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

I. THE DOCTRINE IN GENERAL

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 THOMISTIC SCHOOL

The chief doctrines distinctive of this school, composed principally

of Dominican writers, are the following:

A. In Philosophy

1.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).

2.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

1.In the beatific vision God's essence takes the place not only

of the species impressa, but also of the species expressa.

2.All moral virtues, the acquired as well as the infused, in their

perfect state, are interconneted.

3.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.

4.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.

5.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.

6.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).

7.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.

8.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.

9.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.

III. NEO-THOMISM AND THE REVIVAL OF SCHOLASTICISM

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).

IV. EMINENT THOMISTS

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 NeoScholastic

period.

D. J. Kennedy

Transcribed by Kevin Cawley

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIV

Nihil Obstat, July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor

Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

The Catholic Encyclopedia: NewAdvent.org