Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 14.djvu/661

 THEOLOGY

601

THEOLOGY

views. Dorner shows how widespread among Prot- estants these views are, since there is hardly a Protestant theologian of note who refuses its own per- sonality to the human nature of Christ. Among Catholics, Berruyer and Gunther reintroduced a mod- ified Ncstorianism; but they were censured by the Congregation of the Index (17 April, 1755) and by Pope Pius IX (15 Jan., 1857). The Monophysite heresy was renewed by the Monolhelites, admitting only one w-ill in Christ and thus contradicting the teaching of Popes Martin I and Agatho and of the Sixth (Ecumenical Council. Both the schismatic Creeks and the Reformers of the sixteenth century wished to retain the traditional doctrine concerning the Word Incarnate; but even the earliest followers of the Reformers fell into errors involving both the Nestorian and the Monophysite heresies. The Ubi- quitarians, for example, find the essence of the Incar- nation not in the assumption of human nature by the Word, but in the divinization of human nature by sharing the properties of the Divine nature. The subsequent Protestant theologians drifted away far- ther still from the views of Christian tradition; Christ for them was the sage of Nazareth, perhaps even the greatest of the Prophets, whose Biblical record, half myth and half history, is nothing but the exjjression of a popular idea of human perfection. The Catholic WTiters whose views were derogatory either to the his- torical character of the Biblical account of the hfe of Christ or to his prerogatives as the God-man have been censured in the new Syllabus and the Encyclical "Pascendi dominici gregis".

For Christology consult the following:—

Patri.'^tic Work.s: Xthan.\81US, Gregory Nazianzus, Greg- ory OF Nyssa, Basil, Epiphanius wrote especially agaiDst the follower-? of Arius and Apollinaris; Cyril of Alkxandria, PROcLrs, Leontii'.s Byzantinus, .Anastasius Sinaita. Eulo- OIU8 OF Alexandria, Peter Chrysologus, Fulgentius, opposing the Ncstorians and Monophy.'iites: Sophronius, Maximus, .John Damascene, the Monothelites; Paulincs of Aqcileia, Etherius, Alcuin, Agobardus, the Adoptioniata. See P. a. and P. L.

Scholastic Writers: St. Thomas, Summa Ihcol., Ill, QQ. i-lix; Idem, Summa contra genles, IV, xxvii-lv; In III Sentent.; De reritate, QQ. XX, xxix; Compend, theol., QQ. cxcix-ccxlii; Opitsc.^ 2: etc.: -Bonaventura, Breriloquinm, 1, 4: In III SentenL; Bellarmine, De Chrislo capite tolitis ecclesicB conlrovers., I. col. IGIO; SuAREZ, De Incarn., opp. XIV, XV; Lugo, De Incarn., op. III.

Positive Theologians: Petavius, Theol. dogmal., IV, 1-2; Thomassin, De Incarn., dogm. theol.. Ill, IV.

Recent Writers: Franzelin, De Verba Incarn. (Rome, 1874); Ki.ectgen, Theologie der Vorzeit, III (Miinster. 1873); Jung- MANN, De Verbo inrarnaio (Ratisbon, 1872); Hcrter, Theo' Ingia dogmalica, II, tract, vu (Innsbruck, 1882); Stentrcp, PrtrUftiones dogrtmlicce de Verbo incarnato (2 vols., Innsbruck, 1.882); I.IDDON, The Divinity of Our Lord (I^ondon, 1885); Maas, Christ in Type and Prophecy (2 vols.. New York, 1893-96); Lepin, Jfxus Messie el FitsdeDien (Paris, 1904). .See also recent works on the life of Christ, and the principal commentaries on the Biblical passages cited in this article.

For all other parts of dogmatic theology see bibliography at the end of this section (I.).

A. J. Maas.

II. Moral Theology. — Moral theology is a branch of theolog}', the science of God and Divine things. The distinction between natural and supernatural theology rests on a solid foundation. Natural theology is the science of God Himself, in as far as the human mind can by its own efforts reach a definite conclusion about God and His nature: it is always designated by the adjective natural. Theol- ogy, without any further modification, is invariably understood to mean supernatural theology, that is, the science of God and Divine things, in as far as it is based on supernatural Revelation. Its subject- matter embraces not only God and His es.sence, but also His actions and His works of salvation and the guidance by which we arc led to God, our super- natural end. Consequently, it extends much farther than natural theology; for, though the latter informs us of God's essence and attributes, yet it can tell us nothing about His free works of salvation. The knowledge of all these truths is necessary for every

man, at least in its broad outlines, and is acquired by Christian faith. But this is not yet a science. The science of theology demands that the knowledge won through faith, be deepened, expanded, antl strengthened, so that the articles of faith be under- stood and defended by their reasons and be, together with their conclusions, arranged systematically.

The entiri^ field of theology projjcr is divided into dogmatic and moral theology, which differ in subject- matter and in method. Dogmatic theology has as its end the scientific discussion and establishment of the doctrines of faith, moral theology of the moral pre- cepts. The precepts of Christian morals arc also part of the doctrines of faith, for they were announced or confirmed by Divine Revelation. The subject-mat- ter of dogmatic theology is those doctrines which serve to enrich the knowledge necessary or conven- ient for man, whose destination is .supernatural. Moral theology, on the other hand, is limited to those doctrines which discuss the reliitions of man and his free actions to God and his supernatural end, and propose the means instituted by God for the attain- ment of that end. Consequently, dogmatic and moral theology are two closely related parts of uni- versal thenlngy. Inasmuch as a considerable num- ber of individual doctrines may be claimed by either discipline, no sharp line of demarcation can be drawn between the .subject-matter of dogma and morals. In actual practice, however, a division and limitation must be made in accordance with pr:ictic:il needs. Of a similarnature is the rcliition between moral theology and ethics. The subject-matter of natural morals or ethics, as contained in the Decalogue, has been in- cluded in positive. Divine Revelation, and hence has passed into moral theology. Nevertheless, the argu- mentat ive processes differ in I he two sciences, and for this reason a large portion of the matter is disregarded in moral theology and referred to ethics. For in- stance, the refutation of the false systems of the modern ethicists is generally treated imder ethics, especially because these systems are refuted by argu- ments drawn not so much from faith, as from reasfin. Only in as far as moral theology requires a defence of revealed doctrines, does it concern itself with f;ilse systems. However, it must discuss the various re- quirements of the natural law, not only because this law has been confirmed and defined by positive reve- lation, but also because every violation of it entails a disturbance of the supernatural moral order, the treatment of which is an essential jiart of moral theology.

The field of moral theology, its contents, and the boundaries which separate it from kindred subjects, may be briefly indicated as follows: moral theology includes everything relating to man's free aelion.s :uid the last, or stipreme, (<nd to be attained tiirough Ihein, as far as we know the same by Divine Revelation; in other words, it includes the superniitiu'al end, the rule, or norm, of the mond order, human actions as such, their harmony or disharmony with (he laws of the moral order, their consequences, the Divine aids for their right performance. A detailed treatment of these subjects m;iy be found in the second part of St. Thomas's "Summa theologicii", a work still un- rivalled as a treatise of moral theology.

The position of moral theology in universal theol- ogy is briefly sketched by .St. Thom.as in (he "Summa theol.", I, Q. i, a. 7 and Q. ii in the proemium and in the prologtis of I-II; likewise by Fr. Sua,rez in the proemium of his commentaries on the I-II of St. Thomas. The subjec(-ma((er of the entire second part of the ".Summa theol." is, man as ,a free agent. " Man was made .after (he image of God, by his intel- lect, his free will, and a certain i)ower to act of his own accord. Hence, after we h;ive spoken of the p.atfern, viz. of God, .and of (hose (hings which proceeded from His Divine power according to His will, we must now