was only an appearance and that the true God was not the God of the Old Testament. If ideas or substances are realities, as the realist held, and are hence independent of the attributes or qualities which identify them in the concrete and which to the nominalist constitute the only reality, then it is possible to distinguish between the substance and the accident, and it is possible to conceive of a change in the substance without any corresponding change in the attribute. Only thus could the Church justify its belief in the doctrine of transubstantiation, or the actual change in the bread and wine of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. As in this sacrament of the Church, wherein this contact between Christ and flesh was demonstrated daily, was an answer to the heresy that the divine could not have lived in contact with a wicked world; so in the general doctrine of realism, with its distinction between substance and accidents, the general relation of finite and infinite was indicated. Other doctrines with their explanations are very similar. So these philosophical views furnished characteristic solutions to all theological problems. Almost every heresy, every divergence from the accepted view, found its justification in the nominal position, while to the realist, the orthodox view of the Church, representing as it did the universal, was the only reality, was the truth; the view of the individual, any special interpretation which he might desire to give, was merely an "unsubstantial," temporal accident, not worthy of consideration or of toleration. To the nominalist this view of the individual was the reality; thus both his religion and his philosophy became heresy.

This is but one, though the fundamental, aspect of the philosophy of the times. It is sufficient to indicate the point in which we are here interested. The content of scholasticism is this fusion of philosophy and theology, in which all theological questions and all secular questions became theological were given a philosophical form and a most formal and extended elaboration. On the other hand, the most

abstract of metaphysical questions were given the form of a concrete theological problem.

The educational content of scholasticism consisted in the most noted of these systematized schemes of learning, with the innumerable comments upon them. During the twelfth and thirteenth centuries were constructed the two most noted of these: The Sententiæ of Peter the Lombard (c. 1100-c. 1160) and the Summa Theologia of Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). The former of these was the most generally used text-book, and the most generally prized summary of scholastic knowledge of the remaining scholastic centuries; while the latter was and yet remains the most complete and thorough presentation of the knowledge of the times, or, to be more exact, of the theology of the Church, and was accepted, as it yet is by the Roman Catholic Church, as the orthodox presentation of its beliefs. Preliminary to the mastery of such summaries of scholastic knowledge, scholastic education demanded the mastery of the science of logic or dialectic as a preparation for the practice of the art. Therefore, the earlier years of scholastic training, after a brief preliminary study of grammar, were devoted to this study. As the development of these studies is synonymous with the growth of universities, it will be further noted in connection with a subsequent topic. In general, the content of scholasticism and of scholastic education deals with the abstract and immaterial; just as the tendency in current education is to reject all that is of this character and to deal only with that which is concrete and material in character. Hence, in respect to content, present education and present thought are so opposed to that of the period under consideration, that there is no tolerance for it at all, and hence it can be little appreciated.

THE FORM OF SCHOLASTIC KNOWLEDGE was that of a scheme of thought carefully systematized after the ideas of Aristotelian deductive logic. Logical perfection was the ideal

sought for in the completed works; these perfected works constituted the texts. Even in more rudimentary phases of the study, logical arrangement was the sole aim. The idea of organizing knowledge according to principles derived from the mental condition or stage of development of the student is an idea of much later development. By this period of scholastic education the complementary principle, that of organization based upon the logic of the subject, was fixed upon education for many centuries. Hence in the introductory subjects, such as grammar, which the child first attempts in his school work, the most formal logical arrangement was adopted. The subject was presented to the child for his mastery in the order in which it appeals to the most mature mind. Previous to this time, the catechetical arrangement, that of questions and answers, was much followed, even in treatises upon the seven liberal arts. During the earlier scholastic period, the dialogue form was yet much used. But with scholasticism the systematized, logical form prevailed almost to the exclusion of the other. A very brief statement of the form of Aquinas's great work may serve as an example. The Summa is divided into four parts, each one of which is composed of a number of questions, each representing some great doctrinal truth, for example, the doctrine of the Trinity. The questions are divided into a number of articles, each representing some subtruth under the general truth. Following the statement of the problem under each article, the objections or the counter solutions of the problem are stated in order (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.), then follows the argument in favor of the true solution, then the accepted resolution of the problem, and finally seriatim answers to each of the difficulties raised. All this is given in condensed, abstract form, in a style without any ornament or attempt at literary embel lishment, and that, too, in a work that fills several folio volumes. So far as form alone is concerned, the most exacting requirements of modern science could desire no more; for it is most rigidly scientific in form though wholly deductive in character.

THE METHOD OF SCHOLASTICISM, as indicated by its form, is that of logical analysis. In reality there were two distinct methods used by the Schoolmen and in the univer sities as well. The first of these, the one in most general

approval, was that of the Summa just given. The entire subject, if a treatise by a Schoolman, or the entire text, if a course of lectures upon a text-book or subject in the university, was divided into appropriate parts, then into heads, subheads, subdivisions, etc., down to the particular proposition of each sentence. Each topic was examined most

minutely after the manner of Aristotelian logic, under the headings of formal, final, material, and efficient causes; its literal, allegorical, mystical, and moral meaning. Thus with analyzed text and comment upon the basis of each division, the student was overwhelmed with a multitude of fine metaphysical distinctions.

The other and freer method was that of stating the proposition, then the several possible interpretations with the difficulties of each interpretation, and finally the selection of the favored one. The solution favored gave rise to other problems; these in turn suggested varying solutions with their appropriate answers and their subsequently suggested problems following as a consequence. So far as approaching a definite conclusion and giving order and system to knowledge, this method was inferior to the former; but in its stimulus to thought, to the freedom of inquiry, and to general progressiveness, it was far more beneficial in its influence.

According to this method some of the Schoolmen stated their theories in the form of questions instead of in propositions, thus provoking inquiry and stimulating independent thought rather than merely suggesting varying ways of stating an accepted proposition. Thus it was possible to propose almost any view. A few such questions from the Yea and Nay (Sic et Non) of Abelard will illustrate this tendency and the daring freedom of thought sometimes shown. Should human faith be based upon reason, or no? Is God a substance, or no? Is God the author of evil, or no? Can God be resisted, or no? Do we sometimes sin unwillingly, or no? Does God punish the same sin both here and in the hereafter, or no?

It became customary for the radical thinker to protect himself from opposition and persecution by stating that proposed views were true philosophically but not theologically, or vice versa; but this subterfuge fell into disfavor with the