to the Pope. The power of the Church reached its climax during the papacy of Innocent III (1198-1216); but from that time on it declined. Philip IV of France (1285-1314) met with success in his war with Pope Boniface VIII and caused the removal of the Papal See to Avignon, where it remained from 1309 to 1376. It was during this period that nominalism and German mysticism, two independent movements, made such headway. The great schism in the Papacy lasted from 1378 to 1415; during these years two popes ruled; at one time three. The Babylonian captivity at Avignon and the schism were terrible catastrophes to the Church; how could she claim either temporal or spiritual supremacy when she was divided against herself? The unfortunate situation suggested to the University of Paris the idea of a national Church; if the world could go on with two popes, why might not each nation have its own primate? Objection was also raised to the absolutism of the Pope within the Church itself, and the demand made that since the Church is superior to the Pope, he ought to be subordinate to a Council. Here we have the struggle between nationalism and ecclesiasticism and between democracy and absolutism. Back in the twelfth century Arnold of Brescia had opposed the temporal power of the Church and established a republic in Rome, but it was short-lived and Arnold died on the scaffold (1155). At first the church writers side with the Church, but gradually opposition arises within her ranks against the temporal power of the Roman See. Among those favoring Church supremacy were nearly all the old orthodox schoolmen, and, during the fourteenth century, Augustinus Triumphus (+1328) and Alvarus Pelagius (+1352). Dante (12651321), in his De monarchia, favors the supremacy of the Emperor in worldly affairs, and of the Pope in spiritual affairs. Joachim of Floris, William of Occam (+1347), Wyclif (1327-1384), and Marsilius of Padua (+1343), all oppose the temporal power of the Church. Marsilius teaches an imperialistic theory of the State, the doctrine of popular sovereignty, and the contract theory. Lecky, History of the Rise of Rationalism in Europe, chap. v; E. Jenks, Law and Politics in the Middle Ages; Gierke, Political Theories of the Middle Age, transl. by Maitland; Bryce, Holy Roman Empire; Robertson, Regnum Dei; Troeltsch, Die Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen. It must also be remembered that the heretical tendencies which began with the attempt to make a platform for Christianity never disappeared. We have had occasion, Heretical in tracing the evolution of the dogma, to speak Tendencies of numerous sects whose teachings were antagonistic to orthodox doctrines. Marcion (c. 130), an extreme adherent of the Pauline faction of the new religion, who condemned everything Jewish and Petrinic, became the father of a movement that continued in some form or other for centuries. We find the descendants of the Marcionites, the Paulicians, in Armenia and Asia Minor from the fifth century onwards; the Bogomils in Bulgaria from the tenth on. In the eleventh century, a sect called Cathars or Cathari, with similar teachings, appeared in Southern France. For centuries the Church waged a relentless war against the Albigenses, as this sect came to be named, and with the aid of the terrible Inquisition succeeded in destroying it, root and branch. In the twelfth century a similar sect arose in Northern Italy, the Waldenses, founded by Peter Waldo in 1170, which, under the name of the Vaudois, is in existence to-day. Waldo emphasized the doctrine of justification by faith, preached repentance, favored sermons rather than ritual, opposed the confessional, dispensations, relics, worship of saints, and transubstantiation. He made the Bible the criterion of faith, and had the New Testament translated for general study. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries we have the great reform movements inaugurated by Wyclif (1327-1384) in England and continued by John Huss (1369-1415) in Bohemia. Wyclif opposed the church system, saint-worship, celibacy of the clergy, monasticism, the mass, transubstantiation, hierarchical government, the primacy of the Pope; he demanded a return to the original congregational organization and the independence of Church and State. With the desire for religious reform came a desire for political and social reforms: Wat Tyler in England and Thomas Münzer in Germany become the leaders of social revolution. Signs of a similar independence of thought are found in those who refuse to accept the orthodox philosophy. We have already spoken of the pantheism of Scotus Erigena, which was anathema to the Church, and of the pantheists Joachim of Floris, Simon of Tournay, Amalric of Bennes, and David of Dinant, who exhibited a remarkable freedom in their think ing. The pious mystics of St. Victor shake the Spirit of Free Inquiry very foundations of scholasticism in denying the possibility of a union of reason and faith, science and religion. Even among the regular schoolmen we find liberal tendencies in the twelfth century. The fact is when men begin to think, they are apt, in spite of their orthodoxy, to run counter to the prescribed doctrine now and then. Anselm, whose sole aim was to rationalize the faith, comes dangerously near, at times, to contradicting the dogmas of the Church, as Augustine and Scotus Erigena had done before him. Roscelin's reflections on universals landed him in an out-and-out heresy. The entire life of Abelard impresses one as a conflict between intellectual integrity and loyalty to the Church. Sparks of the spirit of independence are visible in the writings of Bernard of Chartres, William of Conches, Gilbert of Poirée, and John of Salisbury, all bishops of the Church; and the discussions in Peter the Lombard's Summa betray an intellectual curiosity which augured well for the future of thought. Many of the questions which the thinkers of the age considered with all seriousness, seem barren and foolish to us, but that is because our outlook on life has changed; considered in connection with their medieval religious background, they represent the workings of the inquiring mind. The thirteenth century turns from Platonic realism to Aristotelian realism. The interest which the age showed in Aristotle was itself a sign of freedom of thought. Aristotle was a pagan, and, besides, the knowledge of his writings had come to the Western world from the "infidel " Arabians. The Church, quite naturally, at first condemned his philosophy, but soon adapted it to its needs, and made it the official ecclesiastical system. The new world-view helped to strengthen the bonds of union between reason and faith, which were being loosened at the beginning of the thirteenth century. In this respect, it is true, Aristotelianism served as an antidote to the liberal tendencies of the age and stemmed the tide of free thought. At the same time, it contained within itself elements that proved dangerous to scholasticism and encouraged the spirit of independence. By placing a heathen philosopher on so high a pedestal, the Church widened the intellectual horizon of men and increased their respect for the achievements of antiquity. The Aristotelian system also helped to arouse an interest in the study of nature, and this in time proved to be a great stimulus to free inquiry. It formed the bridge from Platonic realism to nominalism and thus to modern science. Aristotle's phi losophy was naturalistic, Christian thought supernaturalistic; and although Thomas Aquinas attempted to supplement Aristotle's world-view by the introduction of supernaturalism, the contradiction between the two lines of thought was there. And when the contradiction was brought out, as it had to be brought out sooner or later, the great respect in which Aristotle had come to be held made his heterodox theories palatable. Aristotle's philosophy, therefore, was a Greek gift after all, and led to the dissolution of scholasticism. St. Thomas builds on Aristotle and constructs a system that is satisfactory to the Church. But Duns Scotus, too, who was not made a saint, believes that he is carrying out the Aristotelian thought in opposing the rationalistic, realistic, and deterministic conceptions of Thomas. By emphasizing the reality of particulars, as he did, he tacitly assumed the importance of the particular human being and the worth of the individual conscience. His doctrines also paved the way for empiricism and nominalism. If God is not determined by his reason to create the world, then the laws of nature are not necessary, and cannot be deduced by reason from the reason of God. Things are what they are because God made them so; they might have been otherwise and may change whenever God so wills it. Hence, in order to know what nature is and how nature acts, we must observe nature; experience is the source of our knowledge. Moreover, if particulars are the ultimate realities, how else can we know them except empirically? William of Occam boldly developed certain implications of the Scotian teaching and attacked the very foundations of scholastic thought. If universals are not real, they are mere words; if theology is a barren science, let the Church cast it off. Faith should take the place of reason. Let us dissolve the Church's alliance with reason and the world, and return to the simple belief and the democratic organization of the spiritual Church of Apostolic times. Mysticism had always shown a distaste for rational theology. But in spite of their anti-rationalistic leanings, the mystics of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries remained true to the established doctrines of the Church. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, however, they became pantheistic and nominalistic, as we have seen, and their teachings, though offered in the interests of a spiritual religion, contributed greatly to weaken the scholastic system and the influence of the visible Church. PHILOSOPHY OF THE RENAISSANCE 36. THE NEW ENLIGHTENMENT Reason and The tendencies which we have outlined, the development of nationalism, the heretical currents of thought, mysticism, the antagonism to the scholastic alliance of theology and philosophy,-are the forerunners of two great reform movements called the Renaissance and the Reformation. The times were beginning to find fault with the old traditions, the old language and literature, the old art, the old theological systems, the old political relations of Church and State, the old authoritative religion. The spirit of reflection and criticism, which had been silently quickening, broke out in open revolt against authority and tradition: in the revolt of nation against Church, of reason against prescribed truth, of the individual against the compulsion of ecclesiastical organization. The conflict between Church and State had been settled in favor of the State, but within both Church and State themselves the desire for political, economic, religious, and intellectual liberty was forming. It found partial realization in the Renaissance and Reformation; later on it expressed itself in modern philosophy and in all the influences which are still at work in the struggle for human liberty and enlightenment. Slowly but surely the authority of the Church is weakened in the field of the mind, and the individual begins to assert his intellectual independence. Reason displaces authority in phi |