In the middle ages 163

the clear distinction between philosophy and the-

ology, wrote on the subject: "If theology borrows

from philosophy, it is not because it needs its help,

but in order to make more obvious the truths which

it teaches.""

The application of philosophy to theology I call

apologetics. Just as the application of mathe-

matics to astronomy affects astronomy alone, so

also the application of philosophy to theology af-

fects only theology. On this historical point, which

I have long sought to establish, the writers of the

thirteenth century give ample support; for they dis-

tinguish the two theological methods of authority

and of reason, "auctontates et rationes/'^^

It clearly follows that the use of philosophy for

theological ends arises by the side of pure philos-

ophy, while the latter remains unchanged. If you

will recall the religious mentality of the thirteenth

century, you will readily understand how the ap-

plication of philosophy to dogma led many minds

into theology. The result was that most philoso-

phers became theologians; and mediaeval apolo-

getics arose in the most varied forms. In a society

where heresj^ itself sprang from an excess of re-

13 "Ad secundum dicendum quod haec scientia accipere potest

aliquid a philosophicis disciplinis, non quod ex necessitate eis indi-

geat, sed ad majorem manifestationem eorum quae in hac scientia

tiaduntur." Summa Theol., la, q. I, art. 5.

1* This distinction between "auctoritates et rationes," appears as

early as Peter of Poitiers. Cf. Grabmann, Gesch. d. schol. Methode,

I, 33.

164 PHILOSOPHY AND CIVILIZATION

ligious zeal and under color of purifying belief, no

one dreamed of opposing dogma; on the contrary,

it was explained — and in all sorts of ways. The

wisest, following the traditions of Anselm and of

the Victorines, posited a domain of mystery re-

served to the advantage of theology. Thomas

Aquinas does not admit the philosophical demon-

stration of mystery itself; he allows philosophy to

prove only that mj'^stery contains nothing irra-

tional. Duns Scotus goes further; from fear of

actual conflict, he withdraws every theological

question from the empire of reason. But others

did not follow these wise examples. Raymond

LuUy wished to support all the contents of revela-

tion by the syllogism — as formerly Abaelard had

done; and Roger Bacon even confused philosophy

with apologetics. Mediaeval rationalism, in its

scholastic form, vindicates for reason the power of

demonstrating dogma in eveiy way; and in this it

is in striking contrast with the modern rationalism

which would deny dogma in the name of reason.

Where could the profoundly religious spirit of

mediaeval speculation appear more luminously than

in these rash attempts? It was religious to the

point of folly. There is no better word to charac-

terize the attitude of the latin Averroists, who

stirred so deeply tlie University of Paris in the thir-

teenth and fourteenth centuries. Not wishing to

deny either the Catholic faith or the compact mass

of philosophical doctrines which were in flagrant