|
Thomism
In a broad sense, Thomism is the name
given to the system which follows the teaching of St. Thomas
Aquinas in philosophical and theological questions. In a
restricted sense the term is applied to a group of opinions held
by a school called Thomistic, composed principally, but not
exclusively, of members of the Order of St. Dominic, these same
opinions being attacked by other philosophers or theologians, many
of whom profess to be followers of St. Thomas.
To Thomism in the first sense
are opposed, e.g., the Scotists, who deny that satisfaction is a
part of the proximate matter (materia proxima) of the
Sacrament of Penance. Anti-Thomists, in this sense of the word,
reject opinions admittedly taught by St. Thomas.
To Thomism in the second sense
are opposed, e.g. the Molinists, as well as all who defend the
moral instrumental causality of the sacraments in producing grace
against the system of physical instrumental causality, the latter
being a doctrine of the Thomistic School.
Anti-Thomism in such cases does not
necessarily imply opposition to St. Thomas: It means opposition to
tenets of the Thomistic School. Cardinal Billot, for instance,
would not admit that he opposed St. Thomas by rejecting the
Thomistic theory on the causality of the sacraments. In the
Thomistic School, also, we do not always find absolute unanimity.
Baflez and Billuart do not always agree with Cajetan, though all
belong to the Thomistic School. It does not come within the scope
of this article to determine who have the best right to be
considered the true exponents of St. Thomas. The subject may be
treated under the following headings:
I. Thomism in general, from the thirteenth
century down to the nineteenth;
II. The Thomistic School;
III. Neo-Thomism and the revival of
Scholasticism. IV. Eminent Thomists
A. Early Opposition Overcome
Although St. Thomas (d. 1274) was highly
esteemed by all classes, his opinions did not at once gain the
ascendancy and influence which they acquired during the first half
of the fourteenth century and which they have since maintained.
Strange as it may appear, the first serious opposition came from
Paris, of which he was such an ornament, and from some of his own
monastic brethren. In the year 1277 Stephen Tempier, Bishop of
Paris, censured certain philosophical propositions, embodying
doctrines taught by St. Thomas, relating especially to the
principle of individuation and to the possibility of creating
several angels of the same species. In the same year Robert
Kilwardby, a Dominican, Archbishop of Canterbury, in conjunction
with some doctors of Oxford, condemned those same propositions and
moreover attacked St. Thomas's doctrine of the unity of the
substantial form in man. Kilwardby and his associates pretended to
see in the condemned propositions something of Averroistic
Aristoteleanism, whilst the secular doctors of Paris had not fully
forgiven one who had triumphed over them in the controversy as to
the rights of the mendicant friars. The storm excited by these
condemnations was of short duration. Blessed Albertus Magnus, in
his old age, hastened to Paris to defend his beloved disciple. The
Dominican Order, assembled in general chapter at Milan in 1278 and
at Paris in 1279, adopted severe measures against the members who
had spoken injuriously of the venerable Brother Thomas. When
William de la Mare, O.S.F., wrote a "Correptorium fratris
Thom~", an English Dominican, Richard Clapwell (or Clapole),
replied in a treatise "Contra corruptorium fratris Thomae".
About the same time there appeared a work, which was afterwards
printed at Venice (1516) under the title, "Correctorium
corruptorii S. Thomae", attributed by some to AEgidius
Romanus, by others to Clapwell, by others to Father John of Paris.
St. Thomas was solemnly vindicated when the Council of Vienna
(1311-12) defined, against Peter John Olivi, that the rational
soul is the substantial form of the human body (on this definition
see Zigliara, "De mente Conc. Vicnn.", Rome, 1878). The
canonization of St. Thomas by John XXII, in 1323, was a death-blow
to his detractors. In 1324 Stephen de Bourret, Bishop of Paris,
revoked the censure pronounced by his predecessor, declaring that
"that blessed confessor and excellent doctor, Thomas Aquinas,
had never believed, taught, or written anything contrary to the
Faith or good morals". It is doubtful whether Tempier and his
associates acted in the name of the University of Paris, which had
always been loyal to St. Thomas. When this university, in 1378,
wrote a letter condemning the errors of John de Montesono, it was
explicitly declared that the condemnation was not aimed at St.
Thomas: "We have said a thousand times, and yet, it would
seem, not often enough, that we by no means include the doctrine
of St. Thomas in our condemnation." An account of these
attacks and defences will be found in the following works: Echard,
"Script. ord. prad.", I, 279 (Paris, 1719); De Rubeis,
"Diss. crit.", Diss. xxv, xxvi, I, p. cclxviii; Leonine
edit. Works of St. Thomas; Denifle, "Chart. univ. Paris"
(Paris, 1890-91), I, 543, 558, 566; II, 6, 280; Duplessis
d'Argentré, "Collectio judiciorum de novis erroribus"
(3 vols., Paris, 1733-36), 1, 175 sqq.; Du Boulay, "Hist.
univ. Par.", IV, 205, 436, 618, 622, 627; Jourdain, "La
phil. de S. Thomas d'Aquin" (Paris, 1858), II, i; Douais,
"Essai sur l'organization des études dans l'ordre des
ff. prêcheurs" (Paris and Toulouse, 1884), 87 sqq.;
Mortier, "Hist. des maîtres gén. de l'ordre des
ff. prêch.", II, 115142, 571; "Acta cap. gen. ord.
praed.", ed. Reichert (9 vols., Rome, 1893-1904, II; Turner,
"Hist. of Phil." (Boston, 1903), xxxix.
B. Progress of Thomism
The general chapter of the Dominican Order,
held at Carcassonne in 1342, declared that the doctrine of St.
Thomas had been received as sound and solid throughout the world
(Douais, op. cit., 106). His works were consulted from the time
they became known, and by the middle of the fourteenth century his
"Summa Theologica" had supplanted the "Libri
quatuor sententiarum", of Peter Lombard as the text-book of
theology in the Dominican schools. With the growth of the order
and the widening of its influence Thomism spread throughout the
world; St. Thomas became the great master in the universities and
in the studia of the religious orders (see Encyc. "Aeterni
Patris" of Leo XIII). The fifteenth and sixteenth centuries
saw Thomism in a triumphal march which led to the crowning of St.
Thomas as the Prince of Theologians, when his "Summa was laid
beside the Sacred Scriptures at the Council of Trent, and St. Pius
V, in 1567, proclaimed him a Doctor of the Universal Church. The
publication of the "Piana" edition of his works, in
1570, and the multiplication of editions of the "Opera omnia"
and of the "Summa" during the seventeenth century and
part of the eighteenth show that Thomism flourished during that
period. In fact it was during that period that some of the great
commentators (for example, Suárez, Sylvius, and Billuart)
adapted his works to the needs of the times.
C. Decline of Scholasticism and of
Thomism
Gradually, however, during the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries, there came a decline in the study of the
works of the great Scholastics. Scholars believed that there was
need of a new system of studies, and, instead of building upon and
around Scholasticism, they drifted away from it. The chief causes
which brought about the change were Protestantism, Humanism, the
study of nature, and the French Revolution. Positive theology was
considered more necessary in discussions with the Protestants than
Scholastic definitions and divisions. Elegance of dietion was
sought by the Humanists in the Greek and Latin classics, rather
than in the works of the Scholastics, many of whom were far from
being masters of style. The discoveries of Copernicus (d. 1543),
Kepler (d. 1631), Galileo (d. 1642), and Newton (d. 1727) were not
favourably received by the Scholastics. The experimental sciences
were in honour; the Scholastics including St. Thomas, were
neglected (cf. Turner, op cit., 433). Finally, the French
Revolution disorganized all ecclesiastical studies, dealing to
Thomisn a blow from which it did not fully recover until th last
quarter of the nineteenth century. At the tim when Billuart (d.
1757) published his "Summa Sancti Thoma hodiernis academiarum
moribus accomodata" Thomism still held an important place in
all theological discussion. The tremendous upheaval which
disturbed Europe from 1798 to 1815 affected the Church as well as
the State. The University of Louvain, which had been largely
Thomistic, was compelled to close its doors, and other important
institutions of learning were either closed or seriously hampered
in their work. The Dominican Order, which naturally had supplied
the most ardent Thomists, was crushed in France, Germany,
Switzerland, and Belgium. The province of Holland was almost
destroyed, whilst the provinces of Austria and Italy were left to
struggle for their very existence. The University of Manila (1645)
continued to teach the doctrines of St. Thomas and in due time
gave to the world Cardinal Zephyrinus González, O.P., who
contributed in no small degree to the revival of Thomism under Leo
XIII.
D. Distinctive Doctrines of Thomism in
General
(1) In Philosophy
The angels and human souls are without
matter, but every material composite being (compositum)
has two parts, prime matter and substantial form. In a composite
being which has substantial unity and is not merely an aggregate
of distinct units, there can be but one substantial form. The
substantial form of man is his soul (anima rationalis) to
the exclusion of any other soul and of any other substantial
form. The principle of individuation, for material composites, is
matter with its dimensions: without this there can be no merely
numerical multiplication: distinction in the form makes specific
distinction: hence there cannot be two angels of the same
species.
The essences of things do not depend on
the free will of God, but on His intellect, and ultimately on His
essence, which is immutable. The natural law, being derived from
the eternal law, depends on the mind of God, ultimately on the
essence of God; hence it is intrinsically immutable. Some actions
are forbidden by God because they are bad: they are not bad
simply because He forbids them [see Zigliara, "Sum. phil."
(3 vols., Paris, 1889), ccx, xi, II, M. 23, 24, 25].
The will moves the intellect quoad
exercitium, i.e. in its actual operation: the intellect moves
the will quoad specificationem, i.e. by presenting objects
to it: nil volitum nisi praecognitum. The beginning of all
our acts is the apprehension and desire of good in general (bonum
in communi). We desire happiness (bonum in communi)
naturally and necessarily, not by a free deliberate act.
Particular goods (bona particularia) we choose freely; and
the will is a blind faculty, always following the last practical
judgment of the intellect (Zigliara, 51).
The senses and the intellect are
passive, i.e. recipient, faculties; they do not create, but
receive (i.e. perceive) their objects (St. Thomas, I, Q. lxxviii,
a. 3; Q. lxxix, a. 2; Zigliara, 26, 27). If this principle is
borne in mind there is no reason for Kant's "Critique of
Pure Reason". On the other hand those faculties are not like
wax, or the sensitive plate used by photog raphers, in the sense
that they are inert and receive impressions unconsciously. The
will controls the exercise of the faculties, and the process of
acquiring knowledge is a vital process: the moving cause is
always within the living agent.
The Peripatetic axiom: "Nihil
est in intellectu quod non prius in sensu" (Nothing is
in the intellect that was not first in the senses), is admitted;
but St. Thomas modifies it by saying: first, that, once the sense
objects have been perceived, the intellect ascends to the
knowledge of higher things, even of God; and, secondly, that the
soul knows its own existence by itself (i.e. by its own act),
although it knows its own nature only by refiection on its acts.
Knowledge begins by sense perception, but the range of the
intellect is far beyond that of the senses. In the soul as soon
as it begins to act are found the first principles (prima
principia) of all knowledge, not in the form of an objective
illumination, but in the form of a subjective inclination to
admit them on account of their evidence. As soon as they are
proposed we see that they are true; there is no more reason for
doubting them than there is for denying the existence of the sun
when we see it shining (see Zigliara, op. cit., pp. 32-42).
The direct and primary object of the
intellect is the universal, which is prepared and presented to
the passive intellect (intellectus possibilis) by the
active intellect (intellectus agens) which illuminates the
phantasmata, or mental images, received through the senses, and
divests them of all individuating conditions. This is called
abstracting the universal idea from the phantasmata, but the term
must not be taken in a matrialistic sense. Abstraction is not a
transferring of something from one place to another; the
illumination causes all material and individuating conditions to
disappear, then the universal alone shines out and is perceived
by the vital action of the intellect (Q. lxxxiv, a. 4; Q. lxxxv,
a. 1, ad lum, 3um, 4um). The process throughout is so vital, and
so far elevated above material conditions and modes of action,
that the nature of the acts and of the objects apprehended proves
the soul to be immaterial and spiritual.
The soul, by its very nature, is
immortal. Not only is it true that God will not annihilate the
soul, but from its very nature it will always continue to exist,
there being in it no principle of disintegration (Zigliara, p.
9). Hence human reason can prove the incorruptibility (i.e.
immortality) of the soul.
The existence of God is not known by an
innate idea, it cannot be proved by arguments a priori or
a simultaneo; but it can be demonstrated by a
posteriori arguments. Ontologism was never taught by St.
Thomas or by Thomists (see Lepidi, "Exam. phil. theol. de
ontologismo", Louvain, 1874, c. 19; Zigliara, Theses I,
VIII).
There are no human (i.e. deliberate)
acts indifferent in individuo.
(2) In Theology
Faith and science, i.e. knowledge by
demonstration, cannot co-exist in the same subject with regard to
the same object (Zigliara, O, 32, VII); and the same is true of
knowledge and opinion.
The metaphysical essence of God
consists, according to some Thomists, in the intelligere
actualissimum, i.e. fulness of pure intellection, according
to others in the perfection of aseitas, i.e. in dependent
existence (Zigliara, Th. VIII, IX).
The happiness of heaven, formally and
in the ultimate analysis, consists in the vision, not in the
fruition, of God.
The Divine attributes are distinguished
from the Divine nature and from each other by a virtual
distinction, i.e. by a distinctio rationis cum fundamento a
parte rei. The distinctio actualis formalis of Scotus
is rejected.
In attempting to explain the mystery of
the Trinity — in as far as man can conceive it — the
relations must be considered perfectiones simpliciter
simplices, i.e. excluding all imperfection. The Holy Ghost
would not be distinct from the Son if He did not proceed from the
Son as well as from the Father.
The angels, being pure spirits, are
not, properly speaking, in any place; they are said to be in the
place, or in the places, where they exercise their activity
(Summa, I, Q. lii, a. 1). Strictly speaking, there is no such
thing as an angel passing from place to place; but if an angel
wishes to exercise its activity first in Japan and afterwards in
America, it can do so in two instants (of angelic time), and need
not pass through the intervening space (Q. liii). St. Thomas does
not discuss the question "How many angels can dance on the
point of a needle?" He reminds us that we must not think of
angels as if they were corporeal, and that, for an angel, it
makes no difference whether the sphere of his activity be the
point of a needle or a continent (Q. lii, a.2). Many angels
cannot be said to be in the same place at the same time, for this
would mean that whilst one angel is producing an effect others
could be producing the same effect at the same time. There can be
but one angel in the same place at the same time (Q. lii, a. 3).
The knowledge of the angels comes through ideas (species)
infused by God (QQ. lv, a.2, lvii, a.2, lviii, a.7). They do not
naturally know future contingents, the secrets of souls, or the
mysteries of grace (Q. lvii, aa. 3, 45). The angels choose either
good or evil instantly, and with full knowledge; hence their
judgment is naturally final and irrevocable (Q. lxiv, a. 2).
Man was created in the state of
sanctifying grace. Grace was not due to his nature, but God
granted it to him from the beginning (I, Q. xcv, a. 1). So great
was the per fection of man in the state of original justice, and
so perfect the subjection of his lower faculties to the higher,
that his first sin could not have been a venia] sin (I-II, Q.
lxxxix, a. 3).
It is more probable that the
Incarnation would not have taken place had man not sinned (III,
Q. i, a. 3). In Christ there were three kinds of knowledge: the
scientia beata, i.e. the knowledge of things in the Divine
Essence; the scientia infusa, i.e. the knowledge of things
through infused ideas (species), and the scientia
acquisita, i.e. acquired or experimental knowledge, which was
nothing more than the actual experience of things which he
already knew. On this last point St. Thomas, in the "Summa"
(Q. ix, a. 4), explicitly retracts an opinion which he had once
held (III Sent., d. 14, Q. iii, a. 3).
All sacraments of the New Law,
including confirmation and extreme unction, were instituted
immediately by Christ. Circumcision was a sacrament of the Old
Law and conferred grace which removed the stain of original sin.
The children of Jews or of other unbelievers may not be baptized
without the consent of their parents (III, Q. lxviii, a. 10;
11-Il, Q. x, a. 12; Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1481). Contrition,
confession, and satisfaction are the proximate matter (materia
proxima) of the Sacrament of Penance. Thomists hold, against
the Scotists, that when Transubstantiation takes place in the
Mass the Body of Christ is not made present per modum
adduclionis, i.e. is not brought to the altar, but they do
not agree in selecting the term which should be used to express
this action (cf. Billuart, "De Euchar.", Diss. i, a.
7). Cardinal Billot holds ("Dc cccl. sacr.", Rome,
1900, Th. XI, "Dc euchar.", p. 379) that the best, and
the only possible, explanation is the one given by St. Thomas
himself: Christ becomes present by transubstantiation, i.e. by
the conversion of the substance of bread into the substance of
His body (III, Q. lxxv, a. 4; Sent., d. XI, Q. i, a. 1, q. 1).
After the consecration the accidents (accidentia) of the
bread and wine are preserved by Almighty God without a subject
(Q. lxxxvii, a. 1). It was on this question that the doctors of
Paris sought enlightenment from St. Thomas (see Vaughan, "Life
and Labours of St. Thomas", London, 1872, II, p. 544). The
earlier Thomists, following St. Thomas (Suppl., Q. xxxvii, a. 2),
taught that the sub-diaconate and the four minor orders were
partial sacraments. Some recent Thomists — e. g., Billot
(op. cit., p. 282) and Tanquerey (De ordine, n. 16) —
defend this opinion as more probable and more in conformity with
the definitions of the councils. The giving of the chalice with
wine and of the paten with bread Thomists generally held to be an
essential part of ordination to the priesthood. Some, however,
taught that the imposition of hands was at least necessary. On
the question of divorce under the Mosaic Law the disciples of St.
Thomas, like the saint himself (Suppl., Q. lxvii, a. 3), wavered,
some holding that a dispensation was granted, others teaching
that divorce was merely tolerated in order to avoid greater
evils.
The chief doctrines distinctive of this
school, composed principally of Dominican writers, are the
following:
A. In Philosophy
The unity of substantial form in
composite beings, applied to man, requires that the soul be the
substantial form of the man, so as to exclude even the forma
corporeitatis, admitted by Henry of Ghent, Scotus, and others
(cf. Zigliara, P. 13; Denzinger-Bannwart, in note to n. 1655).
In created beings there is a real
distinction between the essentia (essence) and the
existentia (existence); between the essentia and
the subsistentia; between the real relation and its
foundation; between the soul and its faculties; between the
several faculties. There can be no medium between a distinctio
realis and a distinctio rationis, or conceptual
distinction; hence the distinctio formalis a parte rei of
Scotus cannot be admitted. For Thomistic doctrines on free will,
God's knowledge, etc., see below.
B. In Theology
In the beatific vision God's essence
takes the place not only of the species impressa, but also
of the species expressa.
All moral virtues, the acquired as well
as the infused, in their perfect state, are interconneted.
According to Billuart (De pecc., diss.
vii, a. 6), it has been a matter of controversy between Thomists
whether the malice of a mortal sin is absolutely infinite.
In choosing a medium between Rigorism
and Laxism, the Thomistic school has been Antiprobabilistic and
generally has adopted Probabiliorism. Some defended
Equiprobabilism, or Probabilism cum compensatione. Medina
and St. Antoninus are claimed by the Probabilists.
Thomistic theologians generally, whilst
they defended the infallibility of the Roman pontiff, denied that
the pope had the power to dissolve a matrimonium ratum or
to dispense from a solemn vow made to God. When it was urged that
some popes had granted such favours, they cited other pontiffs
who declared that they could not grant them (cf. Billuart, "De
matrim.", Diss. v, a. 2), and said, with Dominic Soto,
"Factum pontificium non facit articulum fidei" (The
action of a pope does not constitute an article of faith, in 4
dist., 27, Q. i, a. 4). Thomists of to-day are of a different
mind, owing to the practice of the Church.
The hypostatic union, without any
additional grace, rendered Christ impeccable. The Word was
hypostatically united to the blood of Christ and remained united
to it, even during the interval between His death and
resurrection (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 718). During that same
interval the Body of Christ had a transitory form, called forma
cadaverica (Zigliara, P. 16, 17, IV).
The sacraments of the New Law cause
grace not only as instrumental moral causes, but by a mode of
causality which should be called instrumental and physical. In
the attrition required in the Sacrament of Penance there should
be at least a beginning of the love of God; sorrow for sin
springing solely from the fear of hell will not suffice.
Many theologians of the Thomistic
School, especially before the Council of Trent, opposed the
doctrine of Mary's Immaculate Conception, claiming that in this
they were following St. Thomas. This, however, has not been the
opinion either of the entire school or of the Dominican Order as
a body. Father Rouard de Card, in his book "L'ordre des
freres precheurs et l'Immaculée Conception "(Brussels,
1864), called attention to the fact that ten thousand professors
of the order defended Mary's great privilege. At the Council of
Trent twenty-five Dominican bishops signed a petition for the
definition of the dogma. Thousands of Dominicans, in taking
degrees at the University of Paris, solemnly pledged themselves
to defend the Immaculate Conception.
The Thomistic School is distinguished
from other schools of theology chiefly by its doctrines on the
difficult questions relating to God's action on the free will of
man, God's foreknowledge, grace, and predestination. In the
articles on these subjects will be found an exposition of the
different theories advanced by the different schools in their
effort to explain these mysteries, for such they are in reality.
As to the value of these theories the following points should be
borne in mind:
No theory has as yet been proposed
which avoids all difficulties and solves all doubts;
on the main and most difficult of these
questions some who are at times listed as Molinists —
notably Bellarmine, Suárez, Francis de Lugo, and, in our
own days, Cardinal Billot ("De deo uno et trino", Rome,
1902, Th. XXXII) — agree with the Thomists in defending
predestination ante praevisa merita. Bossuet, after a long
study of the question of physical premotion, adapted the
Thomistic opinion ("Du libre arbitre", c. viii).
Thomists do not claim to be able to
explain, except by a general reference to God's omnipotence, how
man remains free under the action of God, which they consider
necessary in order to preserve and explain the universality of
God's causality and the independent certainty of His
foreknowledge. No man can explain, except by a reference to God's
infinite power, how the world was created out of nothing, yet we
do not on this account deny creation, for we know that it must be
admitted. In like manner the main question put to Thomists in
this controversy should be not "How will you explain man's
liberty?" but "What are your reasons for claiming so
much for God's action?" If the reasons assigned are
insufficient, then one great difficulty is removed, but there
remains to be solved the problem of God's foreknowledge of man's
free acts. If they are valid, then we must accept them with their
necessary consequences and humbly confess our inability fully to
explain how wisdom "reacheth . . . from end to end mightily,
and ordereth all things sweetly" (Wis., viii, 1).
Most important of all, it must be
clearly understood and remembered that the Thomistic system on
predestination neither saves fewer nor sends to perdition more
souls than any other system held by Catholic theologians. In
regard to the number of the elect there is no unanimity on either
side; this is not the question in dispute between the Molinists
and the Thomists. The discussions, too often animated and
needlessly sharp, turned on this point: How does it happen that,
although God sincerely desires the salvation of all men, some are
to be saved, and must thank God for whatever merits they may have
amassed, whilst others will be lost, and will know that they
themselves, and not God, are to be blamed? — The facts in
the case are admitted by all Catholic theologians. The Thomists,
appealing to the authority of St. Augustine and St. Thomas,
defend a system which follows the admitted facts to their logical
conclusions. The elect are saved by the grace of God, which
operates on their wills efficaciously and infallibly without
detriment to their liberty; and since God sincerely desires the
salvation of all men, He is prepared to grant that same grace to
others, if they do not, by a free act, render themselves unworthy
of it. The faculty of placing obstacles to Divine grace is the
unhappy faculty of sinning; and the existence of moral evil in
the world is a problem to be solved by all, not by the Thomists
alone. The fundamental difficulties in this mysterious question
are the existence of evil and the non-salvation of some, be they
few or be they many, under the rule of an omnipotent, all-wise,
and all-merciful God, and they miss the point of the controversy
who suppose that these difficulties exist only for the Thomists.
The truth is known to lie somewhere between Calvinism and
Jansenism on the one hand, and Semipelagianism on the other. The
efforts made by theologians and the various explanations offered
by Augustinians, Thomists, Molinists, and Congruists show how
difficult of solution are the questions involved. Perhaps we
shall never know, in this world, how a just and merciful God
provides in some special manner for the elect and yet sincerely
loves all men. The celebrated Congregatio de Auxiliis
(q.v.) did not forever put an end to the controversies, and the
question is not yet settled.
When the world in the first part of the
nineteenth century began to enjoy a period of peace and rest after
the disturbances caused by the French Revolution and the
Napoleonic Wars, closer attention was given to ecclesiastical
studies and Scholasticism was revived. This movement eventually
caused a revival of Thomism, because the great master and model
proposed by Leo XIII in the encyclicai "Aeterni Patris"
(4 Aug., 1879) was St. Thomas Aquinas. . . . The Thomistic
doctrine had received strong support from the older universities.
Among these the Encyclical "Aeterni Patris" mentions
Paris, Salamanca, Alcalá Douai, Toulouse, Louvain, Padua,
Bologna, Naples, and Coimbra as "the homes of human wisdom
where Thomas reigned supreme, and the minds of all, teachers as
well as taught, rested in wonderful harmony under the shield and
authority of the Angelic Doctor". In the universities
established by the Dominicans at Lima (1551) and Manila (1645) St.
Thomas always held sway. The same is true of the Minerva school at
Rome (1255), which ranked as a university from the year 1580, and
is now the international Collegio Angelico. Coming down to our own
times and the results of the Encyclical, which gave a new impetus
to the study of St. Thomas's works, the most important centres of
activity are Rome, Louvain, Fribourg (Switzerland), and
Washington. At Louvain the chair of Thomistic philosophy,
established in 1880, became, in 1889-90, the "Institut
supérieur de philosophie" or "Ecole St. Thomas
d'Aquin," where Professor Mercier, now Cardinal Archbishop of
Mechlin, ably and wisely directed the new Thomistic movement (see
De Wulf, "Scholasticism Old and New", tr. Coffey, New
York, 1907, append., p. 261; "Irish Ecel. Record", Jan.
1906). The theological department of the University of Fribourg,
Switzerland, established in 1889, has been entrusted to the
Dominicans. By the publication of the "Revue thomiste"
the professors of that university have contributed greatly to a
new knowledge and appreciation of St. Thomas. The Constitution of
the Catholic University of America at Washington enjoins special
veneration for St. Thomas; the School of Sacred Sciences must
follow his leadership ("Const. Cath. Univ. Amer.", Rome,
1889, pp. 38, 43). The University of Ottawa and Laval University
are the centres of Thomism in Canada. The appreciation of St.
Thomas in our days, in Europe and in America, is well set forth in
Perrier's excellent "Revival of Scholastic Philosophy in the
Nineteenth Century" (New York, 1909).
After the middle of the fourteenth century
the vast majority of philosophical and theological writers either
wrote commentaries on the works of St. Thomas or based their
teachings on his writings. It is impossible, therefore, to give
here a complete list of the Thomists: only the more important
names can be given. Unless otherwise noted, the authors belonged
to the Order of St. Dominic. Those marked (*) were devoted to
Thomism in general, but were not of the Thomistic School. A more
complete list will be found in the works cited at the end of this
article.
Thirteenth Century
Thomas de Cantimpré (1270); Hugh of
St. Cher (1263); Vincent of Bauvais (1264); St. Raymond de
Pennafort (1275); Peter of Tarentaise (Pope Innocent V —
1276); Giles de Lassines (1278); Reginald de Piperno (1279);
William de Moerbeka (1286); Raymond Marti (1286); Bernard de
Trilia (1292); Bernard of Hotun, Bishop of Dublin (1298);
Theodoric of Apoldia (1299); Thomas Sutton (1300).
Fourteenth Century
Peter of Auvergne (1301); Nicholas
Boccasini, Benedict XI (1304); Godfrey of Fontaines (1304); Walter
of Winterburn (1305); AEgidius Colonna (Aigidius Romanus), O.S.A
(1243-1316); William of Paris (1314); Gerard of Bologna, Carmelite
(1317); four biographers, viz Peter Calo (1310); William de Tocco
(1324); Bartolommeo of Lucca (1327); Bernard Guidonis* (1331);
Dante (1321); Natalis Hervieus (1323); Petrus de Palude
(Paludanusi — 1342); Thomas Bradwardin, Archbishop of
Canterbury (1349); Robert Holkott (1349); John Tauler (1361); Bl.
Henry Suso (1365); Thomas of Strasburg, O.S.A. (1357); Jacobus
Passavante (1357); Nicholas Roselli (1362); Durandus of Aurillac
(1382), sometimes called Durandulus, because he wrote against
Durandus a S. Portiano*, who was first a Thomist, afterwards an
independent writer, attacking many of St. Thomas's doctrines; John
Bromyard (1390); Nicholas Eymeric (1399).
Fifteenth Century
Manuel Calecas (1410); St. Vincent Ferrer
(1415); Bl. John Dominici (1419); John Gerson*, chancellor of the
University of Paris (1429); Luis of Valladolid (1436); Raymond
Sabunde (1437); John Nieder (1437); Capreolus (1444), called the
"Prince of Thomists"; John de Montenegro (1445); Fra
Angelico (1455); St. Antoninus (1459); Nicholas of Cusa*, of the
Brothers of the Common Life (1464); John of Torquemada (de
Turrecrematai, 1468); Bessarion, Basilian (1472); Alanus de Rupe
(1475); John Faber (1477); Petrus Niger (1471); Peter of Bergamo
(1482); Jerome Savonarola (1498).
Sixteenth Century
Felix Faber (1502); Vincent Bandelli (1506);
John Tetzel (1519); Diego de Deza (1523); Sylvester Mazzolini
(1523); Francesco Silvestro di Ferrara (1528); Thomas de Vio
Cajetan (1534) (commentaries by these two are published in the
Leonine edition of the works of St. Thomas); Conrad Koellin
(1536); Chrysostom Javelli (1538); Santes Pagnino (1541);
Francisco de Vitoria (1546); Franc. Romseus (1552); Ambrosius
Catherinus* (Lancelot Politi, 1553); St. Ignatius of Loyola (1556)
enjoined devotion to St. Thomas; Matthew Ory (1557); Dominic Soto
(1560); Melehior Cano (1560); Ambrose Pelargus (1561); Peter Soto
(1563); Sixtus of Siena (1569); John Faber (1570); St. Pius V
(1572); Bartholomew Medina (1581); Vincent Justiniani (1582);
Maldonatus* (Juan Maldonado, 1583); St. Charles Borromeo* (1584);
Salmerón* (1585); Ven. Louis of Granada (1588); Bartholomew
of Braga (1590); Toletus* (1596); Bl. Peter Canisius* (1597);
Thomas Stapleton*, Doctor of Louvain (1598); Fonseca (1599);
Molina* (1600).
Seventeenth Century
Valentia* (1603); Domingo Baflez (1604);
Vásquez* (1604); Bart. Ledesma (1604); Sánchez*
(1610); Baronius * (1607); Capponi a Porrecta (1614); Aur.
Menochio * (1615); Petr. Ledesma (1616); Suárez* (1617); Du
Perron, a converted Calvinist, cardinal (1618); Bellarmine*
(1621); St. Francis de Sales* (1622); Hieronymus Medices (1622);
Lessius* (1623); Becanus* (1624); Malvenda (1628); Thomas de Lemos
(1629); Alvarez; Laymann* (1635); Joann. Wiggers*, doctor of
Louvain (1639); Gravina (1643); John of St. Thomas (1644); Serra
(1647); Ripalda*, S.J. (1648); Sylvius (Du Bois), doctor of Douai
(1649); Petavius* (1652); Goar (1625); Steph. Menochio*, S.J.
(1655); Franc. Pignatelli* (1656); De Lugo* (1660); Bollandus*
(1665); Jammy (1665); Vallgornera (1665); Labbe* (1667);
Pallavicini* (1667); Busenbaum* (1668); Nicolni* (1673); Contenson
(1674); Jac. Pignatelli* (1675); Passerini* (1677); Gonet (1681);
Bancel (1685); Thomassin* (1695); Goudin (1695); Sfrondati*
(1696); Quetif (1698); Rocaberti (1699); Casanate (1700). To this
period belong the Carmelite Salmanticenses, authors of the
"Cursus theologicus" (1631-72).
Eighteenth Century
Guerinois (1703); Bossuet, Bishop of Meaux;
Norisins, O.S.A. (1704); Diana (1705); Thyrsus González*
(1705); Massoulié (1706); Du hamel* (1706); Wigandt (1708);
Piny (1709); Lacroix* (1714); Carrieres* (1717); Natalis Alexander
(1724); Echard (1724); Tourney*, doctor of the Sorbonne (1729);
Livarius de Meyer* (1730); Benedict XIII* (1730); Graveson (1733);
Th. du Jardin (1733); Hyacintha Serry (1738); Duplessis
d'Argentré* (1740); Gotti (1742); Drouin* (1742); Antoine*
(1743); Lallemant* (1748); Milante* (1749); Preingue (1752);
Concina (1759); Billuart (1757); Benedict XIV* (1758); Cuiliati
(1759); Orsi (1761); Charlevoix* (1761); Reuter* (1762);
Baumgartner* (1764); Berti* (1766); Patuzzi (1769); De Rubeis
(1775); Touron (1775); Thomas de Burgo (1776); Gener* (1781);
Roselli (1783); St. Aiphonsus Liguori (1787); Mamachi (1792);
Richard (1794).
Nineteenth Century
In this century there are few names to be
recorded outside of those who were connected with the Thomistic
revival either as the forerunners, the promoters, or the writers
of the Neo-Scholastic period.
D.J. KENNEDY
|
