The Scholastic Period

It is not possible to indicate any particular year when the scholastic period began. We may say that the patristic period closed with the death of St Bernard, the last of the Fathers, in the year 1153. Many of the characteristics of scholasticism, however, and especially the application of philosophy to the exposition and defence of theology, are conspicuous in the works of many of the Fathers. In their work, too, of systematizing theology the schoolmen had many predecessors among the Fathers, and especially St John Damascene and St Isidore of Seville. Nor is the common assertion that the Fathers favoured Platonism while the scholastics adopted Aristotelianism quite warranted by facts. Clement of Alexandria especially, and other Fathers as well, were eclectic as philosophers, and borrowed what they thought was true from any and every source. Still we may for practical purposes say that scholasticism began in the twelfth century. Then it was that the growth and development of theology began afresh. It had been interrupted for seven hundred years by the necessity of civilizing the barbarians who had broken up the Roman Empire and settled in its territories. From this time moral theology has come down to us in two distinct channels. Peter Lombard may be looked upon as the fountain-head of the first stream, and St Raymund of Pennafort of the second.

Peter Lombard wrote his work on the Sentences between the years 1145 and 1150. He therein treats of the whole of theology, both dogmatic and moral. He wished to counteract the rationalizing tendencies which as a pupil of Abelard he had noticed in the schools of Paris. To the various and erroneous views which the spirit of rationalism had introduced, Peter opposed the traditional doctrine handed down in the writings of the Fathers. After much consideration, as he tells us, he found a guiding principle for the distribution and ordering of the subject-matter of theology in a sentence of St Augustine. Christian revelation, contained in the Holy Scriptures, has for its subject-matter either things or signs. Under signs come the sacraments, and things are either such as we have fruition of, or such as we use, or such as we both use and enjoy by fruition, Under the first head comes God, one in nature and three in person. Under the second come all created things, the angels, man, his end, fall, and redeeming grace. Under the third, the incarnation, faith, hope, charity, the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, the Ten Commandments. The whole matter of theology is thus systematically arranged in four Books. Each Book is divided into Distinctions, devoted to some special point on which the traditional doctrine is laid down by quoting appropriate extracts (Sententiae) from the works of the Fathers. Apparent or real differences of opinion are noted and as far as possible reconciled with each other. Although Hugo of St Victor, Robert Pullen, and other theologians had previously composed similar books of Sentences, yet the work of Peter Lombard soon eclipsed them all in the welcome that it received. It remained the recognized textbook of theology until the end of the sixteenth century, when its place was taken by the Summa of St Thomas. Nearly all the great scholastics wrote Commentaries on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, developing, illustrating, defending, and sometimes correcting the doctrine which they found there, especially from the speculative point of view. In these Commentaries and in the Summas of scholastic theology we have a most abundant and valuable source of the speculative side of Christian ethics. To meet the more practical and concrete needs of the confessor, St Raymund of Pennafort composed his Summa de Poenitentia et Matrimonio about the year 1235. He, also, merely collected and systematized the abundant material which had been left by his predecessors. He had no more intention of introducing changes into the traditional doctrines of Christianity than had Peter Lombard. But as his aim was not speculative but practical, he drew his material especially from Gratian’s Decretum, from the decisions of Popes and the councils of the Church, as well as from the Fathers. .The work De Ponitentia is divided into three Books. In the first Book sins against God are treated of, in the second sins against one’s neighbour, and in the third irregularities, dispensations, purgations, sentences, penances, and remissions. Each Book is divided into Titles, which contain an orderly and logical exposition of some particular subject. Thus, in the first title on Simony, the sin is defined, the origin of the name is explained, the different kinds of simony are indicated, with the penalties incurred and the dispensations which may be obtained. Then follows a discussion of doubtful questions and cases. Finally some rules of law on the matter are laid down and explained.

The work of St Raymund was the first of those innumerable handbooks written for the training and use of the confessor especially from the practical and casuistical point of view. Although in the treatment of the different titles the work of St Raymund leaves little to be desired, yet it lacks something in orderly arrangement and in completeness. These defects were soon made good by others. A Friar Minor, of Asti, in the north of Italy, composed the Summa Astensis in the year 1317. In the Roman edition of 1728 it fills two volumes folio, and in its aim, in the matter which it contains, and in the method of treatment, it differs little from the handbooks of moral theology which are published at the present day. The matter is divided into eight Books. The first Book treats of divine and human law and contains the doctrine of the Ten Commandments. The second treats of virtues and vices, beginning with several titles devoted to human acts, voluntary and involuntary actions, to expounding in what the goodness or malice of actions consists, and merit. The cardinal and theological virtues and the sins opposed to them are explained in detail. The third Book contains the doctrine on contracts and last wills; the fourth that on the sacraments in general, and on Baptism, Confirmation, and the holy Eucharist. The treatise on Penance and Extreme Unction in the fifth Book contains also the doctrine on prayer, fasting, almsdeeds, restitution, and indulgences. That on Orders in the sixth Book treats also of churches and sacred vestments, ecclesiastical burial, parishes, prebends, tithes, of the various grades of the clergy and of religious and their obligations. Censures and ecclesiastical penalties occupy the seventh, and Matrimony the eighth Book.

The dogmatic treatment of moral theology reached its high-water mark in the second part of the Summa of St ‘Thomas Aquinas, That marvellous production of genius has never been surpassed or even equalled as an exposition of the general principles of Christian ethics. Neither has the casuistic treatment of morals in general made much progress since the thirteenth century. Of course, there have been numerous changes in discipline during the last six centuries, and these require to be noted in new moral treatises as they occur. There have also been some changes in theological opinion. As an illustration of such a change we may instance that concerning the use by superiors of knowledge gained from confession. St Thomas and scholastic theologians commonly held that a superior who knew from confession of a dangerous occasion of sin to one of his subjects might use his authority to remove his subject out of the danger, provided that thereby he violated no principle of justice nor made known to others the sin which had been confessed to him. This opinion is now quite obsolete, and it has been virtually condemned by the Holy See.¹ But in spite of some such changes in detail, the general assertion remains true that moral theology to-day is substantially what it was in the thirteenth or at the beginning of the fourteenth century. There is, however, one important exception to this general statement. That exception is due to the express formulation at the end of the sixteenth century of the doctrine of probabilism.

¹ Supra, p. 232.

We must, however, be on our guard against exaggerating the importance of probabilism, and confounding it with moral theology in general. After all, probabilism is only concerned with the solution of doubtful questions. There is an immense body of moral doctrine which is certain and where probabilism or other similar theory of morals does not enter. There are also, it must be confessed, many doubtful questions, especially connected with the application of general rules to particular cases, and it is in the solution of these doubtful and disputed questions that probabilism is concerned. All Catholic divines state or take for granted the doctrine that it is sinful to act with a doubtful conscience, without making up one’s mind that the action which is contemplated is morally right. This is the teaching of Holy Scripture: “ All that is not of faith ’— t.e., done with the conscientious conviction that it is right—‘ is sin,” says St Paul.¹ But if this be so, what are we to do in doubtful matters, where perhaps divines themselves disagree, and some teach that an action is right, while others assert that it is wrong? In such cases we can only act, according to the doctrine of St Paul, if we are able to make up our mind that the action is lawful and honest. How can this be done?

¹ Rom. xiv 23.

Before the close of the sixteenth century, when Bartholomew a Medina published his Exposition on St Thomas, there was no commonly recognized method for forming one’s conscience in doubtful matters. The Summa Astensis devotes the last title of the second Book to the subject of “ Perplexities of Conscience.” The author distinguishes perplexities of law from perplexities of fact. The former, he says, occur when there are two apparently contrary opinions about the lawfulness of an action, the latter when a man believes that in avoiding one sin he must perforce commit another. He has much to say about perplexities of fact, but about perplexities of law, which alone concern us here, he simply observes that they can be removed in whatever state a man may be, but he does not tell us how this may be done. He refers, indeed, to Alexander of Hales, who wrote before St Raymund of Pennafort, and who in the article of his Summa devoted to the subject of “ Conscience ” tells us that a perplexity of law is to be removed by the unction of the Holy Spirit, who teaches concerning all things.¹ St Raymund gives a more satisfactory rule and says shortly that a perplexity arising from a difference among Doctors is to be solved by reducing the contrary opinions to agreement, for there is no real but only apparent contradiction in law. This puts us on the right track; it tells us that for the solution of doubtful cases the theologians of the time followed the ordinary rules of legal interpretation, the chief among which was the rule of law which guided Gratian in the composition of the Decretum and Peter Lombard in his work on the Sentences, and which the Roman lawyers had expressed by saying that it is meet to make one law agree with another— Conveniens est jura juribus concordare.² Although this was the chief rule of law to be followed when authorities differed, it was by no means the only one. Later authors, such as Angelus de Clavasio (1480), Sylvester Prierias (1516), and Navarrus (1560), give lists of the different rules of law to be applied to the solution of doubtful cases in different circumstances. We may take them from Navarrus, as they are substantially the same in all the authorities of the time. When there are different opinions among Doctors, says Navarrus in effect, that opinion should be preferred which is confirmed by custom, or grounded on a text of law, or which rests on an invincible argument. If none of these rules serves, then the common opinion should be followed, and that may be called a common opinion which six or seven approved authors adopt, though there may be fifty others who blindly follow each other like sheep against it, for weight and not number is mainly to be considered in such questions. If that rule does not suit the case, then the opinion should be chosen which is backed by more numerous authorities and reasons; then that which is more lenient, or which favours marriage, a last will and testament, liberty, a private individual against the State, the validity of an act, or the defendant in an action at law. If in none of these ways one opinion is better than the other, then that should be adopted which the greater number of theologians follow if the matter belong to theology, or canonists if it belong to canon law, or civilians if it belong to civil law. To these rules Navarrus adds the note that in the forum of conscience it is sufficient to choose as true the opinion of a man of virtue and learning.³ Sylvester Prierias tells us that all were agreed that when Doctors differed, a man might follow the opinion of one Doctor even though he was drawn to follow him by affection without subtle investigation into the grounds on which his opinion rested.

¹ Summa, ii, q. 120.

² L. unica, C., de inofficiosis dotibus.

³ Manuale Confessariorum, c. 2’7, n. 288,

While the Fathers of the Church, such as Gregory Nazianzen, and the schoolmen with St Thomas solved particular cases of doubt in favour of liberty by applying the rule of probabilism that a doubtful law cannot impose a certain obligation, yet up to the time of Medina it was commonly held that in doubtful cases a man was bound to follow the opinion which seemed to him the better grounded or the more probable. The Dominican Bartholomew 4 Medina (1577) was the first to show that if it were a question of obligation, not of mere counsel, this was illogical, ‘The more probable opinion may be the safer and better opinion, but we are not usually bound to take the safer or better way; we are at least allowed to take that which is good and safe. And a probable opinion is safe, for good and wise men see no sin nor danger of sin in it, else it would not be probable. So that a probable opinion may be followed even by one who knows and holds that the contrary opinion is more probable.

By these and other arguments Medina put probabilism on a firm basis, and the doctrine was at once received on all hands. It was the logical deduction from principles which all admitted, and so theologians of all schools accepted it at once, though some of them do not seem at first to have realized its far-reaching consequences. Dr. Hall, who published his work De Quinquepartita Conscientia in 1598, accepted and defended the new principle, but he placed it side by side with the older methods of forming one’s conscience which he copied from Navarrus. Of these methods he remarks that they are so many different ways of forming a probable opinion. He did not fully realize, as it seems, that the new principle was universal, and rendered the use of the old rules to a great extent unnecessary in the forum of conscience. The same may be said of Azor, who published the first volume of his Institutiones Morales in the year 1600. Other theologians, however, such as Vasquez, Suarez, Salon, Laymann, soon realized the significance of the new method, and proceeded to explain, develop, and on certain points to limit its application. It was seen that it can only be applied where the sole question is whether an act is sinful or not; it may not be applied where an end must be attained and may not be placed in jeopardy, or where the validity of an act is in question, or where there is question of the certain right of another.

50. The scholastic method is of itself brief in the treatment of questions. But since many of the old scholastics often instituted a long and learned examination of the opposed opinions of others, in order directly to refute them, or to approve and accept them, and their volumes grew into an immense mass, hence it happened, especially as regards Moral Theology, that their most learned works were handled only by the hands of a few. Wherefore, for handing down the true doctrine of Moral Theology and for the greater utility of students, it seems best to proceed in it by the scholastic method, omitting that long discussion of other opinions; and we observe that this was also done by the Angelic Doctor in the Summa Theologica.

34. Moral science, already from the twelfth century, is set forth by theologians in a systematic, didactic, and philosophical manner. The elements elaborated by the Fathers and Councils are united into one organic body and distributed in logical order; nor are they set forth by way of exhortation or under the form of homilies, but didactically, as is usually done in the schools; and at the same time they are accommodated especially to Aristotelian philosophy, which was then handed down in the Universities. There is a twofold epoch: the former, scholastic, which extends from the twelfth century to the sixteenth century; the latter, modern, from the sixteenth century to our own times.

⁴ Simler, Des Sommes de theologie, Paris, 1871; Haureau, Hist. de la philos. scolastique, 2nd ed., Paris, 1880; De Wulf, Hist. de la philosophie medievale, Louvain, 1900; Picavet, Esquisse d'une histoire generale et comparee des philosophies medievales, Paris, 1905; Hurter, S.J., Nomenclator litterarius, t. IV, Innsbruck, 1899. For French authors: Histoire litteraire de la France; P. Feret, La Faculte de Theologie de Paris, Paris, 1894-1897; for German authors, Michael, S.J., Geschichte des deutschen Volkes, Freiburg im Breisgau, t. III, 1903.

Three periods can be distinguished in scholastic theology: the first, which is preparatory, in the twelfth century; the second, truly golden, in the thirteenth century; the third, which falls somewhat into subtleties, in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.

35. (A) In the first period, the way was already being prepared for the evolution of theology by the foundation of certain schools. Thus the school of Bec, founded by Lanfranc¹ and illustrated by St. Anselm,² introduced a new method, namely the scholastic method, by whose help many conclusions are deduced from revealed principles, and are arranged into one body of doctrine. Yet these men wrote concerning moral matters only incidentally. Nor can the school of Abelard be passed over, although he erred in several matters; the Introduction to Theology, which Abelard wrote, is as it were a summa of theology, which authors not only contemporary but also later used much; another work, Scito teipsum, exhibits a compendium of natural Ethics.³ Likewise the school of St. Victor, in Paris, although less didactic and more mystical, contributed not a little to the progress of theology; among the doctors of this school Hugh of St. Victor stands out, who, in the books De Sacramentis, hands down a compendium of all dogmatic and moral theology.⁴

¹ His works were edited by Migne, P.L., t. CL; worthy of note is the little book De Celanda confessione, ibid., p. 625-632, where he says that the penitent can, when a priest is lacking, confess to clerics, and even to the faithful; cf. Lecomte, Ecole de l'Abbaye du Bec, thesis, Rouen, 1878.

² Migne, P.L., t. CLVIII-CLIX; you will find his moral doctrine especially in the homilies, sermons, and meditations; cf. Card. d'Aguirre, S. Anselmi Theologia, Salamanca, 1678-1681; Ragey, Hist. de S. Anselme, Paris, 1890; J. M. Rigg, S. Anselm of Canterbury, London, 1896; Vac.-Mangenot, Dict. de Theol., t. I, p. 1327-1350.

³ Ch. de Remusat, Abelard, sa vie, sa philosophie et sa theologie, Paris, 1855; Vacandard, Abelard, sa lutte avec S. Bernard, sa doctrine, sa methode, Paris, 1881; Denifle, Abaelards Sentenzen und die Bearbeitung seiner Theologia, in Archiv fur Literatur... des Mittelalters, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1885, t. I; Vac.-Mangenot, Dict. de Theol., t. I, p. 36-55.

⁴ Migne, P.L., t. CLXXV-CLXXVIII; cf. Mignon, Les origines de la Scolastique et Hugues de S. Victor, Paris, 1895, t. II, p. 77-395; Simler, Des Sommes de theologie, thesis, p. 78-96; Engelhardt, Hugo von S. Victor..., Erlangen, 1838. - The Summa sententiarum, formerly ascribed to Hugh, was written by one of his disciples, and does not sufficiently recede from the errors of Abelard; cf. Vac.-Mangenot, Dict., t. I, p. 53.

But the most celebrated doctor of this time was Peter Lombard, professor of theology and afterward Bishop of Paris, who in the four books of Sentences gathered a summa of Dogmatic and Moral Theology from the Fathers and arranged it by the scholastic method. In the third and fourth book, after setting forth the mystery of the Incarnation, he treats of the

Christian life, which is principally situated in the theological virtues, faith, hope, and charity, and secondarily in the moral virtues; but besides, in order to attain our end, it is necessary to observe the ten precepts of the Decalogue and the evangelical law. Afterward he treats of the sacraments in general and in particular, and of the consummation of the Christian life in heaven. He was called the Master of the Sentences, and his work was expounded in the schools for many centuries by the most illustrious theologians.¹

¹ Migne, P.L., t. CXCI-CXCII; cf. Simler, op. cit., p. 89 sq.; Protois, Pierre Lombard, son epoque, sa vie, ses ecrits, son influence, Paris, 1881; Baltzer, Die Sentenzen des Petrus Lombardus, Leipzig, 1902.

36. (B) In the second period, Universities had now succeeded the schools, and the little works or books of sentences are succeeded by Theological Summas of immense bulk and very great erudition, in which truths not only dogmatic but moral are set forth and demonstrated at length under various respects, and against whatsoever errors. The principal doctors were:

(a) Alexander of Hales (+ 1245), born in England, disciple and afterward Master in the University of Paris, having already advanced in age entered the Order of St. Francis, called the Irrefragable Doctor, wrote a theological Summa in which, after setting forth the mystery of the Incarnation, he treats of Christian ethics: of the eternal and natural law, of the Mosaic and evangelical law, by which man is directed to eternal life; of grace, by whose help we are able to observe the law; of virtues, which incline us to live conformably to the law; of the sacraments, by which we receive the grace necessary for salvation. But, prevented by death, he could not complete his work concerning virtues and sacraments.²

² Summa Alexandri Alensis, Venice, 1475; other editions, of which the best is the Venetian, 1575-1576, under this title: Universae theologiae Summa. Cf. Wadding, Scriptores Ordinis Minorum; Simler, op. cit., p. 97-133; Vacant, Dict. de Theol., t. I, p. 772-785.

37. (b) In this age theological schools began to flourish among the regulars. Two lights illustrated the Dominican Order:³ Albert and Thomas.

³ Concerning Dominican theologians read Jac. Quetif-Echard, Scriptores ordinis Praedicatorum, Paris, 1719.

Blessed Albert the Great⁴ (1206-1280), professor at Paris and Cologne, "great in natural magic, that is, in the natural sciences, greater in philosophy, greatest in theology," treats learnedly in the Summa theologiae, especially in the second part, of man and his primeval state, of grace and sins; in the Summa de creaturis he hands down useful things concerning the psychological propensities of man. But, in theological matters, he formed a disciple superior to himself, Thomas Aquinas.

⁴ His works were edited at Lyons, under the care of P. Jammy, 1651. Cf. Sighart, Albertus Magnus, Regensburg, 1857, rendered into French, Paris, 1862; Weddingen, Albert le Grand, Paris and Brussels, 1881; W. Feiler, Die Moral des Albertus Magnus, Leipzig, 1891; Vacant, Dict. de Theol., t. I, p. 666.

38. St. Thomas (+ 1274), the Angelic Doctor, taught sacred theology learnedly and accurately in the University of Paris and in some academies of Italy. He gathered and joined into one the doctrines of his predecessors, like scattered members of a certain body, arranged them in wondrous order, and increased them by great additions. His ethics is found in the commentaries on the four books of the Sentences, the Summa theologica, the Disputed Questions, and the Quodlibets. He exhibits an admirable synthesis of all Christian ethics.

In the first part of the Summa theologica, he treats of God, insofar as He is the first principle of all creatures; in the second, of the movement of the rational creature toward God. This is the moral part, which was held to be truly golden even by those who rejected his philosophical principles; in the third, he treats of Christ, insofar as He is the way of tending toward God, and of the sacraments.

In the moral part, no less than in the dogmatic part, there shines forth a truly scientific order. First he treats of the ultimate end of man, which is God; afterward of human acts by which we tend toward this end. Human acts are considered both in themselves and in their principles, whether internal or external. With the general notions thus set forth, the Holy Doctor treats of duties which are common to all: these are reduced to the theological and moral virtues, the chief of which are called cardinal; finally, of the duties of each state. There he establishes a comparison between the active and contemplative life, and excellently declares what things are required for the state of perfection. The sacraments, concerning which he treats in the third part, are the means by which grace is conferred for rightly fulfilling Christian duties. When he has discussion of the virtues, he sets forth not only those things which are necessary for avoiding sin, but also those which are desired for perfection: thus he does not tear moral theology away from ascetical theology, but embraces both together.¹

¹ Touron, La vie de S. Thomas d'Aquin, avec un expose de sa doctrine et de ses ouvrages, Paris, 1737; Barelte, Histoire de S. Thomas d'Aquin, 4th ed., 1862; Werner, Der heilige Thomas von Aquino, Regensburg, 1858-1859; Feret, op. cit., t. II, p. 443-486.

39. (c) In the Franciscan school² there flourished especially Bonaventure and Scotus.

² Concerning theologians of this school see Wadding, Scriptores Ord. Minorum, Rome, 1650.

St. Bonaventure (1221-1274), the Seraphic Doctor, born at Bagnoregio in Etruria, handed down sacred Theology in the University of Paris, and afterward was elected Minister General of the Order, Bishop of Albano, and Cardinal. His moral doctrine is to be found: in the Commentaries on the four books of the Sentences; the Disputed Questions, where, among other things, he treats of evangelical perfection, namely humility, poverty, continence, and obedience; the Itinerarium mentis in Deum, where he shows that God can be reached especially through the traces which He has left in the sensible world, through the images implanted in man's faculties, and through speculation or contemplation; the Collationes concerning the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost, and concerning the ten precepts. Nor should his ascetical works be passed over: De triplici via, which is also entitled Incendium amoris, where he declares that the soul reaches God by a threefold way, meditation, prayer, and contemplation; Soliloquium; Lignum vitae, or contemplation concerning the Passion of the Lord, etc. - In speculative matters he cannot be equated with St. Thomas, but in mystical matters he is easily held to be chief; and since between the Angelic and the Seraphic Doctor there is a great likeness of virtue, sanctity, and doctrine, it is worth the effort to read the works of both.¹

¹ The best edition of the works of St. Bonaventure, under the care especially of Fidelis de Fanna and Jeiler, was printed at Quaracchi, 1882-1902. Cf. Prosper de Martigne, La scolastique et les traditions franciscaines, Paris, 1888, p. 79-116; L. de Cherance, S. Bonaventure, Paris, 1899; A. de Margerie, Essai sur la philosophie de S. Bonaventure, Paris, 1855; Werner, Die Psychologie und Erkentnisslehre des Joh. Bonaventura, Vienna, 1876; Vac.-Mangenot, Dict. de Theol., t. II, p. 962-986.

John Duns Scotus² (+ 1308), the Subtle Doctor, taught theology at Oxford, Paris, and Cologne; he adhered neither to Thomas nor to Bonaventure, but weighing their doctrines critically and subtly, he frequently proposes and defends new opinions, yet without himself falling into heresy. His principal work was the Commentary on the four books of the Sentences, which he wrote at Oxford and perfected at Paris. His moral doctrine differs in many respects from Thomistic doctrine: the norm of morality, according to him, depends more on the free will of God than on the very nature of things as perceived by divine wisdom; hence natural law is not so immutable, especially as to duties toward neighbor. Other differences will be set forth in the course of the work.

² His works were edited by Wadding, Lyons, 1639. Cf. Werner, J. Duns Scotus, Vienna, 1881; Seeberg, Die Theologie des Duns Scotus; Pluzanski, Essai sur la Philosophie de D. Scot, Paris, 1887; Vacant, Etudes comparees sur la Philosophie de S. Thom. d'Aquin et celle de D. Scot, Paris, 1891.

40. (d) Outside the aforesaid schools of the regulars there flourished William, called of Auvergne because of the region in which he was born, and of Paris because he taught theology at Paris and was bishop of this city (+ 1249). He wrote various treatises concerning moral matters, especially the Summa virtutum et vitiorum, and little works De Fide et Legibus, De remediis tentationum, De claustro animae, De paenitentia, De pluralitate beneficiorum, etc.

(e) In the same age St. Raymond of Pennafort¹ collected the Decretals of Gregory IX and made them public law, setting forth in five books the whole canonical doctrine of this time. He also published a summa concerning penitential cases, where he treated of sins against God and neighbor, of the ministers of the sacraments, and also of marriage.

¹ Cf. Raymundiana, or documents which pertain to the life or writings of St. Raymond of Pennafort, by Balme, Baran, Colomb, Rome and Stuttgart, 1901.

41. (C) In the third period, moral theology becomes less clear and synthetic, and is deformed by an intolerable abuse of distinctions. The principal causes of this were the propagation of nominalism, dissensions among the various schools of theologians, the Great Schism, and corruption of morals. Therefore only a few works are worthy of note.

Among the chief authors who wrote concerning moral matters are numbered:

(a) Peter of Ailly² (1350-1420), who, besides questions on the books of the Sentences, arranged little works concerning erroneous conscience, concerning the sacraments, etc. He writes learnedly, but holds that no action is evil in itself, but only because it is prohibited by law.

² Tschackert, Peter von Ailly, Gotha, 1877; Salembier, Petrus de Alliaco, thesis, Lille, 1886; Vacant, Dict. de Theol., t. I, p. 642.

(b) John Gerson³ (1363-1429), whose chief moral works shine with wisdom and piety: Compendium theologiae; concerning the precepts of the Decalogue; concerning confession and the art of dying; concerning little children to be drawn to Christ; concerning celibacy; concerning prayer; concerning contracts, etc.

³ Jourdain, Doctrina Gersonii de theologia mystica, Paris, 1838; J. B. Schwab, Johannes Gerson, Wurzburg, 1859; Masson, Jean Gerson, sa vie, son temps, ses oeuvres, Lyon, 1894.

42. (c) In this same age certain works were arranged for the use of confessors, summas of cases of conscience or confessional summas, in which rules were handed down for solving practical questions which occur in the sacred tribunal; the chief authors of these works were: Monaldus, O. Min. (+ 1285), St. Astesanus, an anonymous author from the town of Asti, O. Min. (+ 1330); Bartholomew of San Concordio, O. Praed. (+ 1347); but especially St. Antoninus, O. Praed. (1389-1459), Archbishop of Florence, who wrote a theological Summa, deservedly praised even today in moral matters; Sylvester Prieras (1502), who wrote a Summa casuum conscientiae.

(d) Mystical works were published by Meister Eckhart (+ 1327), who nevertheless unknowingly fell into a certain pantheism; John Tauler, O.P. (1290-1361), who wrote concerning true virtues and the degrees of Christian perfection; Henry Suso, O.P., whose works, very pious and pleasant, were recently committed to print under the care of Denifle.⁴

⁴ Cf. Delacroix, Essai sur le mysticisme speculatif en Allemagne au XIVe siecle, Paris, 1900.

1. The ecclesiastical writers of the early Middle Ages contented themselves with gathering up the moral teachings of the Fathers, expounding and adapting them to practical use by means of encyclopedic collections known as Libri Sententiarum, Scintillae Patrum, or Sacra Parallela. It is sufficient to mention St. Isidore of Seville, St. John of Damascus, St. Bede, St. Peter Damian, and Alcuin.¹

¹ Cfr. Kihn, Enzyklopädie und Methodologie der Theologie, Freiburg 1892, p. 441. —On SS. Isidore and John Damascene see Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, pp. 660 sqq., 582 sqq. On St. Bede, St. Peter Damian, and Alcuin, the Cath. Encyclopedia, II, 384 sqq., XI, 764 sq., I, 276 sqq.

About the same time the ancient penitential canons together with the existing ordinances regarding the administration of penance were gathered into so-called Penitential Books (Libri Poenitentiales), which, by noting the penances to be imposed in the confessional, helped to prepare the way for the casuistic method.²

² Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. III, pp. 199 sq.; H. J. Schmitz, Die Bussbücher, 2 vols., Mayence 1883 and 1899; Lehmkuhl in the Cath. Encyclopedia, XIV, 605.

2. Beginning with the eleventh century the moral teaching of the Church was systematically expounded according to the speculative, the casuistic, and the mystical method. However, Moral Theology was not yet an independent science, but formed a part of the Scholastic Summae, and was dealt with either in philosophy or dogmatic theology.

The first writer who treated Moral Theology as a separate science probably was William Perault, O.P. (+ before 1270).³ He was followed by St. Antoninus of Florence, also a Dominican (+ 1459). ⁴ Both Perault and St. Antoninus combined the systematic with the casuistic method. a) The real founder of Moral Theology as a science, however, is Saint Thomas Aquinas (+ 1274). ⁵ Utilizing the work of Peter Lombard (+ 1164), called "Master of the Sentences," whose Libri Sententiarum for several centuries served as a standard text-book in the theological schools, and following Alexander of Hales (+ 1245) and Blessed Albert the Great (+ 1280),⁶ the Angelic Doctor in the second part of his classic Summa Theologica developed Catholic moral teaching into a magnificent system based upon the philosophy of Aristotle and the dogmatic anthropology of St. Augustine.

³ Perault (Perauld, Peraldus, Peraltus) is believed by some to have been archbishop of Lyons. His Summa de Vitiis et Virtutibus was first published at Cologne, 1497. (Cfr. Chs. J. Callan, O.P., in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. XV, p. 642.)

⁴ Summa Theologica, best edition by Peter Ballerini, Verona 1740, 4 vols. folio.—Cfr. K. Ilgner, Die volkswirtschaftlichen Anschauungen Antonins von Florenz, Paderborn 1904.—Protestant ethics was raised to the rank of an independent science by George Calixtus († 1656). (Cfr. G. Hönicke, Studien zur altprotestantischen Ethik, Berlin 1902, p. 128). Th. Venatorius, a Protestant minister in Nürnberg, had published a treatise De Virtute Christiana in three books as early as 1529. (Cfr. the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. IV, pp. 188 sqq.)

⁵ Cfr. K. Werner, Der hl. Thomas von Aquin, Vol. I, Ratisbon 1858, p. 815; A. Stöckl, Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters, Vol. II, Mayence 1865, pp. 655-721; H. E. Plassmann, Die Moral gemäss der Schule des hl. Thomas, Soest 1861; A. Rietter, Moral des hl. Thomas von Aquin, Munich 1858; A. Portmann, System der theologischen Summe, 2nd ed., Lucerne 1903, pp. 105 sqq.; P. Berthier, L'Étude de la Somme Théologique de S. Thomas d'Aquin, 2nd ed., Paris 1905; M. Maurenbrecher, Thomas von Aquins Stellung zum Wirtschaftsleben seiner Zeit, Leipsic 1898; F. Walter, Das Eigentum nach der Lehre des hl. Thomas und der Sozialismus, Freiburg 1895; F. Schaub, Eigentumslehre nach Thomas von Aquin, Freiburg 1898; J. Mausbach, Ausgewählte Texte zur allgemeinen Moral aus den Werken des hl. Thomas von Aquin, Münster 1905; Jos. Rickaby, S.J., Aquinas Ethicus: or, The Moral Teaching of St. Thomas. A Translation of the Principal Portions of the Second Part of the "Summa Theologica," with Notes, 2 vols., London 1896; M. De Wulf, History of Medieval Philosophy (tr. by P. Coffey), London 1909, pp. 341 sqq.; Hettinger-Stepka, Timothy, or Letters to a Young Theologian, pp. 388 sqq., St. Louis 1902.

⁶ Cfr. W. Feiler, Die Moral des Albertus Magnus, Leipsic 1891; E. Michael, S.J., Geschichte des deutschen Volkes, Vol. III, pp. 245 sqq.; M. De Wulf, History of Medieval Philosophy, pp. 298 sqq.

The Thomistic system was attacked by Duns Scotus (+ 1308), ⁷ who asserted that "good is good because God wills it so, and to say that God wills the good for the reason that it is good would be false." ⁸

⁷ Cfr. M. De Wulf, op. cit., pp. 367 sqq.; A. Stöckl, Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters, Vol. II, pp. 851 sqq.; A. Bertoni, Jean Duns Scot, sa Vie, sa Doctrine, ses Disciples, Levanto 1917, pp. 402 sqq.

⁸ Scotus, Comment, in Sent., III, dist. 19, qu. unica, § 7. —Cfr. Parthenius Minges, O.F.M., Ist Duns Scotus Indeterminist? Münster 1905; IDEM, Die Gnadenlehre des Duns Scotus, ibid., 1906; IDEM, Der Gottesbegriff des Duns Scotus, Vienna 1907. —Fr. Minges says in his article on Scotus in the Cath. Encyclopedia (Vol. V, pp. 197 sq.): "Scotus declares emphatically that the morality of an act requires an object which is good in its nature, its end, and its circumstances, and according to the dictate of right reason. It is not true that he makes God's free will decide arbitrarily what is good and what is bad; he only asserts that the Commandments of the second table of the Decalogue are not in such strict sense laws of nature as are those of the first table; because God cannot grant a dispensation from the laws of the first, whereas he can dispense from those of the second, as in fact He did when He commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son. But the precepts of the second table also are far more binding than the other positive laws of God,” etc.

b) Casuistry does not owe its existence, as has been supposed, to St. Raymond of Pennafort (+ 1275). Robert of Flamesbury, towards the end of the twelfth century, or at the beginning of the thirteenth, in a treatise called Poenitentiale employed the casuistic method with much skill. St. Raymond himself, in composing his Summa, utilized an earlier treatise by an unknown author, which was probably written between 1217 and 1226 and exhibits the casuistic method fully developed. This anonymous treatise constitutes the first known application of the casuistic method to Moral Theology.⁹ However, among the numerous works known as Summae Confessorum, or Summae Casuum Conscientiae, which served the clergy of the Middle Ages in the administration of Penance, St. Raymond's Summa de Casibus Poenitentiae, or, as it is more often called, Summa Raimundiana, was by far the most famous.

⁹ Cfr. E. Michael, S.J., Geschichte des deutschen Volkes, Vol. III, pp. 237 sqq.—On Raymond of Pennafort see M. M. O'Kane, O.P., in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. XII, pp. 671 sq.

Other widely quoted works of the same kind were: the Summa Astesana (or Astensis) de Casibus Conscientiae, composed about 1317 by a Franciscan friar of Asti in Piedmont; the Summa Pisana (or Pisanella) of Bartholomew of Pisa, O. P., written about 1338; the Summa Pacifica of Pacificus Novariensis (a resident of Ceredano near Novara), composed about 1470; the Summa Rosella or Baptistiniana, of J. B. Trovamala of Genoa, written about 1484; the Summa Angelica, of Blessed Angelus Carletus, a Franciscan, who is generally called Angelus de Clavasio from his birth-place Chiavasso (+1495); and, last not least, the Summa Summarum quae Silvestrina dicitur, composed by Sylvester Prierias, O. P., at Strassburg, 1518, which practically brings the age of the great "Summists" to a close.¹⁰ c) The chief representatives of the ascetic method¹¹ are St. Bernard of Clairvaux (+ 1153),¹² Hugh and Richard of St. Victor (+ 1141 and 1173),¹³ and St. Bonaventure (+ 1274). ¹⁴ Later writers worthy of mention in this field are: John Tauler (+ 1361),¹⁵ Bl.

¹⁰ Cfr. T. Brosnahan, S.J., art. "Casuistry" in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. III, pp. 415 sqq.; Schmitz, Die Bussbücher, Vol. II, pp. 792 sqq.

¹¹ Cfr. K. Werner, System der christlichen Ethik, Vol. I, pp. 58 sqq.

¹² Migne, P. L., CLXXXII-CLXXXV. —Cfr. A. Stöckl, Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters, Vol. I, pp. 293 sqq.; M. Gildas, O.C.R., in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. II, p. 501.

¹³ Migne, P. L., CLXXV-CLXXVII; CXCVI. Cfr. Stöckl, op. cit., I, 304 sqq., 355 sqq.

¹⁴ St. Bonaventure's Opera Omnia were re-edited by the Franciscan Fathers of Quaracchi, Italy, 1882 sqq.; Decem Opuscula ad Theologiam Mysticam Spectantia, ibid., 1896. — Cfr. De Wulf, History of Medieval Philosophy, pp. 282 sqq.; L. Lemmens, O.F.M., Der hl. Bonaventura, Kempten 1909, pp. 30 sqq.; A. Stöckl, Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters, Vol. II, pp. 880 sqq.; P. Robinson, O.F.M., in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. II, pp. 648 sqq.

¹⁵ Cfr. K. Löffler in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, pp. 465 sq.

Henry Suso (+ 1365),¹⁶ Bl. John of Ruysbroeck (+ 1381), surnamed "the Admirable Doctor," ¹⁷ Gerard Zerbolt of Zutphen (+ 1398),¹⁸ John Gerson (+ 1429), ¹⁹ and Thomas a Kempis (+ 1471), author of the world-famous Imitation.²⁰

¹⁶ Cfr. A. L. McMahon, O.P., in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, pp. 238 sq.

¹⁷ V. Scully, C.R.L., Life of John Ruysbroeck, London 1910. Ruysbroeck's Adornment of Spiritual Marriage, The Sparkling Stone, and The Book of Supreme Truth have recently been published in an English translation by C. Wynschenk Dom, edited by Evelyn Underhill, who contributes a valuable introduction, containing, inter alia, a brief biographical sketch of "the greatest of the Flemish mystics." (John of Ruysbroeck, London 1916).

¹⁸ Cfr. Scully in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. VI, pp. 471 sq.

¹⁹ Cfr. L. Salembier, ibid., pp. 530 sqq.

²⁰ Cfr. Stöckl, op. cit., II, pp. 1095 sqq.—A splendid critical edition of Thomas à Kempis' writings has lately been published by M. J. Pohl (Thomae Hemerken a Kempis Opera Omnia, Freiburg 1902 sqq.).—Cfr. Sir Francis R. Cruise, Thomas à Kempis, London 1887; IDEM, Who Was the Author of the "Imitation"? London 1898; V. Scully, Life of the Ven. Thomas à Kempis, London 1901; IDEM in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, pp. 661 sqq.

READINGS. —Thos. Slater, S.J., A Short History of Moral Theology, New York 1909, pp. 35-44.—Aug. Lehmkuhl, S.J., in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, pp. 605 sqq.

11. Already before the year 1200 certain attempts at an entire theological system (namely, dogmatic and moral) appear. These works are commonly inscribed: books of sentences, summas. The matter to be treated appears distributed in nearly the same way in all of them and more or less follows the order of the Apostles' Creed. Namely, God is considered in His nature and in His works, especially those saving works with respect to the human race. Works of this sort were published, for example, by St. Isidore of Seville (+636),⁴⁹ Hugh of St. Victor (+1141),⁵⁰ and the celebrated Peter Lombard. His work indeed (The Four Books of Sentences), although it is not perfect in every respect, indeed not free from errors, was held as classic for several centuries and was explained by innumerable commentaries. Peter Lombard (+1164), concerning whose life few things are certainly known, on account of his work was commonly called by all the ancients "Master of the Sentences."

The thirteenth century, as of architectural art, so also of the sciences, is the golden age. For in this happy century the most famous and most splendid cathedral churches of Gothic style began to be built, for example, at Paris, Reims, Cologne, London, etc. In this century Aristotelian philosophy led the greatest triumphs in the universities of Paris, Naples, and Bologna; in this century canon law was greatly cultivated by the authentic collections of Gregory IX and Boniface VIII; in this century universal Theology obtained certainly most noble masters, for example, Blessed Albert the Great, Alexander of Hales, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, and others. It would be long to enumerate all the works of these authors. Among all, however, Thomas Aquinas (+1274) is easily the prince; he gathered into one the doctrines of the old doctors (especially of St. Augustine), scattered as it were like the members of some body, arranged them in wonderful order, and increased them with great increments. He did not separate Dogmatics from Morals. In his Summa theologica he first treats of God, and indeed as He is in Himself and as He is the principle of all things. Then he treats of the motion of the rational creature into God; and this is the moral part, which is truly golden and cannot be sufficiently commended both to confessors and to preachers. The third part treats of the Incarnation of Christ and of the sacraments as of the way of arriving at God. St. Thomas employs in his Morals the scholastic-speculative method; he speaks sparingly of casuistry and of asceticism. St. Bonaventure, the Seraphic Doctor, coeval and friend of St. Thomas, in many works explained the doctrines of morals with no less learning and depth than piety and unction, so that he both teaches and moves the reader. Worthy of mention also is Guillelmus Peraldus (Peraltus), O.Pr., coeval with St. Thomas, who wrote a wholly distinguished work on virtues and vices, which in the fifteenth century was very often edited. - St. Raymond de Pennafort, O.Pr. (+1275), was the first at that time to cultivate casuistic Theology, writing a little Summa for confessors shortly after, by order of Gregory IX, he arranged the Collection of Decretals. This Raymundian little Summa indeed was very widely spread because of its practical usefulness, and was illustrated and enlarged with commentaries by William of Rennes and by John of Freiburg, O.Pr. Many authors, following the example of St. Raymond, composed little Summas of Moral Theology or treatises on the manner of confessing; such are, for example, the Summa Monaldina, Summa Astesana, Summa Pisanella, Summa Angelica, Summa Rosella, Summa summarum (which is called Silvestrina from Sylvester Prierias, O.Pr., +1523, and which was edited more than 41 times), St. John Capistran's Instruction or Direction of Simple Confessors, and Savonarola's Manual of Confessions. - Among the moralists flourishing after the thirteenth century, St. Antoninus, O.Pr., +1495, Archbishop of Florence, acquired great authority and celebrity through his Theological Summa. - The mystical method also flourished in this epoch. Mystical works were published by Master Eckhart, O.Pr. (+1327), John Tauler, O.Pr. (+1361), Blessed Henry Suso, O.Pr. (+1365), John Gerson (+1429), Thomas a Kempis (+1471), and others.

⁴⁹ Sententiarum libri tres, in Migne, Patr. lat. 83, 537 sqq.

⁵⁰ Summa sententiarum, Migne, Patr. lat. t. 176. Denifle (Archiv f. Lit. u. Kirchengesch. III, 634 sqq.) thinks that this work is not to be ascribed to Hugh.

XI. Now this most noble nation of theologians was, at the time indicated, divided into two parties: that of the Scholastics, and that of the Moralists. The former, established as it were upon a more eminent bench, claiming for themselves acumen of mind and the art of disputation, look down as from a lofty watchtower upon the Moralists lying in the lowest station, and despise them almost as blockheads and dullards. This is the truth of the matter. In any community whatsoever, those who excel in acumen of mind are deputed to preside over the chairs of the Scholastics and are honored with laurels and degrees; while to the cultivation of the science of morals, to the hearing of confessions, and to the delivery of sermons are sometimes destined those who are unfit for the sublimer scholastic science. And just as many scholastic theologians procured for themselves the greater fame, the subtler and the more futile the questions they stirred up, so very many moral theologians, emulating the glory of the Scholastics, intruded the vainest subtleties and the most inept petty distinctions into Christian theology, and stitched together, like patchwork, an ill-digested heap and arbitrary decisions.

It is not possible to indicate any particular year when the scholastic period began. We may say that the patristic period closed with the death of St. Bernard, the last of the Fathers, in the year 1153. Many of the characteristics of scholasticism, however, and especially the application of philosophy to the exposition and defense of theology are conspicuous in the works of many of the Fathers. In their work, too, of systematizing theology the schoolmen had many predecessors among the Fathers, and especially St. John Damascene and St. Isidore of Seville. Nor is the common assertion that the Fathers favored Platonism while the scholastics adopted Aristotelianism quite warranted by facts. Clement of Alexandria especially, and other Fathers as well, were eclectic as philosophers, and borrowed what they thought was true from any and every source. Still we may for practical purposes say that scholasticism began in the twelfth century. Then it was that the growth and development of theology began afresh. It had been interrupted for seven hundred years by the necessity of civilizing the barbarians who had broken up the Roman Empire and settled in its territories. From this time moral theology has come down to us in two distinct channels. Peter Lombard may be looked upon as the fountain-head of the first stream, and St. Raymund of Pennafort of the second.

Peter Lombard wrote his work on the Sentences between the years 1145 and 1150. He therein treats of the whole of theology, both dogmatic and moral. He wished to counteract the rationalizing tendencies which as a pupil of Abelard he had noticed in the schools of Paris. To the various and erroneous views which the spirit of rationalism had introduced, Peter opposed the traditional doctrine handed down in the writings of the Fathers. After much consideration, as he tells us, he found a guiding principle for the distribution and ordering of the subject-matter of theology in a sentence of St. Augustine. Christian revelation, contained in the Holy Scriptures, has for its subject-matter either things or signs. Under signs come the sacraments, and things are either such as we have fruition of, or such as we use, or such as we both use and enjoy by fruition. Under the first head comes God, one in nature and three in person. Under the second come all created things, the angels, man, his end, fall, and redeeming grace. Under the third, the incarnation, faith, hope, charity, the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, the Ten Commandments. The whole matter of theology is thus systematically arranged in four Books. Each Book is divided into Distinctions, devoted to some special point on which the traditional doctrine is laid down by quoting appropriate extracts (Sententiæ) from the works of the Fathers. Apparent or real differences of opinion are noted and as far as possible reconciled with each other. Although Hugo of St. Victor, Robert Pullen, and other theologians had previously composed similar books of Sentences, yet the work of Peter Lombard soon eclipsed them all in the welcome that it received. It remained the recognized textbook of theology until the end of the sixteenth century, when its place was taken by the “Summa” of St. Thomas. Nearly all the great scholastics wrote Commentaries on the “Sentences” of Peter Lombard, developing, illustrating, defending, and sometimes correcting the doctrine which they found there, especially from the speculative point of view. In these Commentaries and in the Summas of scholastic theology we have a most abundant and valuable source of the speculative side of Christian ethics.

To meet the more practical and concrete needs of the confessor, St. Raymund of Pennafort composed his “Summa de Pœnitentia et Matrimonio,” about the year 1235. He, also, merely collected and systematized the abundant material which had been left by his predecessors. He had no more intention of introducing changes into the traditional doctrines of Christianity than had Peter Lombard. But as his aim was not speculative but practical, he drew his material especially from Gratian’s “Decretum,” from the decisions of Popes and the councils of the Church, as well as from the Fathers. The work “De Pœnitentia” is divided into three Books. In the first Book sins against God are treated of, in the second sins against one’s neighbor, and in the third irregularities, dispensations, purgations, sentences, penances, and remissions. Each Book is divided into Titles, which contain an orderly and logical exposition of some particular subject. Thus in the first title on Simony, the sin is defined, the origin of the name is explained, the different kinds of simony are indicated, with the penalties incurred and the dispensations which may be obtained. Then follows a discussion of doubtful questions and cases. Finally some rules of law on the matter are laid down and explained.

The work of St. Raymund was the first of those innumerable handbooks written for the training and use of the confessor especially from the practical and casuistical point of view. Although in the treatment of the different titles the work of St. Raymund leaves little to be desired, yet it lacks something in orderly arrangement and in completeness. These defects were soon made good by others. A Friar Minor, of Asti, in the north of Italy, composed the “Summa Astensis” in the year 1317. In the Roman edition of 1728 it fills two volumes folio, and in its aim, in the matter which it contains, and in the method of treatment, it differs little from the handbooks of moral theology which are published at the present day. The matter is divided into eight Books. The first Book treats of divine and human law and contains the doctrine of the Ten Commandments. The second treats of virtues and vices, beginning with several titles devoted to human acts, voluntary and involuntary actions, to expounding in what the goodness or malice of actions consists, and merit. The cardinal and theological virtues and the sins opposed to them are explained in detail. The third Book contains the doctrine on contracts and last wills; the fourth that on the sacraments in general, and on Baptism, Confirmation, and the Holy Eucharist. The treatise on Penance and Extreme Unction in the fifth Book contains also the doctrine on prayer, fasting, almsdeeds, restitution, and indulgences. That on Orders in the sixth Book treats also of churches and sacred vestments, ecclesiastical burial, parishes, prebends, tithes, of the various grades of the clergy and of religious and their obligations. Censures and ecclesiastical penalties occupy the seventh, and Matrimony the eighth Book.

The dogmatic treatment of moral theology reached its high-water mark in the second part of the “Summa” of St. Thomas of Aquin. That marvelous production of genius has never been surpassed or even equaled as an exposition of the general principles of Christian ethics. Neither has the casuistic treatment of morals in general made much progress since the thirteenth century. Of course there have been numerous changes in discipline during the last six centuries, and these require to be noted in new moral treatises as they occur. There have also been some changes in theological opinion. As an illustration of such a change we may instance that concerning the use by superiors of knowledge gained from confession. St. Thomas and scholastic theologians commonly held that a superior who knew from confession of a dangerous occasion of sin to one of his subjects might use his authority to remove his subject out of the danger, provided that thereby he violated no principle of justice nor made known to others the sin which had been confessed to him. This opinion is now quite obsolete and it has been virtually condemned by the Holy See.¹ But in spite of some such changes in detail, the general assertion remains true that moral theology to-day is substantially what it was in the thirteenth or at the beginning of the fourteenth century. There is, however, one important exception to this general statement. That exception is due to the express formulation at the end of the sixteenth century of the doctrine of probabilism.

¹ Supra, p. 232.

We must, however, be on our guard against exaggerating the importance of probabilism and confounding it with moral theology in general. After all, probabilism is only concerned with the solution of doubtful questions. There is an immense body of moral doctrine which is certain and where probabilism or other similar theory of morals does not enter. There are also, it must be confessed, many doubtful questions, especially connected with the application of general rules to particular cases, and it is in the solution of these doubtful and disputed questions that probabilism is concerned. All Catholic divines state or take for granted the doctrine that it is sinful to act with a doubtful conscience, without making up one’s mind that the action which is contemplated is morally right. This is the teaching of Holy Scripture: “All that is not of faith,” i.e. done with the conscientious conviction that it is right, “is sin,” says St. Paul.¹ But if this be so, what are we to do in doubtful matters, where perhaps divines themselves disagree, and some teach that an action is right, while others assert that it is wrong? In such cases we can only act, according to the doctrine of St. Paul, if we are able to make up our mind that the action is lawful and honest. How can this be done?

¹ Rom. xiv. 23.

Before the close of the sixteenth century, when Bartholomew a Medina published his “Exposition” on St. Thomas, there was no commonly recognized method for forming one’s conscience in doubtful matters. The “Summa Astensis” devotes the last title of the second Book to the subject of “Perplexities of Conscience.” The author distinguishes perplexities of law from perplexities of fact. The former, he says, occur when there are two apparently contrary opinions about the lawfulness of an action, the latter when a man believes that in avoiding one sin he must perforce commit another. He has much to say about perplexities of fact, but about perplexities of law, which alone concern us here, he simply observes that they can be removed in whatever state a man may be, but he does not tell us how this may be done. He refers indeed to Alexander of Hales, who wrote before St. Raymund of Pennafort, and who in the article of his “Summa” devoted to the subject of “Conscience” tells us that a perplexity of law is to be removed by the unction of the Holy Spirit, who teaches concerning all things.¹ St. Raymund gives a more satisfactory rule and says shortly that a perplexity arising from a difference among Doctors is to be solved by reducing the contrary opinions to agreement, for there is no real but only apparent contradiction in law. This puts us on the right track; it tells us that for the solution of doubtful cases the theologians of the time followed the ordinary rules of legal interpretation, the chief among which was the rule of law which guided Gratian in the composition of the “Decretum” and Peter Lombard in his work on the Sentences, and which the Roman lawyers had expressed by saying that it is meet to make one law agree with another—Conveniens est jura juribus concordare.²

¹ Summa, ii, q. 120.

² L. unica, C., de inofficiosis dotibus.

Although this was the chief rule of law to be followed when authorities differed, it was by no means the only one. Later authors, such as Angelus de Clavasio (1480), Sylvester Prierias (1516), and Navarrus (1560) give lists of the different rules of law to be applied to the solution of doubtful cases in different circumstances. We may take them from Navarrus, as they are substantially the same in all the authorities of the time. When there are different opinions among Doctors, says Navarrus in effect, that opinion should be preferred which is confirmed by custom, or grounded on a text of law, or which rests on an invincible argument. If none of these rules serves, then the common opinion should be followed, and that may be called a common opinion which six or seven approved authors adopt, though there may be fifty others who blindly follow each other like sheep against it, for weight and not number is mainly to be considered in such questions. If that rule does not suit the case, then the opinion should be chosen which is backed by more numerous authorities and reasons; then that which is more lenient, or which favors marriage, a last will and testament, liberty, a private individual against the State, the validity of an act, or the defendant in an action at law. If in none of these ways one opinion is better than the other, then that should be adopted which the greater number of theologians follow if the matter belong to theology, or canonists if it belong to canon law, or civilians if it belong to civil law. To these rules Navarrus adds the note that in the forum of conscience it is sufficient to choose as true the opinion of a man of virtue and learning.¹

¹ Manuale confessariorum, c. 27, n. 288.

Sylvester Prierias tells us that all were agreed that when Doctors differed, a man might follow the opinion of one Doctor even though he was drawn to follow him by affection without subtle investigation into the grounds on which his opinion rested.

While the Fathers of the Church, such as Gregory Nazianzen, and the schoolmen with St. Thomas solved particular cases of doubt in favor of liberty by applying the rule of probabilism that a doubtful law cannot impose a certain obligation, yet up to the time of Medina it was commonly held that in doubtful cases a man was bound to follow the opinion which seemed to him the better grounded or the more probable. The Dominican Bartholomew a Medina (1577) was the first to show that if it were a question of obligation, not of mere counsel, this was illogical. The more probable opinion may be the safer and better opinion, but we are not usually bound to take the safer or better way; we are at least allowed to take that which is good and safe. And a probable opinion is safe, for good and wise men see no sin nor danger of sin in it, else it would not be probable. So that a probable opinion may be followed even by one who knows and holds that the contrary opinion is more probable.

By these and other arguments Medina put probabilism on a firm basis, and the doctrine was at once received on all hands. It was the logical deduction from principles which all admitted, and so theologians of all schools accepted it at once, though some of them do not seem at first to have realized its far-reaching consequences. Dr. Hall, who published his work “De Quinquepartita Conscientia” in 1598, accepted and defended the new principle, but he placed it side by side with the older methods of forming one’s conscience which he copied from Navarrus. Of these methods he remarks that they are so many different ways of forming a probable opinion. He did not fully realize, as it seems, that the new principle was universal, and rendered the use of the old rules to a great extent unnecessary in the forum of conscience. The same may be said of Azor, who published the first volume of his “Institutiones Morales” in the year 1600. Other theologians, however, such as Vasquez, Suarez, Salon, Laymann, soon realized the significance of the new method, and proceeded to explain, develop, and on certain points to limit its application. It was seen that it can only be applied where the sole question is whether an act is sinful or not; it may not be applied where an end must be attained and may not be placed in jeopardy, or where the validity of an act is in question, or where there is question of the certain right of another.