revelation had to be admitted as a means of knowledge about God. But it was understood
to be partial. Opinion among the theological doctors leaned toward professional
specialization: their methods were the only foolproof way to higher knowledge about the
nature of God and the principles of religion.
The precise definition of certain theological issues was heightened by the “question”
form of scholasticism, and it was at this time that a number of topics were honed to
sharpness. For example, the number and definition of the sacraments were settled at this
period. It is perhaps no coincidence that this was also the era of persecution of heretics
and Jews—those who put themselves outside defined orthodoxy. Theology was
influenced by the new availability of translations of the metaphysical works of Aristotle.
Although the impact of Aristotle on the Latin West has been much discussed, it is not
clear that any issues of orthodoxy were affected by the use of his philosophy by Christian
scholars. They rebutted his ideas on the eternity of the world (as against Creation) and the
unity of the Intellect (which denied the bodily resurrection of the individual). What they
did take to, coming as it did in the right place at the right time, was Aristotle’s method.
His division of substance and accident, for instance, enabled a precise formulation of the
changes wrought by the eucharist as transubstantiation.
No less interesting than the issues faced by speculative theologians in the 12th and
13th centuries were those developments in moral and practical theology, particularly
associated with Peter the Chanter and his circle in the 12th century and some of the
mendicant theologians in the 13th century. The Franciscans were especially plagued by
the debate over apostolic poverty and theological questions about the ownership of
property.
How, if at all, did any of this “high theology” discussed in the universities make its
way down to ordinary people, or even the less educated clergy? The obvious medium is
in sermons, and the theological content of preaching is the subject of much new research,
difficult as it is to study a phenomenon that is essentially oral, context-specific, and
transitory. Nevertheless, the high percentage of mendicants among Paris theologians from
almost their foundations is striking; the orders recognized the importance of theological
training and research to their preaching aims.
The question of who might make theological statements was heightened by vernacular
translations of the Bible. “Heretical” groups of laypeople, such as Lollards, or groups
living in community and following an abbreviated rule, like béguines, made their own
interpretations of orthodox theology. Often condemned by the official church, they
represented a desire by ordinary devout believers to formulate a deeper understanding of
God that yet took into account the everyday experiences of the majority of the faithful.
It is only with hindsight that we make “theology” into a medieval concern, as though it
were somehow in opposition or juxtaposition to the study of sacred scriptures. Theologia
is not a term much used by medieval writers. They prefer to concentrate on the texts they
used for basic knowledge and call themselves not “masters of theology” but “masters of
the sacred page” or “masters of sacred scripture.” These terms illustrate how, as so often,
our attempts to formalize and distinguish reflect our own views of order and fitness, not
those of medieval scholars themselves.
Lesley J.Smith
[See also: ARISTOTLE, INFLUENCE OF; BERENGAR OF TOURS; ERIUGENA,
JOHANNES SCOTTUS; GOTTSCHALK; HERESY; LANFRANC OF BEC;
The Encyclopedia 1719