A Manual Of Catholic Theology/Introduction
PREFACE
DR. WILHELM and Fr. Scannell have conferred upon the faithful in England a signal boon in publishing Scheeben’s scientific Dogmatik in English, and condensing it for careful and conscientious study.
St. Anselm, in his work, “Cur Deus Homo?” says, “As the right order requires that we should first believe the deep things of the Christian faith before we presume to discuss them by reason, so it seems to me to be negligence if, after we are confirmed in the faith, we do not study to understand what we believe.”
The Dogmatik of Scheeben is a profuse exposition of the deep things of faith in the light of intelligence guided by the illumination of the Church. Although, as Gregory of Valentia teaches, in accordance with the Catholic schools, that Theology is not a science proprie dicta, because it cannot be resolved into first principles that are self-evident, nevertheless it is higher than all sciences, because it can be resolved into the science of God and of the Blessed, known to us by revelation and faith.
Theology may for that cause be called wisdom, which is higher than all science, and also it may be called science for many reasons. First, because, if it be not a science as to its principles, it is so as to its form, method, process, development, and transmission; and because, if its principles are not evident, they are in all the higher regions of it infallibly certain; and because many of them are necessary and eternal truths.
Revelation, then, contemplated and transmitted in exactness and method, may be called a science and the queen of sciences, the chief of the hierarchy of truth; and it enters and takes the first place in the intellectual system and tradition of the world. It possesses all the qualities and conditions of science so far as its subject-matter admits; namely, certainty as against doubt, definiteness as against vagueness, harmony as against discordance, unity as against incoherence, progress as against dissolution and stagnation.
A knowledge and belief of the existence of God has never been extinguished in the reason of mankind. The polytheisms and idolatries which surrounded it were corruptions of a central and dominant truth, which, although obscured, was never lost. And the tradition of this truth was identified with the higher and purer operations of the natural reason, which have been called the intellectual system of the world. The mass of mankind, howsoever debased, were always theists. Atheists were anomalies and exceptions, as the blind among men. The theism of the primæval revelation formed the intellectual system of the heathen world. The theism of the patriarchal revelation formed the intellectual system of the Hebrew race. The theism revealed in the incarnation of God has formed the intellectual system of the Christian world. “Sapientia ædificavit sibi domum.” The science or knowledge of God has built for itself a tabernacle in the intellect of mankind, inhabits it, and abides in it The intellectual science of the world finds its perfection in the scientific expression of the theology of faith. But from first to last the reason of man is the disciple, not the critic, of the revelation of God: and the highest science of the human intellect is that which, taking its preamble from the light of nature, begins in faith; and receiving its axioms from faith, expands by the procession of truth from truth.
The great value of Scheeben’s work is in its scientific method, its terminology, definitions, procedure, and unity. It requires not only reading but study; and study with patient care and conscientious desire to understand. Readers overrun truths which they have not mastered. Students leave nothing behind them until it is understood. This work needs such a conscientious treatment from those who take it in hand.
Valuable as it is in all its parts, the most valuable may be said to be the First Book, on the Sources of Theological Knowledge, and the Second Book, on God in Unity and Trinity. Any one who has mastered this second book has reached the Head of the River of the Water of Life.
Of all the superstitious and senseless mockeries, and they were many, with which the world wagged its head at the Vatican Council, none was more profoundly foolish than the gibe that in the nineteenth century a Council has been solemnly called to declare the existence of God. In fact, it is this truth that the nineteenth century needs most of all. For as St. Jerome says, “Homo sine cognitione Dei, pecus.” But what the Council did eventually declare is, not the existence of God, but that the existence of God may be known with certitude by the reason of man through the works that He has created. This is the infallible light of the Natural Order, and the need of this definition is perceived by all who know the later Philosophies of Germany and France, and the rationalism, scepticism, and naturalism which pervades the literature, the public opinion, and the political action of the modern world. This was the first dominant error of these days, demanding the action of the Council. The second was the insidious undermining of the doctrinal authority of the Holy See, which for two hundred years had embarrassed the teaching of the Church, not only in controversy with adversaries without, but often in the guidance of some of its own members within the fold. The definition of the Infallible Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff has closed this period of contention The Divine certitude of the Supernatural Order completes the twofold infallibility of the knowledge of God in the natural and supernatural revelation of Himself. This was the work of the Vatican Council in its one memorable Session, in which the Councils of the Church, and especially the Councils of Florence and of Trent, culminated in defining the certitude of faith.
Scheeben has fully and luminously exhibited the mind of the Vatican Council in his First and Second Books.
HENRY EDWARD,
Cardinal Archbishop.
EPIPHANY, 1890.
INTRODUCTION
I.—DEFINITION AND DIVISION OF THEOLOGY
I. THE word “Theology” means the Science of God. This science has God not only for its subject, but also for its source and its object; hence the Divine character of Theology cannot better be described than by the old formula: “Theology teaches about God, is taught by God, and leads to God.” Theology may be taken objectively as doctrine, or subjectively as knowledge. But it is not every knowledge of Divine doctrine, especially not the mere apprehension of it, that is called Theology. The term is restricted to scientific knowledge; and consequently Theology, in its technical sense, is the scientific exposition of the doctrine concerning God and things Divine.
The knowledge of God which can be obtained by means of Revelation is called Revealed Theology, in contra-distinction to Natural Theology, which depends on human reason alone. The “Natural Theology” of Paley and other English writers—that is, the knowledge of God obtainable by the study of Nature—is a branch of this more extensive Natural Theology.
II. Theology is usually divided into Dogmatic and Moral Theology. The former treats of dogmas—that is, rules of belief,—and is of a speculative character, while the latter deals with rules of conduct, and is practical. In this work we deal with Dogmatic Theology.
Theology may also be divided according to its various functions. When it demonstrates and defends the grounds of belief, it is called General or Fundamental Theology. This is more properly a vestibule or outwork of Theology, and may be considered as Applied Philosophy. It is also called the Treatise on the True Religion (Tractatus de Vera Religione), and sometimes Apologetics, because of its defensive character. When Theology expounds and coordinates the dogmas themselves, and demonstrates them from Scripture and Tradition, it takes the name of Positive Theology. When it takes the dogmas for granted, and penetrates into their nature and discovers their principles and consequences, it is designated Speculative Theology, and sometimes Scholastic Theology, because it is chiefly the work of the Schoolmen, and also because, on account of its abstruseness, it can only be acquired by scholars. Positive Theology and Speculative Theology cannot be completely separated. Hence the theological works of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were entitled Theologia Positivo-Scholastica, or Dogmatico-Scholastica. The present work likewise possesses this two-fold character.
A fuller account of these various distinctions will be found in the concluding sections of Book I.
II.—A SHORT SKETCH OF THE HISTORY OF THEOLOGY
The history of Theology may be divided into three epochs, which coincide with the great epochs of the history of the Church:—
A.—The Ancient or Patristic Epoch;
B.—The Mediæval or Scholastic Epoch;
C.—The Modern Epoch.
Each of these has as its centre one of the great Councils of the Church, Patristic Theology being grouped round the Council of Nicæa, Mediaeval Theology round the Fourth Lateran Council, and Modern Theology round the Council of Trent. In each epoch also the growth of Theology has followed a similar course. A period of preparation has led up to the Council, which has been followed by a period of prosperity, and this in turn has given place to a period of decay. During the Patristic Epoch, Theology was engaged in studying Holy Scripture, in consolidating Tradition, and in defending the chief doctrines of Christianity against paganism and heresy, and was cultivated principally by the official representatives of Tradition, the Bishops. The foundation having thus been securely laid, the work of the Mediæval theologians was to develop and systematize what had been handed down to them; and this work was carried on almost entirely in the cloisters and universities. Finally, Modern Theology has taken up the work of both of the foregoing epochs by defending the fundamental dogmas of Religion against modern agnostics and heretics, and at the same time carefully attending to the development of doctrine within the Church.
A.—The Patristic Epoch
Theology was not treated by the Fathers as one organic whole. They first enunciated Tradition and then interpreted Scripture. In this way, particular dogmas were often explained and proved at considerable length. Some approach to systematic treatment may, indeed, be found in their catechetical works; but the greater part of the Patristic writings, besides the commentaries on Holy Scripture, consists of treatises written against the different heresies of the day, and thus, without directly constructing a system, the Fathers provided ample materials in almost every department of theology. The struggle against Paganism and Manichæism gave rise to treatises on God, man, and creation; the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity was proved against the Arians and Macedonians; the Incarnation against the Nestorians and Eutychians; Grace and Sin were discussed with the Pelagians; the schism of the Donatists brought out the doctrine concerning the Constitution of the Church.
In the East the Fathers were occupied chiefly in discussing speculative questions, such as the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation, while the Western Church directed its attention more to the practical questions of Sin and Redemption, Grace and Free Will, and the Constitution of the Church. The Easterns, moreover, excelled both in exactness of method and sublimity of expression. This difference in method and choice of subjects was due chiefly to the fact that Theology was treated in the East by men trained in Greek metaphysics, whereas in the West it was treated by men trained in Roman Law. Greek metaphysics supplied ideas and expressions capable of conveying some notion of the Divine Substance, the Divine Persons, and the Divine Nature. On the other hand, the nature of Sin and its transmission by inheritance, the debt owed by man and satisfied by Jesus Christ, were worked out on the lines of the Roman theory of obligations arising out of Contract or Delict, the Roman view of Debts, and the modes of incurring, extinguishing, and transmitting them, and the Roman notion of the continuance of individual existence by universal succession.
The Greek Fathers most highly esteemed for their dogmatic writings are:—The chiefs of the Catechetical School at Alexandria, Clement, Origen, and Didymus, from whom the subsequent writers drew their inspiration; Athanasius; the three great Cappadocians, Gregory of Nazianzum, Basil, and Gregory of Nyssa; Cyril of Alexandria, Leontius of Byzantium, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, and lastly, John Damascene. In the West may be mentioned Tertullian, Ambrose, Leo, Hilary of Poictiers, Fulgentius, and the great St. Augustine. The works of the last-named form a sort of encyclopædia of theological literature. The early Schoolmen, such as Hugh of St. Victor, did little more than develop and systematize the material supplied by him. After a time the influence of the Greek Fathers began to be felt, especially in the doctrine of Grace, and hence, long afterwards, the Jansenists accused both the Schoolmen and the Greek Fathers of having fallen into Pelagianism.
B.—The Mediæval or Scholastic Epoch
During the so-called Dark Ages, Theology was cultivated chiefly in the cathedral and monastic schools. It was for the most part merely a reproduction of what had been handed down by the Fathers. The most valuable writings of these ages are: Venerable Bede’s commentaries on Holy Scripture; Paschasius Radbert’s treatises on the Holy Eucharist, and those directed against Berengarius by Lanfranc and Guitmundus. Scotus Erigena created a sort of theological system in his celebrated work De Divisione Naturæ, but he can in no way be looked upon as the Father of Scholasticism, as he is sometimes styled in modern times; in fact, the Schoolmen completely ignore him.
I. The title of Father of Scholasticism rightly belongs to St. Anselm of Canterbury (d. 1109). He did not indeed supply a complete treatment of theology, but he dealt with the most important and difficult dogmas in such a way that it became easy to reduce them to a system. “Faith seeking understanding” was his motto. It was his severe and strictly logical method which set the fashion to those who came after him. His Monologium treats of God as one in Nature, and three in Persons; the Proslogium further develops the treatment of the unity of God, while the treatise De Processione Spiritus Sancti adversus Græcos develops his teaching on the Trinity; De Casu Diaboli and De Conceptu Virginali et Originali Peccato deal with sin; Cur Deus Homo contains his celebrated theory of Redemption. He also wrote on Grace and Free Will: De Libero Arbitrio and De Concordia Præscientiæ et Prædestinationis nec non Gratiæ Dei cum Libero Arbitrio.
The rationalistic tendencies of Abelard were successfully combated by St. Bernard (1153), Hugh of St. Victor (Summa Sententiarum and De Sacramentis Fidei), and Robert Pulleyn. Peter Lombard (Archbishop of Paris, 1104) was the author of the great mediaeval text-book, Sententiarum libri quattuor, in which the materials supplied by the Fathers are worked up into a complete system of Theology. William of Auxerre (Altissiodorensis), Richard of St. Victor, Alanus of Lille, and William of Paris, form the transition from the preparatory period to the period of prosperity.
II. During the early years of the thirteenth century the foundation of the two great Mendicant Orders by St. Francis and St. Dominic, and the struggles with the Arabico-aristotelian philosophy introduced into the west by the Spanish Moors, gave astonishing impetus to theological studies. Theology embraced a larger field, and at the same time became more systematic. Greek philosophy drew attention to the Greek Fathers, who began to exercise greater influence. Aristotle’s logic had already found its way into the schools; now his metaphysics, psychology, and ethics became the basis of Christian teaching. As might be expected from such studies, the great doctors of this period are characterized by clear statement of the question at issue, continual adoption of the syllogistic form of argumentation, frequent and subtle use of distinctions, and plain unvarnished style of language which is not, however, without a charm of its own. They sometimes treated of theology in commentaries on Holy Scripture, but their usual text-book was the Sentences of the Lombard. They also wrote monographs on various questions, called Quodlibeta or Quæstiones Disputatæ. Some doctors composed original systematic works on the whole domain of theology, called Summæ Theologiæ, most of which, however, remain in a more or less unfinished state. These Summæ have often been likened to the great Gothic cathedrals of this same age, and the parallel is indeed most striking. The opening years of the thirteenth century mark the transition from the Roman (or, as we call it, Norman) style to the Gothic or pointed style, and also from the Patristic to the Scholastic method. The period of perfection in both Scholasticism and Gothic architecture also extends from 1230 to the beginning of the fourteenth century. The Mendicant Orders were the chief promoters of both. The style of the Schoolmen is totally wanting in the brilliant eloquence so often found in the Fathers. They split up their subject into numberless questions and subdivide these again, at the same time binding them all together to form one well-ordered whole, and directing them all to the final end of man. In like manner the mediæval architects, discarding the use of all gorgeous colouring, elaborate the bare stone into countless pinnacles and mullions and clusters, all of them composing together one great building, and all of them pointing to Heaven. And just as in after ages a Fénélon could call Gothic architecture a barbarous invention of the Arabs; so there have been learned men who have looked upon Scholasticism as subtle trifling. But it is noteworthy that in our own day Scholasticism and Gothic architecture have again come into honour. As the German poet Geibel says:—
“Great works they wrought, fair fanes they raised, wherein the mighty sleep, While we, a race of pigmies, about their tombs now creep.”
This flourishing period of Scholasticism opens with the great names of Alexander of Hales (Doctor irrefragabilis) and Blessed Albert the Great. The former was an Englishman, but taught theology in the University of Paris. He composed the first, and at the same time, the largest Summa Theologica, which was partly drawn from his earlier commentary on the Lombard, and to which his disciples, after his death, probably made additions from the same source. It is remarkable for breadth, originality, depth, and sublimity. If it yields the palm to the Summa of St. Thomas, still St. Thomas doubtless had it before him in composing his own work. But Alexander’s chief influence was exercised on the Franciscan Order which he joined in 1225. To this day he is the type of the genuine Franciscan school, for his disciple, St. Bonaventure, wrote, no Summa, while the Scotist school was critical rather than constructive. His works deserve greater attention than they have received. He died about 1245. St. Bonaventure, the “Seraphic Doctor,” (1221–1274) did not actually sit under Alexander, but is nevertheless his true heir and follower. His mystical spirit unfitted him for subtle analysis, but in originality he surpassed St. Thomas himself. He wrote only one great work, a Commentary on the Sentences, but his powers are seen at their best in his Breviloquium, which is a condensed Summa containing the quintessence of the theology of his age. Whilst the Breviloquium derives all things from God, his Itinerarium Mentis ad Deum proceeds in the opposite direction, bringing all things back to their Supreme End. In another work, the Centiloquium, he sketched out a new book of Sentences, containing a rich collection of passages from the Fathers, but in a strange though ingenious order.
The Dominican school was founded by Albert the Great (1193–1280). His chief glory is that he introduced the study of Aristotle into the Christian schools, and that he was the master of St. Thomas Aquinas. His numerous works fill twenty-one folio volumes (Lyons, 1651). They consist of commentaries on the Gospels and the Prophets, homilies, ascetical writings, and commentaries on the Areopagite, on Aristotle, and on the Sentences. His Summa Theologica, of which the four intended parts were to correspond with the four books of the Lombard, was written in his advanced old age, after St. Thomas’s Summa, and goes no further than the end of the second part. He also composed a so-called Summa de Creaturis, partly answering to the Summa contra Gentiles of St. Thomas, and, like it, more philosophical than theological.
St. Thomas Aquinas, the “Angelical Doctor” (1225–1274), towers over all the theologians of his own or of any other age. He is unsurpassed in knowledge of Holy Scripture, the Fathers, and Aristotle, in the depth and clearness of his ideas, in perfection of method and expression, and in the variety and extent of his labours. He wrote on every subject treated by the Schoolmen, and in every form: on physics, ethics, metaphysics, psychology; on apologetic, dogmatic, moral and ascetical theology; in commentaries on Holy Scripture, on Aristotle, on the Areopagite and the Lombard; in monographs, compendia, and in two Summæ. His chief dogmatic writings are the following:—
1. The Commentary on the Sentences written in his early years, and expressing many opinions subsequently rejected by him.
2. The so-called Questiones Disputatæ, a rich collection of monographs, on the most important subjects of the whole province of theology, which St. Thomas here treats more fully than in his other writings. Written as occasion required, they have been grouped in a somewhat confusing way under the titles De Potentia, De Malo, De Spiritualibus Creaturis De Virtutibus and De Veritate. A better arrangement would be under the three headings: De Ente et Potentia, De Veritate et Cognitione, De Bono et Appetitu Boni. We should then possess a fairly complete system of theologicophilosophical Ontology, Psychology and Ethics.
3. The Summa contra Gentiles is for the most part philosophical, but it contains only such philosophical subjects as bear on theology. It is divided into four books: the first two treat of the Essence and Nature of God and of creatures; the third treats of the movement of creatures to their end in God, and of supernatural Providence; the fourth book deals with the various mysteries which bear on the union of creatures with God. The method of exposition is not dialectical but positive. An excellent commentary on this work appeared towards the end of the fifteenth century, written by Francis of Ferrara. An English translation, by Fr. Joseph Rickaby, S.J., has just been published (1905).
4. But the Saint’s masterpiece is his Summa Theologica, composed towards the end of his life and never completed. It contains his mature opinions on almost the entire province of theology. It is divided into three great parts, the second of which is subdivided into two parts, termed respectively, Prima Secundæ and Secunda Secundæ. Each part is divided into “questions” and these again into “articles.”
Part I. treats of God as He is in Himself and as the Principle of all things:
A. Of God Himself:
(a) His Being (qq. 2–13);
(b) His internal activity (14–26);
(c) His internal fruitfulness in the Trinity (27–43).
B. Of God as Cause of all things:
(a) His causal relation to them:
(α) Generally (44–49);
(β) Specially:
(1) Angels (50–64);
(2) The material world (65–74);
(3) Man (75–102).
(b) The government of creatures and their share in the course of the universe (103–119).
Part II. treats of the motion of rational creatures towards God:
A. Generally (Prima Secundæ):
(a) The end or object of their motion (1–6);
(b) Human acts (7–48);
(c) Habits, Virtue and Vice (48–89);
(d) The influence of God on their motion by means of Law and Grace (90–114).
B. Specially (Secunda Secundæ):
(a) The Theological (1–47) and Moral Virtues (48–170);
(b) Various classes of persons:
(α) Those gifted with extraordinary Graces (171–178);
(β) Those who have devoted themselves to the active or contemplative life (179–182);
(γ) Those found in different occupations (183–189).
Part III. treats of God’s action in drawing man to Himself:
A. Through Christ:
(a) His Person (1–26);
(b) His life and works (27–59).
B. By means of Christ’s Sacraments (60–90).
The first regular commentary on the Summa was composed in the beginning of the sixteenth century by Cardinal Cajetan, and is still printed in the large editions of the Summa; but it was not until the end of the sixteenth century that the Summa displaced the Sentences as the text-book in theological schools. The editions are too numerous to mention. Perhaps the most beautiful modern edition is that published by Fiaccadori (Verona) in quarto.
5. The Compendium Theologiæ, sometimes called Opusculum ad Reginaldum, treats of theology in its relation to the three theological virtues, Faith, Hope, and Charity, just like our English Catechism. Only the first part was completed, De Fide Trinitatis Creatricis, et Christi Reparantis; the second part, connected with the Our Father, goes down to the second petition. The treatment is not uniform: the work seems to grow in the Saint’s hands, and consequently some matters are here better treated than in the larger works.
To this flourishing period belong the great apologetic works of the two Dominicans, Raymund Martini (died 1286), Pugio Fidei, and Moneta (d. about 1230), Summa contra Catharos et Waldenses; the Summa of Henry of Ghent, (d. 1293); the magnificent Life of Jesus Christ, by Ludolph of Saxony; the Postilla on Holy Scripture, by Nicholas of Lyra (Franciscan, d. 1340), corrected and completed by Paul of Burgos (d. 1433); the Rationale Divinoram Officiorum, by William Durandus (d. 1296), surnamed Speculator on account of his Speculum Juris; the three great encyclopædic Specula, by Vincent of Beauvais; and the writings of the English Franciscan, Richard Middleton, who taught at Oxford (d. 1300), Commentary on the Sentences and various Quodlibeta.
John Duns Scotus (1266–1308), the “Subtle Doctor,” was a disciple of William Ware (Varro) at Oxford, who was himself the successor of William de la Marre, the first opponent of St. Thomas. His extraordinary acuteness of mind led him rather to criticize than to develop the work of the thirteenth century. His stock of theological learning was by no means large. He composed no commentary on Holy Scripture, which to his predecessors was always the preparation for and foundation of their speculative efforts, nor did he complete any systematic work. His subtlety, his desultory criticisms, and his abstruse style make him far more difficult reading than the earlier Schoolmen, and consequently he is seldom studied in the original text, even by his own school. His principal work is the great Oxford Commentary on the Sentences, Opus Oxoniense. Besides this, he wrote a later and much shorter commentary, Reportata Parisiensia, the Questiones Quodlibetales (corresponding with St. Thomas’s Questiones Disputatæ), and various smaller opuscula on metaphysics and the theory of knowledge. The handiest edition of the Opus Oxoniense is that of Hugh Cavellus, an Irish Franciscan in Louvain, and afterwards Archbishop of Armagh, who enriched the text with good explanatory scholia.
Scotus cannot be considered as the continuer of the old Franciscan school, but rather as the founder of a new school which rightly bears his name. His excessive realism has a tendency quite opposed to the Platonism of the early members of his Order, and, indeed, agrees with Nominalism on many points. His stiff and dry style is very different from the ease and grace which charm us in St. Bonaventure. However, Scotus is the direct antagonist of St. Thomas, and it is in relation to him that the character of his mind stands out most clearly. St. Thomas is strictly organic; Scotus is less so. St. Thomas, with all his fineness of distinction, does not tear asunder the different tissues, but keeps them in their natural, living connection; Scotus, by the dissecting process of his distinctions, loosens the organic connections of the tissues, without, however, destroying the bond of union, and thereby the life of the loosened parts, as the Nominalists did. In other words, to St. Thomas the universe is a perfect animal organism, wherein all the parts are held together in a most intimate union and relation by the soul; whereas to Scotus it is only a vegetable organism, as he himself expresses it, whose different members spring from a common root, but branch out in different directions; to the Nominalist, however, it is merely a mass of atoms arbitrarily heaped together. These general differences of mode of conception manifest themselves in almost all the particular differences of doctrine.
III. About the beginning of the fourteenth century the classical and creative period of mediaeval scholasticism came to a close. In the two following centuries no real progress was made. The acquisitions gained in the period of prosperity were reproduced and elaborated to meet the hypercritical and destructive attacks made at this time both on the teaching and the public action of the Church. Nominalism springing from, or at least occasioned by Scotism (partly as an exaggeration of its critical tendencies, partly as a reaction against its realism), destroyed the organic character of the revealed doctrines and wasted its energies in hair-splitting subtlety. Pierre Aureole (Aureolus, a Frenchman, d. 1321) led the way and was followed by the rebellious William of Occam (d. 1347), who was educated at Oxford and at Paris. Both of these were disciples of Scotus. Oxford now almost disputed the pre-eminence with Paris. St. Edmund of Canterbury (d. 1242) had introduced there the study of Aristotle, and his great follower was Roger Bacon, a Franciscan (d. 1292), the author of the Opus Majus, the true Novum Organum of science. The Oxford Friars, especially the Franciscans, attained a high reputation throughout Christendom. Besides St. Edmund and Roger Bacon, the university claimed as her children Richard Middleton, William Ware, William de la Marre, Duns Scotus, Occam, Grosteste, Adam Marsh, Bungay, Burley, Archbishop Peckham, Bradwardine, Fitzralph, Archbishop of Armagh, Thomas Netter (Waldensis), and the notorious Wyclif.
Many of the theologians present at the councils of Constance and Basle, notably Pierre d’ Ailly (Alliacensis, d. 1425), belonged to the Nominalist school. Its best representatives were Gregory of Rimini and Gabriel Biel. The Dominicans, with the exception of Durandus of St. Portiano (d. 1332), and Holkot (d. 1349), remained faithful to the Thomist traditions of the thirteenth century. Among their later writers may be mentioned St. Antoninus of Florence, John Capreolus, the powerful apologist of Thomism (Clypeus Thomistarum), Torquemada, Cardinal Cajetan, the first commentator on the Summa, and Francis of Ferrara, the commentator on the Summa contra Gentes. The Franciscans were split up into several schools, some adhering to Nominalism, others to Scotism. Lychetus, the renowned commentator on Scotus, belongs to this period, as also do Dionysius Ryckel, the Carthusian, and Alphonsus Tostatus, Bishop of Avila. Thomas Bradwardine, Archbishop of Canterbury (Doctor Profundus, 1290–1349) was the most famous mathematician of his day. His principal work, De Causa Dei contra Pelagianos, arranged mathematically, shows signs of great skilfulness of form, great depth and erudition, but gives a painful impression by its rigid doctrines. Some look upon him as one of the forerunners of Wyclif, an accusation which might with more justice be made against Fitzralph (d. 1360).
Thomas Netter (d. 1431), provincial of the Carmelites and secretary to Henry V., composed two works against Wyclif, Doctrinale Antiquitatum Fidei Catholicæ adversus Wicliffitas et Hussitas and Fasciculus Zizaniorum Magistri Johannis Wyclif cum Tritico. Nicholas Cusa surpasses even Bradwardine in the application of mathematics to theology.
During this period of decay the ordinary treatment of theology consisted of commentaries on the Sentences and monographs on particular questions (Quodlibeta). The latter were, as a rule, controversial, treating the subjects from a Nominalist or Scotist point of view, while some few were valuable expositions and defences of the earlier teaching. The partial degeneracy of Scholasticism on the one hand, and of Mysticism on the other, led to a divorce between the two, so that mystical writers broke off from Scholasticism, to their gain, no doubt, as far as Scholasticism had degenerated, but to their loss so far as it had remained sound. As Nominalism by its superficiality and arbitrariness had stripped the doctrines of grace and morals of their inward and living character, and had made grace merely an external ornament of the soul: so did false mysticism by its sentimentality destroy the supernatural character of grace and the organic connection and development of sound doctrine concerning morals; and as both Nominalism and pseudo-mysticism endangered the right notion of the constitution of the Church, they may with reason be looked upon as the forerunners of the Reformation of the sixteenth century. It does not fall within our province to speak of the anti-scholastic tendencies of the Renaissance which were found partly among the Platonists as opponents of Aristotle, and partly among the Humanists as opposed to what was considered “Scholastic barbarism.” There was, as we have seen, some reason for a reaction against the degenerate philosophy and theology of the day. But instead of returning to the genuine teaching of the earlier period, the cultivators of the New Learning contented themselves with a vague Platonic mysticism or a sort of Nominalism disguised under a new and classical phraseology.
C.—The Modern Epoch
About the end of the fifteenth century and the opening of the sixteenth, three events produced a new epoch in the history of theology, and determined its characteristic tendencies: the invention of printing, the revival of the study of the ancient classics, and the attacks of the Reformers on the whole historical position of the Church. These circumstances facilitated, and at the same time necessitated, more careful study of the biblical and historical side of theology, and thus prepared the way for a more comprehensive treatment of speculative theology. This new and splendid development had its seat in Spain, the land least affected by the heretical movement. The Universities of Salamanca, Alcala (Complutum), and Coimbra, now became famous for theological learning. Spanish theologians, partly by their labours at the Council of Trent (Dominic Soto, Peter Soto, and Vega), partly by their teaching in other countries (Maldonatus in Paris, Toletus in Italy, Gregory of Valentia in Germany), were its chief promoters and revivers. Next to Spain, the chief glory belongs to the University of Louvain, in the Netherlands, at that time under Spanish rule. On the other hand, the University of Paris, which had lost much of its ancient renown, did not regain its position until towards the end of the sixteenth century. Among the religious bodies the ancient Orders, the heirs of the theology of the thirteenth century, were indeed animated with a new spirit; but all were surpassed by the newly founded Society of Jesus, whose members laboured most assiduously and successfully in every branch of theology, especially in exegesis and history, and strove to develop the mediaeval theology in an independent, eclectic spirit and in a form adapted to the age. The continuity with the theological teaching of the Middle Ages was preserved by the Jesuits and by most of the other schools, by their taking as a text-book the noblest product of the thirteenth century—the Summa of St. Thomas, which was placed on the table of the Council of Trent next to the Holy Scriptures and the Corpus Juris Canonici as the most authentic expression of the mind of the Church.
This modern epoch may be divided into four periods:—
I. The Preparatory Period, up to the end of the Council of Trent;
II. The Flourishing Period, from the Council of Trent to 1660;
III. The Period of Decay to 1760.
Besides these three periods, which correspond with those of the Patristic and Mediæval Epochs, there is another,
IV. The Period of Degradation, lasting from 1760 till about 1830.
I. The Preparatory Period produced comparatively few works embracing the whole domain of theology, but its activity was proved in treatises and controversial writings, and its influence shown in the decrees of the Council of Trent and the Roman Catechism.
The numerous controversialists of this period are well known, and an account of their writings may be found in the Freiburg Kirchen-Lexicon. We may mention the following: in Germany, John Eck of Eichstätt, Frederick Nausea and James Noguera of Vienna, Berthold of Chiemsee, John Cochlœus in Nuremberg, Fred. Staphylus in Ingolstadt, James Hogstraeten, John Gropper and Albert Pighius in Cologne, Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius and Martin Cromer in Ermland, and, lastly, Blessed Peter Canisius; in Belgium, Ruard Tapper, John Driedo, James Latomus, James Ravestein (Tiletanus), and others; in England, the martyrs Blessed John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester (Roffensis), and Blessed Thomas More, Card. Pole, Stephen Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester; and later Cardinal Allen, Blessed Edmund Campion, S.J., and Nicholas Sanders; in France, Claude d’Espence, Claude de Sainctes, John Arborée, Jodocus Clichtovée, James Merlin; in Italy, the Dominicans Sylvester Prierias, Ambrose Catharinus, and James Nacchiante (Naclantus), and Cardinal Seripandus, an Augustinian; in Spain, the Minorites Alphonsus de Castro, Andrew Vega and Michael de Medina, the Dominicans Peter and Dominic Soto, and Melchior Canus; in Portugal, Payva de Andrada, Perez de Ayala and Osorius. These writers treat of the Church, the sources and the rule of Faith, Grace, Justification, and the Sacraments, especially the Blessed Eucharist, and are to some extent positive as well as controversial. The following treatises had great and permanent influence on the subsequent theological development: M. Canus, De Locis Theologicis; Sander, De Monarchia Visibili Ecclesiæ; Dom. Soto, De Natura et Gratia, and Andr. Vega, De Justificatione, written to explain the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent, in which both authors took a prominent part; B. Canisius, De Beata Maria Virgine, a complete Mariology—his great Catechism, or Summa Doctrinæ Christianæ, with its copious extracts from Holy Scripture and the Fathers may be considered as a modern “Book of Sentences.”
Apart from controversy, few works of any importance appeared. Among systematic works we may mention the Institutiones ad Naturalem et Christianam Philosophiam of the Dominican John Viguerius, and the Compendium Instit. Cathol. of the Minorite Cardinal Clement Dolera, of which the first named, often reprinted and much sought after, aims at giving a rapid sketch of speculative theology. On the other hand, important beginnings were made in the theologico-philological exegesis of Holy Scripture, especially by Genebrard, Arboreus, Naclantus, D. Soto and Catharinus, the last three of whom distinguished themselves by their commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans which was so much discussed at this time. Sixtus of Siena furnished in his Bibliotheca Sancta (first published in 1566) abundant materials for the regular study of Holy Scripture.
II. The Flourishing Period began immediately after the Council of Trent, and was brought about as much by the discussions of the Council as by its decrees. This period has no equal for richness and variety. The strictly theological works (not including works on Moral Theology, History, and Canon Law) may be divided into five classes: 1. Exegesis; 2. Controversy; 3. Scholastic; 4. Mystic; 5. Historico-patristic Theology. These classes, however, often overlap, for all branches of theology were now cultivated in the closest connection with each other. Exegesis was not restricted to philology and criticism, but made use of scholastic and patristic theology for a deeper knowledge and firmer consolidation of Catholic doctrine. The great controversialists gained their power by uniting a thorough knowledge of exegesis and history to their scholastic training. Moreover, the better class of scholastic theologians by no means confined their attention to speculation, but drew much from the Holy Scriptures and the Fathers. On the other hand, the most eminent patristic theologians made use of Scholasticism as a clue to a better knowledge of the Fathers. Finally, many theologians laboured in all or in several of these departments.
I. At the very opening of this period Exegesis was carried to such perfection, principally by the Spanish Jesuits, that little was left to be done in the next period, and for long afterwards the fruits gathered at this time were found sufficient. The labours of the Protestants are not worthy to be compared with what was done in the Catholic Church.
The list of great exegetists begins with Alphonsus Salmeron, S.J. (1586). His gigantic labours on the New Testament (15 vols. folio) are not a running commentary but an elaboration of the books of the New Testament arranged according to matter, and contain very nearly what we should now call Biblical Theology, although as such they are little used and known. Salmeron is the only one of the first companions of St. Ignatius whose writings have been published. He composed this work at Naples in the last sixteen years of his life, after a career of great public activity. His brother Jesuits and fellow-countrymen, Maldonatus (in Paris), and Francis Toletus (in Rome), and Nicholas Serarius (a Lorrainer), should be named with him as the founders of the classical interpretation of Holy Scripture. We may also mention the following Jesuits: Francis Ribera, John Pineda, Benedict Pereyra, Caspar Sanctius, Jerome Prado, Ferdinand de Salazar, John Villalpandus, Louis of Alcazar, Emmanuel Sa (all Spaniards); John Lorin (a Frenchman), Bened. Justinianus (an Italian), James Bonfrère, Adam Contzen and Cornelius à Lapide (in the Netherlands), the last of whom is the best known. Besides the Jesuits, the Dominicans Malvenda and Francis Forerius, and Anthony Agelli (Clerk Regular) distinguished themselves in Italy; and in the Netherlands, Luke of Bruges, Cornelius Jansenius of Ghent, and William Estius.
For dogmatic interpretation, the most important, besides Salmeron, are—Pereyra and Bonfrère on Genesis; Louis da Ponte on the Canticle of Canticles; Lorin on the Book of Wisdom; Maldonatus, Contzen, and Bonfrère on the Gospels; Ribera and Toletus on St. John; Sanctius, Bonfrère, and Lorin on the Acts; Vasquez, Justinianus, Serarius and Estius on the Epistles of St. Paul; Toletus on the Romans, and Justinianus, Serarius, and Lorin on the Catholic Epistles.
2. During this period, in contrast to the preceding, controversy was carried on systematically and in an elevated style, so that, as in the case of Exegesis, there remained little to be done in after ages except labours of detail. Its chief representatives, who also distinguished themselves by their great speculative learning, were Robert Bellarmine, Gregory of Valentia, Thomas Stapleton, Du Perron, Tanner, Gretser, Serarius, and the brothers Walemburch.
Cardinal Bellarmine, S.J. (d. 1621), collected together, in his great work, Disputationes de Rebus Fidei hoc tempore controversis, the principal questions of the day under three groups: (a) on the Word of God (Scripture and Tradition), on Christ (the Personal and Incarnate Word of God), and on the Church (the temple and organ of the Word of God); (b) on Grace and Free Will, Sin and Justification; (c) on the channels of grace (the Sacraments). He treats of almost the whole of theology in an order suitable to his purpose. The extensive learning, clearness, solidity, and sterling value of his work are acknowledged even by his adversaries. It continued for a long time to be the hinge of the controversy between Catholics and Protestants.
Gregory of Valentia, S.J. (a Spaniard who taught in Dillingen and Ingolstadt, d. 1603), wrote against the Reformers a series of classical treatises, which were afterwards collected together in a large folio volume. The most important of these are Analysis Fidei and De Trinitate. He condensed the substance of these writings in his Commentary on the Summa.
Thomas Stapleton was born at Henfield, in Sussex, in the year 1535, and was educated at Winchester and New College, Oxford, of which he became fellow. When Elizabeth came to the throne he was a prebendary of Chichester. He soon retired to Louvain, and was afterwards for some time catechist at Douai, but was recalled to Louvain, where he was appointed regius professor of theology. He died in 1598. Stapleton is unquestionably the most important of the controversialists on the treatment of the Catholic and Protestant Rules of Faith. He concentrated his efforts on two principal works, each in twelve books. The first of these refutes, in a manner hitherto unsurpassed, the Protestant Formal Principle—the Bible the only Source and Rule of Faith: De Principiis Fidei Doctrinalibus (Paris, 1579), to which are added a more scholastic treatise, Relectio Principiorum Fidei Doctrinalium, and a long defence against Whitaker. The other deals with the Material Principle of Protestantism—Justification by Faith only: Universa Justificationis Doctrina hodie controversa (Paris, 1582), corresponding with the second part of Bellarmine’s work, but inferior to it. The two works together contain a complete exposition and defence of the Catholic doctrine concerning Faith and Justification.
Nicolas Sander, or Sanders (b. 1527), was also, like Stapleton, scholar of Winchester and fellow of New. On the accession of Elizabeth he went to Rome, and was afterwards present at the Council of Trent. His great work, De Visibili Monarchia Ecclesiæ, was finished at Louvain in 1571. Another work, De Origine ac Progressu Schismatis Anglicani, was published after his death, and has lately been translated and edited by Mr. Lewis (Burns & Oates, 1877). Sander was sent to Ireland as Nuncio by Gregory XIII., where he is said to have died of want, hunted to death by the agents of Elizabeth, about the year 1580.
Cardinal Allen was born in Lancashire in the year 1532 and was educated at Oriel College, Oxford. He became in due course Principal of St. Mary Hall. On the death of Mary he left England, and resided for some time at Louvain. He was the founder of the famous English seminary at Douai, and was raised to the cardinalate by Sixtus V His work entitled Souls Departed: being a Defence and Declaration of the Catholic Church’s Doctrine touching Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead, has lately been edited by Father Bridgett (Burns & Oates, 1886). He died in Rome, 1594.
Cardinal James Davy du Perron (a Frenchman, d. 1618), wrote in his own mother tongue. His chief works are the Traité du Sacrement de l’Eucharistie, his controversies with James I. of England (that is, really with Casaubon), and the celebrated acts of the discussion with Philip Mornay, the so-called Calvinist pope.
In Germany Valentia found worthy disciples in the keen and learned Adam Tanner (d. 1635), and the erudite and prolific James Gretser (d. 1625), both Jesuits of Ingolstadt, who worked together and supplemented each other’s labours. Tanner, who was also a scholastic of note, followed the example of his master by condensing his controversial labours in his commentary on the Summa. Gretser, on the other hand, spread out his efforts in countless skirmishes, especially on historical subjects. His works fill sixteen volumes folio. Germany was also the scene of the labours of the brothers Adrian and Peter Walemburch, who were natives of Holland, and were both coadjutor-bishops, the one of Cologne, the other of Mayence. They jointly composed numerous successful controversial works, though only in part original, which were afterwards collected under the title of Controversiæ Generales et Particulares, in two volumes folio.
About this time and soon afterwards many classical treatises on particular questions appeared in France. Nicolas Coeffeteau, a Dominican, wrote against M. A. de Dominis, Pro Sacra Monarchia Ecclesiæ Catholicæ; Michael Maucer, a doctor of Sorbonne, on Church and State, De Sacra Monarchia Ecclesiastica et Sæculari, against Richer; and the Jansenists Nicole and Arnaud composed their celebrated work De la Perpétuité de la Foi on the Eucharist, etc. Of the Controversies of St. Francis of Sales we have only short but very beautiful sketches.
At the end of this period and the beginning of the next, may be mentioned Bossuet’s Histoire des Variations, his celebrated Exposition de la Foi, and among his smaller works the pastoral letter, Les Promesses de l’Eglise. Natalis Alexander has inserted many learned dogmatic polemical dissertations in his great History of the Church.
3. Scholastic, that is, Speculative and Systematic, Theology, like Exegesis and Controversy, and in close union with them, was so highly cultivated that the labours of this period, although (at least in the early decades) inferior to those of the thirteenth century in freshness and originality, and especially in moderation and calmness, nevertheless surpassed them in variety and in the use of the treasures of Scripture and early Tradition. When Pius V. (1567) raised St. Thomas, and Sixtus V. (1587) raised St Bonaventure to the dignity of Doctors of the Church on the ground that they were the Princes of Scholastic Theology, and, also at the same time, caused their entire works to be published, it was the Church herself who gave the impulse and direction to the new movement.
The great number of works and the variety of treatment make it difficult to give even a sketch of what was done in this department. Generally speaking, the theologians both of the old and of the newly-founded Religious Orders, and also most of the universities, kept more or less closely to St. Thomas. Scotism, on the contrary, remained confined to the Franciscans, and even among them many especially the Capuchins, turned to St. Thomas or St. Bonaventure. The independent eclectic line taken by the Jesuits, in spite of their reverence for St. Thomas, soon provoked in the traditional Thomist school a strong reaction which gave birth to protracted discussions. Although the peace was thereby disturbed, and much time, energy, and acuteness were spent with little apparent profit, nevertheless the disputes gave proof of the enormous intellectual power and activity which distinguished the first half of this period. As the Religious Orders were still the chief teachers of Theology, we may group the theologians of the period under the schools belonging to the three great Orders.
(a) The strict Thomist school was naturally represented by the Dominicans. At their head stand the two Spaniards, Dominic Bannez (d. 1604) and Bartholomew Medina (d. 1581), both worthy disciples of Dominic Soto and Melchior Canus, and remarkable for their happy combination of positive and speculative elements. Bannez wrote only on the Prima and Secunda Secundæ, whereas Medina wrote only on the Prima Secundæ and Pars tertia. Their works consequently complete each other, and together form a single work which may be considered as the classical model of Thomist theology. Bannez’s doctrine of grace was defended by Didacus Alvarez, Thomas Lemos (Panoplia Divinæ Gratiæ), and Peter Ledesma (d. 1616). Gonet (Clypeus Theologiæ Thomisticæ), Goudin, and the Venetian Xantes Marialles ably expounded and defended the teaching of St. Thomas. The Carmelites reformed by St. Theresa proved powerful allies of the Dominicans. Their celebrated Cursus Salmanticensis in Summam S. Thomæ (15 vols. folio), is the vastest and most complete work of the Thomist school.
Among other theologians whose opinions were more or less Thomist may be mentioned the Benedictine Alphonsus Curiel (d. 1609), the Cistercian Peter de Lorca (d. 1606), the Augustinians Basil Pontius and Augustine Gibbon, an Irishman who taught in Spain and in Germany (Speculum Theologicum); and Louis de Montesinos, professor at Alcala (d. 1623). Among the universities, Louvain was especially distinguished for its strict Thomism. The Commentary on the Sentences, by William Estius, is remarkable for clearness, solidity, and patristic learning. The Commentaries on the Summa, by John Malderus (d. 1645), John Wiggers (d. 1639), and Francis Sylvius (dean of Douai, d. 1649), are written with moderation and taste. The three most important scholastic theologians of the Sorbonne were less Thomistic, and approached more to the Jesuit school: Philip Gamache (d. 1625), who was unfortunately the patron of Richer; Andrew Duval (d. 1637), an opponent of Richer; and Nicholas Ysambert (d. 1642). The last two are very clear and valuable. In Germany, Cologne was the chief seat of Thomism, and a little later the Benedictine university of Salzburg strenuously supported the same opinions. One of the largest and best Thomistic works, although not the clearest, was composed towards the end of this period by the Benedictine Augustine Reding (d. 1692), Theologia Scholastica.
(b) Scotism was revived and developed in Commentaries on the Sentences by the older branches of the Franciscan Order, especially by the Irish members, the fellow-countrymen of Scotus, who had been driven from their own land by persecution, and were now dispersed over the whole of Europe; and next to them by the Italians and Belgians. The most important were Maurice Hibernicus (d. 1603), Antony Hickey (Hiquæus, d. 1641), Hugh Cavellus, and John Pontius (d. 1660). Towards the middle of the seventeenth century the Belgian, William Herincx, composed, by order of his superiors, a solid manual for beginners, free from Scotist subtleties, Summa Theologiæ Scholastiæ, but it was afterwards superseded by Frassen’s work.
The Capuchins, however, and the other reformed branches of the Order, turned away from Scotus to the classical theology of the thirteenth century, partly to St. Thomas, but chiefly to St. Bonaventure. Peter Trigos, a Spaniard (d. 1593), began a large Summa Theol. ad mentem S. Bonav., but completed only the treatise De Deo; Jos. Zamora (d. 1649) is especially good on Mariology; Theodore Forestus, De Trin. Mysterio in D. Bonav. Commentarii; Gaudentius Brixiensis, Summa, etc., 7 vols., folio, the largest work of this school.
(c) The Jesuit School, renowned for their exegetical and historical labours, applied these to the study of scholastic theology. As we have already observed, they were eclectics in spite of their reverence for St. Thomas, and they availed themselves of later investigations and methods. Their system may be described as a moderate and broad Thomism qualified by an infusion of Scotism, and, in some instances, even of Nominalism.
The chief representatives of this School, next to Toletus, are Gregory of Valentia, Francis Suarez, Gabriel Vasquez, and Didacus Ruiz, all four Spaniards, and all eminently acute and profound, thoroughly versed in Exegesis and the Fathers, and in this respect far superior to the theologians of the other Schools.
Valentia, the restorer of theology in Germany (d. 1603), combines in the happiest manner in his Commentaries on the Summa (4 vols., folio, often reprinted), both positive and speculative theology, and expounds them with elegance and compactness like Bannez and Medina.
Suarez (d. 1617, aged 70), styled by many Popes “Doctor Eximius,” and described by Bossuet as the writer “dans lequel on entend toute l’école moderne,” is the most prolific of all the later Schoolmen, and at the same time renowned for clearness, depth, and prudence. His works cover the whole ground of the Summa of St. Thomas; but the most extensive and classical among them are De Legibus, De Gratia, De Virtutibus Theologicis, De Incarnatione, and De Sacramentis, as far as Penance.
Vasquez (d. 1604), whose intellectual tendency was eminently critical, was to Suarez what Scotus was to St. Thomas. Unlike Scotus, however, he was as much at home in the exegetical and historical branches of theology as in speculation.
Ruiz surpasses even Suarez himself in depth and learning. He wrote only De Deo (6 vols., folio). His best work, and indeed the best ever written on the subject, is his treatise De Trinitate.
Besides these four chiefs of the Jesuit school, a whole host of writers might be mentioned. In Spain: Louis Molina (d. 1600), whose celebrated doctrine of Scientia Media was the occasion of so much controversy, was not really the leader of the Jesuit school, but was more distinguished as a moral theologian; Jos. Martinez de Ripalda (d. 1648), famous for his work against Baius (Michael Bay), and for his twelve books De Ente Supernaturali, in which the whole doctrine of the supernatural was for the first time systematically handled; Cardinal John De Lugo (d. 1660), better known as a moral theologian, is remarkable for critical keenness rather than for positive knowledge—his most important dogmatic work is the often-quoted treatise De Fide Divina. The Opus Theologicum of Sylvester Maurus, the well-known commentator on Aristotle, is distinguished by simplicity, calmness, and clearness, and by the absence of the subtleties so common in his day.
In Italy: Albertini, Fasoli, and Cardinal Pallavicini (d. 1667).
In France: Maratius, Martinon, and the keen and refined Claude Tiphanus (d. 1641), author of a number of treatises (De Hypostasi, De Ordine, De Creaturis Spiritualibus) in which the nicest points of theology are investigated.
In Belgium: Leonard Lessius (d. 1623), a pious, thoughtful, and elegant theologian, who wrote De Perfectionibus Moribusque Divinis, De Summo Bono, De Gratia Efficaci, and a commentary on the third part of the Summa; Ægidius Coninck, John Præpositus, and Martin Becanus.
Germany at this time had only one great native scholastic theologian, Adam Tanner (d. 1632). His Theologia Scholastica (in 4 vols. folio) is a work of the first rank, and completes in many points the labours of his master, Gregory of Valentia. During this period, however, and far into the eighteenth century, German theologians directed their attention chiefly to the practical branches of theology, such as controversy, moral theology, and canon law, and in these acquired an acknowledged superiority. It is sufficient to mention Laymann (d. 1625), Lacroix (d. 1714), Sporer (d. 1714), and Schmalzgrueber (d. 1735).
4. We omit writers who treat of the higher stages of the spiritual life, such as St. Theresa and St. John of the Cross, and mention only those who deal with dogmas as subjects of meditation, or who introduce dogmatic truths into their ascetical writings. To this period belong the Dominican, Louis of Granada, especially on account of his excellent sermons; the Jesuits, Francis Arias, Louis da Ponte (commentary on the Canticle of Canticles), Eusebius Nieremberg, Nouet (numerous meditations), and Rogacci, On the One Thing Necessary; also Cardinal Bérulle, the founder of the French oratory, author of many works, especially on the Incarnation; St. Francis of Sales, On the Love of God; the Franciscan John of Carthagena, and the Capuchin D’Argentan. The works of Lessius may also be named under this heading, De Perfectionibus Divinis and De Summo Bono. The Sorbonne doctors, Hauteville, a disciple of St. Francis of Sales, Louis Bail, and later, the Dominican Contenson, worked up the Summa in a way that speaks at once to the mind and to the heart.
5. This branch of theology was cultivated especially in France and Belgium, and chiefly by the Jesuits, Dominicans, Oratorians, and the new Congregation of Benedictines, and also by the Universities of Paris and Louvain. Their writings are mainly, as might be expected, dogmatico-historical or controversial treatises on one or other of the Fathers, or on particular heresies or dogmas. Thus, for instance, Gamier wrote on the Pelagians, and Combesis on the Monothelites, while Morinus composed treatises De Pænitentia and De Sacris Ordinibus; Isaac Habert, Doctrina Patrum Græcorum de Gratia; Nicole (that is, Arnauld) on the Blessed Eucharist; Hallier, De Sacris Ordinationibus; Cellot, De Hierarchia et de Hierarchis; Peter de Marca, De Concordia Sacerdotii et Imperii; Phil. Dechamps, De Hæresi Janseniana; Bossuet, Défense des Saints Pères, etc.; and the Capuchin Charles Joseph Tricassinus on the Augustinian doctrine of grace against the Jansenists. Much good work was done in this department, but it is to be regretted that after the example of Baius many of the historical theologians such as Launoi, Dupin, the Oratorians, and to some extent the Benedictines of St. Maur, deserted not merely the traditional teaching of the Schoolmen, which they considered to be pagan and Pelagian, but even the doctrine of the Church, and became partisans of Jansenism and Gallicanism. The Augustinus of Jansenius of Ypres (d. 1648) was the unhappy result of the misuse of splendid intellectual powers and immense erudition. The Jesuit Petavius and the Oratorian Thomassin attempted in their epoch-making works to treat the whole of dogmatic theology from a patristic and historical point of view, but both accomplished only a portion of their design.
Dionysius Petavius (Petau, d. 1647) finished no more than the treatises De Deo Uno et Trino, De Creatione and De Incarnatione, to which are subjoined a series of opuscula on Grace, the Sacraments, and the Church. Louis Thomassin (d. 1695) has left only De Deo Uno and De Incarnatione, and short treatises, De Prolegomenis Theologiæ, De Trinitate, and De Conciliis. Petavius is on the whole the more positive, temperate, and correct in thought and expression; whereas Thomassin is richer in ideas, but at the same time fanciful and exaggerated in doctrine and style. The two supplement each other both in matter and form, but both are wanting in that precision and clearness which we find in the best of the scholastic theologians.
III. The Period of Decay may be considered as a sort of echo and continuation of the foregoing, but was also a time of gradual decomposition. The Jansenists and Cartesians now played a part similar to that of the pseudo-mystic Fraticelli and the Nominalists at the end of the thirteenth century. Whilst the study of history and the Fathers was continued and even extended, systematic and speculative Theology became neglected. The change manifested itself in the substitution of quartos for folios, and afterwards of octavos and duodecimos for quartos. The best dogmatic works of the period strove to combine in compact form the speculative and controversial elements, and were therefore commonly entitled, Theologia Dogmatica Scholastica et Polemica and often too et Moralis. Many of these works, by their compactness and clearness, produce a pleasing impression on the mind, and are of great practical value, but unfortunately they are often too mechanical in construction. The Germans especially took to writing handbooks on every department of Theology. In the former period Positive Theology was cultivated chiefly in France, while Spain gave itself up to more subtle questions. Now, however, Italy gradually came to the front. A host of learned theologians gathered around the Holy See to fight against Jansenism and Regalism, which had spread over France and were finding their way gradually into Germany. Most of the older schools still remained, but they had lost their former solidity. Another school was now added—the so-called Augustinian school, which flourished among the Augustinians and also at Louvain. It took a middle course between the older schools and the Jansenists in reference to St. Augustine’s teaching.
Among the Thomists we may mention Billuart (d. 1757), Card. Gotti (d. about 1730), Drouin (De re Sacramentaria) and De Rossi (De Rubeis). The two Benedictine Cardinals, Sfondrati and Aguirre (Theologia S. Anselmi), belong to the less rigorous school of Thomists, and, indeed, have a marked leaning to the Jesuit school.
The Franciscan school produced the most important work of the period, and perhaps the most useful of all the Scotist writings: Scotus Academicus seu Universa Doctoris Sublilis Theologica Dogmata hodiernis academicorum moribus accomodata, by Claude Frassen (4 vols. folio, or 12 vols. quarto). Boyvin, Krisper, and Kick also wrote at this time. The well-known works of the Capuchin Thomas ex Charmes are still widely used.
It was from the Jesuit school, however, that most of the manuals and compendiums proceeded. Noel composed a compendium of Suarez; and James Platel an exceedingly compact and concise Synopsis Cursus Theolog. Antoine’s Theologia Speculativa is to be commended more for its clearness than for its rigid opinions on morals. Germany produced many useful manuals, e.g., for controversy, the short work by Pichler, and a larger one by Sardagna. But the most important, beyond question, is the celebrated Theologia Wirceburgensis, composed by the Wurzburg Jesuits, Kilber and his colleagues, about the middle of the eighteenth century. It includes both the positive and speculative elements, and is a worthy termination of the ancient Theology in Germany.
The Augustinian school approached closely to Jansenism on many points, but the devotion of its leading representatives to the Church and to genuine scholasticism saved it from falling into heresy. These leaders were Christian Lupus of Louvain and Cardinal Noris (d. 1704). Both were well versed in history and the Fathers, but they wrote only monographs. The great dogmatic work of this school is by Laurence Berti, De Theologicis Disciplinis (6 vols., sm. folio). The discalced Carmelite Henry of St. Ignatius is rather Jansenistic, while Opstraet is altogether so. On the other hand, the Belgian Augustinian Desirant was one of the ablest and most determined opponents of the Jansenists, and was consequently nicknamed by them Délirant.
The French Oratory, which had begun with so much promise, and had been so rich in learned historians, fell afterwards completely into Jansenism; e.g. Duguet, Quesnell, and Lebrun himself. Its best dogmatic works are the Institutiones Theol., by Gasper Juenin, and his Comment. hist. dogm. de Sacramentis. The French Benedictines, in spite of all their learning, have left no systematic work. Part of the Congregation of Saint-Maur inclined very strongly to Jansenism and Gallicanism. The Congregation of Saint-Vannes, on the other hand, was rigidly orthodox, and produced in Calmet the greatest exegetist of the age, in Maréchal and Ceillier excellent patrologists, and in Petit-Didier one of the most strenuous adversaries of Gallicanism, and a worthy rival of his religious brethren Sfrondrati, Aguirre, and Reding.
The Sorbonne was much infected with Jansenism, and after 1682 almost completely adhered to the violent Gallicanism of the French Government. Nevertheless, a tendency, Gallican indeed, but at the same time anti-Jansenistic, was maintained, notably at St. Sulpice. We may mention Louis Abelly (d. 1619), Medulla Theologiæ; Martin Grandin, Opera theol. (5 vols.); Louis Habert (d. 1718, slightly Jansenistic), Du Hamel (a thorough Gallican), L’Herminier (Gallican), Charles Witasse (1716, Jansenist). Tournely was the most learned and orthodox of this group, and his Prælectiones Theologicæ had great influence in the better-minded circles until they were supplanted by the vile work of Bailly. The Collectio Judiciorum de Novis Erroribus, by Duplessis D’Argentré, published about 1728, is an important contribution to the history of Theology.
In Germany, Eusebius Amort (Canon Regular) was the most universal theologian of his time; his principal work, Theologia Eclectica, possessed abundant positive matter, and aimed at preserving the results of the past, while at the same time meeting the claims of the present. We may also mention the Theatine, Veranus, the Benedictines Cartier, Scholliner and Oberndoffer, the Abbé Gerbert de Saint-Blaise, and, lastly, Joseph Widmann, Instit. Dogm. polem. specul. (1766; 6 vols. 8vo).
The chief theological works were polemico-historical treatises against Jansenism, Gallicanism, and Febronianism: Viva, S.J., Damnatæ Quesnelli Theses; Fontana, S.J., Bulla Unigenitus propugnata; Faure, S.J., Commentary on the Enchiridion of St. Augustine; Benaglio, Scipio Maffei, the Dominicans De Rubeis, Orsi, Mamachi, Becchetti, the Jesuits Zaccharia, Bolgeni and Muzzarelli; also Soardi, Mansi, Roncaglia, and the Barnabite Cardinal Gerdil. The learned Pope Benedict XIV., although more celebrated as a Canonist, wrote on many questions of dogma. Above all these, however, stands St. Alphonsus Liguori (d. 1787), who was raised to the dignity of Doctor of the Church by Pius IX., more on account of the sanctity of his life and the correctness of his opinions, especially in Moral Theology, than for his knowledge of dogma.
IV. The destructive and anti-Christian principles of Jansenism, Gallicanism, and Regalism, which had been gradually gaining ground during the preceding period, led to the downfall of Catholic theology. These principles, in combination with the superficial philosophy of the day, and with the deplorable reverence, disguised under the name of tolerance, for rationalistic science and Protestant learning, did much mischief, especially in Germany. Theology became a sort of systematic collection of positive notions drawn from the writers of a better age, or more commonly from Protestant and Jansenistic sources. Any attempt at speculative treatment only meant the introduction of non-Catholic philosophy, particularly that of Kant and Schelling. Lawrence Veith, Goldhagen, and the Augsburg Jesuits, were brilliant exceptions; but the best work of the period is Liebermann’s Institutions. Baader, Hermes, and Günther attempted a more profound philosophical treatment of dogma in opposition to the Protestant philosophy. Their efforts were signalized by great intellectual power, but, at the same time, by dissociation from genuine theology, and by ignorance, or at least neglect, of the traditions of the schools. Italy alone preserved the orthodox tradition; many of the writers named in the period of decay continued their labours far into the present period.
The toleration granted to Catholics in England and Scotland during the second half of the eighteenth century, gave them the opportunity of publishing works on Catholic doctrine. We may mention Bishop Challoner (1691–1781), Grounds of the Catholic Doctrine, The Catholic Christian Instructed, The Grounds of the Old Religion; Bishop Hay (1729–1811), Sincere Christian, Devout Christian, Pious Christian, and a treatise on miracles—an excellent edition of these has been published by Blackwood, Edinburgh; and Bishop Milner (1752–1826), whose End of Controversy is still the best work against Low Churchmen and Dissenters.
When order was restored to Europe after the wars of the Revolution, the Church found herself stripped of her possessions and excluded from the ancient seats of learning. In spite of these disadvantages, signs were not wanting of the dawn of a new epoch of theological learning which seems destined to be in no way inferior to those which have gone before. The movement begun in France by Lamennais, Lacordaire, and Montalembert, was taken up even more vigorously in Germany. The study of Church history was revived by Döllinger, Hefele, Hergenröther, Janssen, and Pastor; Canon law, by Walter and Philips; Scripture, by Windischmann and Kaulen; Symbolism, by Möhler; Dogma, by Klee, Kuhn, Knoll, Scheeben, and Schwane; Scholastic philosophy and theology, by Kleutgen. The labours of the German school are summed up in the great Kirchenlexicon, published by Herder, of Freiburg. In Italy Liberatore and Sanseverino brought back the Thomistic philosophy; Passaglia, Perrone, Palmieri, and Franzelin (an Austrian) composed dogmatic treatises which have become text-books in almost every Catholic country; Patrizi and Vercellone are well known for their Biblical labours. Among the French writers of the earlier years of the revival, Gousset, Gury, and Craisson deserve special mention; while the gigantic labours of the Abbé Migne, in reproducing the works of former ages, have been of the greatest service to the study of theology. In spite of persecution, France is now producing theological work admirably suited to the needs of the day. We would refer especially to the Dict. de Théologie Catholique, begun by the Abbé Vacant; the Bibliothèque de Théologie Historique, published under the direction of the Institut Catholique of Paris; Dict. d’Archéologie et de Liturgie, by Dom Cabrol; and the Bibliothèque de l’Enseignement de l’Histoire Ecclésiastique. These four collections mark a new departure in theological literature. They are composed on strictly historical lines, noting in particular the development and growth of doctrines and institutions. Vigouroux’s Dict. de la Bible is valuable, though perhaps too conservative in its tendencies. The same may be said of the Scriptures Sacræ Cursus of Cornely, Knabenbaur, and Hummelauer. The Études Bibliques edited by Lagrange, and the texts and studies of La Pensée Chrétienne are more advanced. England and the English-speaking countries have been content, as a rule, to take their theology from abroad. We have, however, some few theological works of our own, e.g. Murray’s De Ecclesia and Kenrick’s Theologia Moralis. But a whole host of writers have dealt with the Anglican controversy in its various aspects, while Cardinal Newman’s works, especially his Development of Christian Doctrine, are more than ever valuable.
III.—THE SPECIAL TASK OF THEOLOGY AT THE PRESENT TIME—THE PLAN OF THIS MANUAL
I. The special task of Theology in the present day has been pointed out by the Vatican Council. In the Proœemium to the First Constitution (as had already been indicated by Pius IX. in his allocutions and also in his encyclical Quanta Cura issued in 1864), the council sketches in a few vivid strokes the chief errors of the age. After noting that these errors have sprung from the rejection of the Church’s teaching authority in the sixteenth century, it points out how opposed they are to the errors of that time: the first Protestants held to “Faith alone” and “Grace alone;” their modern successors believe in nothing but Reason and Nature. “Then there sprang up and too widely spread itself abroad through the world that doctrine of rationalism or naturalism which, totally opposed as it is to the Christian religion as a supernatural institution, striveth with all its might to thrust out Christ from the thoughts and the life of men, and to set up the reign of mere reason or nature. Having put aside the Christian religion and denied God and His Christ, many have at last fallen into the pit of pantheism, materialism, and atheism, so that now, denying rational nature itself and every criterion of what is right and just, they are working together for the overthrow of the foundations of human society. While this wickedness hath been gaining strength on all sides, it hath unhappily come to pass that many even of the Church’s children have strayed from the path of godliness, and that in them, by the gradual minimizing of truths, Catholic feeling hath been weakened. Misled by strange doctrines, confounding nature and grace, human knowledge and Divine Faith, they have distorted the true meanings of dogmas as held and taught by Holy Mother Church, and have imperilled the integrity and purity of the Faith.” Another constitution against Naturalism was projected in which the Trinity, Incarnation, and Grace were to be treated, but it was not issued owing to the suspension of the council. Two more constitutions, on the Church and on Matrimony, were to deal with the social aspect of Rationalism and Naturalism—that is, with Liberalism,—but for the same reason only one of them (that on the Church) was published. See Vacant, Études Théologiques sur le Concile du Vatican.
The leading errors which Theology has to combat are, therefore, Rationalism, Naturalism, and Liberalism. In opposition to Rationalism it establishes the supernatural character of theological knowledge; in opposition to Naturalism it brings out the meaning and connection of the supernatural truths in all their sublimity and beauty; and in opposition to Liberalism it proves the claim, and defines the extent, of the influence of the supernatural order upon the private and public life of men. While, however, carefully distinguishing between Reason and Faith, and Nature and Grace, Theology at the same time insists upon the organic connection and mutual relation between the natural and the supernatural order. Hence it is more than ever important that Catholic doctrines should be set forth in such a way as to bring out their organic union and connection.
II. We shall begin by treating of General Theology, or, in other words, the Sources of Theological Knowledge, the rule and motive of Faith, how we are to know what we are to believe and why we should believe it (De Locis Theologicis)—Book I.
We shall then deal with Special Theology; that is, the contents of Revelation, what we are to believe. Special Theology naturally begins with God—God considered in Himself, the Unity of the Divine Nature, and the Trinity of the Divine Persons (De Deo Uno et Trino)—Book II.
Next it considers God in His fundamental and original relations to the Universe generally, and to intelligent creatures, angels and men, particularly, in so far as they receive from Him their nature by creation, and at the same time in so far as they have been called to a supernatural union with Him by Grace; in other words—God as the Origin and End of the natural and the supernatural order (De Deo Creante et Elevante)—Book III.
Inasmuch as this original relation of God to the world and of the world to Him was destroyed by the revolt of the angels and of men, theology treats, in the third place, of Sin and its consequences (De Casu Diaboli et Hominis)—Book IV.
In the fourth place it deals with the restoration of the supernatural order and the establishment of a higher order and closer union with God by means of the Incarnation of God (De Verbo Incarnato)—Book V.
Fifthly, it expounds the doctrine of Grace, whereby, through the merits of Christ, man is inwardly cleansed from sin and restored to God’s favour, and enabled to attain his supernatural end (De Gratia Christi)—Book VI.
Sixthly, it considers the means appointed by the Incarnate Word for the continuance of His work among men: the Church His mystical Body, the Blessed Eucharist His real Body, and the other Sacraments (De Ecclesia Christi, De Sacramentis)—Book VII.
Lastly, Theology deals with the completion of the course of the Universe, the Four Last Things, whereby the universe returns to God, its End and Final Object (De Novissimis)—Book VIII.
NOTE.—The quotations of Scripture are taken from the modern editions of the Douai-Rheims Version. The translations of the passages of the Fathers are mostly taken from Waterworth’s “The Faith of Catholics.” Our limited space has often compelled us to confine ourselves to mere statement without any explanation or proof. In such cases the reader must not assume that the doctrines stated are incapable of proof.