[See page image]

Page 267

Spain in the sixteenth century. Thomists were also the intellectual antagonists of Luther. Recently Pope Leo XIII. pronounced this the normal theology.

r. Method. tions by Lombard remain as an outline for the accumulating material. To extract the basic ideas of the theologians is one of the gravest impediments to the modem understanding of the peculiarity of the scholastic systems. Another is the repeated differentiation of the material into new questions the basis for the opposite views of which are thoroughly established and thoroughly refuted. For instance, a distinction of Lombard is resolved into a number of qumstiones and each of these into a number of articles. Other subdivisions may follow: such as, membra, principalaa, panes, tractatus, dubia, ad fcnitum. In detail each article is so treated as to raise a question; then citations for and against are quoted from the Church Fathers down to the scholastic masters. After the quod non or quod sic is concluded, follows the responsio of the author or the corpus of the article. Then follows the discussion in much detail of the views produced first for, then against, the question, not infrequently including the characteristic opinions of the author. Into this endlessly irksome mold, the explanation of every problem is dragged. But its great service was its vitalization of dialectic art and of logical categories for scholars and for the development of education to the present day. Easier and simpler was the presentation of Thomas, who parted from the scheme of Lombard and built his own system on the grand and simple outlines of (1) of God, (2) to God, (3) through Christ. He also possessed the art of setting forth perspicuously the essential and of expressing it in a form easily understood. Yet even here the endless analysis and monotonous dialectic are wearisome.

From the time of the famous introduction of V. Cousin to the works of Abelard (1839) it has become customary to trace the history of scholasticism by the thread of the conflict of rationalism and nominalism. But this division will not

z. Problem. classify in theology and must be complemented by the further view-points of Augustinianism and Aristotelianism, voluntarism and intellectualism, positivism and rationalism, practical and theoretical knowledge, as has been done in the preceding sketch. The traditional and inviolable Biblical material authorized by the Church is to be interpreted and systematized. In addition it must be brought into harmonious relation with secular knowledge. In the example of Thomas, the philosophy of Aristotle takes its place beside church doctrine. Reason is not only the logical faculty, but also the organ of philosophic intuition. Hand in hand with revelation, it erects a grand system of religious philosophy. Revealed thoughts are not to be rationalized or proved in the strict sense but merely shown as probable and con-

formable to reason. As a result orthodoxy and rationalism are commuted, giving rise to a speculative theoretical knowledge as subject of theology. Exactly this entrance of the rational element called forth the protest of the older theology and the movement introduced by Duns Scotus. The older theology, though acceding to the entrance of the science of Aristotle, and adopting the dialectic, desired to see the religious character of theology preserved, partly by adherence to the religious speculation of Augustine and his doctrine of will, and partly by the retention of realism. This latter seems contrary to the purpose; yet realism derived its ideas as inherent in things from heaven; it touched the divine in everything that transpired; everything earthly was a medium revealing the heavenly, and knowledge assumed an immediate mystical character. To Duns philosophy and theology were distinct in object and kind. The latter was concerned with a purely practical knowledge. The will of God revealed itself to human will as its end and provided the means and ways for attainment. The Church with its dogmas and institutions is that way. Though dealing with subjects common to both, metaphysics deals with the truths necessary to the thought of being; theology with positive revelation. Theology and philosophy must part. This practical knowledge of theology, however, becomes scientific by the dialectical proof of the inner unity of revelation and its ecclesiastical institution. But instead of doing this Duns simply makes revelation equivalent to church doctrine and order, and instead of producing a new conception of faith correlative to a practical revelation he rests correspondingly with the intellectual assent of tradition. And instead of wholly severing the bond to Aristotle he weaves him entirely into theology from new points of view. The result is shown in the endless unrest suspended over his system of thought. With a sure eye for system he takes in hand the exposition of the particular doctrines; with a keen criticism of tradition he has paved the way, but he is impeded from attaining his aim of practical knowledge by the ready-made church doctrines, and, in part, by the Aristotelian dogma. Hence, the brilliant criticism of Duns proves to be in vain, and his characteristic tendency is ever deterred by the ecclesiastical positivism. So much more divergent is the inconsistency between aim and result as Duns, unlike Thomas, who follows a certain tendency of rationalizing faith, would conceive it only in its practical nature. But the undertaking of Thomas was also untenable because of the disparity of the religious faith and philosophic knowledge which he vainly aimed to unify. Faith as theoretical assent is the rock on which Duns splits and the fortress of Thomas; the relation of philosophy and theology is the stronghold of Duns, the weakness of Thomas. The latter founders on a false deduction; the former on the incapability of prosecuting a true one. The one was impeded by philosophy; the other by church doctrine.

Hereby are distinguished the two methods of scholasticism. The one is the union of dogmatics with Aristotelian philosophy, as the ultimate conclusion of natural metaphysics; the other repre-