Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 14.djvu/651

 THEOLOGY

591

THEOLOGY

ture, the "Seraphic Doctor", clearly follows in the footsteps of Alexander of Hales, his fellow-rehgious and predecessor, but surpasses hira in dejith of mysticism and clearness of diction. UnUke the other Scholastics of this period, he did not write a theological "Summa", but amply made up for it by his "Commentary on the Sentences", as well as by his famous "Breviloquium", a "casket of pearls", which, brief as a compendium, is nothing less than a condensed Summa. Alexander of Hales and Bona- venture are the real representatives of the old Fran- ciscan Schools, from which the later School of Duns Scotus essentially differed. Yet it is not Bonaven- ture, but Thomas Aquinas, who has ever been honoured as the "Prince of Scholasticism". St. Thomas holds the same rank among the theologians as does St. Augustine among the Fathers of the Church. Possessed of angelic rather than human knowledge, the "Doctor angehcus" is distinguished not only for the wealth, dejith, and truth of his ideas and for his systematic exposition of them, but also for the versatiUty of his genius, which embraced all branches of human knowledge. For dogmatic theology his most important work is the "Svraima theologica". Experience has shown that, as faithful adherence to St. Thomas means progress, so a depar- ture from his teachings invariably brings with it a decline of Catholic theology. It seems providential, therefore, that Leo XIII in his Encyclical ".-Eterni Patris" (1879) restored the study of the Scholastics, especially of St. Thomas, in all higher Catholic schools, a measure which was again emphasized by Pope Pius X. The fears prevalent in .some circles that by the restoration of Scholastic studies the results of modern thought would be forced back to the anti- quated viewpoint of the thirteenth centurj- are shown to be groundless by the fact that both poi)es, while insi.sting on the acquisition of the "wisdom of St. Thomas", yet emphatically disclaim any inten- tion to revive the unscientific notions of the Middle Ages. It would be foUj' to ignore the progress of seven centuries, and, moreover, the Reformation, Jansenism, and the philosophies since Kant have originated theological problems which St. Thomas in his time could not foresee. Nevertheless, it is a convincing proof of the logical accuracy and compre- hensiveness of the Thomistic system that it contains at least the principles necessary for the refutation of modern errors.

Before the brilUancy of the genius of St. Thomas even great theologians of this period wane into stars of the second and third magnitude. Still, Richard of Middleton (d. 1300), whose clearness of thought and lucidity of exposition recall the master mind of Aquinas, is a classical representative of the Francis- can School. Among the Servites, Henrj- of Ghent (d. 129.3), a di.sciple of Albert the Great, deserves mention; his style is original and rhetorical, his judgments are independent, his treatment of the doctrine on God attests the profound thinker. In the footsteps of St. Thomas followed his pupil Peter of Tarentaise, who later became Pope Innocent V (d. 1276), and Ulric of Strasburg (d. 1277), whose name is little known, though his unprinted "Summa" was held in high esteem in the Middle Ages. The famous General of the -Vugust inians, /Egidius of Rome (d. 1316), a scion of the noble family of the Colonna, while differing in some details from the teaching of St. Thomas yet in the main adhered to his system. In his own order his writings were considered as classics. But the attempt of the Augustinian Gavardus in the seventeenth centurj- to create a distinctly "vEgidian School" proved a failure. On the other hand, adversaries of St. Thomas sprang up even in his lifetime. The first attack came from England and was Icfl bv William de la Mare, of Oxford (d. 1285). Speaking broadly.

English scholars, famous for their originality, played no mean part in the intellectual hfe of the Middle Ages. Being more of an empirical and practical than of an aprioristic and theoretical bent of mind, they enriched science with a new element. Their predilection for the natural sciences is also the out- come of this practical sense. Like the links of an unbroken chain follow the names of Bede, Alcuin, Alfred (Anglicus), Alexander of Neckham, Alexander of Hales, Robert Grosseteste, Adam of ]SIarsh, John Basingstoke, Robert Kilwardby, John Pecham, Roger Bacon, Duns Scotus, Occam. Kuno Fischer is right when he says: "When traveDing along the great highway of history, we may traverse the whole of the middle ages down to Bacon of Verulam with- out leaving England for a moment" ("Francis Bacon", Heidelberg, 1904, p. 4).

This pecuhar English spirit was embodied in the famous Duns Scotus (1266-1308). AVhile in point of abiUty he belongs to the golden age of scholasti- cism, yet his bold and virulent criticism of the Tlio- mistic system was to a great extent responsible for its decline. Scotus cannot be linked with the old Franciscan school; he is rather the founder of the new Scotistic School, which deviated from the theology of Alexander of Hales and Bonaventure not so much in matters of faith and morals as in the speculative treatment of dogma. Greater still is his opposition to the fundamental standpoint of Thomas Aquinas. St. Thomas hkens the system of theolog}' and philosophy to the animal organism, in which the vivifying sold permeates all the mem- bers, holds them together, and shapes them into perfect unity. In Scotus's own words, on the other hand, the order of things is rather sj-mboUzed by the plant, the root .shooting forth branches and twigs which have an innate tendency to grow away from the stem. This fundamental difference also sheds light on the peculiarities of Scotus's sj-stem as op- posed to Thomism: his formalism in the doctrine of God and the Trinity, his loose conception of the Hj-postatic Union, his relaxation of the bonds uniting the sacraments with the humanity of Christ, his exi:)lanat ion of transubstantiation as an adductive substitution, his emphasis on the supremacy of the will, and so on. Though it cannot be denied that Scotism preserved theological studies from a one- sided development and even won a signal victory over Thomism by its doctrine concerning the Immac- ulate Conception, it is nevertheless evident that the essential .service it rendered to Catholic theology in the long run was to bring out, by the clash of argu- ments, the enduring solidity of the Thomistic struc- ture. No one can fail to admire in St. Thonuis the perspicuity of thought and the lucidity of diction, as contrasted with the abstruse and mystifying con- ceptions of his critic. In later centuries not a few Franciscans of a calmer judgment, among them Constantine Sarnanus (1.389) and John of Rada (1599), set about minimizing or even reconciling the doctrinal differences of the two masters.

(c) Third Epoch: Gradual DecUne of Scholasti- cism (1300-1.500).— The death of Duns Scotus (d. 1308) marks the close of the golden era of the Scholas- tic system. What the following period accompUshed in constructive work consisted chiefly in preserving, reproducing, and digesting the results of former ages. But simultaneously with this commendable labour we encounter elements of disintegration, due partly to the Fraticelli's wTong roncei)tion of mysti- cism, partly to the aberrations and superficiality of Nominalism, partly to the distressing conflict between Church and State (Phihp the Fair, Louis of Bavaria, theExileat Avignon). Apart from the fanatical enthu- siasts who were leaning towards lier?sy, the develop- ment and rapid spread of Nominalism must be ascribed to two pupils of Duns Scotus: the Frenchman Peter