DOCSLIB.ORG

Davis, Thomas (2018) the Scholastic of the Free

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Davis, Thomas (2018) the Scholastic of the Free Davis, Thomas (2018) The Scholastic of the Free Church? An examination of the extent to which it is appropriate to describe William Cunningham (1805- 1861) as a ‘scholastic’ theologian. MTh(R) thesis. https://theses.gla.ac.uk/41025/ Copyright and moral rights for this work are retained by the author A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge This work cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given Enlighten: Theses https://theses.gla.ac.uk/ [email protected] The Scholastic of the Free Church? An examination of the extent to which it is appropriate to describe William Cunningham (1805-1861) as a ‘scholastic’ theologian. By Thomas Davis A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Master of Theology at the University of Glasgow in partnership with Edinburgh Theological Seminary 2018 1 Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 4 General Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................ 5 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. 6 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 7 Literature Survey ................................................................................................................................... 10 1. Primary Sources ............................................................................................................................ 10 1.1 Cunningham’s Works ........................................................................................................ 10 1.2 Scholastic Works ............................................................................................................... 12 2. Secondary Sources ........................................................................................................................ 14 2.1 Works Engaging with Cunningham ................................................................................... 14 2.2 Works Engaging with Scholasticism .................................................................................. 17 2.3 Works Engaging with Cunningham’s Scholasticism .......................................................... 18 Chapter 1. Defining Scholasticism......................................................................................................... 20 1.1 The Development of Greek Philosophy ................................................................................ 21 1.1.1 Plato .............................................................................................................................. 21 1.1.2 Aristotle ......................................................................................................................... 23 1.1.3 Epicureans, Stoics and Middle Platonism ..................................................................... 25 1.1.3 Neoplatonism ................................................................................................................ 26 1.2 The Emergence of Christian Theology .................................................................................. 27 1.3 Philosophy and Theology: Interaction Begins ....................................................................... 28 1.4 Augustine .............................................................................................................................. 32 1.5 Theology and Philosophy in the Middle Ages: The Rise of Scholasticism ............................ 35 1.5.1 Anselm .......................................................................................................................... 36 1.5.2 Realism and Nominalism ............................................................................................... 38 1.5.3 Questions, Sentences and Translations ........................................................................ 39 1.5.4 The Medieval Scholastics: Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus & William of Occam . 40 1.6 Beyond the Middle Ages: Has Scholasticism Continued? .................................................... 47 1.7 Scholasticism: A Working Definition .................................................................................... 53 1.8 Cunningham and Scholasticism: A Framework for Analysis ................................................ 60 Chapter 2. Chronological Context: Cunningham and the Middle Ages ............................................... 61 2.1 Post-Medieval Scholasticism ................................................................................................. 61 2.1.1 Post-Medieval Scholasticism: Continuity ...................................................................... 62 2.1.2 Post-Medieval Scholasticism: Change ........................................................................... 63 2.2 Cunningham and the Middle Ages ........................................................................................ 65 2.2.1 Cunningham’s Analysis Of Medieval Scholasticism ...................................................... 65 2 2.2.2 Perspectives on Cunningham and the Middle Ages ..................................................... 70 2.3 Chronological Context: Was Cunningham a scholastic? ....................................................... 73 Chapter 3. Educational Context: Cunningham and the School ............................................................ 75 3.1 Cunningham and Contemporary Scholars ............................................................................ 76 3.1.1 Cunningham and other Free Church Scholars .............................................................. 77 3.1.2 Cunningham and the wider Theological Educational Context of the 19th Century ...... 82 3.2 Cunningham and Contemporary Influences ......................................................................... 86 3.3 Educational Context: Was Cunningham a scholastic? .......................................................... 90 Chapter 4. Methodological Context: Cunningham and the Scholastic Method. ................................. 92 4.1 Evaluating the Evaluations of Cunningham’s Scholastic Method ......................................... 92 4.2 Cunningham and Scholastic Pedagogical Method ................................................................ 95 4.2.1 Pedagogical Features of Scholastic Method ................................................................. 96 4.2.3 Features of Cunningham’s Pedagogical Style ............................................................... 99 4.2.4 Pedagogical Approach: Was Cunningham a Scholastic? ............................................. 107 4.3 Case Study Comparing William Cunningham and Francis Turretin .................................... 108 4.3.1 Turretin on the Fall ..................................................................................................... 111 4.3.2 Cunningham on the Fall .............................................................................................. 121 4.3.3 Comparing Turretin and Cunningham on the Fall....................................................... 130 4.4 Methodological Context: Was Cunningham a Scholastic? ................................................. 133 Chapter 5. Meta-Narrative Context: Cunningham and the Relationship between Theology and Philosophy ........................................................................................................................................... 137 5.1 Post Reformation Developments: The Enlightenment ....................................................... 137 5.2 Hume, Kant and Hegel ........................................................................................................ 138 5.3 Scottish Common Sense Realism ........................................................................................ 141 5.4 Cunningham and Philosophy: Calvinism and the Doctrine of Philosophical Necessity ..... 144 5.4.1 Theology and Philosophy are Distinct ......................................................................... 147 5.4.2 Theology is not bound to Philosophy.......................................................................... 148 5.4.3 Theology is not dependent upon Philosophy ............................................................. 150 5.4.4 Scripture is Primary ..................................................................................................... 151 5.5 Cunningham and the Theology/Philosophy Meta-narrative .............................................. 152 5.5.1 Cunningham and Scottish Common Sense Realism .................................................... 152 5.5.2 Cunningham’s Epistemological Foundation ................................................................ 153 5.5.3 Cunningham’s Place in Theological and Philosophical History ................................... 156 5.6 Meta-Narrative Context:
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Was Shakespeare a Ramist?
    The Oxfordian Volume 22 October 2020 ISSN 1521-3641 The OXFORDIAN The Oxfordian is the peer-reviewed journal of the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship, a non-profit educational organization that conducts research and publication on the Early Modern period, William Shakespeare and the authorship of Shakespeare’s works. Founded in 1998, the journal offers research articles, essays and book reviews by academicians and independent scholars, and is published annually during the autumn. Writers interested in being published in The Oxfordian should review our publication guidelines at the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship website: https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/the-oxfordian/ Our postal mailing address is: The Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship PO Box 66083 Auburndale, MA 02466 USA Queries may be directed to the editor, Gary Goldstein, at [email protected] Back issues of The Oxfordian may be obtained by writing to: [email protected] 2 The OXFORDIAN Volume 22 2020 Was Shakespeare a Ramist? Reviewed by Michael Dudley The Rational Shakespeare: Peter Ramus, Edward de Vere, and the Question of Authorship. By Michael Wainwright. Palgrave Macmillan 2018 (324 pp.) in hardcover, paperback and Kindle. he question regarding the authorship of the Works of Shakespeare has for generations been dismissed by most of the intelligentsia as patent Tnonsense or a conspiracy theory—in short, as highly irrational—with a correspondingly dim view of its proponents’ intelligence and sanity. It is therefore singularly refreshing and impres- sive that a scholarly work that acknowledges Edward de Vere as Shakespeare should be entirely premised on an exploration of rationalism, not only in terms of the worldview apparent in the Shakespeare canon, but as a structured argument unto itself.
    [Show full text]
  • The Problem of Evil in Augustine's Confessions
    University of South Florida Scholar Commons Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 2011 The rP oblem of Evil in Augustine's Confessions Edward Matusek University of South Florida, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd Part of the American Studies Commons, and the Philosophy Commons Scholar Commons Citation Matusek, Edward, "The rP oblem of Evil in Augustine's Confessions" (2011). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/3733 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Problem of Evil in Augustine’s Confessions by Edward A. Matusek A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Philosophy College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Thomas Williams, Ph.D. Roger Ariew, Ph.D. Joanne Waugh, Ph.D. Charles B. Guignon, Ph.D. Date of Approval: November 14, 2011 Keywords: theodicy, privation, metaphysical evil, Manichaeism, Neo-Platonism Copyright © 2011, Edward A. Matusek i TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract iii Chapter One: Introduction to Augustine’s Confessions and the Present Study 1 Purpose and Background of the Study 2 Literary and Historical Considerations of Confessions 4 Relevance of the Study for Various
    [Show full text]
  • A Rehabilitation of Scholasticism? a Review Article on Richard A. Muller's Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Vol
    A REHABILITATION OF SCHOLASTICISM? A REVIEW ARTICLE ON RICHARD A. MULLER'S POST-REFORMATION REFORMED DOGMATICS, VOL. I, PROLEGOMENA TO THEOLOGY* DOUGLAS F. KELLY REFORMED THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI For decades the idea of scholastic theology has tended to raise very nega­ tive images, especially among Protestants. The very words 'Protestant scholasticism' or 'seventeenth-century Orthodoxy' conjure up mental pic­ tures of decaying calf-bound Latin folios covered with thick dust. Of forced and inappropriate proof-texting inside, of abstract and boring syl­ logisms, far removed from the dynamism of biblical history and concerns of modem life, of harsh logic, a polemical spirit and an almost arrogant propensity to answer questions which the ages have had to leave open. The 'Biblical Theology' movement inspired by Barth and Brunner earlier this century, and the great flowering of sixteenth-century Reformation studies since World War 11 have given seventeenth-century Protestant scholasticism very poor marks when compared with the theology of the original Reformers. The fresh emphasis on the dynamic development of the theology in tfie Scriptures among Evangelicals (post-V os) and vari­ ous approaches to the 'New Hermeneutics' among those in the more lib­ eral camp have raised serious questions about the scriptural balance (if not validity) of the more traditional Protestant text-book theology. R. T. Kendall, for instance, has quite negatively evaluated the seventeenth-cen­ tury Westminster confessional theology in light of the very Calvin whom the Westminster divines certainly thought they were following. 1 Can anything good, therefore, be said these days about Protestant scholasticism? Is it even legitimate to reopen this subject in a serious way? Richard A.
    [Show full text]
  • Antoine De Chandieu (1534-1591): One of the Fathers Of
    CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY ANTOINE DE CHANDIEU (1534-1591): ONE OF THE FATHERS OF REFORMED SCHOLASTICISM? A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BY THEODORE GERARD VAN RAALTE GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN MAY 2013 CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 3233 Burton SE • Grand Rapids, Michigan • 49546-4301 800388-6034 fax: 616 957-8621 [email protected] www. calvinseminary. edu. This dissertation entitled ANTOINE DE CHANDIEU (1534-1591): L'UN DES PERES DE LA SCHOLASTIQUE REFORMEE? written by THEODORE GERARD VAN RAALTE and submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy has been accepted by the faculty of Calvin Theological Seminary upon the recommendation of the undersigned readers: Richard A. Muller, Ph.D. I Date ~ 4 ,,?tJ/3 Dean of Academic Programs Copyright © 2013 by Theodore G. (Ted) Van Raalte All rights reserved For Christine CONTENTS Preface .................................................................................................................. viii Abstract ................................................................................................................... xii Chapter 1 Introduction: Historiography and Scholastic Method Introduction .............................................................................................................1 State of Research on Chandieu ...............................................................................6 Published Research on Chandieu’s Contemporary
    [Show full text]
  • Normative Perfectionism and the Kantian Tradition
    volume 19, no. 45 erfectionist ethical theories ground moral demands in the per- october 2019 fection or full realization of one’s essential nature.1 Perfection- P ism has a rich history. Perfectionist ideas can be found in Aristo- tle, the Stoics, Maimonides, Aquinas, Malebranche, Spinoza, Leibniz, von Humboldt, J. S. Mill, F. H. Bradley, T. H. Green, Nietzsche, and Marx, among others. Though individual perfectionist figures have received significant attention, their perfectionism has not always enjoyed the Normative Perfectionism same focus. Perfectionism has not been studied thoroughly as a dis- tinctive tradition, and it remains a neglected option in contemporary moral and political philosophy.2 This neglect may reflect doubts about the justification, content, and implications of perfectionist ideals. and the Kantian Tradition Different conceptions of perfectionism result from different con- ceptions of human nature. Some perfectionists and their critics un- derstand human nature as a biological kind. However, that conception of perfectionism gives rise to legitimate foundational doubts about whether there is anything substantive that is essential to human na- ture and whether, if there is, it would be normatively compelling. A different strand in the perfectionist tradition grounds perfectionist ide- als in a normative conception of human nature as involving personal- ity or agency. Normative perfectionism is a distinctive conception within 1. An earlier version of this material was presented at Sheffield University as part of a 2014 conference on Post-Kantian Perfectionism; a 2015 University of Pennsylvania conference on Ancient and Modern Conceptions of Happiness; David O. Brink Ohio and St. Louis Universities; a 2016 UCSD conference, Perfectionism: Ancient and Modern; the Chinese University of Hong Kong; and the 2019 University of California San Diego Pacific Division Meetings of the APA.
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Inquiry As Virtuous Truth-Telling: Implications of Phronesis and Parrhesia ______
    ______________________________________________________________________________ Critical Inquiry as Virtuous Truth-Telling: Implications of Phronesis and Parrhesia ______________________________________________________________________________ Austin Pickup, Aurora University Abstract This article examines critical inquiry and truth-telling from the perspective of two comple- mentary theoretical frameworks. First, Aristotelian phronesis, or practical wisdom, offers a framework for truth that is oriented toward ethical deliberation while recognizing the contingency of practical application. Second, Foucauldian parrhesia calls for an engaged sense of truth-telling that requires risk from the inquirer while grounding truth in the com- plexity of human discourse. Taken together, phronesis and parrhesia orient inquirers to- ward intentional truth-telling practices that resist simplistic renderings of criticality and overly technical understandings of research. This article argues that truly critical inquiry must spring from the perspectives of phronesis and parrhesia, providing research projects that aim at virtuous truth-telling over technical veracity with the hope of contributing to ethical discourse and social praxis. Keywords: phronesis, praxis, parrhesia, critical inquiry, truth-telling Introduction The theme of this special issue considers the nature of critical inquiry, specifically methodological work that remains committed to explicit goals of social justice and the good. One of the central concerns of this issue is that critical studies have lost much of their meaning due to a proliferation of the term critical in educational scholarship. As noted in the introduction to this issue, much contemporary work in education research that claims to be critical may be so in name only, offering but methodological techniques to engage in critical work; techniques that are incapable of inter- vening in both the epistemological and ontological formations of normative practices in education.
    [Show full text]
  • Duns Scotus on the Common Nature and the Individual Differentia
    c Peter King, Philosophical Topics 20 (1992), 50–76 DUNS SCOTUS ON THE COMMON NATURE* Introduction COTUS holds that in each individual there is a principle that accounts for its being the very thing it is and a formally S distinct principle that accounts for its being the kind of thing it is; the former is its individual differentia, the latter its common nature.1 These two principles are not on a par: the common nature is prior to the individual differentia, both independent of it and indifferent to it. When the individual differentia is combined with the common nature, the result is a concrete individual that really differs from all else and really agrees with others of the same kind. The individual differentia and the common nature thereby explain what Scotus takes to stand in need of explanation: the indi- viduality of Socrates on the one hand, the commonalities between Socrates * An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 26th International Congress on Medieval Studies, sponsored by the Medieval Institute, held at Western Michigan University 9–12 May 1991. All translations are my own. Scotus’s writings may be found in the following editions: (1) Vaticana: Iohannis Duns Scoti Doctoris Subtilis et Mariani opera omnia, ed. P. Carolus Bali¸cet alii, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanae 1950– Vols. I–VII, XVI–XVIII. (2) Wadding-Viv`es: Joannis Duns Scoti Doctoris Subtilis Ordinis Minorum opera omnia, ed. Luke Wadding, Lyon 1639; republished, with only slight alterations, by L. Viv`es,Paris 1891–1895. Vols. I–XXVI. References are to the Vatican edition wherever possible, to the Wadding-Viv`esedition otherwise.
    [Show full text]
  • St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas on the Mind, Body, and Life After Death
    The University of Akron IdeaExchange@UAkron Williams Honors College, Honors Research The Dr. Gary B. and Pamela S. Williams Honors Projects College Spring 2020 St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas on the Mind, Body, and Life After Death Christopher Choma [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/honors_research_projects Part of the Christianity Commons, Epistemology Commons, European History Commons, History of Philosophy Commons, History of Religion Commons, Metaphysics Commons, Philosophy of Mind Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Please take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will be important as we plan further development of our repository. Recommended Citation Choma, Christopher, "St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas on the Mind, Body, and Life After Death" (2020). Williams Honors College, Honors Research Projects. 1048. https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/honors_research_projects/1048 This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by The Dr. Gary B. and Pamela S. Williams Honors College at IdeaExchange@UAkron, the institutional repository of The University of Akron in Akron, Ohio, USA. It has been accepted for inclusion in Williams Honors College, Honors Research Projects by an authorized administrator of IdeaExchange@UAkron. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. 1 St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas on the Mind, Body, and Life After Death By: Christopher Choma Sponsored by: Dr. Joseph Li Vecchi Readers: Dr. Howard Ducharme Dr. Nathan Blackerby 2 Table of Contents Introduction p. 4 Section One: Three General Views of Human Nature p.
    [Show full text]
  • Events of the Reformation Part 1 – Church Becomes Powerful Institution
    May 20, 2018 Events of the Reformation Protestants and Roman Catholics agree on first 5 centuries. What changed? Why did some in the Church want reform by the 16th century? Outline Why the Reformation? 1. Church becomes powerful institution. 2. Additional teaching and practices were added. 3. People begin questioning the Church. 4. Martin Luther’s protest. Part 1 – Church Becomes Powerful Institution Evidence of Rome’s power grab • In 2nd century we see bishops over regions; people looked to them for guidance. • Around 195AD there was dispute over which day to celebrate Passover (14th Nissan vs. Sunday) • Polycarp said 14th Nissan, but now Victor (Bishop of Rome) liked Sunday. • A council was convened to decide, and they decided on Sunday. • But bishops of Asia continued the Passover on 14th Nissan. • Eusebius wrote what happened next: “Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox [heretics]; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.” (Eus., Hist. eccl. 5.24.9) Everyone started looking to Rome to settle disputes • Rome was always ending up on the winning side in their handling of controversial topics. 1 • So through a combination of the fact that Rome was the most important city in the ancient world and its bishop was always right doctrinally then everyone started looking to Rome. • So Rome took that power and developed it into the Roman Catholic Church by the 600s. Church granted power to rule • Constantine gave the pope power to rule over Italy, Jerusalem, Constantinople and Alexandria.
    [Show full text]
  • Life with Augustine
    Life with Augustine ...a course in his spirit and guidance for daily living By Edmond A. Maher ii Life with Augustine © 2002 Augustinian Press Australia Sydney, Australia. Acknowledgements: The author wishes to acknowledge and thank the following people: ► the Augustinian Province of Our Mother of Good Counsel, Australia, for support- ing this project, with special mention of Pat Fahey osa, Kevin Burman osa, Pat Codd osa and Peter Jones osa ► Laurence Mooney osa for assistance in editing ► Michael Morahan osa for formatting this 2nd Edition ► John Coles, Peter Gagan, Dr. Frank McGrath fms (Brisbane CEO), Benet Fonck ofm, Peter Keogh sfo for sharing their vast experience in adult education ► John Rotelle osa, for granting us permission to use his English translation of Tarcisius van Bavel’s work Augustine (full bibliography within) and for his scholarly advice Megan Atkins for her formatting suggestions in the 1st Edition, that have carried over into this the 2nd ► those generous people who have completed the 1st Edition and suggested valuable improvements, especially Kath Neehouse and friends at Villanova College, Brisbane Foreword 1 Dear Participant Saint Augustine of Hippo is a figure in our history who has appealed to the curiosity and imagination of many generations. He is well known for being both sinner and saint, for being a bishop yet also a fellow pilgrim on the journey to God. One of the most popular and attractive persons across many centuries, his influence on the church has continued to our current day. He is also renowned for his influ- ence in philosophy and psychology and even (in an indirect way) art, music and architecture.
    [Show full text]
  • Against Logical Form
    Against logical form Zolta´n Gendler Szabo´ Conceptions of logical form are stranded between extremes. On one side are those who think the logical form of a sentence has little to do with logic; on the other, those who think it has little to do with the sentence. Most of us would prefer a conception that strikes a balance: logical form that is an objective feature of a sentence and captures its logical character. I will argue that we cannot get what we want. What are these extreme conceptions? In linguistics, logical form is typically con- ceived of as a level of representation where ambiguities have been resolved. According to one highly developed view—Chomsky’s minimalism—logical form is one of the outputs of the derivation of a sentence. The derivation begins with a set of lexical items and after initial mergers it splits into two: on one branch phonological operations are applied without semantic effect; on the other are semantic operations without phono- logical realization. At the end of the first branch is phonological form, the input to the articulatory–perceptual system; and at the end of the second is logical form, the input to the conceptual–intentional system.1 Thus conceived, logical form encompasses all and only information required for interpretation. But semantic and logical information do not fully overlap. The connectives “and” and “but” are surely not synonyms, but the difference in meaning probably does not concern logic. On the other hand, it is of utmost logical importance whether “finitely many” or “equinumerous” are logical constants even though it is hard to see how this information could be essential for their interpretation.
    [Show full text]
  • Preface Thomism and the Challenge of Integral Ecology
    Preface Thomism and the Challenge of Integral Ecology The late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus said that a “Thomist of the Strict Observance,” was one who believed that the thought of the Angelic Doctor is the intellectual hardware that can run any software. He was thinking, he said, of the Jesuit scholar Norris Clarke, whose phil- osophical work aimed at showing how Thomas Aquinas could make sense even of the process philosophers Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne. At Fordham University my then-girlfriend Cathy (now my wife) would take me to lunch with Father Clarke, then in his late eighties, a spry gnome-like character who would re- gale us with his intellectual adventures of bringing St. Thomas to every conceivable endeavor. Upon his mentioning a lunch date with the Dalai Lama, I asked him what he had said. Father Clarke looked at us and said very seriously, “I told him, ‘You have wonderful medi- tative practices, but your metaphysics are terrible!’” The Thomist of the Strict Observance then attempted, well, to enlighten him. I’m not sure I agreed with everything Father Clarke said about metaphysics or Thomas Aquinas, but that impulse to bring Thomism to bear on intellectual projects and problems out there in the world was remarkable to me. The tribe of old-fashioned Thomists is often logos 21:4 fall 2018 6 logos fiercely protective of their master in such a way as to ward off any- body attempting to bring him out of the thirteenth, the greatest of centuries, and into our own milieu. I do not doubt the intellectual seriousness, the learning, or the rigor of their work.
    [Show full text]