scriptures, and of Tradition, was only brought to decide them, but afterwards Philosophy was also call'd in to their assistance, more especially the Platonick, that was then most in vogue, and which seem'd most conformable to the Rules of Christianity. The Author of the Works ascrib'd to St. Dionysius the Areopagite, who wrote in the end of the Fifth Century, follow'd this Method, and treated in his Books of the Divine Attributes, and Hierarchy, of divers Theological Questions, according to the Principles of the Platonick Philosophers.

Some time after, Boethius, a Man well versed in Aristotle's Philosophy, made use of his Maxims to explain the Mysteries of the Trinity, and of the Incarnation; which engag'd him in Debates about some very subtil and intricate Questions. But St. Joannes Damascenus is the first who under∣took methodically to discuss all sorts of Theological Questions, and to reduce them into an entire Body. In the Ninth Century, Joannes Scotus Erigena apply'd Aristotle's Method and Principles to the resolution of several Questions relating to Points of Divinity; but his subtil Notions having lead him into divers Errors; his Doctrine and Method were rejected by the Divines of his Time. The study of the most necessary and most obvious Points being neglected in the Tenth Century, it is not to be admir'd, that no application was made to those abstruse and difficult Questions; so that Aristotle's Philosophy was not begun to be taught in the Publick Schools, according to the Method of the Arabians, till the beginning of the Eleventh Century; neither was there any use of it made at first, in Theological Matters: But in process of time, Men, whose Heads were fill'd with those Notions, insensibly introduced, them into Divinity, and apply'd them not only to il∣lustrate and decide ordinary Questions, but to form a great number of new ones, which were never heard of before. John the Sophister, Roscelinus, and St. Anselm, were the first who put this Method in practice; and after them Abaelardus, Gillebert de la Porrée, and many others, brought it into vogue, and made publick Lectures on that subject. Otho of Frisinghen introduced it into Germany, and within a little while after, it took place almost throughout all Christendom.

But forasmuch as it is difficult not to go astray in following a new Track, some of the first Au∣thors of this manner of handling Theological Points, particularly Roscelinus, Abaelardus, Gillebert de la Porrée, as also Amaury or Amalaricus, and many others, in the beginning of the following Century, fell into divers Errors; or at least expressed themselves in such a manner as was con∣demn'd by those Persons, who adher'd to the Sentiments and Method of Discourse us'd by the An∣cient Fathers. There also happen'd another Inconvenience, which was, that the different Opinions of these Authors, about the most part of those Questions, gave occasion to many Contests and Dis∣putes among the Divines; and in regard that the number of the Questions encreased daily, and every one to maintain his Opinions had recourse to the most subtil Topicks of the Aristotelean Lo∣gick and Metaphysick; the Disputes were almost innumerable, and became so full of Obscurities, Intricacies, and Evasions, that only those who were well versed in that Art, were able to com∣prehend any thing, and thus it was impossible to come to any determination. Besides the uncouth manner of handling the several Subjects, and the barbarous Terms that were us'd, render'd this kind of Study much more agreeable.

To prevent these Inconveniences, PETER LOMBARD, Bishop of Paris, undertook to make * 1.2 a Collection of the Passages of the Fathers, and chiefly of St. Hilary, St. Ambrose, St. Jerom, and St. Augustin, on the principal Questions that were then in debate among the School-men; imagin∣ing by that means to put an end to their Disputes, and to form such Decisions, as the Authority of those Persons, on whose Testimonies they were grounded, might render venerable, and might even cause them to be receiv'd with common consent. This Collection was call'd, The Book of the Sentences, (a Title then usually impos'd on Theological Works) and being preferr'd before all others, was receiv'd with so general approbation, that in a little time, it became the only Model of Scholastical Divinity that was publickly us'd in the Schools; insomuch that the Author of it was call'd, by way of excellency, The Master of the Sentences: But the Doctors of the Faculty, not con∣tenting themselves with the simplicity of this Work, made voluminous Commentaries on the Text, in which they renewed their Contests; reviv'd the same Questions; and again intermixed, with Theological Matters, the Principles of Philosophy, and the Maxims of Aristotle, which were ne∣ver us'd by the Master of the Sentences: Nay, some proceeded so far, as to find fault with his Decisions, although they were expressed in the very words of the Fathers. Thus Pope Alexan∣der

III. censur'd one of his Expressions; the Abbot Joachim wrote a Book against him; and the Faculty of Paris drew up a Catalogue of Articles, in which the Master of the Sentences was not usually follow'd. However, he may be esteem'd as the chief of all the School-Divines; for al∣though in his Work he has made use of a Method quite different from the others, as to the man∣ner of discussing the Theological Questions, yet his Book has always serv'd as their Model or Ground-work, and apparently they have done nothing else but commented upon it. Upon which account we are oblig'd to enlarge somewhat more on the Life, and Personal Endowments, of Peter Lombard, as also on the Contents of his Work.

He was born in a Village near Novaria in Lombardy, from whence his Sir-name was taken, and perform'd part of his Studies at Bononia, where there was at that time a famous University, more especially for the study of the Civil Law; but in regard that those of France were much more noted, with respect to the Faculty of Divinity, he took a Resolution to go thither, having obtain'd a Letter of recommendation from the Bishop of Lucca to St. Bernard, in which he entreated him to take a particular Care of Peter Lombard's Education, whilst he apply'd himself to study in France. St. Bernard provided all things necessary for his Subsistence, as long as he resided at Rheims; and upon his departure for Paris, recommended him to Gildin Abbot of St. Victor, to the end that he might maintain him Gratis. Peter, in a little time, acquir'd a great deal of Reputation, and was nominated Professor of Divinity in the University of Paris, of which he is also styl'd President by the contemporary Writers. He follow'd this Employment with so good suceess, that the Bi∣shoprick of Paris being vacant in 1150. Philip Arch-deacon of Paris, the Son of King Lewes the Gross, who was chosen B••shop of that City by the Chapter, resign'd his Place to him, and con∣descended so far as to permit a Stranger of an obscure Parentage, and of as mean Fortunes, to be preferr'd before him, by reason of his extraordinary Learning; although he was the Son and Bro∣ther of a King: A singular and rare Example of Humility! However, Peter Lombard did not long enjoy this Dignity; for he died July 20. A. D. 1164. and was buried in St. Marcel's Church, where the Licentiates of the Faculty of Paris are oblig'd every Year to compose a Form of Divine Service in honour of his Memory.

This Author wrote, besides the Book of Sentences, certain Commentaries on the Psalms, and on St. Paul's Epistles, which in effect are almost nothing else but Extracts out of the Commentaries of St. Hilary, St. Ambrose, St. Augustin, Cassiodorus, and Remegius, or Remy of Auxerre. The Commen∣tary on the Book of Psalms was printed at Paris A. D. 1541. and that on St. Paul's Epistles at the same Place in 1535.

His Collection of the Sentences is divided into Four Books, and every Book into several Sec∣tions; the Division of the whole Work being grounded on St. Augustin's Axiom, That Knowledge has Two Objects, viz. Things, and Signs; that Things are divisible into those that may be en∣joy'd, and those which are only to be us'd; that is to say, God and the Creatures. In the First Book he treats of those Things that ought to be enjoy'd, particularly the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity, and the Divine Attributes. In the Second, he specifies those Things the use of which is only allow'd, namely, the Creatures; discoursing of the Creation of the World; of the Fall of the Angels, and that of Man; of Grace and Free Will; of original and actual Sins, &c. In the Third, he gives an Account of the Mystery of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, by vertue of which Mankind is delivered from Sin; of Faith, Charity, and the other practical Vertues; and of the Commandments of God, which must be observ'd for the attaining to Salvation. The Fourth and last Book, contains Matters relating to the Signs or Sacraments of the Church, except the Seven last Sections, in which he treats of the Resurrection; of the last Judgment; and of the future State.

In the First Section of the First Book, he examines what are the Things which ought to be enjoy'd, and what are those that are only to be us'd, as also, what it is to enjoy and use Things; ••ho are the Persons capable of enjoying and using them, and by what means both the one and the other is done. Then he proceeds to resolve these Questions according to the Maxims of St. Augustin, who maintains that we ought to enjoy God alone; that is to say, we ought only to adhere to him as our ultimate End, and to love him upon his own Account; and that we ought not to set our Affections on the Creatures; that is to say, not to love them but for God's sake, and not to adhere to them any farther than it seems good to the Will of God.

He proves, in the Second Section, the Mystery of the Holy Trinity, by Passages taken out of the Old and New Testament.

In the Third, he explains after what manner God may be known by the Creatures, and brings Comparisons taken from the Creatures, that may serve to give some Idea of the Mystery of the Trinity; and insists more particularly on that of the Soul consisting of divers Faculties, which are nothing but the Soul itself. He observes, at the same time, that this Comparison, is not alike in all Points, and shews the Difference.

In the Fourth, he discusses this Question, Whether it may be said, that God the Father is begotton himself; or whether it ought to be said, that he begot another God? And concludes with St. Au∣gustin, that it ought to be affirm'd, that God the Father begot another Person, who is God, and the same with him in Substance.

In the Fifth, he examines another Question about the Generation of the Word; viz. Whether it may be said, that the Father begot the Divine Essence, or the Divine Essence begot the Son; or whe∣ther one Essence produced another; or whether the Essence be neither produced, nor producing? He re∣lates divers Passages of the Fathers concerning these Questions, and maintains, that it cannot

be said, that God the Father produced the Divine Essence; or that the Essence produced the Son; or that the Essence produced another Essence: But that it must be expressed, that the Father pro∣duced the Son and the Holy Ghost, who are two Persons of the same Substance, and of the same Essence with the Father.

In the Sixth, he enquires, Whether the Father begot the Son, Volens aut Nolens; (as it is usually termed,) that is to say, by Necessity, or by his own Will? He replies, with St. Augustin, that the Son of God was begotten according to Nature, and not according to Will; and that although God was willing to beget him, yet his Generation is not an Effect of that Will.

In the Seventh, he proposes another more subtil Question; viz. Whether the Father were endu'd with a particular Will and Power to beget his Son? If an Answer be made Affirmatively, it then fol∣lows, that the Father has a Power and Will which the Son has not, in regard that the latter is nei∣ther able nor willing to beget. He resolves this Difficulty by saying, that Generation is not an Effect either of the Will, or of the Power, but of Nature, and that is not a Thing. Afterwards he explains in what Sense St. Augustin said, that the Son had Power to beget; that is to say, that it is not by reason of Impotency that he did not beget,

In the Eighth Section, he treats of the Nature, Immutability, and Purity of God: He affirms, that he is improperly call'd a Substance, and that there is nothing in God, that is not God himself.

In the Ninth, he discourses of the Generation of the Son from Eternity.

In the Tenth, he begins to treat of the Holy Ghost, and shews in what Sense he is call'd Charity.

In the Eleventh, he proves that he proceeds from the Father and the Son.

In the Twelfth, he explains in what Sense it may be said, that the Holy Ghost proceeds chiefly from the Father; viz. in regard that the Son, from whom he proceeds, as well as from the Fa∣ther, receives his Nature from the Father. He adds, that in this Sense it is said, that the Father sends the Holy Ghost by his Son.

In the Thirteenth, he shews, that human Understanding cannot comprehend the Reason of the Difference between the Generation of the Word, and the Procession of the Holy Ghost; and de∣clares in what Sense the Holy Ghost may be said to be Ingenitus.

In the Fourteenth, he treats particularly of the temporal Procession, or Communication of the Holy Ghost; and maintains, that it is really imparted to Men; and that Men, though never so. Holy, cannot have power to confer it, but only the Father and the Son.

He adds, in the Fifteenth Section, that the Holy Ghost likewise communicates himself; and de∣bates on that occasion divers Questions relating to the Mission of the Son.

The same Subject is continu'd in the Sixteenth Section.

In the Seventeenth, the Author represents several Questions about the Mission of the Holy Ghost.

He explains, in the Eighteenth, in what Sense the Holy Ghost is call'd a Gift, and how he is given to us.

In the Nineteenth, he treats of the Equality of the Three Persons in the Holy Trinity, and of their Union in the same Essence.

In the Twentieth, he proves the Equality of Power among the Three Divine Persons.

In the Twenty first, he shews in what Sense it may be said, that the Father is God alone, the Son God alone, and the Holy Ghost God alone.

In the Twenty second, he distinguishes the Terms that agree with the Three Persons in common, and do not agree with any in particular, as that of the Trinity: Those that agree with every one of the Three Persons, which express the absolute Attributes, or relative to the Creatures; as the being Infinite, Almighty, Creator, &c. And lastly, those that agree with one Person, but not with another; as to be the Father, to be Begotten, to be Given, &c.

He shews, in the Twenty third, that all the Terms relating to the Substance cannot be said in the Plural Number, of the Three Persons of the Trinity, but only in the Singular. Thus it is not said, The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are Almighty; although every one of these Persons is declar'd to be Almighty. He excepts the word Person, which cannot be said of the Three Divine Persons in the Singular Number, but only in the Plural; for it cannot be said, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are one Person, but that they are Three Persons, or ac∣cording to the Greeks, Three Hypostases.

In the Twenty fourth, and in the Twenty fifth, he examines divers Questions about the Terms of Unity, Trinity, and the Distinction in speaking of the Trinity.

In the Twenty sixth, Twenty seventh, Twenty eighth, and Twenty ninth, he discourses of the Relative Properties of the Three Divine Persons among themselves.

In the Thirtieth, he treats of the Relative Properties of God, with respect to Men; as to be a Creator, &c. and shews, that they do not imply any Change or Alteration in the Divine Nature.

In the Thirty first, he shews, that the Equality and Likeness of the Three Persons are not ground∣ed on their Relative Properties, but on the Identity of their Nature.

In the Thirty second, he lays down Two principal Difficulties; viz. Whether the Father and the Son mutually love one another by the Holy Ghost; or whether the Father be Wise by the Wisdom he h•…•… be∣gotten? He acknowledges these Questions to be difficult; yet declares, that there is in God a cer∣tain Love, and a certain Wisdom, which are common to the Three Persons, although the Son

be a Wisdom which is not the Father, nor the Holy Ghost; and the Holy Ghost a Love, which is neither the Father, nor the Son; nevertheless without imagining Two Wisdoms, or TWo Loves, to be in the Trinity.

In the Thirty third, he proposes this Question; viz. Whether the Properties of the Persons are to be distinguished from the Persons themselves, and from the Divine Essence?

He maintains the Negative, and condemns the contrary Opinion as Heretical.

He opposes the same Opinion, in the Thirty fourth Section. and shews, that the Persons are not distinguished from their Nature.

In the Thirty fifth, he begins to treat of the Attributes of God, which deserve a particular Consideration; such are his Omniscience, Omnipotency, Providence, Will, Predestination, &c. The Author shews, in this Section, that these Attributes are relative to the Creatures.

In the Thirty sixth, he makes it appear, that all Things are expos'd to God's Omniscience, as well Good as Evil; although Evil be not an Effect that proceeds from him.

In the Thirty seventh, he treats of the manner of God's being every where, by his Presence, Power, and Essence; discoursing by the way, of the manner how Spiritual Creatures are in a Place, and how they pass from one Place to another.

Afterwards, returning to the Question about the Fore-knowledge of God, he says, that it is not the Cause of Things, if it be taken for a simple Knowledge; but if his Will, Decree, and Incli∣nation, be comprehended under that Name, in that Sense it is the Cause of all Things. That upon this account God cannot be the Author of Evil, because he does not require, nor ordain it, although he knows it. In the end of this Section, is produced the famous Distinction of the Composit, and divided Sensation, to explain how God's Fore-knowledge cannot be erroneous, although the Things might happen otherwise. It is impossible that that should not happen which God has fore-seen; that is to say, that it cannot so fall out that God should fore-see it, and yet that it should not happen; but perhaps it might not happen, and then God should not have fore-seen it.

In the Thirty ninth, he proves, that the Omniscience of God has always been the same, and that it cannot be diminished or augmented.

In the Fortieth, he begins to treat of Predestination, and distinguishes it from Fore-knowledge, in regard that the former has respect only to the Good which God ought to do. Then he again makes use of the Distinction of Composit, and Divided Sensation; to explain in what Sense it may be said, that none of the Predestinated Persons can be damned, nor any of the Reprobate sav'd. He makes Predestination to consist in an eternal Decree of God, by which he elected those whom he thought fit, and prepar'd Graces for them; and Reprobation, in the Fore-knowledge of their Sins, by virtue of which he prepar'd everlasting Punishments to be inflicted on them.

In the Forty first Section, he treats of the Causes of Predestination, and shews that it is purely Gratuitous; and that God has not chosen the Elect, because he knew them to be Righteous, but that he call'd them to be so by his Grace.

From Predestination he passes to Omnipotency; and explains, in the Forty second Section, in what Sense God is Almighty.

He proves, in the Forty third, that God can do an infinite number of Things, which he does not, and confutes the Arguments and Allegations brought by some Persons to evince the con∣trary.

In the Forty fourth, he shews, that God can absolutely make Things more perfect than he has done, if respect only be had to the Quality of the Creature; but cannot do so, if the Wisdom and Intention of the Creator be taken into consideration. He adds, that God can always do what he has done, because he always has the same Power; although it happens that he cannot do in particular what he has already done.

He treats at large, in the Forty fifth Section, of the Will of God, of its Nature and Effects, and of its different Kinds.

In the Forty sixth, he explains in what Sense the Will of God cannot be ineffectual; and in what Sense he is willing, or unwilling, that Evil be committed: He has no inclination to Evil, yet he is not absolutely willing to prevent it.

He proves, in the Two following Sections, that the Will of God is always efficacious; that whatever he thinks fit inevitably comes to pass, and nothing happens but by his Will: That al∣though he does not approve all the Inclinations of Men, nevertheless he willingly admits the Ef∣fects of their depraved Will, but does not approve the Act of it.

In the First Section of the Second Book, the Author confutes the Error of those Hereticks, who admitted Two Principal or Sovereign Beings; shews that God created Angels and Men, and dis∣courses in general of their Nature, and of the End for which they were created.

In the Second, he examines when, and in what Place, the Angels were created.

In the Third, he treats of the State in which they were created; and maintains, that they were created in Uprightness, and that their Fall happen'd but some Moments after their Creation.

He adds, in the following Section, that they did not enjoy perfect Blessedness, till they were confirm'd in Good.

In the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Sections, he debates divers Questions about the Fall of the Wicked, and the Confirmation of the Just.

In the Eighth, he follows St. Augustin's Opinion, who believ'd that the Angels have A••rial Bodies; and upon occasion of that Question, he enquires after what manner God was wont to appear to Men, and in what Sense it is said, that the Devils enter into human Bodies.

In the Ninth, he treats of the different Orders of the Angels.

In the Tenth, he examines whether any Angels of different Orders were sent, and gives an Account of the different Opinions of the Fathers, with respect to these Questions.

He proves, in the Eleventh, that every one of the Elect has a Guardian Angel, yet owns that the same Angel may serve as a Guardian to several Persons; and afterwards proceeds to examine in what particulars the Knowledge of the Angels may be augmented.

In the following Sections, to the Sixteenth, he explains the Work of the Creation.

In the Sixteenth and Seventeenth, he treats of the Creation of Man; and enquires in what his likeness to God consists, when his Soul was created, and in what Place he was set.

He discourses, in the Eighteenth, of the Formation of Woman; and endeavours to explain, why she was taken out of the Man's Rib.

In the Nineteenth, he treats of the State of Immortality, in which the First Man was created.

In the Twentieth, he debates concerning the Manner how Men were to be brought into the World, and how they were to be nourished, in case the State of Innocence had continu'd.

In the Twenty first, he gives an Account after what manner the Devil tempted Man.

He discusses, in the Twenty second, divers Questions relating to the Quality and Circumstances of the Sin of Adam and Eve.

In the Twenty third, he resolves this difficult Point, Why God permitted Man to be tempted, knowing that he was to Fall? And afterwards treats of the Knowledge with which the First Man was endu'd.

In the Twenty fourth, he begins to discourse concerning the Free Will, and Grace, inherent in the First Man; and treats in general, in the Two following Sections, of the Freedom of Grace, according to St. Augustin's Principles.

In the Twenty seventh Section, he discourses of Vertue and Merit, which are the Effects of Grace and Free Will.

In the Twenty eighth, he confutes the Errors of the Pelagians, as also those of the Manichees, and of Jovinian.

In the Twenty ninth Section, he returns to the State of the First Man; and after having shewn, that Man even in the State of Innocency stood in need of operating and co-operating Grace, for the doing of Good, he debates certain Questions about the manner how he was expell'd Paradise, and concerning the Tree of Life which preserv'd him from Death.

In the Thirtieth, Thirty first, Thirty second, and Thirty third, he treats of Original Sin, and enquires in what it consists; how it is transferr'd from Parents to their Children; after what man∣ner it is remitted by Baptism; whether Children contract the Sins of their Parents, as Original Sin, &c.

In the Thirty fourth and Thirty fifth, he discourses of the Nature of Actual Sin.

In the Thirty sixth, he shews, that there are Sins which are both the Cause, and the Punish∣ment of Sin.

He makes it appear, in the Thirty seventh, that God is the Author of the Actions, by which Sin is committed, and of the Punishments of Sin, although he is not the Author of Sin.

In the Thirty eighth, he demonstrates, that it is the End and Intention of the Will which ren∣ders the Action either Good or Bad; and that in order to its being Good, it must of necessity be terminated in God.

In the Thirty ninth, he enquires into the Reason, Why, of all the natural Faculties, the Will only is susceptible of Sin?

In the Fortieth, he continues to shew, that an Action to be denominated Good, ought to have a good End and Intention.

In the Forty first, he produces divers Passages of St. Augustin, about the necessity of Faith, and of an upright Will, to avoid the committing of Sin; and shews, that the corrupt Will is the cause of Sin.

He enquires, in the Forty second, Whether the Will and the Action be two different Sins? And Afterwards explains the Division of the Seven Capital Sins; shewing, that they derive their ori∣ginal from Pride and Concupiscence.

In the Forty third, he relates the Opinions of St. Ambrose, and St. Augustin, concerning the Sin against the Holy Ghost.

Lastly, he makes it appear, in the Forty fourth Section, that the Power of committing Sin pro∣ceeds from God; and that the Power the Devil has to tempt us to Evil, ought to be resisted.

The Third Book begins with the Questions relating to the Mystery of the Incarnation. In the First Section, the Author lays down the Reasons, Why it was more expedient that the Son should be Incarnate, rather than the Father, or the Holy Ghost; and discusses this Question, Whether Two Persons were in like manner capable of being Incarnate.

In the Second Section, he treats of the Union of the Word, with the Body and the Soul.

In the Third, he shews, that the Body taken by the Word was free from the corruption of Sin; that the Virgin Mary herself was then also free from Sin; and that in the very moment that the Humanity of Jesus Christ was conceiv'd, the Word was united to it.

He enquires, in the Fourth, Why the Incarnation is attributed to the Holy Ghost, rather than to the other Persons of the Trinity; and in what Sense it is said Jesus Christ was conceiv'd and born of the Holy Ghost?

In the Fifth Section, he treats of the Union of the Person of the Son with the Human Nature; and shews, that the Word was not united to the Person, but to the Nature.

In the Sixth, he gives an Account of these Propositions; viz. God was made Man, God is Man; and produces Three several Explications of them made by the Fathers.

The same matter is farther handled in the Seventh Distinction.

In the Eighth, he resolves this Question, Whether it may be said, that the Divine Nature was born of the Virgin Mary? And discourses of the two-fold Nativity of Jesus Christ.

In the Ninth, he produces certain Passages of the Fathers, concerning the Adoration of the Body of Jesus Christ.

In the Tenth, he proposes this Question, viz. Whether Jesus Christ, quatenus Man, be a Per∣son, or a Thing? He maintains the Negative, and afterwards proves that the Quality or Title of adoptive Son cannot be appropriated to him.

In the Eleventh, he asserts, that neither ought Jesus Christ to be call'd a Creature, without ad∣ding quatenus Man.

In the Twelfth, he discusses divers Questions; viz. Whether it may be said of Jesus Christ as Man, that he always was, or that it was possible that he might not be God? He determines, that it cannot be said of the Person of Jesus Christ, but only of his Human Nature.

In the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Sections, he treats of Knowledge, Grace, and the Power of Jesus Christ, quatenus Man.

In the Fifteenth and Sixteenth, he proves, that Jesus Christ took upon him the Infirmities of Human Nature, Sin and Ignorance only excepted, and that he was capable of undergoing Sufferings.

In the Seventeenth, he explains the two-fold Will of Jesus Christ.

In the Eighteenth, he discourses of what Jesus Christ merited for himself, and of what he merited for us.

In the Nineteenth, he treats of Redemption.

In the Twentieth, he enquires, Why Jesus Christ redeem'd us by his Passion and Death? And whe∣ther he could not have done it by some other means?

In the Twenty first, he proposes this Question; viz. Whether the Word remain'd united to the Body of Jesus Christ, as well as to his Soul, after his Death? And concludes in the Af∣firmative.

In the Twenty second, he enquires, Whether it may be said, that Jesus Christ was Man during the time that his Body lay in the Supulchre?

In the following Sections, he treats of Faith, Hope, and Charity.

In the Thirty third, he discourses of the Four Cardinal Vertues.

In the Thirty fourth, of the Seven Gifts of the Holy Ghost, and chiefly of the Fear of God.

In the Thirty fifth, he explains the difference between Wisdom and Knowledge.

In the Thirty sixth, he treats of the Connexion of all the Vertues, and of the Relation they have to Charity.

The Four last Sections of this Book, contain a compendious Explication of the Decalogue.

The Holy Sacraments are the principal Subject treated of in the last Book.

In the first Section, he gives a Definition of the Sacraments; shews the Causes of their Institu∣tion; observes the difference between those of the Old and New Law; and treats in particular of Circumcision, which he believes to have been so necessary for the remission of Original Sin, that he affirms, that the Children of the Jews, who died without partaking of that Sacrament, were consign'd to Damnation.

In the Second, after having nominated the Seven Sacraments of the New Law, he discourses of the Baptism by St. John the Baptist.

In the Third, he treats of the Baptism of Jesus Christ, and after having confirm'd St. Ambrose's Opinion, that Baptism might be absolutely administer'd in the Name of Jesus Christ, he enquires, When the Baptism of Jesus Christ was instituted, and under what Form the Apostles baptized Persons? As also, Why Water is us'd in the Administration of this Sacrament, and no other Liquor; and how many Immersions ought to be made in Baptizing?

In the Fourth Section, he treats of the Effects of Baptism; shewing how some Persons re∣ceive the Sacrament, and the Grace of the Sacrament; and how others receive the Sacrament without the Grace, and the Grace without the Sacrament. He proves that Infants receive both; and adds, that they even receive Actual Grace, which afterwards enables them to perform good Actions.

In the Fifth, he makes it appear from St. Augustin's Principles, that Baptism administred by an unworthy Priest, is no less Holy than that which is perform'd by the Hands of a worthy one; be∣cause the effective Power of Baptizing is inherent in Jesus Christ, which he does not communi∣care to the Ministers.

In the Sixth Section, he observes, that the Bishops, or Priests, have a Right to administer this Sacrament; although in case of necessity it may be done by Lay-men, and even by Women: And that it is valid by whomsoever it be administer'd, nay when perform'd by Hereticks, provided

it be done in the Name of the Holy Trinity. He asserts, that an Infant cannot be baptized in the Mother's Belly, and afterwards handles several other Questions relating to the Form and Cere∣monies of Baptism.

In the Seventh Section, he treats of the Sacrament of Confirmation; and at first observes, that the Form of this Sacrament are the Words pronounced by the Priest, when he anoints the Fore-head of the Baptized Persons with the Holy Chrism. The Author adds, that the Administration of this Sacrament was always reserv'd to the Bishops; that they alone are capable of administring it effectually in due Form; and that it cannot be reiterated.

He begins, in the Eighth Section, to discourse of the Sacrament of the Eucharist; and after having shewn some of the ancient Figures of this Sacrament, proceeds to treat of its Institution; of its Form, which he makes to consist in these Words, This is my Body, this is my Blood; and of the Things contain'd therein. He says, Three Things are to be distinguished in the Eucharist; viz. the Sacrament consisting in the visible Species of the Bread and Wine; the Sacrament and the Thing, which is the proper Body, and the proper Blood of our Lord, contain'd under the Species; and the Thing, which is not the Sacrament; that is to say, the mystical Body of Jesus Christ, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the inward Grace.

In the Ninth Section, he distinguishes Two Manners of receiving the Body of Jesus Christ, viz. one Sacramental, which is common to the worthy, and to the unworthy Communicants; and the other Spiritual, which is peculiar only to the former.

In the Tenth, he proves the Real Presence, and the changing of the Bread and Wine into the Body ond Blood of Jesus Christ, and refutes the Opinion of those, who believe the Eucharist to be only a Figure.

In the Eleventh, he at first enquires of what Nature this Change is, and proves it to be sub∣stantial; insomuch that the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are under the Accidents, which be∣fore cover'd the Substance of the Bread and Wine, which is annihilated or return'd to the first Matter. He confutes those Persons who asserted, that the Substance of the Bread remain'd after the Consecration; and afterwards gives an Account, why the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are administer'd to us under Two different Kinds, and why Water is intermixed with the Wine.

In the Twelfth, he endeavours to explain divers Questions relating to the Eucharistical Species, and affirms, that the Accidents remain therein without the Subject; and that they only are broken and divided into many Parts. Afterwards he discourses of the Quality which is peculiar to this Sacrament, as also of its Institution and Effects.

In the Thirteenth Section, he acknowledges, that unworthy Ministers may consecrate the Ele∣ments; but denies, that it can be done by excommunicated Persons, and declared Hereticks.

In the Fourteenth, he begins to treat of Repentance; distinguishing the Vertue of Repentance from the Sacrament of Penance: He gives divers Definitions of Repentance, and shews the Neces∣sity of it, as also that it may be often reiterated.

In the Fifteenth, he proves that one cannot be truly penitent for one Sin, without actually re∣penting of all.

In the Sixteenth, he distinguishes the Three Parts of Repentance; viz. the Compunction of the Heart, the Confession of the Mouth, and the Satisfaction of Works; and discourses in particular of the Satisfactions that ought to be made for venial Sins.

He treats of Confession, in the Seventeenth Section, and shews, that is requisite to confess ones Sins to a Priest, in order to obtain the remission of them.

In the Eighteenth, he treats of the Sacerdotal Power, and of the use of the Keys; and after having produced different Opinions relating to that matter, concludes. That God alone has the Power of absolutely binding and loosing the Sinner, by cleansing the Pollution of his Sin, and re∣mitting the Penalty of Eternal Damnation: That the Priests do indeed bind and loose, by de∣claring that such Persons are bound or loosed by God, and by imposing Penance, or by readmit∣ting to the Communion those whom they have excommunicated.

In the Nineteenth, he discourses of the Qualities requisite in Ministers, who are employ'd to bind and loose Sinners; nevertheless he acknowledges that unworthy Priests have the Power of the Keys as well as the worthy.

The Twentieth Section, contains the Opinions of the Fathers concerning the Repentance of dying Persons.

In the Twenty first, he discourses of the Expiation of light Sins by the Pains of Purgatory; of the general Confession of venial Sins; and of the Penalties to be inflicted on Priests, who divulge matters related to them in Confession.

In the Twenty second, he proposes this Question; viz. Whether Sins that have been once for∣given, return by the Commission of following Sins? And after having produced the Reasons on both sides, leaves the Question undecided.

In the Twenty third Distinction, he treats of the Sacrament of Unction, which he believes to have been instituted by the Apostles; the Effect of it being the remission of Sins, and the com∣fort of the Sick Person: He also proves that this Sacrament may be reiterated.

In the Twenty fourth, he treats of the Functions and Dignity of the Seven Orders, and of the different Dignities among Bishops.

In the Twenty fifth, he discourses of the validity of Ordinations made by Hereticks; and after having produced different Opinions, seems to approve that of those who affirm, that Persons who

were ordain'd in the Church still retain the Power of ordaining, though they turn Hereticks; but deny that those whom they ordain have the same Power. Afterwards he treats of Simoniacal Or∣dinations, and of the Age requisite for admission into Orders.

In the Twenty sixth, he shews the Antiquity of the Sacrament of Marriage.

In the Twenty seventh, he enquires in what Marriage consists, and distinguishes a Promise of future Marriage, from Marriage contracted by the present Consent of the Parties.

In the Twenty eighth, Twenty ninth, and Thirtieth, he gives a farther Account of the Condi∣tions that ought to be annexed to such a Consent as is necessary for the Consummation of Mar∣riage.

In the Thirty first, he explains the Advantages of Marriage, which are Fidelity, the Lawful Procreation of Children, and the Benefit of the Sacrament, and treats of the contrary Vices.

In the Thirty second, he discourses of Matters relating to the Continency of married Persons at certain times.

In the Thirty third, he relates divers Considerations of the Fathers, with respect to the Poly∣gamy of the Patriarchs.

In the Thirty fourth, he treats of the Impediments that render Persons uncapable of contracting Marriage, and which make their Marriage void and of none Effect.

In the Thirty fifth, he shews that a Man may be divorced from his Wife upon the Account of Adultery, and that they may be afterwards reconcil'd. The Author adds, that he who has com∣mitted Adultery with a Woman may marry her, after her Husband's decease, provided he were not accessory to his Death, and did not promise his Wife to marry her in his Life-time.

In the Thirty sixth Section, he treats of the Impediment that arises from the difference of Age, and Condition between the Parties, who contract Marriage.

In the Thirty seventh, he discourses of the Injunction of Celebacy observ'd by Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and Sub-deacons, and of Pope Calixtus's Ordinance, declaring such Marriages null.

In the Thirty eighth, he treats of the Impediment of a Vow.

In the Thirty ninth, of that of difference in Religion.

In the Fortieth, Forty first, and Forty second, of the Degrees of Cansanguinity and Affinity, as well Temporal as Spiritual.

The other Sections, contain divers Questions concerning the Resurrection; the State of the Elect, and of the Reprobates after their Death; Prayers for the Dead; the Invocation and Intercession of the Saints; the Circumstances of the last Judgment; the several Degrees of Beatitude and Glory; and the State and Torments of the Damned, with which ends the Fiftieth Section of the Fourth Book, by the Master of the Sentences.

This Work was published by John Aleaume, and printed at Paris A. D. 1565. and at Lyons in 158••. It was also revis'd by Antony de Mouchy, and reprinted in the same City in 1618. and in othe•• Places. The Author makes it his chief Business (as we have already hinted) to collect the Opinions of the Fathers concerning all the Questions discussed by him: He adds very little of his own, except sometimes in reconciling certain Passages which seem to be contradictory; and when he cannot bring them to an Agreement, he usually leaves the Question undecided. He avoids to meddle with Questions concerning which the Fathers have writ nothing, and scarce ever makes use of Philosophical Terms and Arguments, much less of Aristotle's Authority, who is often cited by the other School-men.

The Book of Sentences, by ROBERT PULLUS, is not a Collection of Passages of the Fa∣thers, * 1.3 as that of Peter Lombard, but a Theological Work, in which he himself resolves certain Questions which are propos'd, either by Ratiocination, or by Proofs taken out of holy Scripture. This Author, sir-nam'd Pullus, Pullen or Pully, being an English Man by Nation, passed over into France, and flourished in the Schools of Paris. He return'd to England about the Year 1130. and there re-established the University of Oxford in 1133. He was made Arch-deacon of Rochester, and although he enjoy'd that Benefice, yet forbore not to go back to Paris, where he resided in Qua∣lity of Professor of Divinity. However, his Metropolitan thought fit to recall him, and not being prevail'd with, even upon St. Bernard's Request that he might still remain at Paris, caus'd the Revenues of his Arch-deaconry to be seiz'd on, to oblige him to return to England. Whereupon Pullus appeal'd to the See of Rome, and having much Interest in that Court, was not only vindi∣cated against the Archbishop, but also invited to Rome by Pope Innocent II. and created Cardinal and Chancellor of the Church of Rome by Lucius II. in 1144. This Dignity was enjoy'd by him till the Third or Fifth Year of the Pontificate of Eugenius III. when he died A. D. 1150.

Cardinal Pullus's Book of Sentences is divided into Eight Parts, in the First of which he treats of the Existence of God, of the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity, and of the Divine Attri∣butes.

In the Second, of the Creation of the World, of the Angels, of the Nature of Man, of the Origine of the Soul, of Adam's Fall, of the Corruption of human Nature, and of Original Sin.

In the Third, of the Law, of the Circumcision, of the Law of Grace, and of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.

He continues his Discourse concerning that Mystery in the Fourth Part; where he also treats of Faith, Hope, and Charity; of Purgatory; and of the State of Souls after their Separation from their Bodies.

In the Fifth, he treats of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, of the Gift of Faith, of the Sacra∣ments, of Baptism, of Confirmation, of the Remission of Sins, of Charity, and of Sin.

In the Sixth Part, he discourses of the Effects of Sin; of Concupiscence; of Ignorance, and other Punishments of Sin; of the Temptations of the Devil; of the Assistance of good Angels, and their Functions; of Repentance; and of the Priest's Power of binding and loosing, and of the Use that they ought to make of it.

The same Subject is farther handled in the Seventh Part, where he also treats of the Fruits of Repentance; of Church-Discipline; of Ecclesiastical and Civil Power; of the Distinction of Sa∣cred Orders; of the Qualities of Ministers; and of Marriage.

In the Eighth Part, he treats of the Eucharist; of the last Judgment, and of the State of the Blessed and Damned Spirits.

This Author is somewhat obscure, but argues with a great deal of Judgment: His Style is not altogether rude, neither is it perplexed with Scholastical Terms and Distinctions: He does not start any Subtil and Metaphysical Questions, but only such as relate to Points of Doctrine, Disci∣pline or Morality; neither does he resolve them by Principles of Logick or Philosophy, but by Passages of the holy Scripture, and according to the received Doctrine of the Church, and of the Fathers, which he makes use of as a firm Basis or Ground-work. He sometimes produces certain particular Opinions, which nevertheless are common to him with many of these Ancient School-men; and he is one of those who have maintain'd the fewest erroneous or dangerous Opinions. In the First Part he says, that the Father and the Son are Two Principles of the Holy Ghost; but this Expression may be taken in a good Sense, and he never asserted, that the Father and the Son were Two Principles or Essences of a distinct Substance; but Two Persons, who produced a Third by an Action, which, although really the same, may be virtually distinct. He shews, in discoursing of the Sacrament of Penance, that it does not take away the Guilt of Sin, but only remits the Punish∣ment; and that the Priest's Absolution is a Declaration that the Penitent is absolv'd from the Guilt of his Sin, and that he is free'd from the Punishment due to it, by the Satisfaction made by him to God: An Opinion which the Author holds in common with many Ancient School-Divines. There are also found in his Book some other Opinions which are not approv'd; and amongst others, That the Union of the Word was not made with an animated Body, but with the Mass of Flesh, of which the Body was first form'd, and afterwards the Soul: That the Torments of the Damned may be diminished: That the Devils are not as yet cast into everlasting Flames, and that they Sin'd even at the very instant of their Creation: That if the First Man had not committed Sin, those who are Damned would not have been brought forth into the World: That the Saints do not really descend on Earth in Apparitions: And that St. Benedict had a clear Know∣ledge of God in this World, even such as the blessed Spirits have in Heaven.

This Author is one of those who have most peremptorily affirmed, That the Souls are imme∣diately created by God at that instant when they are united to their Bodies, and that the Angels are pure Spirits. He likewise maintains, That the inward Intention of the Minister is not neces∣sary for the Validity of the Sacrament; that without the Love of God Sin could not be forgiven; that Infants dying without Baptism are damn'd, and that for that Reason they are not bury'd in consecrated Ground. For matter of Discipline, it may be observ'd, That Confession made to Laicks for Venial Sins, and even for Mortal ones, in case of necessity, when there was no Priest present, was in use at that time: That not only the Communion, but also Absolution, was also deny'd to Criminals condemn'd to Death: That Priests were wont to Discipline their Penitents: That Pa∣rents were prohibited to enter the Church till their Children were Baptiz'd: That it was permit∣ted to receive, but not to exact Money, for the Administration of the Sacraments, and even for the Celebration of Mass: That Fast was usually broke at Noon, or at the Hour of * 1.4 None, but that there was no Collation: That the Custom of Fasting on Fridays was observ'd, although not re∣puted to be of very great Antiquity, and that Saturday-Fasts were not so regularly kept: That in many Churches some repast was taken on Holy Thursday in the Evening, and that this Custom began to prevail: That Baptism, even that of Infants, was reserv'd for Solemn Days! That the Participation of the Cup in the Communion among the Laity was still in use, but seldom put in practice: And that the Belief of the corporal Assumption of the Virgin Mary was established by the Custom of the Church.

This Work, by Robert Pullus, was published by Father Mathoud of the Congregation of St. Maur, illustrated with learned and curious Notes, and printed at Paris A. D. 1655. The Ecclesiastical Writers, who cite this Author, mention some other Works compos'd by him; particularly a Com∣mentary an the Psalms of David, another on the Revelation of St. John, a Treatise of the Contempt of the World, Four Books concerning the Sentences of the Doctors, a Volume of his Lectures, and several Sermons. We have none of these Works printed; neither is it known, whether any of them be still extant in Manuscript, except certain Sermons which were in Petavius's Li∣brary.

PETER OF POITIERS made use of a more Scholastick Method than any of the above-men∣tion'd * 1.5 Authors: He succeeded them in the Divinity-Chair of the Schools at Paris, and was pro∣moted to the Dignity of Chancellor of the Church of that City, which he enjoy'd during 38 Years. He compil'd his Collection of the Sentences in the Year 1170. dedicated it to William Archbishop of Sens, and died in 1200. In Doctrinal Points, he follows the Master of the Sentences, but uses a quite different Method, as to the manner of handling the Matters: For he explains and resolves all the Questions by the Principles of Philosophy, and treats of them as a Logician, with formal

Arguments after a very dry and uncouth Manner. This Work was set forth by Father Mathoud, at the end of that of Robert Pullus. Peter of Poitiers likewise wrote certain Allegorical Commen∣taries on the Books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers; a Commentary on the Book of Psalms; and other Works; some of which are to be found in the Libraries.

ROBERT DE MELUN liv'd at the same time, and in the end of his Life was ordain'd Bi∣shop * 1.6 of Hereford A. D. 1163. His System of Divinity in Manuscript is kept in the Library of St. Victor at Paris, and often cited by Father Mathoud, in his Notes on Robert Pullus.

GAUTIER, or GAUTERIUS, a Regular Canon of St. Victor, in the end of this Century, took upon him to confute the new Method of these Divines, and compos'd a Work which he call'd, A Treatise against the Four Labyrinths of France, viz. Peter Abaelard, Gillebert de la Porrée, Peter Lombard, and Peter of Poitiers, whom he accuses of having asserted many Heresies and Errors, in treating of the ineffable Mysteries of the Holy Trinity, and of the Incarnation, according to the uncertain Scholastick Method, and Aristotle's Principles, with which they were intoxicated. There are indeed sufficient Grounds for this Censure on Three of these Authors, but he had no reason to fall foul upon Peter Lombard, whose Work is only a Collection of Passages of the Fathers, in which Aristotle is not cited: However, it must be acknowledg'd, that the Master of the Sen∣tences, as well as the others, started a great number of Opinions that were not approv'd by the succeeding Divines, and of which the Doctors of the Faculty at Paris made a Catalogue in the Twelfth Century, under this Title, Articles in which the Master of the Sentences is not generally follow'd.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Of the Ori∣ginal of Scholasti∣cal Divi∣nity, and of the first School-men.
• * 1.2

  Peter Lombard, Bishop of Paris.
• * 1.3

  Robert Pullus, Cardinal.
• * 1.4

  One of the Cano∣nical Hours.
• * 1.5

  Peter of Poitiers, Chancellor of the Church of Paris.
• * 1.6

  Robert de Melun, Bi∣shop of Hereford. Gautier, Regular Canon of St. Victor.