Page 266

Page 266

Soholsstioism

" concupiscence itself is original sin." " Act of lust " is not here thought of, but the " carnality " arising from the generative desire of parents, which is a " real quality " in the human soul. "The works of unbelievers which seem virtuous and commendable are truly sinful and punishable, vicious, and morally evil." Children dying unbaptized shall be subject not only to the " punishment of the damned " [i.e., judgment of original sin], but also " to the punishment of pain." Turning sharply against the idea of a "general influence of God " by which sinners de congruo are capable of earning " first grace," he held that to be capable of good requires a " special aid of God' ; of himself man may earn neither the gratis gratum faciens nor the dispersive gratis. gratis data. The good in man is a direct act of God. The only cause of salvation is the divine predestination embracing in itself, as in Augustine, " calling " and " justification " and not being dependent on foreknowledge. Gregory was a genuine scholastic with a lively interest in philosophical problems and a delight in proofs, and also a man of not inconsiderable independence, shown by his going over to nominalism and by the energy with which he was able to think himself to an independent position amid the views of Augustine. Pelagianism is again reduced to a fundamental heresy, and contemporaneously Bradwardine (q.v.) completed his great anti-Pelagian work.

8. Culmination: The scientific activity of the thirteenth century had therefore been directed to satisfy the intellectual necessities raised by the

twelfth, by means of unified philosoph 4- Disin- ical theory in which was merged the twat" dogma of the Church with the philoso and the phy of Aristotle. The boldest and Reforma- tion. clearest attempt of Thomas Aquinas tion. obtained only qualified approval. Duns Scotus split apart the two elements; with William of Occam (see OCCAM, WILLIAM OF), the unity became illusory. Nothing illustrates the situa tion better than the recall in the fourteenth century of the sentence of Averrhoes: a principle may be correct in philosophy but false in theology. Where there was a readiness to follow Thomas, it stopped short with the practical deductions; faith and in centive to his daring idealism failed. The increasing intellectual self-dependence afforded theology an un capricious character, and criticism did not univer sally blunt itself as the nominalistic positivism. Again theologians arose, like Anselm of old, who approached theological problems with a striving for the truth of experience, and these cared more for the faith and a reformation of life than for " system." Such movements were not interrupted in the Franciscan order, and that Duns and Occam were members was not accidental. Characteristic of the time is it that, impelled by inmost experi ence, Thomas Bradwardine (q.v.) of Oxford ral lied his age from Pelagianism to the Augustinian determinism of grace, and a man like Gregory of Rimini so earnestly reverted to Augustine. Then came Wyclif (q.v.), anti-scholastic schoolman and realistic critic, without, however, the critical pre cautions of the nominalistic positivists or the THE NEW SCIiAFF-HERZOG ass

naive credulity of Ansehn. He was induced by practical motives and theology was the means to his ideas of reform. As realist he saw in it no mere contrivance of words but realities, which led to real consequences. His thought was controlled by two main principles: the Augustinian predestination and the Biblical discipleship of Jesus.

But to the cry for reform in the fifteenth century was opposed, as usual, the counter-effort at rectoration. In such cases, restoration allies itself with retrenchment, insisting only upon the

8. Resto- main things. Yet such reduction is ration; in danger of stagnation, unless new

Finality spiritual tendencies from fresh points of Thomas. f mew set in. Thus the battle between the " old " and the " modern," realism and nominalism, continued, but the charge against and ridicule of scholastic practise in theology emanated not only from Humanists but from theologians as well. Slowly scholasticism turned into new channels. For example, the nominalist Pierre d'Ailly (see AILLY, PIERRE D') limited his Sentence commentary to what appeared to him practical, seemingly important problems. Likewise for Thomas Netter (q.v.) in his Doctrinale antiquitatem against Wyclif; the problem pertains to Church and institutions; the Bible and earlier Fathers furnish the proofs. Above all new problems are disavowed, and the older ones are to be reduced to main points and simplified, but the native power of the authors is dead. The recourse is to seek a via media among the opinions of the past, or at moat adherence to a great master. By clearness, simplicity, thoughtfulness, and the elimination of paradoxes and extremes, no system of the past was so well adapted to this process as that of Thomas Aquinas. Besides, the practical theologians, the German mystics, followed him as their teacher and pure nominalism with its criticism and fruitless dialectic was more and more doubted, while realism rose again to power through Platonism in Niholas of Cuss, (q.v.) and Averrhoism (the Paduan School). Johannes Capreolus (q.v.), the chief of Thomists, in his four books, Defensiones theologise divi. doctoris Thomce (5 vols., Turin, 1901-04) criticizes the other scholastic theories and recommends in all points a return to Thomas, thus introducing the Thomist reaction of the fifteenth century. Gradually, here and there, the theological Summa of Thomas became the basis of lectures instead of the Sentences of Lombard. Dionysius Rickel (see DIONYBIUa THE CARTHUaIAN) presented the scholastic theories clearly in his Sentence commentary, generally in adherence to Thomas. A comprehensive presentation by Gabriel Biel followed in most questions the views of Scotus and Occam. Soon after, Francis Lycketus prepared his commentary on the Opus Oxoniense of Duns, and Thomas del Vio wrote his commentary on the Summa theologica, and Franciscus de Silvestria Ferrariensis, on Summa contra gentiles, both by Thomas. More and more distinct became the return to the thirteenth century and the recognition of Thomas as the surviving fruit of scholasticism. He formed also the basis for the great restoration of scholasticism which, starting at Salamanca, took place in